In part two we will study Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16.  We hope you will continue to study with us. Please don't stop now! (See also, The New Birth: It's Necessity and Composition; John 3:8 - The Spirit Breathes)

On the first Pentecost following the resurrection of our Lord, Peter and the rest of the apostles preached the first gospel sermon. In that sermon the people who were assembled that day were charged with Jesus' murder. Some of them being convicted of this crime and feeling the guilt of it ask, "what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). At that point, following the great commission of our Lord (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:18-20), Peter gave the following answer: "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).

Peter told the Jews that two steps must be taken to be forgiven of their sins: (1) He told them to repent. (2) He told them to be baptized. These two actions to be taken are tied together by the conjunction "and." Peter said, "repent, and be baptized." Both of these actions are connected to a third relevant element of the sentence, the prepositional phrase, "for the remission (forgiveness) of sins." Both actions stand in exactly the same relation to this phrase. Peter did not say, "Repent for the remission of sins," and he did not say, "Be baptized for the remission of sins." What he did say is, "Repent and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins."

[Note: It seems to me that if a person can't do anything to be saved that this would have been a perfect time for Peter to so teach. Notice that when these people ask the apostles "what shall we do," Peter did not say, "There is nothing for you to do. Jesus has done it all. All you have to do is believe and then ask for His forgiveness by repeating this prayer after me." That's how it's taught today, but is that what Peter taught? Is that how he answered the question, "what shall we do?" Please read Peter's answer again.]

What this means is that repentance and baptism stand in exactly the same relation to the remission of sins. That relation to the remission of sins - which is the same for both repentance and baptism - is expressed by the preposition "for" in the NKJV and the word "unto" in the ASV. It is the Greek word eis. What is the relationship between repentance and baptism on the one hand and the remission of sins on the other which is expressed by eis?

[Note: One of the ways that some folks try to invalidate the force of the above argument is by attempting to sever the connection between the verbs "repent" and "be baptized" (even though they are connected by the coordinate "and") on the ground that the former term is plural in number, while the latter is singular. This argument is dealt with in a fine way by Wayne Jackson in an article entitle "Acts 2:38 - Not So Tough."]

The fundamental meaning of the Greek word eis is "into." This basic meaning will be modified by usage in various contexts, but "into" remains the fundamental significance. Winer says that eis is "the opposite of ek." (George Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 7^th edition, 396). He gives Romans 1:17 and 5:16 as examples to illustrate this.  Respecting ek he writes, "Ek originally denotes issuing from within (the compass, sphere, of) something (antithetic to eis Luke x. 7; xvii. 24...) ..." (Ibid, 366). So the basic significance of ek is "out of," and the basic significance of eis is "into." 

Ek is used in Mark 1:10. Jesus came up "out of"  (ek) (NKJV-"up from") the water. Jesus could not have come up "out of" the water unless he had first gone down "into" the water. In fact, in Acts 8:38 the Bible says both Philip and the eunuch went down "into" (eis) the water, and in verse 39 it says that they came up "out of" (ek) the water. In baptism one goes down "into" (eis) the remission of sins. Repentance and baptism are viewed as bringing one "into" the remission of sins -- into the sphere, state, or condition in which one receives remission of sins. When this is put into idiomatic English it reads something like this: "Repent and be baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins." And that is the way the authorities translate Peter's statement.

Winer further says, respecting eis: "Used tropically, of ideal relations, it denotes any aim or end; . . .; the purpose and end in view..." (Ibid, 396-397). He lists Acts 2:38 as one of the examples of this usage. Therefore, one may say that according to this noted grammarian the aim, end, or purpose of repentance and baptism as stated in Acts 2:38 is the remission of sins.

Not to confine the case to one Greek scholar the following additional testimony is offered: In Gimm's Greek-English Lexicon translated with additions by Joseph Henry Thayer the uses of baptizo (baptize or immerse) with various prepositions are discussed. He states that baptizo is used with the preposition eis "to mark the end" in such passages as Acts 2:38. Specifically writing about Acts 2:38 he has, "eis aphesin hamartion, "to obtain the forgiveness of sins, Acts ii.38" (page 94). Eis aphesin hamartion is the phrase rendered in the NKJV as "for the remission of sins," and Grimm says it means "to obtain the forgiveness of sins."

