Thursday, September 29

Does The Bible Teach Reincarnation?

The concept of reincarnation is as follows: once an individual dies, he or she comes alive again, if you will, in a different form - it may be a human, whereas some religions teach that it may be an animal, or inanimate object such as a tree. There are certainly variants of the doctrine of reincarnation, and several of these place time intervals on when a person is reincarnated. Reincarnation is found heavily in Hinduism, but is also present in New Age philosophy as well as Buddhism, though in a different form. Early Buddhist texts, for example, espouse that there is no clear permanent conscious which moves from life to life. It has been claimed by some that this concept of reincarnation - dying, living again, the like - is present and taught in the Bible. But is this claim true? Does the Bible actually teach reincarnation, or does it teach that once someone is dead, they stay dead? *Notice: If any religious beliefs have been misrepresented, please notify us via the email provided at the end of the article. It is not our intention to misrepresent beliefs. (Photo credit: Calton, 12/25/04; Himalayan Academy Publications, Kapaa, Kauai, Hawaii)

In this entry, we will examine the concept of reincarnation from the standpoint of various religions and philosophies, and determine whether or not God's Word teaches this doctrine, or whether it teaches the "once dead always dead" doctrine - with the inclusion of an afterlife. "The word reincarnation comes from the combination of the Latin words re and incarnate, which mean to come into the flesh again. It is the belief that the soul or some individualized power passes after death into another body. There are all kinds of reincarnation beliefs in addition to the transmigration and reincarnation belief of Buddhists and Hindus. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, suggests that one can reincarnate from life forms on other planets."[1] The concept of reincarnation has been around fora few thousand years, and is indeed present in various religious systems and philosophies. Reincarnation is the belief that people go through a succession of lives. The origin of this concept has been traced to around the 800's BC in India.

Hinduism teaches that the soul (the atman) is immortal, whereas the body is mortal, material, and deteriorates. The Bhagavad Gita, a 700-verse Hindu scripture, conveys, "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from childhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change" (2: 12-13). In this system, "nothing" is the ultimate reality, and life is essentially one: plants, animals, and human life are each independently capable of transmigrating from one to another. For example, according to this belief, if a human were to die, he or she could transmigrate into the body of an animal or a plant. Hindus believe that every "living being at the time of death is reborn in a different form, either higher or lower, whether as a human being, an animal, a heavenly being, or a hell-dweller, and from that state he will again be reborn, and so on endlessly."[2] The Hindu sage Adi Shankara (788-820 AD) taught that all of life can be likened unto a dream: illusory and fleeting.

Buddhism, which is partially based off of Hinduism, teaches that, as aforementioned, there is no permanent conscious. There is some disagreement among Buddhists about exactly how rebirth occurs. For example, Tibetan Buddhism emphasizes the state of the mind at the point of death, whereas Sarvastivada Buddhists believe that a state of limbo exists between life and death. Essentially, however, rebirth (as it is called in Buddhism) teaches that the consciousness becomes one of the contributing causes for a new aggregation upon death. Rebirth, much like the Hindu system of reincarnation, deals with karma. In Hinduism, however, nirvana allegedly eventually occurs, which is where the individual becomes one with the Supreme being through moksha - the end of suffering. Modern reincarnationists generally hold a belief that we eventually reincarnate as divine beings, that we each have within us the capability of becoming gods.

Buddhist reincarnation cycle
Reincarnation is also present in some Native American religions. "Sometimes an infant resembles a deceased relative in some fashion, and it is believed that the ancestor might have returned to live again. However, this feature is missing from most Native American religions. There seems to be no widespread belief in reincarnation. Neither is there an emphasis on ancestors in the manner of the Chinese."[3] Reincarnation is, however, prevalent in the New Age religion. Having once been an adherent of New Age, believing that it backed up Christianity until I began to notice distinct differences - such as the views on Jesus, the views on God, the views on Heaven and Hell, as well as Satan and his angels. After about six months, I gave up my adherence to this religious belief. I held firm to my Christian views during the entire time, yet was at an early stage in my Christianity and was not prepared to discern the radical differences between Christianity and New Age. With this in mind, the belief in reincarnation was once a thought in my mind, but never fully developed.

Those who believe in reincarnation often cite personal experiences or phobias as evidence. To be sure, we truly have no hard scientific evidence for reincarnation. Empirical science, true science, is what can be tested, repeated, and observed. You cannot repeat, test, or observe reincarnation as you would, for example, testing whether or not a group of people were more attracted to females with short hair or longer hair - and even this small group would not necessarily be representative of the whole. But do such experiences prove reincarnation? Contrary to popular belief, they do not. There are several other logical explanations for these "memories" of "past lives." Perhaps you believe you were once a slave in Egypt, or you were Abraham Lincoln, or perhaps you were Gandhi, or Buddha, or Abraham. First of well, we need to take a moment and ask ourselves - of the many people who claim to be deceased famous people, how is it possible for more than one of them to have been this person? If one hundred people all claimed to have been Moses, does it make them all Moses? Not at all.

It has been suggested in certain circles that past lives are "remembered" for a variety of reasons. Although some hold to the belief that perhaps certain memories of ancestors are passed on genetically, however, there are several issues with this. Memories are formed from experience. It is true that certain "instincts" or "traits" may be passed down genetically, but not necessarily memories. What, then, would explain the mass remembrance of "past lives" in recent decades? Quite simply, some researchers believe that recollecting past lives may be the result of having seen a film, or a television show, or read a book, which allowed certain images to flow through your mind. As such, these can sometimes come off as memories, although they were nothing more than observations and data processed by your brain. The brain interpreted this information, because it could render it and understand it, and later on, when you "recollect," you are actually remembering something you may have briefly observed.

