Understanding the Essential Purpose of Baptism into Christ

Published July 27, 2012 by admin in Articles

Brent T. Willey, evangelist

Introduction:

  1. We have heard good loving people that are trying to avert confrontation say something like, “It really doesn’t make any difference what you believe as long as you are sincere in what you do.” This kind of statement, whether realized or not, belittles God. It says that God’s word, and therefore God, can be misunderstood, set aside, altered, or even disregarded with impunity.

  2. The truth of God’s word is the most important message that we can discuss and share with a lost and dying world. Therefore, we must “contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered” (Jude, v. 3). It matters little whether one is sincere in his worship, life, or service to God if any one of those items (worship, life and service to God) is contrary to the will of God. Sincerity alone cannot save. Jesus made this perfectly clear in His denunciation of those who practiced “lawlessness” [anomia: without law; unauthorized practices] (Matt. 7:21-23).

  3. One of the most widely discussed issues in Christianity concerns itself with the purpose of baptism. The particular issue resolves itself into this question:

Is it necessary (essential) to understand the purpose of baptism before the act of baptism itself can be acceptable to God?

    1. Unquestionably, the 19th century “restoration” movement produced this question because of various “baptisms” practiced within denominational churches. It was contended by some of the leaders of this movement that when one was baptized, even though that one may not have realized the connection between baptism and the remission of sins, the baptism was acceptable if it was done with the intention of obeying a command of God – concluding that the individual immersed received the remission of sins unwittingly.

    2. As much as I appreciate the circumstance in which these men found themselves, and have great admiration for their courage to repudiate denominationalism, I must, however, respectfully disagree with the aforementioned conclusion and believe it to be contrary to the teachings of the New Testament.

  1. The exclusive authority to be employed regarding any doctrine or practice within Christianity is the inspired and all-sufficient word of God, and it alone must serve as our rule of faith. (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Pet. 4:11)

      • We have great admiration for learned and scholarly men that have been highly influential, but without inspiration they are fallible.

      • Again, our respect for these restorative efforts is immense; notwithstanding, these men were in search for the ancient order but not the source of it.

      • In the final analysis, our conclusions about any practice within the realm of Christianity must be based upon “sola scriptura” (“by Scripture alone”).

  2. The wise man Solomon noted within his proverbial sayings, “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). It will be the attempt of this study to do exactly that. The “sword of the spirit” (Eph. 6:17) must not be used to destroy our brethren, but to defend the truth and excise error.

  3. Before delving into the four specific areas of consideration of this discussion, it is important to remember what this study is and is not about.

    1. It is not about the condition of non-baptized people.

    2. It is not about people that want to be baptized for the remission of their sins, but for some reason beyond their control they can’t.

    3. This study is about people that were baptized, but did not understand that Scriptural baptism into Christ is “for the remission of sins.”

I. ESSENTIAL ASPECTS OF BAPTISM INTO CHRIST

  1. Is there anythingessential about baptism into Christ?

    1. Baptism is a required step within God’s plan of salvation. By divine authority, Christ emphatically commanded it! (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16)

    2. There are required (essential) aspects of proper baptism.

      1. The correct mode is essential: immersion

        1. Lexically: baptisma = immersion; baptizō = to immerse [Contrast baptizō with rhantizō (to sprinkle), which is never used as an action for any type of baptism in the New Testament!]

        2. Contextually: John 3.23; Acts 8:38; Col. 2:12

        3. Theologically: Rom. 6:3-7

        4. Question: Could sprinkling ever be an authorized mode for baptism?

      2. The correct element is essential: water
        1.  Actually, the element itself is not inherent in the word “baptism.”

          1. What is inherent is the mode: to dip, to plunge, to immerse, etc.

          2. So the element must be determined by the context. [E.g., Holy Spirit and water (Mark 1:8); Suffering (Matt. 20:22-23); etc.]

        2. Question: Is the employment of any element, other than water, for baptism authorized in the New Testament?
      3. The correct candidate is essential: repentant believer

        1. There are at least two essential prerequisites to baptism into Christ:

            1. “Belief” that Jesus is the Son of God. (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37)

            2. “Repentance” from past sins. (Acts 2:38)

        2. Question: In light of these facts, could an infant or anyone else that could not understand (believe) that Jesus is the Son of God and could not (or, does not) repent of past sins, be properly baptized into Christ?

