I have been in friendly contact with a family of Baptists who are congenial, morally upright, and dedicated to their religion. We discussed a little concerning our religious differences, and they brought me by a copy of a book they like to give people on the subject of baptism. It is entitled "I Want to be Baptised" and was written by Eric Lane, a British evangelical. The point of the book is to encourage people to be baptized but from an evangelical perspective. The book gives the evangelical position and argumentation on most New Testament passages that deal with baptism. I read the book and wrote a review of it for that family. Because of the length of the review, it will be published in four parts. This is part one of the review. (Because Eric Lane is British, and his book was published in England, he uses British spelling throughout. Thus, my quotes from Eric Lane are not misspelled; they are British spelling.)

Eric Lane, the author of the book, stated, "If we could agree on baptism, this would do more to promote unity than any other single factor" (24). I believe he is right, and thus, I write this review in ardent hope it will help lead us to the "unity of the Spirit."

There are a number of assumptions made in the book that are based on Reformed (Protestant) theology. I am neither a Protestant nor a Catholic but simply a Christian (Acts 11:26; 1 Peter 4:16; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13). I insist that the Bible is our complete, sufficient spiritual guide (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and that we must accept what it teaches regardless of the philosophies of men (Colossians 2:8-10; Romans 3:3-4; 1 Corinthians 1:18 - 2:16). I try always to determine and describe my position on any spiritual or religious issue by what the Scriptures plainly teach rather than by reference to theological schools of thought (1 Peter 4:11). I strongly believe there are errors on both sides in the debate between Protestant and Catholic theology. However, in this review I plan to limit my comments to those issues that directly pertain to baptism.

Mr. Lane states, "Paul says there is only one baptism, (18). This is certainly true (Ephesians 4:5). He declares, "The one baptism, therefore is the baptism instituted by the one Lord, in Matthew 28:18-20" (21). Amen! This is highly significant, because in this very passage the Lord Jesus claimed, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (verse 18). Thus, we must do everything "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Colossians 3:17), i.e., by His authority ( Vine. 3:100; cf. Acts 4:18). We dare not act without that authority (2 Timothy 1:13; 2 John 9). Thus, whatever baptism we submit to must be the one authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The author adds:

The apostle Paul spoke most definitely about one baptism,, meaning that what Christ instituted prior to his ascension was to replace all previous and existing forms of baptising:.... (106-07)

I agree that this is implied in Ephesians 4:5. Thus, the only baptism pleasing to God is the one baptism commanded by the Lord. Certainly, if the baptism of John, which was from God but is no longer valid (Luke 7:29-30; Acts 19:1-5), will not do, then no baptism that originated with mere men is acceptable to God.

However, Mr. Lane appears to be inconsistent on this point. He comments:

But since the only reference to re-baptism of John's disciples is of certain ones at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5), it seems unlikely that there was a general re-baptizing (42).

This is mere human reason in direct contradiction to what the passage plainly teaches. The approved example of Acts 19:1-5 teaches that, though they had received a baptism which formerly was approved of God, they needed to be "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (verse 5). The reason the apostle Paul stated that they should "be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" was that:

John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus (verse 4).

Why did this apply to the men at Ephesus but not to others? How many times must the Lord teach something for it to be true? Certainly, anyone today who has only received a baptism of human origin needs to receive the one baptism that is by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Mr. Lane also teaches:

This means there is only one mode (or form) of baptism, only one right way to carry out the practice. It means that there is only one meaning (or significance) for baptism.... It also means that one class of persons is qualified to be baptized (19).

I strongly agree that immersion is the only scriptural "mode" of baptism. In fact, according to the definition of the word "baptism," sprinkling and pouring are not even baptism, much less scripturally authorized "modes" of baptism. I also agree that penitent believers constitute the only class of people qualified for baptism.

However, as Mr. Lane further explains the significance of baptism, a crucial difference arises. We disagree on the purpose of baptism. Mr. Lane writes, "It is therefore not baptism that makes people Christians but the preaching of the gospel and the response of faith" (50). I shall seek to prove that it is at the point of baptism that penitent believers become Christians and that baptism, rather than being in contrast to "the response of faith," is a response of faith.

Thus, Mr. Lane denies baptism is a condition of salvation (Ibid). He affirms, "... baptism symbolises salvation..." (11). He further writes:

If we ask about the grace of which baptism is the means.... It is not the grace of salvation, for that is assumed to be present in those who come to baptism. (119)

I shall seek to prove that baptism is a condition of salvation.

