Thoughts on Baptism

by Jefferson David Tant

The rite of baptism is almost universally practiced in the thousands of denominations that claim to follow the Bible. It is observed in various ways, such as immersion, pouring, and sprinkling of water, sprinkling of rose petals, etc. Then there is infant baptism, baptism of believers, and baptism for the dead. Further differences have to do with whether baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, or whether it is just a symbolic rite after one has already been saved.

It should be quite obvious that all those contradicting varieties cannot all be true. I have written a treatise on the subject of immersion as opposed to other methods, and in this document, we want to look at the passages in the New Testament dealing with the purpose or necessity of baptism. If baptism is necessary for salvation, we need to be aware of it, which is what we want to examine by looking at the various passages in the Bible that mention it.

“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

In this shortened version of “The Great Commission,” as Christ is giving his final charge to his disciples before he ascends, he puts two conditions before “saved.” “Has believed,” and “has been baptized” equals “shall be saved.” Note that these two phrases are joined by “and.” That word is called a coordinate conjunction, joining two words of equal importance or rank.

Consider a similar statement: “He who buys a ticket and boards the plane shall reach his destination, but he who does not buy a ticket will not get to his destination.” It is quite obvious that there are two conditions to reaching one’s destination. You may buy the ticket, but if you don’t get on the plane, then your ticket is worthless.

Some will counter by claiming that if baptism is necessary, the verse should have said “He who has disbelieved and has not been baptized shall be condemned.” In that case, going back to the airplane matter, the statement would have to read, “He that does not buy a ticket and does not get on the plane shall not reach his destination.” Do you see the point? If you don’t buy a ticket, you don’t need to be told you won’t get on the plane. That’s obvious.

By the same reasoning, if you don’t believe, you are not going to be baptized, so there was no point in telling his disciples that those who disbelieve and who are not baptized will be lost.

In an effort to discount the meaning of this verse, John McArthur, in his Study Bible, states that this verse “does not teach that baptism saves, since the lost are condemned for unbelief, not for not being baptized.” Now go back and apply the same reasoning about getting on the plane. Joe didn’t reach his destination because he didn’t get on the plane, but because he didn’t buy the ticket. But in order to reach his destination, he had to buy the ticket, and also get on the plane.

“Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts 2:37-38).

This is the Day of Pentecost, as Peter is preaching to the multitude gathered. As he declared the identity of Christ, and his crucifixion and resurrection, thousands of those in the audience realized what they had done, and then asked Peter what they could do to be forgiven of this sin.

Peter then gives two steps to bring about forgiveness. The matter of believing or having faith has already been accomplished, as evidenced by their question. So,

1. they were told to repent (a change of heart and an expression of sorrow) and then
2. they were told to be baptized with the result that their sins would be forgiven.

What is hard to understand about that? Could their sins have been forgiven if they only repented? Obviously not. Could their sins have been forgiven if they were not baptized? Same reasoning. There is that word “and” again, which is a coordinate conjunction.

But of course, there are those who refuse to accept this. I will turn again to John McArthur. Consider what he wrote: “for the remission of sins. This might better be translated ‘because of the remission of sins.’ Baptism does not produce forgiveness and cleansing from sin.”

Yes, in the English language, “for” can mean “because of,” as well as “in order to.” Sally was stopped by the police for speeding. Obviously, she was stopped because she was driving too fast. Why was Sally speeding? She told the policeman, “I was on the way to the pharmacy for some medicine that I needed badly to help with the severe pain I have.”

So, we have two legitimate uses of “for.” But in the Bible’s original language, Greek, it doesn’t work that way. Greek is a very precise language, and I suspect God chose that for the New Testament to avoid any ambiguous understandings. The Greek word “eis” means “…for (intent, purpose)… Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).” I will spare the reader the full 80 or so words that Strong’s Greek Dictionary uses, but the ones cited pretty well define a forward motion.

Nowhere is there a hint of the word being defined as “because of,” as McArthur claimed. To firmly establish the meaning, consider what Christ said to the apostles at the Last Supper:

“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:27-28).

• for <eis> the remission <aphesis> of sins. <hamartia> (KJV, Acts 2:38)
• for <eis> the remission <aphesis> of sins, <hamartia> (KJV, Matthew 26:28)

Take note that the words in Matthew and Acts are exactly the same. Therefore, if McArthur’s claim is true, that “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of,” then Christ shed his blood because our sins had already been forgiven. Who can believe it?

Peter had some words of warning about such matters. “…and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (II Peter 3:15-16).

So we can see that to “distort” or twist the Scriptures is nothing new in our time. It has been going on since the beginning of the Gospel. Satan is still working, as he did with Adam and Eve.