      4. The correct purpose is essential: for the remission of sins salvation
        1. True baptism has a direct correlation to “being saved” and receiving the “remission of sins.”(Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21) Please consider:

          1. “Be baptized…for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) is equivalent to “he who… is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

          2. “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16) is parallel to “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), which is comparable to “he who…is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

          3. Baptism “for the remission of sins” and to “wash away your sins” is directly and essentially linked to “being saved.”

          4. Two Questions:

            1. “Being saved” from what? Penalty for sin: “being damned.”
            2. “Wash away” what? As stated in the text, “sins.”
        2. Peter, after employing the historical example of Noah’s salvation “through water,” said, “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you – not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:20-21), which necessarily infers a spiritual cleansing, not physical.
        3. To fail to see the intended correlation between “being saved” and the “remission of sins,” is to fail to see baptism’s primary purpose within God’s plan of salvation, as well as its essentiality – as many of the denominations have been doing for centuries!
        4.  Baptism for the remissions of sins (tantamount to salvation) was the primary reason that penitent believers obeyed the command to be baptized. They clearly saw the need to have their sins remitted!

          1. “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37-38, 41)

          2. “What shall I do, Lord?” (Acts 22:10, 16)

      5. The purpose of baptism, “for the remission of sins,” “to wash away sins,” “to be saved,” generally to be forgiven, was understood in the clear teaching of Jesus and His inspired apostles.

      6. Question: If the mode (full immersion) is essential, and the element (water) is essential, and the candidate (penitent believer) is essential, is the purpose (forgiveness of sins) essential?

      7. Another Question: Does “sound doctrine” propose the essentiality of baptism as a commandment of God without teaching its causative purpose: “for the remission of sins” ­– “to be saved” from damnation?

  2. Wrong Statement – Wrong Question

    1. Unfortunately, many who have attempted to defend the essential purpose of true baptism into Christ have done so by either making the wrong statement, or asking the wrong question.

      1. Statement: “One cannot be taught wrong(ly) and be baptized right(ly).”

      2. Question: “Can one be taught wrong(ly) and be baptized right(ly)?”

    2. The fundamental flaw in this approach is that it is entirely too vague (general) and seems to prove too much!

      1. Taught wrongly about what?

      2. Every aspect about the organization, worship and work of the church? (From Lord’s Supper to acceptable music to qualifications of elders, etc.)

      3. This would seemingly require perfect understanding about all aspects of Christianity before one was eligible for baptism. Obviously, that which proves too much proves nothing at all!

    3. The statement or the question needs to be modified and better defined.

      1. Better statement: “One cannot be taught wrongly about the essential aspects of baptism and be baptized correctly.”

      2. Better question: “Can one be taught wrongly about the essential aspects of baptism and be baptized correctly?”

    4. Consider these modified questions:

      1. “Can one be taught wrongly about the mode of baptism (immersion) and be baptized correctly?”

      2. “Can one be taught wrongly about the element of baptism (water) and be baptized correctly?”

      3. “Can one be taught wrongly about the proper candidate for baptism (penitent believer) and baptized correctly?”

      4. “Can one be taught wrongly about the essential purpose of baptism (for the remission of sins) and be baptized correctly?”

    5. I contend that the above principles (mode, element, candidate and purpose) are essential and a part of sound doctrine as it pertains to the New Testament teaching regarding baptism.

