The Baptist View of Baptism Destroys the Meaning of Baptism

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:

The thief on the Cross was under the Old Testament Law and not under grace in the New Testament as Christ had not yet died or ascended on Sunday to sprinkle his blood on the Altar in heaven as a blood offering for sin.

When the Lord told the Thief he would be with him today in Paradise he was speaking of the grave/Sheol/hell, more specifically the abode of the Pious souls in Hades/hell. Because he did not first ascend to heaven but first descended into the lower parts of the earth(Ephesians 4:9) to preach to the spirits in prison as Peter tells us(1 Peter 3:18-19). It was not until Sunday that he ascended into heaven as he told Mary not to touch him because he had not yet ascended(John 20:17).

The thief's faith in the Lord saved him(Hebrews 11:6,13,39) as it did so many others who were under the Mosaic law(Hebrews 11), these had faith but had not yet received the promise of faith in Christ being kept under the law(Galatians 3:23; Romans 4:5-9). Until Christ's death,Resurrection, and ascension with the offering of his blood for man's sins no man had received the promise of faith, none were yet under grace.

The thief on the Cross is just one more example of faith in God saving a man under the mosaic law.

Click to expand...

There has only ever been one Gospel. Nobody was saved "under the law", but by Grace, through the substitution of Christ on their behalf. By grace, through faith, has always been the way. The law is not done away with now, and the law has always been powerless to save. The fact of it has been made plain, but was there from the beginning. Redemption has always been the plan, even for Adam.

"Today" is not a reference to what day of week. After this life, there is no counting of days.

When God created, we are what he created --the Bride of Christ.

Your organization of events and periods confuses you. I am not saying there is nothing to them, but they do not define the Gospel, nor what God has done for us.

Mark Quayle said:

If I said that according to Scripture the person who believes is saved, would you disagree with me?

Click to expand...

Yes, in light of Jesus' words from Mark.

Then what if I say the person who believes and keeps himself from the world will be saved? It is not then the baptism, but the belief. When it later says the unbeliever is condemned, it doesn't cite the lack of baptism as a cause for condemnation.

Click to expand...

A person that CAN keep himself from the world has been baptized...as that is how the old man has been killed before rebirth. (Rom 6:3-6,7)
Unbelievers find no need to get baptized.

But it goes much farther than that. The cause-effect is not established in this verse, any more than simple coincidence. It may well be, (and I can show good reason to think), that belief is not what saves, but the regeneration by the Spirit according to the choice that God makes --not that we make; i.e. our choice does not save us/ we cannot save ourselves. The regeneration causes the faith, and the faith the belief --not the other way around. (I parse it thus for the purpose of showing who does what. I don't actually differentiate that way between faith and belief, unless, like here, I do it to show OUR act, or decision, to believe is not what saves us.)

Click to expand...

You are splitting hairs.
How can regeneration cause faith if you don't believe in regeneration? Or if you have never even heard of regeneration?
It is written..."
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom 10:14-17)
I see no mention of regeneration having already happened here.

But wait, there's more! The thief on the cross was never given the opportunity to be baptised, yet he was promised paradise.

Click to expand...

The Lord had power on earth to forgive sins...in the OT.
The thief's experience mirrors ours in water baptism...into Christ and into His death burial, and resurrection. (Rom 6:3-6)

But wait, don't answer yet!
Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts. It seems it may have been added to the originals.

Click to expand...

"Many"...but in "some"?
How convenient for those without faith in words ascribed to the Savior.
Got a plausible excuse for someone to add it surreptitiously?
Not a lot of money to be made by baptizing folks.
Was Acts 2:38 in the "oldest manuscripts"?
They were the first words spoken by Peter to the Jew's whose hearts had been pricked on the day of Pentecost.
"Turn from sin.
Get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins
Do this and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
It worked for me.

Ecclesiastian said:

I agree, honestly. I like that Baptists practice immersion, which mirrors Christ's baptism, but I agree that we've forgotten what Baptism stands for. I don't think it's a problem with Baptists by virtue of being Baptists, there are some who believe in baptismal regeneration, but not many. I think it's an issue that requires reform. I was baptized in a Baptist church, but I went into that baptism with faith that a regeneration would take place, and I believe it did.

Click to expand...

I was regenerated through baptism in a Presbyterianish church. Later on in life, I was baptized as a believer in a Baptist church.

