Introduction: Baptism, The Sacrament of Obedience

A frequently cited response from advocates of water baptism by immersion, when questioned about their decision to undergo baptism, is as follows.

“The act of being baptized by immersion in water is unrelated to salvation. However, it is an act of obedience to God.”

This is an oxymoron that warrants further exploration. If it is an act of obedience to God, then those who were not baptized in this way must be blamed for being disobedient. The opposite of obedience is disobedience, is it not? Disobedience is indeed a sin, is it not? Consequently, this places baptism firmly in the context of salvation, which debunks their claim that baptism has nothing to do with redemption. Why?

Jesus Christ’s mission on earth was entirely focused on the salvation of disobedient and rebellious sinners. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The phrase “baptism is an act of obedience” inherently and naturally places it within a legalistic framework, suggesting that it is mandatory; you must or else you will have to face the consequences of disobedience. So, what’s the point in keeping one command, such as baptism by immersion in water, and breaking everything else, such as promoting false doctrine?

A solitary act of obedience does not confirm adherence to all other commands. Their compliance in the act of baptism cannot serve as the validation for all their subsequent actions, such as speaking in tongues, self-proclaimed prophecies, dreams and visions, as well as miraculous signs and wonders.

One must consequently question why adherents argue that baptism by immersion signifies the saint’s death, burial and resurrection with Jesus Christ, and yet simultaneously declare that these tenets are not incorporated in the Gospel of salvation, when, in fact, the death, burial, and resurrection with Christ itself are fundamentally the Gospel’s central message?

The act of changing something spiritual into something visible and tangible is pure idolatry. It amounts to changing a childlike faith into a faith steeped in experience. The experience itself becomes the focus of faith.

Jack’s and most present-day pastors’ mode of baptism

In the second part of his series “Happily, Ever After”, Jack Hibbs relates the experience of a “gnarly looking” dude who was heavily tattooed and with a knife sticking out of his shoulder, when Jack baptised him in seawater.

I just know this, that sometimes I’ll walk a guy out into the water who’s kind of gnarly looking, and it’s kind of fun….

I’ll take a guy out into the water, and his all tatted up, and he’s got a knife sticking out of his shoulder or something. He just looks, he looks like he’s got mileage. I tell him, I’ll say to him, ‘Listen’ — after I’m all done talking about what’s about to happen, what it all means, then I say — ‘listen’ I’m going to hold you down a loooong time (church members start laughing out loud). Don’t worry. It will be awesome (17:41).

One cannot take Jack seriously. Engaging in a “kind of fun” and inciting laughter at such a solemn event is, to say the least, utterly inappropriate. When Jesus was baptised, John did not hold Him under the water for a loooong time.

The Bible says that after his baptism He immediately (εὐθύς, euthus) came out from the waterside. It follows that it is not even certain whether Jesus was fully immersed in the Jordan River. In Jesus’ time on earth, the Jordan River was known for its strong currents, a reality that is convincingly supported by its geography and hydrology

What are the origins of baptism as an act of obedience?

Paul cautioned that following his death, numerous false teachers would infiltrate the church and bring about destructive heresies among the congregation (Acts 20:29-30).

This scenario unfolded with the Church Fathers, who transformed the essence of Holy Communion (the Eucharist) into a reprehensible act of continuous idolatry.

They also redefined water baptism as a symbol of a believer’s death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, disregarding John’s warning that his baptism was solely a baptism for repentance—a preliminary shift in mindset (metanoia) aimed at salvation when the Lamb of God would appear (John 1:31).

Why did John state, “I myself did not know Him”? Although John and Jesus were related, given that Mary and Elizabeth were cousins (Luke 1:36), there is no information regarding any encounters between them during their formative years.

John did not recognise Jesus as the awaited Messiah until He was disclosed by the Father. His only knowledge was that he was tasked with preparing the way for Him by performing baptisms with water.

So, where did it all start? The Church Fathers who laid the groundwork for the Roman Catholic’s denominational doctrines affirmed that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ, and anyone who did not engage in it should be subject to anathema. Similarly, some of them insisted that water baptism was inexorably necessary for salvation.

Numerous prominent church fathers asserted that water baptism is typically essential for salvation, indicating that individuals who pass away without baptism are not saved—unless they are subject to specific exceptions (such as baptism of blood or baptism of desire).

The most compelling and explicit proponents of this view included Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, and Augustine.

They also overwhelmingly taught and practised baptism by full immersion in water, claiming that it personified one’s death, burial and resurrection with Christ.

Hermas (80-140AD) said:

“There’s no other repentance except than that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.”

This is a distinct denial of Hebrews 9:22, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

Justin Martyr (c. 151AD)

“For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” . . . “…that we may… obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed…”

“…we are ‘washed’ and ‘regenerated’ by baptism… it uniquely brings about ‘the remission of sins formerly committed’…”

This, once more, is a blasphemous denial of Hebrews 9:22.

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 217 AD)

“Unless you are born again with living water… you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, fly to the water! For this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water… will not come to the living water for his own [salvation].”

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD)

“If a man does not receive Baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs…” (martyrdom).

The latter clause is a vivid reminder of Islam’s rendition of salvation through martyrdom.

“Do not think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. They are alive with their Lord, receiving provision.” — Qur’an 3:169

“The martyr is forgiven with the first drop of his blood.” (Hadith referenced in classical Tafsirs (Hadith: The Martyr’s Reward). Which is a concise denial of the blood of Christ.).

