Baptism

[Guest]

Here is a concrete example that may be worth your consideration. My wife and I were both sprinkled as children. So we were raised to believe we were baptized. As we became older, we realized that we had not made a true commitment to Christ but did so over a period of time. We did have faith, repented, were justified/regenerated and now look upon our present step as that of ongoing sanctification. We often feel as Paul describes in Romans 8.

We still have not been immersed but I would be willing to do so even though I am not sure it would add to my faith in Christ at this point. But my wife faces a dilemma. She has a disease which has left her with little muscle control and a tracheostomy. To immerse her would no doubt be a baptism unto death -- physical death -- since she would drown. I would have to physically carry her into the pool and I might need the help of you, my neighbors, to do so. Since she would then have both faith and water baptism I assume she would be safely carried to Abraham's bosom. She says not because she would be dead when we bring her up and therefore wouldn't have the opportunity to be regenerated. She says she wouldn't even have had a successful baptism since she didn't come up alive. Contentious woman, she is. Doesn't she know we're trying to help! I also fear that "the world" will see us as murderers, will convict us, and we will spend the rest of our days imprisoned.

But, now, if she is baptized with the Holy Spirit (pneuma) or Holy breath then that air will encircle her, fill her and even permeate her cells but shouldn't kill her. What must we do?

with respect,

livingink

[Guest]

I'm beginning to think people are posting comedy here. Water baptism is not Christian baptism? Surely you jest! Please read the commission given by Jesus to his Apostles, no less, and tell us what it means. He informs them as to how disciples are to be made. They are first to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then taught to obey all of Jesus' teachings, one of which is to baptize. We are to do this to this day and until the Lord returns! If this is not water baptism please instruct us how we can do the kind you think it is so we can obey the Lord and do it.

As for "calling upon the name of the Lord", what does that expression mean? Does it mean something other than being baptized into the name (person) of Jesus? There is ample evidence that baptism in water, from the earliest times, involved confession of who Jesus is, and the invoking of His name. See Acts 22:16 for an example. 1 Peter 3:21 also shows baptism involves an appeal to God.

Whether baptism is necessary for salvation, I rather suspect God will do exactly as He did in the case of the blind man Jesus healed in John 9:1-6:

1. If the blind man had caviled at Jesus' instruction and refused to go wash in the pool of Siloam, would God have healed Him?

2. If the blind man mistakenly went to the wrong pool would God have healed him?

3. If the blind man was tied up by Pharisees and prevented from going to the pool would God have healed him?

4. If the blind man couldn't see what good it would do and just didn't bother to go to the pool, would God have healed him?

The answers may seem easy to us; we have a loving and just God who will certainly do what is right but we have no authority to say baptism is unnecessary. He never gave permission to say that.

When the people were bitten by serpents and told they must look upon a bronze replica of a serpent on a stick to be healed do you suppose Moses was worn out with the kinds of questions we hear regarding baptism? What good will it do? Can't I just think about it in my heart? I'll pray instead? Bow my head and hold up my hand?

[Guest]

Very good points, Homer!

Here are the words of Jesus according to Mark 16:16

He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved...

But if we decide that believing is all that is needed, and are not baptized, will we be saved?

After all Paul and Silas said:

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved..." Acts 16:31

Paul didn't say a word about baptism here. YET HE BAPTIZED HIM IMMEDIATELY.

But was the baptism unnecessary? This could be debated for years.

As I see it, from the time of John the baptizer, baptism was declared necessary. In all the scriptures that mention "believe" only and be saved, baptism must be understood to be included.

In Mark 16:16, Jesus could have simply said, "He who has believed will be saved. But He added "and is baptized" just to make clear that baptism is necessary. It's the clinching factor in one's discipleship ---- the "signing of the contract" so to speak.

If we make every arrangement to buy a house, but refuse to sign the contract, will we get the house?

[Guest]

I definitely don't want to wear Moses out now that I know that baptism is necessary. Apparently she either has to hope for Plan B or a miracle depending upon your perspective.

livingink

[Guest]

Livingink,

Consider 2 Corinthians 8:12: "For if there is a willing mind, it is accepted according to what a man has, and not according to what he does not have (NKJV)." IMHO I do not believe God requires of us that which we can not perform. That is my opinion regarding those who desire baptism but are unable to be immersed.

God bless, Homer

[Guest]

Very interesting and a good place for us to continue studying.