The Greek-English Lexicon of Walter Bauer, translated by Arndt and Gingrich, is equally clear. It says that baptizo is used "with the purpose given eis aphesin ton hamartion Acts 2:38 (page 131). One of the uses of eis is "to indicate the goal." Under this major heading Bauer has a subdivision indicating that eis is used "to denote purpose" and means "in order to, to." The illustration given is Acts 2:38, eis aphesin hamartion, which Bauer translates, "for the forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven" (page 228).

H. A. W. Meyer, wrote, "eis denotes the object of the baptism, which is the remission of the guilt contracted in the state before metanoia." (H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, 4^th edition, 67).  Metanoia is the Greek word which means repentance.

Even many scholars whose religious views deny the necessity of baptism for salvation have seen the force of this passage and have put aside their personal beliefs to translate correctly in agreement with the scholars quoted above. J. W. Willmarth, a Baptist preacher and scholar, in his article entitled "Baptism and Remission," which originally appeared in The Baptist Quarterly (July, 1877) and was reprinted in 1908 by J. W. Shepherd, concludes his exegesis by stating: "We conclude without hesitation, and in accordance with such authorities as Hackett, Winer, Meyer, etc., that the proper rendering of eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38, as in Matthew 26:28, is unto, for, i.e., in order to, Remission of Sins.

The Baptist commentator Horatio B. Hackett, referred to in the quotation from Willmarth, translates, "in order to the forgiveness of sins." (Horatio B. Hackett, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles -- Volume IV of An American Commentary on the New Testament -- 53).

Two Baptist scholars, Charles B. Williams and Edgar J. Goodspeed, have given two of the most forceful translations of this verse. Williams translates, "You must repent -- and, as an expression of it, let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ -- that you may have your sins forgiven; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Goodspeed has, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to have your sins forgiven; then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The majority of English translations of the Bible, almost without exception, translate the phrase "for the remission of sins" in harmony with the above scholars comments.  Notice the following:

After reading the above translations there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of scholarship agrees with what has been set forth in this study. Even those translations which are translated by people who take the personal view that baptism is not for the remission of sins render Acts 2:38 to show that it is. There is another interesting point also. I have not found one translation that translates the Greek word eis as "because of" in Acts 2:38. I wonder why? Could it be because the translators understand that it cannot be accurately translated by that phrase?"

Before we leave a study of Acts 2:38 there is another passage that I would like for you to consider. It is Jesus' statement in Matthew 26:28 where He said, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Notice that the phrase "for the remission of sins" is identical with the phrase in Acts 2:38. This is true of both the English and the Greek. There can be no doubt (and I know of no one who claims to be a Christian who would take a different view) that Jesus shed His blood "for, with a view to, with the goal of, with the aim or end of, in order to, to" the remission or forgiveness of sins. He did not shed His blood "because of" remission of sins (i.e. because our sins were already forgiven), but in order to provide remission or forgiveness of sins. Whatever difficulties one may have in understanding the phrase in Acts 2:38 there can be no doubt what it means in Matthew 26:28. It is the exact same phrase in both the English and the Greek and it is used in exactly the same way in both passages.

Notice:

• "Be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

• "Blood shed for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28).

Some who reject what has been set forth in the above discussion of "eis" suggest that the word can mean "because of" and they believe they have found an example of this in Matthew 12:41.  Matthew 12:41 says, "The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here."  The word rendered "at" (NKJV) in the phrase "at the preaching of Jonah" is the Greek word "eis."    Those who refer to this passage as an example of the word "eis" meaning "because of" say that the men of Nineveh did not repent "into" or "unto" or "in order to" the preaching of Jonah, but "because of" the preaching of Jonah. Thus, they believe they have found evidence that the word "eis" can mean "because of." Their conclusion is that because the word "eis" means "because of" in Matthew 12:41, it also means "because of" in Acts 2:38 which (in their mind) means that one is to be baptized because his sins have already been forgiven. In other words, baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins, but one is saved before baptism and at the point of faith.

