Baptism Questions

[AnthonyB]

Just curious about the posters on this board....

Which of the following do people feel best descibes their position on baptism....

1) Symbolic only
2) Part of Santification but not part of justification.
3) Normative part of a faithful expression of faith, should be normally part of justification process
4) Point at which people enter covenant (not saved until baptized)
5) Must know what your doing it for and be baptized to be saved.

I feel that I'm caught in the middle. (Option 3 is my choice)

I want to affirm baptism as part of a normal faithful response. That it is part of how God requested we come to him. That it is not something we place in the category of post salvation obedience.

Yet I'm equally uncomfortable saying that people aren't saved until they are dunked. Since it is faith from first to last that saves us, baptism was gifted to us to express our faith but I would not want to damn other disciples just because they got their ideas on baptism wrong.

 

[heapshake]

Right now I'm pretty much in the same boat as you although I might lean to 4. I think God's grace will cover those who have "misunderstandings" about baptism. Have you read Jay Guin's Born of Water? It is on my list of stuff to read and I hope it will help answer questions I have. If you're interested it is available for free on his website One in Jesus.

 

[Thedictator]

We are not justified ( what is needed for justice) by baptism but by the Blood given of Jesus Christ. Baptism is how we are Santified ( set a part ) be wash of water.

 

[heapshake]

How do we become washed in Jesus' blood?

 

[Nienna_Lady_of_Tears]

I lean toward #2, as well as partially #5.

I grew up in a coC that emphasized baptism so much that people would be baptized and then never show up to church again. They thought that since they were baptized they were saved and that they didn't have to go to church or try the sanctification process.

I honestly see baptism as something that is required because Christ demanded it, but there are verses that leave out baptism. If it were a requirement for salvation wouldn't God have put it in every single verse about salvation?

A person can have faith in Christ but honestly I view it as growth to accept baptism. One can accept Christ as savior, but the baptism is where someone accepts his lordship. And oftentimes, people don't understand that concept right away, and they need to grow to accept it.

This is also a good way to distinguish those who are serious from those who are not, because if you baptize someone right away they may not realize it's to accept Christ's lordship over their lives.

Honestly, I believe the Church as a whole would do better if they had a minister talk to someone who wants to be baptized for a few weeks before the actual baptism. In that case, the person most likely believes that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, but they need to realize that Christ has to be the lord of their life. People who are baptized should know exactly what it means for their life before they are.


Just my 2 cents from someone who saw it done wrong and was turned off of the coC because of it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Just curious about the posters on this board....

Which of the following do people feel best descibes their position on baptism....

1) Symbolic only
2) Part of Santification but not part of justification.
3) Normative part of a faithful expression of faith, should be normally part of justification process
4) Point at which people enter covenant (not saved until baptized)
5) Must know what your doing it for and be baptized to be saved.

I feel that I'm caught in the middle. (Option 3 is my choice)

I want to affirm baptism as part of a normal faithful response. That it is part of how God requested we come to him. That it is not something we place in the category of post salvation obedience.

Yet I'm equally uncomfortable saying that people aren't saved until they are dunked. Since it is faith from first to last that saves us, baptism was gifted to us to express our faith but I would not want to damn other disciples just because they got their ideas on baptism wrong.

I think the only way to answer this question is with Scripture. A good place to start is in Romans 6:

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

It is in baptism where we are crucified with Christ (cf Gal 2:20 - "I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me...")

It is in baptism where we are buried with Christ (v. 4)
It is in baptism where we are raised with Christ (v. 5)
It is in baptism where we die to sin (vs. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11)

Is that symbolic? Perhaps, in a sense. But "symbolism" alone suggests partaking in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection aren't therefore somehow "substantive" - that nothing actually happens in baptism - which cannot be read in what Paul writes. Something indeed *does* happen.

The idea that baptism is "part of an expression of faith" is, well, a specious argument, holding no real meaning - particularly in light of Scripture and what it says about the topic.

Consider I Corinthians 1 where Paul admonishes the Corinthian church for their divisions - "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos," "I am of Peter...." etc. - they were identifying themselves with various individuals (much the same way we do with preachers/evangelists). What was Paul's argument to this? He argued that they all possessed ONE IDENTITY and one identity only.

11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul appeals to their baptism as the grounds for their common identity.

Again - Gal 2:20:

20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Paul's identity as a Christian was a function of his having been crucified with Christ. When did he receive this identity? At baptism.

