The Baptism of John and Christian Baptism

The Baptists connect Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38. Doesn't this prove that repentance (or faith) saves without and before baptism? No. We believe that this ignores the immediate and broader context of the message of the Spirit to physical beings. To the contrary, by connecting these two passages we can prove that the baptism of Acts 2:38 is not an empty symbol, but the way we approve of God's plan so that we do not "reject the counsel of God for our lives."

The statement of a view is often enough to refute it. Therefore, we will look at one statement which connects Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38. This connects John's baptism as forward-looking to Christ's redemptive work, with baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ. Christian Baptism just changed the authority into which one is baptized. Christian baptism looks backward to connect to that authority which is Jesus Christ as Father, Son and Spirit summed up in a visible Being. That is, Lord Jesus Christ as full Deity (Colossians 2:9) to which we can identify.

First, look at one Baptist formulation which is realy anti-baptist:

Baptist - Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:38
And when John the Baptist said, "I baptize you with (or in) water unto repentance" (cis inclanoian, Matt. 3:11), but he did not mean "to make you repentant," or "to procure your repentance," but he meant "in reference to repentance," or, because and symbolical of their profession of repentance, for he would not baptize them unless they "brought forth fruits meet for repentance," that is, unless their lives were suitable to, or expressive of, repentance; and so, when Peter said, on the day of Pentecost, to his believing hearers, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins" (Acts 2:38),
he did not mean that their baptism was to procure the remission of their sins, but that it was in reference to the remission of their sins through faith in Christ as having borne and made an end to their sins, and as expressive and symbolical of such faith. (Sylvester Hassell, 1913)

The Baptist position: And when John the Baptist said, "I baptize you with (or in) water unto repentance" (cis inclanoian, Matt. 3:11), but he did not mean "to make you repentant," or "to procure your repentance," but he meant "in reference to repentance"

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Matt 3:10

Eis (g1519) ice; a prim. prep.; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered)

Therefore, the FOR or UNTO means that the tree was thrown UNTO the fire.

That means that we are baptized UNTO or into the place o rcondition of salvation.

The proof text:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Matt 3:11

You will notice that Eis is not used in 3:11 but it is a fact that John baptized them BECAUSE of their repentance. But the baptism BECAUSE they repented was INTO the remission of sins.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mk.1:4

Peter said the same thing: because they repented they were baptized in order to have their sins remitted:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, [and because you repent] and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Acts 2:38

The baptist position would NOT have the remission of sins BECAUSE of faith but BECAUSE of repentance.

Matthew returns to use the word EIS and we can have no boubt that it means INTO something and not BECAUSE of something.

Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Matt 3:12

The most common word for BECAUSE is:

Hoti (g3754)hot'-ee; neut. of 3748 as conj.; demonst. that (sometimes redundant); caus. because: - as concerning that, as though, because (that), for (that), how (that), (in) that, though, why.

It is also true that john baptized them INTO THE STATE of repentance.

Now, we may not like what Peter said and that which was safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, defended by scholars for 1500 years and faithfully translated by at least 26 versions:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

I don't know how to retranslate Acts 2:38 without putting the new definition into the verse -- which we do with tongue in cheek:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent (to be saved), and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ in reference to the remission of their sins through faith in Christ as having borne and made an end to their sins, and as expressive and symbolical of such faith, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Before you "reject the counsel of God for your life" and lead millions into believing what no translation says, you may want to look at the immediate and broader context. Matthew 3:11 has such a context:

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into (EIS) the fire. Matthew 3:10

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Matthew 3:11KJV

Or: With water I baptize those who repent of their sins; but someone else is coming, far greater than I am, so great that I am not worthy to carry his shoes! He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Matthew 3:11LIV

Whose fan is in (EIS) his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Matthew 3:12

Matthew used EIS to inticate "into" or "to the point reached" and does not say: "Cast you because of the fire," or "Whose fan is because of His hand."

John, Peter, Philip or Paul could baptize with water to put you into the "ark" of God's grace. However, only Messiah could baptize with Spirit and Fire. Both of these have a very judgmental meaning. The baptism of the Spirit was a sign that Christ was pouring out His Word which He said "is Spirit and Life" (John 6:63). This gospel in foreign languages, rather than sacred Hebrew only available from the clergy, was poured out in the languages of all the nations.

You remember that instead of taking God's Covenant to all the nations, the Israelites insisted that they would worship like the nations and to become more seeker-friendly. Therefore, Christ left the clergy in Jerusalem to burn them with fire as chaff is burned and sent just plain fishermen to all the nations. This was the ultimate and final judgment against the Jews.

The baptism of fire would consume up to one million Jews in AD 66.

