Baptism--Which way is the right way?

[Rechtgläubig]

I don't understand the reasoning behind baptizing infants.

​

​

1. Children are sinful.​

2. Baptism is a saving act of God not an act of obedience of men.​

3. Children can believe.​

4. Baptism replaced circumcision.​

5. Whole families were Baptized in the bible​

6. Children are a part of "all nations." (Matt 28:19)​

7. Church history shows that infant Baptism was common in the early Christian Church.​

 

[Yitzchak]

There are several types of baptisms performed and at different times of ones life. I as a Methodist was baptized as an infant using sprinkling. I am contemplating being rebaptized through full emersion. What are your thoughts on the different ways of baptism and is rebaptism necessary as an adult?

Without faith it is just water. People go swimming everyday in swimming pools and it is not baptism. It is our faith which makes the difference. Whether you exercise your faith conerning your infant baptism or towards an adult re-baptism. Romans chapter 14 talks about not judging each other and about not putting stumbling blocks in eachother's way over issues such as eating meats and drinking wine. It concludes with the statement "whatsoever is not of faith is sin".
Bottomline, my opinion. Both types of baptism can be valid. But each person must be persuaded in their own mind. It is not the water itself that has any special power. It is the faith behind the baptism that carries it's meaning.If you need to be baptised as an adult to be fully persuaded in your heart that it is a valid baptism then you should do so. Do whatever you do with a pure heart and a pure conscience.
There is always the danger that in our zeal to be fully obedient to the Lord in all areas that we can become like some of the pharisees of Jesus' time who erred by losing the spirit of the law and holding only the letter. We must remember the acts of worship we do hold their meaning because of our faith towards the One true God behind them.

 

[Yitzchak]

How in the world can someone have faith as an infant? I believe that faith is a choice that you make, and a very important one. I don't think an infant is capable of making a decision that is so important.

We have faith in the work that Christ did on the cross 2000 years ago even though we were not even born yet when it happened. Our current faith can be put in things accomplished in the past. If the baptism was indeed a christian baptism there is no reason why a person cannot look back upon that as valid.

 

[Crazy Liz]

catholics for centuries didnt baptize infants.

I would be interesting to see you support this. All the historical information I have seen shows the early church did baptize infants.

I haven't done my own historical study on this, but when I took my Patristic Theology course, one of the points I remember was that infant vs. adult baptism wasn't an issue in the early church. Both practices existed side-by-side. In his Confessions, Augustine ruminates on why his Christian mother didn't have him baptized as an infant.

Those of you who are making historical arguments should realize that you will find evidence of what the church did, but controversies over whether one or the other is wrong didn't arise until about the time of the Reformation. Before the Middle ages, both were common, with some regional variation and some personal choice on the part of the parents.

 

[Cathologetics]

Maybe Catholics are viewing baptism differently than I am. I see it as a symbol of your decision of faith. In that case, I don't understand the reasoning behind baptizing infants. However, I don't particularly see anything wrong with it either.

If you would like to know how Catholics view Baptism and why, ask over in OBOB. We see it as much much much more than just an outward expression of faith! You may not agree with how we see it, but then, you just might too!

 

[AVBunyan]

A little long but try it if you can:

If you want to pick one confusing doctrine today it is water baptism and yet it should be one of the simplest of doctrines. And yet more time has been spend on this subject than there ever should have been (just look at all the posts!!!). There are 2 schools of thought:

1. It is essential to salvation – don’t want to argue this – it is not…period! Seen all the verses, have had then quoted to me out of context for so long I just want to scream!

2. It is not essential to ones salvation but we are to do it because:

a. It is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection – sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase. You say, “It is an outward sign of an inward reality.” Really? Where did you get that? Chapter and verse? Sounds good but you can’t make a doctrine out of a catchy phrase.

b. It is the first step of obedience - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.

c. It proves or demonstrates one’s salvation - sounds good but there is no scripture to support this fine sounding phrase.

d. Many saints in the Bible baptized so we should – sounds good but many saints did things in the Bible that we don’t do anymore. We don’t sacrifice lambs, we don’t raise people from the dead, we don’t take vows, we don’t abstain from pork, etc. Yes, things change and I’m glad they do!!!

e. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded it in Matt. 28:19,20 – yes he did but also told you to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded and one of the things he commanded was to adhere to what the Pharisees taught and they taught the law - Matt. 23:3 – “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe.” They taught the law and I know you believe you are not to adhere to the Old Testament law (well some of you do). (Similar to “d.)

