INTRODUCTION
Jim Elliff of Christian Communicators Worldwide is one of my favorite bible teachers. He is a wonderfully fine expositor of the word of God and his articles have been a constant source of encouragement for my family and our church. However, below I'm going to flesh out an area of disagreement that I have with most modern Baptists, namely that of the relationship of water baptism to the conversion experience as it is described in the New Testament. I plan to examine Jim’s view on this issue per his recent article titled "Thoughts On Improving Baptisms” because I believe it is representative of the typical modern baptistic view as it relates to the purpose of baptism; namely that baptism is a mere outward symbol testifying to an already completed conversion experience.
It is important to note before beginning this article, that I repudiate the doctrine of baptismal regeneration with all of my being. I have never, and will never state that the physical waters of the baptismal pool can literally wash away sins, for that is reserved for the blood of Christ alone and such teaching runs contrary to the entire tenor of the New Testament (1 John 1:7; Rom. 4:4-5, 22-24; 1 Peter 3:21). Baptismal regeneration not only runs contrary to the New Testament teaching of justification by faith apart from works, but it also distorts the spiritual application and efficacy of baptism when it is rightly understood as the required outward and immediate faith-response of a penitent individual who has heard the message of the gospel (1 Peter 3:21).
A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM AS IT RELATES TO THE NEW TESTAMENT DATA
In the article hyperlinked above Jim says,
"8. Baptize as often as possible. In my experience it is far better and more biblical to baptize as soon as the leaders know they have a valid convert . . . . . The key is to know that you actually have a convert."
As you could probably guess from the introduction, I don't separate baptism from the conversion experience. I don't make a big hubbub about this usually, but I believe this is huge when it comes to correctly understanding most New Testament baptismal passages. When modern Baptists (esp. Calvinistic Baptists) don't follow what their historical forbears taught regarding the relationship of water baptism to the "coming to Jesus" experience as described throughout the New Testament, it creates confusion in understanding many New Testament baptismal passages.
As I have already taught in a message titled “The Relationship of Water Baptism to the Washing of Regeneration”, the New Testament generally depicts water baptism is the culmination or climax of the conversion experience (Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). In other words, although the physical water of baptism itself does not save (that's God's job) nor does it have any spiritual cleansing power in and of itself to save (only the blood of Christ as applied through the regenerating power of the HS does that), water baptism is described in Scripture as the outward means by which union with Christ is effected (Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27). If you separate the immaterial, intangible, and subjective inward faith experienced by the regenerated person from the required, immediate outward New Testament faith-response of water baptism, then you can't make any exegetical heads or tails out of passages like Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-6, Gal. 3:26-27, or 1 Peter 3:21.
The New Testament writers generally would not consider an unbaptized person a Christian because such a one would have been unwilling to do what the Christ of the New Covenant community demanded of them as the immediate, outward faith-response to the preaching of the gospel. To refuse baptism in the New Testament era was damnable not because the physical water of baptism itself saves, but such a refusal revealed a major spiritual problem; namely, unbelief. In short, in apostolic times, refusal of water baptism meant no salvation. Again, this is not because the waters themselves literally cleansed from sins (Heb. 9:22; 1 John 1:7), but because baptism was considered the climax of the conversion experience; the non-optional faith-response wherein union with Jesus was effected outwardly before a watching world.
A huge problem arises in our day because professing evangelical Christians possess different understandings (or misunderstandings) or the New Testament teaching on water baptism. For them, a refusal to be immediately baptized as the capstone of a regeneration-faith-repentance-confession experience usually stems from confusion or misinformation concerning what God requires in this area. However, the person led to Christ by the apostles in the first century had no such confusion because the apostles did not present various views on baptism, nor had their converts become accustomed to different Christian traditions that had different views about the mode, purpose, and recipients of baptism. To refuse baptism in the apostolic era was to consciously refuse to do what needed to be done and such rebellion was damnable.
