WATER BAPTISM IN JESUS’ NAME:
FROM HEAVEN OR FROM MEN?
By: J. Dan Gill
It has been the tendency of some to minimize the importance of water baptism. Casting it as a threat to salvation by grace through faith, it has often been relegated to the status of only a symbolic gesture. The Bible is not ambiguous with regard to baptism. However, the theology of many is often at odds with the scriptures. Consequently, people are predisposed to contort biblical teachings regarding baptism in order to force harmony between the scriptures and their own theological views. As a result, scriptural teachings about water baptism have been besieged by a most unlikely foe. Indeed, we have seen nothing short of what could be described as a Christian assault on Christian baptism.
Presently there is a teaching among some that baptism in water is not needful at all - nor even desirable. [1] In that view, it is believed that Christian water baptism was an issue of Moses' Law or simply a church tradition. It is often set in the light of "ritual," "ceremony," or "custom." It has even been proposed that the practice of water baptism largely serves the cause of Satan in his efforts to “obscure the truth from people and keep them in bondage.” [2] The chief problem with all such ideas is that they are not what was said about Christian water baptism by the writers of the scriptures.
This is a subject of no small consequence. As we will see, it is not possible to be faithful to the kingdom message while setting aside baptism in water or otherwise diminishing its significance. The purpose of this writing is to review the scriptural facts regarding Christian water baptism and to answer some of the key arguments that have been unfortunately set against it.
- Fact No. 1 - Water baptism is a part of true kingdom preaching.
If a ministry of the kingdom of God fails to preach water baptism, it cannot say its
message is the same as that of the preachers in the New Testament. Any ministry today seeking to
herald the kingdom without preaching water baptism has changed the terms of the reception of the
kingdom message. More than that, it has changed the message itself.
- Fact No. 2 - God was doing something new in Israel.
It is the case that there were various washings or ablutions associated with Moses' law. [5] It
also appears that there was an immersion associated with becoming a proselyte. John's baptism, however, was understood to be unique by the people of his day. This is made clear by the fact that
there were many pools in the city of Jerusalem in which ceremonial washings might take place.
Yet people were making the vigil out to places like the river Jordan to receive the baptism of
John. Unlike ablutions of the law, John's baptism was not related to the washing or cleansing of
the body but rather directly related to repentance and forgiveness of sins (Mat. 3:11, Mark 1:4).
Unlike typical ablutions of the law, John's baptism was not an act to be repeated at various times. Rather, it was a turning point in the lives of people in preparation for the coming of the Messiah and the kingdom of God. Ablutions and the immersions of proselytes were most often self-immersions whereas John's unique baptism was always received by people -- never something that they themselves did. [6] There was a baptizer and the baptizer got wet.
With all of this in mind, it is most important to recognize that it was God who sent John to preach baptism in water (Luke 3:2-3). Jesus presses this point with the chief priests and elders in Mat. 21:24-27. It was God who determined that people should receive a baptism in water to repentance for the forgiveness of sins. One could not say he had received the word of God that John preached with regard to the kingdom and reject the baptism he preached as part of that message. Likewise, no one could say he had repented when he rejected John's “baptism of repentance.”
A book written in disfavor of water baptism [7] (previously cited), fails to point out that John's baptism was unique and that it originated directly from God. Moses had long been dead when the voice of the one crying in the wilderness was heard (Mat. 3:1-3). Not everything that occurred during the term of Moses' law was of his law. The direction to John to preach the kingdom of God was not given to him by Moses -- neither was the unique baptism that he preached. Receiving John's baptism was incumbent upon the people of the day and could not be accomplished by any other immersion. God was truly doing something new in Israel.
Unlike typical ablutions of the law, John's baptism was not an act to be repeated at various times. Rather, it was a turning point in the lives of people in preparation for the coming of the Messiah and the kingdom of God. Ablutions and the immersions of proselytes were most often self-immersions whereas John's unique baptism was always received by people -- never something that they themselves did. [6] There was a baptizer and the baptizer got wet.
With all of this in mind, it is most important to recognize that it was God who sent John to preach baptism in water (Luke 3:2-3). Jesus presses this point with the chief priests and elders in Mat. 21:24-27. It was God who determined that people should receive a baptism in water to repentance for the forgiveness of sins. One could not say he had received the word of God that John preached with regard to the kingdom and reject the baptism he preached as part of that message. Likewise, no one could say he had repented when he rejected John's “baptism of repentance.”