II. THE REMISSION OF SINS: THE ESSENTIAL AND INDISPENSABLE PURPOSE OF BAPTISM

  1. How critically important is the remission of sins?Without the remission of sins, one could never enjoy salvation – the hope of eternal life. What does the Bible say about the remission of sins?
    1. From the beginning, humanity’s greatest need is the forgiveness of sins! (Cf., Gen. 3; Isa. 59:1-2; Ezek. 18:20; Rom. 3:23; Rom. 6:23; James 1:15)
    2. God has promised the remission of sins.
      1. It was prophesied. (Jer. 31:31-34)
      2. Christ made it possible. (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22)
    1. Remission of sins comes through preaching the gospel of Christ.
      1. Christ commissioned the disciples. (Luke 24:46-47; cf., Mark 16:15-16)
      2. The gospel of remission of sins began to be preached on the day of Pentecost in the city of Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-49; Acts 2:1-47)
      3. Question: Can true preaching of the gospel be accomplished without preaching the need for the remission of sins?
      4. Another question: How does a sinner outside the body of Christ achieve the remission of sins?
    2. Remission of sins comes through obedience to the gospel of Christ.
      1. Remember, the idiom “shall be saved” was understood to be saved from the consequences of sin: damnation! (Mark 16:15-16)
      2. Did the Jews on Pentecost understand this? (Acts 2:37-41) Did Saul of Tarsus understand this? (Acts 9:6; Acts 22:16) Did Cornelius understand this? (Acts 10:43-48)
    3. Humanity’s need for the remission of sins and its achievement through the promised Messiah, Jesus the Christ, is the common thread of all Scripture!
  2.  There are many things that are true contingent upon one being baptized into Christ for the remission of their sins. At the time of one’s baptism, one does not have to understand all of the far-reaching consequences of their baptism. Having received the forgiveness of sins let the forgiven saint now marvel as he discovers all the wondrous benefits he received as a result of his being baptized into Christ for the remission of his sins. None of us fully understands every benefit of baptism. However, there are some things we must know and understand: mode, element, candidacy and purpose!

    1. We cannot find where people were “commanded” to be baptized so:

      1. They could be made a spiritual heir of Abraham. (Gal. 3:26-29)

      2. They could experience a spiritual circumcision. (Col. 2:11-13)

      3. They could enter the church. (1 Cor. 12:13)

      4. They could enjoy all spiritual blessings in Christ. (Eph. 1:3)

      5. They could be free from a law system. (Rom. 6:1-7; Rom. 7:4)

    2. Question: Does one need to understand all of the particulars of these aspects of baptism (sub-points a – e) before one can be baptized into Christ?

    3. Another question: Does one need to know about the dilemma of sin and how to have those sins remitted in baptism in order to be saved?

    4. Caution: There is a difference between being taught inadequately, and being taught wrongly – like being taught that baptism is not for the remission of sins, which is false doctrine!

