Baptism--Why?

Michael52,

bmerr here. I thought he did a good job of stating my position, so I didn't take time to adress it directly.

For clarity's sake, though, I'd have to say that the man died in his sins, and was lost.

I'd also want to define "trusting in Jesus". The words translated as "trust" in both OT and NT basically mean to "have hope in , or to take refuge in". To take refuge "in Jesus", we have to be "in Jesus". So how do we get in there? What's the door, or entranceway? How does one get "into Christ"?

Rom 6:3-5 and Gal 3:27 say that we are "baptized into Christ". If that is the case, then the man in Pastor_Bob's illustration was not yet "in Jesus", and was therefore lost.

I know this is not a popular position, but it's what the Bible says. I didn't write it, I'm just reading it.

The Bible tells us that three days after Paul believed in Christ, he was still in his sins (compare Acts 9:4-9 with 22:16).

Paul's is the longest recorded delay between faith and baptism in the NT. Three days. Every other conversion account shows that the believer was baptized immediately, no matter what time of day it was.

I think the apostolic teaching about baptism was quite a bit different than what most religious teachers present today. There appears to be an urgency, a real need for it by those to whom they preached.

Too often these days, baptism is presented as an unneccessary, optional, no big deal, "we'll have a baptismal service in a couple of weeks" kind of thing. This seems quite different from the apostle's attitude about it.

I hope this serves as an answer.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

ascund,

bmerr here. Welcome to the discussion. I think you'll find that I'm in the minority so far, but that's okay. Since you took the time, I'll take the time.

Differences are what these forums are all about.

I think if you'll go back over Rom ch 1-5, you'll find that it is not obedience that Paul speaks against, but the keeping of the Mosaic Law. In fact, the book opens (1:5) with "...obedience to the faith...", and closes (16:26) with the "...obedience of faith..."

Paul himself declared that he was "...not disobedient to the heavenly vision" (Acts 26:19). So I don't think he was speaking about obedience being of no profit, but of the keeping of the Mosaic Law.

One topic that comes up quite often when dealing with this is circumcision, which actually was instituted in the Abrahamic covenant, and carried over into the Mosaic (Gen 17:10-14). This is something the Judaizers were trying to bind on the Gentile converts.

Also, the Scripture that said "and Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" was not fulfilled until he offered Isaac (James 2:23). It was only after Abraham did what God told him to do.

The point Paul makes by using Abraham is that he was justified without the Mosaic Law, and so the Jews were "spinning their wheels" by trying to be justified by keeping it.

James makes a different point while using the same man as an example. He points out that one cannot be justified merely by saying he has faith, but by his faith manifesting itself in obedience to God's commands.

Abraham was justified when he obeyed God, but his obedience was not to the Mosaic Law. That's my take on the sum of the two writers' points.

I'd have to question your logic in making this statement. By the same reasoning, one could say that Paul came before Jesus Christ, since he is mentioned first in Rom 1:1. I know you wouldn't take things that far, but that's where that logic ends up.

Not exactly. The word "Spirit" isn't there either. To assume either way is to reveal one's bias. Let's look at how the baptism Paul speaks of is described in Rom 6 and elsewhere.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into his death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

It appears that the baptism of which Paul speaks is a burial and a raising up again. This is a description of every water baptism I have ever seen, including my own. I don't know if Holy Spirit baptism looked anything like this or not.

What is the medium into which the Spirit immerses us, and then raises us up out of?

A quick look at my concordance affirms this statement. Given the references to it in connection with baptism in Acts, I don't think it is neccessary for the word "water" to be in each text that speaks of baptism for it to be implied by the context.

Again, I'd look at the descriptions of baptism and draw a conclusion from them. Cornelius, though he did speak in tongues before he was baptized, it has been noted earlier that his speaking in tongues preceded his hearing the gospel as well (Acts 11:15). This rare event took place as Peter "...began to speak..." at which point he had said nothing concerning Jesus Christ, or His death, burial, and resurrection. Cornelius could not possibly have been saved. Additionally, Cornelius was "commanded" to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus after the tongues incident.

Contrary to popular opinion, there were more than just Jews present at Pentecost in Acts 2. There is a list given in Acts 2:9-11 of the nations represented in Jerusalem on that day. Included in this list are "strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes" (2:10).

"Strangers" is a term for Gentiles, and a proselyte was simply a Gentile who had chosen to bring himself under the Mosaic Law. He was still a Gentile, and could never be a "full Jew". That's why they were listed separately from the Jews.

Reading further, we find that the "...promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (2:39).

The children of those assembled that day did not need to repent of crucifying the Messiah. Nor did "all that are afar off", which is a reference to the Gentiles.

The message preached by Peter that day is good until the Lord returns. There is but one gospel for every creature (Mark 16:15) in all nations (Matt 28:19) in all the world (Mark 16:15). It was first preached in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47) on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, and is recorded in Acts 2.

