Did the Baptist get it right?

[ViaCrucis]

It may be easier if I quote a section and highlight in bold what I want to focus on.

Scripture
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ. Ex. 24:4; Deut. 4:1-2; 17:19; Josh. 8:34; Psalm 19:7-10; 119:11, 89, 105, 140; Isa. 34:16; 40:8; Jer. 15:16; 36; Matt. 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16 ff.; 17:11; Rom. 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21

I think saying the Bible has God for its author needs to be better qualified or clarified. God certainly didn't write the Bible, human beings, inspired by God, wrote the Bible. There is a tendency for some to imagine that the human authors were little more than functioning as scribes for God, and that's deeply problematic as it hinders real engagement with the text when we fail to grasp that there are actual human authors, whose writing styles are distinct, who have thoughts and opinions, ideas they want to communicate. Etc. Scripture isn't a monolithic tome, it is a collection of writings received within the Church as divinely inspired and which we confess have as their chief subject, Christ.

Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption or the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.

This would seem to indicate that it's up to us to come to God, and God rewards our efforts with salvation. Except Scripture states that salvation is by the grace of God, Christ having died for the whole world. It's not up to us to accept Jesus, but rather God has already accomplished our salvation through the death and resurrection of His Son, which He bestows upon us through the faith which He Himself grants us through the Means He has established, as we read that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer into a relationship of peace and favor with God.

Similar to the above, this places the locus of our salvation upon ourselves--our response, our acceptance, our commitment. But our salvation isn't about our response, our acceptance, or our commitment, it is about God's response, God's acceptance, and God's commitment to us, in Christ, through the Gospel. The Gospel is God's commitment to us, Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the dead is God's solemn pledge and promise that our sins are forgiven, and that we have life with Him in His Son. The Gospel isn't about our response to God, but God's response to us; the Gospel is about God coming down, not us going up. Faith is that gift which comes from outside ourselves, by the grace of God, worked in us by the Holy Spirit through the word; that the Means God has established are effectual not only to promise the things of God but to actually deliver those promises to us. Faith is a bold, radical trust in Christ that comes not from our will or our intellect, but from the gracious God in His Gospel.

B. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual perfection through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

We need to be very careful when talking about "progress", when we begin to turn away from the Cross and toward human efforts in order to measure our standing before God we have rejected the Gospel and the Theology of the Cross toward the Law and the Theology of Glory. Indeed, by God's grace we are being sanctified, having been made righteous by grace--receiving the righteousness of Christ apart from ourselves--we have been set apart and the Holy Spirit in us draws us to Christ, calls us to Christ, and there is in the hearing of the Law repentance of sin, and we by the Spirit's power struggle toward obedience. But we should not imagine that our efforts can render us righteous, for even our best efforts, even when we are obedient, we remain sinful and in need of repentance--and we hope only in the grace of God, and only in Christ's righteousness. The Gospel alone brings us assurance of our salvation and hope in Christ, and never by the preaching of the Law which is the condemnation and mortification of our flesh as we stand before the Holy God.

Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is a glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

Is it? What does the Apostle say in Romans ch. 3? No one seeks God, no one does good, no one is righteous. Left to our own will we would destroy ourselves a hundred times over, after all, "the heart is deceitful above all else, and desperately sick, who can understand it?"

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the State of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the cause of Christ, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. Gen. 12:1-3; Ex. 19:5-8; 1 Sam. 8:4-7, 19-22; Isa. 5:1-7; Jer. 31:31 ff.; Matt. 16:18-19; 21:28-45; 24:22, 31; 25:34; Luke 1:68-79; 2:29-32; 19:41-44; 24:44-48; John 1:12-14; 3:16; 5:24; 6:44-45, 65; 10:27-29; 15:16; 17:6, 12, 17-18; Acts 20:32; Rom. 5:9-10; 8:28-39; 10:12-15; 11:5-7. 26-36; 1 Cor. 1:1-2; 15:24-28; Eph. 1:4-23; 2:1-10; 3:1-11; Col. 1:12-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:12; 2:10, 19; Heb. 11:39 to 12:2; 1 Peter 1:2-5, 13; 2:4-10; 1 John 1:7-9; 2:19; 3:2

And yet, Scripture warns us repeatedly of the danger of falling away.

Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, observing the two ordinances of Christ, committed to His teachings, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.

This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In such a congregation members are equally responsible. Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages. Matt. 16:15-19; 18:15-20; Acts 2:41-42, 47; 5:11-14; 6:3-6; 13:1-3; 14:23, 27; 15:1-30; 16:5; 20:28; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 3:16; 5:4-5; 7:17; 9:13-14; 12; Eph. 1:22-23; 2:19-22; 3:8-11, 21; 5:22-32; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:18; 1 Tim. 3:1-15; 4:14; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Rev. 2-3; 21:2-3

Biblically the Church is not just the local congregation, it is the entire Body. The Church in Corinth is the same Church that was in Rome; and they were not autonomous, they were knit together under the leadership of the apostles. Historically we know that that apostolic authority was retained with bishops, ordained by the apostles, who in communion together confessing the apostolic faith preserved in what they had received.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Immersion is historically how the Christians traditionally baptized, but there exists nothing in Scripture which mandates that immersion be the only method. In the ancient Church affusion was an acceptable alternative when there wasn't a sufficiently large enough quantity of water.

It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

Neither of these highlighted statements are biblical. Baptism isn't something we do for God, but something God does for us. Baptism isn't a testimony of our faith in the resurrection of the dead, Baptism is the means by which being united to Christ's death, buried with Him, we are set in the hope of resurrection even as Christ has been raised. That is what St. Paul writes in Romans ch. 6.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming. Matt. 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; Acts 20:7; Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 10:16, 21; 11:23-29; Col. 2:12

Again, not biblical. The Lord's Supper is never described as a symbolic act of obedience, it is described as the body and blood of Christ broken and shed for us, and we receive it for the remembrance of Him; not as a memorial, but as God's gracious invitation for our participation in our Lord's body and blood (1 Corinthians 10:16-18)

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience

Where do you get the idea that receiving the Lord's Supper or baptism are acts of obedience?

 

[Job8]

Therefore it isn't an argument from silence; we have a specific Bible reference. And the idea of tiny children or infants being able to make a voluntary and intelligent to Christ flies in the face of the whole notion of "Believers' Baptism," don't you think? And yet we are told that whole families were baptized.

In view of the whole of Gospel truth, we must conclude that even when households were baptized, each individual was a believer (and some may have been quite young). The words of Christ make it clear that saving faith must precede water baptism (Mark 16:16): He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

What happened with the household of Cornelius is a good example. The Holy Spirit came upon ALL who heard the Gospel (and believed), all spoke in tongues, and therefore all were baptized. At the same time, we see from other Scriptures that speaking in supernatural languages is not a prerequisite, but because this was the first Gentile household, God provided the Jewish believers with direct evidence that the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to Gentiles also.

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:44-48).

 

[ViaCrucis]

In view of the whole of Gospel truth, we must conclude that even when households were baptized, each individual was a believer (and some may have been quite young). The words of Christ make it clear that saving faith must precede water baptism (Mark 16:16): He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Conjunctions don't necessitate chronological order. "I'm getting coffee and donuts" does not mean "I will first get coffee, and afterward get donuts".

So trying to spin this as Jesus saying belief "must precede water baptism" is quite faulty. What is indicated here is the relationship between belief and baptism. But there's no reason why baptism can't precede belief based on this text, there's no sequencing in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

In view of the whole of Gospel truth, we must conclude that even when households were baptized, each individual was a believer (and some may have been quite young). The words of Christ make it clear that saving faith must precede water baptism (Mark 16:16): He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Nope Sorry. That is not an exercise in taking account of the whole of scripture. Rather, it's to choose between verses and not harmonize them.

