Make Me a Baptist! Sola scriptura, believer's baptism

[jinc1019]

In regards to sola Scriptura, I just would point out that there were 5 solas in total. Scripture alone meant something different for the Reformers and guys like Calvin than it does in our time. Much of that is linked to how our view of the individual and libertarianism changes our perspective, because the Reformers did not jettison as much of tradition as we sometimes want to believe. What guys like Luther and Calvin said about Mary would astound most Protestants.

However, it is Scripture alone in that Holy Scripture remains the supreme authority. It is not fully alone in the sense that tradition was highly valued and found to be just subservient/subsumed to the Bible. Tradition could offer a help for interpreting a difficult passage or understanding a practice, but if Scripture said no and tradition says yes, Scripture wins out upon examination.

I am very Baptistic in this sense because having equal authority becomes somewhat problematic when a faction finally does arise who begins to change things. Suddenly the tradition of the church is reinterpreted (which is, more or less, what happened to consolidate power with Papal authority) to mean something slightly different.

Thus, while we may have a string of Popes who are regarded as bedrock traditional conservatives, we wink-wink and nod-nod at the bishops and priests in defiance of Roman Catholic tradition.

Hi Striver,

I feel EXACTLY that way...which I suppose also makes me very "baptistic," as you said. I think the issue for me though is...If scripture is unclear or appears to give conflicting views, then should we at that point go with the earliest data from Tradition we can find? At this moment, I believe we should...This is why I am not a supporter of believer's baptism. I acknowledge that if all I had was the scriptures, that's the belief I would have, but because I have tradition too, it's tough to argue in favor of it...Although I admit that there is no mention of infant baptism in the earliest patristic writings (there is also no prohibition against it).

 

[classicalhero]

Don't forget that the thief on the cross with Jesus wasn't baptised and yet Jesus said to him that he will be in paradise with Jesus. No need to be baptised to get ot heaven. Another point is that whenever Jesus argued with the religious folks of the time he always argued based on scripture and not on tradition.

 

[jinc1019]

Don't forget that the thief on the cross with Jesus wasn't baptised and yet Jesus said to him that he will be in paradise with Jesus. No need to be baptised to get ot heaven. Another point is that whenever Jesus argued with the religious folks of the time he always argued based on scripture and not on tradition.

Both good points, absolutely.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, that is the Baptist and sola scriptura position. My question is...why shouldn't I trust or believe in the early church fathers as well as an authoritative voice in the matter?

The simple answer is that the Scriptures are the only documents regarded as God-breathed - theopneustos (2 Tim 3:16) authoritative for the Christian, and the early church fathers are fallible teachers.

You will have a very difficult time convincing me that the early church fathers' writings have the same authority as the OT and NT.

There's the added issue of a verse such as Mark 16:16, 'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned' (ESV) which is in a section that is not in the earliest NT manuscripts (Mk 16:9-20). Some would regard it as extra-biblical teaching. If I took 16:16 seriously as part of Scripture, I would need to support believe + baptism for salvation. I find this to be false teaching of baptismal regeneration.

There are a few hot issues relating to this topic.

 

[jinc1019]

The simple answer is that the Scriptures are the only documents regarded as God-breathed - theopneustos (2 Tim 3:16) authoritative for the Christian, and the early church fathers are fallible teachers.

You will have a very difficult time convincing me that the early church fathers' writings have the same authority as the OT and NT.

There's the added issue of a verse such as Mark 16:16, 'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned' (ESV) which is in a section that is not in the earliest NT manuscripts (Mk 16:9-20). Some would regard it as extra-biblical teaching. If I took 16:16 seriously as part of Scripture, I would need to support believe + baptism for salvation. I find this to be false teaching of baptismal regeneration.

There are a few hot issues relating to this topic.

