Norm’s Notes Articles

Common Objections to Baptism: The Thief on the Cross Wasn’t Baptized

Posted on June 1, 2019 Written by PreacherNorm Leave a Comment

This will almost always come up at some point in a discussion on the necessity of baptism. Many times it gets thrown in after several passages have been cited to establish the biblical teaching on baptism. In the face of the multiplicity of passages that establish the necessity of baptism, the opponent will say something like, “well, the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized!”

The most a person can do in regards to whether the thief was baptized or not is to speculate. That is, to say whether
he was or he wasn’t baptized is pure speculation! I don’t know about you, but the condition of my immortal soul is too important to me to leave up to speculation. But, if we are going to speculate about whether the thief was baptized
or not, we should at least try to provide some evidence for our speculation.

My personal opinion on the thief is that he had been baptized. Now, let me provide some evidence for my speculation on this point. First, the thief lived at a time when John was baptizing so many people that it was said, “all Judea” was being baptized (Mark 1:5). When Jesus began His ministry it says that He baptized even more than John did (John 3:22, 26; 4:1, 2). So, there were a lot of people being baptized! Second, John and Jesus were both preaching a baptism of repentance (Luke 3:3; Matt. 3:8; 4:17). The thief may have been on the cross because of his repentance! Third, the thief knew Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:41). How could he have known that unless he already knew who Jesus was? Fourth, he addressed Jesus as a disciple would, calling Him Lord (Luke 23:42). Fifth, he asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His
kingdom (Luke 23:42). How would the thief know anything about a kingdom unless he already knew who Jesus was?
Why would he expect that Jesus would be able to remember him at all, considering that Jesus was dying on the cross?
It is very obvious, from what the thief said, that he already knew Jesus before the scene on the cross! Now, where is
your evidence that he was not baptized?

Ultimately, though, the entire question is irrelevant. Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins (Matt. 9:6). The thief lived and died under the Law of Moses, before the Great Commission was given (Matt. 28:18-20), before the church was established (Acts 2:38, 41, 47). Jesus was physically present with the thief to tell him personally that he would be with Him in paradise (Luke 23:43). You’re not hanging on a cross next to Jesus, you’re living in the world after Jesus has ascended back to haven. You can’t do what the thief did physically hanging on a cross next to Jesus! You must do
what Jesus said before He departed this world (Mark 16:16). You must be baptized into Christ for the remission of your sins! (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3, 4; Gal. 3:26, 27; 1 Pet. 3:21).

Common Objections To Baptism: Introduction

Posted on May 28, 2019 Written by PreacherNorm Leave a Comment

It is odd to me that so many people try so hard to discount the very clear biblical teaching regarding the necessity of baptism for salvation. There is not a more clearly defined doctrine in the New Testament than the necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins! There is absolutely no way that anyone just studying the biblical text – free from preconceived notions of what “we’re supposed to believe” – would come to the conclusion that baptism is purely a symbolic gesture. But that’s the typical response to any discussion on baptism. It has been relegated to the status of a symbolic gesture that “is a good thing to do” but isn’t really necessary.

To the contrary, the New Testament says that baptism is the point at which a person is “in Christ” (Rom. 6:3, 4; Gal. 3:26, 27), where salvation is (2 Tim. 2:10). Baptism is when a person is “added” to the church – the body of Christ (Acts 2:41, 47; 1 Cor. 12:13). Baptism is when a person has their sins washed away (Acts 22:16). Since baptism is when a person is “buried” with Christ, it is when we contact the blood of Christ for the washing away of our sins (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:4; cf. Rev. 1:5). Baptism is the picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ! So, baptism is when we die to sin and are raised with Christ. Baptism is when we put on Christ and become sons of God (Gal. 3:26, 27). Baptism is when we become the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-27). Baptism is when we are born again (John 3:3, 5). Baptism is when we are saved (1 Pet. 3:21). Everything the New Testament says about Christian baptism shows it is absolutely essential to the salvation only available in Christ!

So, with all of these clear Scriptures showing the necessity of baptism, why do so many argue against it? And, what are the arguments that can be made against such clear statements? Well, the short answer is “Denominationalism.”

