Baptism by Water??

I would have extreme doubts concerning the salvation of a person who actively delayed or avoided Baptism, because I would have to ask why they would wish to deny themselves the Grace which God promises to impart in the Water and the Word of Baptism.

 

No, water Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. When Baptism is mentioned in the Bible it has several meanings. Sometimes it has to do with water baptism and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes baptism is about repentance and later it is about association and commitment. Anyway, there is a Baptism that has to be done for salvation. That being that the Holy Spirit must baptize a person into the "church". BTW, I am not talking about some extra Baptism that leads to Tongues and other things I am simply saying that when a person gets saved, the Holy Spirit Baptizes them into the "church" and they are a memeber of the body that Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 12.

In Christ,
Brian

 

IMO, the short answer is no.

Baptism is something a Christian is to do sometime after they are saved. It is done in obedience to Christ, and as a public testimony of their faith. Not to do it is disobediece. Disobedience damages our fellowship with our Heavenly Father, but nothing can end our relationship with Him. And disobedience will bring about discipline from God.

I would be concerened about someone who knows that they are to be baptized but refuses. If their faith in God can't even get them into the bapism waters, do they really have faith (saving faith) in God?

 

No you will not go to hell.

 

I do not believe that a professing Christian who refuses baptism is a genuine Christian.

Let me first go to Acts 2:38a translated into Portuguese “Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para | remissão dos vossos peacados” (DA ERC|DA ERA).

The translation uses the strong imperative for KJV "repent" but the obligatory subjunctive for KJV "be baptized." The verse as translated is best understood as “You-people-repent-you, and-so let-s/he-be-baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, in-order-for the remission of you-people’s sins." We repent for remission of sins, but that repentance obligates us to be be baptized.

Regarding Noah's Flood, 1 Peter 3:21 says “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|), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (ASV|NASB|RSV 1952|KJV). The actual ceremony involving water is excluded from the saving process, but the verse does indicate that the repentance baptism represents is what saves us. No baptism = no biblical faith/repentance.

I certainly believe that we are saved by faith before baptism on the basis of such passages as Ephesians 2:8-10. James 2:14-26 and Galatians 5:6 indicate that biblical faith acts, and Ephesians 2:8-10 indicate that a person is saved without works in order for works. [I believe that an unwillingness to be baptized demonstrates a lack of biblical faith in the Gospel

At Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus said “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB). The Greek word translated "disciples" is translated "followers" in the ICB. We make converts, the converts get baptized, and they are taught to follow the things Jesus ordained. Under these circumstances, I cannot imagine this important step being omitted with the Lord's okay. A person unwilling to follow Jesus' basic command to be baptized is not ready to follow Him in the subsequent matters.

In Romans 6:2-11, the Christian is pictured as having died to sin and risen to new life in baptism. Again, a person unwilling to participate in this shunning of sin and with a new life demonstrates a lack of biblical faith in the Gospel.

In the Baptist church I got saved at, baptism was to be a public identification with Jesus Christ. If so, I do not see how a person unwilling to identify with Jesus Christ could be a genuine follower of Jesus Christ.

 

Darron, Acts 2:38 is not believer Baptism. It is a baptism of repentance. Read the context. Peter is answering the question, "What should we do?" The "we" is the people of Isreal who had killed God's son and become His enemy. Peter tells them to repent and to be Baptized so the sin of killing Jesus will not be held against them anymore. The repentance and outward sign of baptism put them in a postion to be saved. You just simply can't apply this scripture to the Gentiles for they are not part of the "we" that Peter was talking to. It is easy to take scripture out of context when trying to prove a point that you believe in. If one believes that you must be Baptized to be saved then one will find scriptures to prove that even if the meanings of the scriptures have to be stretched to do so. I hope that didn't sound harsh as it was not intended to be. More later,

In Christ,
Brian

 

I believe that Christian baptism is both `baptism of repentance' AND `believer baptism.' If it was just Acts 2:38 that I posted on, I might agree with you. However, Peter also wrote 1 Peter 3:21 which I cited, and there were the passages of Matthew 28:19-20 and Romans 6:2-11 that I cited.

It did sound harsh, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, please take my reply in the same tone: I do not buy into the novel idea that these Jews would be saved any differently than we are. I did read the context of the passage, but I stick with what is in Scripture as a whole, and I do not see evidence for multiple types of salvation, so I believe that all are saved the same way in Christ Jesus.

Now, the reply looked like what someone would throw at a baptismal regenerist. I am no baptismal regenerationist, as my first post made clear. I simply believe that no one has biblical faith if s/he refuses baptism. Let us not be induced to have the discussion clouded by issues that are not involved.

 

Hi Darron, I only had time to comment on the Acts 2:38 verse. Maybe later I will try to tackle the others from your first post. Just to give you a different perspective.
On Acts 2:38, if you read carefully what I said I didn't say that there were two salvations, one for Gentile and one for Jew. (that is a different subject and in all honesty I see both arguments) What I said is that the repentance and subsequent Baptism was for the Jews at that time to get in a postion where they could be saved by belief. The Jews had become God's enemy and needed to straighten that out before they could see clearly to receiving Christ as Savior. I hope I explained that well enough for you to see the difference.

