The place of Baptism

[book_wirm]

it seems to me that there is one major question overlooked in this age old discussion. why would a person following Christ not want to follow in his footsteps and be baptised like out savior was?

Let me begin by saying it is, no doubt, a significant concern to those faced with a "believer" who refuses baptism. The reality of their faith is seriously in question.

But there is an aspect of the question which separates the two questions

~Is baptism necessary for salvation?

and...

~Why wouldn't a believer be baptized?

without negating the importance of either. My intent has not been to question whether we need to be baptized at all...we are specifically and unquestionably commanded to be.

I simply find it interested, regardless of my own views, that I have never met a Christian who believes baptism is not necessary for salvation and so has not been baptized. Every one of them has been. Why? I would submit that it is because they are true believers whose faith spurs obedience.

...although i do not think baptism is a condition for salvation i would like to know some good reasons other than a drought why a christian wouldnt...be baptised?

Aside from times when it is physically impossible, there should be none.

In Christ,

Eric

[Guest shiloh357]

People are still ingnoring these scriptures:

1 Peter 3:20-21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I don't know about the rest of you but this looks like this says that baptism saves us. You cannot side step these scriptures.

When I beleive and am baptized I am saved. How much simpler can this get?

No one is forgetting them, its just that you are not exegeting those passages correctly.

Baptismal regeneration is a radical heresy and denies the sufficiency of the Christ's sacrifice on the cross. As such it is a false Gospel, and is the product of verses ripped out of their setting and strung together to make the Bible appear to teach that Baptism is salvific, when in fact it isn't.

Lets take your verses from Peter as an example:

If you follow the grammatical structure of the verse, he is not saying that water is the element of salvation. You are looking only at the last few words. The subject is the "good concience towards God." That is what he is talking about relavtive to salvation.

Noah and his family were not immersed in the water. They were not "baptized" in the sense that we use the word. Therefore water immersion is not the issue. Peter could not have used Noah as an example of someone who was saved by water immersion. The issue is the concept of identification as mentioned in Journey's post. It is that indentification with Christ in his death and burial and ressurrection that saves us. Noah and his family were saved inspite of the water which was the judgement of God. The water was a source of destruction not a source of salvation for anyone. If God wanted to use the water as the element of salvation then he would have placed Noah and his family in a pool of water, and burned the rest of the world up.

If Baptismal Regeneration were evident thoughout all scripture, then there would be numerous OT testament types of people getting saved by immersion into water. In the OT though, it was always by faith.

In the first century, people did not have their own personal copy of scripture. They did not have the luxury of reading all that the apostles had written. If baptism/water regeneration were a part of scripture, then it would have to be in every letter written by every apostle. You only come up with a few, and some of them like Romans 6:3-4, aren't even talking about being immersed in water. You simply see the word "baptism" and assume that it is talking about water immersion. That is why "face-value" interpretation is completely unreliable and produces teachings like the nonesense you are promoting.

Paul and the apostles could not take for granted that everyone would read every letter they wrote. They could not work from the assumption that the Church in Ephesus was going to read the letter to Rome, Colosse, Phillipi and others. If baptism were necessary for salvation it would have to be in every letter spelled out and discussed in detail, so that everyone would be able to understand it. Paul and the other apostles simply would not be able to take any chances. As it stands, that is not the case. You have to rely on a few oblique verses that you rip out of their context, and are applying your meaning to them, rather than letting them speak for themselves.

Baptism is the first step.

Please read the account in Acts the second chapter. After they were baptized they continued in the doctrine.

We can't ignore the first step:

Baptism is NOT the first step. The first step is to receive Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and to repent of our sins. Baptism comes after, and is picture of the true Baptism spoken of in Romans 6:3-4 which occurs the moment a person is saved. Baptism is a work, and cannot save anyone. It has no salvific properties whatsoever.

[Smalcald]

What is the point of Baptism, why is it a command of Christ? Is it an empty ritual, if it is only symbol it seems as if it could be optional?

I totally agree that only true faith provides salvation.

[Kabowd]

There are only about 25 verses total in Scripture which seem to suggest that baptism is necessary for salvation. But those verses are understood more clearly in light of the numerous other scriptures which teach us about the sufficiency of Christ's atonement. If you take those few verses out of context and read them at face value, then yes you could make an argument that baptism is necessary to be saved....but you're going to have to reconcile those with the many other Scriptures which contradict this statement.

The theif wasn't baptized because Christ had the power to forgive his sins himself.

And Christ still has the power to forgive sins Himself

Baptism is for the remission of sins

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Remit means to forgive; pardon - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/remission

I'll never understand why some people use an english dictionary to try and clarify Greek. I'm no Greek scholar myself, but I understand enough to know that the Greek language is MUCH more descriptive and precise than the English language. Thus, when we're wanting to understand New Testament verses, we should look to the Greek text and it's meaning...not an english dictionary. That being said, this is one of those verses that really does not translate well in English. If we understand this verse to mean that baptism is for the remission of sins, then this compeletly contradicts an overwhelming number of other Scriptures found in the New Testament. Thus, we must study it deeper to figure out what it might be conveying. Because the Greek language is so complex, I can't explain it in a simple way here, but as I've studied these baptism verses and been taught by those who speak and read koine Greek, this verse should be read more like this:

"Then Peter said to them 'Repent (or change mind), and let each of you be immersed on the name of Jesus Christ for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'." ...or....

