prayeramedic.com » baptism

The only good Christian is a dead Christian

Dan — Tue, 04 May 2010 08:30:54 +0000

This post is great, I wish I had written it. But I didn’t. From Charles Lehmann’s blog, Drowning Myself Whenever I Can:

… The only good Christian is a dead one. We have to die to ourselves. We have to take up our cross daily and follow Him. We must daily be drowned in the waters of our baptism so that the sinner may die.

Of course, this is where the witty saying that I put forward in the title of this post falls apart. It’s not the Christian we’re killing. It’s the sinner. It’s the old Adam that is put to death in the waters of baptism so that new life can be given to us through the promises of Christ.

You cannot heal a sinner. You cannot make them less sinful. You cannot make them do more good and less evil. They only thing that can be done with a sinner is to kill them. They have to die. Then they can be raised to new life in Christ. That’s what baptism does. But even after we are baptized, our old necrotic sinful self claws its way out of the grave and goes on sinning. That’s why in this life we are simultaneously sinner and saint. In order for the saint to live, the sinner has to keep on dying….

Wow, great thoughts – and so true. Too often we set resolutions to change and end up right back where we started. We constantly vow to do this or that, and somehow nothing seems to get accomplished. The problem is that we are trying to reform our sinful nature (flesh), when scripture makes it clear to us that “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Romans 8:7). The solution is that we must die to sin. Everybody dies, it’s just a matter of whether you die to sin or if you die in sin.

I’d highly encourage you to read the entire article.

My Father Since Birth

Dan — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:36:43 +0000

Growing up, there were times my parents and I didn’t get along. I’m sure you can relate. In fact, for a large portion of my adolescence, I was pretty convinced that my parents were idiots. I certainly didn’t respect them very much, and at times I thought I didn’t need them. Later in life, I have now come to appreciate and cherish them both, and I recognize their significant contribution to my life. They have shaped and molded me into the man that I am today, even when I resented and even failed to recognize it.

Despite my feelings and lack of recognition towards them, they have always been my parents since birth. They never ceased to be my parents. Our relationship with our heavenly Father is very similar in this regard. In our spiritual (re)birth we become His children, and He becomes our Father. I failed to acknowledge Him as such throughout much of my life, and I certainly didn’t (and often don’t) appreciate Him enough. But all the while, He was still my Father.

The other day someone mentioned to me that she had a hard time believing that human choice and sincerity plays no role in our salvation. She said that despite being baptized at a young age and being raised in the church, she didn’t feel that she was saved until she began taking her faith seriously as a young adult. Today I was thinking about the analogy above, and how God has been my heavenly Father even when I failed to recognize Him as such. I think we run into trouble when we make our sincerity or choice a part of salvation. God saves us, we respond to that, but only after He has saved us.

“To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” -John 1:12-13 (NIV)

What role did I play in being born into this world? None. But now that I am born, I have the choice of how I will live. Our spiritual rebirth is no different. I played no role in being “born again” (justification), but now I must choose to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in order to become more like Jesus each day (sanctification). We run into trouble when we use our feelings as a gauge of our salvation. They can be an indication of reality, but they also can mislead us. As children of God, we will continually grow in grace and in appreciation of what God has done for us in and through Jesus Christ. We will continue to understand more and more of the depth of His love and compassion for us. But as we grow in knowledge and grace, we don’t become “more saved” than when we were first baptized into His death and raised to life through faith with Him (Romans 6:4). We are saved by one thing: Jesus Christ took our place on the cross and died for our sins.

My dad has been my dad since I was born. And my heavenly Dad has been my Dad since I was reborn. The same is true for you.

Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 5

Dan — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:27:08 +0000

This is part 5 of a series on the paradox of salvation. In part 1, I presented two humorous video clips (one minute each) dealing with Calvinist and Arminian witnessing. In part 2, I broke down Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and how he used the Bible to proclaim Christ to those gathered in Jerusalem that day, using both Law and Gospel. In part 3 I further discussed Peter’s answer to the question, “what must we do to be saved?”, focusing on the importance of baptism and what the Bible says about it. Then in part 4 I discussed the link between the Holy Spirit and baptism by examining Acts chapters 8 and 19.

Here in part 5 we are going to discuss 1 Peter 3:18-22 and the link between baptism and salvation. Let me preface this by pointing out that this is one of the most debated texts in scripture, and exegetical scholars have written extensive essays explaining the text. This is going to be a very brief synopsis, but that inevitably means there will be a lot of holes that will need to be filled in. I encourage you to do the studying yourself, read the text and pray to God that His Holy Spirit will reveal its meaning to you.

