The Oneness Sect and Baptismal Regeneration

Some Oneness (maybe all) claim that Acts 2:38 is "the Gospel," and the verse is always mentioned alone. The problem is that, if that were true, the Gospel would be a Gospel of works, contrary to the next verse, which calls the Gospel, not a work, but a promise. In other words, if Acts 2:38 is true according to the Oneness interpretation, then Acts 2:39 can only be false. 

On the other hand, we are explicitly told elsewhere that justification is by grace through faith, not by any human works (Ephesians 2:8-9). That is consistent with Acts 2:39, but not with the Oneness version of Acts 2:38. 

What is wrong with the Oneness interpretation? Well, the problem is that they insert a form of works righteousness, salvation by baptism, into a verse that says so such thing. 

If I say, "I took an aspirin for a headache," would any rational person understand me to mean that I took an aspirin to give me a headache? Of course not! Rather, "for" there means "because of," not "in order to." And the reference to baptism for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38 is grammatically identical. 

Therefore, Acts 2:38 proclaims baptism as a recognition of the justification that comes by faith alone, just as verse 39 tells us. It is only the bad Oneness distortion of the verse that could be seen to indicate otherwise.

Book of Numbers and Sprinkling as the Mode of Baptism

Most Christians would say that Numbers is a book that they avoid reading. And I admit that the censuses of Israel, from which the book gets its name in English, are tedious, and I usually skip over them. However, to skip the entire book is to miss some hidden gems within it. 

What struck me recently is the rite of purification, described in chapter 19: "Now the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, 'This is the statute of the law that the Lord has commanded: Tell the people of Israel to being you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish, and on which a yoke has never come. And you shall give it to Eleazar the priest, and it shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered before him. And Eleazar the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle some of its blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times. And the heifer shall be burned in his sight. Its skin, its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall be burned. And the priest shall take cedarwood and hyssop and scarlet yarn and throw them into the fire burning the heifer... And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place. And they shall be kept for the water for impurity for the congregation of the people of Israel; it is a sin offering'" (Numbers 19:1-6, 9, emphasis added). 

So we have a ceremony described by God, in which a heifer, that is, a cow that has not yet been bred or worked, is to be sacrificed. Its blood is to be sprinkled before the tabernacle, the symbol of God's presence among His people. It was then to be burned and its ashes gathered and saved for "the water of impurity." 

"'This is the law when someone dies in a tent: everyone who comes into the tent and everyone who is in the tent shall be unclean seven days... For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and fresh water shall be added in a vessel. Then a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water and sprinkle it on the tent and on all the furnishings and on whoever touched the bone or the slain or the dead or the grave. And the clean person shall sprinkle it on the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day. Thus, on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean'" (Numbers 19:14, 17-19). Reference to sprinkling can also be found in verse 21. Thus, the rest of the ceremony is that the ashes from the heifer would be mixed with water and sprinkled on the unclean person, and he would be cleansed. 

Finally, in Isaiah 52:15, part of the Suffering Servant passage, we read the words of the prophet to Israel of the coming Messiah who would cleanse His people from their sins. How? "He shall sprinkle many nations." The blood of Jesus is to sprinkled by faith on unclean sinners just as the ashes of the heifer were sprinkled on the unclean under the law of Moses. That is no coincidence! The one is a type of the other. 

To my Baptist brethren, I would also point out that the recipient of cleansing wasn't dipped in the water of impurity. On the contrary, it was the finger of the priest, who would then sprinkle both the blood of the sacrifice and the water of cleansing. This strongly refutes the claim of Baptists that baptism is properly done only by immersion. Rather, the type in Numbers indicates that the proper mode of baptism is by sprinkling (by which I do not mean that baptisms by other modes are, therefore, invalid). 

This Scripture points to what the Westminster Assembly would say on the subject of baptism some three millennia later: "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person" (Westminster Confession of Faith XXVIII:3).

Infant Baptism, the Covenant, and the Reformed View

"Upon You have I leaned from before my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of You"(Psalm 71:6). 

When discussing the baptism of infants with Baptists, they often tell me that a little baby can't know anything about God. We should, they claim, wait until a person grows to an age of accountability or moral awareness. It is phrased in different ways. 

