This topic is not necessarily so controversial as our last topic, but it certainly has been assigned many very different meanings.  Here are some of my personal thoughts...  What do you think it means to be BAPTIZED WITH FIRE???

                                  Baptism of Fire                              

I.      Introduction

The baptism of fire spoken of in the New Testament is referred to as such only two times in the scriptures, yet there is a notable amount of disagreement concerning the meaning of the phrase.  The two passages in which this phrase appears are Matthew 3:10-12 and Luke 3:16-17.  These scriptures read as follows:

v     Matthew 3:10-12: "And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 "His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

v     Luke 3:16-17: John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 "His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire."

Many explanations have been offered concerning the most accurate meaning of the baptism of fire spoken of by John.  The purpose of this study is to examine the most reasonable interpretation and established which explanation is likely correct.

II.   Definition of Terms

v     Fire: (pur), literal or figurative; lightning, fire, fiery. [4442]

v     Baptism: (baptize), to dip, to make fully whelmed or wet. [907]

III.           Contextual Study

Fire and baptism are each used both figuratively and literally depending on the context of the passage.  Understanding these uses may help us to correctly identify the intended uses in previously mentioned scriptures.

v     Fire:

1.      Referring to literal fire or flames:

a.      Acts 7:30: “And when forty years had passed, an Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai.”

2.      Referring to Hell:

a.      Matthew 5:22: “But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.”

b.      Matthew 7:19: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

c.       2 Thessalonians 1:6-8: “since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

d.      Revelation 20:14 “Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”

3.      Referring to trials and tribulations:

a.      1 Corinthians 3:13: “each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.”

b.      1 Peter 1:6-7: “In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

c.       1 Peter 4:12-13: “Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you;  13 but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy.”

v     Baptism:

1.      Referring to immersion in water:

a.      Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

b.      Acts 2:38: “Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

c.       Acts 8:36: “Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”

d.      1 Peter 3:21: “There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

2.      Referring to trials and tribulations:

a.      Luke 12:50: “But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!”

b.      Mark 10:38: “But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”

IV.            Conclusions

Based on the above observations, there are distinct conclusions that stand out as the most probable meanings of baptism of fire.

A.     To be baptized with fire may be referring to the final judgment in which Christ will invite the righteous into eternal glory but condemn the wicked to eternal Hell fire.  Especially considering the context of Matthew 3:10-12, it seems very reasonable to make this conclusion.  In the surrounding verses, Jesus is clearly speaking of this final condemnation of the wicked.  Also, this conclusion would be consistent with the definitions and contextual studies of the words baptism and fire. 

B.     Baptism in fire may also refer to the trials and persecutions the Christians would suffer immediately after the establishment of the church.  This conclusion is consistent with the definitions and contextual studies observed above.  It is also notable that this interpretation seems to make Matthew 3:11 more consistent with itself.  In scripture, it appears that the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of fire are understood to be in the same timeframe and relevant to the same audience.  If so, understanding fire to be trials and persecutions is most logical and brings more continuity to the verse.

C.     A combination of the above interpretation may also be the case.  Consider this train of logic: All people are baptized with fire because they are tested with trials and tribulations that will prove our faithfulness to God.  Some people will escape this baptism of fire and be preserved in heave while others will be consumed by the fire in hell. 

We've got a good topic for this week.. Head Coverings!! This may seem like a pretty long one, but I think if you read it through you will find it very interesting.  And really, it's a quick read.  Also, I understand this is a rather controversial topic for many people, so as you read this, please be objective but feel free to kindly make comments concerning any differences of oppinion.

                                                Head Coverings                                               

I. Introduction:

The contention surrounding the use of head coverings among the members of the Lord’s church is based exclusively on differing interpretations of a single passage, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.  Other scriptures that may have a bearing on this study will be considered later in the article.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 reads as follows:

            “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye  remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9  Neither was the man          created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to   have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” KJV

The purpose of this study is not necessarily to examine the complete meaning of this passage; rather, it is to establish the extent to which the instructions here are applicable to the present day church.  The value of this study is regarded by Paul himself when he states in verse 16, “if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”  In other words, the instructions here are not spoken vainly; they are final and binding on the members of the church.  This passage certainly represents a fine detail in the law of liberty, but we can still conclude this is a doctrine in need of our contemplation.   