Those who reject the necessity of baptism do so, primarily, because they have been taught from the teachings of men – like Luther and Calvin – instead of taught from the word of God. They have accepted Luther’s and Calvin’s, among others, ideas about “faith only” salvation, a “no works” “grace only” system of faith. However, the only time you find the phrase “faith only” in the Bible is in James 2:24. “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” Martin Luther so hated James chapter two that he wanted the epistle of James taken out of the Bible!

In coming articles I’ll be looking in more detail at the objection to baptism as a “work,” and getting into more of the many objections offered against the necessity of baptism. Have you been taught that baptism is “an outward show of an inward faith”? There’s nowhere in the Bible that defines it like that.

So, what are some of the objections to baptism you’ve heard? Let me know and let’s discuss them openly and honestly. It’s too important not to!

It’s The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year WEEK!

Posted on December 10, 2017 Written by PreacherNorm Leave a Comment

The most wonderful time of the week, fifty-two times a year, for the Christian, is Sunday. It is the day that God had ordained as the day that His people would come together as an assembly of called out people to give honor and glory to Him. We get to, we are blessed to, come together every first day of the week to remember the Lord’s sacrifice for us so that we could have the hope of everlasting life. When we also add to that every opportunity we have to come together for the study of God’s word on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, we really exemplify the love of being with one another that the New Testament teaches (cf. Hebrews 10:24, 25; Romans 12:10; Acts 2:46, 47).

Of course, of all the opportunities we have to be together, it is Sunday that is the truly special day. Look at all we read of Sunday in the New Testament:

The Lord rose from the tomb on Sunday (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). All four Gospel accounts make specific mention of the day Jesus rose as being “the first day of the week.” In John 20, John puts a great deal of emphasis on Sunday. He not only says that Jesus rose on “the first day of the week” (John 20:1, 19), but says that Jesus appeared to them again the following Sunday (John 20:26, “after eight days”). “Eight days” would include the current day in the counting. That is, they would have counted from Sunday to Sunday to get eight days where we would count from the next day – Monday to Sunday – to get seven days. So, when Jesus appeared and made Himself known to Thomas it was Sunday, not Monday.
The Lord’s church was established on Sunday (Acts 2:1, 41, 47). The day of Pentecost was exactly fifty days from the Passover. They were to count “seven sabbaths” (Deuteronomy 16:9-12) and have “the Feast of Weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:16). That feast is called “Pentecost” in the New Testament which basically means “the feast of the fiftieth day.” If they were to count “seven sabbaths” and have the Feast of Weeks on the day after of the seventh sabbath then that would make the feast occur always on a Sunday. So, of the three Jewish feast days that required all Jewish males worldwide to appear in Jerusalem, God chose Pentecost – the one that always fell on a Sunday – to establish the church of Christ!
The New Testament church gathered for worship on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33; 1 Corinthians 16:2). We’ve already noted that the church was established on Sunday. Immediately following the first additions to the church (Acts 20:41) we have the first reference to the worship of the assembled church (Acts 2:42). The New Testament pattern for the day when “we come together as a church” is clearly Sunday! We are blessed to come together to remember the body and blood of Christ shed for us, to sing praise to God, to pray together, study together, and give together, as an expression of our love and devotion to God.

What a wonderful day Sunday is! Why would I want to spend it on the trivial things of the world? I want to be with my brethren, those who love and honor God, as much as I can to be edified by them and to be an edification to them. But I especially want to be with them on the most wonderful time of the week – Sunday!

Baptism for the Remission of Sins

Posted on June 27, 2017 Written by PreacherNorm 2 Comments

Baptism has been a problematic doctrine for centuries. Everything from changes in the mode to changes of the purpose of baptism has become part of Catholic and Denominational doctrine. Sprinkling, pouring, immersion as a symbol, have been contentious issues for a very, very long time.

It’s not because the Bible is unclear about the mode and purpose of baptism. It is one of the clearest teachings of the Bible. The problems people have on the doctrine of baptism comes from their preconceived notions, not what the Bible actually says. Rather than admit their preconceived notions are wrong they attempt to change what the Bible says about it. It is the same problem people have with many biblical teachings. We cannot come to a full appreciation and acceptance of the truth of God’s word until we are willing to throw out all of our preconceived notions on anything we are studying.