Yet, look at the words above from Scripture. Is that not to be our authority? We are not to look to pop psychology or secular educational assumptions. 

Unlike other psalms, Psalm 71 includes no superscription with its authorship. I think it sounds like David. Whether or not it is, is obviously the words of a covenant child, i. e., one born to a believing home. He professes even a preborn experience of the promise of God: "All your children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Note that He doesn't say all children; rather, He says your children. Why the distinction? Because God claims the children of believers as His own (Ezekiel 16:20). Not that He promises that they are or will ever be regenerate, but that He distinguishes them covenantally from the children of pagans. We see it in His discrimination between the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. While Ishmael is the heir of the promise, He also blesses Ishmael because of his covenantal status (Genesis 17:18-21). Both sons are members of the visible church, while only Isaac is a member of the invisible church, a proviso that Baptists consistently fail to consider. 

That is why the Reformed baptize the children of our members. God has claimed them as His own, a great privilege! Therefore, they have a right to His covenant sign, baptism. I am not attempting here to explain the Catholic or Lutheran views of baptism; that is for them to do. But the Reformed do not assume the regeneration of our infants, contrary to the oft-repeated strawman argument of Baptists. We just give them the status that God has declared of them. 

Romans 6:4 Says Nothing About the Mode of Baptism

"We were buried, therefore, with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
- Romans 6:4

This verse is one of those trump cards that some people plunk down in any debate, thinking that they outweigh any evidence to the contrary. In this case, it is plunked down by Baptists when discussing the mode of baptism. They claim that it means that the mode must look like the burial of Jesus. So they baptize by lowering a person backward, like a corpse lowering into a grave,and then raising him up, like a corpse rising in resurrection. But do you notice that the verse says nothing about "looking like"? Not one syllable. Rather, this is a case of begging the question, presupposing a conclusion, and then reading it into the premise.

However, Romans 6:4 is not about the mode of baptism. Rather, it uses "baptism" to indicate the covenantal connection between the elect and the death of Christ, ending the previous relationship to sin "by baptism into death" (no comma). When it was finished for Him, it was finished for us, too, because of the covenantal connection. In other words, Paul here is making the same point that he did in the following chapter: "You also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:4-6).

Since the believer is now in Christ, he is "dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:11). To turn verse 4 into a reference to the mode of baptism is to ignore Paul's point about our new relationship to sin and righteousness. As always, context, context, context.

Old Testament Usage Proves that "Baptizo" Cannot Necessarily Mean "Immerse"

One of the claims made by certain groups, such as Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists, regarding baptism is that immersion is the required mode. I am sure that you have seen the pictures of a person lowered back first - always back first - into a baptismal pool. Or just a swimming pool, pond, seaside, in a bath tub - I've seen them all. One of the reasons they give is that "baptizo," the Greek verb from which we get the word "baptism," supposedly means "to immerse."

It is that assertion that I wish to address here.

As I have said before, I agree with the Westminster Confession regarding the mode of baptism: "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person" (XXVIII:3). I do not claim, nor does the Confession state, that baptism by immersion invalidates the rite. In fact, I was personally baptized by immersion, and it was in a swimming pool! However, as I have grown in my knowledge of Scripture, I have come to conclude that sprinkling is the intended mode of baptism.

The problem with the claim about the word "baptizo" is that it is inconsistent with the usage of that word. In the New Testament, does anyone claim that the pharisees immersed their dining couches (Mark 7:4)? The word translated "wash" there is "baptizo" in the Greek. The problem is even greater in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. In that version, "baptizo" or "bapto" appear five times. Of those, two are used in situations in which sprinkling, not immersion, are logically or explicitly required.

The first is in Daniel 4:33 (verse 30 in the LXX), the description of Nebuchadnezzar's curse of madness. We are told that he was "bathed in the dew of Heaven." "Bathed" there is a translation of "ebapso," a tense of "bapto." Could any sensible person suggest that he was immersed in the dew?