Souls of martyrs dwell in the bodies of green birds in Paradise, enjoying its fruits. (Prophetic tradition cited by Ibn Kathir).

Basil the Great (330–379 AD)

“We were regenerated through the grace given in our baptism… the beginning of life.”

Gregory Nazianzen (329–390 AD)

Having been baptized, we are saved.”

Cyprian of Carthage (253 AD)

“Catechumens who suffer martyrdom… are not deprived of the sacrament of Baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of blood.”

Once again: a denial of the shed blood of Christ.

Tertullian (early 3rd century)

“If there is no baptism, then there will be no remission of sins, and every man will die in his own sins.”

“…washing away the sins of our early blindness… we are set free and admitted into eternal life.”

Epistle of Barnabas (70–132 AD)

“…we descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up bearing fruit in our heart.”

Shepherd of Hermas (c. 90–140 AD)

“There is no other repentance than that which takes place when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins.”

Cyril of Jerusalem (315–387 AD)

“Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up quickened in righteousness.”

Gregory of Nyssa (335–394 AD)

“The grace of baptism… purge[s] even that sin which is hard to cleanse away… a purification from sins…”

They proclaimed the exact same attributes to the Eucharist.

Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD)

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these… the food… is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”

“The food which has been made into the Eucharist… is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD)

“If the body be not saved… neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body.”

“When… the mixed cup and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, how can they say the flesh is not capable of eternal life?”

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD)

“The bread and the wine… before the invocation… were simple bread and wine, but after the invocation [by a priest] the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.”

Hilary of Poitiers (4th century)

“As to the truth of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt… it is truly Flesh and truly Blood… when these are eaten and drunk… we are both in Christ and Christ is in us.”

This is pure blasphemy and warrants Paul’s warning in Acts 20:29, “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” Peter also sounded the alarm when he wrote:

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1).

The deceptive transformation of baptism and the Eucharist by the Church Fathers, moving from a spiritual interpretation to a visible and tangible one—from faith to sight—has impacted many Protestant Churches. However, it is crucial to recognise that these churches do not consider baptism or Holy Communion to embody redemptive properties.

Nonetheless, the dye was cast, and the bad fruit of the Church Fathers took root in the teachings of the Charismatic, Pentecostal, and non-denominational churches, alleging that, although it has nothing to do with salvation, it is an act of obedience. If the root is bad, the fruit will always be bad as well.

The bottom line is this: Jack Hibbs himself said in a Q&A podcast that many Catholics approached him to say they watch his sermons and follow his teaching. In fact, Roman Catholics regularly attend Jack Hibbs’ church, though usually as visitors rather than members. He notes:

• They were “born and raised Catholic”.
• They had been watching his podcast and Sunday messages.
• His teaching caused them to explore topics (like Revelation) that they said were discouraged in their Catholic upbringing.

An intriguing question emerges when noted that the prophecies in the book of Revelation captivate Catholic visitors more than salvation itself. To explore this, a few key aspects of this phenomenon need to be examined.

1. The first aspect can be referred to as the “Billy Graham syndrome.” It is well-documented that a substantial number of Roman Catholics participated in his campaigns, and he encouraged them to return to their respective churches following their attendance at his events. Jack Hibbs holds a deep admiration for Billy Graham.
   
   
2. The second point pertains to Chuck Smith’s notable connection with Roman Catholics.  Chuck Smith, Founder of the Calvary Chapel Movement, In his 1993 book, Answers For Today, Chuck Smith, Founder of the Calvary Chapel Movement, wrote the following:
   
   “Paul points out that some say, I’m of Paul,’ while others say, ‘I’m of Apollos.’ He asked, ‘Isn’t that carnal?’ But what’s the difference between saying that or saying, “I’m a Baptist,’ ‘I’m a Presbyterian,’ ‘I’m a Methodist,’ ‘I’m a Catholic? I have found that the more spiritual a person becomes, the less denominational he is.
   
    We should realise that we’re all part of the Body of Christ and that there aren’t any real divisions in the Body. We’re all one.
   
   What a glorious day when we discover that God loves the Baptists! – And the Presbyterians, and the Methodists, and the Catholics. We’re all His, and we all belong to Him.
   
    We see the whole Body of Christ, and we begin to strive together rather than striving against one another. But, as long as a person is filled with a haughty spirit, he will show the mark of carnality rather than real spiritual growth and maturity. (p. 214; PDF Edition). (Emphasis added)
   
   
3. The third is the serious schism that occurred between the CCA and the CCGN. After Chuck Smith died in 2013, Calvary Chapel experienced a major internal split between two leadership groups — the Calvary Chapel Association (CCA) and the new Calvary Chapel Global Network (CCGN) led by Brian Brodersen.
   
   The CCA of which Jack Smith is an affiliate, generally places more emphasis on eschatology than the Calvary Chapel Global Network (CCGN). This appears to resonate with the inclination of some Roman Catholics to tune into Jack Hibbs’ eschatological sermons.
   
   
4.  The exact number of Roman Catholics Hibbs has re-baptised through full immersion in seawater remains unclear.
   
   However, it is highly probable that he has already re-baptised Roman Catholics, who traditionally practice baptism through sprinkling or pouring. This would require them to undergo full immersion baptism as an act of obedience and as a symbol of their identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
   
   Why wouldn’t he, when his mentor, Chuck Smith, believed that they are also part of Jesus Christ’s body?

