The early church and baptism

Amen.

One would think that the New Testament-era church would have been a sufficient authority to determine correct doctrine about salvation. The opinions of men after them are the subject of this thread.

Acts 10:43 expressly says of Jesus Christ "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

If anyone subsequent to them said otherwise, it deserves no credence. What the Bible teaches, goes.

 

Yes I know you would but since you have disregarded all my questions with new questions of your own, I am not answering your question instead I am asking questions of my own like you have all along. You just dont seem to like it when someone does it back to you. I have the answer but at this time I refuse to acknowledge you with a response because you have done everyone on this board the same way. It seems my old Church of Christ up bringing has shown its ugly face for a minute. OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Alright enough fun, now its time to get serious. Im going to let a scholar answer this for me. This is from John MacAurthor and all credit to this goes to him but you will see that he agrees with me, or is it the other way around I agree with him either way, we are on the same page.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?



No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:

First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?

Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism.

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.

In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.

Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and
Romans 6.

In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.

Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.


Is Baptism Necessary for salvation

 

So what is the water?

 

Well maybe there was a bit of sarcasm in there but you have, what 4 threads going on the same thing and I think we have beaten this horse dead a few times. Its certain that we are not going to convince you of what the scripture says and its also certain that you are not going to convice us of your interpretation of those said scripture, so I ask one last question, and that is what is your purpose for coming into a Baptist board that you agree nothing with except to stir up some "trouble" for lack of a better word. I know that there are boards for Church of Christ but yet you spend your time debating Baptist, wouldnt your time be spent better trying to reach the lost, or better yet trying to teach Church of Christ your "false" doctrine. I posted a post with John MacArthurs thoughts, I already know that you disagree with them because they dont line up with the Church of Christ doctrine. I am just curious what your motive in all this is.

 

Maybe I shouldn't be trying to answer a question posited to JSM17 because I don't know his motives. However, this board is titled "Other Christian Denominations" and it ought not to be unusual to hear from people whose POV differs from ours. I don't post as often as some and probably spend more time reading what others are saying, but sometimes it gets really boring when everyone is simply saying, "Amen" or "I agree completely" or "You have said all that needs to be said on this" or words to that effect. Also I don't understand why Church of Christ posters here are met with such hostility. Others who post here, e.g., Matt Black and Agnus Dei, have views even more unbaptistic than the CoC but they are treated with respect. So why does everyone get so thoroughly antagonistic when CoC people post here?

 

Brother, I did not say anything about not wanting you here, its just the fact that you have 4 threads that lead to the same thing "BAPTISM" I just wonder why its that big of an issue with you that you think it takes 4 threads to discuss. I am glad you are here. The thing is I have not seen an open mind with you, when you are showed scripture, you either disregard it or you interprit the scripture a way that doesnt line up with other scriptures. That is what I have tried to point out to you but when its pointed out you get defensive. I for one am glad you are here, I just hope that one day your eyes will be opened and you will except the scripture in context and not from pulling scripture from and here and there to make is say what you want, and yes I know that is what you are doing because if you remember back, I said I had been raised Church of Christ, I was taught everything you have been saying, so its old news to me. Neither of us are arguing that one shouldnt be Baptized, we both say that one should, we are arguing the reason that one should be baptized, and we have walked that mud hole dry serveral times through out the 4 threads, yet here we are still discussing it, do you have another subject that we can get on with.

 

I meant no disrespect to JSM17, I just dont understand why we need to keep on this, no one has said AH HA your right. I welcome him in here and I would like to see him open some other discussions that dont lead to Baptism but he has yet to do that. Lets get one going on music that is always fun.

 

Apparently JSM17 has made it his mission to convert the rest of us to his COC position on water baptism.

faith alone is too simple for him

 

It might be in part because of how belligerent Church of Christ promoters tend to get, both on Internet discussion boards and in real life.

Also, in part, it could be because we get tired of dealing with the same stuff from them. We refute one person who teaches that believers on the Lord Jesus Christ will be unsaved if they fail to get properly baptized, and s/he gives up and leaves; then another one comes along with the exact same stuff. It gets annoying.

With Agnus Dei and Matt Black, they are individuals. You get different arguments from them. In contrast, at most Church of Christ congregations, congregants get told what to think Scripture teaches; if you disagree on anything, you become a `second class' member at best. Therefore, they generally have the exact same positions and the exact same arguments. They do not think for themselves, because the group position is `what the Bible teaches' in their minds. This current Church of Christ poster has not done much but present yet again the same `canned' arguments we have dealt with before. I cannot help but be annoyed myself.

Also, Agnus Dei and Matt Black are learning to control how often they bring up their favorite `hobby horses.' On the other hand, as someone noted, this current Church of Christ poster has several threads going about the same subject. When one approach fails to get the desired result, s/he simply starts another thread to advance the same premise. I cannot help but be sympathetic to those who are annoyed.

However, the biggest problem I suspect is that many of us know how Church of Christ promoters normally operate: belligerently. It is often encouraged in Church of Christ circles to lie about other church groups. In debates, `creative misrepresentation' is often encouraged against opponents. Within their walls, `denominationalists' are reviled as desiring to disobey God and live in wanton sin. Incivility toward `denominationalists' is often encouraged. This state is not the case in all Churches of Christ, but it is a disproportionate problem among them. Most congregations that do not participate in this state may not participate in it, but they will condone it, make excuses for it, and otherwise support it. Again, this does not describe them all, but the Churches of Christ have this for a major problem. Because of this, Church of Christ promoters are often distrusted.

I remember being a Church of Christ member. I did not agree with them on every precept, and I did not approve of all that happens among them -- but my congregation did not participate in the activities of radical `Church of Christ' buildings, and so I hung around. On Internet discussion boards, anytime I identified myself as such, people assumed that I was a Church of Christ promoter, and would assume that I was going to approach them with the above attitudes. Neither was true -- but I never blamed anyone for suspecting such, because they had good reason to. I left the Churches of Christ because it became evident that if I wanted to do more than fill a pew, I had to go to another church group.

To be sure, I love the Churches of Christ -- but not every group precept, and not everything that happens among them. I still participate in activities of one of them, but `bite my tongue' a lot. There is slow progress occurring among the Churches of Christ, and I enjoy seeing it.

 

My only problem with some COC folks is when they try to tell the rest of us that we are lost for not agreeing with their conclusions on issues like baptism, instrumental music, church name, church government, and so on.

 

A hunch and $4 or $5 will get you a cup of Starbucks. John 4:1, 2 tells us:

1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

 

In John 3:22 it says Jesus was baptizing. In John 4:2 it says He did not baptize. How do you reconcile these seeming contradictions? Answer: (which I first presented in Post No. 6) Jesus baptized His disciples. Having been baptized, they were suitable administrators of this rite so He stopped baptizing let them do it in His name.