Is Matthew 12:41 the passage that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that our understanding of "eis" in Acts 2:38 is in error?  No, it is not.  The question is this: is there any reasonable view of this passage that would allow us to apply the normal  meaning ("into", "unto", "in order to", "toward") of the word "eis" in this passage?  And the answer to this question is, yes.

Brother Wayne Jackson made the following comments concerning Matthew 12:41:

"Here are the facts of the case. The people of Nineveh were in rebellion against God. Because of his concern for the souls of these pagans, Jehovah dispatched his prophet, Jonah, to preach a message of repentance to them. That message was designed to bring them into a penitent state, a reformed life, which would be reflected in turning away from their sins. This is precisely what happened (Jonah 3:10).

By means of a common figure of speech called metonymy - a form of which states a cause, which, in actuality, stands for an effect. Here is an example. When Job said: 'My arrow is incurable' (34:6), he referred to an affliction (allegedly rendered by God). The term 'arrow,' however, is a form of metonymy, the cause standing for the effect (Terry, pp. 160-161; cf. Dungan, pp. 271-276).

Similarly, as a result of Jonah's proclamation, the citizens of Nineveh turned, transforming minds and deeds into a reformed state of life demanded by his message. The internationally recognized scholar, J.W. McGarvey, carefully explained the matter in his commentary on Matthew.

'The preposition here rendered 'at' is eis, which usually means 'into.' Some writers have contended that it here means 'because of,' or 'in consequence of,' a meaning quite foreign to the word. It is true, as a matter of fact, that the Ninevites repented in consequence of the preaching of Jonah; but had it been the purpose of the writer to express this thought, he would have used the preposition dia instead of eis. The thought of the passage is quite distinct from this. They repented into the preaching of Jonah. This is not idiomatic English, but it conveys the exact thought a Greek would derive from the original. The term 'preaching' is put for the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this. Their repentance, in other words, brought them into the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this' (p. 113).  This is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the passage, quite in harmony with the use of the preposition elsewhere in the New Testament.'  (McGarvey, J.W., The New Testament Commentary � Matthew and Mark Des Moines, IA: Eugene Smith Reprint).

This is a far more responsible exercise of exegetical skills than that which has been proffered by some biased scholars of a by-gone era." (Wayne Jackson, The Use of the Preposition "Eis" in Matthew 12:41 Christian Courier Web Page).
 

There is no comfort in Matthew 12:41 for those who reject the truth of Acts 2:38. Acts 2:38 forever stands as a passage that teaches the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins.

In this passage we learn of a man named Saul of Tarsus who had been blind and without food or drink for three days (Acts 9:9). Saul had been praying (Acts 9:11), but despite the fact that he was praying he was still in his sins as we shall see. The word of the Lord was brought by Ananias to Saul. After laying his hands on him, and Saul receiving his sight, Ananias told him, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." We know that Saul was yet in his sins (even though he had been praying) because of what Ananias said. It would have made no sense for Ananias to tell Saul to "wash away your sins" if his sins had been washed away the moment he believed in Christ or as a result of prayer.

In regard to this passage and and in reference to 1 Corinthians 6:11, the only two New Testament uses of the verb translated  "wash away" (Greek: apolouo) Grimm says,

"For the sinner is unclean, polluted as it were by the filth of his sins. Whoever obtains remission of sins has his sins put, so to speak, out of God's sight, -- is cleansed from them in the sight of God. Remission is (represented as) obtained by undergoing baptism; hence those who have gone down into the baptismal bath are said apolousasthai to have washed themselves, or tas hamart. Apolousasthia to have washed away their sins, i.e. to have been cleansed from their sins (C. L. Wilibald Grimm's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, translated with additions by Joseph Henry Thayer, p. 65). [Note: "(represented as)" in the above quotation was added by Thayer].

