Josh Benner

Tag: Baptism

  • The Old Testament and believer’s baptism

    The Old Testament and believer’s baptism

    Baptism is not this arbitrary practice that Christians just decided to start doing. 

    During the ministry of Christ, John the Baptist had a ministry where he was the forerunner to Jesus and he baptized with a baptism of repentance. 

    But John the Baptist didn’t invent baptism. Before he was born, baptism was being practiced. When a non-Jewish person – a gentile – converted to Judaism, they made him or her get baptized. 

    And if you go back further, while you don’t have baptism in the Old Testament, you do have various washing rituals both for ordinary people and for the priests which were meant to show purity and to prepare a person for various religious activities. 

    Especially in a book like Leviticus, there’s this strong emphasis on cleanliness and purity and avoiding that which is unclean. All of that was meant to show the purity which a holy God requires. 

    In Exodus 19, before the giving of the Ten Commandments as part of the covenant with Moses, the Israelites were told to wash their garments. 

    There are also Old Testament passages which seek a deeper cleansing from God. 

    In Psalm 51, as David reflected back on his terrible sin of having an affair with a married woman, he prayed to God for cleansing. 

    1 Have mercy on me, O God, 

    according to your steadfast love; 

    according to your abundant mercy 

    blot out my transgressions. 

    2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, 

    and cleanse me from my sin! (Psalm 51:1-2)

    7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; 

    wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. (Psalm 51:7). 

    David sought that cleansing. Baptism is a symbol of sin being washed away. 

    Jesus died for our sins and when we believe in him, we are washed clean but not only that, we are united with Christ. We are dead and raised in Christ. 

    Baptism is a symbol of that. 

    Romans 6:4-5: 

    4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 

    5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 

    Baptism points us to that. It points us to the gospel. It points us to the death and resurrection of Christ. 

    Baptism also points us to the Church. That’s another reason why I teach believer’s baptism. Because of the theology of the church itself. 

    What is the Church?

    I’m not talking about a building. I’m not even talking about this church. 

    What is THE Church? 

    The Church is comprised of all who are part of the body of Christ. The true church are those who have faith in Christ.  

    Colossians 1:18-23 talks of the imminence of Christ over his church when it says:

    And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. 

    21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast

    The true church is a church comprised of faithful believers in the gospel. 

    It is true that in the Old Testament, you had an ethnic Israel. 

    But the Old Testament also talked of a future time when God would usher in a new covenant where the people of God would be set apart based on faith, not ethnicity. 


    Jeremiah 31:31-33: 

    31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 

    So in that passage, it is pointing back to the Old Covenant and how the Israelites repeatedly broke it.  The passage is also pointing forward to a future time of a new covenant that will be different from what came before. A distinguishing mark of this covenant is that God will put his law in his people in their hearts. 

    That is pointing to people who are true believers. 

    And then in the same passage, the very striking verse is verse 34: 

    34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” 

    What the passage is saying is that in this time of a new covenant, God’s people will know him. It is clear from the Old Testament, that you had many in Israel who were not walking with God, who didn’t love or honor God. 

    But that is not the case with his new covenant community. They shall all know me. 

    You’re not in the new covenant if you don’t know the Lord. In a few minutes, we’re going to take communion. That’s the other sign of the new covenant. Everything in communion revolves around remembering. Remembering the blood of Jesus shed for sins, his body broken for our sins. It’s for people who know and believe in the gospel. 

    There are churches that have hundreds of members on their rolls and a tiny fraction of those people come or have anything to do with that church, but they were baptized one time.

    I do appreciate arguments for infant baptism. But a danger in some churches is that for churches who teach things like salvation through baptism or baptism literally washing away sin or baptismal regeneration, it can give a false since of eternal security to a person who is faithless and cares nothing for the things of God. 

    And again, there are different positions for infant baptism. Not everyone who believes in infant baptism believes that the baptism itself saves. But there are those who do. And when we believe that a baptism can save a person apart from faith, we are resorting to works.

    We also run the risk of turning baptism into a superstition. 

