Check back because new questions and answers are being added regularly

Question: Shouldn't babies be baptized since according to Psalm 51:5 they are born in sin?
 

Answer: There are two questions here that need to be addressed. First, what does the psalmist David mean when he wrote, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5)? Second, who comprised the “households” that were said to have been baptized in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians 1:16?

The setting of Psalm 51 is David’s prayer of repentance over the sin with Bathsheba, and is subtitled “To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David when Nathan the prophet when to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.” The psalmist begins this psalm by pleading for God’s mercy and forgiveness, and by openly confessing his transgressions against God.

When we come to verse 5, David expresses the fact that this sin was not something that happened as a result of a sudden thought that struck him in some unguarded moment. Rather, he acknowledges that the sin came about as a result of his own corrupt and depraved nature which led him to commit the sin. In verse 5, the psalmist describes his sinful nature, and tells us that it is so sinful that it is as if it had been with him since birth. When looking at his sin, and contemplating his own birth, it seems to David as if sin has been a prominent part of his life since his birth, and even since his conception. David is not saying he was literally “brought forth in iniquity,” nor is he saying “in sin my mother (literally) conceived me.” Rather he is looking back at his life and saying in an exaggerated sense that he has never been anything but sinful in nature.

There is nothing in this passage that speaks of the sin of another being imputed to David, nor is there anything here that says he was responsible for, or in some way inherited, the sin of Adam, or that he was guilty of sin because of Adam’s sin. While we may have been born with a propensity for, or inclination toward sin as part of our human nature, the Scriptures are silent regarding our inheriting sin, having the sin of another imputed to us, or being held responsible for and guilty of the sins of another. There is another psalm of David that may help shed some light on Psalm 51. This is Psalm 58:3. In this psalm, David is speaking of his enemies, and he writes, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” (Psalm 58:3). The word “wicked” in this verse is not specifically referring to the entire human race, but more to those men whose lives demonstrate a wicked character. David says it is as if they were wicked from the very moment they were “estranged from the womb.” It is as if “they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” These are clearly exaggerations made for the purpose of defining the wicked character of David’s enemies -- it’s as if they have always been wicked.

This passage cannot be used to speak of original sin, although many attempt to use it in that way, because David is not speaking of the entire human race. Furthermore, this passage, if applied to the entire human race, would contradict the very doctrine of imputed sin because the psalmist says “the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born” -- not before. There are several other passages that will help answer the argument that man is somehow born in sin. For example, God told the Israelites that they couldn’t enter the promised land because of their sins, but their children would: “Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.” (Deut. 1:39). Solomon wrote, “Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.” (Eccl. 7:29). God told Ezekiel, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” (Ezek. 18:20).

The Lord Himself said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3-4). If a child is born totally depraved, then why would the Lord say we must be like them -- totally depraved? Obviously, Jesus wanted His disciples to become like little children -- sinless and pure -- otherwise we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

The apostle Paul said, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23). All have fallen short of the glory of God because all have sinned -- not because all have been born in sin. In the same Roman letter, Paul said death has spread to all men, then proceeds to explain why: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” (Romans 5:12). Death has spread to all men because all have sinned -- not because all were born in sin. Paul also speaks of his own spiritual condition before reaching an age of reason (accountability), “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.” (Romans 7:9-11). There is simply no Scripture that in any way indicates man is born in sin -- Psalm 51:5 certainly doesn’t teach it, nor does any other passage.

Regarding the various “households” that were baptized in the book of Acts (Cornelius 10:1-48; 11:14; Lydia 16:15; The Jailer 16:31-34; Crispus 18:8)  and 1 Corinthians (Stephanas 1:16), it is pure assumption on the part of the reader to conclude that these households included infants. This is what is known in logic as a “hasty generalization.” The term household neither confirms or denies the presence of infants -- for some households have infants while others do not.

