The Baptist View of Baptism Destroys the Meaning of Baptism

[nonaeroterraqueous]

This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

Man's response is the product of God's monergistic action. His baptism is a direct result of his response. If the person's response is taken out of the picture, then you're baptizing a baby of unknown destiny. It would be similar to forcibly spraying down a crowd of strangers with a fire hose and calling it a baptism. In both cases a response from the affected individual is unnecessary. The end result is assumed to be a monergistic act of God.

However, if you think that the believer's baptism is an attempt to make salvation a synergistic work, an act of man, then you've trapped yourself in your own argument. The parents of the baby have chosen the baptism instead of the baby. It's still an act of man. You've only changed the man. Instead of being the decision of the baptized, it becomes the decision of someone else.

Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

I have never seen a baptism that requires no participation from man, unless it be baptism by the Holy Spirit, which almost never involves water. Until I see an unwilling individual lifted into thin air and thrown into a body of water, to the sound of a voice from Heaven proclaiming his baptism, I must say I've never seen a baptism devoid of man's participation.

Monergism is God's work on our very nature. It is that nature which drives everything else about our Christianity.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Man's response is the product of God's monergistic action. His baptism is a direct result of his response. If the person's response is taken out of the picture, then you're baptizing a baby of unknown destiny. It would be similar to forcibly spraying down a crowd of strangers with a fire hose and calling it a baptism. In both cases a response from the affected individual is unnecessary. The end result is assumed to be a monergistic act of God.

However, if you think that the believer's baptism is an attempt to make salvation a synergistic work, an act of man, then you've trapped yourself in your own argument. The parents of the baby have chosen the baptism instead of the baby. It's still an act of man. You've only changed the man. Instead of being the decision of the baptized, it becomes the decision of someone else.

I have never seen a baptism that requires no participation from man, unless it be baptism by the Holy Spirit, which almost never involves water. Until I see an unwilling individual lifted into thin air and thrown into a body of water, to the sound of a voice from Heaven proclaiming his baptism, I must say I've never seen a baptism devoid of man's participation.

Monergism is God's work on our very nature. It is that nature which drives everything else about our Christianity.

Excellent response brother, and I am still processing it. I think you hammered an important point about the "baptism by the Holy Spirit", and this is a fitting caption for the work of God in monergistic regeneration.

 

[Jonaitis]

Man's response is the product of God's monergistic action. His baptism is a direct result of his response. If the person's response is taken out of the picture, then you're baptizing a baby of unknown destiny. It would be similar to forcibly spraying down a crowd of strangers with a fire hose and calling it a baptism. In both cases a response from the affected individual is unnecessary. The end result is assumed to be a monergistic act of God.

However, if you think that the believer's baptism is an attempt to make salvation a synergistic work, an act of man, then you've trapped yourself in your own argument. The parents of the baby have chosen the baptism instead of the baby. It's still an act of man. You've only changed the man. Instead of being the decision of the baptized, it becomes the decision of someone else.



I have never seen a baptism that requires no participation from man, unless it be baptism by the Holy Spirit, which almost never involves water. Until I see an unwilling individual lifted into thin air and thrown into a body of water, to the sound of a voice from Heaven proclaiming his baptism, I must say I've never seen a baptism devoid of man's participation.

Monergism is God's work on our very nature. It is that nature which drives everything else about our Christianity.

Those are some really good points, actually.

 

[Dave L]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

But scripture does not directly support this.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I've been baptized but I am not Catholic, if I were to become Catholic would my baptism be accepted or would I require a Catholic baptism?

If you have a baptismal certificate, odds are the Church would accept it.

If not, they’d do a conditional baptism for you. I was given a conditional baptism when I was welcomed into the Church.

 

[Chris V++]

I was baptized as an infant. I m not so sure that the sprinkling of water on my head at that time really qualifies as biblical baptism. (No full immersion, no repentance) I was baptized as a young adult not long after I had my conversion experience. The term 'born again' best describes that experience for me. Regeneration works too I suppose. But I guess I committed sacrilege if I m understanding the point of this thread.

 

[Danthemailman]

Not really though. Baptism now saves you.

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not as a removal of dirt from the body (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

We could paraphrase Peter's statement by saying, "Baptism now saves you--not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents." By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.

