Steve,
It is a shame that a basic doctrine of the Church has been a cause of controversy and division. It does not need to be. I do not know of anyone who would not accept immersion as baptism. All can agree on this. And if we follow the New Testament practice of baptizing them prompyly upon a simple profession of faith then there would seem to be little to quibble about. But yet those professing to be Christian can't even agree on this.
Sadly, we see some calling themselves Christian (example: Salvation Army) who do not baptize at all. Others have explained away any importance to the point where converts will go for months and even many years without being baptized, if they ever are. This is not a new problem. I have a book that is a debate, circa 1880, between an Episcopalian and J.B. Briney, who believed in believer's baptism by immersion. The Episcopalian stated that no one allowed more converts to go to their grave unbaptized than the Baptists. (He had mistakenly assumed Briney to be Baptist.)
One of the hallmarks of the Reformation was the belief in the perspicuity of the scriptures. Supposedly we can understand them and do not need the Pope to inform us on what we need to know. Yet here we are, unable to agree even in practice on something as basic as baptism. Make no mistake, the language in Hebrews 6:1 is describing the basics as though they are equivalent to the learning of the alphabet for a child.
We do not have to understand God's reason for baptism. If we must know this before our obedience is acceptable, we are all in trouble and can never know when our actions are pleasing to Him. Our pattern should be Abraham, who, when told to offer his son Isaac, never questioned or quibbled but hastened to obey.
Baptism
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
While I anxiously wait for Steve’s answer to all of your very good arguments on this topic, I just want to throw in some of my own thoughts for whatever they’re worth. I have a really hard time believing that any outward physical act is required for justification (baptism, communion, confession, etc.). It may simply be the pre-conceived notions that I’ve been programmed to believe…who knows. I’ve never really done an in-depth study on this topic, but I have thought fairly hard about it from time to time.
It has always seemed strange to me that the mere act of getting dipped in water would be all that important to God. It makes more sense to me that any outward act is simply a physical confirmation of a spiritual reality that is already taking place in the heart. The willing heart seems to be what God is really after. God gave man all sorts of physical signs of spiritual realities in the OT (circumcision, sacrifices, etc) yet took no pleasure in the actual act of them (Ps 40:6-8 ). In fact, they were an abomination to Him when they were merely done religiously (too many verses to list). Just as circumcision was an outward sign of what Paul called “circumcision of the heart” (Rom 2:29), which is by Christ (Col 2), so it may also be that baptism is simply a “sign” to ourselves that we are now dead to ourselves and belong to Christ. God knows we need something tangible to remind us of the intangible. Maybe that’s why He commands it. I don’t know.
When God commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac on the altar, we know that God didn’t really want Isaac as a sacrifice. He wanted to test Abe’s faith. I don’t think God (being all knowing) questioned his faith, but perhaps Abraham did and needed a tangible sign that he was willing to obey God at all costs.
When I became a Christian, I wasn’t baptized for almost a year afterwards. Yet I know I loved the Lord and I’m convinced that I was saved during that un-baptized year and would have gone to heaven if I died. Nobody told me I needed to be baptized, yet I knew somehow that I did need to. And more importantly, I wanted to because it was a confirmation in my own heart that I was His. The circumstances surrounding my conversion are foggy at best, but I remember my baptism pretty clearly. My pastor said it was like a “coming out party” for the believer to declare to everyone what has already taken place in the heart. That’s not really what it was for me though. Rather, it was a confirming testimony to myself that I belong to Christ and no longer to myself.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that baptism doesn’t seem to always mean a literal immersion in water. For example, Jesus told James and John that they would drink His cup and be baptized with His baptism (Matt 20). Presumably, He meant they would suffer and die for the faith. Perhaps some of the verses quoted earlier can be seen in that light (symbolic) as well. The real baptism takes place in the heart in my opinion.
Do I think baptism is required? Absolutely. Love requires it (John 14:15).
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I appreciate the discussion. It's very thought provoking.
Lord bless.