Unfortunately, even among those that acknowledge the problems with denominational views on baptism, there remains a limited view and application of biblical teaching on the issue. For most, it seems, the only concern for whether a person’s baptism was Scriptural or not is whether they understood it to be immersion for the remission of sins or not. That is, if a person understood that they were being immersed for the remission of sins then their baptism was doctrinally correct (i.e. Scriptural). But is that all the Bible has to say on the issue of New Testament baptism? No, it isn’t.

There is much, much more to the doctrine of New Testament baptism than that it is immersion for the remission of sins. It is also true that the more a person studies about baptism the more they will appreciate the fullness and great depth of meaning in what actually happens when a person is baptized into Christ. My own understanding of baptism is much fuller now, 20 years after the fact, than it was when I was baptized. So, please don’t think that I am saying a person must understand everything there is to know about baptism. I wouldn’t even say that I, after 20 years of biblical study, understand everything there is to know about baptism. But when it comes to what a person must know when they are baptized, all we need to do is look at the biblical examples of what prospective converts were taught. When we do that we will see that they knew much more than that they were being immersed for the remission of sins.

Let’s look at the first example of people being commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38. First of all, there was a great deal of teaching that took place (Acts 2:14-36). They were taught that the events of that day were the fulfillment of Scripture (Acts 2:14-21; Joel 2:28-32). They were taught that these things confirmed that the kingdom of Christ had come (Acts 2:22-36). The emphasis of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost is Christ as King, the fulfillment of God’s promise to David (Acts 2:29, 30, 34, 35). So, when those in the audience asked the question, “what shall we do?” they knew they were asking what they had to do in response to Jesus being the reigning King of God’s people. What more Peter might have told them after this initial response in Acts 2:38, 39, we are not told. We just know that “with many other words he testified and exhorted them” to be saved (Acts 2:40). When it says in Acts 2:41 that “about three thousand souls were added,” there is absolutely no doubt that they knew they were being added to the Kingdom of Christ, the church of Christ (cf. Acts 2:47; Col. 1:13). Obviously, they knew more than that they were being immersed for the remission of sins. They knew they were being immersed for the remission of sins to be saved by the sacrifice of Christ and to be added to His church.

The actual sermons of the examples in Acts 8 are not as detailed as that of Acts 2 but it is still very clear that the audience understood much more than simply immersion for the remission of sins. When Philip went down to Samaria it just says that he “preached Christ to them” (Acts 8:5). In Acts 8:12, it gives a little more detail saying he “preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.” Later in the chapter, when Philip preaches to the Ethiopian eunuch, it again simply states that Philip “preached Jesus to him” (Acts 8:35). It is obvious that Philip taught him about baptism (so “preaching Jesus” would include teaching someone about baptism) because in the very next verse the eunuch wanted to be baptized. Do you suppose that Philip told the eunuch that Isaiah was talking about Jesus so now you need to “get baptized for the remission of sins”? Or do you think there was more to it than that? I have no doubt that Philip took the time to explain to the eunuch that Jesus came to give His life for our salvation, and that having died for our sins God raised Him up to sit on the throne of rule over God’s people, and because Jesus now reigns over His kingdom from heaven that we must be immersed into Him to have our sins washed away and become newly born citizens of His kingdom.

I have no idea how long Philip was in the chariot with the eunuch but I do know from experience that it doesn’t take that long to teach a receptive hearer everything I believe Philip taught the eunuch (cf. Acts 8:12, things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ). I also have no idea what became of the eunuch after he went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:39). I do know from other examples, including this very chapter, that the apostles made it a point to seek out new converts to impart spiritual gifts (cf. Acts 8:14, 15; Rom. 1:11). I also know that the early church relied on these spiritual gifts, prior to the completion of the word, for “the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). The indication I got from one preacher in a recent discussion was that he believed the eunuch just went away not knowing anything other than that he had been baptized for the remission of sins. I supposed he thinks that the eunuch went away as an immersed Jew to continue the practice of Judaism. How absolutely absurd!

In Peter’s first sermon to a Gentile audience, there is a Kingdom element to his message. He taught Christ as “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36). He presented Jesus as the Anointed One of God (Acts 10:38). He taught them about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Acts 10:39f). He taught them that Jesus will be the Judge of all (Acts 10:42). He taught them that remission of sins is only available in Christ (Acts 10:43). So, when they were baptized (Acts 10:48), they obviously knew much more than just baptism for the remission of sins.