The only way we can know if the households which were baptized in Acts and 1 Corinthians included infants is to see what else the Scriptures say about people who were baptized. First, they all did things no infant could do -- they were taught about the Lord and comprehended that teaching, they received the word, they believed Christ was the Son of God based on what they had been taught and comprehended, they repented of their sins, they confessed their faith in Christ before men, and then they were baptized. Luke tells us that those who were baptized following Philip’s preaching in Samaria were men and women:  “But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” (Acts 8:12). Were there no infants in Samaria?

It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the “households” that were baptized in Acts and 1 Corinthians included “men and women” who were capable of being taught the word, comprehending the word, receiving the word, believing, repenting and confessing. Infants cannot do those things, therefore infants were not baptized.

Question: Why is the only form of baptism immersion?  What about sprinkling?

Answer: If we were to look up the word “baptism” in a regular dictionary we would find three acceptable forms listed:  sprinkling, pouring or immersion. But is this the way baptism was defined in the Scriptures. There are two methods we can use to properly define baptism. One method would be to look at the Scriptures themselves that deal with the subject and draw our own conclusions as to whether sprinkling or pouring are included in the form of baptism. The other method would be to look at the original Greek word, which would tell us how the word was used in New Testament times. In answering this question, we will attempt to do both.

Let’s look at some passages that will help us define the mode or form of baptism. First, baptism includes water. John said, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance,” (Matt. 3:11; also Acts 8:36; Acts 10:47-48). Second, baptism requires much water:  “Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salem, because there was much water there.” (John 3:23). Baptism requires going to the water:  “Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?’” (Acts 8:36). Baptism requires both the one being baptized and the one doing the baptizing to go down into the water:  “So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:38). Baptism requires both the one being baptized and the one doing the baptizing to come up out of the water:  “Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.” (Acts 8:39). Baptism also requires a burial (in water):  “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4; also Colossians 2:12).

Many who object to baptism as being a burial argue that we do not bury someone by plunging them through the dirt!  They say, we dig a hole, place the body in it, and sprinkle or pour dirt in. Therefore, they conclude, sprinkling and pouring are also included in the term “to bury.”  John Wesley argued, “Tis true, we read of being “buried with Christ in baptism” (cf. Rom. 6:4). But nothing can be inferred from such a figurative expression. Nay, if it held exactly, it would make as much for “sprinkling” as “plunging,” since in burying, the body of not “plunged” through the substance of the earth, but rather earth is poured or sprinkled.” (Theological Foundations, Church and Sacraments V, John Wesley). Where Wesley’s logic breaks down is forgetting that a body which is buried by having earth poured or sprinkled on it, is a body that is completely surrounded in, and overwhelmed by, earth -- not partially covered with a light sprinkling or pouring of dirt.

To answer this, let’s consider the word “baptism.” Holman’s Bible Dictionary says, “The immersion or dipping of a believer in water symbolizing the complete renewal and change in the believer's life and testifying to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the way of salvation.” The word “baptize” comes from the Greek verb “baptizo”, which means “immerse, dip, submerge,” or “to overwhelm.” The word “baptisma” (baptism), according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, means “consisting of the process of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, to dip), is used of John’s baptism, of Christian baptism, of the overwhelming afflictions and judgments to which the Lord voluntarily submitted on the Cross, e.g., Luke 12:50.” The word “baptizo,” according to Vine’s, means “to dip, was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc... and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions (Euthydemus, 277 D).”

To understand the connection between the word “baptism” and the word “buried,” we simply need to go to Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12, and compare these passages to the events surrounding the burial of Christ -- since both passages speak of baptism in connection with our being buried with Christ, or being buried in the same manner as Christ.

How was Christ buried? There are three things that happened. First, Jesus died on the cross. Second, He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea-- a tomb that had been “hewn out of the rock” (Matthew 27:57-60). And third, He was resurrected from the dead and the tomb was found empty. When Jesus was buried in the tomb, He was not “sprinkled” or “poured” with dirt -- but He was “overwhelmed and surrounded by” the rock tomb itself. The element in which Jesus was buried was the tomb. In the same manner, three things happen when we are baptized. First, we die to our sins -- to our former way of life. Second, we are “buried” in baptism. Third, we are resurrected to walk in a newness of life. The element in which we are buried is water -- which corresponds to the tomb in which Jesus was buried. Water becomes our tomb. This is how our baptism parallels the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this is why the apostle Paul chose to use this parallel in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12.