Lawyers and detectives can attest to the fact that memory is not always reliable. "How can we know with any certainty that their past-life memories are not one of these things? Is it really more logical to assume that their memories are genuinely from past lives rather than one of these other things? While some modern 'past-life experts' claim to find evidence for reincarnation by connecting things like phobias and physical ailments in currently living people with traumatic events in past lives, the past-life 'experts' are assuming the existence of a past-life (or past-lives) in explaining current health problems, not showing that those past lives actually happened. The fact of the matter is that there is simply no solid, scientifically acceptable evidence that the memories of past lives claimed by some people are genuine, rather than misremembered events or simply make-believe."[4]

Consider Shirley MacLaine, who "told Time magazine that she was 'a former prostitute, my own daughter's daughter, and a male court jester who was beheaded by Louis XV of France' - all in past incarnations that she believes she has rediscovered with the aid of mediums, meditation, and in at least one case, acupuncture."[5] Past life recollection has also been the result of a hypnotic trance, or the suggestion of a therapist. As noted by Dr. Jeremiah, "Whenever one gives the control of his or her mind to another, that person opens himself or herself up to demonic intervention," if indeed the reader believes in such. It is the contention of this ministry that it does occur, and that several cases have been recorded throughout history. Jeremiah goes on to say, "The basic flaw in intuitive or psychic recall as proof for reincarnation is this: The knowledge of past events does not imply one's own presence in those events. It is possible to have accurate knowledge of past events without having been there personally. Even honest reincarnationists will admit to this. The most likely explanation for this phenomenon is not the transmigration of souls but the transmigration of demons."[6] Note that in most cases of recollection of past lives, there is something involved: hypnosis, mediums, meditation, acupuncture, the like.

Some claim that the Bible teaches the doctrine of reincarnation. Advocates of this claim cite Jesus and Paul, who conveyed that men "reap what they sow," interpreting this phrase to mean that such results could occur in another life time. Another claim is that John the Baptist was actually Elijah reincarnated. Is there any veracity to this claim, or is there merely a theological misunderstanding of Scripture? The concept of reincarnation would have been a foreign concept to the Jews of the 1st century AD. Simply because the concept was present in Asian religion and philosophy does not mean we ought to presume it was present in Judaism. Jesus taught that our decisions and actions have future consequences, and that we will have to answer for these things, but He did not teach the doctrine of karma. Jesus did not mean that we would be reincarnated, but that by reaping what you sow, you will face consequences in this life, and in judgment. 

One of Hinduism's sacred writings describes karma as, "According as one acts, according as one conducts himself, so does he become... As is his desire, such is his resolve, such the action he performs; what action he performs, that he procures for himself" (Derived from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad). Karma also deals with a social dimension. Hindus believe that "karma can be reinterpreted ti address the question of why people act as they do. Not only do the results of our actions affect us, but they become extended in the way that we treat other people, including people who had nothing to do with how we were treated. Both functional and dysfunctional family patterns, for example, tend to persist throughout generations." [7] This is clearly not the doctrine Christ was teaching. 

Job 4:8 says, "As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it." Psalm 126:5 records, "Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy." Lastly, Luke 12:24 says, "Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!" In the case of Psalm 126:5, "sowing" and "reaping refers to soul winning. Just as Proverbs 11:30 says, "...those who sin souls are wise" (see entry: "What Does The Bible Say About Soul Winning?"). Sowing and reaping, or actions and consequences, are referred to in the context of this life, with eternal consequences included. Paul says in Galatians 6:8-9, "The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." The concept of karma was not taught by Christ.

What of the claim regarding John the Baptist actually being the reincarnated Elijah? The passage cited is found in Matthew 17:10-13, which says, "The disciples asked him, 'Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?' Jesus replied, 'To be sure, Elijah comes first and will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.' Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist." Jesus is referring to Malachi, which speaks of a messenger who would prepare the way for Him, and then speaks of Elijah. In the first century Jewish context, to "come again" would not have been reincarnated, but resurrected (cf. Daniel 12). Yet this is not what Jesus is speaking of. 

Luke 1:17 clarifies that John came "in the spirit and power of Elijah," but not a reincarnation of Elijah. The Old Testament is clear that Elijah filled the role as one who points the way to God, just as John did for God in the flesh - Jesus.. Also, it should be noted that Elijah appeared along with Moses to Jesus during His transfiguration (see Matthew 17:3-4; Mark 9:4-5; Luke 9:30-36). If Elijah had changed his identity, he would have been John the Baptist - because Elijah appears after the death of John. Mark 6:14-16 and 8:28 also clearly demonstrate that Herod as well as others thought of Elijah and John the Baptist as separate beings. Lastly, John himself states in John 1:21, after having been asked whether or not he was Elijah, "He said, 'I am not.'" In 2nd Kings 2:9-18, we find that Elijah was taken into Heaven in a fiery chariot - and did not die. How could John be the reincarnated Elijah if he never died in the first place? 