III. BIBLICAL ANALOGIES THAT ILLUSTRATE ESSENTIAL “PURPOSE”

  1. The Israelite’s sacrifices as per the commandment of God
    1. The essential aspects of sacrifices offered by the Israelites.
      1. When the offering was to be made. (Exod. 12:3; Lev. 23:27)
      2. Where the offering was to be made. (Lev. 1:1-5)
      3. What was to be offered. (Lev. 22:27; Lev. 14:21-22)
      4. What was to be confessed. (Lev. 16:21)
      5. Why the offering was to be made. (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35, etc.)
    1. The Israelite’s forgiveness was associated with his offering sacrifice. (Leviticus 4 – 5: “atonement” and “forgiveness” are stated repeatedly as the result of proper animal sacrifices offered by the Levitical priesthood.) Several questions are in order:
      1. Could an Israelite be forgiven by offering a sacrifice without intending to be forgiven when he offered the sacrifice?
      2. If an Israelite offered a burnt offering simply because God said to do it, and for no other reason, that is, not knowing it was for forgiveness, would he be forgiven despite his ignorance of the purpose of the sacrifice?
      3. Though Moses himself understood the connection between sacrifice and forgiveness, would Moses or any Israelite argue that one does not have to know the purpose of a sacrifice to receive the benefit as long as his action was done from sincere obedience? That is, did an Israelite have to know the purpose of a sacrifice in order to be forgiven?
    1. Is it not taught that for an Israelite to be forgiven that he had to know what was required of him – repentance, confession of sin, sacrifice – and that if any of these were absent, he would nothave forgiveness?
      1. Is it not the case that if you asked an Israelite why he confessed his sin, repented, and offered sacrifice, that he would confidently respond that he did it for forgiveness?
      2. Is it not the case that if you asked an Israelite whether he could be forgiven without understanding what was required of him that he would say that was nonsense?
    2. What if a sincere Israelite taught that sacrifices were not for the forgiveness of sin, but that sacrifices should still be offered out of obedience to God?
      1. Can an Israelite be taught wrongly concerning the purpose of his sacrifice and still receive the benefit of the sacrifice?
      2. Would an Israelite be forgiven of sin if he did not make the offering for forgiveness, but simply offered the sacrifice because he knew God commanded it?
      3. Is it just the simple act of offering sacrifice that secures the benefit of forgiveness? Is it not the case that Israel’s offering of sacrifices did not always bring about reconciliation with God? (E.g., Isa. 1:10-17; esp. v.11)
    3. The “why”is intrinsic to the command – for it is already given! This is not only true in an Israelite’s sacrifices, but also in the penitent believer’s baptism.
      1. “So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them” (Lev. 4:20).
      2. “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38).
      3. Understanding the guilt of sin and needed forgiveness was prerequisite!
    4.  When God says to the Israelite, for forgiveness of sin you must offer sacrifice, God indicates that the Israelite can and must understand what God has said, and why it is to be done. Consider:
      1. Will God say, “I know that you had no intention of having your sins forgiven when you offered sacrifice, but this lack of intention on your part will not hinder me from forgiving you anyway”?
      2. Will God say, “For that matter, you can believe the exact opposite of what I intended for the purpose of your obedience to be, and it does not matter. You can believe that your sacrifice is not for forgiveness. It does not matter what you believe about the purpose of sacrifice – I am that intent on saving you”?
  2. The parallel between prayer and baptism.
    1.  It is clearly taught in Scripture that for the Christian, forgiveness of sins and prayer are linked together. (Matt. 6:12; Acts 8:22; James 5:16) We must admit that some may not have this understanding.
      1. What if a Christian prays out of obedience to God, but not for forgiveness of sins; is he forgiven of his sins even though he does not understand that one of the purposes of prayer is to seek God’s forgiveness?
      2. And in fact, can he adamantly deny that prayer has anything to do at all with forgiveness and it will not affect how God views his prayer?
      3. However, since one of the purposes of prayer is forgiveness (whether one knows it or not), will God do His part and forgive the Christian that prays?
      4. Or, does the Christian have to intend to be forgiven in order to receive forgiveness when he prays?
      5. Conclusion: Christians need to be correctly taught that forgiveness of sins is achieved through fervent prayer.
