Stipulated Baptism In The Gospels

Stipulating is what is done in a court case where both sides agree something is true, they don't have to fight over that aspect of the case which saves time and money. That is what the Holy Spirit did in the Gospels. He stipulated that much of the region around Israel was baptized without going into each individual's baptism.

The Gospels do not contain actual examples of John's baptism or Christian baptism, Christian baptism is mentioned as a commandment after Christ's resurrection, without providing examples in the Gospels, only in Acts. The baptism in the Gospels was John's baptism or the disciples of Jesus baptizing. We only have one actual example of John's baptism, and that is of Christ. The example of Jesus should be the precedent.

Since the Gospels are silent about personal baptism, it falls under the concept of Deuteronomy 29:29, 

"the secret things belong to God but those revealed belong to us, that we may keep God's law"

Since the personal baptism's are silent it is doubtful those verses contain anything God wanted used for baptismal doctrine, whether for or against, but other verses contain the commands for baptism and its purpose. So silence, in personal examples of healing, wouldn't be used by us for doctrinal purposes.

This article may seem a bit harsh, but not harsher than millions being lost through presumption, The reason the Gospel characters always look like faith only, is that mass baptism is stipulated. Their personal baptisms are left out of the story.

The people are stipulated to have been baptized. The lack of individual examples allows baptism to be stipulated instead of being recorded for each person. Think about it, Peter and Matthew are called in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but their baptisms aren't recorded, they are stipulated. This is true of all Apostles and disciples. We do know Peter was baptized because of John 1:35-37 and I Peter 3:20-21. He included himself in the statement that baptism saves us. This shows their baptism is stipulated or assumed in the Gospels. We can stipulate that all or most of the main characters were baptized in the Gospels.

Baptists would stipulate none were baptized before their direct interaction with Jesus, we can stipulate they were. When stipulated the Baptist theology completely falls apart. It loses its support. When silence is viewed as neutral, the Baptist theology disintegrates

Here are textual basis for mass stipulation of baptism.

Mark 1:5 says "all' those in Judea and round about the Jordan went to John for baptism.

John 4:1-2 Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not (after John's arrest Christ's disciples baptized more than John's disciples, John's ministry was ending)

Matthew 11:7-8  who did you go out to see (Jesus recognized the crowd knew John)

Luke 1:17  a people prepared for the Lord

The Greek word all in v5 means a majority of the population that could. Then John and Christ's disciples finished the work and extended the area. This after John's arrest. The goal was to prepare an entire people, the population.

Some verses mention the blind and lame and demon possessed brought to Jesus by crowds, as if the blind and lame wouldn't be baptized, but this is a bad assumption. I am sure many with infirmaties were baptized. Such assumptions can twist reality. The blind and lame came to Jesus in the temple, but they could have been baptized in and around Jerusalem. If they knew to go see Jesus, they could know to go see John.

Many believe those demon possessed or with unclean spirits would not be candidates for baptism, but we find them in the Temple and in synagogues during Christ's ministry.

MARK 1:23

And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 

We find many with infirmities in a good location to be baptized, Capernaum and many cities had bodies of water or river.

Since there are zero actual examples of John's baptizing individuals, we would need contextual clues to decide if the healed were immersed or not, even then we could be wrong. That information is left out. It is doubtful the Holy Spirit would be that unclear. So, the silence concerning baptism of the individuals healed is intentional, the Holy Spirit proved baptism through commandments, a few pointed examples, and stipulation. Silence about baptism doesn't disprove it in cases of mass stipulation or when clear commands are involved. See Deut. 29:29 above.

The disciples of Jesus worked ahead of his visits, baptizing in the cities. So, we can't assume people in the cities weren't baptized. For instance, the 70 sent to teach the Kingdom ahead of Christ in Luke 10:1-3, so those in these areas could be baptized before meeting the Christ in most cases. We can stipulate that the people Jesus met, taught, and healed in the Gospels were baptized, in either John or the disciples baptism. Many could not go to the Jordan, since Christ's disciples baptized in the cities even the lame and elderly could receive the ordinance if they chose.

Even the crippled man who couldn't make it into the pool the angel stirred, could have help to be baptized, there wasn't a time restriction as with the angel pool. God providing people to carry them to baptism would be a grace provided by God.  They would only need to move him a few feet since the pool was close. Jerusalem had many pools for washing.

Matthew 12:22 has a demon possessed man, "blind and mute" being led to Jesus, perhaps he didn't understand John's baptism being without both faculties of seeing and hearing, but he could after being healed. The text nowhere says he is forgiven by healing. Many mute were also deaf, check Mark 7:37 and Mark 9:25.  Yet, it is possible he became blind and mute from demon possession after John's baptism. You see, many facts are simply unproveable. We can't know when it occurred. Also, this man was possibly brought to Jesus without faith, he couldn't see writing or possibly couldn't hear teaching. He couldn't have faith unless he became blind and mute after John's ministry. That is when the Kingdom began to be taught openly. He wouldn't be forgiven at healing until the concept of sin and forgiveness was explained, he would be ignorant of such concepts and of Christ until explained.