Thanks,

livingink

[Guest]

Steve Gregg, I would like to express my thoughts on some of the statements you made in which you expressed some of the difficulties you have with the teaching that we are regenerated at baptism.
(Your statemnts are in dark red.)

There may be more that is supposed to occur at baptism than I have yet grasped, but the scriptures cited by Ryan, Paidion and Homer above have always seemed to work just fine upon the supposition that baptism is an outward ritual of the sort that Christopher mentioned.

The concept of "outward ritual" seems to be an incorrect concept when applied to true baptism. Certainly an "outward ritual" will not save anyone. Many of those who do not believe in regeneration at the time of baptism, apparently suppose that those who do, think that they are regenerated through this "outward ritual." Nowhere in the scriptures is baptism called a ritual. But in the way it is performed in most churches, it surely appears ritualistic.

The Lord works with people prior to their baptism --- some for a few hours, days, or weeks; others for years. But when a person truly renounces all that he has and becomes a disciple of Christ (Luke 14:33), when he "discounts his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life", and when he takes the next step by which seals his committment, that is takes the plunge (pun intended), and is immersed, his regeneration takes place.

I do not read that we “died” with Christ in baptism, but that we “were buried” through baptism (Rom.6:4/ Col.2:12). Burying is a good thing to do to one who has died. Death is an experiential reality, whereas burial is a ceremony occasioned by the death.

I read that both death and burial are associated with baptism. The passage speaks of our burial only once, but our death seven times.

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

Buried through baptism into death seems to reverse the natural order. As you have pointed out, "burying is a good thing to do with one who has died." On the other hand, people are sometimes buried alive. This is followed by their death. That seems to be the case with baptism. We are buried into death. The preposition "eis" (into) is always followed by a result or a purpose or an end.

Romans 6:3-4 makes no clear mention of our being regenerated through baptism.
The word "regenerate" is not used, if that's what you mean.

The mention of having been buried in baptism “into Christ’s death” (a phrase which I understand to refer to our associating with Christ in His death)

Yes, the first sentence speaks of being baptized into his death. The second speaks of being buried with Him through baptism into death. The word "death" in the second sentence seems to refer to our death. I understand it as speaking or our being buried with Him through our baptism with our death being the result. As I previously mentioned, we think of burial as following death. But if we get buried alive in a watery grave, our death will follow the burial. Just as He died, we must die to self. This is the way in which "our old self is crucified with Him". How else could we "have died with Christ"? When Christ died on the cross, we didn't even exist.

is followed only by the declaration of our obligation to walk in the newness of the regenerated life-which, so far as the wording would indicate, may be conceived as occurring either at baptism, or before.

The words are: "If we have died with Christ [in our baptism] we believe that we shall live also with Him". We not only die when we are immersed in the water, but we come alive when we emerge from it. We then have a new life in Christ. We know that we may still make sinful choices. That is why Paul states that we must "consider" or better "count" ourselves dead to sin. If we still think ourselves alive to sin, we are more likely to practise it. "As a man thinks, so is he." Paul's next sentence is "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you listen to its desires." If we accept the fact that we have died to sin in our baptism, how can we pay attenton to its demands? Paul links it all to our baptism.

Peter tells us that “baptism saves us” (1 Pet.3:21), but (as Christopher pointed out) the word “baptism” is used for more than one phenomenon in scripture. It is not clear which baptism Peter has in mind. The context of the flood suggests water, though Peter specifically disclaims that he is referring the washing of the physical body, and may therefore be speaking of that inward reality (symbolized in baptism) as the baptism that “saves us.”

I don't think Peter is throwing in a disclaimer by his phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh." He is saying that the baptism that saves you is not merely the washing of one's body. It's not a mere ceremony or ritual in which all that happens is that the body gets a bit cleaner. Rather it's an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

My impression, in studying the New Testament, is that a complex of events generally accompanied conversion-repentance, faith, confession of Christ, baptism, the laying-on of hands to receive the Spirit, and admission into the church. Normally, all of these happened in rapid-succession in the convert’s life-probably all on the same day. As a result, I think the first-century Christians came to associate conversion with the whole series of events just listed, without always putting such a fine point as to which of them really represented the moment of regeneration.

Then what changed in the second century? The well-known Christian teacher, Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), in his explanation of Christianity to Augustus Caesar, had this to say about baptism:

I will ... relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we were made new through Christ;... As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for the remission of sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except you are regenerated, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."