 

[heapshake]

Would you agree or disagree with the statement

Even though baptism is not to be classed as a work of righteousness, still, since God has commanded it in connection with faith, a faith that will not lead one to be baptized is a vain faith.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Would you agree or disagree with the statement

Even though baptism is not to be classed as a work of righteousness, still, since God has commanded it in connection with faith, a faith that will not lead one to be baptized is a vain faith.
​

Unsure to whom this is directed, but since it follows my post I'll presume to be the first responder .

I don't believe baptism is a "work of righteousness" - a "work" one does so as to be deemed righteous, or a "work" one does because they are righteous. Many claim baptism is a "work" and therefore something 'bad' to be avoided.

God has indeeded commanded we be baptized (cf. Mark 16:16, Mt 28:18-20, Acts 2:38, etc.). When Jesus says "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (Mk 16:15f). I think Jesus was serious when He said that - He meant it.

Moreover, we have numerous examples of people's conversions in Acts which specifically include being baptized - so it's clear the first century church believed it was critical, as an act of obedience to the faith, the point at which Christian identity finds its definition (my earlier post).

Those whose faith is otherwise, who believe baptism is optional, something one can do if one chooses, or something perhaps necessary but which can be done at one's leisure (i.e. not 'seriously necessary'), I question. I've been studying this topic for nearly 30 years now and have found simply no support for any of these positions in the bible.

The process for becoming a Christian is [generally]: hearing the Word, which preceeds one's faith (Rom 10:17), believing the Word, confessing one's sins/sinfulness (Rom 10:9), repenting (Acts 2:38, Rom 10:21, etc. etc.), and in obedience to the Word, submitting to baptism (Mk 16:16, Acts 2, etc.), whereupon one receives both forgiveness of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit - and as Paul intimated, our identity in Christ (I Cor 1).

Not obeying the word (disobedience) is synonymous with unbelief (Heb 3:19).

If one's 'belief' leads them to disobedience; it is not belief. At the same time, we know of many who are ignorant of the command, who have been taught differently or incorrectly, whose lives are otherwise (we must assume) in line with Jesus' teachings. Is their faith unbelief? I don't know.

When Paul was at Ephesus, he encountered some disciples and in the course of conversing with them was prompted for some reason to ask them whether they'd received the Holy Spirit when they believed

"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."
4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19)

Clearly, they'd not been taught fully; and when Paul instructed them further, what did they do? They submitted to baptism.

One question I ask people who believe differently is whether they have the Holy Spirit or not. Most will say they do, but none are able to cite scripture explaining when they received the Spirit. Frankly, few can cite scripture explaining why they believe anything they do - most being doctrine others had told them, and not being versed in scripture themselves they take it as 'gospel.'

I can't judge - nor will I judge, another's heart before the Lord. Best I can do is point them to what I believe and why I believe it and let the Lord either have an impact or not.

 

[heapshake]

Unsure to whom this is directed, but since it follows my post I'll presume to be the first responder .

It wasn't directed at anyone specifically, but thanks for your answer. I guess I agree with your answer

If one's 'belief' leads them to disobedience; it is not belief. At the same time, we know of many who are ignorant of the command, who have been taught differently or incorrectly, whose lives are otherwise (we must assume) in line with Jesus' teachings. Is their faith unbelief? I don't know.

This is the area I have trouble with. I'm not sure if I should be spending my time trying to teach those who believe differently what I see as the truth or if I should be working with them to reach those who haven't placed their faith in Jesus.

 

[EdwinWillers]

It wasn't directed at anyone specifically, but thanks for your answer. I guess I agree with your answer

This is the area I have trouble with. I'm not sure if I should be spending my time trying to teach those who believe differently what I see as the truth or if I should be working with them to reach those who haven't placed their faith in Jesus.

Well, I'm 56; I've been a Christian since 1981 (I don't even want to count ); I've made probably every mistake one can make in regards to this matter, from trying to convert 'Christian' family, friends, coworkers to the 'truth about baptism' to denouncing those who didn't or wouldn't - to you name it...

One thing all that has done is drive me to the bible for answers - I've heard all the arguments against baptism, some more persuasive than others, and I've studied them all thoroughly. I believe what the bible says and I believe it even more firmly than I did nearly 30 years ago.

And for what it's worth - I *was* one of those who believed myself to be a Christian. Heck, I was even baptized in the service. When I was confronted with the truth and started to study the bible - something you'll find MOST professing believers know very little about, very little - I had to face the truth like never before. My life wasn't remotely in line with scripture, I'd no power whatsoever over sins in my life, and I never read the bible save a few psalms here or there.

