Baptism

[_Steve]

Paidion,

You have made some good points, but I am not convinced that the bulk of scripture, nor even the specific verses you have cited, necessarily support your viewpoint. I do not deny that early Christian fathers, like Justin, believed in baptismal regeneration. Many of them also believed in infant baptism, and the impossibility of one being saved if he should sin subsequently to baptism. I don't find any of these views about baptism taught in scripture, so I reserve the right to disagree with them.

Please remember that I am not making a case against the requirement of baptism. I believe in the mandate of baptism. Where I do not necessarily follow you is in equating baptism with regeneration.

Romans 6 seems to be your main passage to establish this doctrine, and yet I see the entire context of your verses in Romans 6 differently than you do. You are seeing Paul's discussion as primarily about the believer's personal and experiential death to sin—resulting in a state of being "dead to sin"—as the result of regeneration.

Your comments on verse 8 bring this out. You wrote:
"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."

However, Paul does not say we died with Christ "in our baptism" (you are importing that idea). Paul only says that we were buried with Him through baptism "into His death." Being "baptized into" something, or someone, has to do with associating with that thing or person. Thus, we were "baptized into Christ" (Rom.6:3/Gal.3:27)—as well as "into His death" (Rom.6:3-4)—and the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (1 Cor.10:2). In keeping with of our association with Christ in His death and resurrection (this association is through faith—Col.2:12), we consequently undergo burial (i.e., through baptism). This is, I believe, the meaning of Paul's statements.

By contrast to your approach, I understand Romans 6:1-14 to be discussing the judicial (imputed) death of the believer with Christ, as the basis of justification, and as an argument against continuing in sin. Paul is not here discussing a subjective condition of personal death to sin, but an objective state of justification as a result of having died (through Christ's vicarious death) to the claims and condemnation of sin. "For he who has died has been justified from sin" (v.7, in the Greek). Paul does not say, in vv.1-10, that we are "dead" to sin, but that we "have died [i.e., in the historical fact of Christ's dying on our behalf] to sin" (vv.2, 8).

Paul does have practical reasons for discussing this doctrine, namely, he is showing that sin and Christianity are not harmonious nor compatible with one another. Thus, it makes no sense for the Christian to "continue in sin, that grace may abound" (v.1). Since Jesus literally died to the claims of sin, we should "reckon" that (in Him) we have done the same and are "dead" to the claims (though not to the lure) of sin (v.11).

Paul did not say (as do the modern translations) that "our old self" was crucified, but he said that "our old man" was crucified with Him (v.6). The "old man (or mankind)" and the "new man (or mankind)," in Paul's writings, refer to "the sinful race of men in Adam" and "the redeemed race of men in Christ," respectively (see Romans 5:14-19/ Eph.2:15/ Col.3:10-11). When Christ suffered the judgment of crucifixion, the whole sinful race in Adam (our "Old Man" or "Old Mankind") was judged, resulting in the cancellation of sin's claims upon those who passed through the ordeal, in being raised with Christ, to "newness of life" (v.4).

Paul mentions baptism, not to identify the means by which these realities come into being, but in order to show that our submission to baptism (a burial) presupposes our awareness of a prior death (and resurrection), and provides an airtight argument against our having any tolerance for sin, to which we have died with Christ.

Paul's theological presuppositions are quite deep, and his wording sufficiently vague, so as to render it risky to assume one possible meaning of such a passage over another, equally-possible meaning—especially if the meaning we are taking from the passage results in a doctrine of salvation different from that which would be drawn from the vast majority of texts on the topic.

Commenting on Mark 16:16, you ask (apparently rhetorically): "If belief alone were sufficient, why did He add the phrase 'and is baptized'?" To which I might respond that I, holding the views I hold, could, without inconsistency, say, "Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved." It is true, but the statement, as it stands, doesn't tell us whether it is the believing, the baptism, neither, or both, that does the "saving."

