John's Baptism Did Not Save

The purpose of this article is to show that John's Baptism was insufficient for those who received it before the cross but lived beyond Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to wash away their sins and add them to the church of Christ. To teach that it is does great harm to the gospel and to the church.
== A Summary of Baptisms ==
There are many baptisms spoken of throughout the Bible. In the Old Testament we see baptisms as types pointing towards the New Testament immersion into Christ as well as washings with their own direct purposes. The very world we live on started in darkness, immersed in water to rise up into the light. The flood of Noah's day destroyed a world full of sin and saved Noah's family from that wickedness along with all of humanity. Crossing the Red Sea with the Cloud that was Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) baptized the Israelites into Moses, freeing them from Egyptian bondage (representing sin) and they became a new nation founded on the other side of the water. The priestly washings, Naaman in the Jordan, and finally John's baptism all were types pointing to the immersion to come.
John's immersion most closely reflected New Testament immersion for several reasons. 
# It was a baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; Acts 19:4). What this means is that the people were to turn from their sins, turn from their traditions and back to the law of Moses, back to God, in order to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. We know that this baptism was a pointer to Christ because Paul said as much in Acts 19:4.
# It was a baptism "for the remission of sins". This remission of sins is a looking forward to Christ (again Acts 19:4) and was akin to the remission of sins that was provided by the shedding of animal blood. It was a matter of obedient faith to the last prophet of Yahweh before His great messenger, His own Son began His ministry. It served as a pointer to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the remission of sins that comes by His blood in baptism in water into Christ after the cross. This is the only way this can be understood properly as I will show below.
# It was not a baptism done by the operation of God (Col 2:12) by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) and so it did not have the effect as the baptism that did have these things involved.
Thus, the baptism of John was a teaching tool, nothing more or less.
== The Purpose of New Testament Baptism ==
The essence of the gospel is the death burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Obedience to the gospel is required by our Creator to be saved (Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 5:9; 1 Peter 3:1). We obey the gospel by being baptized into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-18).
When we are buried with Him in baptism, a number of things happen. 
# First, we are submitting to the will of God in faith that His operation on our souls will remove the filth of our sin (Matthew 28: 19-20; Colossians 2:11-13). 
# We come into contact with the blood of Christ (1 John 5:6-8). 
# Our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), remitted (Acts 2:38). 
# We are put into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). 
# We are calling on the name of the Lord - appealing to Him to justify us (Acts 2:21, 38; 22:16; Romans 10:13) 
# and we are saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21), 
# washed, sanctified, and cleansed (Ephesians 5:26). 
# We are reborn of water and of the spirit and added to the kingdom/church/body of the saved (John 3:3, 5; Acts 2:41; Romans 6:3-7). 
# We are regenerated, made new creatures in Christ, made free from sin (Romans 6:7, 17-18).
It is evident that there are a lot of things that happen when one is immersed according to the New Testament. It is a unique event that is unmatched by any other in either the Old or New Testament.
== The Error Stated ==
Below is a quoted text from a brother in Christ. I have not had the opportunity to speak with him about what he has said, though I may have the channel or opportunity to do so or perhaps a mutual friend and brother will speak to him with more influence than I will have. I post his quote here without his name as an example of the error. Should he refuse to be convinced of his error after reasonable conversation according to Matthew 18:15-17, then I will add his name as is appropriate.
To set the stage of this quotation, two men are analyzing a YouTube video that is challenging the teachings of the church of Christ. They are discussing specifically the common objection against water immersion for salvation, the thief on the cross in light of Jesus telling Nicodemus before the cross that Nicodemus would have to be reborn of water and of the spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven. I will for now call them Man A and Man B as my point here is not to mark anyone, but to address the topic itself. One that I have heard a couple of times before.
We start with Man A's thoughts:When it comes to the idea of the thief on the cross, that is a favorite that people like to go to. When someone says to me 'the thief on the cross wasn't baptized', the first thing I will say to them is, 'number one, we don't know if the thief on the cross was baptized'. Secondly, I point out to them Mark 2:10 indicates that when Jesus was on the earth, He had the power to speak men's sins forgiven, but when you see later, when you get to the book of Hebrews, you find out in Hebrews 9:16-17 that the New Testament baptism of Jesus Christ did not go into force until His death. What we would learn is prior to the death of Christ, He had the ability to speak men's sins forgiven. After His death and His Testament went into force, a man...the only way he could have his sins forgiven would be according to the terms of His will and testament and that involves baptism into Christ.