First the text itself:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit…. In [Noah's ark] only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. (1 Peter 3:18, 20b-22)

Yes I know I skipped verse 19 and part of verse 20, and yes they are important verses, but not so much for interpreting the teaching on baptism in this text. I omitted them only because of length, I could write an entire post on verses 19-20 which would involve explaining the Nephilim in Genesis 6, what happened to them, and how demonic spirits can be sentenced to imprisonment / bound in chains prior to Christ’s final return. I’ll save that for another day. For now let’s stay on track: baptism and its link to salvation in this text.

Verse 18 begins with the word “for.” One of my teachers told me that any time I see the words “for” or “therefore,” I need to find out what they’re there for! In this case it is referring to the immediate context of vv. 13-17, which deals with suffering for doing good, specifically for professing Christ as Lord. It is thus saying that Christ’s suffering and death in v. 18 is the ultimate suffering for good, since he “died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.” He had no need to suffer, since He was perfect, but He chose to suffer in order to redeem us, and that is our example for suffering even when innocent of wrongdoing. Verse 18 also makes it clear that “Christ died… to bring [us] to God.” We must keep this in mind as we read this entire text: what brings us to God? Christ’s defeat of sin, death and the devil on the cross.

Enter the controversy. Vv. 20b-21 in the ESV read: “Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and his family’s salvation from the flood through the ark], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The water itself did not save Noah, but it sustained the ark built in faith, resting on God’s word: thus it was to him the sign and means of the regeneration of the earth. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on the Bible puts it this way:

“The flood was for Noah a baptism, as the passage through the Red Sea was for the Israelites; by baptism in the flood he and his family were transferred from the old world to the new: from immediate destruction to lengthened probation; from the companionship of the wicked to communion with God; from the severing of all bonds between the creature and the Creator to the privileges of the covenant: so we by spiritual baptism…. The antitypical water, namely, baptism, saves you also not of itself, nor the mere material water, but the spiritual thing conjoined with it, repentance and faith, of which it is the sign and seal, as Peter proceeds to explain.”

Let me cut through some of the wordiness: “Baptism… now saves you… through the resurrection of Christ.” It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Conclusion

To conclude this entire series, we should not look to man-made doctrines to understand the paradox of salvation. It is just that, paradoxical, and human reason often goes beyond scripture in order to “make sense” of justification. Evangelism involves sharing Christ by teaching both His Law and Gospel. This means teaching that we are born spiritually dead and are thus subject to the power of the devil. Apart from Christ, we are morally and spiritually bankrupt. Because of sin, we are destined to death and eternal separation from God in a literal hell. We are completely helpless and hopeless, powerless to change without the divine grace extended in the offer of the Gospel, God’s good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.

This salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. The Bible clearly teaches that our salvation cannot come about by our own works; it is entirely the work of God. The Holy Spirit draws us to Christ through the Word of God and creates faith in our hearts.

All sinners must die, for the wages of sin is death. They can either die eternally, or they can die baptismally. Baptism should be immediately sought out by and administered to new believers for the forgiveness of sins and the seal of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism we are buried with Christ and integrated into His new covenant, being raised to life by faith, now being counted dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Thanks for reading this series, I hope you found it worth your time and thought.

Denominational Comparison on Baptism

So where do we go from here? I’ve given what the Bible says, yet many Christians still can’t agree on much of the teachings concerning salvation and baptism. That’s because we apply human logic to the Bible and come up with doctrines. Everyone does it, myself included. My only point here is that we should unify on the essentials we all agree in, like those above. But there will inevitably remain differences. I’ll go through the main spectrum of beliefs on how baptism functions, then close with a personal position. The following is from Understanding Four Views on Baptism, p. 125:

Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox	The sacrament acts as a channel of grace, working apart from the recipient’s faith.
Lutheran	The sacrament acts as an agent of God’s (re)creative preached Word.
Christian Churches / Churches of Christ	The ordinance is an occasion and ceremony marking formal allegiance to Christ.
Reformed, Calvinist, Presbyterian	The sacrament is a mystery, it acts as the sign and seal of the confirmation of the Spirit placing one within the visible church.
Baptist, Anabaptist	Baptism is a symbol and pledge of one’s prior and saving faith.
The Salvation Army, The Religious Society of Friends	Baptism plays no function at all.