The other area of disagreement is the substance of baptism. In effect, Mr. Lane teaches we should receive two baptisms, baptism in water and baptism with the Holy Spirit. He recognizes these are not one and the same baptism and that one can be received without the other. He writes, "... it is still true to be baptised by a Christian minister in water is far less important than to be baptised in the Holy Spirit."

When Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus from prison in Rome between 60 and 64 AD, he affirmed there is "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). If Holy Spirit baptism is still administered by Christ from heaven, we must not administer water baptism. If we are to administer water baptism, then Holy Spirit baptism, as the baptism of John the Baptist, has served its purpose and ceased.

Remember, the one baptism now in effect is in the name of the Lord. Baptism in the name of the Lord is a command we must obey (Acts 10:48). But Holy Spirit baptism was a promise to be received (Acts 1:4-5). Surely we understand the difference between a promise and a command. If I commanded one of my sons to mow the lawn, it was his duty to obey. If I promised him he could take the car, it was his privilege to receive. A promise and a command are not the same. Holy Spirit baptism could not be the one baptism in the name of the Lord.

Further, Holy Spirit baptism was administered directly by the Lord Himself (Matthew 3:11), whereas the one baptism is administered by men in the name of the Lord (Matthew 28:19). Holy Spirit baptism is not the one New Testament baptism.

Baptism in the name of the Lord, the one baptism, is water baptism. After the household of Cornelius had also received the Holy Spirit as a witness to the Jewish disciples that uncircumcised Gentiles were to be accepted in Christ on an equality with Jews (Acts 10:44-45; 11:15-18; 15:7-9), Peter inquired, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we [have]?" (Acts 10:47) The baptism Peter referred to was water baptism. "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). Baptism "in the name of the Lord" is water baptism. And Mr. Lane and I agree that there is only one baptism in effect today with divine approval, and it is "in the name of the Lord."

In response to the preaching of Christ, the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36) Before Philip baptized him, "both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water." (Acts 8:38) After the baptism, "they came up out of the water." (Acts 8:39) Now what substance was the eunuch baptized in?

The only people who were ever promised baptism in the Holy Spirit were the apostles of Christ. (Acts 1:1-5) To be an apostle, one had to be an eye witness of the resurrected Lord. (Acts 1:21-26) Paul was the last witness of all. (1 Corinthians 15:8) Why should we think people today are to receive Holy Spirit baptism?

There are only two examples of reception of the Holy Spirit in which baptism of the Holy Spirit is mentioned: the apostles on Pentecost (Acts 2) and the household of Cornelius. (Acts 11:15-17) In both cases those who received the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues. (Acts 2:1-11; 10:45-47) Are there any members of Grace Baptist Church who speak in tongues? Has not the gift of tongues ceased? (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)

The author of the book argues:

So Peter went on to say (in Acts 2:38 - KS) to his hearers that if they repented of their sins, especially of the rejection and crucifixion of their Messiah, they would be forgiven their sins and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,. Although he did not use the same word (which, after all, is only a metaphor not a doctrine), he was clearly promising them what Christ had promised him and his fellow apostles - to be baptised by the Holy Spirit (15).

This statement has several important errors. Christ did not promise to baptize the apostles by the Holy Spirit but with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). They were baptized by Christ Jesus himself (Matthew 3:11), But, in contrast with water as a substance of baptism, the substance in which they were baptized (metaphorically, we are agreed) was the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5). Thus, if Holy Spirit baptism is still in effect, there are either two baptisms, or water baptism is not in effect with God's approval.

The promise Peter refers to (Acts 2:39), the promise of "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (verse 38), is not baptism with the Holy Spirit. Why go all the way back to Acts 1:4-5 to identify the promise of Acts 2:39, when Peter is developing a text (Joel 2:18-32; Acts 2:17-21) that contained two promises: the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and salvation for those who call on the name of the Lord? That is the promise of Acts 2:39. In Acts 2:38 Peter tells the people how to call on the name of the Lord, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," and then promises they also could receive the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as promised by Joel. Later examples show that disciples received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the apostles, hands (Acts 8:12-19; 19:1-7). The Holy Spirit dwells in Christians today through His inspired word (Ephesians 5:18-19; Colossians 3:16).