II. Definition of Terms:

Understanding the original meanings of the words used in this selection is vital to accurately conceiving the original intent of the passage.  A few terms are of particular importance.  The definitions here represent the definitions found in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and Vine’s Expository Dictionary.  Strong’s numbers are also noted.  

• Covered: (kata), to cover one’s self; veiled; root of katakalupto below [2596]
• Covered: (katakalupto), to cover wholly; hide; having something down the head [2619]
• Covering: (peribolaion), something thrown around oneself; mantle, veil, vesture [4018]
• Uncovered: (akatakalupto), negative of 2619; to be unveiled [177]
• Shorn: (keiro), to shear [2751]
• Shaven: (xurao), to shave or shear the head with a razor [3587]
• Long: (komao), to have long hair [2863].  According to Thayer and Smith Greek Lexicon: to let the hair grow.
• Nature: (phusis), the regular law or order of nature; growth by natural production [5449]

III. Contextual Study of Terms:

In addition to the explicit definitions cited above, some of these words can be further defined by their use in other biblical sources.  Observing the various uses of these terms is significant in that some terms may have meaning not entirely evident in the text of 1 Corinthians 11 or in the dictionary.  This section cites any other scriptures where the use of these terms may be relevant to the study of head coverings.

Kata:  This word is used in a variety of ways, none of which can be used to further elucidate on the meaning the term.

Katakalutpo:  This word is used only in the text of 1 Corinthians 11.

Peribolaion:  This word is used only one other time in Hebrews 1:12; however, its use there does not appear to have any pertinence to a study of head coverings.

Akatakalupto:  This word is used only in the text of 1 Corinthians 11.

Keiro:  This term, shorn, is used in two other NT passages listed below:

§         Acts 8:32: “The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth.”

§         Acts 18:18: “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”

These passages are not especially enlightening, but do confirm what can be understood from 1 Corinthians 11.  To have hair that is shorn, is an unspecific length longer than a head shaved with a razor, but still not constituting a covering.  Because of the usage in Acts 8, it seems reasonable to infer that shorn hair in 1 Corinthians 11 would be roughly consistently with the shorn hair of a sheep having been shorn for its wool – not completely gone, but still very short compared to the natural growth of the coat. 

Xurao:  This word is used in Acts 21:24, but does not offer any further insight.

Komao:  This word is used in no other NT passages.

Phusis:  This term is used in several other NT passage.

§         Romans 1:26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

§         Romans 2:14: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.

§         Galatians 2:15: We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles…

Each of these instances confirms the apparent use of the term phusis in 1 Corinthians 11:14.  Nature refers to the physical and spiritual laws that are evident by the design of the universe and inherent within the human conscience.   These laws of nature are implemented by the providence of God himself. 

IV. Commentary:

Understanding the meanings of the significant terms we can arrive at several conclusions regarding the use of head coverings among the members of the church.  Although the entire meaning of this passage is beyond the scope of this study, the applications to be drawn from these instructions are still evident.  These conclusions are based on the context of the text and the Greek definitions of the significant terms.  The scriptures provided here and elucidated on are those verses seeming to have an immediate impact on the modern use of head coverings. 

v     Verse 3: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

Paul prefaces the next several verses by establishing the principles that are the basis of the following instructions.  The kingdom of God has been deliberately designed with a clearly defined hierarchy: God, Christ, man, and woman. 

v     Verse 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”

By nature of this hierarchical system, there are things that illustrate the distinction between these ranks.  Regarding these distinctions, Paul is concerned with the physical image of men and women, specifically, the appearance of their heads.  Because prayer and prophecy are the activities mentioned, it appears that Paul’s instructions must be immediately concerned with the image of men and women in the assembly and/or another setting where spiritual matters are the focus of a gathering (i.e.- private study, etc…).  This conclusion can be made because prayer and prophesy are the central aspects of any spiritually oriented assembly – addressing God (prayer) and addressing others concerning God (prophecy).  [See notes on verses 5 and 6 on the nature of this setting.]

The shameful act of a man having his head covered during these activities must refer directly to the local culture in Corinth.  To be covered literally means having a veil, cloth or other vesture adorning the head and hanging down the head.   In the Corinthian culture, this was a tradition strictly practiced by the women of the city as a token of submission.  For a man to cover himself in this fashion was shameful in that he was assuming a feminine image, crossing over the lines of distinction between men and women.  According to this verse, this was a dishonor to the man’s head, Christ. 