Enoch was also translated into Heaven without facing death (Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5). If the two witnesses mentioned in the book of Revelation are Enoch and Elijah, this explains why they have been kept from death. Why? The Bible is clear on death, "people are destined to die one, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). If Enoch and Elijah did not face death, it is possible that they are the two witnesses referred to in Revelation 11, as these two witnesses will face death during the end times, when, for three and a half days, "many from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies" (v.9). They will afterward be resurrected and will ascend into Heaven. Others believe that it may be Elijah and Moses, since both appeared at the Transfiguration, or that it may be two people we do not yet know of. However, this deals more with eschatology than with the concept at hand. 

God's Word is very clear in that we die once, and then face judgment: your eternal destination is either Heaven or Hell. This is a personal choice, of course. Author, apologist, and theologian C.S. Lewis once said, "There are only two kinds of people - those who say 'Thy will be done' to God or those to whom God in the end says, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn't be Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it."[8] Lewis makes a wonderful point here, driving home our point. Hell is a personal choice, not God's choice. In fact, God does not want any of us to go there. On the cross, Christ said to the criminal on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). If this man was to be reincarnated, how could he enter into paradise with Christ? Matthew 25:46 clear states, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment [hell]. but the righteous to eternal life [heaven]."

 "The Bible also contradicts the belief in karma by emphasizing grace. According to the Bible, atonement and forgiveness may be gained only through the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Salvation is based solely upon the work of Jesus Christ, not upon our own merits. The concepts of reincarnation and karma are in clear contrast to Hebrews 9:27, 'For it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.' Paul clearly states that the soul does not transmigrate into another living body, but goes to await judgment. For the Christian, Paul promised that death is the means to being in the presence of Jesus, 'we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord (heaven).' 2 Corinthians 5:8 It is clear that the Bible does not allow for the concept of reincarnation."[9] Reincarnation is incompatible with God's Word.

Hindu portrayal of reincarnation cycle
Indeed, the belief in reincarnation is prominent in Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and the New Age movement. The belief is unbiblical, however, and there is a lack of scientific support. There are those who may claim scientific support, but generally, it is readily agreed that there is no hard scientific evidence for reincarnation. The Bible teaches that man is to die, and then face judgment, sending his or herself to Hell due to their own decisions or actions, or to accept Jesus as Lord, repent of their sins, and be cleansed of their sins, therefore entering into Heaven upon death. Regarding past lives, there remains a plethora of other explanations aside from simply reincarnation. Whether or not adherents of the belief in reincarnation accept such explanations is an individual decision, and ought not to be forced onto a person. In biblical terms, there is no second chance. This is the ride into the sun, the swan song, the one shot we have at an eternity in either eternal bliss or eternal agony. This is not said to "scare" the reader into believing, but merely to inform of what God's Word says on this subject.

"Why would I want to spend eternity with someone who would allow Hell?", some may ask. This is covered in such entries as "How Can A Loving God Send People To Hell?". Bear in mind that as noted earlier, God does not "send" anyone to Hell. We "send" ourselves. If you wish to be apart from God's presence, Hell is the place to be. But because God allows Hell to exist does not make Him a cruel and capricious God, "If God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make a final end to violence - that God would not be worthy of worship... The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God... My thesis that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many... in the West... [But] it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human non-violence [results from the belief in] God's refusal to judge. In a sun-scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die... [with] other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind."[10]

One last point to address is the modern belief that we eventually can reincarnate in a higher plane of existence, to become as God, or a god. Is this not part of the reason Satan fell? Satan said, "I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly... I will make myself like the Most High" (Isaiah 14:13-14). Satan, as the serpent (Genesis 3; cf. Revelation 12:9, 20:2), in the Garden of Eden tempted Eve in like manner. It was a matter of pride, as well as disobedience to a direct command by God. Satan said to Eve, "you will be like God..." (Genesis 3:5). By claiming to be "like God" or be gods ourselves, are we not doing a similar thing to what transpired in the lives of our ancestors, Adam and Eve? By repeating the same mistake, have we actually learned anything? So often we claim that, given the chance to "do it all over again," we would right our wrongs. But in this case, many of us seem to be repeating the same mistake of being prideful human beings. Mormonism teaches that, if you are devout enough, you can also become a god, and have your own planet.[11] This is a mistake we cannot afford to make, and instead we ought to accept the gift of grace given to us through the sacrifice of God incarnate - Jesus Christ.

The Truth Ministries would like to thank you for taking the time to read this article of "The Truth." Feel free to email us at vexx801@yahoo.com or thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit our facebook page, or visit our ministry website.  It is the mission of this ministry to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2nd Corinthians 10:5). We also understand that many will disagree with our position, our claims and our ministry, and we recognize the individual's right to believe what he or she wills, and that some will disagree on our position regarding this particular topic. However, we stand firm upon the Bible as God's Word and hold to our conviction that the conclusion was arrived at based on what His Word tells us. Take care, and God bless you reader. Troy Hillman

Sources:
[1] Jeremiah, Dr. David, and C.C. Carlson. Invasion of Other Gods: The Seduction of New Age Spirituality. USA: Word Publishing, 1995. 45-48. Print.
[2] "India: Religion and Philosophy," Encylopedia Americana. Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier 1986. 870. Print.
[3] Hopfe, Lewis M., and Mark R. Woodward. Religions of the World. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001. 42. Print.
[4] "If reincarnation is not true, why do some people remember their past lives?." Got Questions.org. Got Questions Network, n.d. Web. 26 Sep 2011.
[5] Ibid, [1].
[6] Ibid.
[7] Sharma. Hinduism for our Times. pp. 27-29
[8]  C.S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain. Macmillan: 1961. p.116. Print.
[9] Bebber, Mark Van. "Reincarnation: Does the Bible allow for this possibility?." Christian Answers Network. Christian Answers Network, 1996. Web. 28 Sep 2011.
[10] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Abingdon, 1996), pp.303-304.
[11] Doctrines and Covenants 132:17, 37. 