    2.  It is clearly taught in Scripture that for the alien sinner, salvation and baptism are linked together. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21) We must admit that some may not have this understanding.
      1. What if an alien sinner is baptized out of obedience to God, but not for forgiveness of sins; is he forgiven even though he does not understand that he must be baptized for the remission of sins?
      2. And in fact, can he adamantly deny that baptism has anything to do at all with forgiveness and it will not affect how God views his baptism.
      3. However, since the purpose of baptism is so that one might receive the remission of sins (whether one knows it or not), will God do His part and give man forgiveness when that one is baptized?
      4. Or, does the alien sinner have to intend to be forgiven in order to receive forgiveness when he is baptized?
      5. Conclusion: Alien sinners need to be correctly taught that forgiveness of sins is achieved through baptism into Christ!
  3. The essential aspects of the Lord’s Supper.
    1. What are the essential aspects of the Lord’s Supper?
      1. The elements: unleavened bread & fruit of the vine. (Matt. 26:26-29)
      2. The day: first day of the week – Sunday. (Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7)
      3. The participant: those in Christ. (Acts 2:41-42; Acts 20:7; cf., Eph. 1:3)
      4. The purpose: to remember Christ’s sacrificial death. (1 Cor. 11:24-25)
    2.  Now suppose…
      1. Different elements were used instead of unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine – would the observance have God’s approval? Substantiate any other elements by Scripture!
      2. The Supper was observed on a day other than the “first day of the week” – would the observance have God’s approval? Substantiate any another day by Scripture!
      3. Those participating in the Lord’s Supper were not Christians, in the body of Christ – would their observation have God’s approval? Substantiate non-Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper by Scripture!
      4. The purpose of the Lord’s Supper was being observed for some reason other than remembering the sacrificial death of Jesus – would the observance have God’s approval? Substantiate a non-memorial observance by Scripture!
    3. Question: When it comes to the Lord’s Supper, are we required to understand the correct elements (unleavened bread and fruit of the vine), the correct day (first day of the week – Sunday), the correct participants (Christians), but not necessarily the correct purpose (in memory of Jesus’ sacrificial death)?
    4. Another question: In like manner (as asked in the first major point), when it comes to baptism – do we have to understand the correct mode (immersion), the correct element (water), the correct candidate (penitent believer), but not necessarily the correct purpose (for the remission of sins)?
  4. Music as worship in the Lord’s church.
    1. Is one pleasing to God when vocally singing, but without “understanding” in the worship of the Lord’s church? (1 Cor. 14:15) Answer: No!
      1. It is true that one does a part of what God says when singing, but one fails to “understand” the true intent of the command.
      2. One does not obey God merely by singing spiritual songs, unless that one does so with proper “understanding”, which is the purpose of singing: to praise God and edify one another. (Cf., Heb. 13:15; Col. 3:16)
    2. Is one pleasing to God when vocally singing “with the spirit…and also with the understanding” in the worship of the Lord’s church? Answer: Yes!
      1. Granting a couple of assumptions: one is not singing for one’s own glory, and one is not teaching false doctrine from the words of the song.
      2. Consider: Singing must have understanding in the assembly. God does not command us to sing, He commands us to sing with “understanding” – the intended purpose for singing in worship. The church is properly edified only when singing is done with “understanding.”
  5. Concluding thoughts about the purpose of obedience to God’s commands:
    1.  The basic principle that has been in place since the beginning of time when it comes to humanity’s obedience towards God can be stated as such:
      1. We must do what God says. (Ignoring God’s direct command is wrong!)
      2. We must do what God says the way God says. (Ignoring God’s prescribed way is wrong!)
      3. We must do what God says the way God says for the purpose God says to do it. (Ignoring God’s intended purpose is wrong!)
    2. Whether we are talking about the Israelite’s sacrifices, prayer to God, the observance of the Lord’s Supper, worshiping God in song within the assembly of the church, and certainly baptism, to eliminate purpose as an essential aspect to any of these specific commandments of God is an egregious error.