    Ezekiel 36 

    Another key Old Testament passage which looked forward to a new covenant people of God who would have the Spirit of God and live lives for God is Ezekiel 36. 

    What metaphor does Ezekiel use to describe this new spiritual life? Water

    Ezekiel 36:25-27: 

    25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

    The Spirit is talked about as a cleansing in water. It is the Spirit of God in the people of God who have been given a new heart by God and who are enabled by the Spirit to live lives in obedience to God. 

    And this cleansing with water which is compared to the Holy Spirit is for believers. 

    We saw the beginning of that in Acts 2.

    Believers in the gospel have the Spirit of God. The new covenant is people who are united in faith, not united along ethnic or familial lines. 

    Baptism is a response to faith, not a precursor to the hope of future faith. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe! 

  • The case for believer’s baptism

    The case for believer’s baptism

    Baptism is a subject that has a rich tradition within the church and which has, at times, been the source of heated division. 

    The importance of baptism is almost universally agreed upon within Christendom. But from that common starting point, churches have diverged on nearly every aspect of baptism. Questions which have been at the forefront of the historical debate have included: 


    Who can be baptized? 

    Is it for believers or for believers and their children? 

    Who can do the baptizing? 

    Does it have to be an ordained minister or can others from within the church or the biological family baptize? 

    How should the baptism be administered?

    Should a person be dunked in water? Or sprinkled with water? Or should water be poured? 

    Is there special about the water itself?

    The first church I ever attended was a Presbyterian Church and someone had taken a trip to Israel and this church had water that was from the River Jordan. The pastor always poured a little bit into the baptismal. 

    What is said during baptism? 

    I read a story earlier this year about a Catholic Priest who realized that he had said the wrong words for over 20 years. He was supposed to say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” 

    What he actually said was “We baptize you.” 

    In the eyes of the Catholic Church, those baptisms are not considered valid. 

    Is there any formal preparation for the baptism? 

    Throughout history, some churches have had various requirements such as fasting, or confirmation classes before being baptized. 

    What does the baptism signify? 

    Is it the cause of our being born again? Does it wash away sin? 

    What happens spiritually when a person is baptized? 

    Does it save us? Does it help save us? Do we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism? 

    What does someone wear during a baptism? 

    In some churches, people wear white. In the early church, there are accounts of people being baptized naked! 

    Is baptism necessary for salvation? 

    And there are many other questions. 

    Just about the only thing that all churches agree on is that baptism involves water. 

    General observations

    I want to begin with a couple of general comments on baptism. 

    Baptism is important.

    At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, the risen Jesus commanded his disciples to: 

     19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

    Baptism is important to Jesus and it should be important to his Church. 

    At the church I pastor, we teach and practice believer’s baptism – sometimes also called credobaptism. Credo comes from the Latin word for believe. That is the idea that in order to be baptized, a person must give a profession of faith that Jesus Christ is their Lord and savior in whom they have placed their faith. 

    The other major side of the baptism discussion are churches who practice infant baptism. I know many people in this church were raised in churches that practice infant baptism. 

    The believer’s or infant baptism discussion is an important subject. While we don’t teach infant baptism, there are churches that do who are faithfully preaching the gospel who love Jesus, who love the Word of God. There are faithful brothers and sisters in Christ who agree on the importance of baptism but disagree not on if but when it should be done. 

    And while I affirm believer’s baptism, I can sincerely respect the arguments for infant baptism. 

    I read those arguments, and it’s not like I come away thinking “well how could someone believe that?” I don’t think it involves in crazy leaps studying your Bible to come down on that side.

    No, they have legitimate points, but I think the Biblical reasons for believer’s baptism are simply stronger. 

    Church interview story 

    I’ll tell this quick story. A few years ago, before we had ever interviewed with this church, I interviewed at another church and the subject of baptism came up. They too believed in believer’s baptism but as people started talking, some of them were really mocking the idea of infant baptism and churches who practice it. 

    I didn’t appreciate that. 

    I do think that disagreements on that subject should be done in a Spirit of grace and respect within the church. 

    It wasn’t the only factor but when that church invited me to candidate to be their pastor, I turned them down. 

