COGWA, LCG and the Laying On of Hands

Awww, COGWA, you're so thoughtful. Whipping up fresh biblical half-truths every morning and serving them to all of us in your Daily Bible Verse blog. And in a format that makes them so easy to share with others! What will you think of next???

Honestly, COGWA's Daily Bible Verse blog has been bothering me for some time. I've wanted to address several of them, but never quite find the time. Why are they unsettling? Because, like almost everything COGWA disseminates, they are sparse. Now, all well-written social media communications need to be short and sweet. But in COGWA's case, their brevity allows them to disseminate the image of a sunny, happy, grace-filled church without fleshing out the cognitive dissonance between that snapshot and their largely grace-less doctrines.  And to share this staged snapshot with unsuspecting friends at the click of a button.

But anyway, that's not exactly what I'll be discussing today. The COGWA Daily Bible Verse Blog entry I want to look at today was posted March 1 and comes from Acts 8:14-17: 

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 

Historically, the COGs have used this passage to explain their teachings on how individuals may become members of the church of God. 

“In Acts 8:14-17, the apostles heard that people had repented and had been baptized, but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. This passage shows the method God used to impart His Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands,” writes Mike Bennett, COGWA's editorial content manager.

I've always wondered why God chose to impart the Holy Spirit this way in Acts 8:14-17, but without the laying on of hands in Acts 10. Because clearly, what COGWA describes is one method - but not the only method -  that God gives the Holy Spirit:

(Acts 10:44-45) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

No laying on of hands here. Instead, they Holy Spirit was given in the same manner as it was on Pentecost. Why the difference?

Take a look at Acts 8:14. Where were these disciples? In Samaria. What's the big deal? Well, who made up the early church, at least at first? Mostly Jews. Did Jews like Samaritans? Nope. They despised them. 

Presumably, the vast majority of those baptized in Acts 2 were ethnically Jewish Christians. Acts chapters 1 through 7 take place in Jerusalem. All but the apostles scattered to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1) in the wake of Stephen's stoning and Paul's persecution. It was only once Philip started preaching Christ in Samaria (Acts 8:5) that the Samaritans heard the message. 

Now, do you think the ethnically-Jewish Christians, who regarded Samaritans as unclean, would believe Samaritans who claimed that God had given them the Holy Spirit, independent of laying on of hands, like He did with the apostles at Pentecost? Consider the drama about accepting Gentiles into the church in Acts chapters 10 through 15. Consider the astonishment that “those of the circumcision” expressed in Acts 11:18 when they heard Peter's report about what transpired in Acts 10:

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

If the ethnic Jewish believers in Jerusalem still got their feathers ruffled in the early verses of Acts 11, chances are good that they would not have believed the Samaritans. This, most likely, is the reason the apostles sent such reliable sources as Peter and John down to Samaria. And why God chose to impart the Holy Spirit this time through the laying on of hands. 

“The Jerusalem Jews considered the Samaritans to be second-class residents of Palestine and kept them at arm's length religiously. And on their part, the Samaritans returned the compliment. It is not too difficult to imagine what would have happened had the apostles at Jerusalem first been the missioners to Samaria. Probably they would have been rebuffed, just as they were rebuffed earlier in their travels with Jesus when the Samaritans associated them with the city of Jerusalem,” according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

“But what if the Spirit had come upon them at their baptism when administrated by Philip? Undoubtedly what feelings there were against Philip and the Hellenists would have carried over to them, and they would have been doubly under suspicion. But God in his providence withheld the gift of the Holy Spirit till Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans—Peter and John, two leading apostles who were highly thought of in the mother church at Jerusalem and who would have been accepted at that time as brothers in Christ by the new converts in Samaria. In effect, therefore, in this first advance of the gospel outside the confines of Jerusalem, God worked in ways that were conducive not only to the reception of the Good News in Samaria but also to the acceptance of these new converts by believers at Jerusalem,” according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

But God did not “withhold the gift of the Holy Spirit”  from those in Cornelius' house until Peter laid hands on them. Peter didn't even get a chance to finish preaching. 

(Acts 10:44-45) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Why would God deliver the Holy Spirit in such a dramatic way? In a way that did not include the laying on of hands?