The sinner is guilty of sin and needs forgiveness. He is filthy with sin and needs to be washed. Ananias would not have told Saul to wash away his sins if he were already clean. One who is clean does not need to be washed. To illustrate this look at John 13:1-17. Peter, misunderstanding Jesus, wanted him to wash not only his feet but his hands and head as well. Jesus said to him, "He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you." The person who is "bathed" or clean does not need to wash. Saul was told to wash because he was filthy with sin.

Not only did Ananias tell him to wash, but he connected that washing away of sins with baptism. "...be baptized and wash away your sins..." There is a washing or cleansing that takes place when one is baptized. In Ephesians 5:26, which we will study later, Jesus is said to cleanse the church by means of the washing of the water. We have seen that Peter tells the people on Pentecost day to be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). From the very nature of the act of baptism anyone seeing a person baptized would know that washing is involved. What Acts 22:16 teaches is that the washing that takes place in baptism is more than a mere outward, physical washing; one is to "be baptized, and wash away (his) sins."

As we stated above, Ananias would not have told Saul to wash away his sins if he were not filthy with sin -- i.e., if he were cleansed already. Further, he would not have told Saul to "be baptized" -- an act which clearly involves a bath or a washing -- "and wash away" his "sins" unless he meant for Saul to understand that the washing away of sins was to be accomplished during the act of baptism.

To help understand this statement let's look at some every day language that many of us use.  Suppose a man tells his son, "Playing time is over, wash away that dirt." Such a command would only make sense if the boy was dirty. Further, if the man told him, "Take a bath and wash away that dirt," no intelligent person could fail to recognize that it was by means of the taking of the bath that the dirt was to be washed away. That is exactly what Ananias told Saul! "Take a bath and wash away your sins." But the bath is baptism (cf. Titus 3:5). Whatever contradictions people might imagine when this verse is read, sins are clearly washed away when one is baptized.

Of course the washing away of sins is not to be understood literally. There is no literal washing away of sins -- not by baptism, not by faith, not by grace, and not by the blood of Christ. The forgiveness of sins takes place in the mind of God. But forgiveness of sins takes place when we obey God's will in being baptized in the likeness of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4). Horatio B. Hackett, in his commentary says on page 420,

"And wash (bathe) away thy sins. This clause states a result of the baptism in language derived from the nature of that ordinance. It answers to for the remission of sins, in 2:38 -- i.e. submit to the rite in order to be forgiven. In both passages baptism is represented as having this importance or efficacy, because it is the sign of the repentance and faith which are the conditions of salvation."

I would not agree with Hacketts last statement about why baptism is so represented because it contradicts his first statement that one "submits to the rite in order to be forgiven." How can one state "...submit to the rite (baptism) in order to be forgiven" but then state "repentance and faith ... are the conditions of salvation" as if baptism had nothing to do with salvation? One wonders why Hackett could not see this contradiction.  However, the rest of his statement is correct. One is baptized to wash (bathe) away one's sins.

Some say that the language of Acts 22:16 refers only to a symbolic representation of forgiveness. Could this be true of Saul? Here is a man whose conscience was heavy with the guilt of persecuting the Messiah (Acts 22:7). He had not eaten or drank anything for three days. He was miserable. Yet, according to this view, Ananias came to this miserable man, and, instead of instructing him how he could obtain the forgiveness he so earnestly desired and escape his misery, spoke to him about a mere symbolic ceremony. How can anyone believe it?

The complete statement is, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Therefore, in seeking forgiveness in this manner Saul would not be relying on some magical effect of water; he would be relying on the Lord, making his appeal to the Lord in the divinely appointed manner (See comments on 1 Peter 3:21 in chapter 5).

"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. For he who has died has been freed from sin."

When one reads this passage he is struck by the fact that the emphasis is upon the death of the sinner to sin. The death of Christ is mentioned because it is by being crucified with Christ, that the sinner dies to sin.

In the first five chapters of Romans Paul has argued that the sinner is justified by the grace of God apart from the works of the Law of Moses. In verse twenty of chapter five he had written, "Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more..." In the first verse of chapter six, Paul anticipates a possible perversion of this teaching by asking, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"

In verse two Paul uses words that utterly rejects such a belief. "Certainly not!" Literally, "May it never be!" The belief that one should sin more so that grace would abound more is entirely inconsistent with the Christian life. "How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" A Christian is dead to sin. How can he live in it? Such a thought is as outrageous as to speak of a man who is physically dead and alive at the same time.

