David Pawson – A Normal Christian Birth – Baptism in Water

David Pawson – A Normal Christian Birth – Baptism in Water

When did baptism start?

Started with John the Plunger/Dipper – the word Baptism came later

As far as we know, we don’t know anyone that baptized before John.

Baptism is defined as someone who plunges someone else into something.

Levitical Priests were washed with water and anointed with oil.

We are now a priesthood of believers.

We are now washed in water and anointed with the Holy Spirit.

John the Baptist, baptized people into repentance.

You must be in repentance (i.e. produce fruits of repentance) before I will baptize you.

Baptism brings what you are already in, to a climax and consummation.

E.g. Prove to me that you are in love, and I will marry you into love. Marriage doesn’t start the love, but it brings it to its complete expression (climax and consummation).

Jesus himself never baptized others, because He did not want the focus to be on the baptizer. Neither did some of the disciples.

The importance is not on the baptizer, but on the act.

In the New Testament church, all believers were baptized.

Jesus commanded: Go forth and baptize.

How was Baptisms done in the New Testament?

Definition: drench, dunk, douse, deluge, soak, sink,swamp, steep, and saturate.

John 3:23 John was baptizing near… because there was much water there.

They had to choose somewhere there was much water.

The eunuch went down into the water, and came up from the water.

The Greek Orthodox baptize babies… but the Greeks could not “baptize” with sprinkling, because it defies the definition of the word. Baptism means to dunk!

Baptism has a double meaning:

  1. a bath for the dirty

  2. burial for the dead

Sprinkling of water does not and cannot represent a burial.

It was assumed in the New Testament church that a person responding to the gospel, would be baptized.

Why was it done? New Testament reasons:

31 reasons why:

  • The answer is not what man will do for the Lord, but what the Lord will do for man.

  • The NT talks about what Baptism effects

Mark 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved.

John 3: Nicodemus asked, How can a man be born again? Jesus said: You need to be born again out of water and spirit.

Peter on the day of Pentecost asked: What should we do? Repent and be baptized each one of you for the forgiveness of your sins. That’s what it’s for!

Brother Saul, what are waiting for? Rise and be plunged, and have your sins washed away!

Eph5: Jesus has cleansed his church by the washing of water with the word.

Heb 10: Let us approach the throne with full assurance of faith having our bodies washed with water, and our conscience sprinkled.

1 Pet 3:21 Baptism now saves you, not by washing dirt from your body, but by an appeal to God for a clean conscience.

All the apostles treat Baptism as an event, not merely as a symbol.

Paul says: Baptism is like crossing the Red Sea to the Jew. Pharaoh was left behind, Moses was now in Charge. When you are baptized, sin has no more dominion on you. You are delivered from the territory of Satan. Baptism is a deliverance. Like all of Pharaoh’s soldiers were drowned, all your demons are drowned.

The burial/baptism is the final end of your old life. I have no further relationship with my past sins.

Peter likened it to Noah’s flood. Just as the flood marked a new beginning for Noah, so it is for you who gets baptized.

An amazing testimony of a Hell’s Angel member who had a tattoo of the devil that was washed off hi body when he was baptized.

As the Jew’s look to the Passover to celebrate their liberation, so we Christian’s look at our baptism/burial.

I have been crucified with Christ/Him.

I have been buried with Christ/Him.

I have been raised with Christ/Him.

What about Baptismal regeneration?

Baptismal regeneration believes that baptism of itself saves.

– This is not a biblical belief.

What about infant Baptisms?

  • not applicable or can be applied to the NT.

  • If Baptism is a bath for sinful/dirty people, how can it be given to a baby?

  • There’s no point in baptism till somebody is dirty or dead.

  • Pure symbolism is dangerous.

All the Protestant reformers, saw that infant baptisms were not biblical? How could a person be saved by faith if they were saved by baptism.

They called baby baptisms wicked and profane.

Baptism has nothing to do with getting you out of hell, but out of your sin.

Baptism is God bringing your repentance and your faith to its climax. None of this can be applied to a baby.



Filed under Bible Study Notes

3 responses to “David Pawson – A Normal Christian Birth – Baptism in Water

  1. Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ,
    I ask you to consider these points:

    1. When God said that he would preserve his Word, what did he mean?
    Did he mean that he would preserve the original papyrus and parchment upon which his Word was written? If so, then his Word has disappeared as none of the original manuscripts remain.

    Did he mean that he would preserve his word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek only? He would not preserve his Word when it was translated into all the other languages of the world?

    Or did God mean that he would preserve his Word…the message/the words…the Gospel: the free gift of salvation, and the true doctrines of the Christian Faith? Would God allow his Word/his message to mankind to be so polluted by translation errors that no translation, into any other language from the three original languages, continues to convey his true words?

    2. There IS no translation of the Bible, from the original ancient languages, into any language, anywhere on earth, that translates the Bible as the Baptists/evangelicals believe it should be translated.

    No Bible translation on earth translates Acts 2:38 as, “Repent and believe in Jesus Christ every one of you and you will receive the Holy Ghost. Then be baptized as a public profession of your faith.”

    There is no translation that translates, into any language, Acts 22:16 as, “ And now why tarriest thou? arise, believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Then be baptized.” Not a single translation in the entire world translates that verse in any way remotely resembling the manner in which Baptists believe it should be translated.

    Isn’t that a problem?