Today, a person might refuse baptism out of uncertainty, ignorance or confusion, but such confusion did not exist in the context of first-century apostolic preaching. When people make decisions about baptism today, it is usually in the context of evangelical churches that may have not seriously considered and carefully studied the relationship of water baptism to the conversion experience as presented in the context of the apostolic gospel preaching of the New Testament. Such confusion about baptism is surely not damnable, for we all have areas of New Testament teaching that we are either confused or uncertain about, but such imperfection in knowledge is surely not damnable. We are not saved by perfect knowledge or by the physical washing of water, but by faith in Christ! (Rom. 4:4-5, 22-24; 1 Peter 3:21) Nevertheless, we cannot make exceptions the rule when it comes to having a correct understanding of the apostle’s teaching in regards to water baptism, and given the context of New Testament apostolic preaching, one had to be baptized to be considered a Christian.
A BRIEF HISTORICAL SURVEY OF PARTICULAR BAPTIST VIEWS ON THE EFFICACY OF WATER BAPTISM
At this point, it would be wise for modern Baptists to consider what historic Baptist writers have said about water baptism being an integral part of the conversion experience. In what follows, I will quote liberally from a several Particular Baptist writers and will begin with one of the most well known and well read of all the 17th Century Particular Baptists, Benjamin Keach. Keach said the following in regards to baptism looking forward to salvation as its goal:
Consider then the great Promises made to those who are obedient to it, amongst other things, Lo, I am with you always even to the end of the World. And again, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. If a Prince shall offer a Rebel his Life in doing two things, would he neglect one of them, and say this I will do, but the other is a trivial thing, I’ll not do that? Surely no, he would not run the hazard of his Life so foolishly . . . And then in Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized every one of you for Remission of Sin, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit: See what great Promises are made to Believers in Baptism.
Keach quotes approvingly from Stephen Charnock (1628-1680), a Puritan pastor who, in Keach’s opinion, spoke “excellently” on the subject of the connection between baptism and regeneration. In the following quote, Keach takes pains to steer clear of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as adhered to by the Romanist paedobaptists, yet he shows that baptism is intimately tied to regeneration and is expected to be associated with it:
Outward Water cannot convey inward Life. How can Water, an external thing, work upon the Soul in a physical manner? Neither can it be proved, that ever the Spirit of God is ty’d by any Promise, to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation, when Water is applyed to the Body . . . Baptism is a means of conveying this Grace, then the Spirit is pleased to operate with it; but it doth not work as a physical Cause upon the Soul as Purge doth upon the Humours of the Body: for ‘tis the Sacrament of Regeneration, as the Lord’s Supper is of Nourishment . . . Faith only is the Principle of spiritual Life, and the Principle which draws Nourishment from the Means of God’s Appointments.
Keach’s focus in what he wrote above was to address the practice of baptizing infants who can neither repent nor profess faith in Christ. His main concern had to do with arguing that baptism does not mechanically bring about spiritual regeneration and so is of no value and benefit at all in the case of baptizing infants, who can neither believe in the gospel nor repent of their sins. However, he argued his point by asserting that baptism is associated intimately with spiritual regeneration and does work as an instrument for receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit when accompanied by saving faith. For Keach, baptism, in and of itself, has no inherent power, but can only instrumentally convey what it signifies (namely the baptism of the Spirit) when it is expressed in penitent faith. So, to him, water baptism was a sign, but not merely a sign.
Robert Garner, also a 17th Century Particular Baptist, said the following when speaking about the manifestation of resurrection power in the baptismal event when commenting on Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3:21,
. . . like as the glory of the Father was put forth in raysing his Sonne from the dead: even so, the glory of the Father is put forth unto believers in baptisme, crucifying the power of sin in them, and raysing up their heart and minde as it were into heaven to sit with Christ, to walke with him in a holy and heavenly conversation, to live a new life, which the Scripture, calleth a newnesse of life . . . . Wherein, I observe, that the same operation of God which was put forth in raysing Christ from the dead, is put forth unto believers, in baptisme (in such proportion as the Lord pleaseth) acting faith in them, through which they rise with Christ, or partake with him in the power of his resurrection, in a glorious measure. And this is so cleare a truth, that Peter is bold to say, (speaking unto believers) Baptisme doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the baptisme of believers must not be looked upon with a fleshly and carnall eye, as a washing of the flesh: but with a holy and spirituall eye, as a holy and pretious Ordinance of Jesus Christ: in which Ordinance, he puts forth the power of his resurrection unto believers, through faith saving them more richly than before, from the power of an inward pollution or filthynesse.