In their minds, I think, all these things were inseparable, and they could naturally mention any one of them, or any combination of them (implying, without mentioning, the rest), as “saving” the convert. Thus, we have mention of repentance, baptism and receiving the Spirit (no mention of faith or confession), in Peter’s exhortation (Acts 2:38). We have faith and confession (no mention of repentance, baptism, receiving the Spirit) in Paul’s famous declaration in Romans 10:9)-and there is mention only of faith (omitted in Acts 2:38), in Acts 16:31.

Yours is an interesting thought, the idea that mentioning any one of them implied the rest. John the Baptizer proclaimed a baptism of repentance. But the New Testament does not record that Jesus proclaimed baptism. Jesus proclaimed, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand", just as John the Baptizer did. Although it seems that He did not often mention baptism, yet, His disciples were baptized.

John 4:1,2 Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were)...

Jesus also taught:
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

What does it mean to "believe"? Even those who do not regard baptism as necessary, think this means more than mere mental assent. Even it even broader than "to have faith" (in the modern understanding). In any case, it is instructive to observe that Jesus, in His statement above, does not contrast unbelief with belief. Rather He constrasts disobedience with unbelief. So the word "belief" where it applies to eternal life, appears to embrace "obedience". And "obedience" embraces "baptism". So could it be that in the passages that mention only "faith" (Acts 16:31), repentance and baptism is also implied? It seems so, since Paul immediately baptized that household. But the passages that make repentance and baptism the requirement, speak of the basic essentials. Of course, faith is necessary. Hebrews 11:6 states :

...he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

But such faith is only the first step. Repentance and baptism are necessary.

According to Mark 16:16, Jesus implied that baptism was necessary for salvation:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved...

If belief alone were sufficient, why did He add the phrase "and is baptized"?

Baptism is mentioned alone in 1 Peter 3:21-though, as I said above, this may be a reference to a spiritual, inner experience-i.e., that of being baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ (1 Cor.12:13).

I Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

In this passage, there is no need to spiritualize baptism. When we submit ourselves to Christ, dying to self, as we go down into the waters of baptism, coming alive in Christ, as we emerge from those waters, it is the Spirit of God who does the regenerating. Our act of going under the water and coming out of the water has no spiritual power in itself. It is the outward demonstration, the representation of what is simultaneously happening within.

In scripture, we find cases of people being saved without (or prior to) confessing Christ publicly, receiving the laying-on of hands, or being baptized in water.

After that special day of Pentecost, when the Father and the Son (The Holy Spirit) came to dwell permanently in God's people, I have not been able to find any cases of disciples of Christ who had not been baptized. On one occasion the Holy Spirit fell on a group of unbaptized gentiles when they heard Peter's words. It seems that God gave the Spirit to these gentiles to prove to the Jews that gentiles could enter the commonwealth of Israel also.

However, we do not find any examples of persons being saved without (or prior to) believing.

According to Jesus, a person becomes His disciple by renouncing all that He has and following Him. Jesus never specified the necessity of faith in order to become a disciple. Of course, faith is logically implied, for if one didn't believe that Jesus was whom He claimed to be, one would not follow Him. Nevertheless, the essential characteristic of a disciple, according to Jesus is not "having faith", but "doing what He says."

Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 7:21

It seems clear to me that, in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-45), God demonstrated that He accepts and saves men by faith, apart from their having been circumcised. The event also, even if serendipitously, demonstrated that a man can be regenerated and filled with the Holy Spirit prior to being water-baptized.

This is that special instance of which I wrote, in which gentiles were first grafted into the olive tree. It was not the norm. It is stated that these men were filled with the Spirit when they heard Peter's word. It is not stated that they were regenerated prior to their baptism. Many were filled with the Spirit without having been baptized ---- men in the OT, and John the Baptizer while he was still in his mother's womb!

I have no problem with those who preach that regeneration occurs at the time of baptism, except that they might not be able to acknowledge some people as saved whom God acknowledges as saved.

I would appreciate a clear explanation of how you are using "saved". As I understand the scriptures, no one is yet saved from sin. In the NT, only in the book of Ephesians does the phrase "you have been saved" occur. In my opinion, it is used there in the sense that "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ." ----- in the same sense that "all things have been put under his feet" but "we do not yet see all things under his feet". If God decides to do a thing it's as good as done, so we might as well say "we have been saved". God will do His part, but on our part, "we share in Christ IF we hold the beginning of our conficence firm to the end." Perseverence is necessary. It is God's businesss how He will handle unbaptized persons. Peter said:

Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, ut in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. Acts 10:34,35

So are non-Christian Jews "saved"? Are righteous Muslims "saved"? Perhaps God will have to correct many righteous persons also before they are ready for eternity. Remember Jesus parable about the servant who did not know his master's will but did things worthy of a beating, and was given a light beating?

