I remember you guys saying you had to be baptized because it calls us to in the Bible, well what about the thief on the cross. I don’t recall him being baptized yet he then became a follower of Christ.
Christian Baptism was established as the entrance into God’s New Testament Christian church (keep reading below for explanations on that). That New Testament church was built on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Until those events occurred in their entirety, the world was living under the Old Covenant (aka: the Old Testament/Old agreement/Old “will”).
Hebrews 9:16–17 (ESV)
16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
In other words, baptism is completely Christian in nature. The man on the cross died before Christianity started.
1. The Christian Church wasn’t inaugurated yet, so neither was Christian Baptism.
2. Jesus said the guy could go to Heaven, so he gets to go to Heaven.
And even Paul (Saul) it says the scales fell from his eyes, he got up, and was baptized. It doesn’t reference submersion in water.
Actually, it does. The word “baptize” means “immerse/put under water.” It was simply a Greek word with a very narrow meaning. The Bible writers didn’t pick an already spiritual word and use it for their purposes. They used a common, regular word and gave it a spiritual meaning. In other words, a 1st Century Greek-speaking person would have used “baptize” in their everyday conversations anytime they wanted to communicate “dunking” something. It never meant sprinkle or pour; there are entirely different words for that.
So, the question is: if the Bible tells us to be “dunked,” why would we do anything else? Answer: we shouldn’t. God could have picked another process if he wanted (like sprinkling, pouring, shaving your hair off, doing jumping jacks, whatever), but he picked immersion in the name of Jesus Christ.
Over time, some portions of the church began to allow/substitute sprinkling or pouring instead of baptizing/immersing. In some areas it was a matter of convenience (not enough water), and over time it was changed/allowed in the event of infant baptism. You wouldn’t dunk (i.e. baptize) a baby, so they would sprinkle it instead.
A few problems here:
1. You have to believe in Christ to be baptized (see below).
a. Babies can’t believe, so baptism has no effect on them.
b. It’s also worth mentioning that we never see a baby baptized anywhere in the Bible.
2. Given that the word only meant “dunk,” substituting our preferences doesn’t change God’s original command.
a. It’d be the same today as substituting “boil or bake” for “fry.” If the directions say “fry,” and you boil instead b/c it’s more convenient, you’re not doing what the chef commanded and, consequently, you’re not getting what the chef intended.
So could you tell me a little more about what you believe please?
Our church’s doctrinal statement on salvation:
“We believe salvation from sin comes from a right relationship with Jesus Christ. That relationship comes by grace through faith, produces repentance, and begins with the immersion of Christian baptism.” [see also: http://www.billmesaeh.com/beliefs.html]
The Bible doesn’t teach baptism as a saving work. Some churches (though not ours) believe it to be so, mainly b/c of this verse.
1 Peter 3:21 (NLT)
21 And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This verse does teach the extreme importance of baptism, but it tells us baptism only “works” b/c of the resurrection of Christ. If we don’t believe in that, there is nothing magic (or even spiritual) about baptism that will save you. Faith only; only faith.
It also teaches us that baptism is our response to God b/c we know He cleanses us from our sin. Infants and the spiritually immature can’t respond to anything b/c they don’t have the mental abilities to (1) believe, and (2) comprehend what God has done. You can only respond “from a clean conscience” if you understand what it is you’re responding to, what sin is, what God did, etc.
The Bible does teach baptism as something commanded to us throughout the New Testament though. Notice Peter’s commanding, Holy Spirit-inspired response to the question about how one responds to the truth of the gospel:
Acts 2:37–38 (NLT)
37 Peter’s words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Paul equates baptism as the time one identifies with Christ. Reading through Paul’s theology (the writer of 13 of our 27 NT books), we see our necessary identity with Christ starting at baptism.
Galatians 3:27 (NLT)
27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.
Romans 6:3–8 (NLT)
3 Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death?4 For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives. 5 Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised to life as he was.6 We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin.7 For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin.8 And since we died with Christ, we know we will also live with him.
Colossians 2:12 (NLT)
12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.
See also: Mark 16.16 and Matt 28.19
I feel compelled to be baptized but i want to make sure i know biblically its meaning and importance.
Good for you! Some people want to rush into this decision without properly reflecting on what they’re doing. It is a huge decision (the biggest one you’ll make), so you do have to know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it.
Are you saying that even when someone believes with all their heart and soul and puts their faith in Jesus, they are not saved until the time that they are baptized?
ReplyDeleteWow! Thanks for such a quick reply. Good to know people are reading the blogs...well, at least you :).