Other passages support the principle that God’s people should acknowledge culturally sensitive issues concerning our appearance [See Deuteronomy 14:1-2; Leviticus 19:26-28; Leviticus 21:5].  Although the use of head coverings is a tradition absent from western Christian cultures, the rule that men and women should adorn themselves according to the gender specific traditions of a given culture is still very applicable.  Men should appear as men and women should appear as women. 

As is discussed in the comments on verses 15 and 16, the covering referred to here and in the following scriptures should not be equated with a person’s hair, but regards a literal veil or vesture covering the head.  This is the only reasonable conclusion consistent with the ancient Greco-Roman culture. 

v     Verse 5: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”  

This again refers directly to the local cultural norms of the Corinthians and most of the Roman Empire at the time Paul’s writing.  Just as a veiled man would appear effeminate in Corinthian culture, an unveiled woman would appear to be rejecting her position in the hierarchical system, dishonoring her head, her husband.  Coverings were worn by the Corinthian women as an emblem of submission, acknowledging their husbands as the spiritual and familial leader.  In the context of this culture, it would have been perceived as nothing short of rebellious. 

The act of praying or prophesying without a veil to cover the head is equated with shaving the hairs off the head.  These actions are not one in the same, but have similar consequences.  For a woman to appear unveiled or with a shaved head was to denounce her submission to her husband and appear as pagan priestesses of the time.  Historically, it also appears that shaving the hair from a woman’s head was a punishment for adultery and prostitution [from the ancient historian Tacitus, Adam Clarke], and was even considered shameful in mourning [according to Euripides, Adam Clarke].

This reference to woman praying and prophesying does not inherently indicate that Christian woman of the first century participated in the assembly.   First Corinthians 14:34-35 should be sufficient to assure us that such speaking is disallowed.  The setting in which these instructions are applicable is any essential any circumstance where spiritual matters are the immediate concern, not just the service.  Second Kings 22:12-15 is one example of a woman exercising the gift of prophesy without doing so in any public fashion.  The language of 1 Corinthians 11:17-18 also indicates that the first sixteen verses of the chapter were not pertaining to the assembly: “Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.”  It is not until verse 17 that Paul begins addressing when they come together.  This is evident when Paul says first of all, meaning that the following orders about the Lord’s Table are the first time he is directly concerned with the assembly.  In short, Paul’s commands regarding head coverings apply to the assembly but are not specific to the assembly.

v     Verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

This verse further explains the point made in verse 5.  Replacing the key words with the previously mentioned Greek definitions, the verse can be more clearly understood: “For if the woman [appears without her head veiled], let her also [cut off her hair]: but if it is shameful for her to [have shortly cut hair] or [hair shaved with a razor], she should [wear a veil on her head].”

An observation of the cultural context again enlightens us concerning the reason for Paul’s strict instructions.  For a woman to participate in a religious gathering with an unveiled head or with a shaved head was a practice only associated with immoral, rebellious, pagan women.  Naturally, this was image unfitting for a woman professing godliness.  Unlike veils, however, it appears that the way the hair is worn does have significance not limited to cultural standards [see notes on verses 14 and 15].

v     Verses 7-9: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

Paul affirms the rationale for these instructions by explaining the relationship between the roles of the kingdom’s hierarchy.  Man is the image and glory of God in that he has been delegated the spiritual and familial leadership of God’s earthly kingdom.  In this way, men should reflect the image of God through sound spiritual leadership and service to God.  Similarly, the woman should acknowledge her place in the kingdom by exercising submission.  The woman was created for the man just as man was created for God.

Because of this relationship, men and women should adorn themselves appropriately.  Whatever the cultural norms may be, men should not appear to denounce their position of leadership and women should not rebel against her role in submission to the man.

v     Verse 10: “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

The meaning of this verse is uncertain.  However, it does seem that this verse has no immediate bearing on the practical aspects of the passage and does not change how the instructions in this section should be fulfilled.

v     Verses 11-12: “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.”

