Baptism question???

[jad123]

How necessary is baptism to our salvation as christians? Is it a requirement or just a sacrament that gives us grace from God?

God bless,

Lucas

Although various Gnostic leaders had diverse beliefs, a common teaching was that converts would be saved through knowledge. They cannot be reborn or regenerated through water baptism. One of the most respected of the Church Fathers, Irenaeus (circa 130? - circa 200? CE), condemned the Gnostics as heretics. He wrote: "And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith...For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins"

Some Gnostic beliefs about baptism live on today among Evangelical and other conservative Protestant faith groups. They teach that baptism is a public acknowledgement of having been earlier saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The rite of baptism has no saving, regenerative power by itself.
The early church taught the necessity of Baptism.

So keep this simple:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved “ (Mark 16:16)

God will save whom He pleases but has left us instructions.

 

[KEPLER]

I'm not so sure Luther was as arrogant as Kepler is. Kepler needs a large dose of humility.

And just think: I've actually toned it down recently!

 

[Iollain]

Oh....we love you anyways.

 

[Asinner]

I'm not so sure Luther was as arrogant as Kepler is. Kepler needs a large dose of humility.

Well, I certainly need a large dose. Lord have mercy . . .

God Bless

 

[KEPLER]

I'll ask you the same question which Lionlamb was unwilling/unable to answer: WHY -- in Ephesians 5:25-7 -- does Paul even mention "WATER" if he is NOT talking about water baptism? [KEPLER]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ezekiel 16:8-10 (New International Version)

8 " 'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. 9 " 'I bathed [a] you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. 10 I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments.

Even though this is a symbolic passage, it teaches that God first enters into covenant with, then symbolically washes and dresses His people.

I know of no Bible scholars that maintain that (Eph.5:26) is referring to anything other than water baptism. Even when I was in the CofC I understood that the water had no power and that it was a symbolic burial. We in the CofC never taught that this burial in water was actual bathing or washing. We taught that the water symbolized the earth that we are buried in just like Christ was. We never taught that a person should bathe or wash themselves in the baptistry. Nor can I think of any other church that does.

"....with the washing of water by the word." (Eph.5:26)
It is the word that has done the cleansing, not the water: "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (Jn.15:3)
"Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth." (Jn.17:17)

Therefore, the water of baptism is ceremonial and symbolic and is not the essential necessary to salvation.

Stinker,

First of all, I am not arguing the CoC position here. In fact, I am arguing the exact opposite of the CoC position. If it sounds to you like the arguments are the same, that's because you're still thinking of baptism as man's action. All analogies fall apart, but I'll try this one... You are thinking of baptism as "reporting for duty". The Biblical picture of baptism is more like showing up for an innocculation. You show up, but somebody else is doing the work.

In an earlier post, I explicitly denied that the water (in and of itself) does anything. I said it is not "mechanistic", nor is it magic, nor does baptism work (to use a $20 term which I am accused of using too often) ex opere operato. I agree with you 100% that it is the WORD which is doing the cleansing. But Scripture is clear that the Word operates through the water.

God didn't need to speak to His people through a burning bush, but He chose to. God didn't need to heal His people through a serpent raised up on a staff, but He chose to. God didn't need to have the Jews build an Ark for Him to be present with His people, but He chose to. God doesn't need to cleanse, sanctify, bury, create new hearts and raise us to new life through water, but He chooses to.

It was not the bush that spoke, but God.
It was not the serpent that healed, but God.
The Ark itself was not God; rather God was present in the Ark.
It is not the Water that cleanses, but God.

Would Moses have said to himself, "God is God. He doesn't need to be speaking to me through a bush, so I'm going to ignore the bush and just talk to God as if He's floating around in the air somewhere..."

AHA! Yes, Moses did say something like this, didn't he? God told Moses to SPEAK to the Rock, and instead, Moses thwacked it twice with a stick. And God punished him for it.

Rest assured, I agree that it is the Holy Spirit at work, and nothing inherent in the water.

Paul says that Christ cleanses His people by the "washing of water with the Word". Now we know that Paul is NOT concerned with an EXTERNAL cleansing (as Peter says, "not by a removal of dirt from the body") but in INTERNAL cleansing. So Paul, full-well KNOWING that the event of Baptism is a Spiritual event, nevertheless demands a TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL element: water.

WHY???

Why does GOD say "by water with the word" if in fact the water is of no importance??? Shall we, like Moses, follow only part of His instructions?

Kepler

 

[Borealis]

Thanks for the birthday wishes, Angie.
By the way, I've already been baptized, about 7 yrs ago now. Though, I am considering getting rebaptized because I didnt quite understand it back then.
I agree that baptizism is being obedient to God and thats very important.