That is correct. It would be wrong for one to try to force Gentiles to keep the Mosaic Law (which was given only to the nation of Israel), which is what Paul was speaking about in Romans and other epistles.

It's gonna seem REALLY long with my comments stuck in there with yours! Peace to you, as well.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

hillclimber,

bmerr here.

I would agree that the acount in Acts 10 seems to show that the gospel was preached first, with the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius following the message. However, there are two little words in 11:4 that differentiate between the two accounts. Those words are "by order". Acts 10 tells us what happened. The Acts 11 account tells us in what order the events took place.

It is in 11:15 that we find that it was as Peter "..began to speak..." that the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius. This could either mean before he spoke, or at the first part of his speaking. For the sake of arguement, let's say it was during the first part of his speech.

Acts 10:34-35 says nothing about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, nor does it even contain the name of Jesus Christ. I think two full verses is sufficient to be called "the beginning" of Peter's speech. Would you agree?

If, on the other hand, the Spirit fell before Peter started speaking, his words in 10:24-35 would be completely understandable, as he would have finally been convinced of the Gentiles having the right to hear the gospel.

This gets into the idea of a "transition" between Acts 2 and Acts 10, which was addressed recently in my response to ascund, I think. Also, there is the issue of the fact that there is "one baptism" as of Eph 4, which means that it's either water baptism, or Holy Spirit baptism, which would mean we should stop baptizing folks in water, since there would then be two, and not one baptism.

I am not familiar with any Scripture which promises that we would be indwelt by the Holy Spirit at conversion, other than Acts 2:38, (which may or may not be speaking of it), and even then it is only after one is baptized that this would occur.

He never was shown that water baptism was ceasing, since it hasn't. It was to continue "...unto the end of the world" (Matt 28:20).

Well, 1 Cor 13:8-10 indicates that miraculous gifts would end when God's revelation was written down completely. Also, Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 2:15) to "Study to shew thyself approved...", which indicates that Timothy did not have any miraculous knowledge. That's my guess. How'd I do?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

hillclimber,

bmerr here. I hadn't thought of that. Something else for the "evidence" list.

Do you ever get near Clarksville, TN in your travels, or are you local?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Michael52,

bmerr here. It is an account that I can relate to, actually. One's decision to follow Jesus can be quite emotional. The realization of one's lost condition, coupled with the understanding that Jesus came to save such a one, is such a mixture of despair, sorrow, relief, hope, and joy, that words are hard pressed to describe it.

Emotions are natural, and certainly have their place in Christianity. We must understand, however, that they are not trustworthy, nor are they the standard by which we should judge the authenticity of a situation.

The bottom line is, Michael, that the Bible demonstrates a pattern of conversion, which every conversion account we have in Scripture follows, or lines up with. Our own experience, regardless of how powerful, or meaningful it may seem to us, needs to be judged according to what we find in the Bible.

Acts (a book of conversions) shows repeatedly a pattern of hearing the word, believing the word, repentance from sin, confessing Christ as the Son of God, and being baptized in the name of the Lord.

Not every account explicitly records each part of this pattern, but by implication, we understand that they are present.

What I say is not the standard, unless I'm saying what the Bible says. I can still get things wrong, and sometimes I do.

According to what we see in the Bible, no, you weren't saved in the woods. Please know that I'm not trying to demean you or your story. Like I said earlier, I can relate.

Your story simply does not conform to the pattern we find in the word of God, which is the basis of our faith. God has given men lots of patterns to follow. The ark, and the Tabernacle, just for starters. Noah and Moses are recorded as having done all things whatsoever the LORD commanded them, and God never called them "legalists". They were just being obedient.

What you should have done is kind of moot at this point. In the end, you did what you had been taught to do. Your objective now is to compare your conversion to the pattern recorded for us in the Bible, and judge for yourself what you ought to do now.

But to answer your quetion, if you had found your pastor and requested to be baptized for the remission of your sins right away, he probably would have tried to explain that baptism had nothing to do with salvation, and reviewd Baptist doctrine concerning salvation.

Likewise, I do not mean to sound dismissive. If I do, it's not intended. But compared to the effort on Christ's part to make salvation available to us, would any effort, no matter how large, be too much to ask of us in order to avail ourselves of the provision of God?

When I was a Baptist, that seemed odd to me as well. To be known as a Baptist, and be a part of the Baptist church, and yet to take such a low view of baptism! Of course the method was very important. Full immersion, and nothing less. But essential? Certainly not! Just so you know that you're not the only one who ever saw a disparity there...

Not too much now. You get into having two baptisms when Paul said that there is only "one baptism" (Eph 4:5). Another time, another place...