Although the use of head coverings is the topic being addresses in the surrounding verses, Paul pauses here to establish the greater principles of the Christian faith affected by the fulfillment of these instructions. Even with the hierarchical system in place, Paul reminds us to keep the nature of these relationships in perspective.  Man cannot exist without the woman, nor can the woman exist without the man and neither can exist without God.  The genders are mutual dependant and neither should dismiss the value of the other.  Both physical and spiritually, the effective fulfillment of these gender specific roles depend on the contributions of both ranks.

v     Verse 13: “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”

This verse is further evidence that Paul’s instructions must be related to the culture of the Corinthians.  The church is told to use its own ability to reasoning and see whether it is fitting for a Christian woman to pray uncovered.  It seems clear that the shame associated with this action is not only written in the law of liberty, but was evident by observation.  For a woman to appear unveiled was a blatant rejection of her husbands leadership and classed her with the pagans and prostitutes. 

v     Verses 14-15: “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

Similar to verse 13, these verses are intended to further justify the previous instructions concerning head coverings by appealing to the church’s own capacity to decipher between right and wrong.  Nature here refers to the laws of God written on the human heart, laws manifest within our consciences [see Romans 2:14].  For this reason, these verses have applications unique from the rest of the passage in that these principles must be universal, transcending culturally sensitive teachings. 

Remembering that in the previous several scriptures Paul has been concerned with literal veils, we should be sure not to interpret these verses such that they negate the formerly established directions.  Like a veil, the long hair of a woman functions as a covering, demonstrating her submission to her head, her husband.  However, the way in which long hair serves as a covering does not nullify the need for the Corinthian women to wear literal veils.  Paul is not teaching that long hair can be worn instead of a covering; rather, the fact that long hair is consistent with natural law is further proof that the use of veils is a reasonable command, already evident in the laws of nature.   Likewise, nature itself teaches that it is shameful for men to have long hair.  This also demonstrates a principle already apparent by the laws of God written in our hearts: men should not have a covering on their heads, whether in the form of a veil or long hair.

This interpretation is the only understanding consistent with the culture at Corinth.  If these verses are intended condone substituting true veils with long hair, Paul would be allowing a practice that was regarded as shameful in the ancient world.  Long hair is not given to women instead of a covering, but is a natural covering paralleling the need for veils in Corinth. 

V. Conclusions:

Although the entirety of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is not binding the modern church, many points, both broad and specific, should be exercised by all Christians in any culture, in any age.  Likewise, the principles used as the basis of Paul’s instructions, such as the hierarchical system in the kingdom of God, have not changed and are established for eternity.  Listed below are the instructions given in this passage that continue to be binding today, followed by any necessary justification and clarification.

1. Women should have long hair.  According to verse 15, long hair is hair long enough to serve as a covering for the woman, being distinct from hair that is cut very short or shaved off entirely [v. 6].  In order to satisfy the definition of a covering, a woman’s hair should be long enough to wholly hide the head and hang down the head.  The woman should let the hair grow.  Different from some teaching, this does not mean a woman’s hair should remain uncut and untrimmed; rather, her hair should be maintained such that it more similarly represents the nature growth of the hair.  One piece of ancient Greek literature describes how this is performed: “see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before.”  For practical purposes, woman should simple maintain a length of hair that can easily be described as long hair.  This done as a symbol of woman’s submission to her husband.

2. Men should not have long hair.  Men should not have hair that may be classified as the above description of long hair.  His hair should be clearly masculine, not approaching a length that may appear as a covering for the head.  This is done in recognizing that the man is the image of God, and is the familial and spiritual leader on earth.  It is important to note that hair that is too short for a woman may not necessarily be short enough for a man.  Neither gender should appear to push the limits of decency. 

3. Christians should not act or adorn themselves such that they appear as pagans, prostitutes, or any other variety of ungodly characters.  This is a point well established throughout the Word of God.  The Lord has always required his people to maintain an identity such that we will not be confused with the unrighteous of the world.  As with point five, this will require careful observation of the culture in which we live, being sure to stray away from practices or appearances that are distinctively associated with any form of immorality or unrighteousness.

4. Christians should act and adorn themselves such that they do not dishonor their head in the kingdom’s hierarchical order.  It appears that any transgression of the other four points made here (women should have long hair, etc…), would be dishonoring one’s head.  For the Christians at Corinth, this specifically required careful attention to the use of veils.  Congruent statements are made in Ephesians 5:21-33 and 1 Peter 3:1-7.

5. Men and women should maintain the gender specific customs of each culture so far as they do not intrude on other aspects of God’s law.  Contrary to many contemporary teachings, God has designed the genders with distinct roles and responsibilities within the church and within the family.  Whether in action or adornment, God has always forbidden his people from crossing the lines of distinction between the genders.  Many of these distinctions are evident by express instruction from God, while other distinctions may vary with the need to be culturally sensitive.  However, the need for cultural sensitivity does not absolve us of following other specific commands.  For example, a Christian woman living in a culture where all other women wear short hair does not relieve her of the instruction to have long hair. 