That's a great point! The problem is...at the time it was written, there were no New Testament scriptures, as you know...they were essentially being compiled through oral tradition. That oral tradition eventually became scripture, but at least some of it did not. So the God-breathed oral tradition is really no different than the written tradition-with one exception; the written tradition is obviously more reliable than the oral tradition in terms of its apostolic source. This, at least, I think is the best argument in favor of including tradition as a source of authority-even if it's not a particularly rock-solid one.

 

[OzSpen]

That's a great point! The problem is...at the time it was written, there were no New Testament scriptures, as you know...they were essentially being compiled through oral tradition. That oral tradition eventually became scripture, but at least some of it did not. So the God-breathed oral tradition is really no different than the written tradition-with one exception; the written tradition is obviously more reliable than the oral tradition in terms of its apostolic source. This, at least, I think is the best argument in favor of including tradition as a source of authority-even if it's not a particularly rock-solid one.

In fact the theopneustos (God-breathed) of 2 Tim 3:16 primarily referred to the OT, but we know from Peter's statement about Paul's writings as being associated with 'the other Scriptures' (2 Pt 3:17), that the NT also was included with 'Scripture', even though in its NT infancy.

While the NT, it seems, was compiled from oral tradition, I can't find any biblical evidence that says the oral tradition was theopneustos (God-breathed). That was left to the final, original document.

For me, I would not affirm tradition, say of the early church fathers, as a source of authority. I would place them in the valuable category of information to be used for discerning reading and important information. I would not want to put all of Origen's allegorical writings, for example, on the level of being a recommended source of authority for Christians.

What about the tradition of baptismal regeneration? I do not affirm the doctrine of baptismal regeneration that was promoted by a number of the church fathers. See: 'Baptismal regeneration in the church fathers'.

Oz

 

[jinc1019]

In fact the theopneustos (God-breathed) of 2 Tim 3:16 primarily referred to the OT, but we know from Peter's statement about Paul's writings as being associated with 'the other Scriptures' (2 Pt 3:17), that the NT also was included with 'Scripture', even though in its NT infancy.

While the NT, it seems, was compiled from oral tradition, I can't find any biblical evidence that says the oral tradition was theopneustos (God-breathed). That was left to the final, original document.

For me, I would not affirm tradition, say of the early church fathers, as a source of authority. I would place them in the valuable category of information to be used for discerning reading and important information. I would not want to put all of Origen's allegorical writings, for example, on the level of being a recommended source of authority for Christians.

What about the tradition of baptismal regeneration? I do not affirm the doctrine of baptismal regeneration that was promoted by a number of the church fathers. See: 'Baptismal regeneration in the church fathers'.

Oz

Hi Oz,
Good points...While you are right about the Bible not saying anything about oral tradition being "God-breathed," there are many scriptures speaking about holding fast to tradition, which I think is how someone who holds to the Tradition theory would approach a debate on the topic. Unfortunately, because I am not a member of this particular faith group at the moment, I won't debate you on the issues. I appreciate the point though!

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,
Good points...While you are right about the Bible not saying anything about oral tradition being "God-breathed," there are many scriptures speaking about holding fast to tradition, which I think is how someone who holds to the Tradition theory would approach a debate on the topic. Unfortunately, because I am not a member of this particular faith group at the moment, I won't debate you on the issues. I appreciate the point though!

I found it interesting that you stated that 'there are many scriptures speaking about holding fast to tradition', but you provided not even one example.

You'll have a deal of difficulty in convincing me that the NT teaches 'tradition' as some denominations want it to mean today. See the article by Matt Slick, 'Tradition in the New Testament and 2 Thess. 2:15'.

And you said nothing about the issue I raised of the tradition of baptismal regeneration which I reject.

Oz

 

[jinc1019]

I found it interesting that you stated that 'there are many scriptures speaking about holding fast to tradition', but you provided not even one example.

You'll have a deal of difficulty in convincing me that the NT teaches 'tradition' as some denominations want it to mean today. See the article by Matt Slick, 'Tradition in the New Testament and 2 Thess. 2:15'.