A book written in disfavor of water baptism [7] (previously cited), fails to point out that John's baptism was unique and that it originated directly from God. Moses had long been dead when the voice of the one crying in the wilderness was heard (Mat. 3:1-3). Not everything that occurred during the term of Moses' law was of his law. The direction to John to preach the kingdom of God was not given to him by Moses -- neither was the unique baptism that he preached. Receiving John's baptism was incumbent upon the people of the day and could not be accomplished by any other immersion. God was truly doing something new in Israel.
- Fact No. 3 - The perfecter of our faith showed by example the importance of such a baptism.
It has been asserted that Jesus was baptized because the law of Moses was still pertinent to
him. [8] However, as we saw above, John's baptism was not prescribed by the law of Moses. To
receive the baptism of John was to fulfill the righteousness of God who sent John to baptize (Luke 7:29-30).
Jesus preceded his preaching of the kingdom by first receiving baptism in water. God was
pleased with him and chose this occasion to say so (Mark 1:9-11). Anyone today who has not or
will not repent and receive a baptism in water for the forgiveness of sins cannot truthfully say that
he has followed the example so carefully set by our Lord.
Jesus did not personally baptize others. Some have thought that this was because he was to be the baptizer with holy spirit. Again, perhaps his concern was the same as Paul's in writing to the Corinthians in which some might lay claim to special discipleship due to who baptized them. [9] Regardless, the fact is that baptism was received by people under the ministry of Jesus to the point that he was said to have baptized more people than John (John 4:1).
Many Christians today are hardly aware of the baptism in water that was such an important aspect of the ministry of our Lord. Perhaps the unfortunate disposition to diminish water baptism has left some uncomfortable with the idea of preaching about this amazing baptism by Jesus. The aforementioned book in opposition to water baptism follows this same pattern by not recognizing that the baptism under Jesus' ministry was distinct from John's and that it originated with God Himself. It also fails to point out the great extent of water baptism under Jesus' ministry. Indeed it is said that more people were baptized under his ministry than by John himself -- a man who was known as "the baptizer." It is clear that the greatest kingdom preacher of all time, Jesus, had a personal ministry which was characterized by baptism in water.
- Fact No. 4 - Jesus ministry was characterized by a wonderful water baptism.
Jesus did not personally baptize others. Some have thought that this was because he was to be the baptizer with holy spirit. Again, perhaps his concern was the same as Paul's in writing to the Corinthians in which some might lay claim to special discipleship due to who baptized them. [9] Regardless, the fact is that baptism was received by people under the ministry of Jesus to the point that he was said to have baptized more people than John (John 4:1).
Many Christians today are hardly aware of the baptism in water that was such an important aspect of the ministry of our Lord. Perhaps the unfortunate disposition to diminish water baptism has left some uncomfortable with the idea of preaching about this amazing baptism by Jesus. The aforementioned book in opposition to water baptism follows this same pattern by not recognizing that the baptism under Jesus' ministry was distinct from John's and that it originated with God Himself. It also fails to point out the great extent of water baptism under Jesus' ministry. Indeed it is said that more people were baptized under his ministry than by John himself -- a man who was known as "the baptizer." It is clear that the greatest kingdom preacher of all time, Jesus, had a personal ministry which was characterized by baptism in water.
- Fact No. 5 – Water baptism was an essential aspect of kingdom preaching after Jesus was received into heaven.
In his message on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, Peter is quite on point. After preaching
the word regarding Jesus, including that God has "made him both Lord and Messiah" (vv. 22-36),
many of those gathered asked of the apostles "Brothers, what should we do?" (v. 37). Peter as
key spokesman directs the people to repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. However,
according to Peter, such forgiveness is predicated upon the baptism being "in the name of Jesus
Christ" (v. 38).
It has been suggested that water baptism would not be applicable once holy spirit had been
given. However, that was never taught by John, Jesus nor any of the apostles. And, as we have
seen, the scriptures demonstrate precisely the opposite. There was in fact a great baptism in water
in Jesus' name that was preached in the heralding of the kingdom after he was received up and
after he sent holy spirit to his disciples. On the day of Pentecost, we find the apostles now
preaching the promise of holy spirit to a people expected to receive a baptism in water in the
name of Jesus as the Messiah -- giver of that spirit.