More or less 44 seconds into the video, a woman holds up a banner declaring that she had been baptised into Christ. I assume that most people believe this when they are submerged under water.

Why didn’t Jack Hibbs explain to them that they had already been baptised into the death and resurrection of Christ the moment they put their trust in Him for their redemption, according to Romans 6:3-5 and only need to appropriate it daily by faith alone and not signs or symbols?

The verse featured on her poster, Ephesians 4:5, clearly asserts the existence of only one baptism, in alignment with the singularity of one Lord and one faith. In contrast, the woman, alongside Jack Hibbs, defiantly argues that there are two distinct baptisms: the first being the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the second, the symbolic baptism by immersion in water. Who, if I may inquire, are the individuals displaying disobedience in this instance?

Jack Hibbs often uses Corona del Mar Beach in California—specifically Pirate’s Cove — to baptise individuals in the sea, and he has done so many times, including some of the largest baptisms in modern U.S. evangelical history.

Mexican residents frequently visit Corona del Mar Beach — especially on weekends —, but they are not a large or defining portion of the regular crowd, because the neighbourhood’s demographics are overwhelmingly older, affluent, and white.

The dominant religion among Mexican visitors to Corona del Mar Beach is Roman Catholicism, simply because Catholicism remains the largest religious affiliation among Mexicans in California and the U.S. overall.

Having mentioned that, please pay close attention to how Jack Hibbs guides the little girl, with her mother nearby, into baptism, assisted by a translator. He asks, “Does she understand that Jesus Christ died on the cross for her sins? Then he turns his attention to the little girl and asks, “Jesus died for our sins on the cross, yes?”

His “yes” at the conclusion of his question unmistakably indicates that he is guiding her towards a positive response, as he desires her to agree. He then asks her, “And he rose again from the dead…Jesus came to earth to save us, right?” Here, his use of “right” suggests that he is again encouraging her to respond positively.

Of course, the little girl would respond with a nod and a “yes” to these questions because Roman Catholics actually do believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again from the dead. This gave Jack Hibbs the green light to baptise the little girl, with smiles of joy and happiness on their faces. However, her mother seems to have been unimpressed, but allowed her daughter to be baptised due to the great vibes on the beach. Everyone was smiling.

This leads me to believe that this might be Jack Hibbs’ typical modus operandi when someone comes to him and asks, “Pastor Jack, I would like you to baptise me.” I assume his natural response would be to ask the person whether he/she believed in Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. Upon their answer of “no”, he would ask them, “Do you want to be saved, and upon their “yes” he would lead them in the sinner’s prayer. Or he would ask them, “Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins, yes?” and “Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, right?”

How about a touch of humour? In the opening of the video mentioned above, Jack Hibbs humorously illustrates the challenges faced by himself and the pastors assisting him. They had to simultaneously support the backs of those being baptised with one hand while pinching their noses shut with the other. They were exhausted, with shoulders that ached for days.

Imagine John the Baptist trying out Jack Hibbs’ style of baptism in the Jordan River. Remember, I mentioned that the Jordan is a slippery, muddy playground, even in the shallow bits where John decided to dunk folks. His job would’ve been a real juggling act—balancing someone’s torso in one hand while pinching their nose to keep them from gulping river soup, all while dunking them in the river’s mushy, slippery bits!

Imagine this: when a person is pushed backwards into the water, they instinctively lose control of their legs and feet, making it difficult to maintain their balance and support their weight. This imposes a significant burden on the baptizer to maintain control and avoid becoming complicit in a potential drowning. I don’t think John the Baptist would have been so unwise as to take irresponsible chances.

Moreover, the Bible affirms that very large crowds came from Judea and Jerusalem to be baptised by John in the Jordan River (Matthew 3:5-6; Mark 1:5). Imagine how painful that would have been for him if he baptised people with Jack Hibbs’ mode of baptism.

Defiant disobedience

God’s ordained designs and purposes cannot be modified to conform to man’s agendas. John the Baptist’s baptism was specifically designed to portray a baptism unto repentance and was not intended to symbolise the death and resurrection of a believer with Christ Jesus.

Nonetheless, the supporters of immersion in water have defiantly transformed God’s intended design into a legal obligation, claiming it to be a symbol or representation of a believer’s obedience and union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. It implies that if you skip water baptism, you are downright disobedient.

At any rate, when John baptised Jews in the Jordan River, Jesus hadn’t even been crucified and risen from the dead. However, for some inexplicable reason, those who support water baptism transformed John the Baptist’s baptism into a symbol, purportedly representing the death and resurrection of a believer with Jesus Christ after salvation.

The common argument presented is that true salvation must occur prior to baptism by immersion in water. As a result, only individuals who are saved are deemed eligible for baptism. Some might perceive their salvation as simply the objective of being baptised by their pastors. Henceforth, salvation becomes a mere instrument for achieving a goal, with the ultimate aim of being immersed in water at baptism.

Could this be the reason why most Christians straightaway tell you that they have been baptised when you ask them about their salvation? In other words, their testimonies hinge on their experience of going under and coming up out of the water and not particularly on their salvation (mostly by repeating the sinner’s prayer) prior to their baptism.

A Christian’s testimony consists of a distinct verbal declaration of their salvation, rather than a sign or symbol displayed publicly. In reality, unbelievers are unlikely to be persuaded to repent through a sign or symbol, such as baptism by immersion in water.