Too much to get into now. Very tired (pain meds kicking in). "It is finished"--Jesus' part of salvation's plan was done. Man must do his part as well, starting with believing...not earning, just obeying.

Time for bed.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Michael52,

I'm planning to go into the "which baptism is the one baptism" thing in a response to ascund, but I wanted to address your statement referring to man's adding to Christ's work.

There is nothing that man can do to complement, or add to, the atonement that Jesus made available by His death on the cross. Absolutely nothing.

When Jesus said "It is finished", He meant it.

But did He mean that everyone would be saved? Did He mean that His dying on the cross would result in every human being that ever lived spending eternity in Heaven with Him?

Of course not. Jesus had finished His work. He alone could make salvation available to man. His works bore witness to Who He was (John 5:36; 10:25, 38). By rejecting His words, and the evidence of His works, the Jews condemned themselves (John 15:22-24). Jesus even said that he had come to finish His Father's work (John 4:34).

The work finished by Jesus could only have been done by Him. It was the ultimate expression of God's love for mankind. I have often been accused of trying to add to Christ's work, and it's a false accusation. I usually let it slide, but I don't like it.

Okay, with that said, we need to answer the question, "What determines who will be saved, and who won't?"

In the 25th chapter of Matthew, in the Judgement Day scene with the sheep and the goats, what is the main difference between the sheep and the goats? Both called Jesus "Lord", and yet the sheep went into life eternal, while the goats went away into everlasting punishment.

What was the difference?

The difference is in what they did or did not do. Their works determined, in part, their eternal destination. The sheep had works consistent with their professed faith. The goats did not.

The sheep had faith perfected by works (James 2:22), the goats had "faith only" (James 2:24).

My point is that works of obedience are a neccessary part of saving faith. Not works of the law, not works of merit. Obedience. How else would one demonstrate their submission to God's will, but by obedience to His commands?

Obedience adds nothing to the work of Christ. It simply is the manifestation of one's faith in Christ's work. Without it, faith is dead.

Read Rom 10:14-17. We can't believe unless someone preaches the word to us. Sinners are dependant on Christians being faithful in sharing the word of the grace of God.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

ascund,

bmerr here. Greetings to you, as well. I think the mix of sanctification and justification is only posonous to the doctrine of justification by "faith only", meaning "belief apart form works of any kind".

I've often heard the argument, "We're supposed to baptize believers in water, but Spirit baptism is the only real baptism..."

It seems to be grounded in a desire to have or do more than the Scriptures authorize, in an effort to avoid what God has commanded.

Since the writing of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, there has only been "one baptism". There may have been more before that time, and there may be another one coming at the Lord's return, but from that day until the 2nd coming, there's only "one baptism" that is Scriptural.

So which one is it, Spirit or water? Let's investigate.

First off, let's recognize the fact that HS baptism was never commanded, but was promised by Jesus to the apostles (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-15; Luke 12:11-12; Acts 1:5,8).

We see this promise fufilled in Acts 2:1-4, when the kingdom came with power.

The only other time we see anything like this is in Acts 10 with Cornelius, and there it occurred before Cornelius heard the gospel, and thus before he was saved (Acts 11:15).

The baptism commanded by Christ, which was to continue "...to the end of the world" (Matt28:20),

was to be administered by men (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15-16),

required water (Acts 8:36-39; 10:47),

was in the name (or authority) of Jesus Christ (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5),

was preceded by faith and repentance (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:37),

was for the remission, or washing away of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16),

is described as a burial and raising up again (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:12),

is the only way that the Bible says one gets "into Christ" (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27),

is the response of those who receive the message to "save yourselves" (Acts 2:40-41),

and is the point at which one is saved and added to the Lord's church (1 Cor 12:13; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 2:41, 47).

Please forgive me for not typing out all of these Scripture references. You're likely familiar with most of them.

I believe it may be your error in separating them.

You speak in direct conflict with James 2:24.

Please tell me what the Spirit immerses one in. Men are commanded to baptize in water. Jesus promised to baptize with the Spirit. What does the Spirit baptize in or with?

Please notice there are two separate things mentioned in Col 2:11-12, those being a circumcision made without hands, and a baptism described as a burial and a raising up again.

If anything, the text tells us that we are circumcised without hands when we are "buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God."

The circumcision made without hands is the operation of God, performed when we are buried and raised with Christ in baptism.

Nor was Abraham ever commanded to be baptized. We, under the NT of Jesus Christ, are. Abraham's example lies in the fact that he did what God commanded him to do, even when it didn't make sense.

I urge you all to examine the evidence and judge for yourselves. In the end, we all ought to do one of two things:

- Decide that HS baptism is the "one baptism", and stop baptizing in water, or

- Decide that water baptism is the "one baptism", and start doing it for the reasons God ahs commanded it.

In Christ,

bmerr