It has always seemed strange to me that the mere act of getting dipped in water would be all that important to God. It makes more sense to me that any outward act is simply a physical confirmation of a spiritual reality that is already taking place in the heart. The willing heart seems to be what God is really after. God gave man all sorts of physical signs of spiritual realities in the OT (circumcision, sacrifices, etc) yet took no pleasure in the actual act of them (Ps 40:6-8 ). In fact, they were an abomination to Him when they were merely done religiously (too many verses to list). Just as circumcision was an outward sign of what Paul called “circumcision of the heart” (Rom 2:29), which is by Christ (Col 2), so it may also be that baptism is simply a “sign” to ourselves that we are now dead to ourselves and belong to Christ. God knows we need something tangible to remind us of the intangible. Maybe that’s why He commands it. I don’t know.
When God commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac on the altar, we know that God didn’t really want Isaac as a sacrifice. He wanted to test Abe’s faith. I don’t think God (being all knowing) questioned his faith, but perhaps Abraham did and needed a tangible sign that he was willing to obey God at all costs.
When I became a Christian, I wasn’t baptized for almost a year afterwards. Yet I know I loved the Lord and I’m convinced that I was saved during that un-baptized year and would have gone to heaven if I died. Nobody told me I needed to be baptized, yet I knew somehow that I did need to. And more importantly, I wanted to because it was a confirmation in my own heart that I was His. The circumstances surrounding my conversion are foggy at best, but I remember my baptism pretty clearly. My pastor said it was like a “coming out party” for the believer to declare to everyone what has already taken place in the heart. That’s not really what it was for me though. Rather, it was a confirming testimony to myself that I belong to Christ and no longer to myself.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that baptism doesn’t seem to always mean a literal immersion in water. For example, Jesus told James and John that they would drink His cup and be baptized with His baptism (Matt 20). Presumably, He meant they would suffer and die for the faith. Perhaps some of the verses quoted earlier can be seen in that light (symbolic) as well. The real baptism takes place in the heart in my opinion.
Do I think baptism is required? Absolutely. Love requires it (John 14:15).
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I appreciate the discussion. It's very thought provoking.
Lord bless.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
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.
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.
Romans 6:3-4 makes no clear mention of our being regenerated through baptism. 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) 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 phraseology in Colossians 2:12 comes closer to sounding like regeneration is indeed a result of baptism, though Paul specifies that we are raised to life “through faith.” Granted, this could mean “faith operating at the moment of baptism,” but it seems possible to understand the spiritual reality as having occurred at initial faith, and afterward acted-out symbolically through 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.”
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.
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. 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).
All of these things were a part of the conversion experience of the first-century believer, and he could speak of his conversion, in retrospect, as being when he believed, or when he repented, or when he confessed Christ, or when he was baptized, etc., with equal ease. Yet, which of these features was actually the one that caused him to become regenerated would be a separate question, and one that he might have no interest in analyzing.
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. However, we do not find any examples of persons being saved without (or prior to) believing. This seems to make faith (not baptism, or any other feature of conversion) the common denominator in every biblical case of salvation. The other things usually occurred as a result of and a seal of that salvation that was obtained through faith—even as was the case with Abraham and his circumcision (Rom.4:11).
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.
I have not yet heard a good explanation of this story from those who believe that regeneration must occur through the act of baptism. However, Peter’s insistence that the believers, who clearly had now received the Spirit, should not delay to be baptized (Acts 10:46-48), fits my paradigm much more naturally.
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.
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. 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 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.
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? If so, then the death of Jesus did not actually improve man's access to salvation, but rather reduced such access—since a man like this one, who could be saved prior to Christ's death, could not be saved after the resurrection (since he couldn't be baptized).
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.
Romans 6:3-4 makes no clear mention of our being regenerated through baptism. 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) 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 phraseology in Colossians 2:12 comes closer to sounding like regeneration is indeed a result of baptism, though Paul specifies that we are raised to life “through faith.” Granted, this could mean “faith operating at the moment of baptism,” but it seems possible to understand the spiritual reality as having occurred at initial faith, and afterward acted-out symbolically through 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.”
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.
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. 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).
All of these things were a part of the conversion experience of the first-century believer, and he could speak of his conversion, in retrospect, as being when he believed, or when he repented, or when he confessed Christ, or when he was baptized, etc., with equal ease. Yet, which of these features was actually the one that caused him to become regenerated would be a separate question, and one that he might have no interest in analyzing.