“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” (Revelation 12:11).

John the Baptist’s mode of baptism

Given that redemption is a spiritual phenomenon, which it certainly is, it follows that baptism must also be spiritual in nature to fulfil what John the Baptist’s baptism could never achieve, i.e. salvation.

John the Baptist’s baptism in natural physical water was merely a precursor of what was called “a baptism unto repentance.” The word for “unto” in Greek is εἰς (eis) and means the following: a movement toward or into an area (extending to a goal); logically: a marker of purpose or result; of time: extending to or up to a certain time.

John the Baptist himself described his baptism in water as a preliminary act unto repentance (metanoia; a change of mind).

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I… he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” (Matthew 3:11).

The change of mind involved a radical adjustment from Law to faith in Jesus Christ. Having said this, one can understand why John later said,

“He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30.

John’s mode of baptism gradually decreased until God commanded Paul not to baptise but to preach the Gospel.

“I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” (1 Corinthians 1:14-17).

He was thankful to God that he baptised no one except Crispus and Gaius . . . for God did not send him to baptise but to preach the Gospel. This is rather strange for a man of God who was supposed to know that baptism was an act of obedience to God. Would an unchangeable God ever command an action that is inconsistent with obedience or make anyone do something which is incompatible with his character?

Paul warned that after his death ravenous wolves would infiltrate the church, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29-30). It unfolded exactly as he predicted. Following his passing, one church father after another started to alter the interpretation of Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, and particularly the significance of Holy Communion.

In summary, it must be said that John’s baptism was part of his role as forerunner:

• It prepared Israel for the Messiah.
• It was meant to cease once Christ’s ministry and Spirit‑baptism began.

What about Apollos, the Ethiopian Eunuch, and Cornelius?

Apollos

One of the pro-baptism folk’s favourite arguments to support baptism by immersion in water is the account of Apollos, the Eunuch, and Cornelius along with his household. Are they not compelling evidence that baptism is essential for every new believer?

They assume that Apollos was only aware of John’s baptism because he allegedly had been baptized by him. There is no solid evidence for this in Acts 18. The baptism of the Holy Spirit seems to have been unknown to him. The perception that he needed to be rebaptized so that he may receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is also pure guesswork.

Neither did anyone lay hands on him to receive the Holy Spirit as Paul had done with certain disciples of John in Acts 19. The notion that he was rebaptized in the Name of Jesus is only guesswork at its best. Pricilla and Aquila simply invited him to their home and instructed him more accurately in the way of Christ.

Apollos’s limited or inadequate knowledge of the way of Christ (His doctrines) can only be understood in view of what John’s baptism represented. John himself made it clear when he said,

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:” (Mat 3:11).

Apollos must have heard about John’s baptism, which was an anticipatory baptism, emphasizing the fact that it was a baptism unto repentance, and like him he preached repentance not knowing that the Messiah had already come. Priscilla and Aquinas must have proved to him that Jesus Christ had already come.

Another event after Acts 18 which the proponents of water baptism like to use to substantiate their claim that Apollos was re-baptised after he allegedly had been baptised by John, is Paul’s encounter with certain disciples in Ephesus. They too were only familiar with John the Baptist’s baptism and, as a result, had not even heard about the Holy Spirit.

It was not uncommon among some Jews at that time to misunderstand John’s words, “ but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”

Being Jews, the sign of John the Baptist’s baptism unto repentance was firmly instilled in their minds because it was a tangible sign they could see and believe (1 Corinthians 1:22). The part “he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” which has a spiritual, unseen connotation, must have slipped their minds, as it did that of Apollos, an eloquent Jew. Or, perhaps, they never heard him say it and were introduced to it by others as a final ordinance in the act of receiving salvation.

To strengthen and build up their faith, Paul felt obliged to present them with a sign, reminding them that John’s baptism was not the ultimate goal of salvific faith. He repeated what John himself said of his baptism,

“Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” (Act 19:4).

Here again we see that they misunderstood Christ’s coming after John to fulfil what John the Baptist’s baptism lacked — the infilling with the Holy Spirit. To accommodate their yearning for signs, Paul felt obliged to baptise them all in the Name of Jesus with the sign of speaking in tongues. In this particular case, the gift of speaking in tongues (not unknown tongues) was the sign that they received the Holy Spirit.

However, it cannot be used as a set template that Christian baptism is now ever to be repeated in the same way. For this there is no warrant in the New Testament. There is no command to repeat it, as in the case of the Lord’s Supper; and the nature and design of the ordinance evidently supposes that it is to be performed but once.

These disciples of John were rebaptized by Paul, not because baptism is designed to be repeated, but because they were baptised unto John’s baptism of repentance and had to be shown, as Jews by virtue of a sign, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit had become the only correct replacement for John’s baptism. John’s baptism had already started to become superfluous, as he himself indicated (John 3:30).

The Ethiopian eunuch

While the Jews described earlier knew only of John’s baptism, the Ethiopian eunuch believed the proper way to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel) required travelling to Jerusalem to take part in the correct temple-based Judaic worship.

Temple worship in Jerusalem necessitated ritual purification for most Jews, which typically involved immersion in a mikveh prior to entering the Temple precincts. Archaeological excavations near the southern entrances to the Temple Mount, including the Huldah Gates, have revealed more than 100 mikva’ot dating to the late Second Temple period, indicating they were designed to accommodate high volumes of pilgrims.