“The six Jewish believers who were there with Peter were astonished at what they saw and heard. For in accepting these Gentiles and bestowing his Holy Spirit on them, God had providentially attested his action by the same sign of tongues as at Pentecost,” according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

“Undoubtedly the sign of tongues was given primarily for the sake of the Jewish believers right there in Cornelius's house. But it was also given for Jerusalem believers, who would later hear of what happened, so that all would see the conversion of these Gentiles as being entirely of God and none would revert to their old prejudices and relegate these new converts to the role of second-class Christians.” 

Messianic Jewish scholar David H. Stern concurs:

“As with Kefa (Jewish name for Peter), it took a supernatural act of God to dislodge their resistance to bringing Gentiles into the Body of the Messiah, accomplished and symbolized by immersion.” (Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 260).

But wait. Isn't the laying on of hands one of the foundational Church doctrines listed in the book of Hebrews 6? This is what COGWA states in its web entry, “Laying On of Hands.”

(Hebrews 6:1-2) Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 

“Once these stepping-stones of understanding are laid, we are expected to grow toward “perfection” (which can mean completeness or maturity). God wants us to maintain that foundation and then build on it in our converted lives,” according to COGWA's entry.

But most Bible students understand that the doctrines listed here are not necessarily "stepping stones" of the Christian walk, but most likely Jewish practices which the persecuted Hebrew recipients of the letter to the Hebrews should have settled by now. The word “baptisms” in verse 2 does not refer to the Christian practice of baptism, but Jewish ritual washings. The plural use of the word adds to the insight that we are not talking about Christian baptism.

“There were such purification ceremonies, or lustrations, in the Jewish religion as in most other religions of the day. Sometimes there was confusion over ritual washings. It would thus be one of the elementary items of instruction that converts be taught the right approach to the various "baptisms" they would encounter,” according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary.

In a similar vein, the “laying on of hands” listed in Hebrews 6:2 likely does not mean exactly what COGWA asserts that it does. Laying on of hands was a common practice in antiquity, was sometimes associated with the giving of the Holy Spirit, but at other times linked with commissioning into Christian service or ministry. We see examples of this in the commissioning of Stephen (Acts 6:6), Saul and Barnabas (Acts 10:3) and Timothy (1 Timothy 4:14). 

This is in keeping with the conclusions of both Theologian John MacArthur and Messianic Jewish scholar Stern, whom I quoted earlier.

“S'mikhah, the laying on of hands, refers here to the ordination of an individual for a particular task of ministry by the elders of the congregation, as with Sha'ul (Saul) and Timothy at 1 Timothy 4:14; also see Matthew21:31N.” (Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 677)

Obviously a proper perspective on Jewish ritual washings versus baptism, on ordinations, on faith and works, on repentance, on resurrection and on judgment would be critical for these Hebrew believers to have, especially given Jewish tradition on each of these topics. But the mere fact that these terms are discussed doesn't mean they indicated the same thing to Hebrew believers as they do in Western society in 2016. And the proximity of “baptisms” and “laying on of hands” in Hebrews 6:2 certainly does not link the two as the first "stepping stones" along the walk of the Church of God lifestyle. 

Further, we see mentions of people in the New Testament who were baptized but never had hands laid upon them. In the case of the Ethiopian eunuch, Philip was whisked away as soon as they came out of the water (Acts 8:39). Lydia and her household were baptized in Acts 16:14-15, but there is no mention of hands being laid upon her. Later in the chapter, the jailer and his household were baptized and rejoiced (Acts 16:34-35) without any direct discussion of laying on of hands. 

In all of these cases, which are we to believe? 

a) None of these people received the Holy Spirit.

b) That hands were laid upon them, the Bible just doesn't record it.

c) God sometimes imparts the Holy Spirit to a believer without a minister laying hands upon him.

Clearly, in some instances, God imparted the Holy Spirit to Gentile believers through the laying on of hands following baptism. And clearly, in other instances, He did not. So why would the COGs choose to adopt and highlight only method highlighted in Acts 8? 