"Then Peter said to them "Repent (change mind), and let each of you be immersed on the name of Jesus Christ to identify yourselves with the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

That's two examples of how this could be more literally translated. In other words, the key phrase here was that he was telling them that in order to identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ, they needed to be baptized in Christ's name (because it is only through Him we have remission of sins).

Some things we need to be clear on:

1. There is one form of baptism done by man which is symbolic (into water), and one baptism done by God which is spiritual (into Christ). The word "baptize" should not always be interpreted to mean "into water". The word "Baptize" is merely a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo. The immersion part comes from bapto which indicates dipping. However, baptizo in and of itself doesn't mean immersed into water. It depends upon the context. For instance, when the Bible says "baptized into Christ" it actually means "Immersed in Christ". It is not a physical action that is being referred to (because how could we literally be dipped into Christ?) but it's metaphor for a spiritual action that is done by God. In Luke 3:16 John even states that he baptized in water, but One was coming who would baptize them in Spirit. John 3 is another good example of physical vs. spiritual. Nicodemus was thinking physical re-birth, Christ was speaking of spiritual re-birth.

2. The act and practice of baptism was not new, nor was it introduced by Christianity. In the late second century (in Tertullian's treatise De Baptismo) he notes that Pagan baptism preceded the Christian sacrament. Historically, it was the Pagan's who stressed it's importance first and considered it a means of

[Kabowd]

People are still ingnoring these scriptures:

1 Peter 3:20-21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The words I put in bold are translated from the Greek word "antitypon" (originally described the impression left on a surface by a seal). It means "copy," "type," corresponding to," "a thing resembling another,", etc. Thus, in verse 21 when it says

[Smalcald]

Well I don't think baptism saves us, I don't think that is consistent at all with scripture, I totally agree Tess. However Baptism from what I see in scripture is more than just an outward symbol.

[Kabowd]

Well I don't think baptism saves us, I don't think that is consistent at all with scripture, I totally agree Tess. However Baptism from what I see in scripture is more than just an outward symbol.

Well, I think to say "just an outward symbol" might be understating it's significance. Symbols are extremely important to God. Throughout Scripture, He uses symbols to represent various covenants and promises He's made to us (and us with Him). In fact, here's an example:

"In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 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" ~ Col. 2:11-12

In these verses we see how baptism is linked to circumcision. This begs the question: in the Old Testament, what was the purpose of circumcision? If we read the account in Genesis 17, we can see that circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant. It did not save, it was a sign of identification with this covenant (a symbol) and was not a guarantee of salvation. Only those who were part of God's family (the Jews) could partake in this covenant. Paul repeatedly teaches that circumcision means nothing (see Gal. 6:11-15) that it is an inward circumcision that counts (see Romans 2:28-29). Interestingly enough, Paul specifically says "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power." In fact, Paul refuses to emphasize the act of baptism itself; his emphasis is on the message to whose reception baptism merely "bears witness". (1 Cor. 1:17) So, while outward symbols are not essential, they are definitely significant and do serve a purpose overall.

[Smalcald]

Also Baptism is by Grace alone, it is a gift of God not something we earned by any sort of "dedication", on our part, which is a works based idea. The only power we have is the power to reject grace, we do not have the power to call down Baptism or to call down Christ to forgive us because of any trait or action on our part we can do nothing, He has already done everything. Thus the Church as He ordained it must baptize, must provide this means of grace.

[Guest shiloh357]

raised from the dead when we accept Christ.

The bible will always attest to what must be done and the scriptures must be taken literally or they are worthless.

All scripture must be taken literally or else it's worthless?? So I'm supposed to literally pluck out my eyes if I lust? I'm supposed to literally hate my father and mother if I want to follow Christ? I should literally die and come back to life at the point of salvation?

Cardcaptor mistakes taking the Bible at face value for taking the Bible literally. Those are two different concepts. A lot of people make that mistake. Most face value interpretations violate the literal meaning of the text. It demonstrates a lack of skill in hermeneutics.

[Smalcald]

I think the basic disagreement has to do with a rejection of the idea of a sacrament, or something, which is sacred, by many Protestants, although not all, including myself.

Once again I don't think we will come to any sort of agreement. There is no evidence in the Bible that Baptism is only symbolic, some sort of ritual, there is also no evidence in the bible that it is impossible to be saved unless you are baptized, there is however only evidence that it is to be done, and the Christian Church is to do it. Christ Himself said to baptize all nations, so I think we all agree that it is needed and we as Christians should do it. If someone dies without the opportunity to be baptized, certainly if they have faith they are Christ