One Baptism

by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Notes
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
What is the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5?

The words “baptism” or “baptized” are employed in several different senses in the New
Testament.

Sometimes baptism refers to the overwhelming power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) which was
bestowed upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4), and which later was granted to
the household of Cornelius in order to demonstrate divine approval of God’s acceptance of the
Gentiles (Acts 10:44-47; 11:15-17).

Usually, however, when the term “baptized” is employed, the reference is to a water ritual
associated with the remission of sins – whether during John the Baptizer’s ministry (Mark 1:4),
or later in the Christian age (Acts 2:38). On the day of Pentecost, there were thus two
“baptisms” – one upon the apostles (2:4), Holy Spirit baptism and another in water for penitent
believers (2:38, 41).

It appears strange to some, therefore, that Ephesians 4:5 stresses the fact that there is but
“one baptism.” What is the one baptism? Spirit baptism, or water baptism?

It is clearly water baptism for the following reasons:

1. The baptism of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) was water baptism – as
evidenced by the fact that it had a human administrator. It was to last till the end of
the world. Consequently, Holy Spirit baptism is eliminated.
2. F.F. Bruce says: “...baptism in the New Testament is always baptism in water unless
the context shows it to be something else; that is to say, the word is always to be
understood literally unless the context indicates a figurative meaning” (Questions
Answered, p. 106). There is nothing in this passage to indicate a figurative usage.

This passage is a strong argument against Holy Spirit baptism today. Underline “one baptism,”
and jot this note: The age-lasting baptism of Matthew 28:19. No Holy Spirit baptism today.

More Preaching on Baptism?

by Jason Jackson
Christian Courier: Penpoints
Monday, December 16, 2002
Does the church need more preaching on baptism? How does one determine balance in gospel preaching? Jason
Jackson addresses this issue in this week’s Penpoints.

What do you think? Do we need more sermons on baptism? Ask that question and you will
receive a variety of answers. In fact, you will no doubt get conflicting answers – depending
upon with whom you are talking. Some have expressed the opinion that “all we hear” are
sermons on baptism.

First, one need not apologize for teaching any New Testament doctrine. In fact, we are not
given the choice as to whether or not we should preach on baptism. As a part of God’s revealed
will, and an essential component of His salvation plan, we must preach it (cf. 2 Tim. 4:2; Mt.
28:19). To pervert the gospel of Christ, by adding to it, or taking something away from it, is to
labor under the divine curse of eternal punishment (cf. Gal. 1:6-9).

Second, the accusation simply is not true. As a part of the teaching orientation of the church,
we try to have a balance of “milk” and “meat.” These terms are biblical illustrations, used in
Hebrews 5:12-14, for a distinction in the different kinds of teaching that are appropriate for
specific spiritual needs. There is a need for “milk” (i.e., the fundamental aspects of the
gospel).

However, for those “who by reason of time” ought to be teachers, there is the expectation
that they will partake of “solid food.” Therefore, the inspired writer of Hebrews challenges the
spiritually immature to make the kind of progress whereby they would be able to digest
teaching that would take them beyond the fundamentals to more advanced Christian
principles.

Statements like “all we hear are sermons on baptism” probably can be explained in several
ways.

1. Some attend a handful of services and assume, from such a small sample, what “all”
the teaching periods of our worship services must be like.
2. To hear any sermon on baptism is too much for some. Such individuals, sadly, have
absorbed the denominational view that baptism is a non-essential.

Unfortunately, that mentality has affected even some leaders in the Lord’s church. C. Leonard
Allen, in his book The Cruciform Church, criticized T. W. Brents’ book, The Gospel Plan of
Salvation, for the number of pages that were devoted to the subject of baptism, in contrast to
the number of pages which concentrated on the cross of Christ.

What a false dichotomy! Whose idea was it to array the doctrine of baptism against the
teaching about the cross? Further, what arrogance it is to presume to know how many pages
ought to be assigned to a certain topic, and how many are too much. Yes, I recognize the point
Allen was trying to make. He alleged that we do not focus upon the cross enough. But the
question is this: In order to focus on the cross more, is it essential to focus on baptism less?