IV. SYLLOGISTIC REASONING AND SOME IMPORTANT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF BAPTISM

  1. Syllogisms:
    1. Purpose of the following arguments: The following arguments are given to demonstrate that the comparison between an Israelite offering sacrifices for forgiveness of sins is, in the sense compared, parallel to someone today being baptized for the forgiveness of sin. This is important; for once the analogy is accepted as valid, it can be used to demonstrate that if an Israelite had to understand the purpose for his offering, the one being baptized today must also understand the purpose of baptism.
    2. The Argument Stated:
      1. Major Premise: Conditional promises can be said to be parallel when the conditional element of the first is parallel with the conditional element of the second, and when the resultant element of the first is parallel with the resultant element of the second and if parallel, what is true of the first is true of the second.
      2. Minor Premise: In the comparison of the Israelite offering sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin with one today being baptized for the forgiveness of sin:
          1. The conditional element of the first: “If you offer sacrifice for forgiveness of sin,” is parallel with the conditional element of the second: “If you are baptized for the forgiveness of sin,” and
          2. The resultant element of the first: “I will forgive you,” is parallel with the resultant element of the second: “I will forgive you.”
      1. Conclusion: The conditional promise given to the Israelite: “If you offer sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, I will forgive you,” and the conditional promise given to people today: “If you are baptized for the forgiveness of sin, I will forgive you,” are parallel, and what is true of the first is true of the second.
    3. Background:Understanding that the Israelite offering sacrifice for forgiveness of sin is parallel to people today being baptized for forgiveness of sin, and understanding what is found to be true of the first, is to be accepted as true of the second, consider the following arguments:
      1. Argument One Stated:
        1. Major Premise: God forgives an Israelite who offers sacrifice, only when he purposely (that is, with understanding) offers his sacrifice for forgiveness.
        2. Minor Premise: The situation of an Israelite who purposely (that is, with understanding) offers his sacrifice for forgiveness, is parallel to the situation today of one who purposely (that is, with understanding) is baptized for forgiveness.
        3. Conclusion: God forgives one today who is baptized, but only when one purposely (that is, with understanding) is baptized for forgiveness.
      2. Argument Two Stated (the inverse):
        1. Major Premise: God does not forgive an Israelite who does not purposely (that is, with understanding) offer his sacrifice for forgiveness of sin.
        2. Minor Premise: The situation of an Israelite who does not purposely (that is, with understanding) offer his sacrifice for forgiveness of sin is parallel to one today who is not purposely (that is, with understanding) baptized for the forgiveness of sin.
        3. Conclusion: God does not forgive one today who is not purposely (that is, with understanding) baptized for the forgiveness of sin.
    4. Question: Has God ever given a command that he intended to be an intrinsic part of a conditional promise, a command that does not exist separate from the promise, which could be acceptably obeyed (or kept), without it being tied to the promise? That is, has God ever been pleased (considered man to be obedient) when man has performed any act of obedience without first considering (and agreeing with) the stated intent of God concerning that obedience? That is, where has God ever been pleased with man’s actions when man has acted independently of (without considering and agreeing with) the stated intent of God concerning the act of obedience?
      1. The purpose of the following arguments – The following arguments are given to demonstrate that the one who is baptized without understanding that baptism is for the remission of sins is not actually being obedient to God at all. His baptism is not pleasing to God, for he is acting without considering (agreeing with) the stated intent of God. And if his baptism is not pleasing to God, God will not shower man’s disobedience with God’s blessing, namely, forgiveness.
      2. Argument One Stated:
        1. Major Premise: God has never considered man to be obedient (been pleased with man) when man performs any act of obedience without considering (agreeing with) the revealed intent of God (which was given by God at the time the command was given) concerning that obedience.
        2. Minor Premise: One, who is baptized without knowing that baptism is for the remission of sins, is one who is performing an act without considering (agreeing with) the revealed intent of God concerning that obedience.
        3. Conclusion: When one is baptized without knowing that baptism is for the remission of sins, God does not consider such an one as having been obedient, and God is not pleased with him.
      3. Argument Two Stated:
        1. Major Premise: God will not reward those who are not obedient – those with whom he his not pleased.
        2. Minor Premise: God is not pleased with, nor does he consider obedient, the one who is baptized without knowing that baptism is for the remission of sins. (The conclusion of Argument One above.)
        3. Conclusion: God will not reward those who are baptized without knowing that baptism is for the remission of sins.
    5. Question: Can man truly be said to be obedient to a command of God if he does not understand that the command is part of a conditional promise, the keeping of which brings about the promise?
        1. Background:
          1. Some direct commands of God only exist within the framework, or body, of a conditional promise. That is, man would not know of the command except in its relation to the promise. Without the promise, the command would be aimless – void of any spiritual or noble end. For instance:
              1. Without the promise of the city of Jericho, the command to walk around the walls would be, for lack of a better word, aimless (other commands like love neighbor, not steal, and the like, have intrinsic nobility to them, reflecting the nature of God).
              2. Without the promise of forgiveness, the command to offer sacrifice would be aimless.
              3. Without the promise of forgiveness, the command to be immersed in water (be baptized) would be aimless.
          2. Within the framework of conditional promises, God never gives a unique specific command in isolation from the unique specific promise. But, when God connects the command with the promise of a city, or with forgiveness, then the command, and therefore commandment keeping, comes to life.
          3. For that matter, when God intrinsically links a unique specific promise and a unique specific command within the framework or corpus (body) of a conditional promise, the command never stands independently (separately, in isolation).