Now, look again at the Matthew 3:11 as the proof-text:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Matthew 3:11

The Bible:-----I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance

Retranslation: I indeed baptize you with water Because of repentance

Luke connects repentance, baptism and the remission of sins:

The Bible:-----John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4.

Therefore, like Acts 2:38 Jesus and Peter would baptize because of their change of mind and life in order to the remission of sins.

Retranslation: John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism because of repentance because of the remission of sins. Mark 1:4

This would make the order: remission of sins, repentance, baptism.

So, that doesn't work too well. Perhaps, we should allow the inspired apostle Peter explain it:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Peter's order is: repentance, baptism, remission of sins. That looks like Mark 1:4 just the way the Holy Spirit left it in the Bible:

The Bible:-----John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4

This order is: repentance, baptism, remission of sins.

Luke 7 makes it clear that baptism was not a because of but an in order to act:

And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified (approved His plan) God, being baptized with the baptism of John. Luke 7:29

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. Luke 7:30

The people did not approve of God's plan at one time. When they repented they would approve of God's plan. That is, they repented. How did they approve of God's plan which included baptism? They were baptized. Those who were not baptized did not repent and were not therefore baptized. You cannot, have not, repent of not accepting Christ until you approve of His plan and are baptized.

Once again, John or Peter could perform this baptism in water but only Christ could baptize with fire and Spirit. Now, we can baptize with water but not fire or Spirit.

No. Luke did not say that the common people were baptized because they had approved of God by accepting His plan for their lives. If they believed that God said to be baptized, the only way their faith and repentance could have any meaning was if they obeyed what they believed and were baptized. If someone asks me to stand up when I want to sit down, the only way I can obey (and not reject) the command is to stand up.

But, you say, you are trying to connect John's baptism with Christian baptism. But this has already been done for us. Note that:

When the "upper crust" clergy refused to be baptized in water as carrying any power they repudiated God by not being baptized.

Our friends (in the table above) have already shown an identity between John's statement and Peter's statement.

Therefore, one who refuses to accept that baptism is the time and place to agree with God, they have rejected the counsel of God for their lives.

Luke agrees with Mark and Luke by making remission an and instead of because of:

"And that

Not This

repentance

and

remission of sins

repentance

because of

remission of sins

should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

Jesus said that His blood was shed for the remission of sins:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28

Does this mean that Christ shed His blood because our sins were already remitted?

No!

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

As Christ shed His blood in our place for the remission of sins, we identify with Him, justify God, and do not reject the counsel of God for ourselves when we are baptized for the remission of sins our own blood could not remit.

We are not aware of any translations which says:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Dr. Jack Lewis wrote:

Prior to Jesus' public ministry, John the Baptist had preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion; Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Those people who rejected John's baptism rejected for themselves the counsel of God (Luke 7:29, 30). Its purpose is identical with the purposes suggested for Jesus' death (Matthew 26:28) and for the baptism of Pentecost (Acts 2:38)

The baptism of John is identical in form and purpose to Christian Baptism which was the remission of sins. The difference is that one is forward-looking to Christ and the other is backward-looking to Christ.

During the time of John's baptism supernatural power or the gift of the Holy Spirit was given only to those whom Jesus personally empowered. After that time, the gift of the Holy Spirit in a supernatural form was given only to those upon whom the apostles, having the temporary power of Christ, laid their hands. No one ever spoke in tongues without the personal presence of those apostles.

John's baptism was not optional. Those who rejected it repudiated or declared God unrighteous and therefore rejected the counsel of God for their lives.

In the same way, to reject Christian baptism is to reject the counsel of Christ for our lives.

No Bible-literate person believes that they are regenerated by water but then no Bible-literate person believes that they are regenerated by believing some facts or changing their minds or lives. This would be just as legalistic as believing that our own acts does the sin-removing. Our own actions do, however, identify ourselves with Christ's work. If we do not act we just don't identify and if we don't identify then we reject.

Regeneration occurs only when Christ the Spirit sees Himself justified (not repudiated) by people who do not reject His explicit command.

Jesus remitted our sins in a procuring sense by His own blood. He remits our sins in a personal sense when we declare His plan and commands correct; the only way we can do that is to obey Him without hesitation or question.

Kenneth Sublett

Baptism Index
Home Page

Home... Apocalyptic... Apocryphal... Awakening... Baptism.....Caneridge... Church.... Colonial... Godhead.... MaxLucado Index... Max Lucado Creed....Max Lucado Shepherding....Lynn.Aderson... Musical Worship... Preaching... Restoration... RubelShelly... Search Our Site.. Tongues... Topical...