The other is Ecclesiasticus 34:25 (not Ecclesiastes; also called Sirach): "He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?" The first use of "washing" is a translation of "baptizomenos," a tense of "baptizo." Some might object that this verse is from the Apocrypha, which is true. However, I cite it only as an example of usage. Compare it to the Mosaic laws regarding purification washings (e. g., Numbers 19:9; and Judith 12:7, in a fountain), and we see that the ceremonies described by Sirach were done by sprinkling, not by immersion.

The conclusion is unavoidable that the claim that "baptizo" refers only to "immersion" is not biblically sustainable. To insistence on it is to put a denominational prejudice ahead of the words in the text.

A Washed Conscience from a Baby in a Manger

This is being posted for Christmas, 2019. We will talk a lot about the birth of Christ today. But I want to talk about why it matters that Jesus was born. Why did God the Son come into this world to live among us?

"Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and the Flood, verse 20], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21). If you saw that verse and assumed that I would be talking about baptism, then you experienced what I am about the describe, the frequent failure to read the rest of the verse. Notice that Peter mentions baptism, but then adds " not the removal of dirt from the body." Note that he compares it to Noah, who avoided being in the water. So, his point is not about baptism, but about what baptism represents, "a good conscience." How does the sinner achieve a good conscience, as represented by the water applied to his body?

Why?

The writer of Hebrews makes a similar point: "Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (Hebrews 10:1-4). The Old Testament sacrifices were insufficient because they had to be repeated. The blood of the sacrifices never removed sin or changed the nature of those who performed them. Instead, "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (verse 10). And "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (verse 14). 

That is why Christianity, though built on the foundation of the Old Testament religion of Moses, is far superior. The types and shadows have been removed, so that we can have a direct view of the one-time sacrifice of Jesus: "So let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water" (verse 22; see also Hebrews 9:14). Notice that the writer of this epistle uses the same baptismal imagery to describe the application of the blood of Christ to the believer by faith.

"When God can be just and faithful in blotting out his transgressions, then, and not until then, is his conscience sprinkled with clean water and purged from dead works. Christianity must take away our guilt, or it leaves us under the curse of nature" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity").

Infant Baptism in Paul to the Ephesians

Among Reformed Christians, the children of believers are baptized, not as a sign that they are saved, but because they are - by right - members of the visible church. Thus, we reject both the errors of baptismal regeneration as taught by, for example, Roman Catholicism, and the view that the children of believers are no different from the children of nonbelievers, as is taught by Baptists,

I have addressed this matter before, from I Corinthians 7:14, but I want to turn to a different text this time.

Paul says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother' (this is the first commandment with a promise), 'that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land'" (Ephesians 6:1-3). This command is addressed to children of Christian parents, not to children in general. Of course, all children should obey their parents, but that isn't the audience of Paul's statement. The children in Christian homes are to obey their parents "in the Lord." That is, they have a relationship that children and unbelieving parents don't have. The children of Christians are in the Lord! Again, that doesn't have to mean that they are necessarily converted. Rather, they are covenantally distinct.

And that is what the Reformed say, that our children are covenantally set apart by God, enjoying the privileges of the visible church, and, therefore, have a right to be baptized. We acknowledge this confessionally, such as Question 166 of the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Unto whom is Baptism to be administered? Answer : Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to Him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized." 

The Connection Between Abortionism and Anti-Paedobaptism

The Bible says a lot of things about babies, both before and after birth. For example, they are creations of God (Psalm 139:13), and they are sinners (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3), but they can also be regenerate (Luke 1:15). For the children of believers, we have the additional awareness that our children belong to God, not ourselves (Ezekiel 16:20, I Corinthians 7:14). Our children are very important to God.

Yet, in the face of these biblical truths, we have two egregious offenses against children in today's American society: the refusal to baptize the children of believers and the genocide of unborn children called euphemistically "abortion." (By mentioning them together, I do not mean to imply that they are at all morally equivalent.)

Both arise from an attitude of dismissal toward children as a gift from God (Psalm 127:3). Both as a church and as a society, we despise these gifts from God, and fail in our responsibility for them.

Infant Baptism and a Thousand Generations of God's Faithfulness

Opponents of infant baptism will often make arguments such as, "God has no grandchildren." Which is both true and irrelevant to the discussion. Would it be sufficient answer is I were to say, "And God has no orphans either"? I am assuming  that it would not be, though it is equally to the point.