    In this post, I want to make the case for mwhy I favor believer’s baptism. Again this is an expansive debate and I can’t begin to answer every aspect of the baptism discussion in one blog post, but I think this is a helpful starting point. 

    The case for believer’s baptism

    Why should we believer believer’s baptism? 

    There is not one single text in the Bible which explicitly calls for the baptism of newborns.

    I’ll say that again. 

    There is no text in the Bible which explicitly says that babies ought to be baptized or for that matter, that anyone who cannot profess to believe in the gospel should be baptized. . 

    Our passage this morning comes from the Book of Acts and it’s an important passage because it takes place on Pentecost. That’s the day that the Holy Spirit was first poured out on the disciples and the new followers of Jesus. 

    I often talk about the ordering of the life, death, resurrection of Jesus. But then after that, you have his ascension, when he ascended into heaven. That’s in Acts chapter 1. And then you have Pentecost which is when the Spirit was poured out on the Church in our passage in Acts 2. 

    In Acts 2:14-36, the Apostle Peter gives his Pentecost sermon. In that sermon, Peter is talking about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and his exaltation which was prophesied in the Old Testament. Peter also talks of how the Old Testament looked to a time when God’s Spirit would be given to God’s people. 

    Verse 37 picks up with people’s response to Peter. 

    37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

    The people are asking how they should respond to the gospel that Peter has just preached

    . 

    38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

    Repent and be baptized. 

    That order is important. 

    It’s not be baptized and then maybe in a few years, you’ll hopefully repent. 

    Now the Book of Acts chronicles the activities of the early church and the pattern we see in Acts is that a response of faith precedes baptism. 

    Acts 8:12-13, the Apostle Philip has preached the gospel and people have believed: 

    12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip.

    Acts 9:18, following the conversion of the man we know as the Apostle Paul: 

    18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized

    In Acts 19:4-5, the Apostle Paul is sharing the gospel in Ephesus: 

    And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

    And there are other examples but that’s the pattern and I would argue that’s always the pattern in the Bible. 

    A person has faith, believes in the gospel and baptism is a response to the inward faith. 

    At Pentecost, Peter said to repent and be baptized. 

    True repentance is something that we do because of faith. Repentance is looking to our sinfulness and turning from that. That requires both faith and awareness of our sins. 

    What about household baptisms? 

    One of the common arguments for infant baptism is that in the Book of Acts, there are household baptisms. There are four such household baptisms in Acts and we hear one referenced in First Corinthians. In those passages, a person comes to faith and they are baptized and the passage mentions that their household was too. 

    The argument assumes that there must have also been babies in some of those homes and so that is demonstrating infant baptism. 

    None of those passages specifically say that there were infants or children. A person could counter argue, that those passages also don’t say that there weren’t any children or infants. 

    That’s true. But I think the more significant point when considering household baptisms is the fact that none of the passages point to one person coming to faith and the rest of their family also getting baptized against their will as unrepentant and unregenerate nonbelievers. 

    I’ll show what I mean. 

    In Acts 16, we learn about a Philippian jailer who asks Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved. 

    Acts 16:30-31

    “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    So does that mean if this man comes to faith, his entire household will also come to faith? 

    Is the text saying that if this man believes, then his whole family will believe because he believed? 

    No. 

    Next couple of verses: 

    ​​” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family (Acts 16:32-33).

    A person could still look at this and argue that the whole household got baptized because the father became a Christian. 

    But the key is verse 34: 

    34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. 

    The most plausible interpretation is that his household believed and that was the source of their rejoicing. It was not because he had a family of unrepentant people who opposed the gospel who received a no faith baptism that they’re rejoicing in a gospel that they don’t believe in. 

    Acts 18:8 talks of the household of a man named Crispus being baptized. 

     8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

    Once again, the passage says that his household was baptized but it also said that his entire household had believed in the gospel. 

    That’s the pattern that we see in Acts. In our primary text of Acts 2:41, we see believers responding to the gospel in faith:

    ​​” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 

    Acts 10 talks of the household of Cornelius coming to faith and as a response to that faith, they are baptized. 

