Last week I pointed out that Paul has basically left his intensive study of salvation from sin. It’s not that he’s leaving the theme entirely, but it’s not his primary focus. And it is a terrible mistake to say that he’s teaching salvation when he’s actually teaching something else. Secondly, as we said this morning, Paul’s theme is not really baptism, it is about living in a holy fashion, since salvation has been accomplished in us through Christ.
Despite these two points, there are millions of people living under the umbrella of Christendom, who believe that baptism washes away sin. They have been brainwashed to the point of picturing baptism whenever salvation is discussed. And whenever baptism is the subject, they think that salvation is its purpose. So when they look at these verses in Romans 6 they think, not of Christian living, but of salvation. Many people read these verses, and their heretical hearts hear words like: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death and into his eternal life? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should enjoy Heaven for all eternity. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his eternal life. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should never have to worry about the penalty of sin again.” Just a few altered words and the message of Paul becomes something completely new.
I would guess that from a quarter to a third of the people here this evening, at sometime in their lives, have been taught that baptism somehow contributes to their salvation from sins. Many of us, including myself, have been christened in order to cleanse our souls. That is taught by the vast majority of churches in this city in one variety or another. But it is completely contrary to the distinct teaching of the Word of God. And, I think, that it has sent more souls to hell than any other single heresy. Salvation from sin can never come by way of water. There has only been one plan of salvation. We can summarize it as: “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Real salvation from sin, must always come before any church ordinances. Paul has reminded us of Abraham and David as illustrations that salvation comes by faith alone.
But despite the clear declaration of scriptures, the heresy of baptismal regeneration persists.
On the Day of Pentecost Peter had been preaching to the thousands of Jews and proselytes who were in Jerusalem for the feast. He had clearly showed to them that Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish Messiah. But Christ had been betrayed to death, and yet the grave could not hold Him. As the Apostle was preaching, the Holy Spirit was deeply convicting hundreds of those people. Finally they blurted out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” What must we do to be saved? Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins…”
The argument of the baptismal regenerationists – the Church of Christ, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics and all the rest, hinges on a single, three-letter Greek word translated by the three-letter English word – “for.” It is the Greek word “eis.” Those that insist that we have to be baptized in order to wash away sin, say that it means “in order to.” “Repent and be baptized every one of you in order to have remission of sins.” But the fact of the matter is that “eis” can but does not have to mean “in order to.” It can just as easily mean repent and be baptized “in reference” to the remission sins. It lawfully could mean: “in behalf of,” or “on account of” the remission of sins.
Let me use another preacher’s illustration to show the variety of uses that “for” might have. Bob Ross once wrote, “I phoned the Doctor yesterday.” Why did you phone the doctor? I phoned the doctor for some medicine – in order to have a prescription sent to the pharmacist. I phoned the doctor for my child – on behalf of my child. I phoned the doctor for the bill that he sent – with respect to his bill. I phoned the doctor for my terrible head-ache – because of my pain. The word “for” in either Greek or English can be used in several different ways.
In Acts 2, most Baptists take it to mean: “Be ye baptized in reference to the forgiveness of sin.” Baptists take it one way, but the Campbellites, for example, take it another way. That is the right of both of us; I will not try to rob them of their right to be wrong. But the Bible says that my interpretation of “eis” is perfectly acceptable and logical. Not only that, it is more consistent with the rest of scripture. Matthew 3:11 is a case in point. John the Baptist said, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, & with fire.” This verse exactly parallels what Peter is talking about in Acts 2:38. Both are speaking about baptism, and the little word “unto” is the same word “eis.” Now let’s substitute both definitions of “eis” into this verse and see which makes more sense in this case: “I indeed baptize you with water IN REFERENCE TO repentance” – this makes sense. “I indeed baptize you with water IN ORDER TO HAVE repentance.” – that is non-sense. Did John Baptist baptize people in order to bring them to repentance? No, according to verse 8 and others, he demanded proof of repentance before baptism.
How about Matthew 12:41 – The Lord Jesus said, “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.” The words little words “at the” – “at the preaching” – are a translation of the word “eis.” Let’s make the same substitution that our neighbors want to make in Acts 2:38 – “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment because they repented IN ORDER TO HAVE the preaching of Jonah.” Now let’s put in the proper substitution: “The men Nineveh shall rise in judgment because they repented BECAUSE OF the preaching of Jonah.” The mis-use of “eis” here is obvious, but it’s just as misused by those people in Acts 2:38.
Moving on we come to another verse dealing with baptism – Matthew 28:19: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them IN the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” “Baptizing them (“eis”) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Have you ever heard someone say “Baptizing them IN ORDER TO HAVE the name of the Father?” I don’t doubt that some will say that, but that is not what Jesus intended. No, people are baptized In respect to the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.
We next come to Mark 1:5 where people were baptized “eis” the river of Jordan. Were those people baptized in order to have the river Jordan? On we could go looking at Acts 8:16; 19:3; 19:5; I Cor. 1:13, etc, etc.
