Baptism Pictures

Daniel getting baptized last month.

Baptism Pictures

Nathan, our second son, was also baptized in October. Baptizing him is Pastor Mike Kai, Pastor Mark Peterman, and me.

Baptism Pictures

Josiah, our oldest son, was also baptized in October. Baptizing him is Pastor Mike Kai, Pastor Mark Peterman, and me.

Baptism Pictures

In October, four of our boys were baptized.

Here's Caleb (age 6), who was very excited about getting baptized. Pastor Mike Kai, Pastor Mark Peterman and I did the baptism.


We may need to baptize this foot again some day.

Baptized with Water and Spirit

Question: What's the difference between water baptism and baptism by/ in/of/ with the Holy Spirit? If one is baptized in the Holy Spirit, does one need to be water baptized? What does it mean to be baptized by/in/of/with the Holy Spirit?

Quick answer: Baptism in the Spirit is the giving of the Spirit, and it happens at conversion. Water baptism is a meaningful ritual that symbolizes the giving of the Spirit and our conversion, and we should do it right away after conversion.

Long answer: Baptism is derived from washing images and rituals in the Old Testament. The OT prophets often promised that a new age was coming, called the new covenant or the messianic age. They eagerly awaited not only the coming of the Messiah, but also the giving of God’s Spirit on all of God’s people. The prophets often used water as a picture of the cleansing work of the Spirit. It would be a cleansing of the inner person, not just the ritual cleansing practiced under the Law (see esp. Ezek 36:25-27; also Isa 32:15-17, 44:3, Ezek 39:28-29, Joel 2:28-29, Zech 12:10, 13:1).

When John the Baptist began his ministry, he baptized with water. He described this as “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” His baptism also prepared the people for the “coming one,” who would baptize with the Spirit (Mk 1:4-8). That is, John’s water baptism was a picture of the giving of the Spirit from the Messiah. So “baptism with the Spirit” is a metaphor for receiving the Spirit. (By the way, there is no difference in meaning between the phrases by/in/with the Holy Spirit.)

But Jesus did not immediately give the Spirit. John tells us that the giving of the Spirit had to wait until after Jesus’ “glorification” – that is, his death, resurrection and ascension (John 7:37-39). This giving of the Spirit (= the baptism of the Spirit) happened first at the day of Pentecost (or maybe in the upper room, but I’ll save that for another post). Even the disciples had not yet received the Spirit, because they had to wait until Jesus’ atoning death.

Although most Christians no longer use the term this way, in the New Testament, “baptism with the Holy Spirit” is another picture of conversion. When we come to Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit, and are therefore baptized with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; see also Rom 8:9, 14, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Gal 3:2-6, 4:6). Later in life, we may have many experiences where we sense the work of the Spirit through us. Acts describes these as “being filled with the Spirit” (Ac 4:8, 4:31, 13:9-10, and others).

After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the church began to practice water baptism immediately upon conversion (Ac 2:41). The water ritual served as a picture of the Spirit baptism that was taking place at conversion. Immersing in water also became a picture of the believer’s union with Christ, dying and rising with him (Col 2:12).

Do we need to get baptized with water? For a full answer, see this post. A quick answer: we don’t need baptism for salvation, but the NT commands it, and it should be a ritual of celebrating our new life in Christ. You can go simple and just sign a marriage contract to get married – but why not have a wedding to celebrate?

Another common view: Pentecostals sometimes use the phrase “baptism in the Spirit” to refer to a significant experience of the Spirit later in one’s Christian life, accompanied by speaking in tongues. They use the term this way because they think all believers should have the same experience as the first disciples: belief in Jesus, and then some time later, baptism of the Spirit with speaking in tongues (as at Pentecost). However, if you read through Acts, you can see that the pattern of Pentecost is never exactly repeated, and is probably a unique historical event like the resurrection of Jesus. Further, the rest of the New Testament never indicates that baptism of the Holy Spirit is a later event, or that it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, or that all believers should speak in tongues.

Victory at Ebenezer (1 Samuel 4-7)

The following is a devotional that I wrote for my church's Bible reading plan.

1 Samuel 4-7
This section of Scripture starts and ends with the people of God at war against the Philistines in a place called Ebenezer (“Rock of Help”). After being defeated in the first round of battle, the elders of the nation decide to bring out the Ark of the Covenant, the symbol of the presence of God. The presence of the Ark had brought victory to Israel before. (Remember that line in Raiders of the Lost Ark: “The Bible speaks of the Ark leveling mountains and laying waste to entire regions. An army which carries the Ark before it… is invincible.”) The presence of the Ark even terrifies the opposing army and convinces them that they are about to be destroyed (1 Sam 4:6-9). But it is not enough. The army of Israel is defeated, the two sons of the high priest are killed, and the Ark is taken captive by the Philistines. Eli, the high priest, falls down dead when he hears the news, and his newborn grandson is named Ichabod, “the glory has departed,” as a sign of mourning.

About a year later (after a number of fascinating and even humorous events that bring the Ark back to Israel), the army of Israel again fights the Philistines at Ebenezer. But this time, although they don’t bring out the Ark, Israel is victorious and casts off the oppression of the Philistines. What happened to make the difference? Why did the first army fail, and why did the second army succeed?