To suggest that Christ never intended for the disciples to baptize in water following his
being received up into heaven is inconceivable. Again, no scripture says that. If the apostles were
in error on this matter, then Jesus failed in monumental fashion to prepare his messengers to carry
forward the kingdom message (Acts 1:1-3, Mat. 28:20). If we cannot trust the word of the
apostles regarding water baptism as recorded in Acts 2:37-41, how shall we then be justified in
trusting the balance of their message?
It is upon the preaching that Jesus has been made Lord and Christ that repentance and
water baptism in his name is prescribed. It is upon prescription of that baptism that the promise of
holy spirit is indicated. How shall we then in any sense oppose that which the scriptures order? To
depart from Peter’s command regarding water baptism in Jesus’ name is to depart from the word
of God. We must take care not to oppose or otherwise diminish this baptism lest we be found
fighting against God.
We see in the second chapter of Acts the inception of that preaching of the kingdom which
followed Christ being received up and holy spirit being given. That preaching was inaugurated
with thousands receiving water baptism in Jesus' name. No one today can say that he is being
faithful to the kingdom message preached by the apostles who is not preaching that same water
baptism.
- Fact No. 6 - There is now only one baptism in water that is true to Jesus Christ.
The primacy of water baptism in the name of Jesus is again well illustrated by the case of
some early believers in the city of Ephesus. There we have a record of certain persons having
been baptized under John's baptism who were then immersed under Paul's ministry in the name of
the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5). Paul later writes to the church at Ephesus the wonderful affirmation
that in a world of varied water "baptisms" there is for the church "only one Lord, one faith and one
baptism" (Ephesians 4:5).
It has been indicated by some that the baptism intended by Paul in Ephesians 4:5 is
actually baptism in spirit to the exclusion of water baptism in the name of Jesus. [10] It has been thought that Paul, by the time of his writing to the Ephesians, had received a revelation that
baptism in water was not relevant. However, this "revelation" must be viewed as "The revelation
that never was." Clearly, Paul never speaks of having had such a revelation.
Baptism in water was widely known to the people of New Testament times. As a result,
the writers of the scriptures frequently referred to water baptism by the word "baptism" alone.
This was the commonly understood and customary reference of the word. Luke, Paul and others
regularly use this convention. For example, Luke's pattern in Acts of using the word "baptism" to
refer to immersion in water shows his confidence that the reader will readily understand "water" when he uses the word "baptism" alone (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12-13; 9:18, etc.).
This then allows us to test the peculiar idea forwarded by some that in Acts 19:5 Luke
suddenly uses the word "baptism" to refer to spirit exclusive of water! That idea fails in that it
flies in the face of overwhelming context to the contrary. It is unconvincing to argue that the word "baptism" somehow takes on a different reference by Luke in Acts 19:5 than it had just
previously in Acts 16:33 and afterwards in Acts 22:16. This is also made clear when we note that
Luke indicates “many” people in the city of Corinth had received water baptism under Paul's
ministry just prior to his coming to Ephesus (Acts 18:1, 7-8). We see then that Acts 19:1-5
provides a decisive contrast between the baptism that John preached and the greater water baptism
in Jesus' name which was preached by Paul and the other apostles.
Luke never indicates to his reader that at some juncture he is suddenly to understand that
the word "baptism" is now being used to refer to spirit to the very exclusion of water! Nor does
he ever tell Theophilus that water baptism has been supplanted or made obsolete by the coming of
the spirit. Likewise, Paul never speaks of a shift from the normal use of the word "baptism" in
reference to water. Such a shift would have been sharp and would have certainly required
clarification for his readers. Christians over time have rightly assumed the word "baptism" normally refers to immersion in water as that is how it is commonly used in the Bible. [11]
The immersions of the law and of proselytes are no longer relative and the baptism of
John has given way to the greater baptism in the name of Jesus as the Christ. Now, the only
baptism in water true to those anticipating the coming kingdom is that which is in the name of
Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.
- Fact No. 7 - Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ brings us into Christ.