I personally vacillate somewhere between the Lutheran and Reformed views. Here is my own personal statement on baptism:

In baptism, God graciously and miraculously washes away our sins by applying the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection to us, gives us a new birth, clothes us in Christ’s righteousness, seals us with the Holy Spirit, buries us with Christ and through faith raises us up with Him as new creatures, making us holy before God and integrating us into the Body of Christ. None of this comes about due to anything magical in the water, but by the Word of God in and with the water conjoined with our faith in that Word. According to the Bible, all of this happens in baptism and it is entirely the work of God, not our own doing.

Thanks for reading!

For more good reading on baptism, check out the following posts:

Revisiting the Paradox of Salvation – Part 4

Dan — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:40:43 +0000

This is part 4 of a series on the paradox of salvation. In part 1, I presented two humorous video clips (one minute each) dealing with Calvinist and Arminian witnessing. In part 2, I broke down Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and how he used the Bible to proclaim Christ to those gathered in Jerusalem that day, using both Law and Gospel. Then in part 3 I further discussed Peter’s answer to the question, “what must we do to be saved?”, focusing on the importance of baptism and what the Bible says about it.

As promised, here in part 4 we are going to discuss the link between the Holy Spirit and baptism by examining Acts chapters 8 and 19. But before we begin, I need to make a short disclaimer. People have written books explaining these passages (and I’ve read a few of them). This is going to be a rather terse overview, mostly in order to expose you to the passages and to get you thinking. I’m not going to fill in all the blanks, I would have to write another manifesto in order to do that. So bear with me as I go through the text at this brisk pace, it will be helpful for you to have the text handy as you read this.

I’m going to begin with Acts 19, but in order to fully understand it we need to go back to Acts 18:24-28. Here we are introduced to Apollos, who is “a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John” (18:24-25). So let’s get this straight, he taught about Jesus accurately, but his understanding of baptism was wrong. Was this such a big deal? I mean, all we need is to hear about Jesus right? Yeah, it was a big deal. It was big enough that Priscilla and Aquila pulled him aside and set him straight (v. 26). Now we’re at chapter 19. Paul is in Ephesus (where Apollos had been preaching), and he asks the believers if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Their answer: no, we don’t know anything about the Spirit. So what does Paul do? Does he immediately begin instructing them properly about the doctrine of the Trinity? Does he begin quoting Christ’s teachings on the Holy Spirit? No. Instead he asks them one question: “Then what baptism did you receive?” (v. 3).

Hmm, apparently there must be a pretty strong link between baptism and the Holy Spirit if this is the first question Paul asks. They reply that they received John’s baptism.

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all. (Acts 19:4-7)

Baptism is apparently such a big deal that they do it again – the right way. Note the close connection between the Spirit and water baptism in this account. The Ephesian disciples said that they had not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul does not question their belief or their previous instruction. His diagnostic question on matters of the Holy Spirit focuses on water baptism: “Into what then were you baptized?” (19:3, literally).

Andrew Das, in an article he wrote concerning baptism, says:

What about the order of events in these narratives? Shouldn’t baptism come first and then the Spirit? Luke clearly establishes a connection between water baptism and the Spirit. In Acts 2:38 the Spirit is promised to those who are baptized. But in Acts 10 Cornelius’ household receives the Spirit first and then is baptized. Acts 19 records the “disciples” first being baptized and then receiving the Spirit. Luke does not then seem to be establishing a clear sequence between the events. BUT: note how they are always in the immediate context of the other. The Spirit is simply a promise in connection with baptism in Acts 2:38. It’s a lot like John 3:8: you hear the sound of the wind but don’t know where it’s coming from or where it’s going. The two are simply connected.

But what about Acts 8:1-25. This passage presents a problem. In Acts 8 a group of baptized believers remain without the promised Spirit for a significant period of time (the time it took the apostles to arrive after the evangelization was well on its way). Only after the apostles arrive and pray for the people do they receive the Spirit. Does this passage disrupt the connection between water baptism and the Holy Spirit. Not really. One must not overlook certain grammatical features qualifying Acts 8. In v. 16: For [the Spirit] had NOT YET fallen on any of them, but they had ONLY been baptized. The words “not yet” and then “only” are placed first in their respective clauses for emphasis. First, the Spirit had NOT YET fallen on them. An event that was supposed to happen had not yet happened…. The distinction between “not yet” and a simple “not” is one of an EXPECTED event that had not In other words, the Spirit SHOULD HAVE fallen upon them in baptism. The Spirit, then, SHOULD HAVE come with the Baptism. Now we can understand the emphatic word “ONLY.” They were ONLY baptized. The baptism was “ALONE,” that is, it was UNACCOMPANIED.

