Baptism

Gold Dragon, if you are suggesting that there are some in this world who are Christians though they've never been baptized by immersion, I'm in full agreement with you. There are some well-meaning Christians who have never been baptized, many of whom were brought up in Methodist and Presbyterian churches. Because of the teaching of those who's leadership they trusted, they've never received Christian baptism. Like you said, someone can be a Christian without being Baptist (however misguided they may be).

As for the verses that support non-symbolic views of baptism, would you mind listing them? I'm afraid I'm not aware of any. If baptism is not a picture of one's death to the old life and resurrection to newness of life in Christ, what is it?

With your view of one's mode of baptism, I'm curious to know how you would counsel a Methodist or Presbyterian about baptism if you were the Pastor of a Baptist church and that person wanted to join your church. Would you be satisfied with their sprinkling? Don't you think that believer's baptism is an important discipleship issue? If not, are you suggesting that we separate believer's baptism from church membership, making it more of an option than a requirement for new converts and those coming from a different denomination? It seems that in your attempt to be somewhat non-confrontational on the issue, you might be opening Pandora's Box instead.

 

GD, are you suggesting a works salvation? Obviously, I would interpret the verses you listed above much differently because I believe that salvation is "by grace through faith...not of works" (Eph. 2:8-9). If baptism has some sort of salvific power, then faith alone in Christ's completed work at Calvary is not sufficient for salvation, is it? Again, I ask, are you advocating a works salvation?

Again, I find it hard to believe that a Baptist has no problem separating believer's baptism from church membership. How can we have fellowship with those who are not willing to be obedient to one of the foundational commands of Scripture (receiving believer's baptism)? Our church does indeed state that a Christian coming from a different denomination must receive believer's baptism before they can become a member of our church. That may have kept one or two from joining, but let me be quite frank - I really don't want folks joining our church who aren't interested in being obedient to one of the NT's most foundational commands.

Show me one place in the Word of God where it is performed through pouring/sprinkling, and I will gladly concede that point. What you will find time and again is that those who received Christ then participated in baptism by immersion as their public profession of faith. One need to only look at the Book of Acts to see this plainly (beliver's at Pentecost, Etheopian eunech, etc.). Furthermore, the Greek term for baptize in God's Word is baptizo , a word that is near always translated as immersion in the NT. I would submit that it is always translated that way when it is used in reference to baptism.

 

I have great respect for the institution of baptism, but it cannot be denied that we Baptists have institutionalized and edified baptism almost to the point of legalism.

 

Johnv, I'm not saying that there aren't some churches that have become legalistic about baptism ("you must be baptized in our church," etc.). Yet, I don't think that a de-emphasis of the doctrine is the solution. I think the formulation of a biblical doctrine of baptism is the direction the churches must seek to go in. If churches would begin to consult God's Word rather than their traditions or opinion polls in regard to baptism, church membership would be handled much better in our Baptist churches.

 

I personally believe that even requiring baptism for membership is approaching legalism. There's no scriptural support for baptism as a prerequisite. When I got baptised, I was attending a church that didn't require it for membership. I was there for, I believe, several months before I got baptized. And it wasn't some "fancy church" affair. It was a private and intimate setting with a few of my friends in the pacific ocean. If I had been told "you can't be a member unless you're baptized", I likely would have left that church. We have turned what is supposed to be an intimate and personal thing into a litmus test. It's ridiculous, imo.

I do indeed agree.

 

Yet, in all due respect, in your attempts at honesty, you have asserted that the Scripture teaches a works salvation (someone must be baptized in order to be saved). That was clearly the hermeneutical method you used in interpreting the earlier passages you quoted. That's quite alarming, isn't it?

And to you I would respond by saying that there is no other type of believer's baptism contained within the pages of the NT. Show me one occasion where a believer is baptized by some other means and I'll concede the point.

Then I would have to say that your dad's baptism was not a biblical one until he joined the Baptist church by participating in baptism by immersion. He may have had some ceremonial type of observance, but he was never baptized. You may see this as a difference of semantics, but I see it as a foundational biblical issue that can't be avoided.

Your reply begs the question: Why then would you receive someone as a member of a Christian church who is not willing to practice baptism the biblical way? It appears that you want to have your cake and eat it to. In one breath you say that baptism by immersion is the biblical model, but in the next you say that it is really of no consequence when it comes to church membership. Is it or is it not important in regard to one's church membership? I don't see where there is any room for riding the fence on this issue, but I could be wrong.

 

I would say the whole idea of church membership is not addressed in the bible. My church requires baptism for membership, but that is baptist tradition and not necessarily based on anything biblical. [/QB][/QUOTE]

It seems that the problem here is that one side is arguing from the viewpoint of scripture, the other just needs to read it once in a while. I Cor. 12 spends its entire context on Members of the local body at Corinth. Those that gladly rec. the word are to be baptized and JOIN the local church. That is just Bible. As far as mode, well, that is quite simple: ICor.11:2 states that we are to keep the ordinances as they were delivered. Contextually the meaning is CLEAR and exhaustive to Baptism and the Lord's Supper...DON'T CHANGE THEM and THEY BELONG TO THE CHURCH...not to me. I have no right to touch them, just obey them under the auspices of the local church. Anything else is just someones opinion (teaching for the doctrines of the God the commandments of men).

 

This passage is about membership into the body of Christ and the use of spiritual gifts within that body.

The words 'local' and 'baptize' are not found in this passage.

The mode of baptism is not a tradition that Paul has been recorded as delivering to the Corinthians. </font>[/QUOTE]I Cor. 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordnances, as I delivered them to you." (I wonder if the meanings change with the MV's...hmmm) The ordnances are two, Baptism and The Lord's Supper.

If your interpretation is to jerk ICor12 out of the book and try and make it apply to some cosmic universal church, then I believe, Sir, that the most honest thing for you to do is take the name Baptist off of your signpost. The context of the entire BOOK is an address to the local church at Corinth and is mostly a rebuke (with some exhortation) as to thier mishandling of church polity at the local level. "THE CHURCH" (church means ASSEMBLY or GATHERING...not invisible body, just like BAPTIZO means immerse or submerge) which you are speaking of is the Bride of Christ and will not be assembled until the Rapture. Your theology is far more covenential and protestant than baptist, with all due respect.

 

It is LOCAL...that is the only possible reading of the context. BAPTIZE MEANS to submerge/immerse. When coupled with words such as BURIED, death (down), and RAISED and Resurrection (up) in Romans 6, the sense of scripture is plain. If the word defines itself, the attending verbage does so the more as a second, third and fourth witness. It would well to be very careful, in light of your earlier "private interpretation" of certain vss in Acts, and your interesting reinterpretation of ICor. as well as redefinition of Bible terms, who you accuse of being "Baptist instead of Bible." You are definitely not standing on the shoulders of giants here in your interesting approach to bibliology. I'll leave now, at the risk of being accused some more of not believing the bible by such a scholar as yourself. You have the floor. Enjoy.

 

So Golden Dragon if I understand you corectly,"it is more important to be a Christian then it is to be a Baptist".If that is correct

 

Just a note - that there are verses in the NT that support sprinkling - 2 directly if i recall - more indirectly - but lets see if ya'll can find em

But as to pouring thats not in the new testament directly although an argument could be made

for the modes of sprinkling and pouring see OT - which at last check was still part of the Bible

 

Gold Dragon, since you indicate you believe that the baptismal practice of John, Jesus and the apostles was immersion, by what means do you arrive at the conclusion that sprinking and pouring are also acceptable forms of baptism? Thanks.