Darron, in talking about Acts 2:38 you have to address the fact that Peter is answering a question from a certain group. 1 Peter is a whole deifferent audience and at a later time. His writing/speaking does not need to be consistant in that respect because he was addressing 2 different types of Baptism. Much like if he was discussing what John the Baptist did compared to what was happening in 50AD.

BTW, your tone was very respectful. Thanks for the good debate and for sharing your thoughts.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Thank you Briguy. I am enjoying this conversation.

I am sorry I misunderstood your position as advocating multiple types of salvation between Jew and Gentile.

For 1 Peter 3:21, I believe that it is completely in harmony with Acts 2:38. 1 Peter 3:21 was written over 30 years later and to a different and larger audience. The fact that they seem to say the same thing suggests to me that Acts 2:38 was meant to be a universal application. The application: `If you really have accepted the Gospel, you need to be baptized.'

Other information on my views on this from the other side of this coin is available on this thread where baptismal regeneration is being advocated http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33902 I take the opposition side, as I believe you would.

I wish to be clear. I do not believe that a person who was not raised a Christian, gets "saved," attends a Baptist, Independent Christian, Church of Christ, or Disciples of Christ church for decades, and never gets baptized, has accepted the Gospel. I believe that s/he will bear the cost for the defiance of this basic Christian command.

On the other hand, I do believe that a person who accepts the Gospel while dying alone in a desert is not unsaved despite the impossibility of baptism. I believe also that a person who has been through an improper baptism ceremony as a pre-repentant and/or put through a ceremony that did not involve immersion, who still believes that the ceremony had some validity, and refuses to be baptized because s/he feels it would be wrong, is still saved if s/he has biblical faith in the Gospel. Do the last two paragraphs make sense?

 

Tali,

Great question and the answer I am going to give is much like the one that I just gave in another thread dealing with baptism. And to answer your question one way or the other one would need to know what you mean by if a person isn't baptized will they go to hell.

By that I am assuming (bad thing to do and you can correct me if I'm wrong) that you are asking if a person isn't baptized are they eternally saved or will they spend eternity in the lake of fire. And if that is indeed your question the answer is no.

If you would like more info on other possibilities feel free to email me.

God's blessings to you and your family my friend!!!

 

Hi Darron,
In my case I am convinced that Baptism served a different purpose then it did in the early church. I believe the "church" has matured and that things have changed to fulfill what Baptism once did. When a believer was baptized in the early church it associated them with the group called "the way". Once a person joined that group they were opened up to being persecuted, sometimes in big ways. Baptism was a mark of real faith. It was a bold statement of allegence. In 2006 we join churches that bear the name of our Lord. We enter building that let people know who we belong to. This is the commitment we make now. Baptism is fine and all but different then it was. It is a great expression of faith that people can see but it is not needed. Now, because I believe that with all my herat will I miss Heaven because I believe that. I came to Christ 15 years ago. He grabed a hold of me and I am His. The Bible said to "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" and I have done that.

[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
[19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
[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.
[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:
[22] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

These scriptures are figurative in nature. Did water save Noah and his family? Well, no, God saved Noah right? The water let the boat float but God did the saving. The water really saved the Bodies, not the souls. Souls in this text may just mean people. I just thought of that and haven't checked other interpretations. If read as a "picture" and not read as direct language this makes more sense. Baptism is just a way of showing outwardly what God does inwardly, that is the point here. God has always been the saver of people, not water or anything else.

I will wait for your resonse before I continue. Also, In the book of Acts, Gentiles are not brought into the picture for several more chapters after #2. Acts 2:38 was addressed to the Jews, before Peter was told by God that Gentile would be clean, therefore he could not have been speaking to ALL believers in all times.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Then it will be hard for us to have a productive discussion from here on out. I believe that most things that were commanded and general patterns in the New Testament are still binding on us today. I see no Scriptural evidence that the New Covenant was intended to ever change.

Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB). Baptism was to accompany the making of converts as well teaching them what to do as converts, and I believe that this passage teaches that baptism was always going to be commanded until the end of the world as we know it.

Indeed they are. As for the baptism reference, it may be better translated "baptism (|not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a |clear conscience|)” (ASV|NASB|RSV 1952|KJV). Water baptism represents repentance, and that repentance saves us before we even step in the water, but refusal to be baptized = no repentance.

 

Although history records a number of Christians who put off baptism until their death beds, because all early Christians knew and believed that baptism is the washing of reneration and the normal means of the new birth, this delaying of baptism was due to a few thinking that sins committed after baptism, if they were sins unto death, could not be forgiven. They were afraid of losing their salvation by sinning after baptism so they delayed until as close to death as possible. While it is true, of course, that salvation can be lost in this life--anyone holding modern eternal security ideas would have been promptly cast out of the early church as a heretic--it is certainly true that post-baptismal sins can be as easily forgiven as those before baptism. Also, early Christians recognized God made exceptions to his general rule that salvation comes through water baptism (we know of two examples of exceptions in Scripture), so they also recognized "baptism of desire" and "baptism of blood" in addition to baptism of water as imparting baptism with the Spirit.