God bless,

Lucas

Wait a minute...you were already baptized? Then why would you think you need to be re-baptized? ONE baptism, remember? Baptism is NOT just a symbolic gesture, it's a very serious command from God. Baptism cleanses us from our sins...once. After that, all you're doing is getting wet. It borders on blasphemy to say that your baptism wasn't good enough the first time.

 

[KEPLER]

Wait a minute...you were already baptized? Then why would you think you need to be re-baptized? ONE baptism, remember? Baptism is NOT just a symbolic gesture, it's a very serious command from God. Baptism cleanses us from our sins...once. After that, all you're doing is getting wet. It borders on blasphemy to say that your baptism wasn't good enough the first time.

I think Lucas's OP was an abstract question. He wasn't referring to himself. He has never said anything about he himself wanting to be baptized.

K

 

[Borealis]

I think Lucas's OP was an abstract question. He wasn't referring to himself. He has never said anything about he himself wanting to be baptized.

K

He did in the post I quoted.

 

[Loukuss]

And just think: I've actually toned it down recently!

Brother, if you're actually trying to tone things down, I seriously applaude your efforts. It seems that this harsh attitude is a problem with you. I pray (honestly pray) that you'll find the strength to rid yourself of it.
You have good things to say, Kepler, its just so hard to hear it when all I see is the bad attitude.

God bless,

Lucas

 

[Loukuss]

Wait a minute...you were already baptized? Then why would you think you need to be re-baptized? ONE baptism, remember? Baptism is NOT just a symbolic gesture, it's a very serious command from God. Baptism cleanses us from our sins...once. After that, all you're doing is getting wet. It borders on blasphemy to say that your baptism wasn't good enough the first time.

Borealis,

This is something I just started thinking about recently, the whole being rebaptized thing. The reason why I feel the need to do it again is because I didnt really understand what I was doing when I was baptized the first time. I understood that it was something christians were supposed to do, but nothing more. After being a christian now for 7 years and having read much about it, I feel that I understand completly now what baptism is all about.

Do you really think that I shouldnt get it done again? If you dont think I should, may I ask why? Is there scripture that speaks against such a thing?

God bless,

Lucas

 

[Loukuss]

I think Lucas's OP was an abstract question. He wasn't referring to himself. He has never said anything about he himself wanting to be baptized.

K

My OP was an abstract, but something that has been also weighing on my mind. I'm not sure if I want to be baptized again or not. Still mulling it over...

God bless,

Lucas

 

[KEPLER]

He did in the post I quoted.

DOH!!!



***Kepler looks for a tissue to clean his glasses***

 

[Melethiel]

Borealis,

This is something I just started thinking about recently, the whole being rebaptized thing. The reason why I feel the need to do it again is because I didnt really understand what I was doing when I was baptized the first time. I understood that it was something christians were supposed to do, but nothing more. After being a christian now for 7 years and having read much about it, I feel that I understand completly now what baptism is all about.

Do you really think that I shouldnt get it done again? If you dont think I should, may I ask why? Is there scripture that speaks against such a thing?

God bless,

Lucas

It is because the idea of "I didn't understand it the first time" undermines the fact that it is God's work, not ours. I'm sure that God knew perfectly well what he was doing. I was baptized when I was a few months old, does that make my baptism invalid? Remember, we confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

 

[Loukuss]

It is because the idea of "I didn't understand it the first time" undermines the fact that it is God's work, not ours. I'm sure that God knew perfectly well what he was doing.

I understand what you are saying, and I can agree to some extent. However, I believe that God's gift of baptism is to those that have their hearts in the right place. God can give lots of gifts to us, but if we arent right with Him in our hearts, what good will that do us?
I dont think its undermining God's work at all, and I dont think we are strong enough to ever do so.

I was baptized when I was a few months old, does that make my baptism invalid?

I dont feel that infant baptism is valid, but that's my belief. I feel that a baby cannot make a commitment to God. Once we reach the age of accountablility, when we know what we are going through baptism for -to be united with Jesus on the cross- then is the time to partake with this sacrament.
I could be wrong about this, and I am willing to hear other pov's, so let me know what you think.

 

[Borealis]

Borealis,

This is something I just started thinking about recently, the whole being rebaptized thing. The reason why I feel the need to do it again is because I didnt really understand what I was doing when I was baptized the first time. I understood that it was something christians were supposed to do, but nothing more. After being a christian now for 7 years and having read much about it, I feel that I understand completly now what baptism is all about.

Do you really think that I shouldnt get it done again? If you dont think I should, may I ask why? Is there scripture that speaks against such a thing?