    Acts 10:46-48: 

    they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

    In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul mentions having baptized the household of Stephanus. 

    But then later in the letter, Paul talks of the faith of the family of Stephanus when he says in 1 Corinthians 16:15: 

    15 Now I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints—

    Acts 16 talks of a woman named Lydia coming to faith and being baptized along with her household. That is the one text where there is not quite as much elaboration but given the pattern we’ve seen elsewhere, I think the best argument is that her household was baptized because her household were believers in the gospel. 

    I return to my premise from the beginning that there is not one single text in the Bible which definitively points to infant baptism.  

    Even the household baptism passages point to household being baptized after having responded to the gospel by faith. 

    All of the passages we’ve discussed I would argue point to a consistent pattern in the New Testament of having faith in the gospel and being baptized as a result of that faith.

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe!

  • Catholic priest uses wrong word for 26 years. Baptisms invalidated

    Catholic priest uses wrong word for 26 years. Baptisms invalidated

    A Catholic priest in Arizona used the wrong word when performing baptisms for over a quarter of a century. Now his diocese is saying that the baptisms are invalid. 

    The issue is that the priest, the Revered Andres Arango was saying “we baptize you” when he was supposed to say “I baptize you.” The Catholic teaching is strict to their exact wording and because he say “we” instead of “I,” they are viewing these baptisms are invalid. 

    Baptism is a subject where there is a vast array of beliefs across Christendom. There are opinions on what baptism accomplishes, when a person can be baptized, who can do the baptizing, how a person is baptized, what is said when a person is baptized, the necessity of baptism. And then there are procedural questions. Are they sprinkled or dunked? If they’re dunked is it once, or is it three times (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)?  And there are many other questions. 

    Because baptism is such an important part of the Christian faith, there have been many views over the centuries. 

    For the record, my view is that baptism is an outward action that is a public display of an inward faith. True baptism is done by the Holy Spirit for a person who is regenerated. That is the actual cleansing of the human soul, and this cleansing is symbolized with water through baptism. And so in my view, I don’t take the rigidity that Catholics have on baptism where it can be nullified by a person unwittingly saying one wrong word. It’s based in places such as Ezekiel 36 and John 3. 

    Why does one little word matter so much? 

    On the website for his local diocese, they say: 
    “It is not the community that baptizes a person and incorporates them into the Church of Christ; rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all sacraments; therefore, it is Christ who baptizes. The Baptismal Formula (the words used in the Rite) has always been guarded for this reason: so it is clear that we receive our baptism through Jesus and not the community.”

    I find that argument interesting (I also find it to be a bad argument, but still interesting). I find it interesting that you can’t say “we” because it’s not the church who is doing the baptizing but that you must say “I” because it is Christ who baptizes…

    But in practice, it is the priest who’s doing the baptizing. And I find it interesting that if the priest says “I,” that it’s tantamount to Jesus himself saying “I.” 

    So the baptism is contingent upon the grace of Christ and (in the Catholic view) a human priest serving as a mediator. Yet, if the priest says the wrong word, then the grace of Christ can’t be conferred to the person who has made a good faith attempt to be baptized? So Jesus is gracious, but the priest can make a mistake where the sacramental benefit of baptism is withheld? Sincere question. Doesn’t that imply that the priest is more powerful than Jesus? (I’m sure no Catholic would agree with that statement). 

    This certainly goes to part of the heart of the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. Scripture and tradition. The Catholic Church gives essentially equal weight to tradition as scripture. And so their tradition and teaching is a certain wording. And even though that wording is found nowhere in the Bible, they view their interpretation as being absolutely binding. 

    There is also the issue of human priest as mediators. The role of a priest is that they serve as a mediator between man and God. Jesus is the great high priest who mediates between us and God (Hebrews 4:14-16). This is why most Protestants don’t believe in a priestly office today. Because we don’t have fallible priests who can say the wrong thing and mess us up with God. We believe in a great high priest who is perfect, Christ the Lord. 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked this post, please share and subscribe.