But we do need to return to Roman 6. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized INTO Jesus Christ were baptized INTO his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism INTO death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” “Eis” is found three times in these two verses, and is always translated “into.” I know that it is a matter wholly up to the discretion of the man reading his Bible. But to me it is obvious that the meaning is “in regard to” or in “reference to.” “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in reference to Jesus Christ were baptized in reference to his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism in reference to his death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” This interpretation is in perfect agreement with the Greek language and with Bible doctrine.
I admit that everyone has the right to interpret and translate “eis” anyway that they choose. But nobody has a right to translate it in way that contradicts those 100s of verses that tell the sinner that he must simply trust Christ for salvation. If one interpretation agrees with scripture and another disagrees, logic must lead us to the first. If there is a choice, we are obligated to choose consistency with the rest of the Bible. The “baptism saves” people deliberately choose to contradict hundreds of other scriptures.
Sahalie is my grand-daughter; she lives at my home, I see here several times every day, I play with her, I baby-sit her, and I have had my picture taken with dozens and dozens of times. There are a hundred ways that I might indicate that she is my grand-daughter. But if I said that Micah is my grand-son, you’d have reason to doubt. That declaration is inconsistent with the facts. The same is true with the false declarations of those who misuse the word “eis.”
Another argument used to strengthen a lie, ties baptism to the New Birth in John 3:5: “Jesus answered (Nicodemus) 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.” Just because water is mentioned that doesn’t mean that the subject is baptism. I don’t find the word “baptism” in this verse. I read of water, and that water can refer to lots of different things. It could refer to the water that is a part of a natural birth. It might refer to the water of the Word of God, which is taught elsewhere in the Bible. It might reflect back to the water of the Laver in the Old Testament Tabernacle. The priests first sacrificed the blood, then they went to the Laver and washed. This verse is open to several interpretations, and they certainly don’t have to deal with baptism. In fact, this clearly does not speak about baptism.
And another that these people use is based upon Mark 16:16: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Doesn’t this say that baptism is essential to salvation? No, it does not. The last part of the verse explains the first part. And it does not say, “He who is not baptized shall be damned.” Sin is the thing which condemns the soul, and a lack of faith in Christ is proof of that condemnation. Well then what does the first part of the verse mean then? It means that God expects people to be baptized – the Lord commands it, orders it, and illustrates it. I could go on and say: “He that believeth and is baptized, joins the Lord’s church, tithes and prayers shall be saved.” That is a perfectly true statement. But it’s only through genuine faith that people receive God’s salvation. “Sirs, what must we do to be saved?” “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”
Turn to Mark 5:25-29 – “And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.” What was it that healed the woman? Was it touching the hem of the Lord’s robe? No, that woman was saved by faith, so says Christ Jesus in verse 34. Does baptism save? No more than touching the Lord’s robe. If a person has no faith, he is lost eternally, and shall spend eternity in Hell.
Secondly, if baptism washes away sin then, “preacher will you baptize my dying baby?” That is precisely how the heresy of infant baptism began. If saving grace is communicated through the waters of baptism, then I demand that you baptize my little baby.
Result number three: If baptism washes away sin, then why not sprinkle some water on this poor dying old man. First, because baptism does not wash away sin. And secondly, because baptism must picture a burial, and sprinkling doesn’t do that.
Fourth, baptismal salvation makes our religion require a priest. Here is a good word to learn and use to impress your unlearned friends. Baptismal redemption demands a “sacerdotal” religion. “Sacerdotal” means “priestly.” Baptismal regeneration places your soul in the hands of another sinner – a priest. But what if he doesn’t do it right or what if the Lord is angry with him? I want my soul resting in Christ alone, not some mere man like myself.
Fifth, salvation by baptism would logically end forever believer’s baptism. By believer’s baptism I refer to the baptism by immersion of a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s the baptism that John the Baptist and John the Apostle both used. That is the baptism that we see in Acts chapter two when 3,000 souls were baptized. That is the baptism that Jesus commissioned the churches to practice. But if all the babies in world were baptized in their infancy, we’d never need believer’s baptism again. And if only sinners were baptized, in order to wash away their sins, then it would be “sinner’s baptism” and not believer’s baptism.
Sixth, it leads into baptism for the dead. If baptism saves, can I be baptized for someone else? “Why certainly” say the Mormons and several other cults. I have read of a Mormon woman who has been baptized 30,000 times. She did it for relatives and friends and then people like Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Nebuchadnezzar and Cleopatra. One Mormon elder said, “I believe that this lady, in the day of judgment, through being baptized for the dead, has saved more souls than Jesus.” No! Beside the obvious blasphemy, this lady has never saved a single soul in her entire life, because baptism cannot save.
And finally, this kind of baptism kills churches. A survey in England reveals that there are about 26,000,000 baptized people. But less than three million are registered on church roles – one out of ten. And out of that 10% only some of those attend church regularly. Why worry about one’s soul, if little holy water has forever settled the question. My friend, water – holy water, tap water or Spokane River water – can not do anything for your soul. As they used say, you can be baptized in every puddle from here to Timbuktu, until every tadpole knows you by your first name, but you will still die and go to hell, without faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. “Abraham believed GOD and that was counted unto him for righteousness.” “As many as received Christ to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”