To be fair, COGWA is not the only COG that teaches this. The Living Church of God takes this view in its Fundamental Beliefs. The United Church of God puts it forth in its article, "Water Baptism and Laying on of Hands." Really, most of the Worldwide Church of God splinters hold over this false teaching established by WCG founder Herbert W Armstrong. Who, ironically, was baptized by a Baptist preacher and has no record of having hands laid upon him to impart the Holy Spirit. So much for a Sabbatarian strand with authority stretching backwards across time to the apostles.  

But anyway, this teaching could result from an honest desire to create a standard practice for baptism in the COGs. Or it could be COGWA's best explanation as to how they think God usually works. Perhaps it's a simple oversight of Acts 10. But, conveniently, it also gives them an element of control over their membership. 

How so? Let's return to COGWA's writings on “Laying on of Hands.”

"The laying on of hands does not of itself provide the Holy Spirit. Much like baptism, the laying on of hands is a physical action with a spiritual component. When a minister lays hands on a person after baptism, it is God (not the minister) who gives the Holy Spirit.”

COGWA rightly admits that the minister does not physically transmit the Holy Spirit to the person on whom his hands are laid. It is God who administers the Holy Spirit. However...

“Only authorized representatives of God—most scriptural examples are of ordained ministers—should lay hands on the newly baptized person.” 

So, if I understand the logical implications of COGWA's statement correctly, God chooses to bestow the Holy Spirit upon individuals whom a COGWA minister has baptized and upon whom a COGWA minister lays his hands. The minister's hands are not magical; this is just how God works. Still, only ministers authorized by God - presumably through COGWA - should lay hands upon a newly baptized person.

Furthermore... 

“Once a person repents, believes and is baptized, it is through the laying on of hands that he or she receives God’s Spirit. The Spirit of God would then be in that person as the promised “Helper” (John 14:16), which is necessary for a person to be a follower of Jesus Christ and for our ultimate salvation."

Let me get this straight.  I will not receive the Holy Spirit unless a COGWA minister baptizes me and lays hands upon me. And I cannot inherit salvation without the Holy Spirit. Wow! Sounds like COGWA has a corner on the salvation market. I should have gotten in on the ground floor when I had the chance! 

COGWA's misguided teaching on this topic is dangerous because they allows men to come between you and God. It allows ministers to essentially act as the gatekeepers of salvation. And I'm not picking on COGWA alone - the same is true of LCG, UCG, COG-AIC, PCG and all who adopt this teaching. We've all heard the stories of WCG ministers forcing individuals to leave a second marriage or abandon a “questionable” job (questionable to the minister, anyway) before they agreed to baptize the individual. 

But that's all in the past, Martha! No one in today's COGs abuses their power to the detriment of the membership.

Sure. Tell that to the woman whose PCG parents abandoned her as a teen when she told them she no longer wished to attend the PCG. Tell it to the family of Janet (Gennaro) Privratsky, a young PCG member who committed suicide in response to PCG's no-contact policy. 

Tell it to the man from the Living Church of God who was forced to leave his nursing home job, then disfellowshipped when he gave two weeks notice rather than quitting on the spot at the advice of his minister. 

Tell it to Patrick and Elizabeth Scarborough, who are suing the Living Church of God, Rod Meredith and Rod McNair for the “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress” and “Defamation of Character” after being disfellowshipped and marked for no given reason, despite months of pleading phone calls, letters and apologies. 

But hey, that's PCG and LCG, not COGWA. No worries here, Martha!  

Wait, this isn't the same COGWA that just met with LCG officials in January 2016? That agreed with LCG to work together, treat one another as brothers and build trust between the organizations going forward? The same COGWA that agreed to these in the midst of the Scarborough lawsuit? 

It can't be the same COGWA whose officials, while still under the UCG banner, leaked confidential personnel documents over the Internet to foment a church split!

It's certainly not the same COGWA that employs a long-time COG minister alleged to have agitated for the church split on a popular social media outlet using a fake profile! And used said outlet and fake profile to calculate when his group of dissenting ministers had a large enough tithe base to support themselves! 

Right, I see your point. I was totally wrong. There's nothing concerning at all about these guys basically claiming to be the gatekeepers through whom God chooses to bestow the Holy Spirit.