  • Rival gang members baptized together

    photo-1521785241181-092e2c5d2f4c
    Gateway Church, a popular megachurch in Texas launched a new campus in a maximum security prison earlier this year. Last week, five inmates in solitary confinement were baptized. Part of what makes the story noteworthy is that the men come from rival gangs.

    Many articles have discussed the risk to their own lives that these men were taking in being baptized with their enemies.

    Fox News describes the scene:

    Five of the men – confirmed gang or cartel members – were brought into the gymnasium, shackled hand and foot and around the waist, and they had to clear the prison because of safety concerns. (more…)

  • Did I just see who I think I saw?

    In the summer of 2005, I had an internship working with youth program at a church in Dublin, Ohio. Yesterday was the last Sunday service for that church’s pastor and associate pastor – two men for whom I have much respect. And naturally, I wanted to attend their last Sunday at the church and show my support as they both move on to new positions.

    Now it is a Methodist church. One of the first things that happened in the service was that the pastor baptized a baby. Theologically, I’m not a proponent of baptizing infants. There are certainly a lot of people and a lot of denominations who would disagree with that stance, but that’s just what I believe. I don’t think that it has any negative spiritual consequences; however I think that the point of baptism is more geared towards people who already have faith, and not towards babies who are incapable of having faith (unless that baby is John the Baptist).

    And so I sent a text message to a friend of mine poking fun at the fact that this church was baptizing an infant that morning. I was jokingly referring to the practice as something cultish and went as far as to speculate as to whether or not some sort of voodoo dance would be happening next.

    So the church service continues, it was a great message. Afterwards, I was standing outside of the sanctuary trying to look around for familiar faces. I happen to notice a man wearing a beige, pinstriped suit. I also couldn’t help but notice his unorthodox hairstyle. Thought to myself, “Hopefully he doesn’t have a run in with the fashion police today. He’ll be doing hard time.”

    I continued to look around the room, and see some changes that had happened to the church since the last time I had attended. Then I see the man in the beige suit again, and I see his face, look at him for a second, and a thought entered my mind.

    “I’m pretty sure that is former Ohio State football star AJ Hawk.”

    So I went on to do the logical thing, and as indiscreetly as I could, I held up my phone and nonchalantly snapped a picture. Looked down at the picture – fearful that when I looked back up I was going to have AJ Hawk sprinting towards me – and I was still unsure.

    But I thought, “If that is AJ Hawk, I would assume his wife would be with him.” He is in a pretty high profile marriage. Hawk is married to the sister of former Notre Dame and Cleveland Browns quarterback Brady Quinn. Famously, in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl when Ohio State played Notre Dame, the camera constantly showed Laura Quinn (now Laura Hawk) in her half Ohio State half Notre Dame football jersey.

    Then I saw a woman who looked like Laura Quinn Hawk. Considering that the Quinn family is from Dublin, it seemed possible that they could be in attendance at this church. While I was still processing this in my mind as to whether or not they were the Hawks, whom do I see walk out of the sanctuary? Brady Quinn.

    I could not believe it.

    And then they left the church as I hurried to text one of my college fraternity brothers that I had just seen AJ Hawk and Brady Quinn.

    So I eventually make my way over to the younger son of the pastor of the church: a guy who is a couple of years younger than I am, and who had been in the youth group when I worked at this church. I ask him, “Were AJ Hawk and Brady Quinn at church today?”

    He says, “Yeah. Hawk has a baby and my dad baptized her this morning.”

    I thought, “THAT WAS AJ HAWK’S KID WHO WAS BAPTIZED?!”

    I could not believe it.

    Not only did I see AJ Hawk’s kid get baptized, I was making fun of the practice of baptizing children while I was watching AJ Hawk’s kid get baptized.

    Needless to say, if AJ Hawk ever happens to read this: he has a lovely family, and I think that it’s great that they value such a significant spiritual activity in the lives of their children.

    Also, later that afternoon, the fraternity brother who I had texted when I saw Hawk and Quinn texted me back that a friend of his who works at a local golf course had just texted him that the two football players were both getting ready to tee off.

    jrb