Back to Media

 

In this paper I intend to show that actual water baptism in the faith of the basic gospel story is an essential first step on the pathway to salvation. Somehow over the years baptism has been “watered down” into sprinkling of water, baptizing babies, or into complete obsolescence and unimportance. I fear this problem has become as dangerous a perversion as the beliefs of the immortality of the soul and trinity. To ignore the Bible’s prescription for salvation is the surest path toward damnation no matter who preaches otherwise.

For some strange reason or reasons people have all but abandoned this easy to do and very personal acceptance of the death of Christ. They have done this despite extreme importance placed on it in scripture. In being immersed in water and brought back up you show that you believe and accept the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was willing to actually die for all men. It seems that even most Christians are unwilling to actually do anything to commemorate and personally accept and show this act of their Lord.

---------Baptism in the book of The Acts---------

The book of Acts documents what the apostles did just after the death of Christ. Their main purpose was to enlist people into the church. A clear plan was followed over and over to initiate people into the position of being saved. Time after time people first believed, and were then baptized.

(Acts 2:37-41 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost.---And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” Then they which gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.)

This takes place after Peter had given a long speech on the story of Christ. For those there to hear it and even to believe it wasn’t all they needed to do. That is not the end of the story. So many people feel that once they hear someone preach on Christ they only need to accept it in their mind and that covers them.

Peter clearly tells them to repent and be baptized after their belief. After saying this he preached even more words to them which weren’t documented here. He did tell them to “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” If they were in a position to be saved just by hearing why tell them to save themselves here? They still needed to do something.

It is clear he was speaking at least in part of baptism because in the next verse they were baptized. This is how souls were added to them. If you want to just dismiss the importance of baptism, why not dismiss Peter’s explanation of Christ and the importance of repentance as well? They are all part of how this group got added to the church.

Notice also he tells them to “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” “Every one of you” shows that baptism is something the individual must do to become a part of the body of the church. Also, remission is the freeing of a due punishment. This is done through baptism. He didn’t just say “believe in Christ for remission of sins.” Baptism is a part of the deal for remission of sins which is the only way to be seen as righteous.

Go now to the eighth chapter of Acts. In verse five Phillip preaches Christ in Samaria. Verse twelve reads as follows.

(But when they believed Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men and women.)

Notice the word “when” here. Baptism only happened after they believed. This order is not an accident or mere coincidence. The story of Phillip and the eunuch comes later in the chapter. Phillip helps him to understand the story of Christ. Verses 35-38 go a little something like this.

(Then Phillip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” And Phillip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Phillip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.)

To many modern day Christians the story should have stopped when Phillip preached Jesus to the eunuch. Why go through the rest of the drill? Of course the story is what it is and God only disappeared Phillip away after he did all that needed to be done for the eunuch. Actual submersion in water was a part of this.

I must at this time get into baptism of babies or those who don’t accept the basic gospel. The eunuch was to be baptized only if he believed. Phillip makes this quite clear here. Beyond the order pattern gleaned from Acts of belief and then baptism; Phillip states it beyond any doubt here.

To baptize someone before they accept the basic gospel is like putting the cart before the horse. Baptism is a physical and outward show of an internal belief. There is nothing magical about water.

Without belief, baptism is like diving in the water at the local swimming pool or taking a bath. With belief, it is the acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice and the hope for resurrection into eternal life. It does no good to baptize an infant or someone who doesn’t accept the true gospel story. This is merely going through the motions with no result. Also note in this story that Phillip didn’t just sprinkle a little water on the eunuch.

In Acts 9:18 Paul (or Saul as he was known then) was baptized after receiving his sight and accepting Christ. The story of Peter and Cornelius in chapter ten is also very telling. Peter preaches to Cornelius in verses 34-43. The end of the chapter is very telling as to the importance of baptism.

After Peter and those of circumcision who were with him witnessed the Holy Ghost upon the gentiles: Peter said “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Those with Peter hadn’t objected that he preach Jesus to Cornelius. The big step for ultimate inclusion was the baptism. This is why Peter announced this question in front of them.

