Baptism--Which way is the right way?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

You will note that I did not use it to justify water baptism, merely as a means of being saved. If you doubt that Christ's very words are correct then you have bigger problems than debating baptism. Unless you can cite any scripture where Christ retracts the statement then you can not be right. I am sorry but Paul cannot override Christ himself. I will state again, it is not necessary to be baptized to be saved, but one can be saved by being baptized. That is of course prefaced by the belief that Christ meant what he said. If you take the scripture in context, Christ says very specifically, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." directly before he says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". I do not think you can explain that away, and even if you can reason it away within your own beliefs then you do not believe that the scriptures are correct as to what Christ said or do not believe that Christ meant what he said, your choice there.

 

[Lotar]

Ummm, can you start another thread for this topic? We are discussing infant baptism, not baptism as a means of salvation.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I actually think it is relevant to the discussion. The basis for infant baptism relies on baptism being necessary for salvation, which, by the scriptures it is not. However a little aside to state that it is a means of salvation is not too far off the track. The OP asked whether a re-baptism was called for since an infant baptism was performed. To answer this you must first answer whether baptism is necessary to begin with. That is what is being discussed, and is quite on topic with the OP.

 

[AVBunyan]

The thread strted with:
"Baptism--Which way is the right way?


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?"

I agree with flesh99 - I posted my stand on water baptism based upon the above post which I think was the first one.

Also, Flesh99 you said:

"If you doubt that Christ's very words are correct then you have bigger problems than debating baptism."

I do not doubt Christ's words - why would I do that? What I am trying to say is Christ gave Paul later instructions - so I go by Paul because he went by what Christ revealed to him for us today. Paul, according to Col. 2 and other places said baptism was not necessary only the spiritual baptism of Col. 2.

"I do not think you can explain that away" (Mark 16)

I do not have to try to "explain" away Mark 16 - Paul does this. I follow II Tim. 2:15 and II Tim. 2:7 - I consider Paul first as the scriptures command. I consider Paul first because that is what God commands who wrote the scriptures. Paul got the latest instructions. If you desire to stay under the Jewish kingdom age doctrine where washings and ordinanaces are still in affect then that is fine. Paul (by direct revelation from Jesus Christ) wrote his prison eptistles freeing us from Jewish works and has taken us on to the perfect man (the resurrected Jesus Christ, the head of the church).

Bottom line - I follow Paul as he followed Christ. You might consider starting with the latest instructions (Paul) and working back. I believe all the Bible from cover to cover. I understand II Tim. 3:16. But I've got a rough idea what is doctrine for me and what is not. If you want to hang on to old instructions (that were right in its time) then fine - I will go on with advanceed revelation from Paul regarding theh body of Christ not Jewish rituals that have nothing to do with the saint today.

Finally, I grow weary of those who say because we follow Paul as he followed Christ think that we ignore Christ's words and say they are meanlingless. By obeying Paul's epistles first and foremost for today then I am obeying Christ. I could just as easily say that by ignoring Paul one is ignoring and disobeying the God of this universe who wrote the scripures. I said that in love.

Lotar - I am not here to disrepect a request. If you desire for this discussion to move if that is the wish of others then fine for I'm done all I can here anyway and will respect your request and move on.


Have a blessed day.

 

[Phoebe]

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....

When a child is baptized, raised in a Christian home, and is taught the Scriptures, this same child will probably go through Confirmation at church. Confirmation is Affirmation of Baptism. This is when the young adult speaks his baptismal vows for himself. He just isn't rebaptized with water. (the parents planted the seeds, the Holy Spirit watered them to help them grow, God reeps the harvest) The parents are allowing God to work through them.

I believe the gift of the Holy Spirit is given at Baptism. Jesus also said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the likes of little ones. It's the little ones that have the unquestioning perfect faith. Why not baptize them?

I don't know if baptism alone saves, but it is unbelief that condemns.

 

[Salsa_1960]

I personally believe in baptizing adults old enough to understand what they are doing. I think of Acts 2:38 (saying to first repent and then to be baptized).

36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call."
​

As far as the significance of baptism itself (infant of adult), I think that Romans 6 and 1st Peter 3:21 both emphasize it's importance.

18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
​

HOWEVER, I find it hard to imagine friends I know who love the Lord, (but who instead practice confirmation as a way of recognizing their infant baptism), as burning in hell because they have a different understanding of the Bible than I do.

When I think of individuals such as Mother Teresa, who lived a life totally devoted to Christ, I cannot imagine her d*m*d for all eternity because she practiced baptism differently than I understand it to be taught.

I am not so self-centered as to believe that I have a complete understanding of the Bible. We, as a church (in the ecumenical sense of the word), can gain so much more by learning and sharing with each other than we can from arguing among ourselves.

