Six Problem Passages

Six Problem Passages for Water Baptism:

1. Mark 7:4 – “and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse [literally sprinkle] themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing [literally baptizing] of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)”

Western and Syrian manuscripts add “couches” at the end of the sentence (A.T. Robertson). For those who don’t immerse, they ask, “How would the Pharisees go about submerging “couches or beds” in their ceremonial washing? (Leviticus 15:20)” You would need a large body of water like a pool or river. So, this passage seems to permit a mode of baptism to be sprinkling or pouring. The Mishnah (the first part of the Talmud) devotes 30 chapters to the purification of vessels.

There is allowance to dismantle the beds in order to immerse and purify them. So, in Jesus’ day, these beds were constructed in a way to dismantle them when needed. Strong’s Systematic Theology is accurate when he says that every use of the word baptism in the Bible requires or allows the meaning “to immerse.”

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

At first glance it appears that baptism is necessary for salvation, but notice it does not say, “he would does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.” The issue is FAITH, not baptism. The thing that condemns a person is not the lack of baptism but the lack of faith.

Why does Mark tie baptism to salvation? He is stressing the importance of baptism, which is a part of the Great Commission. A church history professor once told me, “Baptism doesn’t save anyone, but how can you be saved without it?” When we are truly saved, we will WANT to follow Jesus is believer’s baptism. If we refuse, we should question that person’s conversion.

In the rest of the NT, baptism is clearly not a part of the gospel. Paul makes this very clear in 1 Corinthians 1:17. If baptism was necessary for salvation, Paul would have been more earnest in communicating that teaching. If it were necessary, 1 Corinthians 1:14 makes no sense.

Charles Ryrie states: “The original ending of Mark’s Gospel is the subject of much debate. It is doubtful that what we designate as Mark 16:16 was part of the genuine close of the Gospel. At best, it would be unwise to base any doctrine on the content of Mark 16:9–20. However, it is also possible that if Mark 16:16 is a part of the inspired text that the reference is to baptism of the Spirit. After all, the Lord would have spoken Mark 16:16 at almost the same time as He spoke Acts 1:5 concerning the imminent baptizing ministry of the Spirit.”

Norman Geisler states: “A basic principle of Bible interpretation is that difficult passages should be interpreted in light of the easy, clear verses. One should never build a theology on difficult passages. The clear verses indicate that one is saved by faith in Christ (e.g., John 3:16–17; Acts 16:31). In Mark 16:16 it is clear that it is unbelief that brings damnation, not a lack of being baptized: “he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” When a person rejects the gospel, refusing to believe it, that person is damned.”

3. John 3:5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 does not teach baptismal regeneration. In fact, it is not even referring to Baptism. The point is that you must be born again (John 3:3). Nicodemus asks how can a man enter his mother’s womb and be born again (John 3:4). Then comes the born of water and of the Spirit (John 3:5). Jesus is simply stating that a man must be born of water (born physically), and goes on to say that this second birth is spiritual in nature. The teaching here is not that water baptism is necessary, but that physical birth is necessary! People must be born before they can be born again. John 3:6 confirms this interpretation.

4. Acts 2:38Peter 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.

Many claim that one must be baptized to receive remission of or forgiveness of sins, but this is easily refuted when we look at the original words of the New Testament. There is a little preposition “eis” that is translated “for” has the casual force and should be translated, “on the basis of” or “because of.” That makes a big difference.

Casual force in English is like, “He was arrested for stealing,” is better understood as, “He was arrested on the basis of stealing.” He was arrested “in order that” he might steal, makes no sense. If someone is commended for bravery, it is on the basis of his bravery, not in order to make him brave.

Eis” does not promote purpose or result, that forgiveness of sin is the purpose or goal of baptism, but based upon the previously received remission of sins, we would engage in this outward testimony of this inward experience. Other NT examples of “eis” are: Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:32.

Charles Ryrie states: “Baptismal regenerationists understand this verse to teach that repentance and baptism lead to the forgiveness of sins. Unquestionably baptism was a clear proof in New Testament times of conversion, whether it be conversion to Judaism, to John the Baptist’s message, or to Christianity. To refuse to be baptized raised a legitimate doubt as to the sincerity of the profession. Therefore, when the Jewish crowd asked Peter what they must do, he quite naturally said to repent (change their minds about Jesus of Nazareth) and be baptized (give clear proof of that change).