 

On Acts 2:38, etc.

If the meaning and purpose of water baptism has changed since Acts 2:38, then we no longer have the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. If so, we are still in our sins and have no hope.

 

Taufgesinnter,
YOU CAN'T LOSE YOUR SALVATION. You didn't acheive it on your own and you can't lose what you don't own. Jesus bought the saved person and He owns owns the saved person. Jesus is perfect and would never be seen in the return aisle.:smilewinkgrin: If we purchased our own salvation and we owned it we would lose it for sure. Thanks be to God that keeping our salvation depends on God and not us. Sorry, I was going to say this is a different topic and then I went and commented anyway.

T, if you read my comments on Acts 2:38 you would see that I am saying that that Baptism was a Baptism of repentance, like John the baptist did. I am sure you see the difference between John's Baptism and Baptisms later in the NT. There is no reason to think that the Baptism in Acts 2:38 could not be more like John's then it was like believer baptism. Isreal had sinned against God and was looking for a way to gain favor again. That group with Peter asked what they should do and peter told them, he did not tell us. The repentance with Baptism as the outward sign of desire put those of the House of Isreal in a position to be saved, it did not save them. The sin of killing Jesus and turning their back on God was forgiven and they that repented would be open to receiving Jesus. Anyway, from what you said I am guessing you are a Catholic. You have a different perspective on this I know.
T and Darron, Do you two agree that in the early church God gave gifts of healings and miracles (tongues also) and that they served a specific purpose for that time? I have no doubt that God gave these gifts to give the Gospel message authority. When Peter or Paul healed they usually preached the Gospel after that. The healings, raising of the dead, gave this new message power. There was no Bible as an authority then so God gave gifts to people that would show His authority. By the time the Bible was a whole the miracle gifts had ceased. Their purpose had run its course. To me that is very basic theology. I say that to make you see that Baptism also could have had a purpose that has evolved over time. Where once it showed association and was a crucial thing to do to show committment to Christ, now we join actual church memberships to do this. Baptism now is way more ceremonial. Many many infants and adults get Baptized but have no changed heart and live like the devil their whole lives. The act means nothing to them. The water did nothing. They went in stained with sin and came out stained with sin. You see, only blood can wash away sin, not water, not symbolic water, not the prayer of others. In the OT blood would atone for sin but the Blood of Jesus actually clears the sin away and washes forever the sin of the truely saved (chosen) person forever. If Baptism had power in and of itself then hundreds of thousands of people could not get Baptized and have no change to their lives.

I am not arguing that baptism was important in the early church. I am saying that its main purpose was foundational, like the Apostles and Prophets.

All for now,
In Christ
Brian

 

Yes I do. Unlike baptism, however, Scripture indicates that these miracle gifts would change -- 1 Corinthians 13:8. The same is true of baptism: when we have true, biblical faith in the Gospel, we are saved -- but that biblical faith is one that would motivate us to be baptized.

I agree that they have been through a ceremony. They were not baptized. 1 Peter 3:21a says “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|KJV).

No repentance = no baptism.

My former Baptist preacher used to say that if one did not believe the Gospel when s/he went into the baptismal pool, "You go in a dry sinner and come out a wet sinner, but still a lost Hell-bound sinner." He is exactly right.

I will extend this: regardless of what one does and claims about being a professed "Christian," `If you refuse baptism all your life, you live a rebel against Christ, die a rebel against Christ, and go to Hell a rebel against Christ.'

 

It saddens me to see all these people deceived by the world into believing there is nothing more to baptism than an empty ceremony done by man. It is truly a shame people can't let God be God and stop telling him what he can and cannot do.

 

Chemitz, Think about it once. You are the one saying that God requires more the child-like faith. You are actually telling God that salvation is dependent on something other then His Son. If Baptism is required for entrance into Heaven then we have a problem. A man is required to be part of someone else's salvation. The fact is that God chose Isreal as His people. He chooses each Gentile that will be His. What God has chosen I can't in my wildest imagination conceive that He will not allow into heaven because they did not participate in a ceremonial washing. God knows who are His from the beginning.
Darron, God's election process can't be tossed aside when speaking of Baptism. He established the "church" with His Son at the head. Baptism was an outward show of a spiritual cleansing. Actually, I believe that the word baptism only menas water baptism some of the time in scripture. It sometimes means Spirit baptism and sometimes just simply "immersion". Like one can be immersed in their studies. We are saved by Faith and the faith comes from God, by His Election. Far be it from me to tell God that he can only allow the elected that have been water baptized into Heaven.

In Christ,
Brian

 

And thus you illustrate my point perfectly. You can not see pass the mundane therefore you call it a ceremony, when in reality it is God interacting with the person recieving Baptism through the simple earthly means of water and word. Anybody who denies the reception of God's grace is in a questionable state concerning their salvation because what Christian would actively seek to avoid recieving God's grace. But then again some many have been tricked by satan into believing the lie that God can't interact with people through simple earthly means. You should also note that I did not state that is a requirement there are special circumstances such as the thief on the cross. If God can create faith through his word what is to stop him from doing so in baptism which contains his word?