In Deuteronomy 30:6, God said, "The LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." Is that a promise that all of the descendants of a believer will be regenerate? Of course not! The cases of Ishmael and Esau demonstrate the contrary. However, it does indicate a generality, that God, while He converts men one by one, yet intends for the family to be the basis of His mission in this fallen world.

This is what I meant by my remark above about orphans. The exclusive emphasis that credobaptists (i. e., those who hold to the baptism of professing believers only) places on individual decisions denies God's plan for dealing with people in their generations, not as random individuals (see also, for example, Deuteronomy 7:9). Certainly conversions happen one by one, but they continue especially in the family line.

In the New Testament, Paul makes the same point, when he tells us that the children of believing parents are holy (I Corinthians 7:14). God explicitly claims them for His own (Ezekiel 16:20). He promises blessings to them that He never offers to the children of unbelievers: "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Yet, the credobaptist wants us to believe that the children of believers are no less little pagans than are the children of unbelievers!

What I find amusing about that attitude is that many credobaptists demonstrate that their hearts know better than do their heads when they hold "infant dedications." They use a completely manmade ceremony to show exactly that they do not view their children as little pagans! They merely keep the ceremony dry to avoid the implication that they are really practicing infant baptism.

The One Baptism is Not Oneness Baptism

In Ephesians 4:4-5, Paul tells us, "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Oneness Pentecostals appeal to these two verses to support several of their manmade doctrines, but they do so only by begging the question. It is only if one presupposes their doctrines that one can see them in this passage.

Their error in particular that I want address here is "one baptism," which, the Oneness claim, means that all valid baptisms must be done in the way they claim is seen in Acts, that is, in Jesus's name only. I have dealt with the phrase from Acts here. In this post, however, I want to address their claim that the phrase "one baptism" is intended to refer to the words said at baptisms.

In I Corinthians 1:10-17, Paul describes divisions in the church at Corinth. Apparently, members were claiming privilege based on the status of the person who baptized them. Paul rebukes such nonsense in verses 13-17: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." Regardless of whose hands splashed the water, it is only by the baptism authorized by Jesus.

That is the point that Paul continues to stress in Ephesians. There is no baptism of Paul or of Apollos, but only of Jesus. There is only one kind of baptism. And, while it is the baptism authorized by Jesus, as is seen in Acts, it is into the triune God of Matthew 28:19-20. It cannot be a source of pride, because it is the same and only baptism that all Christians receive.

Salvation According to Scripture, Contrasted with Oneness Salvation

Oneness Pentecostals love to quote Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." They claim that it lays out an ordo salutis ("order of salvation"), in which a man repents of his sins, is then baptized as an act that brings remission of sins, and then receives the Holy Spirit (marked by ecstatic gibbering that they call "speaking in tongues"). They claim that the lack of water baptism as they understand it and of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as they understand it, means that a man cannot be saved.

Not even considering the contradiction of their interpretation - actually, misinterpretation - of Acts 2:38 with the doctrine of salvation in the rest of the Scripture, it is overthrown even by the actions of the Apostles in the Book of Acts.

We see the Apostle Peter (the same speaker as in 2:38) in Caesarea, preaching to the friends and relatives of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48): "While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 'Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days."

So, we have Peter, preaching to a crowd of Gentiles, but the events aren't in the order of 2:38. The Gentiles heard the word preached, believed, received the Holy Spirit, including speaking in tongues, and then were baptized. If we assumed the Oneness interpretation, then we would have to claim that these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit before they were saved! Can even Oneness believers suggest any such thing?

However, there is no such conflict with the biblical Gospel: "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Unlike the Oneness perversion of Acts 2:38, salvation in the Bible is by grace through faith, not by baptism or any other ritual or action of men. And then the believer receives the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13, John 7:39), without any gibbering (speaking in tongues having been temporary). Then he is baptized upon professing his faith in the church (we aren't addressing infant baptism here).

The Baptism of Households as God's Plan to Build His Church

One conclusion that I have had from the debate over believers' baptism versus infant baptism is that it is not a matter of the scriptural evidence about baptism. Rather, it is a disagreement over God's aim in salvation. Is it the individual? I think the credobaptist would say yes. However, the paedobaptist would say no.