Now when [someone] says 'well, if you give that answer, and you say [the thief] doesn't have to be baptized, why, in John 3 did He tell Nicodemus that he had to be baptized? Why does the thief on the cross get a pass, but Nicodemus had to be baptized?' I think what we've got to remember is the baptism of Jesus did not go into effect until Acts 2 when the church started which was after His death. But there was a baptism that was in effect at the time when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus and that was the baptism of John the Baptist. If you read Mark 1:4 it was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Luke 7:27; Mark 3:3 says it was to prepare a people for the Lord. Luke 7:29-30 says that for the Jews to reject John's baptism was to reject the will of God. And so, Nicodemus, being a Jew, was required to be baptized under John's baptism.
Now, the indication that we seem to get, the best I can tell is people who were baptized under John's baptism as Jews, they were part of the church when it started in Acts 2 and you never read about those people being baptized again. But John's baptism was a baptism for the remission of sins. In Acts 2 when the baptism of Christ came into effect, it was a baptism for the remission of sins. John's baptism was invalid at that point. It was defunct at that point. So prior to Acts 2, in Matthew 3 - when John came preaching in the wilderness of Judea and baptizing men - in Matthew 3 until Acts 2, John's baptism was in effect and that would have applied, of course, to Nicodemus. Acts 2 forward you would have the baptism of Christ.
People will say 'well what about the thief on the cross?' You know, I have two things to say about that. #1 - If he was a Jew, I don't know if he was or not, but he might have been baptized. There's indication of that. When you read in Matthew 3, the indication is that people were coming from regions all around Jordan to be baptized. Large numbers of people were baptized by John. So, the thief, when John was preaching in Matthew 3, John was saying 'repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven was at hand'. That was the message at John's baptism. As the thief is hanging there on the cross next to Jesus, what did he say to Him? 'Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.' How did the thief know about the kingdom? Maybe the thief had been present at the preaching of John. That's how he knew about the kingdom. So maybe he was baptized in the baptism of John. So if he was a Jew, there's some indication that he might have known about the baptism of John. If he was not a Jew, then he was a Gentile and the baptism of John didn't apply to him anyway.Man B responds:Yeah...boiling it down, you've got the fact that Mark 2:10, Jesus could forgive anyone's sins He wanted while He was on Earth, but after He died, His new covenant went into effect, and from that point on you obeyed the will/covenant/testament/whatever you wanna say. Which is the great commission given after His resurrection. You mentioned Matthew 3:2, John the Baptist is preaching the kingdom. Listen to this. Jerusalem, all of Judea, and the region around the Jordan, all of them were going to [John] to be baptized. Then in John 4, it even says...that's a lot of people already, right, Jerusalem, Judea, all of that whole region...and then it actually says in chapter 4:1 'when the Lord heard that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus didn't baptize, but His disciples - this says they made and baptized MORE disciples. So you've got a massive number of these people who are being baptized. And in Acts 2, when the new covenant goes into effect, Acts 2:47 it says 'they were added to the church', some versions say 'added to their number/added to them'. Well, who are they added to? Those disciples who had already been building, 'cause John the Baptist was preparing a people for the Lord. 
So when you put all that together, there's just so many facts, that I would say - even if you don't think of those five, you think only three of those are good points, or you disagree with some of them, I would say 'that's still shaky ground' to put all of your faith in this guy, the thief on the cross, who didn't even live when the Christian covenant came into effect, you don't know if he was a Jew or a Gentile. There's all those factors, you know. It's interesting, too, that they referenced this idea that John 3:3-5 was not talking about water baptism? Once again, I've said this historically...all the early guys taught this. I have lists on my computer. Irenaeus - "this class of men has been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus they've renounced the whole faith." I've read Tertullian. I've got Clement, Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Irenaeus, all of them saying that John 3:3-5 is talking about water baptism. So its just really, I could say, reinventing history. That's what these guys are doing. They think if they say enough 'well, the history is against this', that you'll believe it without actually checking the history.Man A then says:You know, it's interesting to me, and I don't mean this in a demeaning way at all, [someone] makes this comment about Nicodemus and the thief on the cross as if this is a real zinger, this is a powerful point. [Others] seemed to have agreed 'ah, that's a great point! Maybe they had not considered that.' But when you understand the baptism of John, and the difference in that and the baptism of Jesus, this is so easily explained, there's no point here at all. In fact, listen to this. This is Luke 7:29. This is talking about the baptism of John. "And when all the people heard him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." So the baptism that was incumbent upon Nicodemus was the baptism of John. Had he rejected that, he would have rejected the will of God for himself.Man B replies:I think that's another thing to remember. The baptism of John was the will of God. So whenever somebody says, 'well, I just don't know if the Apostles were ever baptized.' Do you think Jesus would allow Apostles to be with Him for three years who rejected the will of God? Of course not! Of course they were baptized.This ends the relevant portion of the video quote. I believe I have recorded it faithfully here without giving names at this time as that is not the point. I will examine this quote below and show why I think that what I have underlined and highlighted above is error.
