Featured Baptism query

I have been a member of a Baptist church for 15 years but was raised in a Church of Christ, now before you start the heresy hunt, I'm from Australia, so there is some difference. CofC in Aus are like Evanglelical DoC's, the Baptist and Church of Christ get along quite well, even have shared congregations.

However my sons are now approaching the age to get baptised, which presents a difficulty. I have a view of "normalative" baptism for the remission of sins. I do think the bible links baptism to salvation (but to partially quote a reformed saying) not in such a way that all the baptised are saved or all the unbaptised are damned. Baptism to me is a normal part of a faithful response of faith, it was instituted by Jesus for our benefit not for God's benefit.

Now I'm not looking for an arguement, just want to get thoughts on some questions on the baptist view that I have...

If baptism is primarily an act of obedience, why do you think it is always passive for the individual (be baptised) and active for the church (baptise)? (To me that makes it sound like it is part of our response to the grace offered by God through the church not action that an individual performs, an act recevied not an act performed. I suppose "act of obedience" makes it sound like it is my action not the churches action which I receive.)

 

Thanks, looks like no one got to perturbed but equally no one answered my question.

 

Yeshau1,

Yes it is an outward sign/symbol but outward symbol can be part of the inner reality.

You can get married without a wedding. People tend to tie a wedding to getting married because the symbolic actions help to ground us in actions that help represent the inner changes for both ourselves and out communities.

You can be a monarch without a coronation but you would seem somewhat odd.

You can make friends without shaking hands but if you refused to shake the other person may find it very odd.

You can be married without beign intimate in a married sense but that physical aspect is part of the gift of God to assist in binding you to each other. Baptism was given as a physical act to assist with us getting the whole person invloved in our response to God.

 

I'd describe myself as a sacramental credo-baptist.

 

Yeshau1,

Yes it is an outward sign/symbol but outward symbol can be part of the inner reality.

You can get married without a wedding. People tend to tie a wedding to getting married because the symbolic actions help to ground us in actions that help represent the inner changes for both ourselves and our communities.

You can be a monarch without a coronation but you would seem somewhat odd.

You can make friends without shaking hands but if you refused to shake the other person may find it very odd.

You can be married without beign intimate in a married sense but that physical aspect is part of the gift of God to assist in binding you to each other. Baptism was given as a physical act to assist with us getting the whole person invloved in our response to God.

 

Thanks all for your responses. At first I didn't think I had a reply but maybe the lack of engagement was the reply.

I was trying to find out if the clear point that baptism is addressed as a passive act to individuals (be baptised) but an active act to the church (baptise) impacted your understanding of it as an act of obedience. It appears it doesn't.

I can't help but feel that it often presented in my (Baptist) church as something someone does (an active act) not as something someone recevies (a passive act). I personally find it hard to think of it as primarily as act of obedience when it appears from the language of scripture that it is something to be received.

Again thanks for the civil discussion.

 

JonC,

I hadn't thought of that angle before. I had always thought of baptism like you as not depending on who did it but my as part of my response. However if the bible commands me to receive baptism (it is clearly a passive command) and Jesus commanded the disciples to give baptism (clearly an active command).

For me is merely indicates that we should seek to receive it. The church should seek to give it. I have never made the link that we must we receive it from the church but it must be part of what drives the views of the more sacramental churches. Mmmm thanks, gave me something to think about.

 

Simple answer is yes, as I said in OP, baptism is linked to salvation but not in a manner that all the baptised are saved nor all the unbaptized are damned.

However I believe that it ought to be the exception, baptism is part of normal way people are saved in the NT.

 

Again thanks for all who responded


Next question....

I have heard it said that there are no pre-Zwingli evidence for symbolic only baptism, are you aware of any evidence?

 

Yeshua1,

I would prefer the term "effective baptism" (ie baptism has an effect) versus "symbolic baptism". The problem with your view, is that there is to the best of my knowledge (which is why I asked my question) not a single person who supported symbolic only baptism until Zwingli though it up. In fact Zwingli even said that all the doctors of church had been wrong up till his time. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Luther etc etc. If your view is correct there is not a single Christian from 90 AD till around 1500 that read scriptures your way. Everyone got it wrong. Please can you give me any evidence that any Christian believed symbolic only baptism before 1000AD.


I could list a long list of scriptures that support my view but I am sure that you would interpret them differently. From my perspective it appears people often decide a theology and then explain scriptures to fit there ideas. This is what scriptures says but it can't say that, they then go from once verse to the next using the same method. "Eisegesis" is a skill that most Christians are very skilled (even at times myself).

 

Yeshua1,

Thank you for your honesty, so the church in disverse regions from a time roughly in line with the closing the NT canon, universally and without any recorded objection held a false doctrine. Personally I find that hard to accept.

Mark 16:16 He that believes and is baptised will be saved....

Acts 2:38 Repent and be baptised for the remission of sin...

1 Pet 3:21 Baptism now saves you, not the washing of water but the pledge of a good conscience before God...

Acts 22:16 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Now I know that you interpret all the verses above to delink baptism from salvation, but IMHO it isn't that there is no evidence but you don't accept the evidence. The question to me isn't is baptism linked to salvation but how is it linked. That is where my interest is, how do we fit evidence like above in with other verses without bascially saying the verses above aren't saying what IMHO they are.

Have a great day, I'm fairly sure we will not be able to resolve our differences on this forum.