So in 1 Peter 3:21, it's not the mechanical act of being water baptized itself that saves us, but the "appeal-to-God-for-a-good-conscience". Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVINGof his household). NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.

 

[Danthemailman]

Where did you get this from?

Jesus said..."He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
Is belief as unnecessary as baptism in your thesis on regeneration?

He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.

*The omission of baptism with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on BELIEF. NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

*If water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

 

[rockytopva]

I have been baptized multiple times, as an infant Catholic (if my dad told me right), in a baptistery Baptist, and in a river Pentecostal Holiness. I have no intentions of getting baptized a fourth time. I do not regret having been baptized three times, and if someone told me it was unnecessary I would have to agree, but still do not regret the decisions.

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

I believe the term one Baptism refers to the fact that there is only one necessary baptism. I got baptized the third time as a teenager. I did this mainly because I had always wanted to be baptized in the river like the Lord Jesus and in methods like John the Baptist would have done it in his day. It was important to me at the time that I got baptized right and a river baptism gave me that feeling. I also had it in my head that if you switched churches that you had to be baptized properly into their congregation.

I don’t believe there are three baptisms, I believe there are many methods of that one baptism, and that each congregation may baptize differently, in which I do not call any of the methods wrong. It was important for at the time, though, to be fully submerged in a river, and by what I would call an old fashion minister.

We have a waterway nearby called the Little River and it flows through Floyd County, Virginia. There was at one time a backslidden preachers son who was partying with friends near this location. As they drunk their liquor they decided it would be fun to have a baptism.It was not too long after that this preachers son was fishing along a stretch near this location and a terrible storm arose and swept him to his death. Everyone of those friends recalled with fear the baptism they had not too earlier..

I believe that preachers son was baptizing correctly, the problem was he wasn’t doing it with reverence, and paid a terrible price for such a deed. I believe there is one baptism and many ways to perform that one baptism.

 

[rockytopva]

The Apostle Paul downplaying baptism...

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 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 1:12-17

 

[FenderTL5]

*If water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

How many times does God have to tell you something before it becomes truth?

 

[Danthemailman]

How many times does God have to tell you something before it becomes truth?

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? NO) does not believe is condemned already, because (he has not been water baptized? NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[FenderTL5]

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? NO) does not believe is condemned already, because (he has not been water baptized? NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So your assertion is that the previously mentioned verse was a lie?

 

[FireDragon76]

I was baptized as an infant. I m not so sure that the sprinkling of water on my head at that time really qualifies as biblical baptism. (No full immersion, no repentance) I was baptized as a young adult not long after I had my conversion experience. The term 'born again' best describes that experience for me. Regeneration works too I suppose. But I guess I committed sacrilege if I m understanding the point of this thread.

I was baptized only once at age 2 1/2. Once as a teen I worried that wasn't good enough but I had a Methodist minister set me straight.

 

[Danthemailman]

So your assertion is that the previously mentioned verse was a lie?

I never said that verse is a lie. God does not lie. I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. Otherwise you end up with contradictions in God’s word.

 

[FireDragon76]

I was.

I can't remember a time in my childhood when I went from "unbeliever" to "believer". It simply doesn't work that way as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Danthemailman]

I can't remember a time in my childhood when I went from "unbeliever" to "believer". It simply doesn't work that way as far as I'm concerned.

I can remember exactly when I went from unbeliever to believer, but I was already an adult. I can even remember the month, day and year it happened.

 

[FenderTL5]

I never said that verse is a lie. God does not lie. I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. Otherwise you end up with contradictions in God’s word.

No, what you are doing is math. 2>1.
Maybe it's not one or the other but both.

 

[Danthemailman]

No, what you are doing is math. 2>1. Maybe it's not one or the other but both.

That’s your opinion, but like I said, I am simply harmonizing scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can remember exactly when I went from unbeliever to believer, but I was already an adult. I can even remember the month, day and year it happened.

When I was about 13 I became more interested in religious questions, and for some that might be a "conversion", but the way I understand it now, no it wasn't. Because I can look back and I know that I was aware of God's presence even in my childhood.

The funny thing is that much of evangelical pop religion in the US gave me a completely unrealistic idea of what that is about. The unyielding, authoritarian figure that they present isn't the God I experienced. When I was in my teens, I was literally worshipping a bugaboo of my own creation, I was a slave to teenage fears and insecurities.