Wanna know what the most difficult thing was that I had to face? Don't underestimate this at all - seriously - I had to face the denial of my "faith" in Christ. Ironically, I had to admit the fact that I wasn't a Christian, had never been a Christian, in order to become a Christian. I sweated over that BIG TIME. It scared me stiff to realize that to accept what I was coming to realize was the truth, that to accept that was to admit that I wasn't a Christian. I faced the need to deny my "faith" (which was no faith at all, but...) in order to become obedient to the [true] faith. As I said - don't EVER underestimate the difficulty of that - particularly when you feel a strong urge to condemn, or lambaste another for not believing the truth as you and I do. It's not trivial stuff.

After nearly 30 years of studying this, making mistake after mistake, turning many against me for telling them the truth in less than gracious ways, I've come to the conclusion that my job - and perhaps yours too - is to preach the gospel, to go - make disciples, baptizing them in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins that they might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. It's my goal to live the beatitudes (as I can ) and be a light to those around me. Plant, water, nurture, whatever - God will cause the growth.

Be part of a congregation that believes as you do, that when you teach people the gospel you can help them become part of a believing body that will support and supplant your teaching and help you disciple them.

In all things, pray; be gracious at all times, ready to defend what you believe, but sympathetic to those who've been improperly taught, who need to see the truth in their own way. Let God be your guide. Don't condemn; teach. Don't accuse; love. Don't attack, pray. Do unto them what you would have them do unto you were roles reversed.

 

[Apollos1]

Edwin -

Good stuff !

Just to share a thought, I sometimes like to put it this way...

Water baptism is the means selected by God through which man through faith appropriates the salvation offered to him by God's grace.

 

[ModestGirlsRock]

Edwin -

Good stuff !

Just to share a thought, I sometimes like to put it this way...

Water baptism is the means selected by God through which man through faith appropriates the salvation offered to him by God's grace.

^Well said!

To the original post:

From faith comes obedience...I've come to the conclusion that it's both 4 and 5 plus 1, but without the the "only" part. I believe the waters are where you enter that covenant with God, but if you don't know why you're being baptized or you don't truly have faith (For example, you're doing it b/c your brother did aka family tradition), you're just getting wet. I also think a person can fall from grace as a person may be the seed that falls between the cracks, grows up quickly but withers quickly underneath the sun.

I don't think a person can logically conclude that if something isn't mentioned in every single verse relating to a certain subject, it's not so important to follow. For example, there are many verses in the N.T that talk about sexual immorality, but homosexuality is only mentioned twice. Does that mean we should disregard not practicing homosexuality just because it's not mentioned in every verse related to sexual immorality? I hope not. I'm sorry, but unless I've misunderstood something, I think this particular mode of thought lacks logical consistency.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

I'm not really bright enough to understand much past.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[the breeze]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]INFANT BAPTISM[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]DOESN'T MAKE SENSE[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-2]X[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]TO AN OBSERVANT STUDENT[/FONT] and one who believes the Scriptures, infant baptism doesn’t make sense. The New Testament teaches that faith and repentance must precede and accompany baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:35-37; Acts 2:38). It teaches that baptism (immersion in water, Acts 8:38,39; Romans 6:4) is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16). An infant is eliminated as a "candidate" for baptism because infants are not capable of believing. Infants are eliminated as "candidates" for baptism inasmuch as they do not have the capacity to repent, not having the awareness nor guilt of sin to repent of (repentance is a change of heart, a change of mind). Consequently, in the light of these considerations, they are eliminated as proper subjects for baptism. Baptism is for the remission of sins. Infants are sinless, they are innocent, and there is no discernment of sin and consequently no guilt (and thus they are not accountable). So, how could an infant be baptized for the "remission of sins." There are none to be remitted. They belong to God until they come to that age of accountability. Do you remember what Jesus said? "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14). He also said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:4). [SIZE=-2]X[/SIZE] Infant baptism was introduced in a less enlightened age removed from the days of the early church by superstitious men who believed that through birth we inherit the guilt of the sin of Adam. Although an infant doesn’t have the capability (nor capacity) to believe and repent, nor the need to be baptized, these errant teachers thought baptism would somehow rectify the supposed, but nonexistent, problem. However, infants and little children are not accountable to God. They already belong to God, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven." The Scriptures say that Jesus would "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21), not Adam’s sin. Men were told to "repent…and be converted that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19), not Adam’s sin. Ezekiel 18:20 reads, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." To say that we inherited Adam’s sin would make our Lord a sinner since on the human side his genealogy goes all the way back to Adam (Luke 3:23-38). [SIZE=-2]X[/SIZE]

 

[johnatrym]

it is refreshing for a newcomer like me to hear noble and scriptural discourse on the subject of water baptism,thanx

 

[Yeshua Adonai]

I feel it is an obedience to the Lord Jesus. Be ye Baptized in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit. He says ..we do

 

[Phleboto]

Well, I'm 56; I've been a Christian since 1981 (I don't even want to count ); I've made probably every mistake one can make in regards to this matter, from trying to convert 'Christian' family, friends, coworkers to the 'truth about baptism' to denouncing those who didn't or wouldn't - to you name it...

One thing all that has done is drive me to the bible for answers - I've heard all the arguments against baptism, some more persuasive than others, and I've studied them all thoroughly. I believe what the bible says and I believe it even more firmly than I did nearly 30 years ago.

And for what it's worth - I *was* one of those who believed myself to be a Christian. Heck, I was even baptized in the service. When I was confronted with the truth and started to study the bible - something you'll find MOST professing believers know very little about, very little - I had to face the truth like never before. My life wasn't remotely in line with scripture, I'd no power whatsoever over sins in my life, and I never read the bible save a few psalms here or there.

Wanna know what the most difficult thing was that I had to face? Don't underestimate this at all - seriously - I had to face the denial of my "faith" in Christ. Ironically, I had to admit the fact that I wasn't a Christian, had never been a Christian, in order to become a Christian. I sweated over that BIG TIME. It scared me stiff to realize that to accept what I was coming to realize was the truth, that to accept that was to admit that I wasn't a Christian. I faced the need to deny my "faith" (which was no faith at all, but...) in order to become obedient to the [true] faith. As I said - don't EVER underestimate the difficulty of that - particularly when you feel a strong urge to condemn, or lambaste another for not believing the truth as you and I do. It's not trivial stuff.

After nearly 30 years of studying this, making mistake after mistake, turning many against me for telling them the truth in less than gracious ways, I've come to the conclusion that my job - and perhaps yours too - is to preach the gospel, to go - make disciples, baptizing them in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins that they might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. It's my goal to live the beatitudes (as I can ) and be a light to those around me. Plant, water, nurture, whatever - God will cause the growth.

Be part of a congregation that believes as you do, that when you teach people the gospel you can help them become part of a believing body that will support and supplant your teaching and help you disciple them.

In all things, pray; be gracious at all times, ready to defend what you believe, but sympathetic to those who've been improperly taught, who need to see the truth in their own way. Let God be your guide. Don't condemn; teach. Don't accuse; love. Don't attack, pray. Do unto them what you would have them do unto you were roles reversed.

Good stuff!

My favorite verses include Romans 6:1-6 and Galatians 2:20 - which I think complement and explain each other perfectly.

 

[Episaw]

Dunno if it is too late to say anything, but this is one of my favourite subjects because I believe that it is one of the most important parts of our salvation. I hasten to add that my background is Baptist/Brethren and 10 years in the restoration movement in the UK.

We are told in scripture that there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism. The fact that there is more than one baptism today shows how much we like to add to scripture to satisfy man's invention or denominational tradition.

The first reference to baptism in the NT church was on day one, the day of pentecost. After Peter had preached the disciples were asked by the listeners what they had to do. Please note they didn't ask if they had any suggestions.

Peter replied "repent and be baptised (fully wet) everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Note Peter did not say "repent and be baptised when it suits you or when you have made the grade." Repentance and baptism were both required for receiving the remission of sins and entrance into the Kingdom of God.

I personally believe that the true church will always baptise new converts by immersion when they repent. It is interesting to note that other religions of the time baptised new followers by immersion in water for one simple reason. Until this had happened you were not seen as genuine in your commitment to the religion.

Maybe the church in western civilisation is so weak because it make so much of the teaching of scripture an optional extra to be followed if it can be bothered.

One other thing I noticed is that no one in the NT church was baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. They were all baptised in the name of Jesus or the Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the church understood that when Jesus said to go and make disciples (not christians) baptising them in the name of the F,S and HS that the name was Jesus and that the F,S and HS were titles.

I also noticed that when we are told to do anything we are told to do it in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.