Another useful passage has to do with the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch when Philip was sent to teach him. An angel of the Lord appeared to Philip and told him to go teach this Ethiopian official who was travelling from Jerusalem back to his home country in Africa.

Philip was standing by the road as the Ethiopian’s chariot passed by. Maybe Philip seemed to be hitchhiking, and the eunuch stopped to give him a ride. Philip saw that he was reading from the prophet Isaiah as he was traveling. Observing this was the beginning of their conversation.

"'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?'" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:30-31). As they travelled on and discussed the passage in Isaiah 53, the following transpired.

"The eunuch asked Philip, 'Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?' Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, 'Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?' And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him” (Acts 8:34-38).

Note that Philip “preached Jesus” to the eunuch, and that “preaching Jesus” obviously included “preaching baptism.” It may have been a bit inconvenient for the eunuch to be baptized. He was on a journey. He went down in the water and got his clothes all wet. There was no nearby Holiday Inn where he could go and put on dry clothes. Doesn’t this show the necessity of baptism? Why else would Philip do this inconvenient ritual? And although the mode of baptism is not a part of this treatise, it is worth noting that they both went down into the water and came up. There is no dispute that the Greek word “baptizo” means “immersion.” Even scholars from the denominations that practice sprinkling or pouring agree that the Greek word means “immersion.”

The next passage deals with the salvation of the Gentile Cornelius who sent for Peter to come to him. Peter had a vision in which he was told to satisfy his hunger by killing and eating an unclean animal. Which was forbidden to Jews. While trying to understand what this was all about, some men were knocking at his door, asking him to come with them to the house of their master Cornelius, who was a Gentile. Such association with the Gentiles was also forbidden to Jews. But Peter then understood the meaning of the heavenly vision and went with them.

Cornelius had also had a vision, telling him to send for Peter. Obviously, Cornelius was a devout man who prayed to God often. In his vision, he saw an angel, and we see what transpired.

"About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, 'Cornelius!' And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, 'What is it, Lord?' And he said to him, 'Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter'” (Acts 10:3-5).

When Peter came and entered the house of Cornelius, where a crowd had gathered, Cornelius related to Peter the vision that he had received, in which God answered his prayer, and told him to send for Peter to come. So Peter began preaching the gospel to those who had gathered. Note what happened while Peter was still speaking.

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:43-48).

Note that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles before they were baptized. Thus, those who claim baptism is not necessary for salvation, claim that since the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were saved before they were baptized.

Note verse 48, where Peter “ordered them to be baptized in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus Christ.” How can anyone say that baptism is not essential to salvation, when the apostle Peter “ordered” them to be baptized? What other “orders” are we permitted to neglect or say are not necessary?

But the story doesn’t end there. When the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem heard about Peter’s interaction with the Gentiles, they were upset, and wanted Peter to explain this. So Peter recounted the series of events, including his vision from heaven, and the coming of the servants to ask him to come to the house of Cornelius. Note what Peter said as he recalled the event.

“And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning'” (Acta 11:13-15).

Note what Peter said.

1. Cornelius was to call for Peter to come, “and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved…”
2. “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them,”
3. "just as He did upon us at the beginning.”

Consider the sequence of events. Peter was to speak words that would tell them how to be saved. Then as Peter “began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them.” Think about that. If they had to have words of salvation spoken to them, then the Holy Spirit falling on them had nothing to do with their salvation because this happened before they heard any words.

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit falling upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost had nothing to do with their salvation. The apostles were already in a saved relationship with Christ. This gift on Pentecost served to get the attention of the audience, as they were amazed to hear the message in 16 languages. And with Cornelius, the same gift got the attention of all those present, “For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God” (Acts 10:46).

So the Gentiles were saved after they heard the message, which message also ordered them to be baptized, as in Acts 10:48. Question: Which “orders” from God can be labeled as unnecessary?

Consider the case of the conversion of the Philippian jailor in Acts 16:25-33.

“But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened. When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!" And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.”

Did you notice the word “immediately” concerning the baptism of the household? If baptism was not necessary, it would seem somewhat inconvenient to have to go out in the middle of the night to find a place to immerse this family. Why not wait until a more convenient time? Evidently it was so important that their baptism was done a.s.a.p. — “as soon as possible.”

Next, we turn to the time when Paul was recounting his conversion in Acts 22. You will recall that back in Acts 9 that Saul was blinded while on a journey to Damascus.

"But since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me and came into Damascus. A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very time I looked up at him. And he said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name'" (Acts 22:11-16).

Whoa! Hadn’t his sins been forgiven even before he met Ananias? Weren’t his sins washed away the moment he believed? This is the doctrine of countless denominations. But are we saved by "faith only?"

Consider the following from the booklet I wrote, “Where Did They All Come From?

"Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort" [Methodist Discipline and Episcopal Book of Common Prayer]. Similar statements are made in Baptist and Presbyterian doctrinal statements. In fact, nearly every Protestant denomination has a similar statement in its creed book. I had a conversation with a young Baptist preacher one time, and I asked if he believed in salvation by "faith only." He replied in the affirmative. I then asked him to read James 2:24: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." He didn't know what to say except, "That's not the kind of God I serve," and closed his Bible (as he closed his mind). He then admitted that he had never read James, and did not know that verse was in the Bible, but that made no difference.”

What does McArthur say in the footnote to this passage in his Study Bible? “Grammatically, this phrase, ‘calling on the name of the Lord,’ precedes ‘arise and be baptized.’ Salvation comes from calling on the name of the Lord, not from being baptized.” Well, I guess that’s one way to solve the problem. Just change the sequence of words in the revelation God gave us. He disagrees with the wording in both the original Greek and every English translation I have ever read.

Let’s now go to Romans 6:3-6:

“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin.”

How can we be “baptized into Christ” if we are already “in Christ” at the moment of faith? Furthermore, it is not advisable to bury a person who is alive. I have been to many funerals in my life, but have never witnessed a live person being buried. But if we are saved “before” baptism, then somehow we must become “dead” again, for the text says that when we come up from baptism, we are “raised from the dead.” Note also that this text is a strong refutation of the practice of sprinkling for baptism.

Note a verse in Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia. “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

Wait a minute. If we are already “in Christ” by faith alone, how is it that we are then “baptized into Christ?” And were we not already “clothed with Christ?” McArthur writes, “This is not water baptism, which cannot save. Paul used the word in a metaphorical manner to speak of being “immersed” or “placed into” Christ.” It has been noted earlier that when salvation and baptism are linked, the baptism is in water. See Acts 10:47 and Acts 8:38.

There are interesting thoughts to be gleaned from a passage in Ephesians 4:4-6:

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”

Note that there is “one body,” which is the church. According to God’s Word, there are not 42,000 differing denominations that have doctrines that contradict the Bible and one another. There is “one Spirit” — the Holy Spirit. There is “one hope” — heaven. There is “one Lord” — Jesus Christ. There is “one faith,” not “the faith of your choice.” Not Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, or what have you. There is “one baptism” — not three, and “one God, ”— not the thousands upon thousands of Hindu gods.

Note that there are six items mentioned in the text. Question: “Which one is not essential?” Obviously, many would say that #5 is not essential, since we are saved “by faith only.” Now, if baptism is optional and not necessary, why in the world did the Holy Spirit, who revealed the Word, throw something non-essential in with those that are vitally essential? Who can explain it? My conclusion is that all six are on an equal rank.

McArthur claims there are “two” baptisms. “One baptism. This probably refers to the water baptism following salvation, a believer’s public confession of faith in Jesus Christ. Spiritual baptism, by which all believers are placed into the body of Christ is implied.” Problem. The Holy Spirit says “one baptism,” while McArthur says “two baptisms.” Which should we believe?

Truthfully, there are various baptisms mentioned in the Bible. They are, the baptism unto Moses, referring to crossing the sea when fleeing from Egypt (I Corinthians 10:2); John’s baptism, which prepared for the coming of Christ (John 1:28); baptism of the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8, etc.); baptism in fire, referring to hell (Matthew 3:11); baptism of suffering, referring to Christ’s crucifixion (Mark 10:38); and then the baptism in water for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, plus other passages cited earlier).
So, when Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus, the “one baptism” he referred to is the baptism in water for the remission of sins, as several passages confirmed. Other baptisms had served their purpose and were no longer in practice, and one was yet to come — baptism in the fires of hell.

How can any denomination or man say that baptism is not essential when God’s Word is replete with passages showing that baptism was “ordered,” that baptism is connected to “forgiveness of sins,” and that it is the act that places us “into Christ?”

And yet another passage dealing with baptism is I Peter 3:18-21:

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Peter makes an interesting comparison between Noah and his family being saved by water and our being saved by water. Obviously, it’s not an exact replica, but we know that Noah and his family were saved from destruction because the water lifted the ark from the destruction that took place on the earth. And the comparison for Christians is that the waters of baptism separate us from the destruction of sin that is in the world. And Peter plainly states that “baptism now saves you…” How could it be stated any clearer?

Well, what does our “scholar” McArthur have to say about this passage? “Peter is not at all referring to water baptism here, but rather a figurative immersion into union with Christ as an ark of safety from the judgment of God…not the removal of the filth of the flesh. Peter clearly says he is not speaking of water baptism…”

I have never read anywhere that baptism is likened to taking a bath with soap and water to wash away dirt. But that’s the picture McArthur tries to paint with his brush with which he tried to paint over any implication that the Bible links salvation to baptism. Peter said that “baptism now saves you,” and likened that to water. If this is not water baptism, then McArthur has added another baptism for Christians to observe — figurative baptism.