Addressing the fact that a permanent spiritual benefit is introduced in water baptism, Garner says, “this grace and power of Christ in baptism, hath an influence into after times also, even so long as they continue in the state of mortality.” For Garner, baptism not only signifies what happened once for all in Christ and ought to happen in Christians, but also serves as an occasion in which God effects spiritual renewal in baptized believers. How is one to understand this given Garner’s belief that regeneration logically precedes faith? Well, for Garner, (like the apostles) to separate baptism from the rest of the regeneration-faith-repentance-confession conversion experience in time causes huge problems as to New Testament exegesis and interpretation, especially as it relates to passages that associated baptism with regeneration such as Acts 22:16, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5. Garner also speaks of the forgiveness of sins that is attached to the baptismal faith-response when he says, “In this Ordinance, the Lord Jesus by his Spirit acting in a believers heart, doth more richly seal up or confirm in him the free and full remission of all his sinnes, through the blood of Christ.” Speaking to the relationship of forgiveness of sins to the repentance and baptism of believers, Garner said the following about Acts 2:38,
He [Peter] doth not say, neither dare I say that baptisme is a remedy to remit sinnes: for then I should run into the mistake of such, who pleading for their infants baptisme, do say: Baptisme is a remedy to take away that sinne, which they as the sons of Adam have conveyed to them. But this Scripture, I conceive, holds forth to us especially two things. First, that repentance and remission of sins are preached & given only in the Name or through the Name of Jesus Christ . . . Secondly, that the Lord Jesus doth in baptisme confirm or witness unto Believers, in some comfortable measure, the forgivenesse of their sins in his Name. And therefore he commands them to be baptized, partly for this end, that in baptisme he may confirm to them in some measure, by his Spirit, acting faith in them, the remission of their sinnes. For when a Believer is baptized in the Name of Christ, and the Spirit of God acts faith in him in his baptisme, then is his heart more sweetly assured, that through this Name all his sins are remitted, and he is at peace with God.
Commenting on Acts 22:16, Garner carefully avoids the language of baptismal regeneration while also holding forth its sacramental efficacy in the conversion/salvation experience,
Not that baptisme doth wash away sinnes: for it is the bloud of Christ onely, received by us through the faith of the operation of God, that washeth or cleanseth us from all sinnes. But thus; Be baptized, and in thy baptisme call on the Name of the Lord: that is, act faith in the Lord Jesus, in whose Name thou are baptized, that through faith in his Name this Ordinance, thy heart may be further confirmed in this assurance, that all thy sinnes are washed away in his pretious bloud.
Another Particular Baptist, Henry Lawrence, said the following in regards to “the Sealing up of our Union with Christ”,
The Scripture holds forth no point with more glory and certainty, than the Oneness which we have with Jesus Christ; which Union is the rise and ground of all that is good and happy in us: This therefore is the first and great thing that is made ours by Baptism.
Lawrence goes on to note that baptized Christians have all things that Christ had sealed to them in their baptisms,
Let us therefore put a value and a price upon this Ordinance, more then we have done: and after being once baptized into Christ, let us know and be assured, that we have a right to what he hath, and to what he had, and to what he is.
In his book Of Baptism, Lawrence noted that the second reason for baptism was for the purpose of “assuring us of our Justification in the remission of all our sins.” He then explains what he meant by saying,
It is safe giving Ordinances that notion the Scripture gives them, which while you do, you will get the true use they afford, and you shall be sure not to err from the true nature of them: This you have, Acts 2.38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.
Lawrence goes on to show how baptism serves the needs of penitent sinners by further commenting on Acts 2:38,
What can be said more comfortably to a distressed soul than this? That God hath set and instituted an Ordinance on purpose, that thou maist be acquitted of every sin, to witness and seal up what is done by faith: Therefore do not languish in this condition, Why tarriest thou? Arise and be Baptized, and wash away thy sins.