Mark Quayle said:

There has only ever been one Gospel. Nobody was saved "under the law", but by Grace, through the substitution of Christ on their behalf. By grace, through faith, has always been the way. The law is not done away with now, and the law has always been powerless to save. The fact of it has been made plain, but was there from the beginning. Redemption has always been the plan, even for Adam.

"Today" is not a reference to what day of week. After this life, there is no counting of days.

When God created, we are what he created --the Bride of Christ.

Your organization of events and periods confuses you. I am not saying there is nothing to them, but they do not define the Gospel, nor what God has done for us.

Click to expand...

Under the Old Testament they had not received the promise of faith in Christ(to live by faith) because Christ had not yet come to die for them on the cross, but their faith and works gave account of their righteousness(Abraham, David, Solomon, Etc) and they were saved by it.

The law of Moses is done away, we are now under the law of liberty, faith, and spirit in Christ.

Yes it is, Christ said
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
and that exact day is when he went to paradise in sheol. It is plain to see brother that he was referring to the abode in sheol for the pious souls and not the Paradise in heaven.

It is not my organization of events brother, I simply read the order of events directly from scripture without any addition from myself. Christ died on Friday and rose and ascended on Sunday to sprinkle his blood on the Altar in heaven. He did not first ascend but descended into the lower parts of the earth in sheol. This is the truth written in God's word and every part of scripture is profitable for instruction.

In my experience, Baptists tend to be 1st generation believers, fundamentally in error in many areas, not only in the baptism ritual. And it's a not only a misunderstanding of monergism, but also a misunderstanding about God himself, his sovereignty, his character, and his commandments and expectation.

"That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged." (Deu. 6:2)

Water baptism (as opposed to baptism by Holy Spirit and by fire, Mt. 3:11) is just one area, and the baptism ritual itself is much older, deeper, and ongoing than baptists and dispensationalists realise.

For elaboration see, BAPTISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Quote: "Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist ("Ant." xviii. 5, § 2): "The washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." John symbolized the call to repentance by Baptism in the Jordan (Matt. iii. 6 and parallel passages); and the same measure for attaining to holiness was employed by the Essenes, whose ways of life John also observed in all other respects. Josephus says of his instructor Banus, an Essene, that he "bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day" ("Vita," § 2), and that the same practise was observed by all the Essenes ("B. J." ii. 8, § 5)." (para. 2)

And quote: "The Baptism of the proselyte has for its purpose his cleansing from the impurity of idolatry, and the restoration to the purity of a new-born man. This may be learned from the Talmud (Soṭah 12b) in regard to Pharaoh's daughter, whose bathing in the Nile is explained by Simon b. Yoḥai to have been for that purpose. The bathing in the water is to constitute a rebirth, wherefore "the ger is like a child just born" (Yeb. 48b); and he must bathe "in the name of God"—"leshem shamayim"—that is, assume the yoke of Gcd's kingdom imposed upon him by the one who leads him to Baptism ("maṭbil"), or else he is not admitted into Judaism (Gerim. vii. 8). For this very reason the Israelites before the acceptance of the Law had, according to Philo on the Decalogue ("De Decalogo," ii., xi.), as well as according to rabbinical tradition, to undergo the rite of baptismal purification (compare I Cor. x. 2, "They were baptized unto Moses [the Law] in the clouds and in the sea")." (para. 8)

Certain groups emphasise certain aspects of the above. Error occurs in either groups in dismissal and or rejection of who/what God has ordained.

philadelphos said:

In my experience, Baptists tend to be 1st generation believers, fundamentally in error in many areas, not only in the baptism ritual. And it's a not only a misunderstanding of monergism, but also a misunderstanding about God himself, his sovereignty, his character, and his commandments and expectation.

"That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged." (Deu. 6:2)

Water baptism (as opposed to baptism by Holy Spirit and by fire, Mt. 3:11) is just one area, and the baptism ritual itself is much older, deeper, and ongoing than baptists and dispensationalists realise.