Some modern commentators argue that the Ethiopian eunuch wasn’t actually castrated, and that the Greek word εὐνοῦχος just means a court official handling administrative tasks in royal settings. That’s sort of right—but not completely.

The Ancient Greek word “εὐνοῦχος” (“yoo-noo’-khos”) means a eunuch—a man who’s been castrated. That way, they were more suitable to work as “bed-keepers” or chamber attendants, basically someone who looks after royal or married sleeping quarters. In other words, they didn’t have sexual needs that could mess with marriage relationships. It comes from the root words eunē (εὐνή, meaning “bed”) and echō (ἔχω, meaning “to have” or “to hold”).

Another reason these individuals were considered suitable as chamberlains is that, in ancient empires, rulers often appointed castrated men to trusted palace roles, such as court officials and harem guards, since they typically had no dynastic heirs or rival loyalties. In ancient days, a contender to the throne would forcefully enter the harem of the king and do everything he pleased as a sign that he was the next king.

These facts prove without any doubt that the Ethiopian eunuch was a castrated individual who travelled to Jerusalem to honour and worship God. There was just one obstacle in his way. The temple officials firmly stopped him from being purified in a mikvah and from entering the temple because he was a eunuch who was forbidden to partake in the temple services in accordance with the command in Leviticus 21:17-21.

For no man who has a defect shall approach [God’s altar as a priest]: no man who is blind or lame, or who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or a broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. (Leviticus 21:18-20).

His rejection must have caused him to be very disappointed and despondent. He began to read his Bible for some answers to the rash expulsion he experienced in Jerusalem. The question “why was I hindered to be baptized in a mikvah, granting me access to the temple” must have passed through his mind again. It was then that he began reading Isaiah 53, which he could not understand.

But God, in his unfathomable mercy, did not leave him to his own resources. He Himself said that if you seek him with all your mind, heart, and soul, you will find Him, and sent Philip to present the Gospel to him.

The rest of this beautiful narrative is well-known. However, I would like to point out the eunuch’s choice of words to illustrate the reason why Philip baptised him. After having heard the Gospel and responded to it in faith, he asked, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptised?” He was probably thinking whether this guy, a Jew, was going to “hinder” (prevent him, forbid him) from being baptised, as those temple officials in Jerusalem.

Had Philipp refused to baptise him like the temple officials in Jerusalem, the eunuch’s newfound faith would have been shattered, and Philipp would never have done such a thing. His response was in tune with the eunuch’s question and not because he encouraged or said that he must be baptised.

The eunuch’s doubts about whether Philip, a Jew, would baptise him were immediately put to rest, with so much assurance that he could confidently say, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Of special note is the fact that Philip did not lay hands on him to receive the Holy Spirit, as we shall see in the next section when Peter baptised and laid hands on Cornelius and his whole household to receive the Holy Ghost.

Suffice it to say, is that the eunuch’s baptism cannot be used as a set template to say, “See, this proves that every born-again believer must be baptised by full immersion in water,” as Jack Hibbs likes to tell people. Such a stance would make baptism a legal liability, which is not of God.

Cornelius and his household

Certain key phrases found in Acts 10 may shed some light on why water baptism was performed for Gentiles, even though Peter initially hesitated to proceed with it.

“Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:34-35).

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Act 10:44-48)

In Acts 8, when Philip encountered the Ethiopian on his journey back to his homeland from Jerusalem, where he faced restrictions that prevented him from undergoing purification in a Jewish mikvah as a prerequisite for entering the temple, he asked Philip, “What doth hinder me to be baptised? When they approached a pool of water.

The word “κωλύω” (kōluō) for “hinder” in Acts 8:36 is the same word Peter used when he asked, “Can any man forbid (kōluō) water that these should not be baptised? It is significant that both phrased their question with the word “hinder.” They could easily just have said “be baptised,” as Ananias said to Paul in Damascus.

The same phrasing in both cases shows that both the Gentiles and Jews experienced a hindrance which jeopardised the spread of the gospel. What was this hindrance? It was something so serious that God had to deal with it personally in a miraculous way.

“On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.” (Act 10:9-16).

The dietary laws of the Jews were so deeply embedded in Peter’s consciousness that he audaciously declared to Jesus, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” The Greek term for “not so” is μηδαμῶς, which can be interpreted in contemporary language as “no way” or “not on your life.”

This mindset exemplified the barriers that impeded the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles—namely, the exclusivity inherent in Jewish tradition. Jesus entrusted the keys to open or close heaven to Peter (Matthew 16:19), but first he had to learn a lesson. Did he?

One might assume that after Peter’s lesson outlined in the aforementioned passage of Scripture, he would have steadfastly adhered to the principles he learned. Fast forward to Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul gives Peter a public talking-to for dodging dinner with the Gentiles, as his actions were putting a dent in the Gospel’s truth. Paul perceived this as hypocrisy that required immediate and forthright action, executed with unwavering conviction.

Be that as it may, what was the lesson Peter and the other Jews learned from the event in Acts 10. To answer this, we need to remind ourselves that Jews always required a sign before they could be convinced of God’s actions in circumstances regarding divine miracles (1 Corinthians 1:22). God graciously complied with their habit of seeking a sign and gave them one.

“And as he talked with him, he (Peter) went in, and found many that were come together. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me? And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.” (Act 10:27-32). 

“Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)” (Act 10:34-36).