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. However, we do not find any examples of persons being saved without (or prior to) believing. This seems to make faith (not baptism, or any other feature of conversion) the common denominator in every biblical case of salvation. The other things usually occurred as a result of and a seal of that salvation that was obtained through faith—even as was the case with Abraham and his circumcision (Rom.4:11).
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.
I have not yet heard a good explanation of this story from those who believe that regeneration must occur through the act of baptism. However, Peter’s insistence that the believers, who clearly had now received the Spirit, should not delay to be baptized (Acts 10:46-48), fits my paradigm much more naturally.
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.
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. 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 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.
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? If so, then the death of Jesus did not actually improve man's access to salvation, but rather reduced such access—since a man like this one, who could be saved prior to Christ's death, could not be saved after the resurrection (since he couldn't be baptized).
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Pardon me if I am stating someting that may have already been addressed here - as I have not read all of the posts - but I would add that baptism is a ceromony having its roots in judaism. The NT story of Philip and the Ethiopian which had its beginnigs from the study of the prophet Isaiah and ended in water baptism clearly shows the natural chain of events understood by Jews. We are not told how the Ethiopian arrived at the connection. We are told that Philip began "...with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus."
Certainly, baptism with water was discussed during this Gospel presentation and was apparently a commonly understood practice of which the Ethiopian man may have participated in during his time in Jerusalem while worshipping. Today, archeologists are finding many ruins of ceremonial bathing pools throughout the old temple mount area. It was a practice observed by all Jews (even though they may have missed its foreshadowing affect) as an act of purification. And as a NT act now practiced acknowledging the incarnation of that foreshadowing. Certainly Philip preached it and the Ethiopian understood it.
Certainly, baptism with water was discussed during this Gospel presentation and was apparently a commonly understood practice of which the Ethiopian man may have participated in during his time in Jerusalem while worshipping. Today, archeologists are finding many ruins of ceremonial bathing pools throughout the old temple mount area. It was a practice observed by all Jews (even though they may have missed its foreshadowing affect) as an act of purification. And as a NT act now practiced acknowledging the incarnation of that foreshadowing. Certainly Philip preached it and the Ethiopian understood it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Father_of_five
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:37 pm
- Location: Texas USA
Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
I have always associated this verse with baptism. Jesus was "the firstborn from the dead" (Rev 1:5). His resurrection therefore was the First Resurrection as described in Rev 20:6. We "have part" in this resurrection through baptism.
Col 2:12
having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
If this association is correct, then, according to Rev 20:6, this means that the second death has no power on those who have been baptized. What about those who have not?
Now, I suppose that, as Steve suggests, the whole conversion process of events may blend together and this may refer to the whole rather than just baptism.
Todd
Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
I have always associated this verse with baptism. Jesus was "the firstborn from the dead" (Rev 1:5). His resurrection therefore was the First Resurrection as described in Rev 20:6. We "have part" in this resurrection through baptism.
Col 2:12
having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
If this association is correct, then, according to Rev 20:6, this means that the second death has no power on those who have been baptized. What about those who have not?
Now, I suppose that, as Steve suggests, the whole conversion process of events may blend together and this may refer to the whole rather than just baptism.
Todd
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I have a question that might help clarify our thinking on this subject. Do you know when you were saved? Was there any response (action) to God's grace that was the occasion of your being saved, or did you simply believe? If you changed from unbelief to saving faith, was this a gradual thing or a sudden switch from unbelief? I do not believe there are many, if any, who came to faith instantly but it usually occurs over time, even a long time. Almost all tie their becoming a Christian to some response they made.
I do not know of any Christian group that does not practice some kind of conversion ritual. At one time, baptism was that ritual. In modern times it has been replaced by many devices: alter calls, sinner's prayers, everyone bow their heads and hold up your hand, mourners bench, and even at home on the couch in front of the TV "just repeat these words after me". I could go on but this is enough. Other than baptism, there is no biblical precept or precedent for any of them. People have made them up in spite of Jesus' plain command regarding how we are to make disciples! Step 1: "baptizing them into the name"....