== Examining the Error ==
Now, the indication that we seem to get, the best I can tell is people who were baptized under John's baptism as Jews, they were part of the church when it started in Acts 2 and you never read about those people being baptized again.
I will first point out the logical fallacy used here, then I'll dive deeper into the implications of the teaching. The fallacy here is the argument from silence. "Well, we don't have evidence that they were ever baptized under the New Covenant so they weren't." The reality is, we aren't told explicitly that anyone who was baptized into John before the cross was later baptized into Christ after, but we can infer that they were. Here is the logical argument.
P1: If John's baptism does not accomplish ALL the things that New Testament immersion accomplishes, then anyone who was baptized by John must necessarily be baptized according to the New Testament after the cross even if they had been baptized by John before it.
P2: John's baptism does not accomplish ALL the things that New Testament immersion accomplishes.
C1: Therefore, anyone who was baptized by John must necessarily be baptized according to the New Testament after the cross even if they had been baptized by John before it.
The argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises.
P1 is sound. The Bible gives us a complete picture of what all NT baptism accomplishes as I outlined above. If even one of these is left unaccomplished then either God's justice is brought into question, Jesus' blood is unnecessary, or we are in trouble. 
P2 is what I will address further below. If it is sound, then the argument as a whole is sound and the conclusion must be true. 
Here is an examination of each thing the baptism does as listed above and an examination of John's baptism in relationship to that effect. 1) First, we are submitting to the will of God in faith that His operation on our souls will remove the filth of our sin (Matthew 28: 19-20; Colossians 2:11-13).
2) We come into contact with the blood of Christ (1 John 5:6-8).
3) Our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), remitted (Acts 2:38).I want to address these first together because they are so closely linked. It is by the blood of Christ applied by the Father through the Holy Spirit according to the word that the filth of our sins is removed, washed away by that blood, remitted (pardoned/forgiven/debt is rendered null). In fact, the book of Hebrews goes so far as to say that we needed Christ to be that perfect sacrifice because the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin (Hebrews 10). When John's baptism was required, as these men rightly teach, it was still before the blood of Christ had been shed. It is evident, then, that John's baptism did not bring anyone into contact with the blood of Christ. On what basis can we say that John's baptism included God's operation to remove the filth of our sin the way that NT immersion does? On what basis can we say that our sins are washed away? There is no basis of remission or atonement beyond what the blood of bulls and goats provided. It was a ceremonial washing that pointed to the cross just like the sacrifice of animals did and on the basis of obedient faith just like those under the NT accomplished, would see those sins still existent, but forgiven on account until the Messiah died.
In other words, the baptism of John was no more or less able to save anyone than the sacrifices of the law of Moses. He did not provide anything but a plea to turn back to Moses to better understand the Messiah who's way he prepared (Acts 19:4).4) We are put into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27).To be put into Christ is to be put into His body, which is the body of the saved. It is to be clothed with the raiment of Christ because we have become part of the bride of Christ and He is the husband.
It is impossible that John's baptism could have been for the purpose of putting on Christ by being put into His body because this was done by the cross (Eph 2:16).