In Paul’s first recorded sermon, in Acts 13:16-41, there is a very clear Kingdom emphasis. He taught them that Jesus was the fulfillment of all the promises God had made for a coming Messiah – Prophet, Priest, and King. The Gentiles there were taught the same thing (Acts 13:42). So, obviously, those who obeyed the gospel in that place knew much more than just baptism for the remission of sins.

Notice how the preaching of the apostles and evangelists is commonly described in Acts. After the resurrection, Jesus spoke of “things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). Philip “preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:12). Paul spoke boldly in the synagogues “reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8). Paul said that he had preached “the kingdom of God” (Acts 20:25). Paul “testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets” (Acts 28:23). The last statement of the book of Acts refers to Paul “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:31). From Acts 1:3 to Acts 28:31, we have the account of how the church spread from Jerusalem to Rome through the preaching of the kingdom of God. So, where would be the example of anyone ever being baptized for the remission of sins without knowing that they were becoming citizens of God’s kingdom?

Despite this very clear pattern of preaching and teaching from Acts, there are many that believe as long as a person was baptized for the remission of sins they were Scripturally baptized and became a Christian. That is to say, they were born again (Rom. 6:3, 4), they became a saved person (1 Pet. 3:21). According to that thinking, any person that believes they were being baptized to receive the remission of sins from Christ’s sacrifice did, indeed, become a saved person. There are many Pentecostal denominations that teach baptism for the remission of sins in the name of Jesus. The Apostolic Church denomination teaches baptism for the remission of sins in the name of Jesus. There are sects of Baptists that teach baptism for the remission of sins in the name of Jesus. I’m sure there are many “non-denominational” churches that teach baptism for the remission of sins in the name of Jesus.

Let me see if I can reason out how that would work. A person is baptized for the remission of sins in the Apostolic church, for example. According to the view of anyone being baptized for the remission of sins in Jesus name being a saved person, the above person would be saved at the point of his baptism. Would he still be a saved person when he continued in the Apostolic church? Would he still be a saved person believing that the teaching of the Apostolic Church is the true expression of New Testament Christianity? If not, then does that mean that the Lord added that person to His church while that person believed the Apostolic church was the Lord’s church? Is there an example in the Bible of someone being taught wrong and saved right? If so, please show me!

When I say that a person cannot be Scripturally baptized in a denomination, I am absolutely NOT talking about the building or person doing the baptizing being a denominational building or person. I’m talking about the teaching and understanding of the person being baptized. It makes no difference at all if a person is being baptized for the remission of sins in the name of Jesus if they don’t know the truth about the kingdom of God – the church of Christ – when they are baptized.

The purpose of baptism is much more than just the remission of sins. I hate to say just the remission of sins because it sounds like I’m lessening the importance and magnificence of that fact. But there is more to baptism than that. Baptism is also the point at which we become children of God in Christ (Galatians 3:26, 27). It is also the point at which we begin our new life, the point of our new birth, in Christ (Romans 6:3, 4). It is also the point at which we become citizens of the kingdom of God (Acts 2:41, 47; Col. 1:13). So, please explain to me how a person could be added to the kingdom of Christ and not know it? Or how a person could become a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven when they believe that denominationalism is the expression of that kingdom?

It seems to me that those holding such a view have forgotten the first thing required in the process of conversion. That is, to hear the word of God (Rom. 10:17). If a person believes they can be New Testament Christians in a denomination, then they haven’t heard the word of God! Any more so than those Jewish converts that believed the expression of New Testament Christianity was in the continued practice of Judaism. Nearly everything that is said in the Epistles about the necessity of turning from Judaism finds principle application today in the necessity to turn from man-made denominationalism.

I look forward to your feedback on this important issue.

Common Objections to Baptism: The Thief on the Cross Wasn’t Baptized

Common Objections To Baptism: Introduction

It’s The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year WEEK!

Baptism for the Remission of Sins

Subscribe to PreacherNorm on YouTube

Be Friends with PreacherNorm on Facebook

Follow PreacherNorm on Twitter