baptism

A sincere Bible student feels that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, provides evidence that the Greek term bapto may signify the actions of either sprinkling or pouring, as a baptismal rite. What does the evidence actually reveal?

Did the apostle Paul teach that baptism was not necessary for salvation from sins? By no means. Study this passage with us.

The Bible explicitly teaches that immersion is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

Several questions and comments have been recently received relative to some of our material dealing with the purpose of “water baptism,” as that theme is set forth in the New Testament. Accordingly, in this Feature article, we wish to address a reader’s obviously sincere concerns.

Certainly, many of those who have defended the idea that sprinkling is an acceptable form of baptism have attempted to establish their case by such an appeal.

R. C. H. Lenski (a Lutheran), for exa...

Another argument which denies the essential role baptism plays in our salvation is answered.

Many have been deceived into believing that grace by definition excludes obedience. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Must baptism be administered “in the name of Jesus” only to be valid?

Why do most modern translations use the word baptize, an anglicized Greek word, rather than translating the Greek word into English?

Many denominationalists have long argued that “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 can mean “because of” (i.e. – be baptized because your sins have been remitted). But the same term is found in Matthew 26:28 – clearly indicating the meaning of the term.

All loving parents want their children to be saved. But is infant baptism helping our children reach that goal? Or is it a dangerous and unscriptural practice that should be abandoned?

Scholarly sources may be helpful, but good Bible students recognize any human source can be biased or flawed. God’s Word is the ultimate standard of faith and practice.

In Acts 2:38 Peter contended that baptism is “for” (eis) the remission of sins. Since many religionists deny this biblical truth, they seek comfort in a supposed parallel that they imagine nullifies the force of eis in Acts 2:38. Some imagine they have found a solution to their theological problem in Matthew 12:41. But have they?

It has long been known that denominationalists, welded to the theory of salvation by “faith alone,” repudiate the connection between baptism and the forgiveness of sins. Some, formally sound on this issue, now are capitulating to sectarian error. Take a brief look at this issue with us.

Does the fact that God did not require water baptism for the remission of sins under the Mosaic system indicate that baptism must not be obligatory under the New Covenant? Does this compromise the Lord’s “immutability”? Study the question with us.

Were those disciples who were immersed by John the Baptizer required to be re-immersed on the Day of Pentecost or thereafter? Some sincere Bible students maintain they were, but will the evidence really support that view?

All who wish to enjoy the remission of past sins will call on the name of the Lord by obeying the gospel plan of redemption. In no other way can one receive pardon.

The claim is commonly made that ancient literary documents, supported by archaeological discoveries, sustain the idea that “sprinkling” was an accepted form of ancient “baptism.” Examine this issue with us in this month’s Feature article.

When did the practice of infant sprinkling originate? Was it an apostolic practice? Or did it develop later? Let us look at the historical facts.

Some while back we published an article reviewing the Mormon dogma of “baptism for the dead.” A distinguished professor at Stanford University disputes our argumentation. This is our response to the gentleman.