 

[Phoebe]

But if i have already been baptized and then made the choice to accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior do i have to reaffirm that faith--or is it already in stone and therefore no need to be rebatized? I guess it couldnt hurt either way, but i never have been faced with such a big dilema in my faith--being brought up in the church never allowed me to make my own choice or as some say "to be saved". Now i feel that i have to make these decisions as my own person.

What church (denomination) were you baptized in? Do they offer Confirmation classes? (no need to actually answer the first question)

 

[Phoebe]

I personally believe in baptizing adults old enough to understand what they are doing. I think of Acts 2:38 and many other examples given in the book of Acts.

HOWEVER, I find it hard to imagine friends I know who love the Lord (but practice infant baptism) burning in hell because they have a different understanding of the Bible than I do.


When I think of individuals such as Mother Teresa, who lived a life totally devoted to Christ, I cannot imagine her d*m*d for all eternity because she practiced baptism differently than I understand it to be taught.

I am not so self-centered as to believe that I have a complete understanding of the Bible. We, as a church (in the ecumenical sense of the word), can gain so much more by learning and sharing with each other than we can from arguing among ourselves.

I agree with that.

 

[Crazy Liz]

AVB - I think I understand your argument, but if you are correct, why did Paul baptize Gentile converts?

 

[AVBunyan]

Cray Liz - The reason I believe Pul baptized Gentiles is because it was the early Acts period - the transition from the Jewish kingdom age message to the church age was not yet completed. Up until the body of Christ was fully revealed the Gentiles were still getting on the blessing talked about in early Acts and what Paul talked about in Rom. 9-11. Israel had a problem early in Acts because they didn't want to believe that the Gentiles would get in on "their" blessings. Paul talked about him baptiszing in Corinthians which is an Acts eptistle.

So, the Gentiles back then had to believe that Jesus was the Messiah also. If they did then thy would get batized and get in on the Jewish blessings. As Paul got more revelation and it was apparrent to him the Israel was rejectiing the message then he went primarlity to the Gentiles at the end of Acts and after Acts 28 baptism died off altogether. The message in Acts went from "Believe tht Jesus is your Messiah" to "believe Christ died for your sins..."

But early in Paul's ministry he went to the Jews first adn then the Gentiles. At that time nobody knew of the body of Christ soon to be revealed. Paul got this more fully later after Acts 28.

I know - long and boring - I know how you fell I had to listen to myself think it through again! It is not a cop out - the transition during acts from kingdom age to body of Christ is tricky but it is there and clears up a lot of misunderstandings today.

This was a poor attempt off the top of my head but maybe I can clear it up with more time if you are interested.

May God bless your putting up with my ramblings!

 

[pmarquette]

infant baptism is one of the most outrageous things. i dont think its supported anywhere in the bible, catholics for centuries didnt baptize infants.

......................................

Infant baptism , as with " dedication " , to cleanse from stain of Original Sin ,
that if they die , they go to the Father , not to " limbo " some where between heaven and hell ....

Yearly from pregnancy to death , catholic's repeat baptismal vows = to public declaration of faith = that portion of protestant baptism ... outward sign of inner change / separation :
reject satan , and all his works , and all his lies , and all his wares , etc.
kinda neet [ try it , you'll like it .... ]

 

[Crazy Liz]

Cray Liz - The reason I believe Pul baptized Gentiles is because it was the early Acts period - the transition from the Jewish kingdom age message to the church age was not yet completed.

[...]

It is not a cop out - the transition during acts from kingdom age to body of Christ is tricky but it is there and clears up a lot of misunderstandings today.

This was a poor attempt off the top of my head but maybe I can clear it up with more time if you are interested.

What about Matthew 28:19?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

"All nations" certainly refers to Gentiles. How does this fit with your belief system?

 

[AVBunyan]

Crazy Liz asked:

“What about Matt. 28:19?”

Fair question – At the time the kingdom age gospel was still in affect and if the Gentiles wanted to get in on the blessings then they would have come under Israel. So, the message applied to the Gentiles then but not to us now. Christ gave Paul more advanced instructions for us to follow today.

You have to be real careful making applying Matt. 28:19,20 a general command for all to go out and do today. Look carefully at Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: Jesus told them to observe all that he commanded – take this verse and compare with Matt 23:3. Jesus tells the people to observe what the Pharisees tell you to do regarding the LAW. Oops, you have Jesus telling you to obey the law. We do not observe the law today but back then they were still under the law even though Christ was just crucified.

So, in Matt 28:19 the church age has yet to be ushered in and the disciples were told to preach the gospel of the kingdom and this included the baptism of John in John 1:13. The message? Believe that Jesus is the Messiah and get baptized to prove you believe it. This same message is repeated by Peter in Acts 2:38 – here Peter says to repent – repent of what? Repent of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah (see my post on Acts 2:38 under "Expositions"). Our message today is found in I Cor. 15:1-5. Their message centered on their Jewish Messiah. Ours centers on a resurrected Saviour.

May God bless.