Question: Is baptism necessary for a person to be saved?

Answer: John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” In Romans 10:9-10, the apostle Paul wrote, “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” And, in Acts 16:31, Paul and Silas told the Philippian Jailer, “...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Many assume these passages teach the total sum of what is required for salvation -- simply believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Clearly, faith is the foundation upon which our obedience is built. The Hebrew writer tells us, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). Therefore, faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely essential for salvation. But there are several other passages that equate certain acts or actions with salvation.

For example, there are several passages that speak of Repentance in the context of salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30-31). Is repentance necessary for salvation? Can a person be saved if he doesn’t repent of -- turn away from -- his past sins? Obviously, no one believes a man can be saved without repentance, especially since repentance is also equated with salvation.

What about Confession -- that is, confessing our faith in Jesus Christ before men? There are several passages that also speak of confession in the context of salvation (Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:9-10; also see John 12:42-43). Is it possible for someone to be saved from their sins if they refuse to confess their faith in Christ before men? Certainly not!  Confession of our faith in Jesus Christ is just as essential as repentance and belief.

But there is one other act that is equated with salvation in a number of passages, Baptism. For example, consider the following Scriptures that speak of baptism in the context of salvation (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21). If repentance from our sins is necessary because it is spoken of in the context of salvation, and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord is necessary because it is also spoken of in the context of salvation, why not baptism as well? Can a person be saved without baptism? The New Testament clearly says “No!” Our belief that baptism is also essential for salvation is not “water salvation.” We do not believe the Bible teaches that a person can be saved simply by being immersed in water. Faith, repentance and confession of faith in Christ must proceed baptism for it to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish. However, if one of those essential ingredients are missing, baptism will accomplish nothing.

If all the Philippian jailer and his household had to do was to simply “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31), then why did Paul and Silas see to it that “he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16:33)?

Question: Isn’t baptism a “work,” and doesn’t the Bible say we are saved by grace and not by works?

Answer: Ephesians 2:8-9 reads, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” We certainly do not dispute the fact that we are saved by God’s grace (unmerited favor) through our faith in Jesus Christ. Salvation is a gift of God and is clearly not something we earn through performing works of merit -- works by which we can boast. In fact, the apostle Paul makes this same argument in Romans chapter 4. There he says, “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt” (Romans 4:4). If salvation were on the basis of our works, then salvation is no longer by grace (unmerited favor), but as a result of debt -- God being indebted to give us salvation because we earned it as one would earn wages. Salvation based on works is salvation by which we can boast. Salvation would then be something we earned through our own merit. But the apostle Paul makes it clear that we cannot earn, or in any way merit, salvation -- it is a gift of God. This not saying we don’t have commandments to obey.

For example, the Hebrew writer speaks about obedience. In Hebrews 5:8-9, he writes about Jesus Christ, saying, “though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Also see: Romans 10:13-16)  Jesus does not author eternal salvation to those who do not obey Him. Therefore, obedience to the Lord is essential to salvation. But even after we have obeyed the Lord, we do not earn salvation by that obedience, we simply did what we were asked to do. Jesus gave a similar illustration of this very point in Luke 17:7-10.

Salvation is clearly a gift of God, and nothing we earn on the basis of our works or on the basis of our own moral attributes. But works are important, according to James. He says there is no other way we can demonstrate the authenticity of our faith without works. James writes, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’ but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’  Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe; and tremble!  But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’  And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:14-26).

Works authenticate and validate our faith. Obedience to the commandments of the Lord show our faith is real and genuine -- whether we are speaking of the commandments of the Lord needed to become a Christians, or those commandments of the Lord for Christians to follow after obeying the gospel. Now to address the question about baptism. Is baptism a work? Is it something we do? Of course it is. But so is believing in the Lord, repenting of our sins, and confessing our faith in Him before men. These are also things we do, and could be called works. Are these works by which we can boast -- in other words, are these works of men or works of God? They are clearly commandments of the Lord. If we do them, we act out of obedience. But if we refuse to do them, we act out of disobedience. If we cannot be saved by baptism because it is something we do (a work), then neither can we be saved by believing, repenting or confessing our faith in Christ.

