There was an antique collector passing through a small village when he saw an old man chopping wood with an ancient ax. “That’s a mighty old ax you have there,” he remarked. “Yep,” said the villager, “it once belonged to George Washington.” “George Washington??? Not really!" gasped the collector “That’s hard to believe!” The old man grinned and said: “Yep! It belonged to George Washington alright. But, of course, it’s had three new handles and two new heads - but this is his ax.”
Now, did that ax actually belong to George Washington? No! When you change the handles 3 times and the heads twice… well, it’s no longer the same ax. And over the years… people have done the same thing with Baptism. Folks have changed the handles and heads so often that it no longer looks the same. They may call it by the name “baptism” but it’s not anymore.
Catholicism was the first to make changes: According to “The Catholic Biblical Encyclopaedia” (Pg. 61 Paragraph 2) “Immersion was oldest method employed. Buried in baptism. Romans 6:4.
A Roman Catholic priest named Brenner made the following statement: "For thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and regularly an immersion of the person under the water, and only in extraordinary cases a sprinkling or pouring of water; the latter was moreover, disputed as a mode of baptism, nay even forbidden" (Historical Exhibition of Administration of Baptism. Page 306.)
And a Catholic Cardinal named Gibbons, (1834-1921) stated: "For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity, baptism was usually conferred by immersion; but since the 12th Century the practice by sprinkling has prevailed in the Catholic Church, as the manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by immersion."
There’s a couple of stories that relate what prompted the Catholic Church to begin changing the practice of baptism by immersion - but the fact is, they did make that change. Catholics will still immerse you if you ask, but as Gibbons points out it’s less inconvenient to sprinkle or pour water on someone than to bury someone in a watery grave.
ILLUS: As we pointed out in a previous sermon, Romans 6 compares baptism to burial. So, let’s say someone dies. We have a big funeral for them, and then we take them to the cemetery. Do we sprinkle some dirt on them and call it a day? Or do we pour a shovel of gravel on their casket and say they’re buried? Of course not! If you’re going to bury someone, you put them UNDER the ground. And baptism is the same idea - to bury them in baptism, we put them UNDER the water. But why do we do that? Why put them under the water? Because that’s how God (not a church or a theologian) said its done!
For example, in Acts 8 we’re told the story of an Ethiopian Eunuch. In that story, we read about a Christian named Philip who witnessed to a Eunuch as they’re traveling along in a chariot. The Eunuch was so convinced by what Philip told him that “… as they were going along the road they came to some water… the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36) And then we’re told “(the Eunuch) commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down INTO the water… and (Philip) baptized him. And when they came up OUT of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.” Acts 8:38-39
They went DOWN INTO THE WATER and CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER! So, why would they go down into the water and then come up out of the water? Because that’s what Biblical baptism looks like. If all the Ethiopian Eunuch needed was to be sprinkled… why stop the chariot? They could have done the job by just pouring water on his head from a canteen.
But, why would Catholicism change that? Because they could. They started with the right ax, but they changed the handle and the head. They substituted what THEY felt was OK, because they’d gotten used to playing God. They changed God’s written word to fit their thinking… and that’s never a good idea.
Centuries later, people changed baptism again, but this time they didn’t change HOW it was it done - they changed WHY it was done. They said baptism wasn’t that important, and they replaced it with something called the “Sinner’s Prayer” or “Asking Jesus into Your Heart.”
We’ve talked about this before a convert is asked to repeat a prayer like this one: “Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I believe that you died for my sins, and that you rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and ask you to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow you as my LORD and savior. In your name Amen.”
But, if all the Ethiopian Eunuch needed to do was pray “sinner’s prayer… why stop the chariot? But they didn’t stop the chariot, and Philip did NOT ask the Ethiopian Eunuch to repeat such a prayer. Why not? Because the Sinner’s prayer not Biblical. You won’t find anyone praying any such prayer to become a Christian ANYWHERE in Bible. In fact, there’s only one man who ever is recorded as praying a prayer before he became a Christian… and that was Paul. When Paul was confronted by Jesus on the road to Damascus, he was told to go to a house on Straight St. and there he would meet a man would tell him everything he had to do. A little later, Jesus appeared to Ananias telling him to go and witness to Saul (later Paul) and tells him he’ll find “a man of Tarsus named Saul, (who was) praying” (Acts 9:11) - and for three days, Paul did nothing but fast and pray (Acts 9:9) Paul was so shaken by meeting Jesus that he was pleading for mercy.
But when Ananias came - he instructed Paul “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16) Even though Paul had fasted and prayed for 3 days, his sins had not yet been removed. Paul’s sins were only washed away when he was baptized.
Now people will use a couple arguments to challenge the idea that baptism being part of how we become Christians. One argument is to say “Baptism is ONLY an outward sign of an inward grace.” In other words – you’ve ALREADY been saved… so baptism is an outward sign - a display of your commitment to a crowd or an audience that gathers to encourage you. Now, there are 2 problems with that. One of those problems is that the phrase “outward sign” is NOT the Bible! It’s a manmade phrase… not a God-made command.
The other problem is that… if baptism were something you did for an audience – why didn’t they turn the chariot around so they could go back to Jerusalem and do the baptism in front of the church there? Why stop the chariot in the middle of no place? Why not go back to Jerusalem? Why not? Because baptism is not something you do for an audience… it’s something you do for Jesus.
The other argument people will use is to say: “Faith is mentioned more often than baptism in the Bible (i.e. Faith is mentioned in this or that verse for salvation… but baptism isn’t) therefore baptism MUST NOT BE necessary.”
Now, that’s true (faith is mentioned more often than baptism, and repentance, and confessing Jesus as Lord) but this argument is based on bad theology.
Take a look at this chart – it lists every conversion in the book of Acts (https://www.sbschurchofchrist.com/~hcj/index.php/bible-studies/what-must-i-do-to-be-saved) Notice - BAPTISM shows up in every one of these conversions. And the words FAITH and BELIEF are missing from two of these events (Pentecost/Saul’s conversion – though we can rightly say that faith is assumed). But also notice that repentance and confession of Jesus are only mentioned ONCE in those conversion experiences. Does that mean you don’t have to repent to be saved? Does that mean you don’t have to confess Jesus as your Lord to be saved. Of course not! That’s bad theology. It is bad theology to say that if something isn’t mentioned in every verse about how we are saved then you don’t have to do it! That’s totally illogical! If that were true, you wouldn’t have to repent or confess Jesus as Lord.
Now, let’s go back to this sinner’s prayer thing. If such a prayer is not in the New Testament (and it’s not), and it’s not something the early church practiced (NO ONE taught that prayer for at least the first 1500 years), then where did the “sinner’s prayer” come from?
Well, it started getting popular by at least the 1700s during the great Revivals. One of the earliest examples was called the Mourner’s Bench: Revivalists would give an “altar call” and people would come down front and sit on the “Mourner’s Bench” where they would pray until they “felt” God had accepted them. Unfortunately, there were “mourners” who didn’t feel God wanted them - and if God didn’t want them, what hope was there? So many of them committed suicide.
Then along came a famous evangelist named Charles Finney: he developed the type of Revival - very similar to those of our modern revivals (think the Billy Graham crusades). Finney replaced the Mourner’s Bench with something he called the “Anxious Seat.” People would come up front and sit there and pray to God to be forgiven – without the fear ridden thought that He might reject them. This was a very effective “altar call”. It wasn’t Biblical… but it was very popular. Finney later wrote about the purpose of his altar calls in a book he wrote (“Revivals of Religion”, 1868): “The church has always felt it necessary to have something of this kind to answer this very purpose. In the days of the apostles, baptism answered this purpose. The gospel preached to the people, and then all those who were willing to be on the side of Christ were called out to be baptized. It (BAPTISM) held the precise place that the ANXIOUS SEAT does now as a public manifestation of their determination to be Christians.” (Russell E. Boatman “The Mourner’s Bench” The Kentucky Evangel, Glasgow KY)
“Baptism served the precise place that” his Anxious Bench did??? Then why not baptize people instead of creating a new kind of invitation? Well, Finney changed baptism for the anxious bench… because he could. Finney probably wouldn’t be comfortable with my saying this… but he was playing God. He knew about baptism - he just didn’t want to do things as the Bible did. He preferred improving on God’s plan. Finney took the ax that God had used, and put a new handle & head on it and called it “a day”. That’s never a good idea!
CLOSE: Years ago, while I was preaching at my first congregation, I was listening to a famous radio preacher that I liked, and he said something about baptism that I disagreed with. So I wrote him a letter. I didn’t get to communicate with him (he was a big fish in a big pond, and I was a little fish in a small pond) – instead, I corresponded with one of his lieutenants and we wrote back and forth for a few weeks. Finally, though he grew tired of the discussion, and decided to put me on the spot. He asked: “If someone dies before they’re baptized will they go to hell?
Now… that was a loaded question. If my answer even came close to saying “no, they can still be saved” then he would have responded: “AHA – so baptism ISN’T necessary for salvation then, is it?” But if my answer sounded like: “Yes, they’re going to go to hell”, then the questioner would dismiss me as being legalistic and judgmental. Now, that’s not to say this is not a LEGITIMATE question, it’s just that those who do ask it aren’t looking for an honest answer. They’re just trying to trap you by getting you to “play God.” They want you to DECLARE who is saved and who isn’t. And no matter how you answer, they’ll discredit you.
So, I struggled with that question for over a week. And then – one day – a thought occurred to me. I was teaching our church youth group about covenants, and it was obvious they had no idea what a covenant was. Then I asked if they knew what a contract was, and all their hands went up. And then I knew how to answer the radio preacher.
I used to sell real estate. Let’s say that you have a house you want to sell and you come to my office – Strite reality - and ask me to list it for $200,000. But then you make an unusual stipulation: the above ground pool out back that does NOT go with the house. You are very clear about that as you sign the papers with me. The next day Fred Smith comes into my office and he’s excited. He’s seen my sign on your property and says he’s always loved the property. He’s just come into an inheritance and pulls out his briefcase and proceeds to place stacks of bills on my desk totaling that amount. Then he says “You know what sealed the deal for me? It was that above ground pool he has out back. I’ve always wanted one like that and they don’t sell that style anymore.” Now I have an offer (your house) and an acceptance ($200,000 on my desk). Do I have a deal? The answer: No. In real estate it’s called “the meeting of the minds.” As long as there is a disagreement on something as simple as the color of a light switch, there’s no deal.
Now, can I say to Fred: “No problem. The house is yours!”? Answer: No. Why not? Because I don’t own the house. YOU do. I can’t speak on your behalf in this matter because I don’t have the right.Can I say to Fred “There is NO WAY he’ll will sell you house with pool?” Again, no. I don’t own the house. In real estate the way we solve this impasse by having the buyer offer a “counter-offer”… such as “I’ll give you an additional $5000 for the house.” The agent then presents the offer to the owner and they can accept or decline as they see fit.
Now, what happens if I just “forget” to mention the pool thing to Fred, I get the papers all signed and I walk away with my commission? Answer: There are going to be 2 very unhappy people when Fred tries to move in. And I will end up being sued and may lose my license… or I may spend time in jail for fraud.
Now, this is how the illustration plays out. God has a house for sale – it’s called salvation - and He’s already paid the purchase price – the blood of Jesus. But, God places a few conditions on the sale. Faith, Repentance, Confession, Baptism, and the commitment to live the rest of my life for God. If someone comes to God and expects to receive salvation without accepting one of those conditions (for example: baptism, or repentance), they’ve essentially offered god a counter-offer. Can God accept that person’s counter-offer? Of course, God owns the house and it’s His right to accept any counteroffers. Besides, He's God... who's gonna stop Him.
However, that’s not the way the contract is written.
If – like the real estate agent - the preacher, or teacher or whatever tries to modify the contract… they do so at their own peril. They don’t own the house and therefore they don’t have the right to tell folks that God will accept less than what He has stated in the contract. There’s a warning in James 3:1 “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” So, just as a real estate agent might lose their license - if we leave something out of the contract that God put there, we could lose far more. And I’m not going to chance that. I refuse to play God! I will present the contract as written, and I will NOT make any apologies for that.
The question for the person who wants to offer the counter-offer is this: is it worth the gamble to presume God will accept that when He didn’t see fit to include it in the original contract. As with any gamble – you might win… or you might lose. So why gamble. Do what He asked and you’ll never question your decision.
INVITATION