We see the concept of people being baptized into Christ in Acts 19:5. There, Paul baptized
people in water into the name of the Lord Jesus. The phrase "into (Greek eis) the name of the
Lord Jesus" implies immersion into all that the person of Jesus Christ is and all that he represents
for us. [13] Hence, they were baptized into Christ. Paul uses language in the same way in his first
letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:13-15). Once again, we find the concept of being immersed into (eis) the name of a person, indicating a baptism into relationship with that person. It is significant
that in this passage Paul is by implication referencing water baptism “into” the name (i.e.
person) of Jesus Christ. In his renowned Greek-English lexicon, Walter Bauer directs us to this
same thought regarding water baptism into the name of Jesus:
"Through baptism eis (to) on. t. the one who is baptized becomes the possession of and comes under the protection of the one whose name he bears; he is under the control of the effective power of the name and the One who bears the name, i.e., he is dedicated to them." [14 15]
Water baptism in the name of Jesus clearly brings one into Christ. That fact discredits the
idea that as water is a physical substance and in baptism touches only the body that the water
baptism preached by the apostles could not effect the cleansing of the conscience. [16] That idea is
nowhere stated in the scriptures. How could a water baptism that God recognizes as bringing a
person into relationship with Christ not cleanse the conscience?
Note again that Peter in Acts 2:38 prescribes water baptism in the name of Jesus "so that
your sins may be forgiven." The forgiveness of one’s sins would most certainly cleanse the
conscience! Peter also addresses the matter of conscience quite directly in the third chapter of
I Peter. He was very familiar with ablutions of the law and ceremonial washings of the body.
He makes clear, however, that the water baptism that he preached was not about ceremony or
cleansing of the body. Rather, that baptism was in itself "an appeal to God for a good
conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (vv. 20-21) ...
Paul brings us to no less a conclusion regarding the cleansing of the conscience. In Acts
22 he effectively preaches water baptism in the name of the Lord in reciting the occasion when he
himself received baptism in water (v. 16). In that passage, he repeats the words of Ananias "be
baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name." How could a washing away of
Paul's sins in water baptism not cleanse his conscience? This then also brings to light the matter
of when Paul’s sins were forgiven. If Paul’s sins were forgiven prior to his being baptized as the
theology of some demands, then why would he need to wash away his sins by receiving baptism
while calling on the name of the Lord? Paul s own baptism in water then agrees perfectly with a
right understanding of his teachings regarding water baptism in the church epistles.
How could a water baptism in the name of Christ ever become irrelevant to Christians?
Our New Testament was written by preachers of the kingdom who were truly filled with holy spirit.
Our New Testament was written by preachers of the kingdom who were truly filled with holy spirit.
Those same kingdom preachers proclaimed a mighty water baptism in the name of Jesus as
the Messiah. That water baptism, if the scriptures are to be believed, saw the immersion of people
into Christ.
- Fact No. 8 - Receiving water baptism in faith makes us complete in Christ.
It has been argued that it is faith as opposed to baptism which of necessity would bring
people into relationship with Christ. However, this is a false dichotomy. Rather, Paul sets water
baptism in Jesus' name as the occasion of that faith. Note again that it was the faith of the
Colossians in the power of God at the time of their baptism that made it effectual, and it was the
crucial faith that God raised Jesus from the dead (v.12). [17]
Paul addresses that same faith in Romans 10:9. He tells the Christians at Rome "if you
confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the
dead, you will be saved." People today often isolate Paul's statements in this passage from a full
view of his own experience, ministry, and writings regarding faith and water baptism into Christ.
In reality we need look no further than this same writing to the Romans to find him declaring that
they had indeed been baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). Hence, the people in the Bible who were
confessing with their mouths that Jesus is Lord and believing in their hearts that God raised him
from the dead were a people who were receiving water baptism into Christ.
Paul speaks decisively to this matter in writing to the people at Galatia. There he reminds
them that "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized
into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ" (3:26-27 NIV) ... I have no right
to say that I embrace Paul's preaching regarding faith in passages like Romans 10:9 and disregard
or minimize his preaching concerning that faith and water baptism in the name of Jesus as the
Messiah.
The other apostles had been instructed and commissioned by the same Lord as Paul. In
Mark 16:16 we see Jesus presenting to the apostles the concept of water baptism and faith leading
to salvation. Hence, we find the essential relationship between faith and water baptism not only in
Paul's ministry but also in that of the apostles generally.
This is evident in Acts 2, where the apostles taught that people were to believe the
message of God's work in Christ and that God raised him from the dead (vv. 22-24). Those same
people were also to repent and receive a water baptism in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of
sins (vv. 37-38). Repenting and receiving baptism in faith was also the receiving of the faith. To
reject this repentance and baptism was to reject the word of God about Jesus. People could not
say they had believed the report of the word of God regarding His Christ, and turn away when the
same word brought them to water baptism in acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as that Christ.