Saturday, September 24

Does The Bible Contain Intentional Humor?

Certainly skeptics of the Bible may reply with a resounding "yes," with a claim that the very thought of expressing belief in God's Word is humorous. Yet a worldview is not a laughing matter, and is indeed a very serious thing. Belief in God, whether or not the Bible is true, and whether or not Jesus rose from the dead are important conclusions any individual must make. These decisions are detrimental in life regardless of personal opinions, and as such, The Truth Ministries and other apologetics ministries tend to be serious in tone. However, we are told in Proverbs 17:22 that "A cheerful heart is good medicine..." Recent studies confirm what Solomon wrote nearly 3000 years ago. Laughter reduces certain levels of stress hormones, bringing balance to the immune system, which also allows your body to help fight off disease. As such, would we not expect to find humor somewhere in the Bible? (Photo credit: After Eden by Dan Lietha and Answers In Genesis, no copyright infringement intended.)

Our Creator designed us with marvelous capabilities. The average human body can see, taste, touch, smell, and hear. We may utilize one sense at a time, or we may use all five senses at once. Psychologists continue to learn more and more about the human brain, which is part of the central nervous system, and other parts of the nervous system. Other scientists continue to discover more and more complexities in the human body, in nature, in outer space, and in our everyday lives. This same Creator made us, and it goes without saying that we generally have a sense of humor. Many of the readers have probably heard the old saying, "Laughter is the best medicine," which is derived from the Proverbs 17:22 previously mentioned. Perhaps the question that should first be asked is not whether or not the Bible contains humor, but whether or not God has a sense of humor. 

It is important to determine which type of humor we speak of. There is a type of humor which the world laughs at, which involves laughing at crude humor, and there is a type of humor which involves bringing others down or picking on others - all of which is contrary to Christian ethic (Colossians 3:8, 4:6; Ephesians 4:29; James 1:26). God demonstrates his sense of humor in such instances as when the Philistines captured the ark of the covenant. In 1st Samuel 5:1-5, we read, "After the Philistines had captured the ark of God, they took it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. Then they carried the ark into Dagon's temple and set it beside Dagon. When the people of Ashdod rose early the next day, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the LORD! They took Dagon and put him back in his place. But the following morning when they rose, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the LORD! His head and hands had been broken off and were lying on the threshold; only his body remained. That is why to this day neither the priests of Dagon nor any others who enter Dagon's temple at Ashdod step on the threshold."

Psalm 59:7-9 and Psalm 2:4 also record God laughing, indicating that He does indeed laugh - and the fact that He made us with a sense of humor indicates that He also has a sense of humor. With the knowledge that God has a sense of humor, could it be that He included humor in the Bible, apart from the instance in 1st Samuel? It is important to recognize that God's Word was given to us for a myriad of reasons, the main reason being that it describes God's plan of redemption for mankind from the very beginning, the salvation we can have through God manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ. There are many historical references, scientific references, along with a plethora of other such things, it would not be unlikely to also find references to humor. The Bible does not hold back - it describes the lives of people who once lived, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Jonah, Peter, Paul, and many others. Looking at mistakes made by those who lived in Bible times enables us to not make similar mistakes, which is another reason there are a great many accounts found in Scripture, along with a great many other uses and reasons which God gave us His Word.

Having listened to his friends, who were accusing Job of being punished for sin, but indeed was actually being tested (Job 1-2), we read in Job 13:5, "If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom!" Reading on, after a back and forth between Job and his friends for many chapters, God Himself speaks "out of the storm" and proceeds to ask Job a series of questions which Job could not possibly answer. God retorts, "Surely you know, for your were already born! You have lived so many years!" (Job 38:21). When God was manifested in the flesh, He often spoke in parables, which we find recorded in the Gospels. Though it is often missed, Jesus inserted humor into His parables, which probably had his audience roaring with laughter in some cases. Take the parable found in Luke 11:5-7, for example:

"Then Jesus said to them, 'Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.' And suppose the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.'" In this parable, Jesus' first century audience likely understood that the man's dog, sheep, goats, and the like would be kept inside the house with him. As such, His audience can imagine the back-and-forth between the two people waking the entire household, including the animals and the children - a scene of hilarity. Yet another example involves Genesis 6-9. Noah was commissioned by God to build the Ark - a lifeboat - to save the human race and the animal population (the sea creatures did not need to be on the Ark, as it was a flood). In this instance, we recall, Noah must have been a brave man, living on a ship for several months - built out of wood - which probably contained two termites and woodpeckers.