All Christians agree that baptized believers are saved. The controversy surrounds the condition of unbaptized believers. I might take your same question and apply it to the second clause in the same verse: "If baptism is necessary, why doesn't he say 'whoever is not baptized shall be condemned'?" This would seem an important omission, in the context of the present controversy.

You ask repeatedly what I mean by "saved." I mean pretty much the same thing that the Bible means by the expression. It means being put on right terms with God, so that, were I to die today, I should not fear to face my Maker, and if I should not die today, I will live to please Him. Your emphasis seems to be on the second part of that definition, without giving adequate consideration of the first part.

[Guest]

Steve,

In your answer to Paidion re Mark 16:16 you ask why Jesus did not say that "whosoever is not baptized shall be condemned". I have long thought this argument to be a weak one; I do not believe Jesus contemplated unbeliever's baptism any more than we would anticipate a healthy person requesting heart surgery. That being the case, why would Jesus need to say anything about baptism if baptism is normative regarding salvation but exceptions can be made as stated in my post of 12/12 to Livingink? He would thus be ruling out mercy in extenuating circumstances.

God bless you and yours in the coming year - hope to see you up this way soon!

Homer

[Guest]

We have been studying a bit further. Re: 2 Cor 8:12, is it valid to apply a discussion about giving a monetary offering, if you are able, to the question of ability to be immersed in water? Paul is exhorting the Corinthians to complete the work of gift-giving as their means allow. If water baptism is necessary, I see no reason why anyone should need an exemption. Hasn't God promised a physical resurrection to those who are regenerated and found "in Christ"? While the short-term experience of drowning would be unpleasant I believe the long-term experience of life with Jesus would outweigh it.

Unger's Bible Dictionary (1974) under the definition of regeneration states "Regeneration by baptism, or baptismal regeneration, has been a widely prevalent error. This is due in part to an improper use of the term. A proselyte from heathenism to the Jewish religion was said to be "born again". A corresponding use of the term crept into the early Christian Church. Those who received baptism, the initiatory rite of church membership, were said to be regenerated; but this was probably without any intention of denying the deeper work of the Holy Spirit. It was only a loose and improper way of indicating the change in a man's external relationship. "

This information from Dr. Unger is simply something to consider in this discussion. He does also confirm that some churches do not hold to this view.

Peace throughout your holidays and for the New Year with hopes of many more discussions in fellowship,

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

I believe in 2 Cor. 8:12 Paul is applying a principle of broad application to the ability to contribute to the collection. For other application of this principle, consider the trespass or sin offering in Leviticus 4 & 5. The ordinary person who had sinned was to bring a perfect female kid or lamb as an offering (Lev. 5:6), however a poor person could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons (Lev. 5:7), and if too poor to do that one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour was acceptable (Lev. 5:11)!

In regard to our subject of baptism, a lot of folks today think the "fine flour" ought to be enough and some don't even bother with that.

[Guest]

So, since she (my wife) is too poor physically to be fully immersed then she would not be expected to give that but someone like myself who is physically able would be expected to be baptized. She did have a good point about her inability to go on to true salvation if we expected her to drown in the process--in fact she did this . But, since she could offer to change spiritually then would that suffice? I'm not asking anyone to attempt to speak for God here--just getting the principle correct.

[Guest]

Mark,

As stated, I believe the principle is a valid one, however as you mentioned I am very reluctant to "speak for God" other than as I understand He has spoken through the scriptures. If I thought I had judged anyone I would be trembling. I would really like to see Steve's comments on this matter or anyone else who has an opinion.

God bless you and your wife!

Homer

[Guest]

Since the topic of baptism has emerged again, I brought this thread back to the top.