All the verses that seem to point to a Believers' Baptism idea can easily be reconciled with infant baptism, but the attempt to dismiss the plain fact of whole households having been baptized doesn't work.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nope Sorry. That is not an exercise in taking account of the whole of scripture. Rather, it's to choose between verses and not harmonize them.

All the verses that seem to point to a Believers' Baptism idea can easily be reconciled with infant baptism, but the attempt to dismiss the plain fact of whole households having been baptized doesn't work.

The difficulty with household baptism lies in two areas - the definition of what constituted a household and the niggling problem that those members of the household who were baptized also believed (Acts 16:34). A household could include a wide range of individuals - adults, infants, slaves and servants, and, in its widest definition, livestock. In our culture we tend to look at a household as being composed of a nuclear family - parents and children only. Thus, it is a short step to include infants as part of the household. However, there are households composed of only adults, who are capable of belief. I think this limited definition applies to the instances in Acts 10 and 16 because it is clearly stated that the individuals who were baptized also believed. Unless one forces the concept of faith into some mystical reality where there is no conscious response on the part of the individual, one has a conundrum in reconciling the statement that the household was baptized and that those people who were baptized also believed.

 

[Albion]

The difficulty with household baptism lies in two areas - the definition of what constituted a household and the niggling problem that those members of the household who were baptized also believed (Acts 16:34). A household could include a wide range of individuals - adults, infants, slaves and servants, and, in its widest definition, livestock. In our culture we tend to look at a household as being composed of a nuclear family - parents and children only. Thus, it is a short step to include infants as part of the household. However, there are households composed of only adults, who are capable of belief. .

Leaving aside the matter of baptizing livestock (!), I'd say that we have to accept what the verse(s) plainly says...IF the alternative is to insist upon some rare exceptions that might occasionally come into play when thinking of "households." If we start defining everything in Scripture on the basis of the most unusual exception to the rule or by using the least likely meaning of the word, I think we cannot but render Scripture toothless in the end.

Yes, there are households without children, but in the ancient world, that would be unusual. And as for believing...all the verses that Baptists et al cite in these discussions are ones in which the speaker is addressing an adult. Of course, you'd speak personally and with that individual's situation in mind if that were what you were doing, and we all (of just about all denominations) agree that an adult has to make a commitment to the Lord in order to be baptized.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Leaving aside the matter of baptizing livestock (!), I'd say that we have to accept what the verse(s) plainly says...IF the alternative is to insist upon some rare exceptions that might occasionally come into play when thinking of "households." If we start defining everything in Scripture on the basis of the most unusual exception to the rule or by using the least likely meaning of the word, I think we cannot but render Scripture toothless in the end.

Yes, there are households without children, but in the ancient world, that would be unusual. And as for believing...all the verses that Baptists et al cite in these discussions are ones in which the speaker is addressing an adult. Of course, you'd speak personally and with that individual's situation in mind if that were what you were doing, and we all (of just about all denominations) agree that an adult has to make a commitment to the Lord in order to be baptized.

I agree that we do need to accept what the verse(s) plainly state.

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Acts 16: 25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; 26 and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. 27 When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” 29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

One of the key issues is the meaning and value of baptism. For sacerdotalists, the very act of baptism is salvific. Thus, it becomes crucial to them that baptism is performed in order that a person be saved. For many Reformed Christians the act is not salvific in and of itself. In fact, in many Anglican churches the rite is commonly known as christening and is associated with the naming of a child and identifying a child with the church. Some have gone so far as to merely make it a form of dedication and, in fact, many baptistic churches now dedicate infants in what essentially amounts to a waterless baptism ceremony.

As for myself, I am not a sacramentalist, as you know and it is of no great concern whether or not an infant has some water sprinkled on it and some words said over it. The great concern for me comes when an adult is basing his hope of salvation on his christening as an infant and is not trusting Christ alone for his salvation.

 

[Albion]

As for myself, I am not a sacramentalist, as you know and it is of no great concern whether or not an infant has some water sprinkled on it and some words said over it. The great concern for me comes when an adult is basing his hope of salvation on his christening as an infant and is not trusting Christ alone for his salvation.