The first army suffered from fatal flaws. First, they thought that religious ritual alone could bring victory and blessing. There is no sign that they did anything else to honor God – just brought out the Ark. Like the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, they thought that mere possession of the Ark would grant power. Second, Israel relied on immoral leaders. God had already warned Eli the high priest that they were in danger because his two sons were breaking the priestly laws, extorting gifts from worshipers, and sleeping with the women who were appointed to serve in the Tabernacle (1 Sam 2:15-25). These were not the men to carry the Ark and bring the presence of God before the people.

Why did the second army succeed? Samuel led the people into an inner transformation that went beyond just ritual. He helped them experience the real presence of God in their lives rather than trying to control God by bringing out the Ark. Samuel called the people to take inner and outer steps of repentance as they turned to God. They got rid of their idols to other gods, they fasted, prayed and confessed their sins; and when they went off to battle, Samuel remained behind, offering a sin sacrifice and praying for the people (1 Sam 7:3-10).

We cannot expect blessing, whether as a whole congregation or as individual Christians, if we think that religious ritual alone pleases God. We are sometimes tempted to think that God has to bless if we attend everything we are supposed to. We sometimes expect victory because we experience emotional worship or because we make great promises to God. But the story of the victory at Ebenezer reminds us that God delights in genuine repentance and utter faithfulness to him. Both Samuel and the sons of Eli used religious ritual – but it only Samuel’s that was acceptable to God. Samuel’s ritual (the sin sacrifice) was valuable because it was connected to genuinely transformed hearts. I believe that any ritual we participate in – whether it is worship, communion, baptism, laying on of hands, fasting or any other common Christian practice – only matters to God if it represents repentant and transformed hearts.

Lord, as a church, we want to please you and experience your blessing. Please help our hearts to match our Christian habits and rituals. Cause us to seek repentance and transformation, not merely empty ritual. And Father, we pray that all the rituals that we practice will be pleasing to you because they represent the reality of your presence in us.

Sinner's Prayer

The following question was posted on my blog several months ago: "The thief on the cross was told he would be in Paradise with Jesus that very day. He did not pray "The Sinner's Prayer." All he said was that Jesus had done no wrong. And Jesus eternally saved him.Why do we in modern times feel we need to "pray a Prayer" in order to be saved? When did this practice start?"

A little caveat: I am not a church history expert (my doctorate is in New Testament), but church history is so important that I have tried to learn as much as possible.

The Sinner's Prayer is, as you suspect, a fairly modern invention. If you walk through the conversion accounts in the book of Acts (or the rest of the NT), you find no reference to such a prayer.

I believe it was Allen Carden's book on Puritanism that pointed out that Puritan preachers sometimes told would-be converts to go out and pray all day to find out from God if they were elect. I'm not sure if most modern evangelicals would consider that a sinner's prayer!

Charles Finney, the famous evangelist of the early 1800s, began using a number of new conversion rituals, including the "Anxious Seat," a pew where seekers would come to repent. Finney described it as a replacement for baptism as a public display of one's initial faith. In the late 1800s, D.L Moody took this practice and moved it to the "Inquiry Room," where the seeker could be counseled and prayed with by Moody's assistants. Apparently, this was the first time that a formal "sinner's prayer" was used. Evangelists of the 20th century used many of Moody's methods, as anyone familiar with Billy Graham's crusades can attest. (Here I am relying on my imperfect memory of a collection of Finney's writings, George Marsden's history of American fundamentalism, and a book on the history of evangelism whose name escapes me - so don't take me as an authority on this).

If we take a walk through all the NT passages on conversion, we find several items emphasized. 1) Repentance - a change of our spiritual orientation away from sin and towards God. 2) Faith - belief that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is able to bring forgiveness and right standing with God. 3) Receiving the Holy Spirit / regeneration - Whether perceived by others or not, the new convert receives the Spirit, who enables transformation. 4) Baptism - new believers were always baptized immediately (if possible) in Acts.

The second-century church began delaying baptism for several reasons, both practical and theological. This created a problem that we still deal with today: genuine converts, who have repented, believed in salvation through Christ, and received the Holy Spirit - but have not yet been baptized. We have artificially separated baptism from conversion. Now, an unbaptized convert is nonetheless a real Christian. Many passages in the NT on conversion that omit baptism remind us of that truth, including the story of the bandit on the cross (he was not being crucified for theft, but that's another blog post). But the nature of conversion as an act of turning towards obedience makes one wonder why any new convert would not want to obey the command to get baptized.

One of the reasons that so many genuine converts delay baptism so long, or avoid it altogether, is that other modern rituals - raising a hand, walking down the aisle, the sinner's prayer - have replaced the role of baptism as the primary ritual marking one's passage into fellowship with God.

Is the sinner's prayer a bad thing? It is if we communicate that the prayer itself brings salvation. Salvation comes to the one who repents and believes - and that may happen with or without a formal sinner's prayer. In many cases, emphasis on the sinner's prayer can give the idea that the prayer is a ritual formula that all by itself gives the invoker access to heaven (shades of ex opere operato?). On the other hand, someone who repents and believes will very naturally be ready to pray, so we certainly shouldn't discourage new converts from praying through the ideas involved in conversion!

The picture: from Tomus primus homiliarum super Euangelia... by Johann Eck, 1534.