After Eden (Credit: Dan Lietha & AiG)
In Acts 12, we read that King Herod had Peter arrested for his continual preaching of Christianity. The church was praying to God concerning Peter (v.5), and while Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, "Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up. 'Quick, get up!' he said, and the chains fell off Peter's wrists" (v.7). At first, Peter believed it to be a vision, and followed the angel out of the prison, when the angel then left him. He then realized he was not in a vision, but that a miracle had occurred. "When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant named Rhoda came to answer the door. When she recognized Peter's voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, 'Peter is at the door!' 'You're out of your mind,' they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, 'It must be his angel.' But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished." Peter, having escaped prison, went to Mark's household (who wrote the third gospel, Mark), where a servant answered the door, and much like in a sitcom, a scene ensues wherein Peter is left waiting while the occupants discuss who it could be - until they finally realize that the solution to see who it is, is simply to open the door.

Two examples are found in Matthew 28. After the angel appears to roll away the tombstone of where Jesus lay, "The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men" (they fainted, v.4). However, when the women come upon the empty tomb, women who had been weeping and were in low spirits, Matthew 28:5 records, "The angel said to the women..." and the women listened to what the angel had to say. It is interesting that the guards, who had been battle-trained, and were "tough" men, fainted... yet the women did not. Another point to ponder involves what happened after the soldiers awoke. Some of the guards went into the city and told the chief priests what had happened. The priests "devised a plan, [and] they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, 'You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we are asleep'" (v.12-13). Aside from obvious issues with this theory, explored in the April entry, "Did The Disciples Steal The Body of Jesus?", a thought then comes to mind: if the soldiers were sleeping, how could they have known who stole the body?

The Bible is replete with humorous references, especially in the Hebrew and Greek. The witticism, idioms and hyperboles come across more when read in their original language then in some English translations. As aforementioned, while Jesus taught many serious things, His teachings were not without humor. According to Reverend Peter Weatherby, "Jesus has a particular eye for the ironical and paradoxical. He gave His disciples nicknames: Peter the Rock who was big on words, but a coward when it mattered; James and John, hotheads, were 'Sons of Thunder'. He told stories about judges who gave justice only after being pestered repeatedly, businessmen who amassed riches only to die the next day, and about priests too precious to help a man who had been beaten up. He talked about people who gave stones in the place of bread, and saw the speck in the eye of another but ignored the log in their own eye. He talked about the blind leading the blind. He called the holy men of his day whitewashed walls." Consider Matthew 23:24, for example, in which Jesus says, "You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." Here, Jesus essentially says, "you are like someone who has strained a fly from his cup but has swallowed a camel!" Jesus, no doubt, "told them how he really feels." 

There is also a reference in Matthew 7:3 which says, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?" Other examples are found all throughout Scripture. For instance, in Genesis 17:17, after God tells Abraham that he will have a son with Sarah, we read that "Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself: 'Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?'" God, who knows the thoughts of our mind (Psalm 94:11), evidently was not the happiest with Abraham for his unbelief that through Him this would be impossible, and told Abraham to name his son, "Isaac," which means "he laughs," because Abraham found it funny that he, at the age of 100, would have a son.

We can imagine the smiles and laughs within the actual event found in John 1:45-51, "Philip found Nathanael and said unto him, 'We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.' 'Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?' Nathanael asked. 'Come and see," said Philip. When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, 'Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.' 'How do you know me?' Nathanael asked. Jesus answered, 'I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.' Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.' Jesus said, 'You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.' He then added, 'Very truly I tell you, you will see 'heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on' the Son of Man.'" 

1st Kings 18:20-39 records the "battle of the gods," if you will. The prophets of Baal and Elijah compete to determine which god is the true God. In 1st Kings 18:27 we read, "It came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, 'Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.'" (NASB) The phrase translated as "gone aside" is the Hebrew word סיג (ciyg), which comes from the root word סוג (cuwg) meaning "refuse." Essentially, Elijah was saying, "Call out for your god; either he is going to the bathroom, is taking a walk, or maybe he is asleep!" The wit of Elijah, along with many others, can sometimes be "lost in translation." The Bible has been accurately preserved, but it helps to own a Hebrew and Greek lexicon to determine what certain words can be translated as to get an overall better understanding of a passage. 

Surely, the Bible contains many humorous references, and certainly studies have been done of the various witticism, hyperbole, and idioms present in the Greek and Hebrew, along with more in-depth looks at the many instances which can be called humorous. Although our God has a sense of humor, we must remember that life must not be merely "fun and games," not mere laughter all the time. Laughter is good, as a "cheerful heart is good medicine..." (Proverbs 17:22), but we must carry out or task as Christians, and at the same time, be able to "contend for the faith" (Jude 3) and be prepared for the "defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:16). There is more to God's Word than meets the eye. Upon further studies, we discover a great many things - from history to law, to science and humor, but most importantly, as noted earlier, it contains God's redemption plan for mankind through God the Son, Jesus Christ (see Romans 10:9). Does the Bible contain humor? It certainly does, and indeed God has a sense of humor, one of the traits which he gave to mankind.

The Truth Ministries would like to thank you for taking the time to read this article of "The Truth." Feel free to email us at vexx801@yahoo.com or thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit our facebook page, or visit our ministry website.  It is the mission of this ministry to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2nd Corinthians 10:5). Take care, and God bless you reader. Troy Hillman

Sunday, September 18

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

At the age of thirty, Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River, and proceeded to begin His ministry (Luke 3:21-23). Baptism (Greek noun: baptismos βαπτισμός) was commanded by Christ in Matthew 28:19. Numerous scriptures speak of the importance of water baptism, and as such, certain denominations believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation, and without it, one cannot enter into Heaven. This belief is called baptismal regeneration, and postulates that baptism is a requirement to be saved. In this article, we will explore a brief background of baptism, the purpose of baptism, and examine the verses cited to support baptismal regeneration and determine whether or not baptism is required for salvation. *This article is double-length. (Photo credit: Early Christian baptism portrayal on the catacomb of Saints Marcellinus and Peter, Via Labicana, Rome, Italy; "Wade in the Water." Postcard of a river baptism in New Bern, North Carolina near the turn of the 20th century.)