A Study of Calvinism: Total Depravity

The Christian Baptism

In Hebrews 6:1-3, the writer mentions several concepts that represent some of the elementary principles of Christ. In the context of the passage, these principles are said to constitute the most fundamental aspects of the Christianity, doctrines that should be the basis of the Christian faith. Among these essential doctrines are the doctrines of baptisms. Throughout the scriptures, there are indeed many baptism mentioned:

• John’s baptism: Mark 1:4-5; Luke 3:12-14
• Baptism of fire: Matthew 3:11; [2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; 2 Peter 3:10]
• Baptism of the Holy Spirit :Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:1-6; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 11:15-18
• Water baptism: Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36-39

The four baptisms mentioned throughout the New Testament are clearly distinct in nature and purpose; however, Paul tells the Ephesians that there is but one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. If only one, then which one is applicable to Christians today?

Which Baptism?
When observing each of these baptisms and considering them in context, the answer to this question becomes evident. Each baptism spoken of by the Bible serves a specific purpose in a specific time frame. Two of the four baptisms have passed and one is still to come. This leaves only one as the baptism effective for Christians today. The following three baptisms mentioned in the Scriptures cannot be the “one baptism” Paul refers to.

• John’s Baptism: This baptism was used in the small interval of time just before the manifestation of Christ. It was used as a means of preparing the way of Christ as John preached about the coming Messiah, the coming kingdom, and the need for repentance [Mark 1:1-8]. Based on this specific purpose it is reasonable to assume that this baptism is no longer applicable. Christ has come and the kingdom has been established [Hebrews 12:22-28]. Additionally, we see occasions in the New Testament where the effectiveness of John’s baptism was no longer present [Acts 18:24-26; Acts 19:1-5]. Concerning John’s baptism, it is important to note that this also was a baptism in water, but should be seen as distinct from the water baptism practiced by the disciples after the advent of Christ and establishment of the church in Acts 2. This point is also evidenced in Acts 19:1-5.
• Baptism of the Holy Spirit: This baptism was used to signify the beginning of the church, the kingdom [Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4], and to express God’s acceptance of the Gentiles [Acts 10:44-48; Acts 11:15-18]. Despite modern teaching, these two occasions are the only times in the entire Bible where baptism of the Spirit took place. Seeing the specific roles that these baptisms served there is no reasonable way to conclude that this baptism would serve a purpose today. In fact, we can infer that this baptism would have ended with the end of the age of miraculous spiritual gifts predicted in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. On both occasions, baptism of the Spirit empowered those immersed with ability to speak in tongues; a gift the apostle Paul said would end with the completion of the Bible.
• Baptism of Fire: This baptism speaks prospectively of the judgment to be made against those that do not serve God [2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 20:14]. No other instance can be described as being immersed in flames as can the condemnation for those that do not serve the Lord. Some have attributed the cloven tongues of fire on the Apostles heads in Acts 2:3 as this baptism of fire. Although this does not appear to be an immersion as implied in the term baptism, this would still constitute a baptism no longer effective in the present age of the church.

Understanding that each of the above mentioned baptism could not be functional today, the water baptism, as described in Acts 2:38, must be the one baptism Paul names in Ephesians. By the time the epistle to the Ephesians was written, John’s baptism, as well as the baptism of the Spirit, had evidently passes away, and baptism of fire was still to come. The baptism effective and needful for Christians today is baptism in water, in the name of Jesus Christ.

What does it accomplish?
The scriptures make evident many roles that this baptism serves today. Many of these things even demonstrate the essential role that baptism plays in our salvation. Without baptism, our salvation is impossible.

·                    Forgiveness of Sins/Washing: Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Ephesians 5:26; [John 3:5 and Titus 3:5].

·                    Receive the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:38; Acts 9:17-18; [John 3:5 and Titus 3:5].

·                    How added to the church/body: 1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 2:41,47

·                    Act of obedience/righteousness: 1 Peter 3:21; [2 Thessalonians 1:8, 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 and Romans 6:1-12]; Matthew 3:15

·                    Receive Christ: Galatians 3:27

·                    For Salvation: Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41,47; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21

Baptism undoubtedly serves a vital role in the Christian life. Coupled with faith, repentance, and confession, baptism is the very point at which we may come in contact with the redeeming blood of Christ. Baptism is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all people.