A few years ago, I sat in a class designed for young married people as I was traveling through
central Alabama. The teacher rehearsed Allen’s criticism of Brents’ book. He also echoed the
common criticism relative to the “pioneer preachers’” sermons, “What must I do to be
saved?”. One of my written questions to him was this: “How do you know what has been
preached on the subjects of the cross, and grace, for the last 200 years – throughout the
brotherhood?”

We are living, as Dr. Brents was (he was a physician), in a religious world that largely denies
the essentiality of baptism for the remission of sins (see Acts 2:38). While there must be deep
appreciation for the cross, how can one benefit from Christ’s redemptive work if he denies
God’s plan pertaining to how to receive it? It is ridiculous to portray respected gospel
preachers of the past – e.g., N. B. Hardeman, Gus Nichols, and others – as men who neglected
the cross, and who were spiritually unbalanced in their preaching. The truth of the matter is,
we do not need less of any Bible topic. We need as much biblically balanced preaching and
teaching as we can get – milk and meat!

At the same time, there are a few obtuse souls who proclaim that “we need more sermons on
baptism” because they perceive that all other preaching is “in the clouds.” Some allege that
the reason the church is not growing is that we are not preaching on baptism enough. And so,
most any preaching and teaching that attempts to do what the Hebrew writer commanded (in
terms of advancing beyond the fundamentals) is battered and belittled. A number of false
assumptions are incorporated into this unbalanced mind-set.

1. Some would erroneously conclude that “growth” can be measured only in the numbers
of converts. One should not minimize the need to teach the lost, and sermons on the
plan of salvation, for one minute – as my comments above reflect. However, the pulpit
has an obligation to assist in maturing Christian brethren beyond the first principles of
the gospel.

The reality is, it is more difficult to prepare “meat” during some of those “front-
row/last-minute” preparations, than it is milk! If one cannot see the need for solid
spiritual food, there will be little time or effort expended to study and teach it. Where
that mentality prevails, a lack of spiritual development results. This is the greatest
proof that a steady diet of milk for growing Christians is spiritual starvation.

2. Another false assumption is this: if one preaches deeper spiritual truths, he must be
neglecting evangelism and outreach. The allegation is raised, for example, that if one
teaches on the book of Revelation, or on Christian evidences, he obviously is neglecting
the teaching of the lost. Did Jesus indicate that teachers are to focus only upon one
aspect of the great commission? Did the Lord suggest that evangelizing the lost, and
teaching the saved, are in competition?

There may be a number of reasons why the church is not growing in numbers, and no doubt
there are additional reasons why the church is not maturing in strength. We must teach both
the lost and the saved; each aspect of the great commission must be obeyed.

As teachers, we must appreciate the diverse makeup of our assemblies, and we must
understand the distinct teaching obligations we have to unbelievers, new converts, and mature
Christians alike. We are not perfect, and we have room for growth. Yet, we are aware of the
need for balanced preaching, and we must try to meet the variety of spiritual needs that are
present in our church assemblies.

Is “Re-baptism” Scriptural?
by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Questions
Tuesday, June 3, 2003
What about the issue of “re-baptism”? Some say that “re-baptism” should never be practiced – no matter what
the circumstances of one’s original baptism were. But what do the Scriptures say? Read this article and reflect
upon the nature your own baptism, in light of the biblical teaching regarding this divine ordinance.
“Is there ever a justification for being ‘re-baptized’? I have questioned my baptism. I was
very young and really did not comprehend the seriousness of what I was doing. I have
considered being baptized again, but some say that it would not be right to be baptized a
second time.”

Your question is a very legitimate one. There are some people, even among religious leaders,
who oppose any form of re-baptism. For instance, in 1996, the General Conference of the
United Methodist Church, in a convention conducted in Denver, Colorado, debated the matter
of re-baptism. A position paper, issued by the conference, declared that Methodists who were
baptized as infants should never be baptized again. The document explicitly stated: “Whether
a baptized infant grows up to be a professing Christian or not, that baptism stands valid.”

This position is flawed in many particulars, having no scriptural support whatsoever.

New Testament Precedent

While on his third missionary campaign, the apostle Paul came to the city of Ephesus. There,
he encountered twelve men who formerly had been baptized (with the type of baptism
administered by John the Baptizer). One might be inclined to conclude, therefore, that the
apostle would have accepted these men as they were, and merely organized them into a
church.