Though it is true that exegetically the text may be understood to say that baptism is unto (eis) the forgiveness of sins, it is equally true that it may say that baptism is not for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins but because of forgiveness (that had already taken place at repentance). Eis is clearly used with this meaning in Matthew 12:41—they repented at (on the basis of, or because of) the preaching of Jonah. It certainly cannot mean in that verse that they repented with a view to [or for the purpose of] the preaching of Jonah. So Acts 2:38 may be understood that the people should repent and then be baptized because their sins were forgiven.

5. Acts 22:16Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

Paul is recounting his conversion experience, and some declare that a person is saved through the waters of baptism (sins being washed away).

Charles Ryrie states: “The verse contains four segments: (a) arise (which is a participle, arising); (b) be baptized (an imperative); (c) wash away your sins (another imperative); and (d) calling on the name of the Lord (another participle). To make the verse teach baptism as necessary for salvation necessitates connecting parts b and c, be baptized and wash away. But rather than being connected to each other, each of those two commands is actually connected with a participle. Arising is necessary before baptism, and calling before sins can be washed away. Thus the verse should be read this way: arising, be baptized; wash away your sins, calling on the Lord. The verse correctly understood does not teach baptismal regeneration.”

“Be baptized” is in the aorist middle imperative, which denotes urgency, while the middle voice places the responsibility to obey this command squarely on Paul. He immediately obeyed three days after his conversion, but when were his sins washed away, at his baptism or his conversion?

6. 1 Peter 3:21Corresponding 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,

John MacArthur states: “First Peter 3:18–22 stands as one of the most difficult NT texts to translate and then interpret. For example, does “Spirit” in 3:18 refer to the Holy Spirit, or to Christ’s Spirit? Did Christ preach through Noah before the Flood, or did He preach Himself after the crucifixion (3:19)? Was the audience to this preaching composed of the humans in Noah’s day, or demons in the abyss (3:19)? Does 3:20, 21 teach baptismal regeneration (salvation), or salvation by faith alone in Christ?

First, every time we see the word “save” in the NT, don’t jump to the conclusion that it is referring to our deliverance from the wrath of God and the punishment of a Christless eternity in hell (Romans 5:9-10). This passage actually says that baptism is an opportunity to be rescued from a dirty conscience. Peter is clear that he is not speaking of a dirty body (its purpose is not a bath that removes filth from the body) but it is an appeal to God for a good [clean] conscience.

A person with a clear conscience knows that no one can point a finger at him and say, “You’ve offended me, and you have never asked for forgiveness.” Baptism is an opportunity to publically set things straight. We need a conscience without offense toward God and men (Acts 24:16). Without a clear conscience, our witness is diminished (1 Peter 3:15-16) and some suffer shipwreck with regards to their faith (1 Timothy 1:19).

The point is, use your baptism as an opportunity to invite lost friends and family. Invite those you have offended in the past. Explain that God has forgiven you of your past sins and you desire their forgiveness as well.

In his commentary on 1 Perter 3:21, MacArthur writes:

an antitype which now saves us. In the NT, an antitype is an earthly expression of a spiritual reality. It indicates a symbol, picture, or pattern of some spiritual truth. Peter is teaching that the fact that 8 people were in an ark and went through the whole judgment, and yet were unharmed, is analogous to the Christian’s experience in salvation by being in Christ, the ark of one’s salvation.

baptism … through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 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. The resurrection of Christ demonstrates God’s acceptance of Christ’s substitutionary death for the sins of those who believe (Acts 2:30-31; Romans 1:4). Judgment fell on Christ just as the judgment of the flood waters fell on the ark. The believer who is in Christ is thus in the ark of safety that will sail over the waters of judgment into eternal glory (cf. Romans 6:1–4).

not the removal of the filth of the flesh. To be sure he is not misunderstood, Peter clearly says he is not speaking of water baptism. In Noah’s flood, they were kept out of the water while those who went into the water were destroyed. Being in the ark and thus saved from God’s judgment on the world prefigures being in Christ and thus saved from eternal damnation.

the answer of a good conscience toward God. The word for “answer” has the idea of a pledge, agreeing to certain conditions of a covenant (the New Covenant) with God. What saves a person plagued by sin and a guilty conscience is not some external rite, but the agreement with God to get in the ark of safety, the Lord Jesus, by faith in His death and resurrection (cf. Romans 10:9-10; Hebrews 9:14; 10:22).