In verses three and four the apostle explains when and how this death to sin took place. "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." How could anyone doubt that a Christian is dead to sin? To say that a Christian can keep sinning so that grace may abound is to show ignorance of the significance of baptism. Baptism puts the sinner into Christ. This union which is formed between the sinner and Christ extends so far as the death and resurrection of Christ. The sinner enters into the death of Christ, thus to die with Him. That tells when and how the death to sin takes place.

In verses 5 and 6 Paul explains baptism "into death." He says, "For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death...", The King James Version says, "planted together" for "united together." The Greek word is sumphutos which means "grown together" according to Meyer. The meaning is: We have grown together or become united with him in the likeness of his death.

This explains the statement in verse three, we "were baptized into his death." In baptism the sinner comes into union with Jesus in His death. Thus, he dies with Christ. Verse six tells us that "our old man was crucified with him"

The word likeness does not in any way support those who deny this significance of baptism. Certainly the sinner does not literally go back 2100 years and cross the waters to Palestine to be nailed to the cross with Jesus. He is united in the likeness of the death of Christ. The thought is that as Jesus literally died on the cross the sinner morally and ethically dies to sin when he is baptized into the death of Christ, thus to be united with Christ in the likeness of his death.

Paul says, "...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; for he who has died has been freed from sin." The Greek word for "freed" is the verb dikaioo, which is translated "to justify" in Romans 2:13; 3:4, 20, 24, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9; etc... This is legal terminology and refers to the act of the judge in rendering a verdict of "not guilty;" i.e. he declares the defendant righteous (dikaios) or free of guilt. When this verdict is pronounced the defendant is released. Thus, the ASV footnote has "released"; Other translations have "freed" in the text and "acquitted" in the footnote.

The teaching in this text is that the sinner is the bond-slave of sin [Note: a "bond-slave" is one who willingly becomes a slave]. This concept of sin as a master and the sinner as a bond-slave is emphasized throughout the chapter. But the point of verse seven is that when the sinner dies (to sin) that bond is broken and the sinner goes free. The same is true concerning any slave-master relationship.

A passage in Job will illustrate the present verse. Job is speaking of death when he says, "There the prisoners are at ease together; they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master" (Job 3:18-19 ASV). Notice the phrase, "the servant is free from his master." They were made free because they died. So it is in Romans 6:6 and 7! "whoever commits sin is a slave of sin." (John 8:34). As long as a person is alive to sin he serves that master. But when he dies to sin that bond is broken and sin is no longer his master. Now, God is his master and thus he lives in "newness of life."

The critical questions for the purpose of our study are these: When does this death take place? And, how is it brought about? Paul does not leave us wondering. The sinner is baptized into the death of Christ (verse 3) thus uniting with him in the likeness of his death (verse 5), the old man being crucified with him (verse 6). That makes baptism essential to freedom from sin. He who has not been baptized into the death of Christ is yet alive unto sin; he remains a bond-slave of sin. If he continues his refusal to be baptized he will receive the wages of sin which is spiritual death (verse 23).

Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Paul had received a report of "contentions" among the Corinthians (verse 11). In verse 12 he explains the nature of these contentions. Each one of the Corinthians had lined up with a faction. Some said, "I am of Paul"... That is, "I am a follower of Paul," or "I belong to Paul." Others said, "I am of Apollos"; others, "I am of Cephas," and still others, "I am of Christ."

Paul gives a stinging rebuke of this attitude by asking three questions. These are rhetorical questions. He does not wait for an answer. But the answer to each of them is obviously a resounding, "NO!"

The first of these questions is, "Is Christ divided?" These people were acting as if Christ was divided. God's people are supposed to be united under Christ, not divided into different factions or groups following different men. Christ is not divided (cf. 12:12). Therefore, this situation was completely unacceptable.  And I might add, it's just as unacceptable today as it was then.