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Act 10:44-47)

Acts 10:46 says, “And they of the circumcision (Jews) which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Act 10:45).

They were astonished because the same phenomena they experienced on the Day of Pentecost—the gift of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and magnifying God—was also bestowed upon the Gentiles. This sign served to convince Peter and the other Jews that God is impartial and does not favour one group over another, thus eliminating any exclusivity that might hinder the spread of the Gospel.

This event represents the fulfilment of Christ’s promise to Peter as articulated in Matthew 16:19. Consequently, there is no justification for replicating this occurrence as a set template for contemporary practice of baptismal immersion in water.

Baptism by immersion in the Jordan River?

The river flows through a steep rift valley, descending rapidly from Mount Hermon down to the Dead Sea — the lowest land point on Earth. This steep drop naturally produces fast‑moving water.

Furthermore, it is fed by multiple tributaries (Dan, Banias, Hasbani), which historically supplied much larger volumes of water than today, creating a stronger flow. It meanders through narrow sections of the valley, which increases water speed and turbulence — a known hydrological effect.

Historically, it had higher water levels before modern irrigation and diversion drastically reduced its flow. All of this means the river in the 1st century was deeper, faster, and more forceful than the Jordan River people see today.

The water was muddy, especially near baptism sites, because the river constantly eroded its banks. The bottom was uneven — soft silt, sudden drop‑offs, and slippery stones. Unquestionably, it was not much of a comfortable place to administer baptisms.

Why did John the Baptist, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, still choose to baptise people in the Jordan River? People could lose footing easily if they stepped into the wrong parts.

It was chosen precisely because it was wilderness — a place of repentance, not comfort. This was not a calm, landscaped riverbank like modern baptism sites. Indeed, it fulfilled the prophetic symbolism of the wilderness (Isaiah 40:3).

However, it had shallower side pools and calmer eddies suitable for baptism. John must have chosen one of these as his place of baptism. The shallow channels and marsh pools were muddy with natural reed-lined basins.

John’s river baptisms symbolised purification and covenant renewal with the Jews, God’s people, and not an immersion into the death, burial, and resurrection with Jesus.

Jesus allowed Himself to be baptised to fulfil all righteousness (Matthew 3:13-15). If He had already fulfilled all righteousness, including water baptism, who are we to continue what He had already fulfilled?

This situation is comparable to Christians who claim to adhere to the Mosaic Law, implying that Christ’s fulfilment of the Law was insufficient and that they must persist in following the Law to address His perceived shortcomings.

The meaning of “baptizo” in relation to “apo and “ek”

The Jordan River had, and still has, high river banks, causing baptizees to descend (go down) to the water and when they ascend, they go up the same bank from the water. Albert Barnes comments on Matthew 3:16 as follows:

Out of the water – This shows that must have descended to the river. It literally means, “he went up directly from the water.” The original does not imply that they had descended into the river, and it cannot be proved, therefore, from this passage, that his baptism was by immersion; nor can it be proved that even, if his baptism was by immersion, that therefore the same mode is binding on people today. In order to demonstrate from this passage that immersion is essential, it is necessary to demonstrate:

(a) that he went into the river;

(b) that, being there, he was wholly immersed;

(c) that the fact that he was immersed, if he was, proves that all others must be [fully immersed], in order that there could be a valid baptism.

Neither of these three things has ever been demonstrated from this passage, nor can they be.

In Matthew 3:16, the distinction between apo and ek plays an interesting role in how the text describes Jesus emerging from His baptism, especially when compared to the parallel account in Mark 1:10. The Greek text of Matthew 3:16 reads:

"καὶ βαπτισθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνέβη εὐθὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος..."
(kai baptistheis ho Iēsous anebē euthys apo tou hydatos...)
"And having been baptized, Jesus went up (the river bank) immediately away from the water..."

From a grammatical perspective, the term ‘apo’ emphasises the initial phase of His departure from the river. It illustrates Jesus moving away from the water’s edge or climbing up the riverbank after His baptism was completed. In contrast, Mark’s use of ‘ek’ highlights the act of exiting from the inner space—literally coming out from within the water itself.

Scholars advocating for baptism by immersion point out that Mark’s ‘ek’ clearly indicates Jesus was in the water, whereas Matthew’s ‘apo’ depicts Him as moving away from it. Collectively, commentators observe that these prepositions enhance one another: Jesus was in the river (ek) and subsequently ascended the bank away from it (apo).

Regardless of which aspect one chooses to emphasise, neither of these grammatical explanations can be utilised to substantiate the method of immersion in water for baptism. Even Mark’s use of ‘ek’ (in the water) does not necessarily imply that Jesus was fully submerged in the water.

This leads us to the term “baptizo,” which is predominantly interpreted by Christians as a full-body submersion in water. It is essential to recognise that John the Baptist, being a Jew, adhered to the Old Testament practice of baptism.

John the Baptist’s Jewish background makes it entirely plausible that he followed the Old Testament dipping or pouring pattern rather than full immersion. The Old Testament Hebrew word ṭābal (“to dip”) means partial dipping, not full immersion.

Think of it. The Jordan River, as we’ve seen earlier, was a muddy mess, especially with so many people stirring the mud from the bed of the river up to the surface. It was, as seen earlier, regarded as a perfect place for real repentance, which was another visible sign for the Jews.

Would the present-day pastors allow their entrants for baptism to be dunked under a muddy river or pool just to give them a sign? The only permissible sign given by Jesus Himself, about death, burial, and resurrection, is the sign of Jonah (Matthew 16:4).