It is impossible that John's baptism could have been for the purpose of putting on Christ, especially for Jews, because they were still married to the law of Moses (Romans 7:1-4). If John's baptism had put them into Christ as the bride, they would have been committing spiritual adultery as they were not free to marry another. When Christ died on the cross, He fulfilled the law of Moses and that included the baptism of John as a type making it "defunct" at the moment of His death. 5) We are calling on the name of the Lord - appealing to Him to justify us (Acts 2:21, 38; 22:16; Romans 10:13).It is impossible that John's baptism is calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and appealing to Him to justify us. Men could not be justified under the law of Moses (Acts 13:39) and Christ had not received all authority until His resurrection (Matthew 28:18) therefore it was not possible to appeal to His authority through John's immersion.6) and we are saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21),It is impossible that anyone was saved by the baptism of John. Only the blood of Christ can save and it had not yet been shed. To say that the baptism of John could save people from their sins is to say that the blood of Christ is irrelevant, unnecessary. It is to truly put the power in the water rather than the blood. However, we understand as the New Testament church, that it is the blood that saves. The water is God's command, His condition for us to contact the blood. There is no power in the water itself.7) washed, sanctified, and cleansed (Ephesians 5:26).It is impossible that the baptism of John washed, sanctified, and cleansed anyone in any sense beyond that of the blood of bulls and goats. It could set aside those sins on the basis of looking forward to the Christ (Acts 19:4), but not in the fullness that Christ's blood could. Had Christ not ever died, the sins would remain. It is only in Christ that they are truly washed away and we become truly holy rather than just ceremonially so.8) We are reborn of water and of the spirit and added to the kingdom/church/body of the saved (John 3:3, 5; Acts 2:41; Romans 6:3-7).It is impossible that the baptism of John could add one to the kingdom of Christ. This kingdom was always spoken of as coming, imminent, and future while Christ yet lived. John died before the kingdom came (Matt 14). It isn't until the death and resurrection of Christ that His will, His testament, the constitution of the church went into effect and the nation was founded. One could not be added to that which did not exist yet. We might as well say anyone who was sacrificing animals faithfully before the cross was automatically transferred into the kingdom of Christ/the church because that's the level of effect John's baptism had.
9) We are regenerated, made new creatures in Christ, made free from sin (Romans 6:7, 17-18).
It is impossible that the baptism of John restored anyone to life spiritually, made anyone a new creature in Christ, or made anyone free from sin. If that was the case, then those in Acts 19 would have had no need to be re-baptized into Christ. John's baptism would have been sufficient just as it allegedly was for those before the cross who were "grandfathered in" to the church according to these men.
A word about what those 3000 were added to in Acts 2 on Pentecost. First, the kingdom began at the cross when the constitution/testament went into effect (Heb 19:16) and it was to this that men were added to. It was at the cross that the sins of those who had died after faithful lives under the Old Testament and were now in Hades/Paradise truly had their sins forgiven on the basis of the blood of Christ. It was to THESE people that were immediately in the kingdom that on Pentecost were added to.And in Acts 2, when the new covenant goes into effect, Acts 2:47 it says 'they were added to the church', some versions say 'added to their number/added to them'. Well, who are they added to? Those disciples who had already been building, 'cause John the Baptist was preparing a people for the Lord. 
So whenever somebody says, 'well, I just don't know if the Apostles were ever baptized.' Do you think Jesus would allow Apostles to be with Him for three years who rejected the will of God? Of course not! Of course they were baptized.What of the Apostles? While it is logical that they all had been immersed into John and likely even baptized according to Jesus later as His disciples. We are not told explicitly whether any of them were immersed after the Holy Spirit came on them in Acts 2. We only know that Saul was. I do not wish to commit the same logical fallacy of arguing from silence. However, I do believe that if all that I have posted here is true - and it is - and the Apostles were teaching everyone else that baptism into Jesus was necessary to receive that true forgiveness, that there is no reason they were not the very first of the three thousand to be added that day. What an example to set. I believe that this is the implication based on the reasons people were immersed into Christ vs why they were baptized by John.
Finally, a word about Acts 19:1-6. It is a simple passage to appeal to in order to show that the baptism of John was insufficient for salvation. Paul comes to these people who say they only know of the baptism of John and preaches to them the gospel that the baptism of John points to and then he baptizes them into Christ before laying his hands on them to pass on the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. If John's baptism was sufficient, then this rebaptism is unnecessary and superfluous. This passage is the ONLY passage we have with regard to those who had been baptized by John's baptism who lived on the other side of the cross from John.
== Conclusion ==
I have shown that John's baptism accomplishes nothing that the baptism of the New Testament accomplishes. I have proved my second premise to be true: John's baptism does not accomplish ALL the things that New Testament immersion accomplishes. Thus, the argument is sound and the conclusion is true:anyone who was baptized by John must necessarily be baptized according to the New Testament after the cross even if they had been baptized by John before it.In Truth and Love.
Ernie