In the book of Acts there are nine more or less complete conversion narratives. The only features common to every one are faith and baptism. It is objected that the receiving of the Holy Spirit did not always occur at baptism, however we can not put God in a box. My concern is what is normative, not the exceptional. If you read these cases I believe you will see that Luke considered them to be anomolous for he feels compelled to explain them.
Consider an example, the case of the household of Cornelius. Here we can hardly over exaggerate the importance of this case for the infant Church. Can a gentile become a Christian without becoming a Jew first, or is Christianity going to be nothing more than a small sect of Judaism? There was no way an uncircumcised gentile could be acceptd by the Jews.
So we have Peter most reluctant to go to the house of Cornelius. God convinces him to go by means of a vision and he takes some Jewish brothers with him. While Peter was still preaching to Cornelius' household, God poured His Spirit on the hearers, obviously as a sign to the Jews that the gentiles were to be accepted without being circumcised first. Peter points out the significance of the sign to them. Note Acts 11:18 "when they heard this they had no further objections and praised God.....". This case is so important that Luke relates the story twice and alludes to it again in Acts 15.
A wise man once said "God is not bound by the sacraments (ordinances if you prefer, as I do), we are".
I do not know of any Christian group that does not practice some kind of conversion ritual. At one time, baptism was that ritual. In modern times it has been replaced by many devices: alter calls, sinner's prayers, everyone bow their heads and hold up your hand, mourners bench, and even at home on the couch in front of the TV "just repeat these words after me". I could go on but this is enough. Other than baptism, there is no biblical precept or precedent for any of them. People have made them up in spite of Jesus' plain command regarding how we are to make disciples! Step 1: "baptizing them into the name"....
In the book of Acts there are nine more or less complete conversion narratives. The only features common to every one are faith and baptism. It is objected that the receiving of the Holy Spirit did not always occur at baptism, however we can not put God in a box. My concern is what is normative, not the exceptional. If you read these cases I believe you will see that Luke considered them to be anomolous for he feels compelled to explain them.
Consider an example, the case of the household of Cornelius. Here we can hardly over exaggerate the importance of this case for the infant Church. Can a gentile become a Christian without becoming a Jew first, or is Christianity going to be nothing more than a small sect of Judaism? There was no way an uncircumcised gentile could be acceptd by the Jews.
So we have Peter most reluctant to go to the house of Cornelius. God convinces him to go by means of a vision and he takes some Jewish brothers with him. While Peter was still preaching to Cornelius' household, God poured His Spirit on the hearers, obviously as a sign to the Jews that the gentiles were to be accepted without being circumcised first. Peter points out the significance of the sign to them. Note Acts 11:18 "when they heard this they had no further objections and praised God.....". This case is so important that Luke relates the story twice and alludes to it again in Acts 15.
A wise man once said "God is not bound by the sacraments (ordinances if you prefer, as I do), we are".
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
I know that in my case, Homer, I have been a believer since the age of 3. I do not have a day in my memory when I was not His child. However, as I grew older I also matured in my faith and their came a day when I said to my Lord "I trust You". Does full trust come to all? Not in our human frailties. So I believe then that we grow in faith and learn to trust Him more and more as we progress in faith.
The Word says that we are each given our own measure of faith. Some certainly have more than me and others have less. But on an individual bases we must strive to grow in faith. My measure may be heaped up and over-flowing as it pertains to me but for another the cup may be deeper and hold more but still be heaped up and over-flowing. Faith is faith. At no point does one have a greater saving faith than another but our maturity in faith may well be different in measure.
The Word says that we are each given our own measure of faith. Some certainly have more than me and others have less. But on an individual bases we must strive to grow in faith. My measure may be heaped up and over-flowing as it pertains to me but for another the cup may be deeper and hold more but still be heaped up and over-flowing. Faith is faith. At no point does one have a greater saving faith than another but our maturity in faith may well be different in measure.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
The thing is for the few verses that mention belief and baptism together there are probably at least twice as many that only mention belief or faith for salvation indicating that baptism is not a faith issue but it's an obedience or abiding issue. Again this is an issue of looking at scripture in it's entirety and seeing how it speaks. Regarding whether this s/b a public testimony should'nt we follow Jesus's example? His baptism was by immersion and it was in public and it was a testimony so as followers of Christ should'nt we follow his example?