What about John 3:16, which is probably the most memorized verse in the entire Bible?

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

This verse is often cited as proof of “faith only.” Well, if we take the position that faith is all that we need, then one doesn’t have to repent of a sinful life. Nor does one have to confess his faith. But the apostle Paul wrote, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation” (Romans 10:9-10).

Dear reader, please recognize that not every record of conversion contains every detail. But a correct understanding of God’s will includes taking the sum of what the Bible teaches about any subject and putting it all together. This is the gist of what is written in Psalm 119:160: “The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.”

We are not allowed the luxury of going through the Bible and just picking out what we like and omitting the rest. It is either all or nothing! Christianity is not “cafeteria style,” where you go through the line and pick out what food you like, and ignore the rest.

A final thought before bringing this treatise to a close is a consideration of what James wrote.

“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:14-24).

It is claimed that we cannot earn our salvation by works. That is true. The claim is also made that baptism is a “work,” and therefore baptism is not a part of our salvation. Note that if faith alone saves, then I suppose the demons will be in heaven since James says they also believe.

But the passage cited in James shows that the only kind of faith that saves us is an “obedient faith,” as seen in the last verse cited in italics. How can anyone ignore the phrase that we are “justified by works and not by faith alone”? Well, McArthur tries. “This does not contradict Paul’s clear teaching that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone.”

What? What did he write? “Grace alone through faith alone?” That makes as much sense as telling someone that on my last mission trip, I went alone with my wife alone. I think in reality that I was not alone, but with my wife.

James refutes the idea that “faith alone” can save us. If it really does, then one can claim to have faith, and then sit idly by and twiddle his thumbs and not have to follow Christ’s teachings. Why? Because he “has faith,” and “faith alone” saves, according to the doctrine.

But some insist that baptism is a work and that we are not saved by “works.”

Well, guess what? Faith is a “work.” How so? Consider a conversation Christ had with some Jews in John’s gospel. “Christ told the crowd, "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:27-29).

“Well, Joe, what is your occupation?”
“I’m a carpenter. I build houses for a living.”
“Well, I’m sure that’s a lot of hard work.”
“Sure is, but I enjoy it.”

“And Mary, what do you do for a living?”
“I’m an accountant. I specialize in helping people with their income tax.”
“So you don’t really work.”
“Of course I do. I read records, analyze the data and make decisions based on the information.”

Obviously, you see the point. One works with his hands and the other works with her mind. And so it is with faith. Jesus said faith was a “work of God.” How so? We read the words of Scripture, analyze and think about what we have read, and then act upon it.

So, faith is a work that is approved by God. It is something we do with our mind — our reasoning process. But if, as so many claim, we are saved without any kind of work, then we can be saved without faith. Who can believe it?

Consider a side note about infant baptism. First, there is no mention in the New Testament saying that babies were ever baptized. Consider that every time “Christian” is mentioned, there are conditions attached—faith, confession, and repentance. As best I can determine, an infant is incapable of any of these. Infant baptism is not from the Bible but has been added from denominational creeds. We are warned about this in Deuteronomy 23:32: “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.”

Second, it is known that baptizing infants did not begin until the 3rd Century. Thus if this was not revealed to the apostles and prophets in the 1st Century, then the practice is not from God. A third consideration is that if infants are born in sin, as some denominations teach, then a baby that is not baptized and dies in infancy, will go to hell. Is that just? Is that fair? Obviously not!

Then the question is raised, “What about the thief on the cross? He was saved, but he wasn’t baptized.” And that’s a good question.

When did Christ make his promise to the thief? Obviously, it was while they were on the cross, and before Christ died. Now consider, it is a common practice for people to write their “Last Will and Testament” before they die. Then upon their death, the terms of the will are made known, and the distribution of the deceased’s estate is then carried out. This principle is also recorded in the Bible. “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.” (Hebrews 9:16-17)

Thus, the thief was not under the New Covenant command to be baptized. Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 were conditions given for the forgiveness of sins after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The thief was dead and buried. He never heard the words given by Christ or Peter. And consider that Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Esther, Noah, Isaiah, and countless others who we believe have received God’s promised award, were never baptized. there was no such command then.

Therefore, the argument that we can be saved like the thief is not valid. Besides, how do we know he had never been baptized and had “fallen away?” There were multitudes of people baptized by John the Baptist, and the thief could well have been one of them, but then turned back to the world.

In closing, note that the Bible says, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved,” while Satan says, “We are saved by faith only, and baptism is not necessary.” Which shall we believe?

As Joshua is about to lead Israel into the promised land, he gives them a challenge: “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

I’ll stand with Joshua.

Where will you stand?