How should it be done?
Several factors should be understood and exercised for baptism to be effective in our salvation:

·        With faith: Colossians 2:12; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37; Acts 2: 41; Acts 8:12

·        With understanding: Matthew 28:19; Acts 8:35-39; 1 Peter 3:21. Essentially every conversion in the NT begins with the individual being taught the gospel followed by the baptism.

·        Coupled with repentance: Romans 6:1-12; Acts 2:38

·        By immersion in water: Acts 8:36; John 3:23; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:21. Additionally, the word baptism even means to be immersed or fully whelmed, especially in water [Vine’s Expository Dictionary]. According to this definition and these scriptures, sprinkling would not truly be a baptism.

·        In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Matthew 28:19

FAQ’s on Baptism

1. Isn’t baptism just an outward sign of an inward change?
The short answer to this commonly held belief is no, not really. No place in the Bible describes baptism in this way. Calling baptism an outward sign of an inward change implies several things that are not consistent with the scriptures: 1) this change (receiving Christ) can happen before baptism; 2) baptism itself does not accomplish anything; 3) baptism is not really necessary. A better way to describe baptism is an outward act that causes an inward change. This is evident in many scriptures mentioned above. For example: Acts 2:38: we are forgiven of our sins and receive the Holy Spirit through baptism; Galatians 3:27: we receive Christ through baptism; Mark 16:16: our salvation is completed with baptism.

2. Aren’t we baptized with the Spirit when we’re saved?
Only a few people were ever baptized with the Spirit, something that doesn’t happen today. As mentioned in the section above on baptism of the Spirit, a baptism of this nature is recorded only twice in the New Testament. First, the apostles were baptized with the Spirit to confirm to them that the kingdom had come [Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4]. The second time, it was a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles were acceptable to God and should allowed to join the church [Acts 10:44-48; Acts 11:15-18]. Interestingly, when Peter realized the Gentiles had been accepted, they were immediately baptized with water. In short, we are not baptized with the Spirit when we’re saved; rather, we’re saved when we’re baptized with water.

3. Can’t we be saved before baptism?
The Bible mentions several things that are necessary for our salvation: John 3:16- faith; Romans 10:9-10- confession; 2 Corinthians 7:10- repentance; Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21- baptism. Without any of these things, including baptism, we cannot be saved. We cannot be saved before baptism any more than we can be saved before we believe. Also, remember that baptism is how we receive Christ, receive the Spirit, are forgiven of our sins, and are added to the church [Galatians 3:27; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13]. How could we possibly be saved before any of these things have happened!?

4. What about the thief on the cross?
When considering the thief on the cross, it is important to remember one very important aspect of baptism: according to Romans 6, our baptism is effective because of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Keeping this in mind, the answer is very simple. When the thief on the cross was saved, Christ had not died, been buried, or raised from his grave. It makes sense, then, that before these things happened, the baptism we have today would have accomplished nothing. In short, the thief was saved before baptism was even needed.

5. Don’t we only need faith to be saved?
Several things are needed to be saved. Faith is one of these things, but is certainly not the only thing. Some of these things include: John 3:16- faith; Romans 10:9-10- confession; 2 Corinthians 7:10- repentance; Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21- baptism. There is not one place in the Bible that says faith is the only thing we need to be saved. In fact, just the opposite is true.

6. Can’t we receive Christ by just asking him to come into our heart?
Jesus said in the Gospel of John, “I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me.” We can be sure that we must receive Jesus in order to be saved; however, there is not one place in the entire Bible that says we can just ask Jesus into our hearts and be saved. The words of Galatians 3:27 explain precisely how we can receive Jesus: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Baptism is the final step in which we actually receive Christ and have access to his abundant grace.

7. I was baptized as a child, doesn’t that count?
Baptism as a child or infant, according to the scriptures, would not constitute a baptism at all. There are several reasons for this, but one stands out as the most significant. A true baptism must be done with understanding, with faith, and should be done because we personally decided we needed to do it [Acts 8:37; 1 Peter 3:21]. An infant that gets baptized does not have faith and they certainly are not doing it of their own will. It’s not until a child has the true ability to decide between right and wrong that they also have the ability to choose to be baptized.