Also notice in both this story and the story of Phillip and the eunuch that the baptism was basically the end of the story. It doesn’t document Peter or Phillip getting into further lessons on works or say communion and church service. These things are important but these were stories of the basic bass line of how to get into a place where you can be saved.

I actually believe that works are essential in the long run and in both stories you could see that Cornelius and the eunuch’s heart were into God prior to the story. However, this is how you must get started into the church. Belief in the basic gospel and baptism are equally important to me. They must have been important to Phillip and Peter. Otherwise, why bother with baptism in such a short and basic story?

Had they gone on and on about how to pray, defining all manner of sins, asking forgiveness, assembling with those of common faith, and thrown baptism in the midst of the diatribe I could see looking at it as just another work which you might fall short on. However, these were brass tacks stories of conversion. If you strip away brass tacks or basic foundation the whole thing will fall apart.

These stories centered around just two things. They were belief in the gospel and baptism. If you are saying one is unimportant why not just get rid of the other and Phillip and Peter wouldn’t have had to bother showing up at all.

In the sixteenth chapter two more even shorter stories of conversion take place. The story of Lydia takes only two verses (14 and 15). The story of “the keeper of the prison” where Paul was kept happens in verses 27-34 and 30-34 in particular to his conversion.

In these short numbers of verses Luke, who is credited with penning acts, points out Lydia and the keeper’s faith and their baptism. When you condense a story down this small you logically want to include the most important details. If baptism wasn’t very important, why bring it up in both cases? I believe this again shows the essential nature of baptism in a discussion of conversion.

(The Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.)

Here the story is broken down to one verse and yet again baptism is a part of it. Was baptism just some kind of trendy thing during this time? Why does it keep pointing it out in both long and short stories of conversion? This allegedly unimportant thing just keeps coming up for some reason.

(The Acts 22:14-16 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest here the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’)

This was Ananias speaking to Paul. How was he to wash away his sins? Was baptism optional here?

Paul had already been chosen and had witnessed Christ. I’m sure by this point he believed in him. However, his sins weren’t washed away yet. Baptism is an essential part of the deal not to be trivialized.

I want to ask so many Christians the same question. Why tarry to get baptized? What is the deal breaker that makes people so hesitant to do this? It seems they will look for any excuse or way out they can.

Some start to sound like those who justify fornication, idolatry, or other sins with some times have changed argument. These days it just isn’t necessary to get baptized man. Everything is different now bro.

Who says anything has actually changed in God’s mind at this point of the church age. People’s liberal attitude has changed in part of a great falling away as it talks about in 2 nd Thessalonians 2:3. However, God’s plan is not a democracy. You can vote whether Christ, faith, works, love of God, repentance, or baptism are important. Your vote will change God’s mind about as much as the prevailing wisdom of the day in Sodom did.

Also, I always have a question for those who support some time based argument. Exactly when did it change? Can you put a second, hour, day, year, decade, century, or even millennium on when you decided to change God’s expectations and that became all right with him? Was there some event or sign to mark this or are you just making it up? Was there some office wide memo that baptism is now unimportant because I must have missed it?

Another question is why did it change? Is it because you say so or maybe a majority say so like issue balloting at the local election. Usually people use the old times have changed argument to wash over something they just really don’t want to do. They don’t want to do what the Bible says and they don’t want to admit they are wrong so times must have changed because they won’t change.

If not some lame time based argument it really seams that people must just have a lack of commitment and want to in regards to baptism. They don’t want to do it and find it unimportant so it must not be important to God. You can’t assign your morals and level of importance of things to God.

The idea is to read the Bible and try to take on you the mindset he wants you to. You should accept his will as a child and not try to change his mind as though you are his equal. You might not find baptism important but by any number of scriptures, God does.

---------Other verses which show the importance of baptism---------

(Matthew 20:23 And He saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on My right hand, and on My left, is not Mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”)

The first issue this brings up is that even Christ was baptized. This was documented earlier in Matthew at the end of the third chapter. Christ had no sin and wasn’t relying on anyone else to be saved and yet he was baptized. Are you in a better position than Christ to refuse this gift which leads to salvation?