Anything that does not comply with this sign is akin to wickedness and adultery. These attributes are applied to sign-seekers because it is a grievous way to tempt Jesus into something his own death, burial, and resurrection have already perfectly proven that He is the Son of the Living God.

Putting the cherry on the cake

Indeed, the individuals who are candidates for water baptism have replaced the authentic experience of Christ’s baptism with the Holy Spirit [salvation proper] with the mere shadow illustrated by John the Baptist’s baptism (Matthew 3:11).

This is comparable to putting the cherry on the cake. It is the diploma for being saved. This, I believe, is the foremost reason why Christians who have been baptised usually tell you “I have been baptised” to affirm their salvation when you ask them to provide you with their testimony of how they were saved.

And, why shouldn’t they when they are taught that water baptism is the outward public display of the inward experience of salvation? If baptism represents the ultimate public declaration of one’s death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, it is not inaccurate to suggest that in some denominations, the act of re-baptism in public is a common occurrence. Let it be known that sight is not faith (Hebrews 11:1).

In fact, in many Evangelical, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches, Christians who feel that their initial baptism in water was not meaningful or inadequate are often baptised again. The Anabaptists are well-known for re-baptisms.

In the non-denominational churches, of which Jack Hibbs’ congregation is one, re‑baptism is frequently offered for rededication or the renewal of faith. Jack Hibbs does allow and perform rebaptisms, but only under specific circumstances.

His teaching and Calvary Chapel practice make rebaptism permissible when a person’s first baptism was not connected to genuine conversion or understanding. In other words, you can only put the cherry on the cake after a genuine salvific experience. I thought that the truth conveyed in Hebrews 10:22 is more than enough to strengthen one’s faith.

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)” (Hebrews 10:22-23).

The primary issue with the concept of rededicating one’s faith through re-baptism is that it inflates the individual’s ego. Participants often proclaim, “I (with a strong emphasis on ‘I’) have rededicated my faith in God by choosing to be re-baptised in water.”

This practice undermines the noble assurance found in Hebrews 10:22 and diminishes the significance of God’s promises. Rather than invoking God’s promises as many saints from both the Old and New Testaments did, they opt for re-baptism.

Is it possible that they favour a sign over the promises of God? (Matthew 16:4). Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, who is God in human form, permitted only one baptism, rather than numerous public baptisms and re-baptisms across the globe.

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6).

The one baptism is Jesus Christ’s baptism with the Holy Spirit at the moment a repentant sinner is baptised into the body of Christ. (Romans 6:3-5).

However, this single and unique baptism is not sufficient for the baptizers. They need a second baptism and even a rebaptism at times by immersion in water to prove their obedience to God, as if the newly-born sinner’s obedience to call on the Name of the Lord for his/her salvation is not enough. They assert that it is an act of obedience, yet they seem unconcerned about disregarding Jesus’ caution in Matthew 16:4.

Scripture does not contain any references that indicate baptism in water is a symbol or sign of a believer’s death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. It is very dangerous to rely on signs or symbols while the reality (baptism in the Holy Spirit) is already a fait accompli the moment a lost sinner is redeemed. It amounts to a shift from faith to sight, which undermines God’s decree that faith alone, as the substance of things not seen, pleases Him (Hebrews 11:6).

Nonetheless, Pastor Jack of the Calvary Chapel Church in Chino Hills, California, and many others believe that complete water immersion is symbolic of a believer’s death and resurrection with Christ as Paul describes it in Romans 6:3-5.

He readily admits that Romans 6:3-5 is not a description of water baptism since water is never mentioned in this passage. However, he promptly made a connection between John the Baptist’s baptism in water unto repentance and Paul’s understanding of spiritual baptism in Romans 6:3-5 by saying that every Christian should be baptised in this manner.

The moment you say “every Christian should be baptised” or “every Christian must be baptised,” you are stepping into the domain of legalism. It places a heavy burden on newly saved Christians and puts a lot of pressure on them to be baptised in water by immersion because they don’t want to be disobedient.

Yes, Jesus was baptised, but He was also circumcised. Why don’t those who hold Jesus’ baptism as an example for all subsequent baptisms also allow themselves to be circumcised?

In short, John the Baptist’s baptism can be likened to a starter who sets off athletes to ensure that all participants get a fair and proper start to the race. The goal itself was Christ’s finished work on the cross and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which, of course, was still a future event when John the Baptist baptised Jews in the Jordan River.

 How pastors and church leaders can interpret water baptism as a necessary and crucial outcome of authentic salvation to prove obedience to God, while John the Baptist’s baptism was only a preliminary act in the journey, starting with water baptism toward salvation, only they would know. It makes no sense.

The dark side of water baptism

Death by drowning lurks in the murky waters of baptismal immersion. Currently, there is no comprehensive global statistic for deaths specifically attributed to baptism by full immersion. The available evidence consists of only a few scattered and isolated instances, and neither health agencies nor religious organisations monitor this as a separate health category.

Conversely, accurate global statistics for “normal” drownings that are unrelated to Christian baptismal events are indeed available. The most reliable statistics can be found in the reports from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN Global Drowning Prevention. This is rather suspicious, unless the number of baptismal drowning accounts is seen as part of “normal” drownings. Of course, this would render baptismal drownings as “normal” as well. Are they?