ReplyDeleteBefore answering that question, I am curious to know your interpretation of the verses posted here. If these verses do not link baptism as the time God grants us His Spirit and an identity with Christ, is there a biblical argument for something else?
Often we misappropriate verses out of context and build an entire doctrine on that faulty misappropriation. The only way to study scripture and build a doctrine is to do it with the entirety of scripture. Church tradition, "my pastor said so," or, "this just feels right" don't work as ways to understand scripture. Please understand I am NOT saying you believe that (don't even know who you are); I just know that more of our views about baptism come from those three sources than good old Scripture.
So, any belief about faith, forgiveness, and Christian identity has to incorporate the verses above and their plain language coming from Jesus (in Matt & Mark), Peter (in Acts & 1 Peter), and Paul (in Gal & Col).
I do not disagree that we are commanded to be baptized if we believe. If you truly believe, then why wouldn't you want to follow the command? However, if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart (Romans 10:9-10) and then you are hit by a train on your way to the baptistry, are you saved or not?
ReplyDeleteIf the answer is 'Yes' then baptism isn't the 'time' salvation is granted. Romans 10 and other verses would seem to agree with this.
If the answer is 'No', then what?
I hope you see my point. I feel the need to just repost my first reply. This is one of the primary mistakes many well-intentioned believers make in Bible study. We use one verse to argue a belief we've always held or been taught, but we fail to take other verses at face value if they contradict what we've always thought.
ReplyDeleteIn my first post, I asked how you would explain those verses. If they don't teach baptism as the time God gives us our identity with Christ, then what else could they possibly mean? Those verses comprise a wide-ranging selection of the Bible's "key players" (Jesus, Peter, & Paul).
One good rule of thumb: while we can add to a doctrine with a particular verse (your faith verse from Romans), we can never take away from a doctrine simply because the whole thing isn't represented in one single verse (baptism not mentioned in Rom 10.9-10).
RE the train: sure, God is just, merciful and wise. We would not expect God to punish somebody when they were in the progress of sincerely and obediently following the Bible's commands.
In reading at your last paragraph, if that person hit by the train is saved, then we must be saved from the very moment we chose to trust in Him and therefore baptism is not the 'time' God chooses to grant salvation. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality that has already taken place. Of course, if we have made that decision to trust in Christ we would want follow through and be baptized but my point is that we are already saved by the time that happens.
ReplyDeleteFor those who say they are saved and have not followed through with the command to be baptized, I would need to question whether they have truly put their faith in God since they chosen to ignore him.
I'm going to have to move on from this debate. It does me no good to post replies if you won't engage them or argue via scripture. Quoting the Baptist Handbook (outward sign of an inward...) doesn't trump the face value of Scripture. I hope I don't sound mean or sarcastic. We simply can't discuss theology (something I love to do) without following the Bible where it leads.
ReplyDeleteThe standard "hit by a train" argument is an attempt to build a doctrine off of a hypothetical exception to normal life. We would expect a just and all-powerful God to sincerely judge our intentions.
Well, you have not addressed any of my questions directly as much as you have asked more questions which is frustrating in itself.
ReplyDeleteOK...what about Rom 5:1, Eph 2:8-9, Romans10:9-10, Romans 6:23. Are you saying these are incomplete when these people were being told what was required?
What about Acts 10:44-48 here the people hearing the word, believing and receiving the Holy Spirit and THEN being baptized? It seems clear that they were saved first then baptized.
As I said, it's probably best we move on here. I can sense I am arguing with a Jesus-loving brother/sister in the Faith. I wish to cause no unnecessary division anywhere in the Church, but that seems to be where this may be heading. I say that b/c I know of nothing new to say but to repeat my previous statements and posts.
ReplyDeleteIt's not an attempt to ignore your statements; I feel you've done that to mine (hence the frustration without fruition).
Yes, I am aware of the faith statements in those verses. Eph 2.8-9 is tattooed on my arm b/c I love it so much. But, my answer remains the same: emphasizing those verses over the baptism ones only TAKES AWAY from the discussion. The baptism verses understood ALONGSIDE the necessity of faith as portrayed in the verses I sighted AS WELL as yours provide a more complete picture for our salvation discussion.
Baptism necessitates faith; without it, the water is useless (Mark 16.16). Therefore, "your" verses remain fully viable and authoritative at their face value only inside my argument. Reading "your" verses alone and without reference to the verses I've continually tried to get you to address undermines the face value inherent to the verses I've quoted (esp. Acts 2.38 and Col 2.12)