Since mass baptism was stipulated to be true, and individual baptism is completely silent, Satan could twist each individual story into whatever he likes, He can define each story as faith only if he chooses. That is the baptist and faith only approach in a nutshell. Yet, we should stipulate the individual's because that fits the Holy Spirit's design. There is no character we can say for certain that was not baptized. I don't believe scripture leaves out each baptism just so faith only could be taught, but because baptism wasn't the primary message in that story. Matthew 9 for instance had the message that Christ had authority to forgive sins without going into the process. The crippled person may have been baptized and fit the process. Since the scripture wasn't proving process in that verse, he wouldn't record it. Baptism is recorded elsewhere to show process. Plus, recording multiple baptisms would cause disputes about purpose and process if not recording the same details, having only one avoids those debates.

Matthew 4:12 and Mark1 begins with the arrest of John the Baptist, his ministry was ending except for the work of his disciples. John was in prison. All of Matthew's healing stories are of those following John. The people were prepared their baptisms done. Same with Mark. Every character in both Gospels healed had opportunity to hear and be baptized.

Matthew 11:7-8 has Jesus saying to the crowd concerning John

"who did you go out to see"

Jesus himself recognizes the crowds were familiar with John and his teaching. Yet, many still contend the healings were of the non-baptized, which makes zero sense. There could have been some not baptized, yet, that is unproveable, but claiming all were unbaptized is dishonest. It is possible some were not baptized when Christ healed them, but those stories don't recognize their forgiveness. It wouldn't change teaching on salvation. The blind and mute mentioned above is an example. He wouldn't have faith unless taught before becoming blind. He was healed as a sign without him being forgiven. The Gaddarene demonic of Matthew that overpowered all could have been baptized and then became demon possessed, or baptized after. It doesn't matter because Jesus doesn't say he is forgiven. There is no precedent in that.

MATTHEW 14:35

And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that were diseased; 

The men in the area saw Jesus and recognized who he was, so they and the people healed seem to be knowledgeable about Jesus.

 Jesus recognized some demons could be cast out and then reinhabit a person with more demons. All such stories are inconclusive since we cant know exacly know when demon habitation occurred, or how long between dehabitation and rehabitation. The stories don't say. Demons could be cast out to free the person to be baptized, that would support baptism and not defeat it. Some could be demon possessed after baptism.

It is clear baptism was stipulated concerning the crowds, this is a Biblical conclusion. I hate to say it again and again, it is simply true.

Consider the Apostles,

MATTHEW 4:18

And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 

We know from John 1:35-37 that Peter through Andrew knew John and Christ,  and visited Christ's dwelling before being called. Baptism isn't mentioned but we can reasonably stipulate that it happened. The story of their calling leaves out their baptisms.

MATTHEW 4:23

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. 

This verse says nothing about their baptism but they probably were. We can reasonably be assured that with Christ's teaching on the Kingdom, John's teaching on the kingdom, and his disciples teaching that baptism was included openly. There was a broad array of teachers proclaiming it. So that Romans 15 used Isaiah to say, "have they not heard". Those who wanted to be baptized could be.

So verses like 

MATTHEW 4:25

And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and [from] Decapolis, and [from] Jerusalem, and [from] Judaea, and [from] beyond Jordan. 

These are the same regions John was said to baptize. Knowledge of the Christ included baptism. Christ was a core part of John;s teaching. Those from these areas had complete access and faith for baptism. So that all of the Gospel characters were likely baptized. There is not a single record of any not being baptized, there is not a record of specific individual's being baptized. Scripture is silent when God wants it to be.

God gave teachers the choice of being presumptuous. It makes sense to say we would have no instruction of a precedent, since Zero information can't establish a precedent. In other words, there are no verses saying someone was saved without being baptized, not even the thief on the cross. The thief on the cross was likely baptized and fell into sin afterward. Anyone who says he wasn't baptized teaches presumptuously. Psalms 19:13 lists sin of presumption with the Great Sin.

Baptists and faith teachers like Max Lucado taught in their brochures and websites that a sinner like a thief wouldn't be baptized, saying they are sinners that aren't moral, but Jesus included harlots and tax collectors in baptism in Matt 21. Jesus did not exclude those who would commit immoral acts before or after baptism. We are all sinners before and after.  So Jesus forgave a thief even when the sin was after baptism. We all have the potential to relapse, that is why Paul wrote about restoring a brother who has fallen in sin.

The Baptist approach was legal and moralist, and anti-Christ. Graceless, though they proclaim a pseudo grace.

MATTHEW 8:1

When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. 

Since there were multitudes from these baptized areas intermixing with the disciples, it would be nearly impossible for these crowds not to know about baptism and to have accepted it. Even the eventual sinners who sinned after being baptized. They all knew. Perhaps some were baptized after meeting Jesus, that is logical since Jesus baptized more than John. Some could change their minds after seeing miracles, the vast majority were baptized prior to meeting Jesus, during John's ministry. The disciples sent into cities ahead of Christ worked miracles, so it is logical some people may have changed their minds.