Luke is serving the reader notice that the separation of the Spirit from water baptism was UNUSUAL. The Spirit was therefore NORMALLY RECEIVED IN WATER BAPTISM. Something strange had happened in Samaria. This was not how the Spirit was normally received. So why did the Spirit delay His coming to the Samaritans if they had been baptized? To understand why we must take a look at the role that Samaritans play in Luke and Acts.

For the sake of length I’m not going to post Das’ entire response, but you can read the full-length article here. In a nutshell, Das explains how Jews and Samaritans have had a longstanding rivalry, going back into Old Testament times. He shows how Luke establishes this theme throughout his Gospel and in the book of Acts. I really recommend you read the original article to fully grasp the magnitude of this, but I will jump ahead to his conclusion for the sake of length.

When the Spirit does not come in the water baptism as expected, the whole episode forces the Samaritans to submit to the laying on of the Jerusalem Apostles’ hands. The Jerusalem Apostles had to personally preside over the Samaritan reception of the Spirit. The Spirit WAS THEREFORE FORCING TWO SEPARATE BODIES OF ISRAELITES TO BE REUNITED. Heterodox Samaria is once again restored to orthodoxy, an orthodoxy represented in the Jerusalem Apostles. The Samaritans will not receive the Holy Spirit apart from the Jerusalem Apostles. There will be no separate Samaritan, Christian church autonomous of the Jerusalem church. The old walls of division are torn down by the activity of the Holy Spirit. Luke’s motif of ethnic hostility between Jews and Samaritans up to this point is surely the key to the proper interpretation of Acts 8 and the separation of the Spirit from water baptism. We know that we have been on the right track in our interpretation when we get to Acts 10-11. Consider Acts 10-11 from the perspective of ethnic tensions. The Jews with Peter are all surprised that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit and particularly, “in the same way” as the Jews had at Pentecost. Acts 10:45 speaks of the astonishment of those with Peter that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. Since the Gentiles were given “THE SAME GIFT” (11:17) as the Jews at Pentecost, Peter could not hinder them. The gift of the Spirit came to them “as also to us.” The reception of tongues forced the Jewish apostles to recognize the Gentiles as fellow recipients of the Spirit. God had already gone out of His way with a vision to Peter that the Gentiles are to be considered clean. Then he sent the Holy Spirit upon them in an undeniable way. Thus the Holy Spirit was overcoming human prejudice against the Gentiles in Acts 10-11 by these extraordinary manifestations. Salvation was therefore clearly for all. Acts 15 portrays a Jerusalem council mindful of what God was doing among the Gentiles. Like the gap between Jew and Samaritan, the Spirit was now forcing the bridging of the gap between Jew and Gentile. Acts is a story of the Spirit intervening in the midst of the human condition of weakness and sin. Where the Jerusalem church had been initially slow to take the Gospel to new groups, the Spirit was taking the initiative. People found themselves having to “catch up” with the Spirit’s activity. Nothing, not even ethnic conflict, could stand in the way of the Spirit’s work.

Acts is a story of the Spirit at work in human affairs, the Spirit of Jesus Christ (1:1). We should not be surprised, then, at the unusual delay of the Spirit in Acts 8, since it provided a unique opportunity to bring two groups of Christians once divided together. And once again, as Luke carefully qualifies the events: Acts 8 confirms that the Spirit and water baptism do indeed go together even as Acts 2:38 indicated.

So in conclusion, it is clear from scriptures that there is a close connection between water baptism and the Holy Spirit. Stay tuned for part 5 where we will discuss a passage in 1 Peter 3 which demonstrates a strong link between baptism and salvation.

Baptism: Children Running Through God’s Sprinkler of Grace or Just a Symbolic Confession?

Dan — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:44:00 +0000

Here’s a real topic of contention, not only in recent history, but ever since the 4th century of the church! You may recall hearing the term Anabaptist. Anabaptists believe that infant baptism is not valid because a child cannot commit to a religious faith, and they instead support what is called believer’s baptism, which is administered following instruction and a profession of faith. But can an infant have saving faith? Is baptism more than a symbol? A blog is not a sufficient medium to address such a topic – since large volumes can be (and have been) written concerning the issue, but this is a short attempt to explore the issue Scripturally and historically.