- Another Baptism?
There has been the development of a variety of "baptisms" in the Christian world since
New Testament times. Those baptisms have tended to vary from the "one baptism" of the apostles
in form, purpose, and faith. How much variance can there be before it should be said that one has "another baptism"? Again, what is the justification for varying at all? When we do, both people
and truth are betrayed.
Any preaching of water baptism that excludes forgiveness of sins and being immersed into
the person of Jesus produces a different baptism than the apostles preached. In the scriptures, the
people being baptized in Jesus' name were people who understood his coming kingdom, knew who he really was and had faith in the work of God in him. Upon what faith are people being
baptized today?
In a series of distinguished lectures as well as in his exceptional book on baptism, G. R.
Beasley-Murray, PH.D., challenges the many variances from the one baptism of the apostles. He
particularly presses his fellow Baptists to re-evaluate the critical relationship between saving faith
and water baptism in the scriptures. Beasley-Murray states:
"Here is an aspect of baptism to which justice has not been done in the Church since its early days: baptism as a means of prayer for acceptance with God and for full salvation from God, 'an instrument of surrender.'" He goes on to say "The loss of this element in baptism is grievous and it needs to be regained if baptism is to mean to the modern Church what it did to the earliest Church." [18]
Evangelicals have generally recognized as obvious that certain passages in the epistles
(Ro. 6:3-4, Gal. 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.) refer to baptism in water. However, many of those same
evangelicals are then left with overall unsatisfactory and even embarrassing exegesis in their
quest to somehow make those verses harmonize with their own views regarding salvation.
Ultimately, they provide amazing exegetical gymnastics in their attempts to show that scriptural
statements such as people were "baptized into Christ" and "baptism saves us", etc. simply do not
mean what they say. Thoughtful people have rightly had difficulty accepting these painful efforts
to "explain away" the obvious with regard to these passages.
The approach of those now indicating that water baptism is not needful at all or even
desirable takes a different tact. They seek to resolve inconsistencies between their beliefs about
salvation and the scriptures regarding water baptism by conjecturing that the passages in question
refer to spirit exclusive of water. However, as this writing has clearly shown, that strategy also
fails. What the scriptures say about water baptism in Jesus' name thunderously disallows that
approach. There is of course an alternative available to all --
everyone could embrace the truth about water baptism in the name of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.
everyone could embrace the truth about water baptism in the name of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.
- Conclusion
It is an odd thing that Christians would in the name of Christ distance themselves from a
baptism in his name. It is time for us to ask ourselves the question, “Is water baptism in Jesus’
name from heaven or from men?” If from men, then indeed we should allow it no place in our
preaching of the kingdom message. On the other hand, if it is from God then who can rightly
claim to be a true minister of the word of the kingdom and not preach this baptism in the name of
its king?
Rather than proposing that the apostles for so many years erred regarding water baptism,
would it not be more reasonable to conclude that it is people today who err in this matter? The
apostles never speak of receiving a revelation that water baptism was not relevant. Rather than
hypothesizing such a revelation, is it not better to conclude that it is people now who err by
proposing the apostles did receive one?
Who will dare to say that even one writer of the New Testament was not baptized in
water?
Again, the person who opposes or diminishes water baptism in Jesus' name does so
without the benefit of a single scripture that characterizes it in a diminishing or negative light. They also do so in the face of a host of scriptures which bring to us this wonderful water baptism
in the name of our Lord.
It is unreasonable to say that water baptism is not of God and then in accommodation say
that God has not forbidden it. Neither is it sufficient to say that it is "permissible" or "acceptable" for people to be baptized in water or that people should be baptized just to "play it safe." The
scriptures do not allow such options. If the scriptures are to be our guide, they present us with
words in regard to water baptism like "every one of you", "the same day," "baptized without
delay" and "why do you delay? Get up, be baptized" etc. Such words convey a clear sense of
urgency. Does that same sense of urgency represent our attitude today about water baptism? If
not, why have we changed?