These are stipulated without providing individual stories in scripture, there were too many such stories to do that without expanding the literature and then making the details of every person's baptism a precedent. We can't actually know of any personal baptisms. We can't know if a person was baptized before or after meeting Christ. Some like the Canaanite woman who bothered the disciples in Matthew 15:, and Jesus eventually healed her daughter, may have been baptized. Proselytes were baptized I am sure since the Law required them to be accepted as they conformed to the requirements given to the people. Some assume she wouldn't be, but she had faith in the messiah before getting there, so it is very possible.  Jesus healed the daughter to show the disciples faith was more important than nationality. Would a person of faith accept baptism from John or the disciples. It is likely. We simply can't assume an anti-baptism faith only position in every story.

MATTHEW 15:22

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 

The Canaanite woman had faith before meeting Christ, by this faith she came to worship him. Who could say she wasn't baptized previously. She was obviously taught about Christ. This is also true of the woman at the well in John 4. The Samaritans were likely baptized as well.

So, we can reasonably stipulate most could have been baptized before meeting Jesus, some after if they changed their minds, but we can't discern from the stories which fall into each category. The Holy Spirit had no need to go back over each individual's baptism. Even those healed before baptism would have known to accept it after being healed, if there were any healed before baptism. We have no record of any, but based on their faith would have complied.

MATTHEW 9:35

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. 

They were exceedingly taught, so that people such as the crippled in Matthew 9 would have been baptized, he was mentally able to receive it even before being pronounced forgiven. Those who carried the paralytic for healing could carry him for baptism before his healing. There is no textual basis for thinking he wasn't baptized. Only presumption.

Since the paralytic and his carriers had faith in Christ before entering his presence, we can stipulate they were taught at some point about him, same is true of the thief on the cross, he already had faith the messiah was coming or present. Christ's fame was already in the region. There is no reason to stipulate otherwise. These were not new hearers who only heard of Christ the moment they saw him.

One teacher recently taught that we must open our eyes to the fact Christ could save in alternative ways besides through baptism, but with baptism stipulated in the masses, this cannot be presumed, it would be presumptive. Matt. 9 doesn't teach an alternative way. Christ had power on earth to forgive sins, that isn't an alternative way. Also, we know what happened to the Old Testament prophets that acted presumptuously. They were put to death.

MATTHEW 9:6

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 

We do not know on what basis Jesus forgave, certainly his present faith played a part, but Jesus could also have a view of his life over his past months, including his baptism. Jesus seemed to know he had a house in the city. He could know other things.

Consider the man partook in John's baptism, and then realize the works of coming to Jesus and tearing the roof apart was a continuation  of his baptismal faith. "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone"

Coming to Jesus in that instance was a work that perfected faith.

The healed crippled man lived in Capernaum where people were being baptized. Since baptism was mass stipulated, zero actual personal examples provided, no one can say the paraplegic was baptized before meeting Christ or not. It is likely he and those carrying him to Jesus for healing were immersed by John or Christ's disciples. Satan wants us to open our minds to any alternative possibility. Matthew 9 isn't really a clear example of anything alternative. It actually fits the narrative of someone taught and baptized prior, the elements of the story fit that without declaring it. Zero baptisms were recorded, so we wouldn't expect these men's immersions to be recorded.

Those baptized in Christ"s lifetime were told to believe on him who was to come, the miracle proved Christ's authority so they could believe on him, this would provide the basis for Christian baptism after his resurrection, he could stipulate one must be born of water and spirit to enter heaven. He could make baptism his process in the Christian era. Christ had that authority. It isn't Pharisaical, they were the ones who refused Christ's authority. In that sense the Baptists are the Pharisees.

One could teach Christ could allow a personal alternative to baptism, but that would be Christ's choice and we would have no knowledge of that. We couldn't teach that without presumption. Men like Max Lucado who used Matt 9 to introduce alternative methods are simply presumptuous prophets. They have zero actual knowledge or examples to provide for us.

Since Jesus spoke the great commission passages after the stories within the Gospels, it is pretty obvious Jesus did not use the stories as precedent against baptism. Jesus said of the sinners, the harlots and tax collectors, they would enter the Kingdom before the Pharisees because they accepted John's baptism, showing Jesus established the ordinance for entrance into the kingdom. It is impossible to conclude Jesus established a precedence against it. see 

MATTHEW 21:31

Whether of them twain did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 

Jesus established that entrance into the kingdom was through obedience to his will, this parable in the context of baptism. There is no precedent establishing a way around his will.

When we realize Mark 16:15-16 was spoken after these stories, we can know none of the stories offered a precedent against it. That is just bad exegesis. There is no such precedent spoken by Christ. Both Mark 16:15-16 and Acts 2:38 were given after these stories, these define the true stated will of Christ after the stories. So teachers can speak presumptuously and be lost forever, or honor Christ's decisions and his design.