Flavius Josephus, 1st century Jewish historian, mentioned John the Baptist, "Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."[1] Josephus, as translated by William Whiston, A.M., affirms that John was a baptist, and baptized by "washing."

John 3:23 says, "Now John also was baptized at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were coming and being baptized." Now, because John's gospel says, "there was plenty of water," many believe that this suggests baptism by immersion. While none of the baptisms recorded in Dr. Luke's work, Acts, specifically states the method of baptism, Acts 8:38-39 says, "...both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water..." This passage suggests baptism by immersion, meaning simply the entire body is briefly immersed in water in the name of "the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). While baptism by immersion was likely practiced by the church (and still is), inscriptions such as those upon the walls of ancient catacombs, according to a Catholic source:

"Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism, but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient… is in a river, he is always shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches, paintings in the catacombs, designs on ordinary household objects like cups and spoons, engravings on marble--it is always baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church--as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence--indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion. Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person."[2] 

From the catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter
Also, Bible scholar Mark G. Easton writes that one cannot determine the mode of baptism by the Greek word alone. "Some Baptists say that it means ‘to dip,’ and nothing else," says Easton. "That is an incorrect view of the meaning of the word. It means both (1) to dip a thing into an element or liquid, and (2) to put an element or liquid over or on it." As such, "Nothing, therefore, as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere word used. The word has a wide latitude of meaning, not only in the New Testament, but also in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, where it is used of the ablutions and baptisms required by the Mosaic law. These were effected by immersion, and by affusion and sprinkling; and the same word, ‘washings’ (Hebrews 9:10, 13, 19, 21) or ‘baptisms,’ designates them all."[3]

It is important to then examine the claim that baptism in Christianity is based off a pagan religion. Is there any truth to this claim? The claim is essentially as follows: Mithras, the son god worshiped by people in what is now Iran, as well as by many Roman soldiers, had a cult following called Mithraism. A bloody cult - possible attraction for soldiers - the mythology said that Mithras was born with a knife. Mithras laid rode and killed the cosmic bull, the blood of which fertilized all plant life and also gave life to earth.[4] Members of this cult worshiped Mithras by slaughtering bulls and standing in a pit below the corpses, allowing to blood to then wash over them.[5] Though Christians believe that they are "washed... in the blood of the Lamb [Jesus]," (Revelation 7:14) this is for the remission of sins. Christians are not literally washed in Jesus' blood, nor do they baptize in blood. However, members of the Mithraism cult literally washed themselves in blood. Christianity teaches water baptism, whereas Mithraism teaches literal baptism by blood.

According to Gregory A. Boyd, Ph.D., "As for the suggestion that the New Testament doctrines of baptism or communion come from mystery religions, that's just nonsense. For one thing, the evidence for these supposed parallels comes after the second century, so any borrowing would have to come from Christianity, not the other way around. And when you look carefully, the similarities vanish. For instance, to get to a higher level in the Mithra cult, followers had to stand under a bull while it was slain, so they could be bathed in its blood and guts. Then they'd join others in eating the bull. Now, to suggest that Jews would find anything attractive about this and want to model baptism and communion after this barbaric practice is extremely implausible, which is why most scholars don't go for it."[6] With this understanding, we face the burning question: is baptism necessary for salvation?

The first verse used to allegedly support this belief is Mark 16:6. The verse says, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." We must note that the clause, "whoever does not believe will be condemned," does not say, "whoever is not baptized will not be saved." If an individual does not believe, they will not be saved - this verse does not say that if you are not baptized, you will not be saved, it says that if you do not believe you will be condemned. This is confirmed in John 3:18, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Mark 16:6 does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, but that belief is. It is also important to note that there is a disagreement as to whether or not the text of Mark 16:9-20 was in the original manuscript. As such, it is important not to base an entire theology off of references in this text, unless it is supported by other verses in Scripture. 

"In no way does this verse establish baptism as a condition for salvation; it is merely the declaration that those who believe and are baptized are saved. Any act of obedience to the Lord could be added after the expression 'whoever believes' and it would remain a true statement, because salvation is the result of faith in Christ. It should be noted that when the Lord added, 'but whoever does not believe will be condemned,' there is no mention of baptism. In identifying what would bring about condemnation, Jesus did not say that 'whoever believes but is not baptized shall not be save.' If baptism were necessary for salvation, there are many significant verses which should be amended to read 'you are saved through faith and baptism.' It is clear that faith in Jesus Christ is what saves a person (Acts 16:30-31; Eph. 2:8-9). Baptism is a distinct act of obedience, apart from salvation. This is clarified by the order in which the words 'believe' and 'baptize' occur in the text (cf. Acts 2:38; 10:44-48). Baptism with the Spirit places believers into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), while water baptism merely signifies to others that a person has professed Christ. The word 'saved' is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past, being accomplished by Jesus Christ Himself, and is continuing on in the present." [7]

To claim that this passage supports baptismal regeneration is to commit a Negative Inference Fallacy, which is essentially, "If a statement is true, we cannot assume that all negations (or opposites) of that statement are also true." Applied to Mark 16:6, this means that one is committing a fallacy (misleading statement) by drawing out of the verse a doctrine that if someone is not baptized they will not be saved. The text does not say this, but it does say that those who do not believe are condemned. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "he who is not baptized will not be saved." To add any other requirement to salvation by grace becomes "works" or "good deeds." While baptism is important for a believer after salvation in that those who are baptized demonstrate an outward sign of commitment to Christ and this process signifies the cleansing of sins, it is the contention of this ministry that baptism is not a requirement for salvation (Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12, Romans 6:3-5). 