And you said nothing about the issue I raised of the tradition of baptismal regeneration which I reject.

Oz

I didn't cite the appropriate scriptures because I figured you were already aware of them...and you are. This is apparent since you cited an article by Matt Slick on one of those verses.

Further, I didn't address the "tradition" of baptismal regeneration because I am not allowed to debate on this forum since I am not a Baptist and because I don't agree with what you are likely calling baptismal regeneration either...so why would I debate it? Your suggestion is that the ECFs supported it, and they certainly did at a particular point...but in the first 150-170 years of the Church, I don't see many clear examples of baptismal regeneration in the early church. Obviously they linked salvation to baptism...but they also linked faith to baptism. For them, it was one in the same thing. It was rare for anyone to want to be Christian who wasn't actually Christian (lots of people being thrown to lions will do that to people!). So, with that in mind, I am not sure your argument is even valid in the first 200 years or so after Christ's death, and that's all I really care about anyway.

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't cite the appropriate scriptures because I figured you were already aware of them...and you are. This is apparent since you cited an article by Matt Slick on one of those verses.

Further, I didn't address the "tradition" of baptismal regeneration because I am not allowed to debate on this forum since I am not a Baptist and because I don't agree with what you are likely calling baptismal regeneration either...so why would I debate it? Your suggestion is that the ECFs supported it, and they certainly did at a particular point...but in the first 150-170 years of the Church, I don't see many clear examples of baptismal regeneration in the early church. Obviously they linked salvation to baptism...but they also linked faith to baptism. For them, it was one in the same thing. It was rare for anyone to want to be Christian who wasn't actually Christian (lots of people being thrown to lions will do that to people!). So, with that in mind, I am not sure your argument is even valid in the first 200 years or so after Christ's death, and that's all I really care about anyway.

There are examples here of baptismal regeneration in the first 200 years of the early church fathers. See:'The Early Church Fathers believed in Baptismal Regeneration not Symbolic Baptism'. The language used here included:

• '[FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]He was born and baptized so that by His passion He could purify the water';[/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]'[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]There is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received the remission of our former sins';[/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]'[/FONT][/FONT]... [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins'.[/FONT][/FONT]

You'll have a great deal of difficulty in convincing me that the early church fathers did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration.

 

[jinc1019]

There are examples here of baptismal regeneration in the first 200 years of the early church fathers. See:'The Early Church Fathers believed in Baptismal Regeneration not Symbolic Baptism'. The language used here included:

• '[FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]He was born and baptized so that by His passion He could purify the water';[/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]'[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]There is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received the remission of our former sins';[/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]'[/FONT][/FONT]... [FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma][FONT=Tahoma,Tahoma]that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins'.[/FONT][/FONT]

You'll have a great deal of difficulty in convincing me that the early church fathers did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration.

They did believe in baptismal regeneration...but the quotes you cite don't prove that they believed in it APART from faith...which is really what the modern meaning of "baptismal regeneration" means. You'll notice the person who you cited is a Lutheran, who believes that baptism plus faith leads to regeneration. That's what I believe also...although for different reasons. And I do think it's biblical and fits nicely with what Jews believed about their view of baptism.

To be perfectly honest, I think the whole baptismal regeneration thing is blown way out of proportion within Protestantism. Catholicism is a different story.

The reason I say that is simple..You, as a Baptist, believe that faith regenerates you, correct? You also believe that baptism is a symbolic connection to Jesus, his death, his resurrection, etc., correct? I am also assuming you believe that prayer is effective and that faith is more than just simply saying a person believes. Faith, like love, involves action. That's why you believe you should be baptized after all, because of faithfulness to God.