Clearly, baptism, believing, repenting and confessing, are not in the same category of the works which Paul spoke against in Ephesians 2:8-9. These are all commandments of the Lord by which we are saved if we do them, and by which we will be lost if we don’t do them. Besides, Jesus told us, “if you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Keeping the Lord’s commandments (and He clearly commanded faith, repentance, confession and baptism) shows we love Him. Refusing to keep the Lord’s commandments (including faith, repentance, confession and baptism) shows we do not love Him.

Question: Isn’t baptism only an outward sign of an inward conviction?

Answer: Those who ask this question believe salvation is strictly by faith in Jesus Christ only, and that salvation comes before baptism, and is not dependent upon baptism at all. They believe salvation comes, as they say, because they have accepted Christ as their personal Savior. To them, baptism is nothing more than an “outward sign,” a “symbol,” or a means of demonstrating outwardly, what they believe they have already done within their heart: namely dying to their sinful way of life and being resurrected to a newness of life in Jesus Christ by accepting Christ into their heart.

Baptism is not simply an “outward sign” of an “inward conviction,” nor is baptism a “symbol.” Baptism saves. Peter said, “There is also an antitype which now saves us; baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). In Romans 6:1-6, the apostle Paul wrote, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!  How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.”

The apostle Paul shows that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the “symbol” of what we find in baptism -- not the other way around. Just as Jesus died on the cross, we die to our sinful way of life. And just as Jesus was buried in the tomb, we are buried in baptism (immersed in water). Finally, just as Jesus was resurrected from the dead by the power of God, we are also raised from our burial in baptism to walk in a newness of life. We are not demonstrating outwardly some inner conviction on our part, we are doing what the death, burial and resurrection of Christ symbolizes. We will discuss more about “types” and “antitypes” in the question dealing with 1 Peter 3:21.

Question: Doesn’t the phrase “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:28) mean “because of the remission of sins” – meaning sins had already been forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ?

Answer: In Acts 2:38, it reads, “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” This phrase, “for the remission of sins,” appears in another passage. In Matthew 26:28, Jesus was in the midst of instituting the Lord’s Supper. This passage says that Jesus took the cup which contained fruit of the vine, and said, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” If the phrase “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 means “because of sins -- meaning because their sins had already been forgiven,” then it means the same thing in Matthew 26:28. Jesus would then be saying He is shedding His blood for the sins for many “because of sins -- meaning because their sins had already been forgiven.” Is that really what Jesus meant -- that He was shedding His blood on the cross because mankind’s sins had already been forgiven? Hardly!  Jesus was shedding His blood so that man’s sins could be forgiven -- the cross and the shedding of blood looked forward to what would happen rather than back at what had already happened. Therefore, Jesus understood that it would take the shedding of His blood for sins to be forgiven in the future. The same thing is being said by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. Peter is telling these devout Jews to be baptized so that their sins could be forgiven. He was telling them to look forward to what would happen once they were baptized, not what had already happened. Beside, we are told that “according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.” (Hebrews 9:22). Therefore, it would have been impossible for there to have been forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ before Christ’s blood was shed on the cross. In the same manner, it would be impossible for there to be remission of sins before baptism, since baptism is “for the remission of sins” -- looking forward to the remission of sins.

Question: How does 1 Peter 3:21 prove baptism is essential for salvation?

Answer: The passage in question needs to be considered in its context. Peter writes, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us; baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.” (1 Peter 3:18-22).

Here is the argument made by those who oppose what this passage clearly teaches. They argue that Peter is highlighting the symbolic significance of the Flood for the believer. The flood waters were waters of death that buried the people in a watery grave. But the waters that swallowed up the earth in judgment and death were the same waters that lifted the eight who were in the ark to safety. It’s a vivid picture of our salvation. Today, they say, we have another vivid picture of salvation -- baptism. The water of baptism, like the flood waters in ancient times, pictures death. As we go down into that water, they agree that we illustrate our death to sin and our burial with Christ. As we rise up out of the water, they agree that we illustrate our resurrection to a new kind of life (Romans 6:1-4).