To say that a works-based salvation is taught from Scripture is to go against what God's Word teaches. Adding any other requirement takes away the work of Jesus on the cross as well as demeaning the sacrifice of God incarnate. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly teaches, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." If works or good deeds saved a person, we would be able to boast. But this is not the case. Also, to say that baptism is required for salvation restricts who can be saved. John 5:24 is clear that upon the moment of expressing belief and faith in Christ, eternal life is granted (see also Romans 10:9). 1st John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

"If baptism is required for salvation, it means no one can be saved without a third party being present. In other words, if baptism is required for salvation, someone must baptize a person before he can be saved. This effectively limits who can be saved and when he can be saved. It means that someone who believes in and trusts in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but does not have the chance of being baptized, cannot be saved. The consequences of this doctrine, when carried to its logical conclusion, are devastating. A soldier who believes but is killed in battle before he can be baptized would perish, etc."[8]

The next relevant verse is Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Confusion over this verse comes from the Greek eis, which we translate as "for." Many assume that the phrase simply means, "in order to get." The Greek eis has several possible usages, however. Consider the phrase, "I will remain here, for the army has not yet arrived." This would not make sense if it was said, "I will remain here, in order to get the army has not yet arrived." While "for" can be used as, "to get, become, keep, have, in order to obtain," it can also mean, "because of, as a result of, concerning, in regard to, etc." Greek scholars A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey maintain that the Greek eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.” In regard to Matthew 3:11, Romans 6:3 and 1st Corinthians 10:2, the Greek eis is used in the "result of" form. There are several other examples in the New Testament where eis is used "as a result of," rather than "to obtain," or "to get."

Note also that Acts 2:38 never says, "if you are not baptized, you will not be forgiven of sins." It begins with "repent," "for the forgiveness of sins." Bear in mind Luke 23:39-43, in which the thief on the cross is promised by Jesus, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." The thief, who (it is implied) expressed belief in Christ, was not told to be baptized. Though some can argue that he may have been baptized beforehand, this is an argument from silence to support a belief in baptismal regeneration, a doctrine which is not taught in God's Word. In Acts 10:43, Peter says to Cornelius, "everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." By this point, baptism had not been discussed, and note that belief is connected with the forgiveness of sins - not baptism. In the following verse, we read that "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message," and only later, after Cornelius and his household believed, were they baptized (v.47-48). Acts 2:38 does not teach that baptism is a requirement for salvation, nor does it say that those who are not baptized will not receive the Holy Spirit. Very clearly in Acts 10, Cornelius and his household believe, receive the Holy Spirit, and only then are baptized - not before or during.

Acts 22:16 is another verse cited in favor of this doctrine. It says, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, and be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." Paul heard and believed in Jesus on the road to Damascus. When Ananias came, Paul had already believed in Christ (Acts 9:17). At the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, Paul also received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17), which was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Paul was not necessarily converted on the road to Damascus, but when he received the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells within a Christian from the moment of salvation. There is, however, some theological disagreement as to whether Paul was saved the moment he heard Christ or when he was filled with the Holy Spirit, yet the point here is that nevertheless, Paul was saved prior to his baptism.

Also, "The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated 'calling on His name' refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, 'be baptized.' Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated 'having called on His name' which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events."[9] It is unlikely that Jesus would commission Paul before his salvation, leading us to the conclusion that Acts 22:16 does not support baptismal regeneration. Concerning Galatians 3:27, which says, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ," this is another verse often cited in support of this belief. Yet a brief overview of the immediate context of the passage reveals this is not the case. In Galatians 1:6-10, Paul rebukes some of the Galatians who were turning to a false gospel. In Galatians 2:6, Paul is clear that we are justified not by "the works of the law but by faith in Christ." Also, it must be noted that the text does not specifically mention water baptism. This is important because at Pentecost, the disciples were baptized in the Holy Spirit, just as we are "baptized in the Spirit" at the moment of salvation (1st Corinthians 12:12-13). 

Jesus is the one who would "baptize with the Holy Spirit" (John 1:33-34), which appears to be what Paul was writing about in Galatians 3:27 - not water baptism. 1st Peter 3:21 says, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience of God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The phrase, "baptism that now saves you" is cited as "evidence" for baptismal regeneration. However, this is clearly not the case. Peter clarified, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience of God." In other words, Peter is not speaking of water baptism, but of baptism in the Spirit. For the believer, baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5), and a sign of commitment to Him. Today, we tell people to "pray the sinner's prayer" and "make a decision for Christ," instead of making a public declaration of faith in Christ and asking forgiveness from the heart - not praying an organized prayer. No magical prayer grants entrance into heaven, but true repentance and faith by grace. Today, this is often followed  by baptism later, but not always.