The Believer’s Bible Comentary explains: First let us see what it may mean, and then what it cannot mean.

Actually, there is a baptism which saves us—not our baptism in water, but a baptism which took place at Calvary almost 2000 years ago. Christ’s death was a baptism. He was baptized in the waters of judgment. This is what He meant when He said, “I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50). The psalmist described this baptism in the words, “Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterfalls; all Your waves and billows have gone over me” (Psalm 42:7). In His death, Christ was baptized in the waves and billows of God’s wrath, and it is this baptism that is the basis for our salvation.

But we must accept His death for ourselves. Just as Noah and his family had to enter the ark to be saved, so we must commit ourselves to the Lord as our only Savior. When we do this, we become identified with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. In a very real sense, we then have been crucified with Him (Galatians 2:20), we have been buried with Him (Romans 6:4), and we have been brought from death to life with Him (Romans 6:4).

All this is pictured in the believer’s baptism. The ceremony is an outward sign of what has taken place spiritually; we have been baptized into Christ’s death. As we go under the water, we acknowledge that we have been buried with Him. As we come up out of the water, we show that we have risen with Him and want to walk in newness of life.

An antitype which now saves us—baptism refers to Christ’s baptism unto death on the cross and our identification with Him in it, which water baptism represents.

The verse cannot mean that we are saved by ritual baptism in water for the following reasons:

  1. That would make water the savior, instead of the Lord Jesus. But He said, “I am the way” (John 14:6).
  2. It would imply that Christ died in vain. If people can be saved by water, then why did the Lord Jesus have to die?
  3. It simply doesn’t work. Many who have been baptized have proved by their subsequent lives that they were never truly born again.

Neither can this verse mean that we are saved by faith plus baptism.

  1. This would mean that the Savior’s work on the cross was not sufficient. When He cried, “It is finished,” it wasn’t really so, according to this view, because baptism must be added to that work for salvation.
  2. If baptism is necessary for salvation, it is strange that the Lord did not personally baptize anyone. John 4:1-2 states that Jesus did not do the actual baptizing of His followers; this was done by His disciples.
  3. The Apostle Paul thanked God that he baptized very few of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:14–16). This would be strange thanksgiving for an evangelist if baptism were essential for salvation! Paul did baptize some shows that he taught believer’s baptism, but the fact that he baptized only a few shows that he did not consider it a requirement for salvation.
  4. The penitent thief on the cross was not baptized, yet he was assured of being in Paradise with Christ (Luke 23:43).
  5. The Gentiles who were saved in Caesarea received the Holy Spirit when they believed (Acts 10:44), showing that they then belonged to Christ (Romans 8:9b). After receiving the Holy Spirit, that is, after being saved, they were baptized (Acts 10:47-48). Therefore, baptism was not necessary for their salvation. They were saved first, then they were baptized in water.
  6. In the NT, baptism is always connected with death and not with spiritual birth.
  7. There are about 150 passages in the NT which teach that salvation is by faith alone. These cannot be contradicted by two or three verses that seem to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Therefore, when we read in 1 Peter 3:21, Baptism … which now saves us, it does not mean our baptism in literal water, but Christ’s baptism unto death and our identification with Him in it.

Not the removal of the filth of the flesh. The ceremonial worship of the OT, with which Peter’s Jewish-Christian readers were familiar, provided a sort of external cleansing. But it was not able to give the priests or the people a clear conscience with regard to sin. The baptism of which Peter is speaking is not a question of physical or even of ritual cleansing from defilement. Water does have the effect of removing dirt from the body, but it cannot provide a good conscience toward God. Only personal association with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection can do that.

But the answer of a good conscience toward God. The question inevitably arises, “How can I have a righteous standing before God? How can I have a clear conscience before Him?” The answer is found in the baptism of which Peter has been speaking—Christ’s baptism unto death at Calvary and one’s personal acceptance of that work. By Christ’s death the sin question was settled once for all.