Christ refers to baptism here as a great privilege. I again can’t see why people want so bad to skip out on this part of the deal. In being part of the church you will be asked to fight against your own fleshly will on a daily basis, give of your time to attend church service, hopefully do the right thing with money, and put the well being of others in front of yourself at times. Many were martyred for their belief throughout history. You can’t be dunked in water to show the real sacrifice Christ made????

This is the ultimate in getting off on the wrong foot. Baptism is an absolute privilege compared to some of the temptations that come up with the walk for God. My advice is to take it while you can. Why tarry?

Although I always like to base my arguments on scripture I would like to witness something that happened to me. When I was baptized, I felt a pure warmth and tingling sensation all through my body. I felt more pure, clean, and alive at that moment than at any moment before or since.

I truly believe that it wasn’t psychosomatic. I didn’t try to convince myself that I felt something. I wasn’t looking for some emotional or sensual outpouring. I just tried to do God’s will and I felt what I felt. I have heard similar stories from others who were baptized into our church.

Anyone reading this can believe me or not; I don’t care. I just wanted to give a bit of personal perspective to this subject. Because of the way I felt when baptized I can’t possibly understand why people are so averse to it. I see it as a great gift as Christ spoke of it in the above verse.

(Mark 1:4, 5 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the Land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.)

Here we have many people getting baptized for the remission of sins. If it was good enough for them, why isn’t it good enough for you? They should have just said that they didn’t want to go in some river and found a way out like people do today. They should have said I get the symbolism so why bother.

The baptism of repentance doesn’t really mean anything anyway, right? Repentance doesn’t mean anything either, right? Just say “I believe in Jesus” and it all stops there for you. No need to follow through any more than that, right?

(Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.)

I’m not sure how much more clear the importance of baptism could be made. It is described as a prerequisite for salvation here. If baptism weren’t essential it should have just read “He that believeth shall be saved.” Why include “and is baptized” if it weren’t a vital part of the process? Did Mark just not see whatever reason you might say it isn’t important?

If I told you that you must eat food and drink water to have a long and healthy life could you just get rid of one or both of these prerequisites? Why can you get rid of either of these in Mark? Can you just flip a coin and decide that either belief or baptism is now unnecessary? Then, once one is gone just get rid of the other and just declare “I am saved because I say so.”

Also, don’t try and make some weak backdoor argument that it only addresses belief in the second part. Both were described as steps in the first part. As I have described earlier, faith in the gospel is the first step and without this the importance of baptism is already done away with. Without belief you can have neither faith nor a valid baptism. So the second part would automatically devoid baptism.

For an appropriate example using water again say I told you to get across the desert you needed containers for water and some water. I could then say but if you don’t have containers you will die. Because I didn’t name water in the second part you could conclude that only the containers are vital and just try and go with some empty containers. The water is essential but without containers you have no way to carry it so it is automatically precluded in the second part of my admonition. If baptism weren’t a key part of salvation it wouldn’t have been included in either part of the sentence in Mark so don’t play games with sentences about getting saved. Are you saying Mark just through some unessential distraction in the first of two short sentences of how to be saved?

(John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.)

To me being born of the water is a reference to baptism. This is the start of a new walk as I will discuss next in Romans. To just say you were born of water and the spirit isn’t good enough. Baptism is again used as an essential part of being saved here. People love to define being born again as in the heart or mind but Christ specifically defines it as of water here. He was answering a specific question of how to be born again.

The next thing I would like to discuss is the sixth chapter of Romans. I’m not sure how any serious believer in the Bible could read this chapter and not see baptism as essential in being forgiven of their sins. I don’t feel like typing it all out so I invite you to turn there in your own Bible.

Verse three says “so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death.” This qualifies who has partaken of the death of Christ. “So many of us as were baptized” identifies a certain group that took a particular action. I guess we should just throw this away and say “so many of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ and to all that weren’t baptized and to all atheists and everyone.”