Frankly, I don't see much of an issue here. "Sacredotalists" don't believe that Baptism is a guarantee of salvation, just that it's a sacrament that remits sin. If the person, baptized as an infant, doesn't go on to have Faith and make a personal commitment to the Lord, he's in essentially the same shape as a non-believer who never was baptized.

(As for that Anglican situation, it's slang to call a baptism a "Christening," and doing so is becoming rare these days. It doesn't mean that there's any difference of opinion about the nature of the sacrament. Not that I have observed.)

 

[bbbbbbb]

Am I missing something here?

 

[Albion]

Am I missing something here?

We do seem to have left the matter of whether or not to baptize infants, if that's what you mean, but I was responding to what you wrote in post 28.

 

[Salem]

The great concern for me comes when an adult is basing his hope of salvation on his christening as an infant and is not trusting Christ alone for his salvation.

This is a horrific and real problem, the devil knowing what he was doing with false doctrine. In addition, I can't count the times people have said they're Christian because they go to church, because their family is Christian, as if it's genetic, because they're basically a good person, their sins forgiven by a priest, the pernicious cycle of no real repentance and the path clear to sin some more: religion people are being taught, or truth not taught, is going to damn many, who believed the lies, who believed the bad shepherds. It is a huge concern, a tragedy in the making.

 

[Albion]

This is a horrific and real problem

It MIGHT BE...if that really happens.

While there are some cults and some wacky congregations out there, I don't know of any well-known denomination that holds that so long as you were baptized at some time, you're safe, saved, period.

This strikes me as based more on a legend that's popular among anti-paedobaptists than a real issue.

I can't count the times people have said they're Christian because they go to church, because their family is Christian, as if it's genetic, because they're basically a good person....

I certainly agree with your sentiments, but let's be straightforward about it and acknowledge that no church teaches them that! It's popular clap trap from (mainly) nominal "Christians."

 

[jimmyjimmy]

. . . and make a personal commitment to the Lord

Pardon me for jumping in, Albion. I would certainly be in agreement with you on baptism; however, I was taken aback by the above statement. In my eyes, it's all about His commitment to me. "Personal commitment" language has certainly been used to such an extent that it's assumed gospel, but I don't find the idea in scripture. Where do you see it there?

 

[Albion]

Pardon me for jumping in, Albion. I would certainly be in agreement with you on baptism; however, I was taken aback by the above statement. In my eyes, it's all about His commitment to me. "Personal commitment" language has certainly been used to such an extent that it's assumed gospel, but I don't find the idea in scripture. Where do you see it there?

It's another way of saying "born again." The point is that baptism isn't a free trip to salvation, even though people here keep on insisting that there's a problem of "people" thinking it is.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It's another way of saying "born again." The point is that baptism isn't a free trip to salvation, even though people here keep on insisting that there's a problem of "people" thinking it is.

I understand that baptism is not salvific; however, neither is my "commitment to Christ". It's through faith in *His* commitment to me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I understand that baptism is not salvific; however, neither is my "commitment to Christ". It's through faith in *His* commitment to me.

Absolutely true. I think we are all probably in agreement on this bedrock fact of salvation.

 

[Salem]

I understand that baptism is not salvific; however, neither is my "commitment to Christ". It's through faith in *His* commitment to me.

How crystal clear and elegant a statement of truth! Only Jesus Christ is worthy, only by His faithfulness, and the grace of God, by faith in His faithfulness. A very important distinction.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

 

[Albion]

I understand that baptism is not salvific; however, neither is my "commitment to Christ". It's through faith in *His* commitment to me.

Well, best I can figure, there's no disagreement here, Brian.

 

[Mudinyeri]

Again, not biblical. The Lord's Supper is never described as a symbolic act of obedience ....

-CryptoLutheran

So, you don't see, "... do this in remembrance of me," in Luke 22:19 as a command to be obeyed?