In the New Testament, baptism is almost always linked to faith. It stands to reason then that it is essentially an act of faith. It's like love and marriage. You can love another person, but marriage is an actual act of love as well as a symbol of love. The act of marriage elevates the relationship beyond what it normally was. Sexual relations are now permissible and family results from marriage. Two flesh become one flesh in marriage. It is clear that marriage is not just symbolic of love, it is love. In the same way, baptism is symbolic of faith AND is an act of faith. And, in any act of faith, we in some way enhance that faith, thereby receiving the benefits of that act. Just like prayer. Prayer, studying the scriptures, etc. all lead to faith, strengthen faith, protect faith. Certainly you will agree with that? In the same way that prayer enhances faith, thereby providing grace in some fashion, baptism, as an act of faith, also enhances faith. So when the New Testament says that baptism in some way saves us...it doesn't mean the baptism, that is the act of dipping in water, saves us. That would be no different than the works based salvation we see in Judaism that is renounced by Jesus and explained by Paul. What it means though, I believe, is that baptism, as an act of faith, like prayer, saves us because we are now telling the world of our commitment to Christ, joining a "royal priesthood," dedicating ourselves to following a rabbi (teacher), purifying ourselves through faith, preparing our bodies to have the Holy Spirit, which is God, dwell within us, and all of these things are PRECISELY what the Jewish Mikvah, which is very much like baptism, was used for prior to Christianity and even to this day. So in essence, baptism is apart of faith and thus regenerates us...Separating faith from baptism is like separating love from marriage. In the end, if you truly love someone, you will get married. In the end, if you truly have faith, you will be baptized...and if you can't for some reason (death, etc.), then that has no bearing on your salvation because your faith is all that matters...We just shouldn't separate baptism from faith, if no other reason than at least because the Bible speaks so often of the two being together.

That's just my opinion of course and there is a ton that can be said on this topic. My recommendation would be to research what Jewish baptism meant (and still means) and how that understanding would evolve amongst First Century Messianic Jews like Peter and Paul who had the understanding of Jesus' atonement and salvation by faith in mind. The results, I think, show that baptism is not purely a symbol, like wearing a T-Shirt that says, "Jesus Saves," but that it's not regenerative the same way it was considered to be under the Old Covenant either. Again, just my suggestion, but the point I am making is...it's very possible we read our bias into the Church Fathers, especially the oldest ones. They may very well have had a more Jewish understanding of baptism than we do today. You'll notice when you read the fathers that the further we get away from the Jewish fathers, the more we see un-Jewish theology preached, like Original Sin being imputed on infants, etc.

 

[OzSpen]

jinc,

I refer you to the article, 'What is baptismal regeneration?' (S Michael Houdmann) as it gives my understanding of faith and baptism. He states at the end of the article what I consider to be the biblical emphasis:

While the standard Protestant understanding is that faith is the one thing God requires before salvation is granted, those of the baptismal regeneration persuasion believe that baptism—and, for some, repentance and confession—are additional things God requires before He grants salvation.

The problem with this viewpoint is that there are biblical passages that clearly and explicitly declare faith to be the only requirement for salvation. John 3:16, one of the most well-known verses in the Bible, states, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” In Acts 16:30, the Philippian jailer asks the apostle Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” If there was ever an opportunity for Paul to present a four-part formula, this was it. Paul’s response was simple: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). No baptism, no confession, just faith.

There are literally dozens of verses in the New Testament that attribute salvation to faith/belief with no other requirement mentioned in the context. If baptism, or anything else, is necessary for salvation, all of these verses are wrong, and the Bible contains errors and is therefore no longer worthy of our trust.

An exhaustive study of the New Testament on various requirements for salvation is not necessary. Receiving salvation is not a process or a multi-step formula. Salvation is a finished product, not a recipe. What must we do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we will be saved.

The biblical data, from my assessment, indicates that faith alone in Jesus Christ alone is what brings salvation. Baptism is an important dimension of discipleship according to Matthew 28:18-20 and not a requirement for salvation.