In the account of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:16-40), we see this question addressed. When the doors of his jail are thrown open, the jailer, thinking that he would be executed for negligence, asks Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (verse 30). His concern is about his own eternal welfare. But the answer of Paul and Silas is a little different: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (verse 31). They address his question, "You will be saved," but go further, "and your household."

We also see this in the conversion of Lydia, in the same chapter, verses11-15. When she is converted, who gets baptized? "She was baptized, and her household as well" (verse 15). We see again the inclusion, not just of the one professing faith, but of his or her entire family! My pastor calls this "oikobaptism," from the Greek word for house or household.

These accounts show us that God's target for faith isn't just the individual, but families. And that is the dividing line between credobaptists, who tend to have an atomistic view of conversion, that the individual is all that matters, and the paedobaptist, or oikobaptist, who attends to the family.

Baptists will often refer to themselves as "New Testament Christians." And it is that semi-blindness that produces their error. While I have shown above that the atomisitic view is contrary to New Testament teaching, it is essential to note that the New Testament teaching is merely a carry-over from the Old Testament: "The LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6). God has never had an atomistic view of His plans for the regeneration of the world. And it is the failure to recognize that that leads to the Baptist error of rejecting the continuity between circumcision and baptism, including its application to the children of believers.

When God converts a man or woman, He gives promises that go beyond that individual: "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 53:13). The conversion of the individual is God's plan for then growing His church, because His plan doesn't stop even with the conversion of the family: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20, compare Genesis 1:28). God's missionary plan is to convert individuals first, then our families, and then our nations, and that terraced system is connected by baptism. Therefore, when Baptists deny baptism to the children of believers, they are inserting their manmade doctrine into the longterm strategy of God!

God's Plan, One Step Leads to the Next

The Ethiopian Eunuch and the Mode of Baptism

On the Desert Road to Gaza

When it comes to the mode of baptism, all Baptists, most (maybe all) Pentecostals, and other groups, claim that it must be by immersion. They often even claim that the Greek word "baptizo" (from which the English word "baptize" is derived) itself means "to immerse." As I have argued before, such as here, that is not the case. I will here offer another proof that "baptizo," in fact cannot mean "to immerse" (at least, in some passages).

Most Christians know the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39). To summarize, God sends an angel to tell Philip to go to a place along the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. There, he sees an Ethiopian riding in a chariot, presumably with a driver, reading the scroll of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). He asks Philip to explain the passage. Philip does so, and the Holy Spirit blesses His word in the conversion of the Ethiopian. Ethiopian Christians claim this event as the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia.

Baptists often point to verses 38 and 39: "And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing." Since the two men went "down into" the water, and then "came out of" the water, the Baptists claim, then Philip must have immersed the eunuch in the water. In fact, pictures based on this story consistently show this supposed scenario.

However, there is a huge problem with this picture. the problem is found in verse 26: "This [area] is desert." Does the picture above show a desert? Obviously not! How likely is it that a desert road will happen to pass a river or pool deep enough to immerse a grown man? Extremely unlikely!

I conclude that this passage cannot be used as Baptists have commonly used it. in fact, I would take it to require the opposite of the claim of the immersionists. It necessarily requires that the baptism here described must have been by either pouring or sprinkling, not by immersion. 

This last image gives a more-likely scenario for the baptism.

John's Baptism, Not Christian Baptism

Baptists will often cite the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22) as evidence of immersion as the only acceptable mode of baptism. they claim that "He came up

out of the water" (Matthew 3:16) requires Him to have been under the water. While it can be understood otherwise, that isn't my purpose here. Rather, I deny that the account has any relevance to the debate, because John's baptism was an Old Testament ritual, not Christian baptism.

Turn to another passage about John's baptism, Acts 19:1-7. I won't quote the whole thing here. It is the account of Paul's ministry to a group of people who had been baptized only by John's baptism (whether that refers to John personally, or baptism by his disciples is unclear). The Apostle asks the people whether they had received the Holy Spirit, to which they replied that they had never even heard of the Holy Spirit. Then (verses 4-5), Paul told them, "'John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." That is, they had not received the Holy Spirit. This does not indicate, in spite of what Pentecostals would claim, that there is a difference between believing and receiving the Spirit. That is false (I Corinthians 12:13). Rather, they hadn't received the Spirit because they had not been fully instructed about Jesus. When Paul had done so, they believed, received the Holy Spirit, and were then baptized again.