At this point it may be asked by modern Baptists whether Lawrence and Garner’s interpretation of water baptism was a “a seal” in the sense of being a mere symbol pointing backwards to a prior faith and conversion experience or whether they believed that it was a “seal” in the sense that it effected the sealing of faith in Christ and thus completed the conversion experience. It goes without saying that given Garner’s comments on Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3:21 and Lawrence’s comments on Acts 2:38 wherein he points unbelievers to baptism as a remedy for their guilt-stricken souls, clearly shows that both of these historic Baptists held that water baptism was an effective and normative means to salvation in the conversion experience; but not the sina qua non of becoming a Christian. Lawrence himself clearly meant that baptism was more than a mere symbol pointing backwards to an already completed conversion experience when he said the following in regards to baptism being a “seal”,
For what Baptism finds, it seals; although it doth also exhibit more of the same kinde; Baptism, and so all the Ordinances of Christ those we call sacraments, seal up what is already, else how could it be a Seal, but doth also convey more of the same.
Lawrence apparently understood faith as an attitude more than an action, so that while baptism presupposes faith, it also strengthens and continues the baptizand’s faith. From this perspective, Lawrence upholds the view of the New Testament which teaches that faith is the absolute condition of salvation, but the point at which this faith becomes definite outwardly, and thus saving union with Christ becomes a concrete reality for the baptizand occurs in their water baptism. Reformed Baptist Stan Reeves has rightly noted regarding the historic Calvinistic Baptist view of water baptism,
Baptists have historically seen baptism as the culmination of the conversion experience. Among other things, it seals and confirms, both to the party being baptized and to others, that the party has engaged to be the Lord's and is now united with Him. Although no warrant is given to baptize someone with the goal of converting him, in many cases the person may exercise faith in Christ through the means either of contemplating or participating in baptism. Beasley-Murray in Baptism in the New Testament makes a very strong case that the conversion experience and the act of baptism need not be separated in our conception of the two, since the NT so often speaks of them in an interchangeable manner. This is true, in spite of the fact that the two can be separated for study or in one's experience. From the believer's perspective, baptism can be viewed as a visible prayer in which the believer “signifies [his] ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and [his] engagement to be the Lord's.”
And so, given the context of NT apostolic preaching, and given the understanding of several 17th Century Particular Baptists, the rite of water baptism is not a mere outward symbolism testifying to an already completed conversion, but instead it was normally considered the effectual means by which God culminates, climaxes, seals, and completes a person’s conversion to Christ through faith (cf. Col. 2:11-12).
So, if one believes that water baptism is to be separated from the conversion experience, it is my opinion that such people will have difficulty properly interpreting the NT passages that teach that union with Christ is effected by baptism (i.e., Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27) and that union of Christ is effected by faith (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:26; Rom. 4:4-5; 5:1, etc.). Of course, it goes without saying that in the minds of the NT apostles, justification before God is by faith apart from works but that true, saving faith produces good works (Rom. 3:23-25, 4:4-5, 22-24; 5:1; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-7; James 2:14-26). But water baptism is considered in the NT to be the appropriate outward faith-response, the instrument whereby a person professes faith (versus an altar call) and is united visibly with Christ and His covenant community. Just to be sure that you don’t misunderstand or mistake our doctrine with the heresy of baptismal regeneration, Beasley-Murray sums it up our position well,
We are not saying that God justifies by faith but gives the Spirit and unites to Christ by baptism, as though baptism was a “work” alongside faith. That would be a perversion of the Gospel. Our plea has been that in the New Testament, baptism is inseparable from the turning to God in faith, on the basis of which God justifies, gives the Spirit, and unites to Christ.
To separate water baptism from faith in time is to do that which was unheard of by the apostles. This is why the NT can speak of being united to Christ by faith and being united to Christ by baptism because in their minds, there was no distinction between the two temporally. As seen in the few quotes listed above, many Particular Baptists of the 17th century taught this, and I think they were right in that they avoided the two extremes of empty symbolism on the one hand vs. a radical, mechanical ex opere operato sacramentalism on the other. Ex opere operato is the term traditionally used in theology to describe a mechanical conveyance of saving grace through outward physical rites. In other words, "in pops my baptism, out pops my salvation." This is baptismal regeneration. It finds its purest expression in Roman Catholic paedobaptism but sometimes sneaks into the Churches of Christ (although not all of them) in credobaptist form. Many Churches of Christ no longer hold this view, but instead adhere to the biblical view that I've described in my teaching notes for the "Washing of Regeneration" series; a view that I think was taught and practiced not only by the writers of the NT, but was also the position of many Particular Baptists in the 17th century.