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. How do I know that God is satisfied? I know because He raised Christ from the dead. A clear conscience is inseparably linked with the resurrection of Jesus Christ; they stand or fall together. The resurrection tells me that God is fully satisfied with the redemptive work of His Son. If Christ had not risen, we could never be sure that our sins had been put away. He would have died like any other man. But the risen Christ is our absolute assurance that the claims of God against our sins have been fully met.

My only claim for a good conscience is based on the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The order is as follows:

  1. Christ was baptized unto death for me at Calvary.
  2. When I trust Him as Lord and Savior, I am spiritually united with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection.
  3. Through the knowledge that He has risen, my request for a clear conscience is answered.
  4. In water baptism, I give visible expression to the spiritual deliverance I have experienced.

[Based on my classes with Richard D. Leineweber, Jr. c. 2000]

Do Believers Have Two Natures?

Wow, I’ve been reading a lot this week in preparation for the Wednesday evening Bible study, on Christ giving us a NEW NATURE. Let’s discuss the concept of NATURE, which is defined as, the essential character of something, inborn character, or disposition.

OK, what is the difference between these two statements:

  1. Living in order to become a certain kind of person
  2. Living in light of the fact that you already ARE a certain kind of person

It is the difference between position and practice. Which of these two are FIXED (Position), and which is a work in PROGRESS (Practice)? So, when it comes to our nature… our new nature in Christ and POSITION before God are fixed. We are also a work in progress (because we must renew our minds and be transformed into the image of Christ), which covers our PRACTICE (sanctification).

Consider this: PIGS enjoy filth because it is their nature. FISH swim because it is their nature. TWO NATURE believers say Christians sin because it is our nature to sin.

  1. When UNBELIEVERS sin, it is because it is in their nature to sin (They don’t have the nature of Christ, so how can we expect them to behave like Christ?).
  2. When BELIEVERS sin, it is NOT because they are bound by their sinful nature, they are rather living according to the PATTERNS of their old nature.

For those saved at an early age, and those patterns had not yet developed, how does one account for lust or anger issues that one did not have prior to salvation (at let’s say age 8)? A friend in my Sunday School class had a good response, “Have you ever seen an 8-year-old have a temper tantrum? Or be fascinated by seeing picture of naked women?” Perhaps these patterns (or vestiges or leftovers from the old sin nature) had not yet turned into behaviors, but were still there even if they were not fully awakened (as we would recognize in adulthood).

Biblical Support, Please:

Consider this: When a person comes to faith in Christ there is an immediate change; they have died to the old nature (Romans 6:1-11) and have become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). The old person no longer exists (Galatians 2:20)… God does NOT give an ADDITIONAL nature, but gives a NEW nature.

Our OLD position is one being separated from God (which was all of us through Adam, so we are all born with a sin nature, separated from God). When Christ saves a person…

  • He does not intend to join his Spirit to an old sin nature.
  • He does not intend to birth a set of spiritual Siamese Twins, half a child of Satan (through Adam) and half a child of God (through Christ).

It appears that we CANNOT be IN Adam and IN Christ at the same time. Do I sense a little push-back yet?

WHY does any of this matter? Practicality. If Christians think they are still IN Adam, they will LIVE, SPEAK, and THINK from the position of the old nature. Believers will do all they can to conquer their sinfulness and make excuses for why they fail.

HOWEVER, the Bible does NOT teach us to DEAL with our sin nature. WHY? Because Christ has already dealt with our sin nature at our salvation.

Have you noticed that we are never commanded to crucify the old person? WHY? Because it has ALREADY happened. The old man was crucified with Christ on the cross (Galatians 2:20). So, if we are saved, the old nature is ALREADY gone, the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17).

BUT, the Bible does command us to 1) renew our mind and 2) stop living according to the flesh, those old patterns of behavior and thought (Romans 12:2, 7:18, Galatians 5:16-26). Christians must see themselves as God sees them.


I will continue this article in a separate post, but know that Charles Stanley and John MacArthur hold to this view, hardly theological lightweights. I have been for a long time a Two Natures guy (think, Survival Kit for New Christians, 1979), so this new understanding or interpretation has just come to me recently.

Knowledge is a life-long pursuit and I love to wrestle with concepts and with Scripture, but this doctrine is what I call a NON-essential. People can take this or leave this; it is not a grounds for heresy! It very well may be a matter of semantics (Check out Got Questions on the topic).