It's certainly biblical to be under the authority of a pastor. The Bible makes it clear that we should assemble regularly with other believers, and that we should submit to the leaders of that assembly. But the Bible also reminds us time and time again to watch the example our leaders set, to consider the outcomes of their behavior and their lives, and to judge them by their fruit.

It's also biblical to be baptized (although it's not required for salvation), and baptism is traditionally performed by a pastor. I was baptized by my pastor. But baptism is an outward symbol of the change that has already happened in a person's life - repentance, death to sin, and new life in Christ by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. It is not what causes the change. As with Lydia in Acts 16:14, God opens our heart, He imparts the Holy Spirit as Jesus explained in John 3:8, and, as a result, we see the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. No minister is the gatekeeper of that process, neither in the beginning, nor in the middle, nor the end.

(John 6:37, NIV) "All those the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never drive away."

No man can come between you and God. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Especially not these guys.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Is Baptism Required for Salvation?

Baptism. It’s a pretty basic Christian concept. Jesus Himself told His disciples to go into the world and baptize other followers. But is it something we do to receive salvation?

Today we’ll look at another point in the United Church of God’s article, “Is Belief All That’s Required for Salvation?” Just like the first post in this series,the express purpose is not to criticize the United Church of God or other splinters within the Church of God community. Instead, it is our intention to demonstrate how COGs’ teachings on conditional salvation - conditions God requires man to meet in order to be saved - can be used to control, and even to spiritually abuse, its members.

Let’s take a look at the claims UCG makes in its article. They are generally applicable to what most COGs teach about baptism and the laying-on of hands. On the surface, their claims seem harmless enough, but in the wrong hands, it's easy to see how this teaching can lead to spiritual abuse in some COGs.

“Baptism is to be followed by the laying on of hands by a true minister of Jesus Christ, which allows us to receive God’s Holy Spirit and truly belong to Him (Acts 8:17, Romans 8:9). Unless we surrender our lives to God through baptism and the laying on of hands to receive His Spirit as instructed, we fail to meet – whether knowingly or unknowingly- His prerequisites for receiving His gift of salvation.”

How could that lead to abuse? Well, the more mainstream COGs usually recognize your baptism as valid if it was performed in another COG ground. But more conservative groups sometimes insist that your baptism wasn’t any good if it wasn’t done by one of their ministers. Why? Because COG teaching is that a “true minister” must lay hands upon you in order for you to receive the Holy Spirit. If it was one of those false ministers in a Laodicean group, well, you're taking your chances if the physical act of baptism and actual laying-on of hands are conditions.  Do you really want to gamble with your salvation?

Further, they may insist you meet certain conditions before they will even baptize you. Like committing to attend services with only their COG group, no matter what the circumstances. Or pledging not to contact family members from other COG groups, or outside your COG group. Or quitting a job. After all, those fun guys over at the Living Church of God recently disfellowshipped a member over his nursing home job. Basically, baptism can be dangled like a carrot over your head to control any kind of behavior or personal situation that a minister doesn't like. And if you object, they can simply refuse to baptize you and dash any hope of salvation. And the chances good that you will submit to that pressure. After all, is it really worth your eternal life?

Before we go any further, let me be perfectly clear. Jesus commanded his followers to be baptized. I recognize that, I believe it, and I’m not saying that you shouldn’t do it.  I've beep baptized. Twice, actually. Once in the COGs; once after leaving. So go ahead and get baptized if that's where Jesus is leading you. But understand why you’re doing it and what it really symbolizes. Do it for the right reason, and don’t let anyone use it to control your worship, your personal life and your decisions.

Baptism and Belief

So anyway, we should probably get back to the Bible. The first verse UCG writer Scott Ashley pulls out is Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.” There you have it. Those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Those who do not believe will be condemned.

Wait. What? The second half of the verse say that those who don’t BELIEVE will be condemned. It is not parallel in construction to the first sentence. On its face, Mark 16:16 does not say those who are not baptized will be condemned. Renown theologian John MacArthur, whom the COGs quote regularly, notes that baptism is not a prerequisite according to this scripture. He then expounds further on the topic of baptism in his commentary on Acts 2:38:

“Peter was obeying Christ’s command from Matthew 28:19 and urging the people who repented and turned to the Lord Christ for salvation to identify, through the waters of baptism, with His death, burial and resurrection.” MacArthur Bible Commentary, p. 1438.