First summary – all that we have been taught and practice concerning baptism has been based upon tradition and making doctrines out of poor applications. Because of these errors we have people missing salvation by trusting in Acts 2:38, etc. and others trying to obey the “first step of obedience” and if they don’t they are made to fill like second class citizens by Baptist Churches.

What I am going to present I already know many of you may not believe because many just cannot give up their tradition that has been passed down for centuries. They have made a doctrine out of a tradition.

Now this is what I believe baptism was for in the Bible. I will only discuss the word baptism as it relates to water for just because you see the word baptize it doesn’t mean it is associated with water all the time. Now the Church of Christ can’t see that for all they see is water, water and more water every time the word shows up in any form. For example - look at I Cor. 10:2 and Col. 2:12 and try to find water baptism there.

The first time water baptism shows up is with John the Baptist. Now why did John baptize? Let’s let him tell us.

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Look at “therefore” – why is the “therefore” there? The issue was manifesting Christ to Israel. Christ was being manifesting to Israel for the first time. John the Baptist said (paraphrasing), “Here is your Messiah! Do you believe this” Ok, then get baptized.“ Why get baptized? To show that you believe Christ was Israel’s long awaited for Messiah. And along with that they were to show their repentance in regards to their rejection of God the Father in the Old Testament. Manifestation and repentance - It is that simple. And yet this simple doctrine meant for God’s dealing with Israel has turned into a monster.

Do you know why they continued to baptize during Acts? Because the Jews rejected Christ in the gospels and were getting a second chance in Acts. The Gentiles were in on it because they were getting in on Israel’s blessings at that time. Once Israel finally rejected the message in Acts 28 then there was no need to call everyone’s attention to Jesus being the Messiah for that plan was done away with and Paul was called out by God to reveal the body of Christ.

The issue of showing Christ being the Messiah is a non issue today for we have advanced revelation on the matter due to the New Testament being finally written down – plus God is not dealing with Israel right now (I know, a broken record) – So………..baptism is a non issue today. There is only one baptism and that is the one baptism of Ephesians 4 and that has nothing to do with water!

Again, if you start with Paul you will get it – you can’t start with John the Baptist and carry a practice meant for Israel all the way through the church age! You see how simple the scriptures are? You know, Christianity is full of a lot of “junk” today that has nothing to do with Bible Christianity. We are not Rome – we don’t need all of those outward ceremonies.

Conclusion – If you want to baptize then fine – I don’t panic over people making baptism a picture of salvation, etc. You make it essential to salvation and we will go to war over that. But to use it as a picture then I’m not going to make an issue out of it – that is between your church and God – I believe in local self-governing churches.


Also, it is highly possilbe that the baptims of the gospel times were washings and not immersions.


Wouldn’t it be so much easier to stick with Ephesians 4? Look at what a stumbling block this doctrine has caused. Look at how much money has been spent on baptismal fountains!!! Could you imagine a Baptist church not being able to count their “baptisms” to be able to send them to the Sword of the Lord! Just kidding. I am a Baptist so I can pick on my own thank you.


May God bless!

 

[Filia Mariae]

catholics for centuries didnt baptize infants.

It would be kind of you to refraim from making inflammatory and unsupported statements about Catholics in an area of the forum in which they cannot defend themselves.

 

[Crazy Liz]

AVB, you have not exhausted all the possibilities. The ones you mention may be the only ones conceivable to someone raised in a culture in which only words have real meaning and significance, and rituals must be verbally explained to be understood. Not all cultures and languages work that way. Some are actually closer to the opposite. I have heard it said that in Japan you are thought to be a very uncouth person if you have to come right out and say exactly what you mean, rather than taking the time and care to frame it in a metaphorical or non-verbal way. Of course, in America, we call it "passive-aggresive" to frame a message in a nonverbal or metaphorical way, rather than saying it directly.

I think this cultural difference is a big part of the reason many Americans would say it is "praying the sinner's prayer" or "giving testimony" that saves you, and baptism is just a picture of that. In other kinds of cultures, baptism saves you, and praying a verbal prayer or giving a verbal testimony is just the explanation for the uncouth.

Which is "real" and which is the illustration/explanation?

 

[Yitzchak]

AVB, you have not exhausted all the possibilities. The ones you mention may be the only ones conceivable to someone raised in a culture in which only words have real meaning and significance, and rituals must be verbally explained to be understood. Not all cultures and languages work that way. Some are actually closer to the opposite. I have heard it said that in Japan you are thought to be a very uncouth person if you have to come right out and say exactly what you mean, rather than taking the time and care to frame it in a metaphorical or non-verbal way. Of course, in America, we call it "passive-aggresive" to frame a message in a nonverbal or metaphorical way, rather than saying it directly.