Paul points out that in order for the people to properly claim to be "of Paul" there were two things necessary:

• First, Paul would have had to have been crucified for them;

• Second, they would have had to be baptized into the name of Paul.

Here are two reasons that no one can say, "I am of Paul." Jesus paid the purchase price; people should only belong to him (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). So when Paul asks, "Was Paul crucified for you?", the answer is, "No!" They could not rightly and scripturally say they were of Paul unless Paul had been crucified for them.

Then Paul asks, "Were you baptized into the name of Paul?" If they were not baptized into the name of Paul, then they could not rightly and scripturally say they were of Paul.

What this tells us is that at least two things are necessary for one to properly belong to Paul. (1) Paul must be crucified for him. (2) He must be baptized into the name of Paul. The Corinthians could not say, "I am of Paul" because Paul had not been crucified for them and they had not been baptized  into the name of Paul.

What was true of Paul is also true of the other persons listed. Paul's logic applies equally to Apollos. Was Apollos crucified for you? No! Then you cannot say "I am of Apollos." Where you baptized into the name of Apollos? No! Then you cannot say, "I am of Apollos." The same could be said of Cephas.

But some said, "I am of Christ." Could they rightfully say this? Yes! Why? Because Christ had been crucified for them and they had been baptized into the name of Christ.

Six specific arguments based upon an examination of six specific passages have now been offered in support of the proposition that baptism is essential to one receiving salvation from sin:

1. John 3:5 makes baptism necessary to entrance into the kingdom of God. Since membership in the kingdom is necessary to salvation, baptism stands between the sinner and salvation.

2. Mark 16:16 teaches that of all the people in the world to whom the gospel was to be preached, the one who "will be saved" is the one who "believes and is baptized."

3. Acts 2:38 teaches that the purpose of baptism is "the remission of sins" -- That is, "in order to obtain remission (forgiveness) of sins;" "so that sins might be forgiven", or "in order to have your sins forgiven."

4. Acts 22:16 teaches that baptism is the place where sins are washed away -- i.e. in literal terms, when one is baptized his sins are forgiven.
    

5. Romans 6:1-7 teaches that baptism is the means by which the sinner is united with the death of Christ, dying with Christ, thus being made free from sin. One arises from the watery grave of baptism to "walk in newness of life" because he has died to sin (the old life).
    

6.  1 Corinthians 1:12-13 teaches that baptism is one of at least two conditions necessary to a person being "of Christ" -- i.e. belonging to Christ, being a Christian.

I submit these arguments as absolute proof that baptism is a condition of salvation (i.e. necessary to salvation) and is ordained by God. We must obey God's command to be baptized BEFORE we can receive salvation in Christ!

In the next lesson, we want to begin to show baptism's specific place in God's plan of salvation for mankind. Many people, while recognizing the force of the arguments set forth above, will have reservations growing not so much out of objections to these arguments as out of what they conceive to be a conflict between the teaching of the six passages discussed above and the teaching of the Bible on other subjects -- i.e. faith, grace, the blood of Christ, and the statements that salvation is "not of works." If you object to the above arguments on this grounds I commend you for insisting that any position taken must be in harmony with everything taught in the Bible. But I also must caution you to make sure you have examined all the relevant data yourself before making your final judgment. I am convinced that proper attention to certain passages will make one wonder how the idea of a conflict between baptism and faith, grace, the blood of Christ or works could ever have been imagined.

Please examine the passages in the next lesson honestly as we study the relation of baptism to the others things mentioned in the above paragraph. PLEASE DON'T STOP HERE! GO TO PART 2.

In part 1 of our study we set forth the passages in the New Testament that teach the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins.  In part 2 we will show that the Bible teaches that there is no conflict between the passages that teach the necessity of baptism for salvation and the subjects of faith, grace, works and the blood of Christ.

BAPTISM AND FAITH

There are two propositions that may be confidently set down as stating indisputable facts:

• The Scriptures teach that the sinner is saved by faith.

• The Scriptures teach that the salvation of the sinner comes when he is baptized and not before.