Verse four starts with “Therefore we are buried with Him in baptism unto death.” The first word was “therefore” which clearly shows Paul is building on verse three. The next word is “we” who he identified in verse three. How are you buried with him into death here? It says “by baptism.” In saying you can just say you accept Christ and be a part of his death, burial, and resurrection you undo Paul’s statement. You can only accept it individually “by baptism.”

The second part of this verse gets into the idea of newness of life. To me, this is being born of the water or born again. When Christ was raised he was perfect and became a spiritual body that could exist beyond our atmosphere. For now, you are to see yourself as different and try to show a new and powerful spiritual nature in your actions. Then, one day, you will actually become physically spiritual as Christ did.

Verse five starts with “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death.” Notice the word “for” which again shows that Paul will further his discussion based on the previous few verses. The word “if” is a clear qualifier. If you fulfill the previous verses and partake of Christ’s death you can also receive a like resurrection. If not, I don’t see how you can lay claim to it. I guess you can just say it is yours despite what Paul carefully lays out here.

Notice also the phrase “planted together.” When you are immersed flat in the water it shows burial where you are buried with dirt. This must be a powerful picture to God to see you as “planted together.” It is as though he sees it in a very real context.

Verse six further strengthens my contention that this is a rebirth being described. Like “newness of life” used in four this refers to the “old man” being crucified with Christ. It then states “that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Hopefully, through your effort and actions you will strive toward what you will physically become only later. This is a spiritual body which doesn’t yearn to sin.

Verse seven shows the importance of Christ’s death and your personal acceptance of it. Obviously, when someone is dead they can no longer sin. The next chapter discusses this. Also; as I showed in my paper on death, burial, and resurrection; death is the penalty for sin. However, the first death that all die is just a natural state as passed down from Adam.

Christ’s death was a punishment for the personal sins of everyone who would take advantage of it. When you go down in the water I believe God sees your sins and death on Christ. It is as though you died for your sins at that moment and the only thing left on you is the perfection of Christ. This tradeoff happens at baptism. You are showing God and hopefully yourself your death to sin.

To say that you believe in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of the world is great. This is even essential. But to personally be seen in a state of death to sin you must act it out and physically symbolize it to God through baptism. This is where faith and works first meet and get you in a different state or place with God.

Verse eight reiterates what verse five said. To accept the life Christ offers you, you must first accept his death to sin. Notice the word “if” again. Refer again to three and four in regards to how you can become dead with him.

Verses nine and ten show that you no longer have to fear a final death. You have already accepted your sins and punishment in Christ. Once you accept this and make it symbolically real in water, God has no need or reason to punish you again. It is as if he has already seen it and doesn’t need a rerun. If you don’t show it to begin with in baptism, he will need to see your death to sin in the end and you don’t want that.

In eleven can just say you are dead to sin because you say so? Is it through Christ just by you saying it is? Shouldn’t you follow the instructions given to achieve this state rather than just proclaiming it?

The third chapter of Galatians is also very instructive in regards to belief and baptism. Paul contrasts being under the law to putting on Christ. In verse 22 he points out that all are under sin. He then gets into faith and baptism in Christ in verses 26-29.

(For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.)

Yet again we have faith addressed first, and then baptism. It specifically says “as many of you have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” It isn’t enough to just scream “I believe in Jesus, Jesus loves me” at some revival or something. If you haven’t been baptized into Christ you haven’t put on Christ. It is really just that simple according to Paul.

The last verse says “if ye be Christ’s” you are an heir to the promise first given to Abraham. This if was qualified by faith and baptism in the first two verses I quoted here. If you have faith in the true gospel and have been baptized believing it, you are in a position to be an heir to the promise. If not, you can say you are but you aren’t listening to Paul.

(Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all.)

Here baptism is listed amongst the most basic and simple stuff of being called into the church. Baptism isn’t some extravagant extra. It is a core principle in the hope of salvation.

Another point I want to make clear is that you must be baptized into the one true faith. Baptism into the belief of trinity or the immortality of the soul isn’t baptism to me. This is nothing more than confirming something false.