The things of Christ are spiritual because these are things of eternity and the physical things are expressions of the spiritual in the natural realm because they symbolize the spiritual reality inside us. But they symbolize not replace IMHO.
The things of Christ are spiritual because these are things of eternity and the physical things are expressions of the spiritual in the natural realm because they symbolize the spiritual reality inside us. But they symbolize not replace IMHO.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve7150,
You say baptism is not a faith issue. I believe Christian baptism has two meanings: repentance and faith in Christ. Baptism either has the meaning of repentance and faith, or it has some other meaning, or it has no meaning at all. What do you say the meaning is, if anything?
Could you cite some scriptures you believe support conversion by faith alone absent any other factor?
Yours in Christ, Homer
You say baptism is not a faith issue. I believe Christian baptism has two meanings: repentance and faith in Christ. Baptism either has the meaning of repentance and faith, or it has some other meaning, or it has no meaning at all. What do you say the meaning is, if anything?
Could you cite some scriptures you believe support conversion by faith alone absent any other factor?
Yours in Christ, Homer
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Steve,
Re your comments in your 12/3 post I believe you are right on the mark regarding salvation, in the early church, being accompanied by "a complex of events.....probably all on the same day". If the practice of the modern church was that of the early church, this discussion would be academic.
Your point is also right on regarding their mention of one or two of the events while implying the others. If that is not the case, then the scriptures would seem to be contradictory.
Regarding your inability to be baptized until the age of 12, I would say as a child you were not lost. I am a believer in an "age of accountability" and to me children have no need to be baptized. I believe children are pressured by adults and peer pressure into being baptized far too early in many cases. I read an article by an Anabaptist group that traced the typical age of baptism over the past several centuries and they found that the age within their group had steadily declined from late teens/early twenties, as I recall, to children today. Perhaps we'll soon be pedobaptists!
Your concern about "Plan A" and "Plan B" for salvation does not fit with my understanding of the issue. I do not believe there is any "Plan B". I believe God is not bound by His laws, we are. He is sovereign and just and I have every confidence in His mercy to those who are trying to do His will.
If the idea of God not being bound His ordinances is troubling, compare it to His natural laws that govern the physical world. They are so certain we can plan our lives around them. The engineer who designs an electrical system knows it will perform as intended , as long as God's laws are followed. And we know that we are not immune to His laws if we contact a high voltage wire! Yet we know God is not bound by the laws of nature as we are; when He acts outside nature we call it a miracle. We pray for them and do not think it strange that God is free to act. It is not any stranger regarding salvation but ignoring His commands or explaining them as being irrelevant seems dangerous to me.
Re your comments in your 12/3 post I believe you are right on the mark regarding salvation, in the early church, being accompanied by "a complex of events.....probably all on the same day". If the practice of the modern church was that of the early church, this discussion would be academic.
Your point is also right on regarding their mention of one or two of the events while implying the others. If that is not the case, then the scriptures would seem to be contradictory.
Regarding your inability to be baptized until the age of 12, I would say as a child you were not lost. I am a believer in an "age of accountability" and to me children have no need to be baptized. I believe children are pressured by adults and peer pressure into being baptized far too early in many cases. I read an article by an Anabaptist group that traced the typical age of baptism over the past several centuries and they found that the age within their group had steadily declined from late teens/early twenties, as I recall, to children today. Perhaps we'll soon be pedobaptists!
Your concern about "Plan A" and "Plan B" for salvation does not fit with my understanding of the issue. I do not believe there is any "Plan B". I believe God is not bound by His laws, we are. He is sovereign and just and I have every confidence in His mercy to those who are trying to do His will.
If the idea of God not being bound His ordinances is troubling, compare it to His natural laws that govern the physical world. They are so certain we can plan our lives around them. The engineer who designs an electrical system knows it will perform as intended , as long as God's laws are followed. And we know that we are not immune to His laws if we contact a high voltage wire! Yet we know God is not bound by the laws of nature as we are; when He acts outside nature we call it a miracle. We pray for them and do not think it strange that God is free to act. It is not any stranger regarding salvation but ignoring His commands or explaining them as being irrelevant seems dangerous to me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean