I think there is a bigger issue concerning the intention in baptism. Peter told the crowd to be baptised "for the remission of sins". This tells me that baptism is for the remission of sins, and that such a concept was part and parcel of apostolic evangelistic preaching. The evangelistic message therefore includes the concept that baptism is for the remission of sins, and not for the purpose of publicly announcing one's sins have already been forgiven, or for the purpose of officially joining a local assembly, etc.
It is in baptism that we by faith wash away our sins via the blood of Christ. The fundamental core elements of evangelistic preaching are found in
Hebrews 6:1ff, and focus on repentance and faith, and "baptisms" (washings). Washings in a Biblical context refers to CLEANSING. So it is that the idea of "how to be cleansed from the pollution of sin" is a key component in apostolic evangelistic preaching. Which in turn means that preaching the PURPOSE of baptism is part of the pre conversion message of the Gospel.
The Ethiopian eunuch was reading about the prophesied sacrifice of Christ. Philip expounded to him how that prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. The eunuch's response was to ask if he could be baptised. Why? Where is the logical connection there? NOBODY listening to Billy Graham or any other evangelical type evangelistic message will be asking about getting baptised. They would instead ask about "going to the altar" or "asking Jesus into their heart" or at the least "What do I do to be saved?" In fact, if said person DID make the connection it would be because of what the Baptist or AoG or other evangelical minister would call a "false view of the role of baptism." Plenty of non Christians think of baptism as the rite by which they become a Christian and wash away their sins. And evangelical types are always quick to "correct such erroneous views". Prior to being baptised, such persons in such environments will have already had the evangelical reason for baptism presented to them. They would be already indoctrinated into the evangelical view of baptism, in other words, prior to being baptised. Because no evagelicals baptise people IMMEDIATELY after preaching evangelistically to them. Instead they give an altar call, and then "schedule a baptism later". Or at the very least they will give a brief run down of their idea of "why baptism". So all such persons baptised by these folks already have a distorted unscriptural view of the meaning and purpose of baptism prior to being baptised.
But as already noted, the eunuch's response was to ask if he could be baptised.
This means the eunuch received - as part of the evangelistic preaching he was exposed to - knowledge of the proper Scriptural role baptism plays in conversion and salvation. Which in turn means a candidate for apostolic baptism is reasonably expected to understand what baptism is and why it is done
before being baptised.
So then, when a person has been baptised for a different reason and purpose than the Scriptural reason, and with an unscriptural view of the purpose of baptism, is their baptism valid? Is it really a BAPTISM? Seems to me it is not.
For those who would argue otherwise, I'd like to see an actual positive case for why they think such a pseudo-baptism qualifies as a valid apostolic baptism.
Linear Mode