They did believe in baptismal regeneration...but the quotes you cite don't prove that they believed in it APART from faith...which is really what the modern meaning of "baptismal regeneration" means. You'll notice the person who you cited is a Lutheran, who believes that baptism plus faith leads to regeneration. That's what I believe also...although for different reasons. And I do think it's biblical and fits nicely with what Jews believed about their view of baptism.

To be perfectly honest, I think the whole baptismal regeneration thing is blown way out of proportion within Protestantism. Catholicism is a different story.

The reason I say that is simple..You, as a Baptist, believe that faith regenerates you, correct? You also believe that baptism is a symbolic connection to Jesus, his death, his resurrection, etc., correct? I am also assuming you believe that prayer is effective and that faith is more than just simply saying a person believes. Faith, like love, involves action. That's why you believe you should be baptized after all, because of faithfulness to God.

In the New Testament, baptism is almost always linked to faith. It stands to reason then that it is essentially an act of faith. It's like love and marriage. You can love another person, but marriage is an actual act of love as well as a symbol of love. The act of marriage elevates the relationship beyond what it normally was. Sexual relations are now permissible and family results from marriage. Two flesh become one flesh in marriage. It is clear that marriage is not just symbolic of love, it is love. In the same way, baptism is symbolic of faith AND is an act of faith. And, in any act of faith, we in some way enhance that faith, thereby receiving the benefits of that act. Just like prayer. Prayer, studying the scriptures, etc. all lead to faith, strengthen faith, protect faith. Certainly you will agree with that? In the same way that prayer enhances faith, thereby providing grace in some fashion, baptism, as an act of faith, also enhances faith. So when the New Testament says that baptism in some way saves us...it doesn't mean the baptism, that is the act of dipping in water, saves us. That would be no different than the works based salvation we see in Judaism that is renounced by Jesus and explained by Paul. What it means though, I believe, is that baptism, as an act of faith, like prayer, saves us because we are now telling the world of our commitment to Christ, joining a "royal priesthood," dedicating ourselves to following a rabbi (teacher), purifying ourselves through faith, preparing our bodies to have the Holy Spirit, which is God, dwell within us, and all of these things are PRECISELY what the Jewish Mikvah, which is very much like baptism, was used for prior to Christianity and even to this day. So in essence, baptism is apart of faith and thus regenerates us...Separating faith from baptism is like separating love from marriage. In the end, if you truly love someone, you will get married. In the end, if you truly have faith, you will be baptized...and if you can't for some reason (death, etc.), then that has no bearing on your salvation because your faith is all that matters...We just shouldn't separate baptism from faith, if no other reason than at least because the Bible speaks so often of the two being together.

That's just my opinion of course and there is a ton that can be said on this topic. My recommendation would be to research what Jewish baptism meant (and still means) and how that understanding would evolve amongst First Century Messianic Jews like Peter and Paul who had the understanding of Jesus' atonement and salvation by faith in mind. The results, I think, show that baptism is not purely a symbol, like wearing a T-Shirt that says, "Jesus Saves," but that it's not regenerative the same way it was considered to be under the Old Covenant either. Again, just my suggestion, but the point I am making is...it's very possible we read our bias into the Church Fathers, especially the oldest ones. They may very well have had a more Jewish understanding of baptism than we do today. You'll notice when you read the fathers that the further we get away from the Jewish fathers, the more we see un-Jewish theology preached, like Original Sin being imputed on infants, etc.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc,

I refer you to the article, 'What is baptismal regeneration?' (S Michael Houdmann) as it gives my understanding of faith and baptism. He states at the end of the article what I consider to be the biblical emphasis:

The biblical data, from my assessment, indicates that faith alone in Jesus Christ alone is what brings salvation. Baptism is an important dimension of discipleship according to Matthew 28:18-20 and not a requirement for salvation.

I totally agree that it is NOT a requirement of salvation. In fact, even Catholics and Lutherans would tell you that it's not an absolute requirement.