Considering the mantra that “one must be baptised by full immersion as an act of obedience to God” is consistently drummed into the minds of Christians, it cannot be regarded as “normal.” In reality, it is clearly abnormal to impose a legal requirement on Christians to show that they are obedient. Legalism essentially equates to Pharisaism.

South Africa represents a significant proportion of baptism-related drownings globally, particularly between 2021 and 2026. At least twenty congregants tragically drowned during baptismal ceremonies held in rivers and lakes in South Africa, marking the highest number of drownings worldwide during that timeframe.

Statistics of global baptismal drownings are scarce. However, here are some that were reported in the local press.

• Texas (2024): A 21-year-old man drowned shortly after being baptised in a lake when he heroically jumped back into the water to save a struggling teenage girl from his church group; the girl survived, but he did not.
• United Kingdom (2023): A widely shared recent news story involved a 61-year-old man who drowned during a backyard paddling pool baptism in Birmingham, UK, leading to gross negligence manslaughter charges against the pastor. (Source).

Some may contend that the incidents of baptismal drownings, when compared to the overall number of typical drownings worldwide, is minimal. Death remains death even if there was only a single death recorded.

When you put people in harm’s way by closing the nostrils of individuals during baptisms, and then force them over backwards into a river, sea, or even a backyard swimming pool, you are a potential murderer. How do you know they are going to react biologically when you dump them underwater? It’s a risky business, that’s for sure.

Someone can die of a heart attack or sudden cardiac arrest when pushed backwards into the water of a river or the sea during a baptismal immersion.

While tragic, this outcome is medically possible due to powerful physical and physiological triggers caused by sudden immersion in natural bodies of water:

1. The Cold Shock Response

When a person is abruptly plunged into cold water (even in relatively mild temperatures), it triggers an immediate, involuntary neurogenic reaction known as the cold shock response. [1]

• Vasoconstriction: The blood vessels in the skin rapidly close, greatly increasing blood flow resistance.
• Spike in Blood Pressure: This severe constriction forces the heart to work much harder to pump blood.
• Heart Attack Trigger: For an individual with pre-existing or underlying cardiovascular disease, this sudden, extreme workload and surge in blood pressure can directly cause a myocardial infarction (heart attack) or acute heart failure. [1, 2]

2. Autonomic Conflict (Arrhythmia)

When someone is pushed backwards into water, two opposing survival reflexes are triggered at the exact same time: [1]

• The Cold Shock Response (which rapidly accelerates the heart rate).
• The Diving Response (which slows down the heart rate to preserve oxygen). [1, 2]

Medical researchers refer to this simultaneous activation as “autonomic conflict”. This physiological tug-of-war can cause lethal cardiac arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats), resulting in sudden cardiac arrest before any drowning even takes place. [1]

3. Panic and Involuntary Gasping

The shock of hitting the water abruptly causes an involuntary gasp for air. If the person’s head is submerged when they gasp, they can instantly inhale water. This leads to rapid panic, acute oxygen deprivation (hypoxemia), and subsequent cardiac arrest. [1, 2, 3]

In natural settings like rivers or the sea, a sudden death during full-immersion rituals is often initially reported broadly as a drowning. However, forensic investigations sometimes reveal that the true underlying cause of death was an immediate cardiac event brought on by the physical shock of the submersion.

But hang in there, it gets worse. Rodney Howard Brown was not the first to invent laughter as a sign of the indwelling spirit. Angi Maghounis, Director of Every Tribe mission and a member of the Calvary Chapel Worship Centre (CCWC), demonstrates how laughter, or rather fake laughter, can help you to overcome stress, anxiety, bodily tenseness, sickness and disease.

Although media outlets refute claims that she identifies as a New Ager, her posture of kneeling and laughing in the video below suggests an affinity for New Age practices. She herself says that a person by the name of Mindy advised her to try it, as it helps with stress and even heals diseases.

OK, this is crazy because it negates Jesus Christ’s promise (in whom she purportedly believes) that He gives you perfect peace and rest when you come to Him for salvation (Matthew 11:28). You don’t have to sit on a beach and falsely laugh your head off to reach a place of repose.

New Age spirituality often treats laughter as:

• A vibrational reset — raising one’s “frequency” to counteract stress, negativity, or emotional heaviness.
• A mind–body gateway — helping people drop mental tension and reconnect with presence, joy, and embodiment.
• A communal healing practice — used in workshops, retreats, and “laughter circles” to create group coherence and emotional release.
• A form of somatic therapy — similar to breathwork, ecstatic dance, or energy healing, where the physical act is believed to shift emotional states.

This aligns closely with laughter yoga, which is often adopted in New Age communities that originated as an Eastern religious and mystical practice. Paul warned that after his departure, savage wolves would come in among believers and cause havoc. The New Age Christ is understood as a universal consciousness, a divine spark within all people, or a spiritual teacher who reveals inner potential—not the incarnate Son of God who died and rose again.

I can hardly see any difference between being re-baptised into a church after having been baptised into Christ at conversion and being baptised into a false New Age Christ. Both are unbiblical.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16).

Have you noticed that she referenced only the first part of Mark 16:16 and then asked, “But what if there is no water?” This is exactly why it is essential to include the second part of Mark 16:16, as it clarifies the course of action when water is unavailable—faith alone. This is the sole instance where “believe” and “be baptised” are used together. There are about 15 instances in the New Testament where faith alone in Christ – without any mention of baptism – is recorded.