    And this verse, I Peter 3:21 as, “Asking Christ into your heart in a spiritual baptism, which water Baptism symbolizes, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

    And Mark 16:16 as, “He that believes will be saved, and then baptized, but he that does not believe will be condemned.”

    Why would God allow EVERY English translation of the Bible throughout history to be mistranslated or use such confusing language as to suggest that God forgives sins in Baptism? And not only all English translations, ALL translations of the Bible have retained these “mistranslations or confusing wording”.

    Do you honestly believe that God would allow his Word to be so polluted with translation errors that EVERY Bible in the world, if read in its simple, plain interpretation, would tell all the people of the world that God forgives sins in water baptism??

    3. Why is there not one single piece of evidence from the early Christians that indicates that ANYONE in the 800-1,000 years after Christ believed that: Water baptism is ONLY a public profession of faith/act of obedience; sins are NOT forgiven in water baptism? Yes, you will find statements by these early Christians that salvation is by faith, but do Baptists and evangelicals really understand how a sinner obtains saving faith? THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION, MY FRIENDS! Does the sinner produce faith by his own free will or does God provide faith and belief as a gift, and if God does provide faith and belief as a free gift, with no strings attached, when exactly does God give it?

    4. Is it possible that: Baptist-like believers, at some point near or after 1,000 AD, were reading the Bible and came across verses that read “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” and “Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved” and established their doctrine of Salvation/Justification first, based on these and similar verses alone, and then, looked at the issue of water baptism, and since the idea that God forgives sins in water baptism doesn’t seem to fit with the verses just mentioned, re-interpreted these verses to fit with their already established doctrine, instead of believing the “baptism verses” literally?

    Is it possible that BOTH groups of verses are literally correct?? If we believe God’s Word literally, he says that he saves/forgives sins when sinners believe/call AND when they are baptized? Why not believe that God can give the free gift of salvation in both situations: when a sinner hears the Gospel and believes and when a sinner is baptized?

    Should we re-interpret God’s plain, simple words just because they don’t seem to make sense to us?

    Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters, your doctrine is very well thought out and very reasonable…but it is wrong. Do you really believe that God would require an education in ancient Greek or a Greek lexicon to understand what he really wants to say to you? And do you really believe that Baptist “Greek” scholars understand Greek better than the Greeks themselves? If the Greek language, correctly translated, states in the Bible that Baptism is only a public profession of faith as Baptists say, then why do the Greek Orthodox believe that the Greek Bible plainly says, in Greek, that God forgives sins in water baptism? Somebody doesn’t know their Greek!

    Please investigate this critical doctrine further. Do you really want to appear before our Lord in heaven one day and find out that you have been following a false doctrine invented in the sixteenth century by Swiss Ana-baptists?

    God bless you!


  2. biblestudiez

    Hi Gary, thanks for your thoughts. Judging from your points, let me summarize them:

    a) 1 and 2 you’re challenging the accuracy of the gospel.
    b) 3 you’re disputing the importance of baptism.
    c) 4 you’re proposing the God accept a person on just the confession of faith (without the baptism).

    a) how do we know that the Gospel narratives are historically reliable?
    “… the New Testament is the best attested book in ancient history, both in terms of the number of manuscripts and the nearness of those manuscripts to the date of the original. What that goes to prove is that the text of the New Testament that we have today is almost exactly the same as the text as it was originally written. Of the approximately 138,000 words in the New Testament only about 1,400 remain in doubt. The text of the New Testament is thus about 99% established.”

    William Lane Craig handles this topic well. I will refer the following links for you:

    b) If baptism is of little importance:
    i) Why did John the Baptist, baptize then?
    ii) Why did Jesus request baptism?
    iii) Why did Jesus instruct his disciples to baptize people?

    c) God is Sovereign. I’m sure He can and does accept those who have not undergone baptism. But this is not to detract from the importance of baptism.

  3. gary

    Can you really trust your English Bible to be God’s true Word?

    Have you ever had an evangelical or Reformed Christian say this to you:

    “THAT passage of the Bible, in the original Greek, does NOT mean what the simple, plain reading of the passage seems to say in English.”

    It happens to me all the time in my conversations with Baptists, evangelicals, and fundamentalists on my blog. They state: “Repent and be baptized…for the forgiveness of sins” was mistranslated. “This is my body…this is my blood” is a metaphorical expression, “Baptism does now save us” is figurative speech for what happens to us spiritually when we ask Christ into our hearts.

    What they are basically saying is that unless you speak ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek…you can’t read and really understand the Bible without the help of an educated Churchman!

    This morning I came across an excellent article on this subject, written by Jordan Cooper, a Lutheran pastor. I am going to give the link to his article below. I have copied a couple of his statements here:

    “So here is a question that we all need to ask ourselves when doing this (refusing to accept the simple, plain, English translation of a passage of Scripture): If a verse seems to disprove your theological beliefs, and you translate it in some way that doesn’t fit with any of the dozens of major English translations of the Bible, and that unique translation just happens to fit your own theological biases, could it be that it is in fact you who are in the wrong? Could you be reading your own preconceived theological convictions back into the text?”

    ” I know it can be frustrating when you are constantly told that Scripture can’t be understood unless you learn (an ancient) language or read ancient documents that you don’t have either the time or the energy to study. Honestly, if you have a few good English translations at your side, and you take the time to compare them to one another, you have all the tools you need to understand the meaning of the Bible.

    Link to Pastor Cooper’s original article:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s