I agree that faith is ultimately what counts...but since baptism, in my view, is apart of faith (in the same way prayer, living a Godly life, etc. is), I think something special happens at baptism the same way something special happens at your wedding. No one would say that a wedding ought to be just a symbol of love...it's an act of love, and as such, benefits flow from that act. The same is true for baptism, in my opinion. I do believe benefits flow from it BECAUSE it's apart of faith, not because it's a work apart from it. I actually don't think this, in any way, conflicts with the Baptist view of baptism, although I admit it requires looking at it through a different lens.

 

[jinc1019]

I will agree with you though that there are MANY people out there who believe that the act of baptism, in and of itself, saves...and that I think, is what you and the author you cite mean when they say "baptismal regeneration." This, however, I think is not fair to apply to many. Wesley, for instance, believed something special happened at baptism, but he would not have said that it is absolutely necessary for salvation.

 

[OzSpen]

Benefits do flow from baptism, not because it is a part of faith, but because it is an act of obedience to Jesus in our growth as disciples (Matt 28:18-20).

I totally agree that it is NOT a requirement of salvation. In fact, even Catholics and Lutherans would tell you that it's not an absolute requirement.

I agree that faith is ultimately what counts...but since baptism, in my view, is apart of faith (in the same way prayer, living a Godly life, etc. is), I think something special happens at baptism the same way something special happens at your wedding. No one would say that a wedding ought to be just a symbol of love...it's an act of love, and as such, benefits flow from that act. The same is true for baptism, in my opinion. I do believe benefits flow from it BECAUSE it's apart of faith, not because it's a work apart from it. I actually don't think this, in any way, conflicts with the Baptist view of baptism, although I admit it requires looking at it through a different lens.

 

[OzSpen]

I will agree with you though that there are MANY people out there who believe that the act of baptism, in and of itself, saves...and that I think, is what you and the author you cite mean when they say "baptismal regeneration." This, however, I think is not fair to apply to many. Wesley, for instance, believed something special happened at baptism, but he would not have said that it is absolutely necessary for salvation.

"Regeneration" is a parallel word with "rebirth" to indicate that those who are redeemed in Christ are "born again". By being regenerated, a person experiences a spiritual rebirth through repentance and faith in Christ alone. By nature, we are dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1). After regeneration, our spiritual eyes and ears have been opened and we seek God.

2 Cor 5:17 explains it: 'Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come'.

No baptism will do this. This is entirely the work of God and his Spirit through rebirth/regeneration when a person places his/her faith in Christ alone for salvation.

I can affirm with Wesley that something special can happen at baptism, but that is because it is a response in obedience as a disciple. Wesley did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

The thief on the cross needed NO BAPTISM to be guaranteed Paradise by Jesus (Luke 23:43).

 

[jinc1019]

Benefits do flow from baptism, not because it is a part of faith, but because it is an act of obedience to Jesus in our growth as disciples (Matt 28:18-20).

With all due respect, I think we are saying the exact same thing. "An act of obedience to Jesus in our growth as disciples" is exactly the definition of what faith is for a Christian!

 

[jinc1019]

"Regeneration" is a parallel word with "rebirth" to indicate that those who are redeemed in Christ are "born again". By being regenerated, a person experiences a spiritual rebirth through repentance and faith in Christ alone. By nature, we are dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1). After regeneration, our spiritual eyes and ears have been opened and we seek God.

2 Cor 5:17 explains it: 'Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come'.

No baptism will do this. This is entirely the work of God and his Spirit through rebirth/regeneration when a person places his/her faith in Christ alone for salvation.

I can affirm with Wesley that something special can happen at baptism, but that is because it is a response in obedience as a disciple. Wesley did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

The thief on the cross needed NO BAPTISM to be guaranteed Paradise by Jesus (Luke 23:43).

As I already said, I don't think baptism is necessary for salvation...and neither do almost every single denomination you would accuse of teaching baptismal regeneration. Even Catholics teach that one can be saved without baptism.