There is no record that Paul objected in any way to John's baptism. However, his actions indicate that he did not consider it to be the baptism commanded by Christ (Matthew 28:19). Therefore, it is invalid as a basis for our doctrine of Christian baptism.

Baptism in Acts: Trinitarian or Jesus-Only?

Among Oneness Pentecostals, i. e., those that hold a Sabellian view of the Godhead, represented primarily by the United Pentecostal Church, there is a believe that the description of baptisms is to be normative, and, therefore, baptisms are to be done, not in the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19, but rather in Jesus's name only. In their theology, this is a salvation issue. A person cannot be saved without their baptism.

Let me grant up front that the baptisms mentioned in Acts all say something to the effect of "in the name of Jesus." What I deny is the significance that the Oneness give to that.

Look first at the Matthean formula: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). The trinitarian implications are obvious, since we have the one name, not names, for three Persons. The Oneness people point out, correctly, that we never see that formula in Acts. They then claim, with zero manuscript support, that, therefore, the trinitarian formula was added later.

However, their arguments miss several points. First, the words of Jesus in Greek, something which is not clear in the English, indicate that baptism is "into" the name of the trinity. The preposition in Acts 2:38, on the other hand, means "on account of," not "into." Thus, we have, not contradictory statements, but rather references to two distinct things. Jesus in Matthew is talking about baptism as the visible sign of the relationship of the believer to God, in His triune nature. Luke in Acts, on the other hand, is talking about the Apostles, who, by the authority of Jesus, are giving the sign of baptism to new believers. 

In Acts, the emphasis is on the movement between the earthly ministry of Jesus seen in the Gospels, to the ministry of the Apostles as His representatives in Acts. The pouring out of the Spirit in chapter 2 was the visible sign of His enthronement in heaven subsequent to his ascension. Then the rest of the book is about the newfound power, authority, and prominence of the Apostles. Therefore, "in the name of Jesus" is not a formula spoken at the baptism, but rather an insistence that baptizing is the sign of the succession of the Apostles to the leadership of the Christian community. The Oneness folks never seem to notice that their formula is also not repeated anywhere else in Scripture. If it is a salvation issue, is it not reprehensible that Paul, Peter, and John never mention it in their epistles?

That's Paul's point in I Corinthians 1:14-17: "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." He makes a complete separation between the message of salvation, which he saw as his calling, and the rite of baptism, which was not. That is a distinction that he could not have made if he believed that baptism is a part of salvation!

The Insufficiency of Jesus-Name Baptism

"Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."
- Acts 8:14-17

This is a very difficult passage. We see some events following the visit of Philip to Samaria, as Jesus had commanded (Acts 1:8). As a result of his visit, a number of people are converted. This man was one of the seven appointed as deacons in chapter 6, men who are explicitly described as "full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom" (Acts 6:3). When they received news of this work of God among the Samaritans (compare John 4:39-42 and Matthew 10:5-6), the Apostles sent Peter and John to examine the situation there. We are told that Philip had baptized the Samaritans "only in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16), yet they had not received the Holy Spirit.

As Oneness Pentecostals love to point out, all of the baptisms in Acts are done in some variation of the name of Jesus. We do not see the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19. The significance of that is merely that the Apostles have undertaken the authority that Jesus gave them, an important consideration now that the Lord was no longer physically among them. However, this is the only occasion where Luke refers to it as only the name of Jesus, or gives it any negative consequences.

The answer is actually pretty simple.

Acts is a book of transitions. In it, Luke describes the transition from the direct authority of Jesus to that of the Apostles and elders and of the change from a predominantly-Jewish Church to a predominantly-gentile Church. The first is the reason for the extraordinary signs we see in chapter 2; the latter is what we see here in chapter 8. Luke gives us some out-of-sorts events, not to say anything about baptism, but rather to show the Holy Spirit's sign to the Apostles that the Gentiles were coming in. This lesson took some work, as we can see, because it isn't until chapter 11 that they get the point: "[The Apostles] glorified God, saying, 'Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.'" (Acts 11:18).