Mr. Lane comments on the baptism of John:

He could only baptise with water but they needed more - to be baptised with the Holy Spirit. Sin does not lie on the surface where the water falls, but in the heart which only the Spirit can wash. The Holy Spirit cleans the inner nature (35).

No, water cannot cleanse the heart, and the washing of dirt from the body is not the significance of baptism (1 Peter 3:21). But John's baptism, just as New Testament baptism, was "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38). No amount of rhetoric will change this fact. When we are baptized in water the Holy Spirit cleanses our hearts of the stain of sin (John 3:5; Titus 3:4-7).

The author adds, "... baptism is compulsory and obligatory, just as the Lord's Supper is." (46) That is certainly true! The word "compulsory" means "demanded, directed, or designated by authority" (Webster, 468). "Obligatory" means "demanded or required by existing obligations esp. of a moral or legal nature" (Ibid, 1556). How can one fail to obey what God commands and be saved? (Matthew 7:21; Hebrews 5:8-9)

On this passage, Mr. Lane argues:

And although salvation may appear to be made dependent on baptism as well as belief (he who believes and is baptized shall be saved,), this is clearly not an absolute condition, since it is he who does not believe, who is condemned, not he who is not baptised. (50)

Either the Lord Jesus made baptism a condition of salvation or He did not. If the Lord Jesus Christ made baptism a condition of salvation, it is an "absolute condition" of salvation. (Hebrews 5:8-9) In Mark 16:16, where did the Lord put baptism, before salvation or after? He put it before salvation and linked it to "believe" with the coordinate conjunction "and," which joins words, phrases and clauses of equal and like rank. He placed "be baptized" as coordinate to, equal to, "believe" as a condition of salvation.

Does the fact He didn't say, "He who is not baptized shall be condemned," eliminate the necessity of water baptism for salvation? Why not believe and obey what the Lord did say, instead of constructing an argument on what He didn't say? I certainly don't want to stake my hope of heaven on what Jesus didn't say.

Suppose a health teacher informed her class, "He who eats and digests his food will live; but he who does not eat will die." Would that mean digestion is not an absolute condition of living? No, the teacher would simply be dividing the people into two categories: those who eat and those who don't eat. One can't digest food if he doesn't eat food.

In Mark 16:16 Jesus divided people into two categories, not three. It's not believers, baptized believers and unbelievers. It's baptized believers and unbelievers. One who doesn't have enough faith in Jesus to be baptized is classified as an unbeliever by the Lord. There is no such thing as a sincere, penitent believer who will not be baptized (Mark 16:16).

If a car dealer promised, "He who believes and is baptized shall receive a new car, but he who does not believe shall not," how many folks would refuse baptism? If we can see it for a car, why not for eternal life? The saved believer is the baptized believer. Baptism is the response of faith that results in salvation.

I stated earlier that I believed both Protestants and Catholics are wrong on how to be saved. This is a prime example of the point. Catholics teach, "He who is baptized is saved and should believe." Protestants teach, "He who believes is saved and should be baptized." Jesus declared, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." I hope you will join me in rejecting both Protestant and Catholic doctrine and accepting the doctrine of Christ. (2 John 9-11).

On Acts 2:38, Mr. Lane teaches:

When they inquired what they must do (verse 37) Peter's reply was: Repent and be baptised, (verse 38). Both these terms are important and both are necessary.... Obviously the command to baptise is secondary to and dependent on the command to repent. Even so Peter demands it in his call for a response. (62-63).

If baptism is "necessary," how can it be unnecessary to salvation? Which is it? It can't be both. "But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No." (2 Corinthians 1:13).

Yes, baptism is dependent on repentance. It would be a waste of time and a blasphemous fraud for an impenitent sinner to be baptized in the name of the Lord. But why does this make baptism subordinate to (less important than) repentance? Faith is dependent on hearing (Romans 10:17). Is faith subordinate to (less important than) hearing? The Pharisees ranked God's commands in order of importance, loosing some and binding others. This made their worship vain (Matthew 15:1-9). Jesus taught we must keep all God's commands (Matthew 23:23; 28:19-20).

The command to "be baptized" is connected to "repent" by the coordinate conjunction "and." Rather than being subordinate to (less important than) "repent," "be baptized" is coordinate (equal or like in rank) with "repent." Both are joined to "the remission of sins" by the preposition "for." Whatever repentance is for, baptism is for. If repentance is unto and necessary to forgiveness of sins, so is baptism.