No baptism will do this. This is entirely the work of God and his Spirit through rebirth/regeneration when a person places his/her faith in Christ alone for salvation.

I don't disagree! My point is...when does that happen? Again, think back to marriage. You love a person BEFORE marrying them, right? But when do you make the marriage commitment? At marriage. And only then do you have the marital benefits afforded to you (family, etc.). The same could be said for baptism. Forget about what baptism is today in the modern Western world. Put yourself in the shoes of a first century Jew who was a follower of Jesus. Being baptized was a BIG DEAL. It made you a pariah in your Jewish community, it often led to persecution and death, it put your whole family at risk, and it divided homes, marriages, and friendships. It really MEANT something to get baptized in Christ. Anyone can secretly and privately believe in Jesus, but to actually profess it, commit yourself, and become apart of a whole new community-well, that took real faith. Baptism was a real act of faith, and as such, it makes sense that the New Testament would, on so many occassions, link faith and baptism and conversion and regeneration all together. Because ultimately, only when you actually make that tough commitment does real faith emerge. Again, just like love. Anyone can say they love another person or love someone without a commitment-it's much tougher to make the commitment.

So as an act of faith, I believe baptism does, not in and of itself, save. It saves in the sense that it is the moment that true faith exists because it's the moment where faith must be expressed despite all that might come from it.

I am not trying to argue that Baptists are wrong about their view of baptism...I am trying to argue that your view of baptism and the view I am espousing are essentially the same...the only difference is that I see baptism as being the ordinary moment of salvation because it requires the ultimate act of faith.

 

[OzSpen]

With all due respect, I think we are saying the exact same thing. "An act of obedience to Jesus in our growth as disciples" is exactly the definition of what faith is for a Christian!

I don't think we are saying the same things. My understanding of becoming a Christian is to put my faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. By this action I am regenerated, born again. Discipleship is what follows AFTER regeneration.

 

[OzSpen]

I understand what you are saying and that for first century Jews, baptism was an act that demonstrated their Christian commitment. It was a big statement to their family, friends and others that they were changed and were following Jesus

However, biblically faith in Christ is a separate action from baptism (see my posts above). I do not support baptismal regeneration because I don't find it taught in Scripture. I do not consider Mark 16:16 is in the final canon of Scripture.

As I already said, I don't think baptism is necessary for salvation...and neither do almost every single denomination you would accuse of teaching baptismal regeneration. Even Catholics teach that one can be saved without baptism.

I don't disagree! My point is...when does that happen? Again, think back to marriage. You love a person BEFORE marrying them, right? But when do you make the marriage commitment? At marriage. And only then do you have the marital benefits afforded to you (family, etc.). The same could be said for baptism. Forget about what baptism is today in the modern Western world. Put yourself in the shoes of a first century Jew who was a follower of Jesus. Being baptized was a BIG DEAL. It made you a pariah in your Jewish community, it often led to persecution and death, it put your whole family at risk, and it divided homes, marriages, and friendships. It really MEANT something to get baptized in Christ. Anyone can secretly and privately believe in Jesus, but to actually profess it, commit yourself, and become apart of a whole new community-well, that took real faith. Baptism was a real act of faith, and as such, it makes sense that the New Testament would, on so many occassions, link faith and baptism and conversion and regeneration all together. Because ultimately, only when you actually make that tough commitment does real faith emerge. Again, just like love. Anyone can say they love another person or love someone without a commitment-it's much tougher to make the commitment.

So as an act of faith, I believe baptism does, not in and of itself, save. It saves in the sense that it is the moment that true faith exists because it's the moment where faith must be expressed despite all that might come from it.

I am not trying to argue that Baptists are wrong about their view of baptism...I am trying to argue that your view of baptism and the view I am espousing are essentially the same...the only difference is that I see baptism as being the ordinary moment of salvation because it requires the ultimate act of faith.