The biblical, apostolic view of baptism avoids the mechanical ex opere operato view by teaching that water baptism is only relatively necessary in the salvation/conversion experience and not an absolute requirement since salvation ultimately rests in the power of the Triune Sovereign and not with outward religious rites. Consider what British Baptist scholar G.R. Beasley-Murray said in this regard,
The complex phenomena of the Spirit in relation to baptism in Acts compel a dual recognition: first that baptism is closely linked with the reception of the Spirit, howsoever it may be received; secondly that allowance must be made for the freedom of God in bestowing the Spirit, since God exercises that freedom.
He also noted when quoting Witherspoon, “He who has faith, but cannot obtain a sacrament, has Christ: he who has a sacrament but has not faith has nothing. . . .” and also says, “Most Christians would be prepared to accord to baptism a necessitas praecepti, or necessitas non absoluta sed ordinate.” He rightly notes that for Paul, baptism was necessary, but that the faith expressed in baptism is the only thing that is absolutely necessary for salvation by noting that for Paul, Abraham’s “pattern faith . . . was wholly independent of an external rite” and that his faith was the ultimate basis upon which God not only justified Abraham, but also the basis upon which God justifies all those who have the same kind of faith as Abraham (cf. Romans 4:4-5, 22-24). However, he does goes on to note that the ordinances are non-optional in normative circumstances by stating that it would be better “to recognize positively that God has graciously given us sacraments for our good and that it is our part to receive them gratefully.”
Christian Church scholar Jack Cottrell echoes Beasley-Murray’s comments above in the following statement regarding what he believes to be the correct way of understanding the latter half of Mark 16:16 which states, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
A second possible explanation has been suggested, however, distinguishing between what is absolutely necessary for salvation as compared with what is only relatively necessary. The idea is that even if baptism has been appointed by God as a necessary part of the salvation process in the New Testament age, it still has only a relative necessity and can be dispensed with in extraordinary circumstances. The only absolutely and inherently necessary condition is faith; thus it alone is mentioned in the second clause. It is conceivable that one could be saved without baptism, but not without faith.
Cottrell goes on to state the same thing after his exegesis of John 3:3-5,
This verse more than any other in Scripture shows the propriety of speaking of the necessity of baptism for salvation. As we saw in the discussion of Mark 16:16, however, this is only a relative necessity, not an absolute one. Just as the wording in Mark suggests that the only absolute necessity on man’s part is faith, so does the wording in John suggest that only the working of the Spirit is absolutely necessary to accomplish the new birth (as compared with water). This is the conclusion some draw from John 3:6, 8 where “born of the Spirit” is used but no “born of water.” The action of the Spirit is the only thing absolutely indispensable for the new birth. Baptism is not inherently necessary and can be omitted where physically impossible to administer. The possibility of such an exception in prohibitive circumstances does not negate the rule laid down in John 3:5 for ordinary circumstances, however. Surely our doctrine of baptism must be based on clear statement concerning its nature and effects, and not on inferred exceptions.
This view of baptism staunchly maintains justification by faith apart from works in accordance with Romans 4 by seeing baptism and faith as one united faith-expression and also upholds the teaching that although baptism is not an option for the penitent believer, it also does not by any means mechanically and automatically convey the gift of the Holy Spirit and the other benefits associated with salvation (cf. Acts 10:43-48 for an example). In other words, water baptism, as the climax of the conversion/salvation experience, is dispensable in extraordinary circumstances and is not the sina qua non of salvation. The sina qua non of salvation is evangelical, justifying faith; period. However, as both Beasley-Murray and Cottrell note, we should not use the exceptions to prove the general rule, which is that according to the New Testament authors, water baptism was seen as the normal and necessary faith-response of penitent believers following the preaching of the gospel.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEPARATING BAPTISM FROM THE CONVERSION EXPERIENCE
The biggest problem with most views on baptism today is that the five components integrally associated with conversion in the New Testament (regeneration, faith, repentance, confession, water baptism) are now separated in time. For example, Roman Catholic theology recognizes that regeneration and baptism belong together and so teaches that baptism brings about regeneration as well as the forgiveness of sins, with an emphasis on the forgiveness of “original” sin as inherited from Adam. However, in doing this, it separates baptism and regeneration from the human components of the conversion experience; namely, repentance, faith, and confession. Thus, it seriously deviates from the New Testament pattern of conversion. Lutheran theology also recognizes that baptism and regeneration are associated together. Like Roman Catholic theology it believes in baptismal regeneration, but it differs in that it recognizes that in the New Testament faith cannot be divorced from either. As a result, because of its support of infant baptism, it argues that God supernaturally gives the gift of faith (fides infantilis) to the infant being baptized. The Lutheran view has the problem of seeking to find exegetical justification in the New Testament for attributing saving faith to nursing infants. However, even apart from this, it still deviates from the New Testament understanding because it divorces repentance and confession from the other components of conversion.