The first proposition is established by passages like John 3:16, Acts 10:43, and Romans 5:1. The latter is made unquestionable by the six passages already considered in this study.

According to some, however, these propositions are contradictory. There are many who believe that they cannot both be true. If that is so, then it must be confessed that the Bible contradicts itself, because the Bible truly teaches both that the sinner is saved by faith and that the salvation of the sinner comes at baptism. My friends, the propositions are not in conflict. In fact, the two propositions may be stated in harmony like this: The scriptures teach that a sinner is saved by faith when he is baptized. This is without doubt the truth of the matter. Let us examine several passages that teach this vital truth.

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were encircled for seven days." This is a reference to the sixth chapter of Joshua. What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Let us see. God had instructed the people of Israel to march around the walls of Jericho with the promised result of the walls falling down. Question: How did the walls fall? Someone might answer by saying, "by marching." But that is not what the passage says. It says the walls fell by faith! To be more specific, it says the walls fell by faith when the Israelites completed their obedience by marching.

The complete harmony and unity of that account must certainly be conceded. That would seem to eliminate any possible anxieties as to how salvation can be by faith but only when one is baptized. If one can understand that the walls of Jericho fell by faith -- not by marching -- but only after the marching, then he should have no difficulty accepting the teaching of the Bible that the sinner is saved by faith when he is baptized. Further, if one can understand that the marching was essential, and that the walls did not and would not fall down without it, then it should not disturb him to find that the Bible teaches the necessity of baptism to salvation and at the same time says the sinner is saved by faith.

The fact is that the marching was faith! It was faith in action, faith expressed, faith embodied. What is seen in that marching certainly is not human wisdom and reason. From the standpoint of pure human wisdom the marching was utter foolishness. Human reason would never have suggested such a plan for taking the city. It is faith in action that is seen in that marching. Total and complete trust in the word of God.

It is equally correct to say that baptism is faith. Baptism is faith in action, faith expressed, faith embodied. It is an act of faith. Certainly human wisdom would see no connection between baptism and salvation, just as human wisdom could see no connection between marching and the walls of Jericho falling down. The people of Israel had to have complete trust in God's word to obey the marching orders. One must have complete trust in God's word today to obey the command to be baptized, for human reasoning sees no connection in either case. That is why the Bible can tell us at the same time that baptism is essential to salvation AND that the sinner is saved by faith. The relation between baptism and faith is clearly set forth in the next passage to be considered.

But before we leave this account there is one other thing that needs to be pointed out. God gave the city of Jericho to Israel. It was a gift. Notice Joshua 6:2 - "And Jehovah said to Joshua, See, I have given Jericho into your hand, and its king, and the mighty men of valor" (ASV). Jericho was a gift but that did not rule out the fact that there was something they had to do before the gift was realized. Read the next three verses. It was not until they had done what God instructed that they received the gift of Jericho. There are many today who think that because the Bible teaches that salvation is a free gift that necessarily excludes man doing anything to receive it. However, we do not accept that "reasoning" in any other realm. If I held out a $100 bill to you and told you it was a free gift, is there anything you would have to do to receive that gift? Yes, you would have to reach out and take it. Simply because I wanted you to have the gift doesn't mean that you would automatically receive it. I could not force it on you if you didn't want it. But if you did want it you would have to reach out and take it. The same is true of salvation. God doesn't force salvation on any of us. He holds it out to us, He wants us to receive it, but we have to reach out and take it. And the way God has ordained that we receive it is simply to humble ourselves to do His will just like Israel had to do to take Jericho. We don't earn our salvation by humbling ourselves in obedience to God's will today to receive salvation anymore than Israel earned the city of Jericho.

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Verse 26 states the present condition of the Galatians. They are sons of God. What made them sons of God is faith. They are sons of God "through faith."  This is their present condition.

Verse 27 states something that had happened in the past -- i.e., as many of the Galatians as were [past tense] baptized into Christ had put on Christ. The present condition of the Galatians (verse 26) stands in a certain relationship to something that had happened in the past (verse 27). What is that relationship between the present condition and the past occurrence?