Such was not the case, however. After questioning them as to the nature of their earlier
baptism, and determining that their pre-baptism instruction on the previous occasion had been
lacking in essential particulars, Paul immersed these men into Christ (see Acts 19:1-5).

This case clearly demonstrates that in order for one’s baptism to be valid, accurate teaching
must precede the rite. Otherwise it is but a meaningless exercise, and not based on faith (Rom.
10:17).

True Baptism – A One-time Act

Genuine baptism is needed only one time in a person’s life. Once a person has been baptized,
according to the full complement of scriptural instructions, he or she never has the need to
repeat this “new birth” process (cf. Jn. 3:3-5).

After a person has entered the family of Christ through baptism (1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Gal. 3:26-
27), he or she is a part of the church, the household of God (1 Tim. 3:15; cf. Eph. 2:19-22). The
new Christian thus has access to all of the spiritual benefits of the “in Christ” relationship
(Eph. 1:3). As a son or daughter of God, within that sacred environment, the Christian petitions
the heavenly Father for his or her personal needs by means of prayer (see Acts 8:22,24; cf. Jas.
5:16), including forgiveness for sins as a child who will err (cf. 1 Jn. 1:8; 2:1).

Baptismal Qualifications

Unfortunately, there are many sects in today’s world of “Christendom” that practice a form of
“baptism,” but one that is contaminated by the accompaniment of a variety of doctrinal errors
that invalidate the process. It is the case, therefore, that many who have been administered
what was called “baptism,” need to submit to the ordinance again – this time with a more
accurate understanding that precedes the event. Here are some situations in which “re-
baptism” would be warranted.
 1. If one was “baptized” as an infant, thus was lacking personal faith (Mk. 16:16; Acts
11:21), he should repudiate the meaningless earlier rite, in which he had no decision-
making power (even though his parents were sincere in subjecting him to the
procedure). He, in genuine faith, should submit to the command in the proper way.
Infants have neither the need nor the ability to respond to the gospel of Christ.
2. If one was “baptized” in some fashion other than by immersion (which actually
expresses a contradictory concept, since “baptize” means “immerse”), then he should
yield to the proper form. True baptism reflects the candidate’s understanding that this
ordinance pictures the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The sinner is buried in,
and raised from, water (cf. Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12), just as the Lord was buried, and
then raised from the dead.

True baptism validates one’s faith in the death and resurrection events. Being
sprinkled with water, or having water poured upon the head, is no baptism at all, and
such substitutes are without sanction in the New Testament. They are post-apostolic
innovations.

3. If one was “baptized” without this act having been accompanied by genuine
repentance, such a procedure similarly was ineffectual. I once heard about a man who
emerged from the baptismal pool, turned to his wife, and said: “I hope you’re
satisfied!” No “baptism” which lacks the proper motive (and other prerequisites) can
have validity in the divine scheme of things.
4. If one is “baptized” without a sound faith basis, his ritual would be of no avail. One
might feel, for instance, that Jesus was a good man (perhaps even a “perfect man” – as
the “Jehovah’s Witnesses allege), but deny that Christ is the Son of God (i.e., deity),
and yet, for various other reasons, desire baptism. No baptism, grounded upon such a
spurious “faith” could be accounted as genuine.
5. If one has yielded to baptism for some purpose other than that which is supplied by
inspired teaching, he, in reality, has not obeyed the Lord. Baptism is never defined as
“an outward sign of an inward grace;” it is not a mere representation of redemption
for those already received.

The purpose of the act is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to have sins “washed
away” (Acts 22:16), to put the candidate “into Christ” (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27), or
into his “body” (1 Cor. 12:13), at which point he is “saved” (Mk. 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21).
The common resistance to the biblical proposition, namely that baptism is preliminary
to salvation, constitutes a bold rejection of the plain testimony of Scripture. One
cannot be immersed “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), if he believes his sins have
been remitted already.

A person’s soul is too valuable, the plan is too simple, and the remedy too easy to access, for a
person to “gamble,” hoping that a former “baptism” will be alright – in spite of the
deficiencies associated therewith. If there is any question in one’s mind regarding a previous
“baptism,” he should be safe and do it right. If we may assist you in this regard, feel free to
contact us for counsel.