One last thought here, even though I am saved, possessing a new nature, I always have the potential to commit ANY sin (even murder, adultery, or theft). It would be heresy to claim that we can realize perfection in this life, because there was only ONE sinless God-Man. When I DO sin, I can legitimately say, “That is not who I am.”

[print_link] [email_link]

Lacking in Christ’s Afflications

Have you ever thought about BIBLICAL ILLITERACY in our day? People just don’t seem to know their Bible, even people who attend church. There are 98% of people who claim to be Christian, but…

  • 80% believe people are basically good and can become good enough to keep the Law on their own
  • 59% believe that faith in Jesus is not necessary for salvation
  • 40% cannot identify what new birth means on a multiple-choice test (half thought it meant reincarnation)
  • 33% did not affirm the trinity or the deity of Christ
  • 23% do not know that Christianity affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ

Here is why sound doctrine doctrine is important: If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. Check out this passage in Colossians 1:24:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

What do you think Paul means here? Could it be that the sufferings of Jesus were not sufficient to reconcile believers to God? Is there something lacking in that which Christ has done for us? That is exactly what false teachers today will proclaim, and often the founder of that group/cult has the divine answer, or is the fulfillment of the mission of Christ (basically Jesus failed in his mission and they are here to set the record straight).

Paul was likely pointing out that Jesus’ sufferings on the cross do not accomplish the salvation of sinners UNLESS they hear and believe the gospel (Colossians 1:25). Paul’s faithfulness to his mission, including his willingness to suffer on his missionary journeys, had to be ADDED to the sufferings of Jesus in order to bring salvation to the Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire.

Jesus’ suffering on the cross was all that was necessary for their salvation, but Paul’s sufferings were necessary to proclaim the message of salvation to the lost world.

[print_link] [email_link]

Properly Interpreting Scripture

It is no secret that many people interpret Scripture in a way that is totally off base. We wonder how they come to that conclusion, especially when the come back is “What does the Bible say?” We are forced to admit that indeed the Bible may SAY that, but THAT is not what it means. No wonder Christianity is so confusing to those on the outside.

The Bible must be read, understood, interpreted and then it’s teachings applied. The first stop here is an understanding of the type and genre of the passage you are reading.

When interpreting HISTORICAL NARRATIVE, these are some principles to keep in mind:

  1. Context and intent are key.
  2. Characters are not always heroes; authors are not always intending to present moral lessons.
  3. God is the ultimate character of Scripture, and He is active in the lives of real people and in the events of history.
  4. Scripture interprets Scripture.
  5. Historical narrative describes, not prescribes.
  6. Example: Genesis 30:1-6

When interpreting WISDOM LITERATURE, these are some principles to keep in mind:

  1. Proverbs are general truths that are not to be interpreted as true all the time in every situation.
  2. Wisdom literature incorporates poetry and figurative language.
  3. Negative illustrations teach just as much as positive ones.
  4. The psalms should be interpreted within their categories and subheadings.
  5. God is involved even in the nitty-gritty of everyday life.
  6. Example: Proverbs 22:6, 26:4-5, 3:1-3 (balanced with Acts 7:54-60)

When interpreting PROPHECY, these are some principles to keep in mind:

  1. Seek to discover the original message of the prophet in his immediate context.
  2. Expect figurative language.
  3. Be aware of themes in prophecy, such as a call to the covenant, to social justice, and for faithfulness from the remnant of God’s people.
  4. Do not assume that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
  5. Test modern-day prophesies against the truthfulness and coherency of Scripture.
  6. Example: Joel 2:28-32, Deuteronomy 13:1-5, 18:21-22

When interpreting LETTERS, these are some principles to keep in mind:

  1. Seek to discover who wrote the letter.
  2. Seek to discover to whom it was written and why.
  3. Investigate the historical context of the audience of the letter.
  4. Consider the structure, sections, main points, and themes of the letter.
  5. Determine whether the passage is culturally mandated. If so, seek to understand the principles behind the passage, and apply them to your own circumstances.
  6. Example: Galatians 1:1-7, 1 Corinthians 11:6

The great thing is that Jesus does not leave us alone to interpret Scripture for and by ourselves, Luke 24:27 is quite an encouragement. He escorts us along the journey and shows us how to properly interpret the Bible.