But here is where the problems begin to surface in the denominational arguments. While we both agree that verse 21 is referring to verse 20 and to the symbolic form of salvation found for the eight in the ark, they argue that just as the waters in Noah’s day lifted up the ark and gave safety to those within, so the waters of baptism today “symbolizes” salvation to those who are baptized. To them, baptism is only a symbol of what we have supposedly already accomplished by being saved by faith only -- it is only a “symbol” (or, to put it another way, baptism is simply “an outward demonstration” of an “inward conviction”).

They argue that the act of baptism does not save us, it just symbolizes the salvation that has already taken place. They also say that Peter himself says baptismal waters in no way cleanse the flesh -- either literally or figuratively -- but they give us a good conscience toward God. They like to quote 1 Peter 3:21 from The Living Bible which reads, “That, by the way, is what baptism pictures for us: In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom by the resurrection of Christ; not because our bodies are washed clean by the water, but because in being baptized we are turning to God and asking him to cleanse our hearts from sin.” (v. 21 TLB).

But let’s look at a few other translations of 1 Peter 3:21. The King James Version: “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.” The New King James Version:  “There is also an antitype which now saves us; baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The American Standard Version:  “Which also after a true likeness doth now save you, (even) baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The New International Version:  “And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The New English Bible:  “Which was a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you. It is not the washing off of bodily dirt, but the promise made to God from a good conscience. It saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

All of these reliable translation flatly contradict that of The Living Bible. And no wonder. The Living Bible is a “paraphrased version” of the Bible taken from other English translations by a man who admitted he had no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew -- although he says his version “has undergone several major manuscript revisions and has been under the careful scrutiny of a team of Greek and Hebrew experts to check content, and of English critics for style. There many suggestions have been largely followed...” The author admits that a paraphrase “is to say something in different words than the author used... a restatement of an author’s thoughts, using different words than he did.” He also admits that it was his purpose to expand on the meaning of the Scriptures “where necessary for a clear understanding by the modern reader.” The Living Bible is therefore a highly prejudiced and inaccurate translation of the divinely inspired Word of God.

Just what was Peter saying in 1 Peter 3:20-21? He is saying that when God decided to destroy the earth by water, He commanded Noah to build an ark which would be the means by which Noah and his family would be transported from a world of destruction to a world of safety. Peter says this was a type, a symbol, or a “true likeness” of how sinners are saved from the destruction of sin. Baptism is not the symbol, the waters of the flood and the ark are the symbol. The waters of the flood were a “type,” while the waters of baptism are an “antitype.” The definition of a “type” is “a figure or representation of something to come; a token, a sign; a symbol.” For example, if I depressed my hand into molding clay, the image left behind in the clay would be a “type” of my hand. The antitype is something the type foreshadows, and is always superior in spiritual meaning to the type. For example, Moses is a “type” (a symbol, a representation of) Christ in that Moses was a mediator for the people of Israel, and Christ is our mediator. The sacrificial lamb was a “type” (a symbol, a representation of) the Lamb of God (Christ). And the waters of the flood are a “type” (a symbol, a representation of) baptism.

Just as the flood waters saved Noah and his family, Peter says “there is also an antitype which now saves us; baptism.” Just as Noah and his family were delivered from destruction by means of the flood waters, Peter says there is “a like figure” (KJV) by which we are delivered from eternal destruction -- namely baptism. The term “like figure” in the KJV is translated “antitype” in the NKJV. Strong’s Dictionary says the word means “a counterpart.” W.E. Vine offers the following application of the word: “a corresponding type, (1 Peter 3:21), said of baptism; the circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms ‘a corresponding type’... each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ.” Peter also clarified any possible misconception by saying it is not the washing away of bodily filth, rather it is an earnest appeal to God Almighty for a clean and good conscience. The earnest appeal is a personal pledge and promise to God by one who believes in His Son and is baptized. It is offered not in words but in the act of obedience to God.