(Colossians 2:11-14 In Whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God Who hath raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, Having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;)

Here circumcision is first brought up which was a physical act to show acceptance of the covenant between man and God. Of course the law has been supplanted by something and someone greater. However, I feel this is an apt comparison by Paul in that there is something physical which shows you are a part of the new covenant. This is how you put “off the body of the sins of the flesh.”

Verses twelve and thirteen cement and reinforce the points made in the sixth chapter of Romans. You are “buried with Him in baptism.” Then “hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses.”

Verse fourteen flows with the end of thirteen and furthers that through this process your sins are blotted out by the cross of Christ. Again we have baptism coming up in the midst not of a basic rule like say avoiding fornication or hatred. It comes up in the midst of basic salvation and forgiveness of sins.

If being forgiven of your sins isn’t important to you, I guess baptism doesn’t have to be either. However, this is the only way I keep reading to obtain a glorious resurrection similar to Christ. If you put on his death you can then be quickened as he was.

So many people just overlook baptism. Paul is making it beyond clear that it is so basic and important in the process God has set forth for forgiveness of sins. To ignore it is to go off the reservation into your own version of salvation and finding forgiveness. Why does baptism keep coming up in the context of such important verses dealing with the basic acceptance of Christ?

(1 st Peter 3:20, 21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us <not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God>, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ :)

Take a good long look at the comparison here. Noah had to believe God. Just as importantly he had to act on his belief in actually building the ark. If he would have only believed he would have drowned along with everyone else. It would have done him zero good to sit around saying he believed with all his heart that God would flood the earth while not doing something about it to save himself.

Noah’s family had to individually believe and get in the ark or they would have been left out. They were saved in the water for their belief and obedience based on that belief. See how faith and works meet in this story.

Notice the wording here. It says “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” Noah and his family were literally saved from death through faith and obedience. Baptism is exactly the same idea. It specifically says it saves you here. What more should it say to show it is part of salvation?

Saying you’ll just skip out on baptism would be akin to Noah skipping building the ark. God lays down the rules for salvation. If you are just looking to make up your own way, what is it exactly? Do you get rid of everything God says or just part? Should Noah have just practiced treading water until the flood and done it his own way? Can’t you see that his obedience is what saved him?

Only by personally accepting the resurrection of Christ can you be saved. You can’t just do it your own way by putting away filth of the flesh or by faith alone. God’s way is the one way to get saved. Don’t try to make up your own path.

There are an array of stories that show how a specific work must directly show faith in the Bible. In the eleventh and twelfth chapters of Exodus the Passover is described. Israel was to put the blood of a lamb on the two side posts and the upper door post of their house to avoid the death of all the firstborn in Egypt. In 12:23 it says this is what would prevent God from having the destroyer come in and smite them.

Putting on the blood of the lamb is symbolic enough. I believe this is done at baptism. Also, even if someone believed with all their heart, mind, soul, and every fiber of their body in what God said; they were still in trouble if they didn’t have blood on their lintel and side posts. This, by the way, was before the law was even given to Moses so it is not an example of keeping the Ten Commandments or something.

The entire 11 th chapter of Hebrews is filled with stories not only of faith but obedience based on said faith. The healings that Christ did revolved around someone actually coming to him and asking in faith to be healed. This took faith mixed with real action. What about when Christ told the rich man to sell all and follow him? Was it enough for him to just believe?

What if Christ had believed in God’s plan for him but ran away when the Roman soldiers came and hadn’t died for the sins of the world? He should have based on the theory that it is all about faith. The second chapter in James takes a deeper look at Abraham’s story. Verses 20-26 read as follows.

(But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:” and he was called the friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.)

What if Abraham had said that he believed God but hid Isaac away somewhere to keep him safe? Would his faith have been acceptable? The second chapter of James gets more into general works than just baptism. However, I think all these examples show a pattern.