Further, we simply cannot allow a baptism in water but at the same time disallow its
significance as seen in the scriptures. True baptism is not whatever we say it is, it is whatever God
says it is. It is the scriptures that provide us with words regarding water baptism like "in the name
of Jesus Christ," "for the forgiveness of sins," "wash away your sins," "believes and is baptized
shall be saved," etc. Such words are clear. The only question is, "Will we believe them?" [19]
As is the case with some other important issues, there has been a long history of
unfortunate disputations over water baptism among Christians. Such disputations over baptism
did not exist among Christians in the scriptures. It is clear that they taught and believed in water
baptism. They never changed in that belief. There was no contention, however, because they all
believed in the same "one baptism." All argument on the subject of baptism today can cease if
people will simply embrace the one baptism into Christ that the apostles preached and the facts
regarding that baptism.
It is a singularly great privilege to herald the kingdom message in our day. It is a great
privilege to preach water baptism in the name of its king. When we do so we are in great
company. We are in the company of those kingdom preachers who followed the Lord and gave
their lives for his name. We are also in the company of those kingdom preachers today who with
joy preach that same baptism. To be true to the proclamation of the coming kingdom, we must
accurately proclaim this baptism as part of that message. We can hope to see nothing greater in
our time than the preaching of the kingdom of God with repentance and water baptism in Jesus' name of biblical character and proportions.
[1] J. A. Lynn, What is True Baptism? (Indianapolis: Christian Educational Services, 2002).
While Mr. Lynn s well-intended book represents that view, this writing is not a critique of his
book. Also, while his work is cited in this writing, it is not to be understood that all positions
noted in opposition to water baptism necessarily represent his views.
[2] Ibid., 37
[3] Unless otherwise noted, scriptural quotations are from the NRSV.
[4] Lynn, 8
[5] The "dispute" between some of John s disciples with a certain Jew over purifying (John
3:25) may have resulted from his confusing John s baptism with ablutions of the law and
challenging John s authority in the matter. Whatever the case, the passage provides no support to
the idea that John was conducting ablutions in accordance with the law of Moses.
[6] The use of the passive with regard to baptism in the New Testament is obvious.
[7] Lynn
[8] Ibid, 8
[9] It hardly seems needful to review the faultiness in the reasoning that turns Paul's point in
1 Cor. 1:13-17 from his not being sent "to baptize" into the notion that he is diminishing baptism
itself. Paul, of course, never subscribes to the latter. This passage brings to bear the importance of
being baptized in the name of Christ, while diminishing the importance of who baptizes one. Paul
is only saying that under the circumstances of their "party spirit" he is glad he did not personally
baptize very many of them, as they might use the fact he baptized them to assert unique
discipleship to Paul.
[10] Lynn, 18-19
[11] It should also be noted that the words baptismos / baptizo in their various forms occur
over 100 times in the New Testament. In the vast majority of those times the reference is to water.
This forms a pattern of normal use that is found throughout the New Testament. To disregard that
pattern is unjustified and works mischief with the intent of the writers.
[12] Robert Young, Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Hints and Helps to Bible
Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Co.), Item #44.
[13] The aforementioned book by Mr. Lynn rightly recognizes the import of the phrase "into
the name of the Lord Jesus" in Acts 19:5. However, it inappropriately assumes that baptism in
spirit as opposed to water must therefore be intended.
[14] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Trans & Adapted by
Arndt & Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 575.
[15] It is interesting to note that if the phrase "in the name of" carries the meaning "by the
authority of" as some have indicated, then on the day of Pentecost Peter is commanding water
baptism “in the name of,” i.e. "by the authority of" Jesus Christ! (Acts 2:38)
[16] Lynn, 16
[17] Like Paul, Martin Luther in his Small Catechism saw no conflict between his teaching of
salvation by grace through faith and water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. In the catechism,
the great reformer answers the question "What is baptism?" with "Baptism is not simple water
only, but it is water used by God's command and connected with God's word." To the question "What does Baptism give or profit?" he answers, "It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from
death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe, as the words and promise of
God declare."
Martin Luther, Dr. Martin Luther s Small Catechism 1529 AD (Milwaukee, Wis.,
Northwestern Publishing House), 16.
[18] G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1973), 102. These and other similar comments were made by Dr. Beasley-Murray
in lectures at four Southern Baptist Seminaries in the United States as well as in various
other lectures in Europe.
[19] Many evangelicals can picture "coming forward - in faith", "praying a sinner’s prayer -
in faith", “making a decision for Christ – in faith” or "confessing Christ - in faith" as the manner
of receiving Christ. It is peculiar that some of those same evangelicals stringently oppose the
thought of the first Christians -- that water baptism in the name of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ "in faith" was the occasion of coming to be in Christ.
This article was taken from