The prepositional phrase "for the remission of sins" is precisely equivalent, both in English and Greek, to the same phrase in Matthew 26:28. Jesus there declared, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Did Jesus shed His blood on the cross to show our sins had already been remitted or unto the remission of our sins? Baptism is for the same purpose.

Mr. Lane adds concerning the 3000 on Pentecost, "Although the whole process took only a short time, the marks of discipleship were plainly present before baptism was administered." (64) What marks of discipleship? Before Peter preached to them they were devout Jews. (verse 5) After Peter proved to them Jesus was Lord, "they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (verse 37) It is truly implied that they believed Peter's message and thus did indeed believe that Jesus is "both Lord and Christ. (verse 36) But were they at that point saved and disciples? Were they saved disciples by faith alone? They had not yet repented, for, in answer to their inquiry, "what shall we do?", Peter commanded them to repent. (verse 38) Were they saved disciples before and without repentance? (Romans 2:5)

Peter also commanded them to "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38) Were they saved disciples before their sins were remitted?

Luke further records, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them." (verse 40) All who "gladly received his word were baptized." Were they saved disciples before they "gladly received his word"?

Only the baptized "were added to them." To what were they added? "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47b) All the saved were added by the Lord to the church. Were they disciples before they were saved? Saul of Tarsus persecuted "the church." (Acts 8:1) But the people Saul persecuted were "the disciples of the Lord." (Acts 9:1) According to the inspired account, to be disciples of the Lord, to receive the remission of sins, to gladly receive the word and to be added by the Lord to the church, people must "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Those who have not been "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" are not "disciples of the Lord."

Mr. Lane's own words imply this truth:

In verse 41 we are told that those baptised were added,, which can only mean what the same term means in verse 47 - that they were received into the church, that is, the whole invisible body of Christ in general and the Jerusalem church (the only local church yet in existence) in particular. (65).

This is precisely correct. But the people Jesus saves are those who compose His spiritual body, the church. (Ephesians 5:23; 1:22-23) Only the baptized are members of that body; thus, only the baptized are saved.

Turning to the conversion of the Samaritans, recorded in Acts 8:5-24, Mr. Lane teaches:

The incident in Samaria is interesting and important for the additional factor of the exposure of Simon as an unregenerate man even after he had believed, and had been baptised. This makes it clear that not all professions of faith are genuine and that baptism in and of itself does not give divine grace. (68)

Why does Mr. Lane have "believed" in quotation marks? Is it not because he doesn't think Simon really believed? The passage says not one word about a "profession of faith" by Simon. The writer, inspired by the Spirit of God, states that Simon "believed" and "was baptized." (Acts 8:13) Mr. Lane simply denies a plain statement of Scripture. Why? Because this example plainly contradicts his theory that a saved person cannot so sin as to be lost.

The Lord promised, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Luke records that "both men and women" of Samaria, hearing Philip preach "Christ" (Acts 8:5), "the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12) "believed" and "were baptized" (Ibid). No one denies the genuineness of their faith or the reality of their salvation. But "Simon himself also believed" (not professed faith but "believed") and was "baptized" (verse 13). By what rule of logic, grammar or exegesis would one come to the conclusion that Simon was at this point "unregenerate"?

In fact, more is said of Simon's faithfulness than of the other Samaritans. He "continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done." (Ibid) The word translated "continued" is the same Greek term rendered "continued steadfastly" in Acts 2:42 as a description of the faithfulness of the disciples in Jerusalem. They "continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine," and Simon "continued with Philip," an inspired evangelist. Only unreasonable adherence to a humanly conceived theory would blind one to the incontrovertible fact that Simon was saved because he believed and was baptized but afterward fell from grace through sin (Acts 8:14-24).

_________________________

List of Works Cited

Vine, W.E., An Expository Dictionary of New Testaments Words.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged.

TOP OF PAGE

BACK TO MAIN PAGE

Online Bible Course

Article Archive
- Articles by Date
- Articles by Subject

Audio Sermons

Debates & Discussions

Free Bible to Download

Events

About Us

How to Find Us & When We Meet

Want to Study the Bible with Us?

Want to take our Free Bible Correspondence Course by Mail?