Why? “This is the first time the apostles publicly enjoined people to obey that ceremony. Prior to this, many Jews had experienced the baptism of John the Baptist, and were also familiar with the baptism of Gentile converts to Judaism. For the new believer, it was a crucial but costly identification to accept.” (MacArthur Bible Commentary, p. 1439)

Wait. I thought Christians were baptized for the remission of sins, or to have their sins forgiven?

“This might be better translated ‘because of the remission of sins," MacArthur opines. "Baptism does not produce forgiveness and cleansing from sin. The reality of forgiveness precedes the rite of baptism. Genuine repentance brings from God the forgiveness of sins and, because of that, the new believer was to be baptized. Baptism, however, was to be the ever-present act of obedience, so that it became synonymous with salvation.” (MacArthur Bible Commentary, p. 1439)

Water certainly is a symbol of washing and cleansing from sin, and in a sense baptism does symbolize washing and purification from sins. More importantly, however, baptism symbolizes our death and resurrection with Christ, as Romans 6:1-11 and Colossians 2:11-12 indicate. It’s true that Titus 3:5 does mention Christian salvation through the washing of regeneration. I invite any COG minister who insists that this passage is about physical baptism to explain to me how he can hold that view yet simultaneously teach that baptized COG members aren’t born again until the resurrection. If he finds a way to wiggle out of that one, he can next explain how making physical baptism part of the salvation equation jives with Ephesians 2:8-9, and how that makes baptism anything other than the church bestowing saving grace upon individuals.

“If baptism and participating in the other sacraments are necessary for salvation because they are necessary for receiving saving grace, then salvation really is based on faith plus works. In contrast to this, the clear New Testament message is that justification is by faith alone. Therefore we must conclude that no work is necessary for salvation. And therefore baptism is not necessary for salvation. ” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 973

Some claim that 1 Peter 3:21 teaches that we are saved through baptism: “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 toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

As usual, the COG explanation helicopters in on a single verse to make its point rather than consider the verse in context. This passage explains Noah’s Ark as a metaphor for the spiritual safety found in Christ.

“To be sure he is not misunderstood, Peter clearly says he is not speaking of water baptism. In Noah’s Flood, they were kept out of the water while those who went into the water were destroyed. Being in the ark and thus saved from God’s  judgment on the world prefigures being in Christ and thus saved from God’s judgment on the world prefigures being in Christ and thus saved from eternal damnation.” MacArthur Bible Commentary, p. 1915-1916. 

Why be baptized?

So why exactly do I think you should be baptized if it is not required for salvation or the forgiveness of sin? Because Jesus commanded it, and we should obey the one who died in our place. Because baptism is the outward symbol of the beginning of Christian life. Individuals who have begun the Christian life through regeneration should be baptized, after giving a credible profession of faith. (A proper understanding of the doctrine of regeneration makes this topic much easier to understand.) The Biblical pattern is that only those who have given reasonable evidence of believing and trusting in Christ should be baptized:

(Acts 2:38-41) Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission for sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousands souls were added to them.  It would appear that those who received his message confessed their belief, then were baptized.

(Acts 8:12-13) But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. Simon believed and then was baptized.

(Acts 8:35-38) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

(Acts 16:14-15) Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us. Lydia was baptized after God opened her heart and she responded.

(Acts 16:30-33) And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. You and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Paul instructed the jailer to believe, and once they had professed belief, they were baptized.

We know spiritual giants like Abraham and David received the gift of salvation, but we have no evidence they were ever baptized. Hebrews 11 gives us a long list of others who were saved because of their faith with no mention of baptism. We know for a fact that the thief crucified with Jesus was not baptized, although the COGs would dispute this man received salvation. In Acts 10:44-46, we see Cornelius is saved before he was baptized. Short story long, none of these men received salvation because they were baptized, and neither do you.