The historic, paedobaptistic form of Reformed theology deviates even more significantly from the New Testament pattern in that it separates baptism from all the other components of conversion. Based on the doctrines of predestination and divine election, baptism is seen as a “seal” of the covenant of grace and identifies the recipients of infant baptism as members of the body of Christ. The baptism of infants is done with the hope of and view toward future repentance-faith-confession of the infant baptizand. Infant baptism, however, cannot guarantee that repentance-faith-confession-regeneration will follow, and history shows that in the majority of instances where infants are baptized it is evident that it does not. Yet even if the practice of infant baptism could guarantee that the other components of the conversion experience would follow, and it clearly cannot, the Reformed understanding of baptism would still err in separating what in the New Testament presents as a composite whole.
Modern Baptist theology also deviates from the New Testament pattern. Although regeneration, faith, repentance, and confession are associated with baptism, baptism is separated in time from these four components. Thus baptism is an act which witnesses to a prior experience of regeneration, faith, confession, and repentance. As a result such passages as Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, John 3:3ff., and others, which associate baptism with the experience of conversion, are embarrassing to many Baptists and often receive a terribly strained exegesis at their hands.
CONCLUSION
In sum, for the apostles, baptism meant faith and faith meant baptism. F. F. Bruce rightly says, “Faith in Christ and baptism were, indeed, not so much two distinct experiences as parts of one whole.” In the minds of first-century Christians, the two were interchangeable expressions of the one same faith-response to the preaching of the gospel, a singular response that was expected and non-optional. When it comes to my 17th Century Particular Baptist forebears, it goes without saying that there are several secondary doctrinal issues that I could disagree with many of them on, but I think that I have demonstrated that several of them followed after the apostles as to their view of baptism and subsequently got their view of that ordinance correct. This is because to them, baptism was not believed to be a “work” per se, but instead, baptism was included in the same category as the responsive actions to the grace of God offered in the preaching of the gospel; actions that necessarily accompany the conversion/salvation experience, actions such as faith and repentance. As so, baptism was believed to be the normative, outward faith-response action to the preaching of the gospel and as such, it serves as the outward necessary means or instrument whereby grace is appropriated to the penitent individual through faith; although it is important to note that that necessity should be viewed as a relative necessity and not an absolute necessity as scholars Beasley-Murray and Cottrell have noted above.
On the other hand, Modern, conservative, evangelical Baptists, who often pride themselves for being people of the New Testament, have taken an almost purely symbolic view of the rite. Modern conservative Baptists claim that they seek to adhere closely not only to New Testament orthodoxy but also orthopraxy as a basis for their insistence upon the baptism of believers. It is because of this that they would do well to make much of water baptism by seeking not only to follow the apostolic practice and patterns of baptism as to its mode and subjects (i.e., immersion and penitent believers), but also as to its purpose as a means of grace rather than a mere symbolic display of that grace. Until such is realized by modern Baptists, they will continue to sever water baptism from the conversion experience and by doing so they will inevitably create interpretive problems for themselves when it comes to the many baptismal passages mentioned earlier (i.e., Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:26-27). Such refusal to view Christian baptism this way will either lead to hermeneutical gymnastics as it relates to said passages relating to water baptism and the conversion experience or even worse, to a denial of the gospel itself by viewing water baptism as an ex opere operato ordinance that automatically and mechanically conveys saving grace to its recipients through the physical rite itself.
What follows is a short discussion from a friend describing what I think is a biblically correct understanding of "tongues" and "Spiritual gifts" as opposed to the traditional Pentecostal and Charismatic understanding.
by Geoff Volker