I think this cultural difference is a big part of the reason many Americans would say it is "praying the sinner's prayer" or "giving testimony" that saves you, and baptism is just a picture of that. In other kinds of cultures, baptism saves you, and praying a verbal prayer or giving a verbal testimony is just the explanation for the uncouth.

Which is "real" and which is the illustration/explanation?

This is a very good point. This post really makes me think about how limited our perspective can be at times. It does seem to me that God choose to reveal Himself throughout history in stories and more round about ways. Parables being one prime example. There are times for outright explanations, however I have taken notice of the fact that the bible itself is not framed in the form of a doctrinal confession. rather it has lessons hiden within many different contexts.

 

[Phoebe]

It depends on what you believe baptism to be.

A work of man or a work of God?

 

[AVBunyan]

Crazy Liz and Yitzchak - thanks for your comments - just wondering:
What about John 1:31 and the purpose of baptism? If my interpretation of the text is correct doesn't that throw a monkey wrench in peoples' perception of the purpose of baptism today?

 

[Crazy Liz]

What about John 1:31 and the purpose of baptism?

I think John 1:23 is about the purpose of JB's ministry, not the purpose of baptism in general. "Baptism" is also practiced within Judaism. Whether it is exactly the same now as in the Second Temple period, I don't know for sure, but as I understand it in Orthodox Judaism, a man has to be baptized if he converts to Judaism as an adult. A man born of a Jewish mother and circumcized on the 8th day never needs to be baptized. This is why the Pharisees were so offended. JB was saying Jews from birth needed to repent and go through a conversion ritual, while they were relying on their status as sons of Abraham.

OTOH, baptism isn't the same for women, since a married woman must do it once a month. Because of this requirement, an Orthodox Jewish community will build its ritual bath before it builds a synagogue.

If my interpretation of the text is correct doesn't that throw a monkey wrench in peoples' perception of the purpose of baptism today?

Keep throwing those monkey wrenches! It's something I like to do, too.

 

[AVBunyan]

Crazy Liz says:

" I think John 1:23 is about the purpose of JB's ministry,"

I can see that but I just don't see where this ever changes. I can see where we have turned it into something else but the original purpose doesn't appear to have changed.

 

[Covenant Heart]

I was going to let this thread pass. But I thought differently on reading ncunigan85’s word that (s)he has never faced a greater faith dilemma.

On the "faith as choice or gift" issue, Rechtgläubig’s Eph 2:8 quote needs comment. "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works..." At issue is whether "grace" or "faith" is the antecedent of the pronoun. The grammar requires reading "faith" as the gift.

Years ago, James Ian Packer put the matter this way: Are we justified by Christ’s one offering of himself, or does being made right with God need a secondary faith offering to God beside Christ’s sacrifice, in order to complete or otherwise perfect his sacrifice?

Another issue is the function of Christian baptism. As others note, this turns largely on whether the rite of baptism witnesses our commitment to God, or God’s commitment to us.

In 1Pe 3:21 we read that "water symbolizes baptism that now saves us" (NIV). Where the NIV says "symbolizes," other translations say "prefigured" (NRS), "picture" (NLT) and "corresponding to" (NAU, NJB). What saves us is NOT the removal of physical dirt from the body (by washing with water), but having a conscience cleansed before God. The internal cleansing of the soul from sin that baptismal waters "symbolize" or "prefigure" is what saves.

How does that "picture" save us? Peter adds that it saves us through Jesus’ resurrection (which obviously implies his death), ascension and session to the throne of God (vs 22). And why dredge up this stuff? It is from there that Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God’s seal that marks all who believe (Eph 1:13). The Spirit IS God’s pledge to keep us until the day of redemption (Eph 4:30). Since the Spirit (himself the pledge) is given as a seal guaranteeing (Eph 1:14) of our redemption, water baptism (the picture of the Spirit’s ministry) like the reality it symbolizes must point to that day of redemption also.

There is an exact correspondence between the sign of water and the reality (the promise of the Spirit) that the sign symbolizes. All that the promise means, the sign states. That is why the NAU and NJB translate 1Pe 3:21 "corresponding to." The sign pictures in a visible way God’s promise to give his Holy Spirit to cleanse and save from sin all who trust his Son, Jesus Christ! That is the gospel promise. Baptism portrays that gospel promise in picture. So baptism is not about our commitment to God. Baptism is God’s pledge to us.

ncunigan85–a pastor proclaimed God’s gospel promise over you the day of your baptism. The day you believed, you experienced the reality of God’s promise. Rebaptism distresses God’s people because it counts God’s oath of commitment at your baptism as nothing. It forfeits this witness to God’s faithfulness, and it substitutes in its place a changed focus–namely, our commitment and faithfulness to God–rather than signifying God’s commitment and faithfulness to us.

Here, Eph 2 and Packer’s question are profoundly relevant. Baptism as witness to my faith commitment to God is very compatible to the idea of faith as a secondary offering in beside Christ’s sacrifice. But say that faith is God’s gift kindled in my heart by the Holy Spirit and the witness to God’s faithfulness is restored. That is what you want!

I think that many who convert years after their baptism long for a way to express the change that God has wrought in their lives. That makes it counterproductive to change the focus from God to myself. Witness must focus on God, not myself. Participation in the table rite is very much in order. So is the call to live a godly life of gratitude. Focusing on my faith robs us (and God) of the very witness that we want.

We share in the anointing of the Holy Spirit in order to confess his Name, to present ourselves as living sacrifices of thankfulness to him, and with a free conscience to fight against sin and the devil in this life and at length reign in eternity with him. That is the way to go!

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well, my point was that if you want to pattern the meaning and significance of baptism on JB, I think you need to compare the baptism of John with the baptism that was already familiar to Second Temple Judaism, and, in turn, compare that to Christian baptism, which seems to be contrasted with the baptism of John in Acts 10:27, 13:24, 18:25 & 19:4.

How did John turn it into something else? How was it turned into something else after John?

 

[Phoebe]

I view John't baptism as a baptism of repentance. A turning around. It was to make people's hearts ready to hear the Gospel and to receive Christ. Everyone at that time became a Christian through conversion.

Christ's baptism is a part of the New Covenant. In a sense, it replace circumcision. Proper for infants and adults alike to take part in. Infants that will be raised in a Christian home don't have to go through a conversion. (change of belief system)

 

[Crazy Liz]

Infants that will be raised in a Christian home don't have to go through a conversion. (change of belief system)

That's an interesting observation. I've been wondering for a long time if it is true or not.

I grew up in a church from the Anabaptist tradition, that taught everyone must go through a conversion. At some point, every Christian must decide to commit themselves personally to the faith. OTOH, I can no longer buy the idea that faith requires a certain degree of intellect autonomy.

Maybe I should start a new thread on this....

 

[Lotar]

Luke 1:39
Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah,

[size=-1]Luke 1:40
and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth.

[size=-1]Luke 1:41
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

[size=-1]Luke 1:42
And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb![/size][/size][/size]

[size=-1][size=-1][size=-1]
In this portion of scripture John recognised Jesus before either were even born. Who are we to say when someone is old enough to have faith? Doesn't the bible say time and again that we must have faith in spite of our reasoning, not because of it.
[/size][/size][/size]

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I have to add one little note to this thread. It has been stated that baptism is not necessary for salvation, this statement is true. Baptism is however a means to be saved.

Mark 16:
14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.
15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
18 they[2] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
(emphasis mine)

I have had long debates on this, but these are Christ's words and if he said that anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. There are two other methods of salvation that come from Christ's words. I do not think I need to quote them as everyone here seems very intelligent. What each of them boils down to is a belief and then acting on that belief. Please do not take my words out of context, this is not a doctrine of works, I am dead set against against the doctrines of works. But if you analyze all three you will find that I am right, at least on the surface. If you are to find something below the surface I will be glad to listen to that, but anyone who says that you cannot be saved is directly contradicting the very words of Christ and I will feel no need to respond to them.

Modern baptisms are generally performed after one is saved, therefore have nothing to do with salvation. The identification with Christ is supported biblically in more places than one, but it is by no means a requirement.

 

[AVBunyan]

Those who use Mark 16 to support water bpatism still are missing the context of the baptism in the Gosples. The issue for them was that they (Israel) were to believe that Jesus was their Messiah and if they did they would get bpatized to show they believed that message. Paul's message today is different for us. Our issue is not, "Is Jesus the Messiah?" Our issue today is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised again the third day - I Cor. 15:1-5. This is our message to believe today - not a Jewish message regarding the Messiah.

Therefore, baptism is a non-issue for salvation for the message has changed form a kingdom age message regarding a Messiah to a message regarding a resurrected Saviour.

The baptism that saves is the spiritual baptism of Col. 2:11-13 and this is not water.

May God bless