              1. Never does God separately (independently) give the command.
                1. Where else is the command to walk around a city without the mention of the city being given to the people? Is walking around a city a righteous thing? Does it in some way reflect the glory of God?
                2. Under the Law of Moses, where else is the command to sacrifice, where the command is clearly given without any connection to forgiveness? Is killing a animal a righteous thing? Does it in some way reflect the glory of God?
              2. Commands like these are part of a corpus (a body) and can only rightly be considered in connection with the rest of the corpus (the promise associated with the command).
              3. There cannot be any severing of the command from the corpus (body).
              4. If God does not give the command independently of the promise, then the command cannot be rightly obeyed (kept) without first considering the promise. It is an inseparable unit.
        2. Purpose of the following arguments – The following arguments are given to demonstrate that the conditional promise of salvation cannot be followed, comprehended, or even stated, without stating both (1) the promise, and (2) the condition that God gives for the reception of the promise. Furthermore, man cannot truthfully be said to be obedient to a direct command of God, within the corpus of a conditional promise, unless he knows (1) that there is a conditional promise, and (2) he knows what the command is that is part of the conditional promise.
      1. Argument one stated:
        1. Major Premise: Any keeping of a command that is part of a conditional promise (a promise that is only obtained by keeping the command), which keeping is separate and apart from the context of the promise, would not be keeping the command of God in the context that God has given it.
        2. Minor Premise: Some have kept the command to offer sacrifice and some are keeping the command to be baptized (both being parts of conditional commands), without considering the promise of forgiveness of sin.
        3. Conclusion: Those who offer sacrifice, or who are baptized without considering the promise of forgiveness of sin, are not keeping the command of God in the context that God has given it.
      2. Argument two stated:
        1. Given: A promise of God can be said to be conditional only when God states both the promise and the condition.
        2. Given: A conditional promise is composed of two elements: (1) an inseparable specific promise element, and (2) a condition in the form of an inseparable specific command element.
        3. Major Premise: In order to faithfully keep the inseparable conditional command element of a conditional promise, one must know that there is a conditional command element inseparably associated with the specific conditional promise.
        4. Minor Premise: One who does not know that baptism is for the remission of sins does not understand that baptism is the specific conditional command element that is inseparably associated with the specific conditional promise of forgiveness.
        5. Conclusion: One who does not know that baptism is for the remission of sins cannot be said to be faithfully keeping the command to be baptized.
      3. Argument three stated:
        1. Major Premise: Anyone who keeps a command of God, out of the context in which the command was given (argument one above), and anyone who does not faithfully keep a command of God (argument two above), cannot be said to be obedient to God.
        2. Minor Premise: One who is baptized not knowing that baptism is for the remission of sins, is being baptized out of the context in which the command was given and is not faithfully keeping a command of God.
        3. Conclusion: One who is baptized not knowing that baptism is for the remission of sins cannot be said to be obedient to God.
    6. Background:Vain obedience/worship is not acceptable to God. (Matt. 15:9)
      1. Major Premise: God is not pleased with “vain” obedience/worship (obedience/worship that is based upon the teachings of men and not the teachings of God).
      2. Minor Premise: Those that are baptized having been taught that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sin are guilty of vain obedience.
      3. Conclusion: God is not pleased with those that are baptized having been taught the teaching of man and not God: that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sin.
  2. Questions: The following questions are not in syllogistic form, yet, they are still important for our consideration.
      1. Is it not the case that Jesus really does expect his followers to understand what they are doing when they follow Him?
      2. What is Jesus trying to get across when He asks, “who builds a tower and does not first consider the cost”? Is blind obedience, obedience without considering what you are doing, a virtue?
      3. What is Jesus trying to get across when He asks, “who goes to war without first considering the enemies’ numbers”? Is blind obedience, obedience without considering really what you are doing, a virtue?
      4. In the Sermon of the Mount, does not Jesus expect people to think (properly evaluate) about the purpose of proper religious service?
      5. Does Jesus suggest, in any of his teachings that people are to “just obey” without understanding what they are doing?
      6. Besides the imbecile (the imbecile will be baptized with little to no understanding – just tell him to do it, and he will blindly obey like a child, for he is an imbecile), will God bless anyone who presumes to follow God who follows ignorantly, with little to no consideration about what he is doing?
      7. Did the 3,000 Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost understand that baptism was for the remission of sins? (Acts 2:37-41)
      8. Did Saul of Tarsus understand (know) that his sins were going to be “washed away” in baptism? (Acts 22:16)
      9. Was “remission of sins” preached to Cornelius and his household before they were commanded to baptized? (Acts 10:43, 47-48)
      10. If baptism for the remission of sins is the “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5) identified by Paul, does it follow that the Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius and his household, the Philippi an jailer, Lydia and her household, and the Corinthians were all baptized for the same purpose? (See Acts 8, 10 16, 18)

Conclusion: In the final analysis, I personally would not want to try to defend a position that affirms that any baptism not based upon the knowledge of the forgiveness of sins is acceptable to God. I believe that this study uncovers the fallacy of the vast majority of denominational baptisms practiced today, and it is my contention that Scriptural baptism into Christ must involve the correct mode (immersion), the correct element (water), the correct candidate (penitent believer), and the correct purpose (for the remission of sins).

May 13, 2008

Brent T. Willey, evangelist

Los Osos Church of Christ

2058 Los Osos Valley Road – PO Box 6870

Los Osos, CA 93412

(805) 528-1658

No Response to “Understanding the Essential Purpose of Baptism into Christ”

Comments are closed.