 

[Andre]

​

​

​

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.​

I don't agree with statement #2 and #4, I believe baptism has no role in salvation at all, it's supposed to show to the world that you chose to follow Christ and that you identify with Him, I believe it has to be a choice of the person being baptized.
Faith in Chirst replaces circuncision, not baptism.

Did the thief in the cross get baptized?

With that being said I believe that infant baptism does no harm, but I don't think it does any good either, I believe we should dedicate our children to God and I can see infant baptism playing that role.

Btw, I was baptized at a Cathoilic Church when I was a baby and I was just baptized last Sunday at my Church (www.westendbaptist.com).

God Bless!!

 

[Bayhawks83]

I believe it plays no role in salvation:

http://www.inchristalone.org/ChristOrBaptism.htm

 

[AVBunyan]

I don't agree with statement #2 and #4, I believe baptism has no role in salvation at all, it's supposed to show to the world that you chose to follow Christ and that you identify with Him, I believe it has to be a choice of the person being baptized.
Faith in Chirst replaces circuncision, not baptism.

I agree with Andre and Bayhawks83 that baptism has no role in salvation whatsoever. What people have done is taken a Jewish doctrine out of Matt. 28 and Mark 16, etc. and put it on the saint in the body of Christ today. This missapplied Jewish ritual has created more confusion regarding salvation than any one teaching. We have literally millions of people around the world counting on water batpsim to "help" them into heaven when all they need to do is trust the finished work of Christ at Calvary.

I would even go further an say that:

"it's (baptism) to show to the world that you chose to follow Christ and that you identify with Him"

The above reason is not even found in scripture. The original purpose for baptism is found in John 1:31 - go check it out - don't take my word for it. That purpose for baptism never changed until God was finished dealing with Israel during Acts. Since we are no longer "manifesting Christ to Israel" then the only baptism that counts is the spiritual baptism of Col. 2.

So all the debates over how to baptize, when to baptize, or what it signifies is not needed. The perfect man (Christ) has freed us from all these outward rituals. Follow what Paul says regarding the liberty we have in Christ.

Nice post Andre!

May God bless -

 

[Crazy Liz]

That purpose for baptism never changed until God was finished dealing with Israel during Acts.

God finished dealing with Israel in Acts?

Since we are no longer "manifesting Christ to Israel" then the only baptism that counts is the spiritual baptism of Col. 2.

So all the debates over how to baptize, when to baptize, or what it signifies is not needed. The perfect man (Christ) has freed us from all these outward rituals. Follow what Paul says regarding the liberty we have in Christ.

I see you describ yourself as an "Independent Baptist," yet this sounds more like a Quaker than any kind of a Baptist. What do you think of George Fox?

 

[AVBunyan]

God finished dealing with Israel in Acts?

I see you describ yourself as an "Independent Baptist," yet this sounds more like a Quaker than any kind of a Baptist. What do you think of George Fox?

God left Israel at the end of Acts but will renew His dealings with them during the tribulation, especially the last 3 1/2 years. God is not finished with His people. God's plan for Israel will be for them to be a kingdom of priests during the 1,000 year reign and then on into eternity. They will dispense God's blessings from Jerusalem to the nations of the world.

Dont' know much about George Fox. Tell me what you know - I'm all ears.

May God bless

 

[Andre]

I believe God is working with the nation of Israel right now, He is puting them back together, you can see that in Ezekiel 37 where God brings the dry bones back together.
I believe the gathering of the bones happened when the Jews started to go back to Israel, and the flesh in the bones happened when Israel became a nation again.

God bless!

 

[AVBunyan]

I believe God is working with the nation of Israel right now, He is puting them back together, you can see that in Ezekiel 37 where God brings the dry bones back together.
I believe the gathering of the bones happened when the Jews started to go back to Israel, and the flesh in the bones happened when Israel became a nation again.God bless!

Thanks Andre - You are right, God has not finished with Israel and is prepraing them for His prupose for them to be fulfilled. But, I think if you look at Eze. 37 and other OT passages more closely you will see that miraculous event will happen at the end of the tribulation. That is not a picture or illustration of what will happen it will be a literal event where there will be a literal, physical resurrection of Isreal from graves and God will bring them into theh millineal kingdom - and by the way they will be believing Israel for God will put His word into them to fulfill Ezek. 31 and Heb. 8.

Finally, the Israel that went back to Palestine in 1948 may have been Israel but not the believing Israel that you will see at the end of the tribulation for this Israel (at the end of trib) will accept the Messiah they have rejected. The Israel of 1948 was still in rejection of Jesus being their Messiah.

One more thought - Israel appears to be a nation in the eyes of the world but not in God's eyes right now. During this church age they are still in rejection. The world says, "Yes, you are a nation." God says, "You are not my people right now but you will be after I finish with you at the end of the tribulation for my purpose and promises with you will be fulfilled." (Paraphrasing of course.)

Your thoughts! - Later and may God bless.