In Peter's day, however, this would have been unheard of. Baptism was an outward sign of commitment that an individual should do as soon as possible, which is why Paul, the eunuch, and many others were baptized not long after salvation. We are saved not by baptism, not by good works or good deeds, so that no one can boast. 1st Peter 3:21 evidently does not teach that one must be baptized to be saved. Note that even if 1st Peter 3:21 was speaking only of water baptism (it mentions it), it does not say, "he who is not baptized is not saved." It says that baptism is a pledge to God, a sign of clear conscience, and not by the removal of dirt (i.e. not water baptism) but through the Spirit. The final verse we will examine in this double-length article is John 3:5, "Jesus answered, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.'"

At a glance, it may appear as if, among the verses cited, this verse cannot be explained. Advocates point to the phrase "born of water" as evidence for baptism. However, the phrase "baptism" does not appear in this verse. In fact, baptism is not spoken of in this particular conversation. Although baptism is mentioned later in this chapter in reference to John the baptist, who was "baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water" (John 3:22-30), but it is in a different setting (Judea instead of Jerusalem) as well as being at a different time from the discussion with Nicodemus. Simply because the verse refers to "born of water" does not specifically mean baptism. The verse does not say, "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being baptized and the Spirit," but "without being born of water and the Spirit." If not baptism, what would the phrase "born of water" refer to?

River Baptism in North Carolina (Turn of 20th Century)
"We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect. This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved. A common reply to that question is: 'The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.' So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was 'under the Old Covenant' will use John 3:5 as 'proof' that baptism is necessary for salvation. They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant. If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be baptized?"[10]

There are two major interpretations of what the phrase "born of water" refers to. The first is that Jesus was referring to the natural birth, referring to the amniotic fluid which surrounds a baby in the womb, with being born of the "Spirit" implying natural birth. The second interpretation is that this water referred to spiritual cleansing or renewal. Both Testaments show that water is sometimes used figuratively (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25; John 13:10; 15:3; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews 10:22), in regard to spiritual cleansing or regeneration, from the Holy Spirit, through the Word of God, and at the moment of eternal salvation (see Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5). It is also important to note that the Greek grammar of this particular verse would place being "born of water and the Spirit" as one thing, not two separate things. Jesus speaks of the "living water" to the woman at the well (John 4:10), as well as to a crowd in Jerusalem in John 7:37-39, which evidently is not literal water. The Greek word translated "again" can also mean "from above." This may be where Nicodemus' confusion arose, and why Jesus clarified. Being "born again" and "born from above" are the same thing. 

There are many other objections raised concerning these verses, but it is not the intention of this article to examine in-depth every claim or objection concerning baptismal regeneration, but to demonstrate that it is an unbiblical concept, and that it is clearly not taught in God's Word. To read into texts what the reader intends to find is unwise. We should be like the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures to test doctrines. Scripture does not contradict scripture (see series: "Does The Bible Contain Contradictions?"), and the best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself. Baptism is not required for salvation, and it ought to be conveyed that nowhere in Scripture does it state, "those who have not been baptized shall not be saved." Instead it says of Jesus, "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). 

There is no clause of added works or good deeds. This would likened unto attempting to move in with the U.S. President by telling him, "I am a good person, my works and good deeds show this." The President would turn you away, not necessarily because he had never heard of you, but because you never had a relationship. So it is with God. If we do not believe and have a relationship with our Creator, how can we be expect to be allowed into His house? Works (including baptism) do not get us to Heaven - Jesus does. Baptism is important, it is, as aforementioned, an outward sign of commitment to God, a sign of repentance as well as signifying the washing away of sins, but baptism does not save us. The example of Paul, Cornelius, and the thief are sufficient to demonstrate this, though there are others. Water baptism is something every believer still ought to participate in.

The Truth Ministries would like to thank you for taking the time to read this article of "The Truth." Feel free to email us at vexx801@yahoo.com or thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit our facebook page, or visit our ministry website.  It is the mission of this ministry to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ" (2nd Corinthians 10:5). We also understand that many will disagree with our position, our claims and our ministry, and we recognize the individual's right to believe what he or she wills, and that some will disagree on our position regarding this particular topic. However, we stand firm upon the Bible as God's Word and hold to our conviction that the conclusion was arrived at based on what His Word tells us. Take care, and God bless you reader. Troy Hillman

Sources:
[1] Translated by William Whiston, A.M. Josephus: The Complete Works (The Antiquities of the Jews 5.2.116-117). Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998. Print. pp.581
[2] Catholic Answers, San Diego, 2002.
[3] "Christian Baptism." WebBible Encyclopedia. Christian Answers Network, n.d. Web. 17 Sep 2011. http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/baptism.html
[4] Miller, Stephen M. The Jesus of the Bible. 1st ed,. Uhrichsville, Ohio: Barbour Publishing Inc., 2009. 48-49. Print.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. 1st ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998. 121-122. Print.
[7] Spiros Zodhiates, editor, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (Chattanooga, Tennessee: AMG Publishers, 1996), note for Mark 16:16.
[8] "Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?." Got Questions.org. Got Questions Network, n.d. Web. 18 Sep 2011.
[9] "Does Acts 22:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?." Got Questions.org. Got Questions Network, n.d. Web. 18 Sep 2011.
[10] "Does John 3:5 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?." Got Questions.org. Got Questions Network, n.d. Web. 18 Sep 2011. .