Actual actions or works are important in establishing one’s faith before God. There are a lot of commandments and expectations God has for you. Hopefully, the believer will get a number of these things right. Everyone does come up short in regards to sin but works are important in general.

The first and most important work of faith is baptism. I understand how over the course of life, even with great effort, living up to God’s righteous rules can be hit or miss. There are a lot of rules just in the New Testament for the church and the pull of the flesh can be too much.

However, I don’t understand how someone can’t find the time or put in the effort to be baptized. This one isn’t a repetitive temptation in daily life. It is a one time expectation. The act of which takes only a few seconds. I will get more into works in another paper but I feel the general point of the importance of works to verify faith helps make the point about baptism. The story of Noah mixed with baptism set me on this course.

---------Almost getting baptized---------

Another major problem I see with modern Christianity is partial baptism which isn’t baptism at all. Yes I am talking about sprinkling or pouring some water on someone and calling it a baptism. Maybe you think I am just a stickler for the rules. Actually I like to do things the easy way whenever possible.

However, an old friend of the family used colorful language to describe doing something halfway. He would call it something like half donkey. He would also say if you were going to do things this way, don’t even be bothered to do them at all. I feel that sprinkling of water instead of being baptized is the most halfway thing I have ever heard of. Even saying halfway is giving it too much credit.

The word baptism is translated from the Greek word baptizo which means to immerse or sink. Anyone who knows Greek will tell you this is how the word was always used and meant in the language. The Greek word for sprinkle is rhantizo and the word for pour is ekcheo. If pouring or sprinkling were what God wanted, one of these words would have been used.

Beyond this brief lesson in Greek you have to take just a second to think on what baptism symbolizes. The water represents the earth. Getting immersed underneath shows burial. Coming up is a picture of resurrection.

Do people get just a few specks of dirt thrown on their forehead at their burial? Also, where in this mach ceremony does the picture of resurrection occur? Is it when you wipe the water off your head? I can easily see burial and being raised in a real baptism but not in sprinkling a little water on someone.

Such little water is even used that I don’t see why you just don’t get rid of it all together. When you come 99% of the way why not go the extra 1%. Don’t lie down or use water at all but just say “I am baptized, this is a baptism because I say it is.” Forget about the very specific Greek word which was used and just make up your own word. Plus, you get to save on a pesky water bill this way and do as little as possible to show Christ’s death for you. Isn’t it great? Or you can just do it the way it is supposed to be done if that isn’t too much of an inconvenience.

People act as though God doesn’t have any attention to detail whatsoever. I invite you to read the end of Exodus, Numbers or Leviticus. Look at all the detail that went into the tabernacle, what they were to wear, the Ark of the Covenant, the mercy seat, and so on. Also, pay particular attention to what all went into a sacrifice and burning the sacrifice.

Do you really think it was acceptable to just make up your own rules in front of God as to how these things were to be done after he took so long detailing them? By using the slippery logic of the day they should have just killed a lamb or whatever animal they so chose however they wanted and called it a sacrifice. Even better, why kill the poor animal? Just go part way and smack it or something. Then call it a sacrifice and everything would be all right.

This was the kind of thinking that lead the sons of Aaron to add a strange fire that God didn’t want onto a sacrifice in the tenth chapter of Leviticus. God directly killed them for it. I’m sure today that people think anyone should have been able to touch the Ark of the Covenant. Uzzah died for touching it in the sixth chapter of 2 nd Samuel.

I know these are from the Old Testament. I also know that we are not under the law at this time. However, while rules of worship and ordinances may change I don’t believe God ever has. I believe our baptism is there sacrifice of a spotless lamb. Both Israel and the church were given specific ways to show Christ’s death. These things weren’t to be changed on a whim or forgotten about.

In the New Testament in Acts 5 Ananias and Sapphira held back part of what they were to give for the common good of the church. They were killed by God for it. I’m sure that to them doing what they were to do for the most part or most of the way was good enough. God obviously had a different viewpoint.

(Acts 26:28, 29 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” And Paul said, “I would to God, that not only thou, but all who hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.”)