The Laying on of Hands

The second part of this equation is the teaching that the Holy Spirit is only imparted when a “true minister of Jesus Christ” lays hands upon you. This clearly gives ministers the potential to claim you weren’t baptized by a true minister, and that you don’t have the Holy Spirit. A minister who was baptized and hands laid upon him by another minister who had the same done to him under the authority of Herbert W Armstrong, founder of the modern Church of God movement, who was baptized by a true minister of Christ... oh, wait....  HWA was baptized by - and must have therefore received the Holy Spirit from - a BAPTIST pastor if his teachings are correct on this point of doctrine. Oops. That’s embarrassing. About as embarrassing as the fact that this false teaching once again makes salvation dependent upon something we do, in violation of Ephesians 2:8-9.

The COGs typically hang this doctrine on Acts 19:1-6 and 2 Timothy 1:6. I’ll look at 2 Timothy first, since it’s shorter. Simply put, UCG likely takes it out of context, according to the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Paul, who was Timothy’s mentor, spent much of his correspondence with his protégé instructing him in his pastoral role. Here, Paul was most likely referring to the account of Timothy’s ordination, not imparting the Holy Spirit.

Now let’s look at Acts 19:1-6 and what UCG claims it teaches. During his travels, Paul came into contact with some Ephesian disciples whom had been baptized by John the Baptist but had not received the Holy Spirit.

“Paul came upon some believers in Ephesus who had been baptized by no less than John the Baptist,"  UCG states in its article, Is the laying on of hands necessary to receive the Holy Spirit? "Yet they had not received the Holy Spirit for two reasons. One is that they did not have the laying on of hands. The other was that they apparently did not fully understand the Christian way of life, the covenant into which one enters through baptism."

It's no shock that those baptized by John the Baptist didn’t receive the Holy Spirit. The last time I checked, John the Baptist died long before Jesus did, long before the New Covenant was given. Further, John’s was a baptism of repentance pointing to Christ, not the same thing as Christian baptism.

Paul’s first question – did you receive the Holy Spirit – indicates he understood that true belief and receiving the Holy Spirit always went together. This is likely why he followed up with his second question – what baptism did you undergo? These men probably believed they were true disciples, but likely followed the teachings of John the Baptist, much like Apollos, whom Priscilla and Aquila needed to correct, according to the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. 

Perhaps the Holy Spirit “came upon” them when Paul laid hands on them as a dramatic demonstration to them  that baptism into the name of Jesus was superior to that of John the Baptist. For whatever reason, the Holy Spirit did come when Paul laid hands upon them. But this is not the way it happened every time. Let’s consider Acts 10:44-46, in which believers receive the Holy Spirit before Peter is even done speaking.

(Acts 10:44-46) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And then he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

 The Holy Spirit fell on Peter’s listeners while he was still speaking. He did not lay hands upon them. It would these people had believed while Peter was speaking and undergone the internal work of regeneration. Baptism came afterwards. We see another account like this in Acts 11:15-17.
But wait! If the laying-on-of-hands doesn’t impart the Holy Spirit, then why must you be baptized by a "true minister of Christ"?

Ding ding ding! That's right! You DON’T! The Bible does not make any restrictions on who can perform baptisms. Churches usually have their pastor or other ordained representatives perform baptism ceremonies, to safeguard the practice from abuse and to properly explain the symbolism to those witnessing the ceremony (Systematic Theology, p. 984). It is certainly reasonable to do so. But there is no scriptural reason the responsibility couldn’t fall to a mature, unordained believer. Especially in remote areas where no “official” pastor is available.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, baptism is a positive, biblical ordinance.  I was baptized once in the COGs and chose to be baptized a second time after I departed.  Regardless of any wording in the actual ceremony, the major focus of my COG baptismal counseling was my understanding of and commitment to keep "God's" rituals and ordinances as defined by the COGs as an implicit matter of salvation.. And I know many others see it that way, too, because they threw it my face after I left. I say that not as a point of anger, but as a point of fact.

If you feel like God is leading you toward baptism, by all means, do it. But do it for the right reasons. To declare that you are leaving the old man behind, not just Easter and Christmas. To signify that you are placing your faith in the shed blood of Jesus, not in keeping the holy days or the Sabbath. And never, ever let the very ordinance through which you declare yourself a servant of Christ be used to control and enslave you to men.

************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************

Physical Baptism versus Spiritual

Baptism from a Slightly Different Perspective.