[Guest]

thanks for bringing this to the top, paidion.

reading through your response to Steve's points, above, i guess i am a little confused... Steve talked about being "saved" and you were questioning what he meant by that, specifically, whether he meant being "saved" from hell.

are you stating that being saved (from hell) and regeneration are two separate things? i get the sense that you feel one can be saved (from hell) w/o being baptized (like the thief on the cross) but cannot be regenerated w/o being baptized. am i stating this correctly? if not, please clarify, by all means.

thx, TK

[Guest]

are you stating that being saved (from hell) and regeneration are two separate things?

The basic scriptural teaching about salvation is salvation from sins, and not from hell.

Matthew 1:21 ... she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Salvation from our sins does not mean that we become merely positionally righteous, that is, that when God looks on us, He does not see our sin, but Christ's righteousness. God is not interested in positional righteousness. God wants us to be actually righteous. This doesn't happen all at once. It is a life-long process, a co-operation between us, and Christ. The enabling grace of our Lord Jesus, makes it possible for us to live righteously (Read Titus 2, especially vs 11-14). Christ will put the finishing touches on the process when He comes, and then we will be perfect, complete in Christ. As I understand it, only those who are in the process of co-operating with this enabling grace, will share in the first resurrection. The promise is given in Revelation to the overcomers.
All others will be raised in the second resurrection, at the end of the millenium.

I have been able to find only one verse in the entire New Testament which could be interpreted to make direct reference to Jesus saving us from hell.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 ... and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.

But even this verse may not refer to salvation from hell. The "wrath to come" may have reference to the coming tribulation period.

The word "regenerate" means "generating again". It refers to our being made new through Christ. "Old things have passed away; behold everything has been made new."

i get the sense that you feel one can be saved (from hell) w/o being baptized (like the thief on the cross) but cannot be regenerated w/o being baptized. am i stating this correctly? if not, please clarify, by all means.

No, one cannot be saved from hell without being regenerated. The regenerated person, who is in the process of being saved from his sins, will not need to undergo the purifying fires of Gehenna ("hell", if you prefer). I believe that all of God's judgments are remedial. God will do His best for every individual. If we repent (change our mind) concerning our self-serving lives, and submit to the authority of Christ, then we may escape Gehenna. If not, then Gehenna will be necessary to correct us.
God's love surpasses knowledge, yet He has revealed that love to His people. God loves all people. His will is that all will come to repentence, and His will is going to be carried out. He never forces anyone to come to Him. I've heard some say, "Yes, every knee shall bow. If they don't, God will hit them behind their knee with a two-by-four." But that will not be the case. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall give praise to God. Romans 14:11. People cannot be forced to praise God. That must come from the heart. Those who will be in Gehenna may resist for ages and ages, but no one can resist God forever. Eventually every individual will, of his own free will, submit to Christ.

When a person submits to Christ now, he seals that commitment by baptism --- a bit like signing a contract. If a person refuses to sign a contract concerning the purchase of a house, the house will not be sold to him. So it is with baptism. "He who believes (entrusts himself to Christ)and is baptized will be saved."

But actually baptism is more than signing a contract. It is also more than a symbol.

When one goes down into the water, his death to the old nature, and his burial, is symbolized. But when he is doing that outward act of going down into the water, the real thing is happening within him. He begins to die to the self-life.

When the person comes up out of the water, his resurrection to the new life in Christ is symbolized. But more than that, when he comes up out of the water, he is actually beginning to come alive into his new life in Christ.

[Guest]

thanks for the clarification, Paidion. i now have a better understanding of what you are saying.

if your view is correct, and the act of getting baptized is more than just a symbol (i.e. something actually "happens" while going under and coming out of the water), how does this square with idea of "losing" one's salvation, or walking away from the faith? in other words, can a person who is baptized "undo" the "thing" that happens during baptism?

one other question-- it may sound silly but my intent is not to be. Suppose a person is somewhere where there is not a large amt of water available (let's say antarctica) and they become a christian. could the person be baptized in a snow bank? or perhaps in the sahara desert- could a person be covered and then uncovered with sand? is water as the medium essential in your view?

TK