I bring these verses into the discussion at this point because I feel a lot of people have almost been baptized. If only almost were enough. Then, Agrippa would have been fine with his belief just as it was. A lot of people these days probably feel as if his statement was good enough. I wish that people would be not only almost baptized, but altogether actually baptized as it says in the good book.

In general I am big on leaving final judgment up to God. It isn’t up to me to say whether Grandpa Peabody or Aunt Gillespie will or won’t be saved. If God wants to accept partial or even no baptism, that is up to him in the end. Even if someone has no real faith or works, it is again God’s call whether or not they will burn.

The complete and total paradox to me is why people want so bad to overlook something so basic and necessary on the path to salvation given by God. People can have so much attention to detail when minding earthly things. When they are ordered to wear a goofy uniform, a nametag, or safety equipment at work they do it if they appreciate the job at all. Even if they don’t agree they do what needs to get done as not to cross the boss.

Some spend most of their adult life looking at every possible detail if their business as to make it more profitable. Men will spend half their time thinking about how to get the girl. People spend a lot of time on diet and exercise or fashion and style to try and look good. People have all kinds of goals for which they will spend and inordinate amount of time trying to accomplish. Even if some detail just possibly could make a positive difference they do it. All this so they can die within fifty years or so and all of the above goals will mean absolutely nothing to them.

How much is eternity worth to you? With all the scriptures I have listed above isn’t it at least possible in your mind that I might be right about baptism? Wouldn’t you rather cover all bases than stubbornly and lazily put yourself at unnecessary risk? Doesn’t baptism at least look like something God wants you to do in conjunction with your said faith? If it was good enough for those in Acts, why isn’t it good enough for you? These stories in Acts were the church age, after the ascension of Christ.

God isn’t asking you to carry a cross and be crucified. He isn’t asking you to run a marathon. He is telling you to be put under water for just a second to show you accept and believe in Christ’s sacrifice.

Maybe you look at baptism and think it is so simple that it mustn’t be important. I say it is so important that I can’t believe anyone wouldn’t do something so simple. Do you really have a logical argument why all the scriptures above aren’t saying what they are saying? I pray that you do if you don’t want to get baptized. Please tell me it is not just an inconvenience and that you don’t want to be inconvenienced.

I have heard incomplete and confusing sides to the contrary on this matter. One is a completely incomplete debate of whether baptism is a physical act or symbolic. Why in the world does it have to be either/ or? It reminds me of the either/ or faith/ works debate. IT IS BOTH! IT IS NOT ONE OR THE OTHER!

You physically get buried in water to symbolize the real event with Christ. Was it enough for Israel to say “yeah God, I get the purpose and picture of sacrifice or setting up the tabernacle so why go through the drill?” Most of their ordinances were highly symbolic and they were still to actually do them. We are not under the law but can’t you glean anything from the Old Testament? Physical actions carried out can bring the image and connection to life. They complete the covenant in a visual way for you and God. Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac was another example before the law.

Maybe people have arrived at a deeper level than Peter, Christ, and Paul. I am quite sure they understood the symbolic nature of baptism but still preached it and did it. Were they just not getting it enough or something?

I also love the specter and spectacle of the thief on the cross. People take his story way beyond the power of assumption and craft a character out of this guy. He is their example of the one who wasn’t baptized being all right. HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU KNOW HE WASN’T BAPTIZED? WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS? Is it impossible that someone who was a follower of God’s word also committed a crime? He obviously must have known something of God’s word prior to this.

You might as well just furnish a complete back story on this man once you have decided he wasn’t baptized. Where was he born? How tall was he? What was his occupation? Let’s say he blasphemed the Holy Spirit also which proves you can get away with that. We can make him the example of the blasphemer of the Holy Spirit being all right as well.

There is much record for this in scripture as him not being baptized. Maybe he was a completely evil psychopath mass murderer his entire life other than saying something about Christ. How can you possibly just fill in the blanks and offer your story as Biblical proof? It frankly amazes me.

In the end you should use your own judgment. Do or don’t do whatever you want and whatever you like. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you about the importance of baptism.