My understanding allows me to take Christopher’s testimony at face value. The other position has to look upon his conversion testimony as a delusion.

No. That is not the case. God often works with a person many years before their regeneration. It was the case with me also. I believed I was "saved" and that baptism was unnecessary. But God continued to work with me, never letting me go. In those days, I, also, would have called the time when I first began to experience God, and began to co-operate with Him and seek to do His will, "my conversion". It was no delusion. God was working with me in a progressive manner until the time of my regeneration.


I myself was converted as a child, and desired to be baptized when I was ten years old. However, our church would not baptize children under twelve, so I was made to wait two years before being baptized. On the view of Ryan, Paidion and Homer, I was not saved for the two years that I was desiring to be baptized, because the church "refused water" from a believing child. I can't accept this view at this point.

I can't comment on whether or not you were "saved" during those two years until you clarify what you mean by "saved".

I don’t know where Ryan or Paidion stand on the case of one who has no opportunity, after repentance, to be baptized before he dies-say, a case of deathbed repentance, like that of the thief on the cross. However, I think Homer has said in conversation with me that God makes exceptions in such rare cases. If God saves such people, without their being baptized, but saves everyone else only on the condition of their being baptized, then this view requires God to have two separate means of salvation for the different cases-"Plan A" for normal cases, and "Plan B" for the exceptions. On my view, God has had only one means of salvation for all men-from the time of Adam until the end of human history-and that is Abraham-like faith.

From these words, I am beginning to think by "saved" you mean "saved from hell". If that is what you mean, would you say that the many people throughout the ages who have never heard of Christ, as well as the billions in the last 2000 years who have never heard of Him are among the "saved"? Yet, we know that

...there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved Acts 4:12

Or are all these people who have never heard of Him "saved" through Him also? I believe they will be completely saved from sin, and that through correction.

It seems that Ryan believes that thief on the cross was only able to be saved without baptism because he was fortunate enough to die before Jesus died and rose again. Does this mean that the same man, dying under identical circumstances, and exhibiting identical faith, but a week later, would not have been saved?

Yes, by calling the thief on the cross "saved", you must mean that he was "saved from hell", that he was going to be in paradise with Christ. Is this how you are using the word "regenerated"?

[Guest]

I believe baptism is a ritual in the sense of the English word but why add the appellation "outward" to it other than to disparage it? Why do we make a distinction between the outward and inward? Isn't that what the Gnostics were famous for? Is'nt the outward an accurate reflection of what is within? Jesus seems to think so for everywhere He speaks of the final judgement He informs us it will be based on what we have done.

There are many who speak lightly of "outward rituals", mere "bodily acts", &c. They seem to think they operate on a higher plane; its the spiritual that counts. They ought to take care. Consider this: Jesus' death on the cross was an outward, bodily act! A ritual sacrifice, if you will.

[Guest]

I have a question concerning the thief crucified with Jesus. Why is the assumption made that he wasn’t baptized? Jesus’ disciples practiced baptism - Jn 4:1,2 ( is it too much of an assumption to think they were doing this by His authority?) so isn’t there just as much scriptural information to assume that he was baptized as there is to assume he wasn’t.

It also seems that the thief had a better understanding than the apostles regarding the Lord’s Kingdom because he asked Jesus to remember Him when he came into His kingdom - Lk 23:42. That is a strange question to ask someone who is good as dead unless the person asking understood the kingdom was something beyond this physical realm. It seems like the apostles had yet to grasp that concept because of their question recorded in Acts 1:6

d

[Guest]

Darrell,

It seems to me very unlikely that the thief on the cross was a believer in Christ prior to his encounter with Christ on the cross. In fact, he initially railed on Christ (Matt.27:44), but later had a change of heart.

If the man was baptized prior to believing (that is, prior to his crucifixion with Christ), then his baptism would not seem to count as a Christian baptism. People whom Paul met, who had been baptized before believing in Christ, were not considered to have received Christian baptism, and were thus rebaptized after believing (Acts 19:1-7).

If Christian baptism is that which occurs after one has come to believe in Christ, then it does not appear that the thief on the cross had opportunity for such a baptism after coming to faith. Yet, he was saved from wrath in spite of this omission (Luke 23:42-43).