I recently found myself in a debate with two men, one a member of the Southern Baptist persuasion, and I was somewhat shocked to discover how similar their arguments and rationale style matched the methodology of the cults. Dire warnings were dished out should one fail to undergo baptism or meet with others of like mind in a church corporate setting, even though they prefaced these things with the mandatory, “they are not really required for salvation”.

Like the sabbath to sabbatarians, baptism is the distinctive of choice for the Baptists. And, like the sabbatarians, they hold to their distinctive with a rabid and fierce dedication. During our brief encounter, Matthew 28:19-20 was cited as their proof text for teaching and insisting people be baptized in water before they are fully fledged members in good standing within the Baptist world.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

To their way of thinking, to neglect to put people under the water is to neglect a command of Christ’s directed to the church.

I have no doubt that Jesus worded what He said here in such a way knowing full well people would interpret this to mean water baptism.

Three baptisms are touched on in the NT Scriptures: a baptism into water, a baptism into or by the Holy Spirit, and a baptism of or into fire.

Note in the passage cited above and used as a proof text by the Baptists that there is no mention of water. It is implied. It is assumed.

I had a discussion about this very thing with a Baptist minister a few years ago, and painted this scenario. A person who perhaps does not have a real grasp of the gospel undergoes baptism in water and is now accepted in full membership within the Baptist church and allowed to partake of the Eucharist as a result, and another comes in who has a full grasp and understanding of the gospel who has been baptized by/into the Holy Spirit, but has not been baptized with water. This one is not allowed to participate in the Eucharist, who is one who actually belongs to God, whereas the other who does participate in the Eucharist does not belong to Christ, and is in fact a tare.

The suggested “solution” was typical and unsurprising. The one with the Holy Spirit should undergo water baptism. That solution solves nothing when it comes to the spiritual understanding of an entire denomination.

Shall we apply a little further critical thinking to the matter by carefully examining the concluding statement found in the book of Matthew?

What I glean from the Baptist perspective is that they see a command from Christ to “get people wet” to be of greater importance than preaching the gospel. The primary focus and aim is to increase the numbers of Baptists. Those of you with a background in Armstrongism will recognize this methodology and practice immediately. The average Baptist at this point who might read this is probably scratching his head in bewilderment.

What happens when a person hears the message of the true gospel, according to Scripture? The answer is in Acts chapter 10. There is a “baptism” as a result. Into water? No, into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. ― John 14:23

So, which makes more sense to the reader? Jesus was admonishing His followers, His disciples, to go into the world teaching/preaching and baptizing “believers” in water, with a somewhat vague regard to what was to be taught and preached, or to go out into the world, teaching and preaching the gospel, resulting in people being baptized into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? I would point out here that the narrative in Mark 1:9 regarding Jesus’ baptism in water states:

And it came about during those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized in the Jordan by John. ― Transline Translation.

“In” here can be translated “into”. Jesus was baptized “into” the water of the Jordan.

I am not advocating any abandonment of water baptism. I merely question the motive of the person or church that demands it. Christianity was supposed to be a religion that divested itself of legalism; a “letter of the law” religion based on “do this” and “don’t do that.” To claim one MUST undergo water baptism is to subordinate the gospel.

One might be tempted to argue Jesus underwent baptism in water, and claim we are to follow His example. Why though did Jesus have John baptize Him? The Pharisees were the ones who began the practice of having gentile converts to Judaism undergo a witnessed baptism or washing because of their former lives being cut off from God and sinners. John was instructed by God to baptize Jews – the implication being they too were sinners, just like the gentiles; something that didn't sit well with those Pharisees. For more on this aspect of baptism, you can go to the Living God Ministries of Aaron Budjen online and listen to his series on the subject.

My Baptist antagonist also brought up the laying on of hands in relation to receiving the Holy Spirit. My reply to him that prior to Acts chapter 6, Jews were receiving the Holy Spirit without regard to this.

I’m very uncomfortable now when people insist on the observance of physical things/rituals. They might as well advocate ministers wearing robes with little white stars on them and that they wave and stab in the air with a stick or wand while reciting various incantations. There is nothing magical about water baptism or laying on of hands. We can focus on these physical things, or we can look at the bigger, spiritual picture.

************ It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11 ************