First of all, infants are included in “all nations” who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were included when Peter said in Acts 2:38, 39: “Repent and be baptized everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins….The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Whole households (which is everybody in the family plus servants) were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times, which likely included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33).

In Romans 6, we learn that in baptism we have been buried with Christ through baptism and raised to life with Him. That happens to infants when baptized (Gal. 3:27). “For as many of you who have been baptized have put on Christ.” Baptism through the Word creates the faith necessary to receive salvation for infants. Infants can have faith. In Mark 10:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” The Greek word in this text is “paidia” which means babes in arms. Infants can belong to the kingdom of God. “From the lips of children and infants, You have ordained praise….” Psalm 8:2. “Yet You brought me out of the womb, You made me trust in You even at my mother’s breast” Psalm 22:9. Jesus makes this point very well when He says in Matthew 18:6, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” The Greek word for “little ones” in this passage is “mikron,” which according to Andrew Das in his book Baptized Into God’s Family, implies children under the age of four. Notice the terminology here, Jesus says “little ones who believe in me!” Jesus is clearly showing us that these little ones are capable of faith!

Well how is that possible? Well that’s because faith is not a work of our own. It is the gift of God, not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9). The Holy Spirit draws the believer to Christ through the Word and creates faith in his or her heart. The Bible clearly teaches that our salvation cannot come about by our own works; it is entirely the work of God. The Scriptures illustrate this by calling the faith of men a raising from the dead (Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12), a being born of God (John 1:12-13), a new birth by the Gospel (1 Peter 1:23-25), and a work of God like the creation of light at the creation of the world (2 Corinthians 4:6).

We could get much more in depth Scripturally, but for the purpose of being brief, let’s move into historical evidence for infant baptism. All of the following historical excerpts are from “Infant Baptism in Early Church History,” by Dr. Dennis Kastens in Issues Etc. Journal, Spring 1997, Vol. 2, No. 3.

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies. Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.” Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God….especially infants….those newly born.” Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: “For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants.” Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.” Cyprian’s reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: “Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.”

Augustine (354-430 AD) wrote in De Genesi Ad Literam, 10:39 declared, “The custom of our mother Church in baptizing infants must not be counted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the Apostles.” Augustine further states: “…the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ. In 517 AD, 10 rules of discipline were framed for the Church in Spain. The fifth rule states that “…in case infants were ill…if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born…such was to be done.” (“The History of Baptism” by Robert Robinson, London, Thomas Knott, 1790, p.269).

This pattern of baptizing infants remained in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modern times. In the 1500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160-215 AD) who de facto denied original sin. Then in the 1520s the Christian Church experienced opposition specifically to infant baptism under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence. Thomas’ opposition was then embraced by a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch Anabaptists. This brought about strong warning and renunciation by the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ’s command in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age.

All of this (and more) evidence has lead me to comprise the following statement concerning baptism:

Baptism Statement

In baptism, God graciously and miraculously washes away our sins by applying the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection to us, gives us a new birth, clothes us in Christ’s righteousness, gives us the Holy Spirit, saves us, buries us, and through faith raises us up with Christ as new creatures, making us holy before God and integrating us into the body of Christ. None of this comes about due to anything magical in the water, but by the Word of God in and with the water conjoined with our faith in that Word. Baptism was always immediately taught and administered to new believers in the New Testament and Jesus commanded His followers to disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself was baptized as an example for us in order to fulfill all righteousness. According to the Bible, all of this happens in baptism and it is entirely the work of God, not our own doing. In Scripture, the promises and power of baptism are extended and made available to all – including infants. This does not stray from the Scriptural teaching that a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God’s written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart. This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word or it will die. Faith can also be created in a person’s heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God’s (written or spoken) Word. Baptism should then soon follow conversion for the purpose of confirming and strengthening faith in accordance with God’s command and promise. Therefore baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross was saved (apparently without baptism), as were all true believers in the Old Testament era. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God). Still, baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has His precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere “ritual” or “symbol,” but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, baptism is “enough” for salvation in that it contains all the blessings of salvation that God Himself has attached to it. However, these blessings are only received by those who cling in faith to the words and promises attached to baptism, remembering that this faith itself is a gift from God (Mt. 3:13-15; 28:18-20; Mk 16:16; Jn. 3:5-7; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,36-38; 22:16; Rom. 6:1-4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 5:25-26; Col 2:11,12; Tit. 3:5-6; 1 Pet. 3:21).