Baptism is a command that must be obeyed if a sinner is to be saved. W.E. Vine writes “Eperotema, (1 Peter 3:21), is not, as in the KJV, an ‘answer.’  It was used by the Greeks in a legal sense, as a ‘demand or appeal.’  Baptism is therefore the ground of an ‘appeal’ by a good conscience against wrong doing.” The denominational position would say, “we are not baptized to be saved, we are saved to be baptized.” But Peter made it clear that baptism saves us.

Question: Doesn’t Romans 6:4 teach that baptism is only a “symbol” of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ?

Answer: The problems people have with seeing the baptism in Romans 6:4 as a “symbol of the death to sin and resurrection to a new life that we have supposedly already attained by faith in Christ Jesus,” is the same problem they have with seeing the baptism that saves in 1 Peter 3:21 as being a symbol. Neither one is a symbol. The symbol of 1 Peter 3:21 was the waters of the flood, while baptism was what the symbol foreshadowed, and is therefore superior in spiritual meaning to the symbol or type. In Romans chapter 6, Paul wrote, “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4). The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the “type” or “symbol,” while baptism is the “antitype” -- something the type foreshadowed, and is therefore superior in spiritual meaning to the type or symbol. The resurrection of Jesus Christ symbolizes our own resurrection to a “newness of life” which comes after baptism, not before. Therefore, baptism is not the symbol. Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection is the symbol. Baptism is what that symbol pointed toward or foreshadowed.

Question: How was the thief on the cross saved, he wasn’t baptized?

Answer: Luke’s account of the crucifixion says, “Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, ‘If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.’  But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.’  Then he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.’  And Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.’” (Luke 23:39-43). There are several things we need to understand about the “thief on the cross.” First, he was crucified and died before the events on the Day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon was preached, and when Peter commanded all who were present to “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38). Second, assuming this man was a Jew, he lived and died under the Old Covenant (the Law of Moses), which did not require baptism for the remission of sins. Third, Jesus customarily forgave sins as He chose, without requiring baptism because He was the Son of God. He forgave the paralytic (Matthew 9:2), the woman in Simon’s house (Luke 7:47), and the woman caught in adultery (John 8:11). Therefore, Jesus could simply speak and a man’s sins could be forgiven. But now Jesus requires baptism as a means of accomplishing forgiveness of sins (Mark 16:16).

Question: Didn’t Holy Spirit baptism save Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:44-46)?

Answer: If so-called “Holy Spirit Baptism” is what saved Cornelius and his household, why did Peter say, “‘Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 10:47-48)? Cornelius and his household had already received an outpouring of the Holy Spirit and were speaking in tongues -- in the same way as the apostles did on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-11; 11:15). However, after this baptism of the Holy Spirit, Peter commands that Cornelius and his household be “baptized in the name of the Lord.” This baptism was water baptism. There is only one conclusion we can come to -- Holy Spirit baptism doesn’t save, but water baptism in the name of the Lord does. Otherwise, why would water baptism in the name of the Lord have been “commanded?” Peter didn’t “suggest” water baptism in “the name of the Lord,” he “commanded” it!

Question: Isn’t the baptism of Acts 2:38 Holy Spirit baptism?

Answer: The passage reads, “Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). The baptism in Acts 2:38 is baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ.” A promise connected with this baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ,” is that those who were thus baptized would “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” What is baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ?” Baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ,” is the same thing as being baptized “in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 10:48). Since Jesus Christ is the Lord, then baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” is the same thing as baptism “in the name of the Lord.” But according to Acts 10:47-48 baptism “in the name of the Lord” requires “water,” and on the occasion of the conversion of Cornelius and his household, was administered to those who had already received an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, baptism “in the name of the Lord” could not be Holy Spirit baptism, but rather baptism in “water.” If this is true of baptism “in the name of the Lord,” which it is, then it is also true of baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ.” The baptism of Acts 2:38 is also water baptism, and is something completely different from Holy Spirit baptism.