God bless,

Lucas

Baptism isn't a symbol. No matter what people may claim, Scripture and two thousand years of Church history make it very clear that Baptism is not, never has been, and never will be, a mere symbolic gesture of belief. Baptism is a literal cleansing of our souls, done by God. If you get rebaptized you're basically telling God He didn't do a good enough job the first time.

I posted scripture and ECF references to the salvific effects of Baptism and its necessity in post #37 of this thread.

There's a reason that Catholics have the sacrament of Confirmation. That's what you're talking about doing when you say you need to 'accept Jesus' before you're 'really' a Christian (you're still Christian before; my son, who's 10, hasn't been confirmed yet. He's most definitely a Christian).

 

[theq88]

very very true i was going through the same dilema a while ago and after thinking about for several months i decided on what i had read in the bible that i shouldnt get rebaptized , even if i didnt understand it the 1st time it is all the will of god , and that i belive is all that matters.

 

[Iollain]

Stinker,

First of all, I am not arguing the CoC position here. In fact, I am arguing the exact opposite of the CoC position. If it sounds to you like the arguments are the same, that's because you're still thinking of baptism as man's action. All analogies fall apart, but I'll try this one... You are thinking of baptism as "reporting for duty". The Biblical picture of baptism is more like showing up for an innocculation. You show up, but somebody else is doing the work.

In an earlier post, I explicitly denied that the water (in and of itself) does anything. I said it is not "mechanistic", nor is it magic, nor does baptism work (to use a $20 term which I am accused of using too often) ex opere operato. I agree with you 100% that it is the WORD which is doing the cleansing. But Scripture is clear that the Word operates through the water.

God didn't need to speak to His people through a burning bush, but He chose to. God didn't need to heal His people through a serpent raised up on a staff, but He chose to. God didn't need to have the Jews build an Ark for Him to be present with His people, but He chose to. God doesn't need to cleanse, sanctify, bury, create new hearts and raise us to new life through water, but He chooses to.

It was not the bush that spoke, but God.
It was not the serpent that healed, but God.
The Ark itself was not God; rather God was present in the Ark.
It is not the Water that cleanses, but God.

Would Moses have said to himself, "God is God. He doesn't need to be speaking to me through a bush, so I'm going to ignore the bush and just talk to God as if He's floating around in the air somewhere..."

AHA! Yes, Moses did say something like this, didn't he? God told Moses to SPEAK to the Rock, and instead, Moses thwacked it twice with a stick. And God punished him for it.

Rest assured, I agree that it is the Holy Spirit at work, and nothing inherent in the water.

Paul says that Christ cleanses His people by the "washing of water with the Word". Now we know that Paul is NOT concerned with an EXTERNAL cleansing (as Peter says, "not by a removal of dirt from the body") but in INTERNAL cleansing. So Paul, full-well KNOWING that the event of Baptism is a Spiritual event, nevertheless demands a TANGIBLE, PHYSICAL element: water.

WHY???

Why does GOD say "by water with the word" if in fact the water is of no importance??? Shall we, like Moses, follow only part of His instructions?

Kepler

If this is an internal cleansing and the indewelling of the Spirit happen at Baptism, how come i see no difference in the lives of baptised as a babe and baptised later in life? I don't see the Spirit working in people that are baptised as babes any more than those who are not, in the people that attend churches. I just cannot picture this.

 

[KEPLER]

I dont feel that infant baptism is valid, but that's my belief. I feel that a baby cannot make a commitment to God. Once we reach the age of accountablility, when we know what we are going through baptism for -to be united with Jesus on the cross- then is the time to partake with this sacrament.
I could be wrong about this, and I am willing to hear other pov's, so let me know what you think.

1) Thinking that a baby needs to make a "commitment to God" presupposes that Baptism is our action. It is not.

2) Please cite Scripture which defines this "age of accountability".

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[KEPLER]

If this is an internal cleansing and the indewelling of the Spirit happen at Baptism, how come i see no difference in the lives of baptised as a babe and baptised later in life? I don't see the Spirit working in people that are baptised as babes any more than those who are not, in the people that attend churches. I just cannot picture this.

1) Who says it's your job to see this difference?
2) What should this difference be?
3) Are you suggesting that there has never been the case of an adult who was baptised but did not show evidence (whatever that is)of a "difference".
4) Your objection presupposes that Baptism is "mechanistic" or "magic". It is not. It both requires and gives faith to the adult baptisand, and gives and nurtures faith in the child baptisand. This does not mean that as the child grows, she is incapable of walking away from the faith given to her.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Lucas,

See the Q&A on the UMC website.

Furthermore the Apostle Paul writes:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NIV)

Notice that Paul does not state that we are saved through faith, works, baptism, sacraments, etc. We are simply saved by grace through our faith in Jesus

I hope that helps!

DIANE