This passage is a problem, however, for the Oneness Pentecostals. On the basis of their bizarre interpretation of Acts 2:38, their doctrine of salvation is that profession, baptism (in Jesus's name only), and "the baptism of the Holy Ghost," which necessarily includes speaking in tongues, all must occur, and in that order. Yet, baptism, supposedly in the form these people enjoin, left its recipients with no Holy Spirit. While I understand that this was as a sign to the Apostles, it is devastating to Oneness doctrine, because it disconnects the events required in their soteriology!

The error of the Oneness theology is that it assumes that what is temporary, i. e., for a specific purpose, is to be normative for all times. Yet, if baptism in Jesus's name only and speaking in tongues are essential for salvation, are the Apostles not to be rebuked for their failure to say any such thing in any of their epistles? Of course they are! But that actually demonstrates the difference between the historical emphasis in Acts from the doctrinal explanation that is central to the epistles. Oneness theology fails to distinguish between what happens under particular circumstances and that which was intended to be eternal.

And this isn't simply a mistake. I fellowship with Christians who are mistaken all the time. However, a false doctrine of salvation is a dividing line. I must reject as a brother, and, in fact, oppose as an enemy, anyone who denies salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) because he is throwing a stumblingblock between sinners and their only Savior Jesus Christ.

This is the biblical doctrine of salvation: "We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works" (Romans 3:28). No works of men stand between the sinner and salvation in Jesus Christ, including ceremonies like baptism or speaking unknown languages. The Prophet Isaiah said that God offers salvation "without money and without price" (Isaiah 55:1), but the Oneness cult tries to set up a toll road and demand fees before the sinner can come to Christ. That makes them a foe, and I must oppose them.

The Error of Baptismal Regeneration

"Baptismal regeneration" is the doctrine regarding baptism that claims that it is essential to salvation. The details vary. Some, such as the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and some Lutherans and Anglicans, believe that baptism carries the power to cleanse sins and to make the person a Christian. Others, such as Oneness Pentecostals and the Church of Christ merely teach that it is required for salvation, but not that it gives salvation.

What I say here will apply to both forms.

There is no place in Scripture that says, "No one is saved by baptism." That isn't because Jesus and the Apostles didn't believe that. Rather, it was considered so obvious that no such statement was necessary. Why? Because it is faith which is the means of regeneration, not baptism: "The righteous shall live by his faith" (Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38). By saying what does justify, they eliminated the need to specify what did not.

But we can go further.

Paul said of his ministry, "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (I Corinthians 1:17). How did Paul join his hearers to the cross work of Jesus? If baptism did so, then that is what he would have done. But it's not! Rather, instead of baptism, Paul's calling was to preach! See also his description of all ministers in Romans 10:14-15: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" Since it is by faith that men are justified, the ministry requires, not baptizing, but preaching!

By this, I do not mean to imply that baptism is unimportant. We have the explicit ordinance of Christ Himself (Matthew 28:19-20): "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." But even here, He tells us to disciple the nations - that is the preaching part - and then to baptize them. Baptismal regeneration reverses that order.

The one verse that is sometimes claimed to demonstrate baptismal regeneration is I Peter 3:21: "Baptism now saves you." Sounds ironclad, doesn't it? Except that the sentence continues: "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience." So, not the washing but the good conscience is our appeal to God. "A good conscience" is another way of saying "faith." The verse actually teaches the opposite of "baptismal regeneration," when read in completion.

Sprinkling for Cleansing as the Pattern for Christian Baptism

Chapter 19 of the Book of Numbers is about the rituals of cleansing for those who are ritually unclean, such as from touching a dead body. For obvious reasons, I won't quote the entire passage. Specifically, I want to point to what Moses calls "the water for impurity" (Num. 19:9, 13). This water was to be made by mixing the ashes from a sacrificial heifer into some water (verse 9).

When a person became unclean, someone who was clean was to dip hyssop into the water and sprinkle him (verses 18 and 19, "thrown" in verse 13). To fail to be cleansed in this way is a serious matter, because twice the person who fails to be purified is described as being excluded from the covenant people (verses 13 and 20).