For elaboration see, BAPTISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Quote: "Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist ("Ant." xviii. 5, § 2): "The washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." John symbolized the call to repentance by Baptism in the Jordan (Matt. iii. 6 and parallel passages); and the same measure for attaining to holiness was employed by the Essenes, whose ways of life John also observed in all other respects. Josephus says of his instructor Banus, an Essene, that he "bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day" ("Vita," § 2), and that the same practise was observed by all the Essenes ("B. J." ii. 8, § 5)." (para. 2)

And quote: "The Baptism of the proselyte has for its purpose his cleansing from the impurity of idolatry, and the restoration to the purity of a new-born man. This may be learned from the Talmud (Soṭah 12b) in regard to Pharaoh's daughter, whose bathing in the Nile is explained by Simon b. Yoḥai to have been for that purpose. The bathing in the water is to constitute a rebirth, wherefore "the ger is like a child just born" (Yeb. 48b); and he must bathe "in the name of God"—"leshem shamayim"—that is, assume the yoke of Gcd's kingdom imposed upon him by the one who leads him to Baptism ("maṭbil"), or else he is not admitted into Judaism (Gerim. vii. 8). For this very reason the Israelites before the acceptance of the Law had, according to Philo on the Decalogue ("De Decalogo," ii., xi.), as well as according to rabbinical tradition, to undergo the rite of baptismal purification (compare I Cor. x. 2, "They were baptized unto Moses [the Law] in the clouds and in the sea")." (para. 8)

Certain groups emphasise certain aspects of the above. Error occurs in either groups in dismissal and or rejection of who/what God has ordained.

Click to expand...

I am afraid that you are incorrect. Historic Baptist Covenentalism is at opposite poles from Presbyterian Covenentalism. We do not carry the unbiblical view that baptism replaces circumcision. It is simply a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Rom.6.

If you want to find out about the difference read the short but concise book, "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault. It can be downloaded on Kindle or any other e-reader.

twin1954 said:

I am afraid that you are incorrect. Historic Baptist Covenentalism is at opposite poles from Presbyterian Covenentalism. We do not carry the unbiblical view that baptism replaces circumcision. It is simply a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Rom.6.

If you want to find out about the difference read the short but concise book, "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault. It can be downloaded on Kindle or any other e-reader.

Click to expand...

Shalom,

Thank you for your kind reply. - Please elaborate, with examples if possible. Quotes from Denault would be helpful.

Blessings

philadelphos said:

Shalom,

Thank you for your kind reply. - Please elaborate, with examples if possible. Quotes from Denault would be helpful.

Blessings

Click to expand...

Your reply is greatly appreciated. Because of you I have begun to again read his paper.

One of the main differences is our view of the covenant of works made with Adam. We Hold to the eternal covenant of grace as the final and eternal New Testament. More later as I accamate myself with the differences. Thanks for your patience. Twin

Tree of Life said:

So the baptists deny the existence of the covenant of works? This is news to me.

Click to expand...

We do not at all but see the covenant as being made with Adam. The covenant on Sinai was simply a reiteration of the covenant made with Adam, iirc.

Tree of Life said:

Presbyterians agree that the covenant of works was made with Adam. There is dispute about the nature of the covenant on Sinai. Where do you see the difference?

Click to expand...

We do not see the covenant of grace in two administrations but one covenant progressively revealed. The Covenant of works on Sinai was simply a reiteration of the one made with Adam. There was no salvation in it. The Eternal Covenant of Grace is fully realized in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant does not carry over but is two different covenants. The New Covenant is progressively revealed in the Old.

Tree of Life said:

Presbyterian Covenant Theology does not really disagree with this. I assume by "Old Covenant" you are referring to the law of Moses. Presbyterians see one covenant of grace which spans both the New and Old Testament. It is progressively revealed. The covenant of grace began with the first promise of the gospel in Genesis 3:17. Interestingly, circumcision was given to Abraham well before the law of Moses.

Click to expand...

Presbyterian Covenant theology sees the one covenant of grace under two administrations. This is why they believe that baptism replaces circumcision and baptize infants. They arrive at this view by necessary consequence.

Baptists do not hold the view of one covenant under two administrations. We believe that the one covenant of grace is progressively revealed in the Old. The New Covenant is the covenant of grace not just a different administration of it.

Double post. Sorry.

Tree of Life said:

I agree that the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31 is the covenant of grace. But this covenant of grace began in Genesis 3:17 and includes the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations.

Click to expand...

That would be where we differ.

The Covenant of Grace began between the three persons of the Godhead before the foundation of the world.