Reformed views of baptism

Welcome to the Board, Pastor Faulk.
I'm sure you'll get a load of help from the knowledgable people here.

 

Yes, baptism is the NT equivalent of OT circumcism. It welcomes babies into the covenant community.

 

Hey now -- no fair asking for help in shutting down Brother Leino!!

 

I understand that protestants generally view baptism as a purely symbolic act. I have held that view "by default" for decades. I am now asking myself whether the following position is sustained by the Scriptures: that the physical act of baptism actually results in a real change in the person baptized, and not one that is simply the outworkings of the symbollism of the act. This distinction is a little hard to explain.

I am suggesting that perhaps the physical act of baptism causes some fundamental change to take place in the person who is baptized - a change that is the work of God, not a change that arises by virtue of the person's recognition of the symbollic value of baptism.

Analogy: Let's say that I take penicillin for some illness. The penicillin causes a change in me that has nothing to do with my knowledge of the value of the penicillin. What I think does not matter, what matters is that the penicillin kills the infection. It would work even if I were given the shot in my sleep and never knew I had received it.

Perhaps it is somewhat the same with baptism. Immersing a person in water in a baptism ceremony might be used by God to cause a real change in that person, over and above whatever symbollic value the person attributes to the act of baptism.

There are reasons why I entertain this possiblity and they largely involve an emerging belief that God operates much more in the "physical" domain than we tend to think. I will say more if anyone is interested.

 

To understand the purpose of baptism, you need to look at the passages that talk about baptism. As fundamental as that is, it is a hard concept for some people to grasp.

Jesus commanded that His disciples should go into all the world and preach the gospel. Those who believed and were baptized would be saved, those who did not, would be condemned (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16).

This was first carried out in Acts 2. Those believers asked what they needed to do (Acts 2:37). The reply was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

Here we have believers being told they still needed to do something to obtain the remission of sins.

Philip preached Christ and those who believed his message were baptized (Acts 8).

Saul of Tarsus, a believer who had seen Jesus on the road to Damascus, was told to "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Baptism is how we come in contact with the death of Christ, where his blood flowed (Rom 6:3-4).

We are baptized INTO Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27).

Today, there is but one baptism (Eph 4:5).

At baptism, God is working (Col 2:12)

Baptism is a burial (Col 2:12)

Baptism now saves us (I Pet 3:21)

The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (I Cor 15:1-4). We obey a form of that (Rom 6:17) in our baptism, which is a death, burial and resurrection (Rom 6:3-6).

Baptism puts us in the church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47 and I Cor 12:13).

Preaching Jesus includes instructions for water baptism (Acts 8:35-36).

Every example (all are found in the book of Acts) included immediate baptism in water.

Jn 19:34 - Blood and water flowed from the side of Jesus at his death. When compared to Rom 6, the significance is clearly seen.

 

Now now, you don't have to start calling names! :laugh:

For the record, I'm no Calvinist, though I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the folks over on that other side of the interweb. Unfortunately this paedobaptism business seems to be one of their more illogical positions.

 

Well, I figured...I mean how many different Central Baptist Churches can Okinawa have!?? That's what made your posting on the subject so entertaining! :laugh:

 

1 Peter 3 --Baptism is NOT simply the "magic sacramental waters touching skin" RATHER it is "An APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.

Romans 6 - we have been buried with him in baptism and raised in new life. Not possibe for non-believing non-thinking infant.

Romans 2 - Circumcision of the flesh is symbolic of the Holy Spirit circumcising the heart. (last two verses of chapter).

 

Colossians 2 is a passage infant baptism proponents like to refer to. It refers to circumcision in reference to baptism.

2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
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.

A key thing to point in is that baptism works becasue the person is 'risen with him through faith in the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Faith is a key element. The faith of the person being baptized. The conscience gives an answer to God through baptism.

I Peter
3:20 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.
3:21 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:

In the above passage, the flood is a symbol of baptism, which saves us. Notice the necessity of 'the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

See the parrallel between Colossians 2:12 and I Peter 3:21

the faith of the operation of God-->answer of a good conscience toward God.

who hath raised Him from the dead-->by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

The person being baptized has a good conscience toward God. He responds in faith through baptism to the Gospel. The 3000 on the day of Pentecost wanted to know the answer to the question 'What do we do?' Peter didnt' have them repeat a prayer or say a creed, as far as we know. We do know that he told them to repent and be baptized.

A lot of Reformed people really believe in 'baptism for the remission of sins' as the Bible says and the Nicene Creed says. They don't try to twist it around to mean baptism for sins that are already remitted. This verse clears up the issue.

Acts
22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

You may need to moderate your own point of view to accomodate this if you are holding to a typical Baptist viewpoint.

Link
http://linkhudson.myblogsite.com/

 

That is why I, as a baptist who believes the so-called "Doctrines of Grace" am not too keen on the term "Calvinist". It could so easily be misunderstood as meaning that I must be a paedobaptist because Calvin was one. It could also give the impression that I believe what I believe because Calvin taught it, and that is not so.

 

Pastor Faulk:

I suggest 1 Peter 3:21. 1 Peter 3:21 refers to Noah’s Flood and relates baptism to it as so: “which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,| not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a |clear conscience” (ASV|NASB|RSV 1952).

As I read it, Peter is relating baptism to "appeal to God for a clear conscience" which acknowledges feeling guilt and calling out to the Lord. This of course is faith/repentance. Peter is showing how baptism represents it. I believe that unless there is faith/repentance for baptism to represent, there is no Scriptural baptism.