The relationship between the two is expressed by the word "for" which stands at the beginning of verse 27 and connects the two verses together. "For" is the translation of the Greek conjunction "gar." Grimm expresses the function of this conjunction in the following way:

"It adduces the Cause or gives the Reason of a preceding statement or opinion;..." (Grimm's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 109).

In the present case a statement is made in verse 26: "For you are all the sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Verse 27 gives the reason that statement is so. This reason is introduced by the conjunction gar which is rendered "for." "For" -- i.e., the reason is; the cause is -- "as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." The reason they were at the present time sons of God through faith in Christ is that as many as had been baptized into Christ had put on Christ. This makes baptism necessary to becoming sons of God through faith!  One cannot become a child of God through faith until one is baptized into Christ and thus puts on Christ. This connects faith and baptism together and shows how one becomes a child of God through (by) faith. The act that made the Galatians sons of God through faith was their baptism into Christ by which they put on Christ. The faith which made them sons of God included baptism. Baptism is an act of faith! Baptism then, is an essential element of the faith which makes people children of God (Christians). Without baptism the faith which makes a person a child of God is not present.

The question that now demands the attention of every seeker of truth is: How can baptism as a condition of pardon be inconsistent with salvation by faith when baptism is an essential part of that faith by which a person's sins are pardoned and he is made a child of God? Baptism is not inconsistent with faith. Baptism is itself faith -- i.e., an act of faith, faith expressed, faith embodied. This is the real place of baptism in the plan of salvation so far as it relates to faith. When this is understood there will be no objection to baptism for the remission of sins on the ground of a conflict between that and salvation by faith.

No other New Testament writer gave as much emphasis to salvation by grace as the apostle Paul did. Yet, in the two letters which give the most direct attention to the subject, Romans and Galatians, Paul strongly affirms the necessity of baptism to salvation (Romans 6:1-7; Galatians 3:26-27). He evidently saw no conflict between salvation by grace and the necessity of baptism. When one sees a conflict between the two, there is something defective in his understanding of either grace, baptism, or both since Paul saw no conflict. When all the relevant passages are closely considered this defect will be removed and one can have the same insight into the divine wisdom on this subject that Paul had.

A most important passage in this connection is Ephesians 5:25-26. In Ephesians 2:8-9 Paul had strongly insisted that the sinner is saved by grace and not by works. But in Ephesians 5:25-26 he speaks of baptism in such terms as to leave no doubt of the complete unity between salvation by grace and the cleansing produced in baptism. The passage reads as follows:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,

A literal translation of the Greek would be "the washing of the water." This expression can refer to nothing else than baptism in water. The Baptist Charles B. Williams, though his personal position influenced him to the extent that he gives an "eisegesis" instead of a translation in the text of his translation, acknowledges in the footnote that the reference is "to water baptism." The commentators almost without exception approve of this reference.

The reason for such complete agreement is obvious. As Charles Hodge, the noted 19^th century Calvinistic commentator and former professor in the theological seminary at Princeton said,

"Baptism is a washing with water. It was the washing with water with which Paul's readers as Christians were familiar, and which could not fail to occur to them as the washing intended. Besides, nothing more is here attributed to baptism than is attributed to it in many other passages of the word of God. Compare particularly Acts 22:16,...There can be little doubt, therefore, that by 'the washing with water,' the apostle meant baptism." (Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, page 319).

Moses Lard said,

"That the term water, or, more correctly, the water, as it is in the original, has here its hard Saxon meaning, is not a disputable point. Joining to this the word washing, or, better still, the washing, thereby making the washing of or in the water, or the water in which the church (members of it) has been washed, can any one whose soul is not steeped in error be in doubt as to what the apostle means?

There is but one rite under Christ to which water is absolutely in all cases essential, and to which all who are members of his church have submitted. That rite is baptism. Here, however, water is present, -- water in which the church is washed; hence, since the church comes in contact with water in no rite but baptism, baptism is, or, rather, of necessity must be, what the apostle refers to when he says the washing of water." (Moses Lard, Review of Campbellism Examined, 240).