This is the background of baptism in the New Testament, and suggests that the proper mode is by sprinkling, not by pouring or immersion. This is not to suggest that mode of baptism is a salvific issue. Rather, it is merely to point out that Baptists are wrong when they make immersion a salvific issue. Since I myself was immersed, I would never say that a person who hasn't been sprinkled is not a legitimate Christian.

No doubt someone is saying that this doesn't settle the issue. And I would be quick to agree. By itself, this argument is certainly not conclusive. However, added to what I have said before (here and here), I think it contributes to a solid case.

Trinitarian Baptism in the Apostolic Church

The church continued writing its experience of God after the death of the Apostles. I certainly admit and teach that that post-apostolic literature is not Scripture. It is not inspired. The writers were not infallible, and, therefore, their writings were not inerrant. They were, however, helpful in establishing the understanding that they had of the teachings of the Apostles.

One of those texts is an anonymous epistle called the Didache, or "The Teachings of the Twelve." It was written approximately in 97AD, so, soon after the death of John, the last surviving Apostle. We find this in 7:1-3: "Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

 My point in bringing this up is that it addresses the claims of Oneness Pentecostals that Trinitarian baptism was invented by the Council of Nicea, and did not exist before that time. In addition to denying the authenticity of the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, they claim that their view is supported by the baptisms in Acts, which are in some variation of "in the name of Jesus."

The above passage demonstrates two important things: first, the doctrine of the Trinity was taught from the beginning, not created later; and second, that the church used the Trinitarian baptismal formula from the beginning, as well. It proves that the Oneness historical claims are false, inventions for the sake of defending their doctrine, not supported by any evidence. Even their claim regarding Matthew 28:19 has zero textual support, since all of the manuscripts (at least, so far discovered) contain the traditional text: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The Oneness doctrine is the invention of men, not of the Holy Spirit. When I have brought this passage to the attention of Oneness believers, their only response was, "It's a lie!" That is a convenient response to evidence against a pet doctrine.

Baptismal Regeneration: The Papal Foot in Luther's Wittenberg Door

In the earliest days of the Reformation, Martin Luther based his stand on justification by faith alone. And with good reason, as history has show. it continues to be the point of confrontation between Evangelicals and the Church of Rome. However, on lesser doctrines, he struggled to break free from his own popish upbringing and training, particularly regarding the sacraments. While he properly jettisoned the additional but unbiblical Catholic sacraments, holding only to baptism and the Lord's Supper, he held essentially-popish views of those two.

In the Lord's Supper, Luther continued to hold to the corporeal Real Presence, that is, that Christ is literally and physically present in the bread and wine. Like Rome, Luther taught that the human nature of Christ was included in the ubiquity of His divine nature. The Reformed, however, reject such a view because it mixes the human and divine natures, as did the heretic Eutyches, contrary to the orthodox formulation of the Creed of Chalcedon, which said, in part, "acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved." Note that this is the official doctrine of both Lutherans and of Rome, yet they do not see a conflict between it and their sacramental view. I do, as have the Reformed through history. in fact, it was the issue at the colloquy of Marburg that led Luther to declare the Reformed worse than papists or heathen.

In baptism, Luther retained the popish doctrine of baptismal regeneration. That is, both held that baptism effectually applied the merits of Christ, such that the person was truly regenerated and joined with Christ. While Zwingli agreed, Calvin and the Reformed since him have rejected the doctrine as unscriptural.

As the Westminster Confession XXVII:3 says of both sacraments, "The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them..." And of baptism, XXVIII:6 says, "The efficacy of baptism... is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such as the grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." Of the Lord's Supper, XXIX:5 says, "The outward elements in this sacrament... remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before." Further, in section 7, it adds, "Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death..." Thus, the Reformed view is spiritual. Whether the water of baptism or the bread and wine of the Supper, the benefits are received, not from the elements, but from Christ, received, not in the flesh, but in the spirit, not automatically or mechanically, but only by faith. Also, the Reformed view maintains the true humanity of Christ, instead of swallowing it up in a divine-human hybrid, who isn't truly either one.