• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Real Baptism - part II

This conversation we're having her called to mind an incident in my church more than 60 years ago.

An elderly man became ill. He had avoided church all his life, although his wife and children were actively involved. The Lord saved him on his deathbed, and he wanted to be baptized. But he was so weak, he could not even get out of bed.

The church leaders stewed over how this man could be baptized. A couple suggested sprinkling, but the church leaders just couldn't bring themselves to agree to that.

Finally, one of the leaders had this brilliant idea. Let's just declare him baptized, and vote him into church membership.

But that didn't fly, either. The man died without ever being baptized. I guess taking him to the bathtub at home and dunking him wasn't an option.

Looking back, it's interesting that there was even debate.

But it does raise the question--what would your church do in similar circumstances?

In situations like this, taking him in as a member without baptism is "sticky". I am not saying that he wasn't saved, but one can be saved without having their name on any church book. I wouldn't have had a problem with setting him in a chair, in the shower, and the turning the showerhead on. Considering he was on his deathbed, this would be suitable for me. The main thing is this; he was saved before he died, and I rejoice in just knowing that!:thumbs::jesus:

i am I am's!!

Willis
 

Tom Butler

New Member
In situations like this, taking him in as a member without baptism is "sticky". I am not saying that he wasn't saved, but one can be saved without having their name on any church book. I wouldn't have had a problem with setting him in a chair, in the shower, and the turning the showerhead on. Considering he was on his deathbed, this would be suitable for me. The main thing is this; he was saved before he died, and I rejoice in just knowing that!:thumbs::jesus:Willis

Hmm, interesting. How about the rest of you? Would the shower do the trick? Every part of his body was under water. He was wet all over. Would the shower fit the description of immerse, dip or plunge?
 

Tom Butler

New Member
Yes, baptism is symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is also an outward symbol of inside cleansing.

The symbol is an indication of a reality. One cannot change the symbol and say it represents the same reality.

Immersion is the best symbol of the gospel.
Sprinkling is not, pouring is not. They leave something to be desired as representations of the death, burial and resurrection.

For the sacramentalists among us, who hold that baptism has salvific efficacy, are you sure that you want to risk someone's soul for the sake of convenience? In other words, if baptism saves, and all agree that baptizo is immersion, do you really want to take a chance that the short-cut may not be doing the job?

The Church of Christ folks aren't taking any chances.
 

jaigner

Active Member
For the sacramentalists among us, who hold that baptism has salvific efficacy, are you sure that you want to risk someone's soul for the sake of convenience? In other words, if baptism saves, and all agree that baptizo is immersion, do you really want to take a chance that the short-cut may not be doing the job?

Sacramentalists don't necessarily believe that baptism is a salvific act. In fact, most of us don't. Sacraments are means of grace.

Those who believe that probably wouldn't want to take any chances. So fill up the tub and get the guy as far under as possible.

But the rest of us don't see the symbol as having that kind of power in itself. I don't think there is anything wrong with the affusion method because of that very reason.
 

Gershom

Active Member
Back in Feb I started a thread about Baptism
click here for that link

there was some interesting discusion.

Here is my OP from the link:

I was reading my Wycliffe Bible Commentary and came across Acts 8:38. The commentary says " One of our earliest post-Biblical Christian writings, the Didache (c. A.D. 125), says that baptism should be performed in running water if it is possible. (bold is Salty's emphasis)

Thoughts?

Salty

This is great news! Now we can take new believers out back and squirt them with the garden hose! Just kidding. We all know as long as they're dunked in water, running or not, it's acceptable.
 

Gershom

Active Member
I have heard a couple of pastors who sprinkle (not Baptist) say that baptizo does, in fact, mean to dip or plunge. They sprinkle as a matter of convenience. And since they are also pedobaptists, they don't want to immerse an infant. And the mode is not a big deal.

Anybody else heard that?

I know a preacher who lived in China for some years and a Chinese woman who had heard him preach ran to him and insisted to be baptized right there on the street. He had bottled water and poured the water over the top of her head.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mode is not a big deal to me, either. Baptism is the sign of entering into covenant with Christ, and replaced O.T. circumcision, which was the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Baptism is a washing, an ablution.

I'd like to offer a different interpretation, and that is that circumcision is not replaced with physical baptism (a sign being replaced merely by another sign) but with spiritual circumcision.

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” ~ Col. 2:11-12"

And, yes, I see that baptism is mentioned in verse 12, but it is spiritual baptism (also made without hands).

To have circumcision be replaced by merely physical baptism is to overlook, IMO, the spiritual aspect of new life in Christ. The whole emphasis of our new life in Christ is on the invisible, freed from the visible and physical tokens of the preparatory Old Covenant.
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
I'd like to offer a different interpretation, and that is that circumcision is not replaced with physical baptism (a sign being replaced merely by another sign) but with spiritual circumcision.

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” ~ Col. 2:11-12"

And, yes, I see that baptism is mentioned in verse 12, but it is spiritual baptism (also made without hands).

To have circumcision be replaced by merely physical baptism is to overlook, IMO, the spiritual aspect of new life in Christ. The whole emphasis of our new life in Christ is on the invisible, freed from the visible and physical tokens of the preparatory Old Covenant.

Tom,

This is a really good point. Since you brought this up, I'm curious whether you think the "Spiritual Baptism" aspect allows for us to accept something other than immersion as a valid baptism. Can you share your thoughts?

Blessings,

The Archangel
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Tom,

This is a really good point. Since you brought this up, I'm curious whether you think the "Spiritual Baptism" aspect allows for us to accept something other than immersion as a valid baptism. Can you share your thoughts?

Blessings,

The Archangel

A couple of years ago I would have said No. But at this point I would definitely say that we should not let mode of baptism have more importance than it should. I do believe that baptism needs to be a conscious commitment on the one being baptized (no room for paedo-baptism), seeing that a good part of the baptism is statement of commitment (which, of course, a baby can't do).
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
A couple of years ago I would have said No. But at this point I would definitely say that we should not let mode of baptism have more importance than it should. I do believe that baptism needs to be a conscious commitment on the one being baptized (no room for paedo-baptism), seeing that a good part of the baptism is statement of commitment (which, of course, a baby can't do).

Can you elaborate? I'm not trying to set you up as a drum to beat against, but I would like to understand why you think mode is not as important. Again, if you read my earlier posts in the thread, you'll see that I've been dealing with this in our church. So, I'm curious as to why you came to your conclusion and how you came to that conclusion.

Blessings,

The Archangel
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Bro Aaron,

There are a few things I'd like to address in you post here. Please don't take this as me bashing you, because it is not. I just want to give you my take on water baptism.



Let me start this by saying that no one is saved by water baptism, but it is more than just a symbol.

1Peter 3:18 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:

22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

How can you answer the good conscience toward God, if you haven't done it? I am talking about those who are able to get to the water, and not those who are saved on their death bed, or those who died before they got to the water. The water baptism is not a mere symbol, but a righteous act, IMHO.

Matt. 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Now, Jesus was just as much CHRIST prior to this event than afterwards. This was written of Him and how John would recognize the Christ to come.

John 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Who sent John to baptize with water? It had to be God, correct?

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.


Rom. 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.


Gal. 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
I think is giving reference to the Holy Ghost baptism(not the one where some claim you start speaking in tongues with that Holy Ghost baptism. When we are saved, we are baptized into Christ Spiritually!!
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



So, by the Spirit coming down and aboding(if thats even a word) upon Jesus, it was the sign that John was looking for, to confirm that this was the Messiah to come. So baptism is more than a symbol, but it is the way we put our light on the "candlestick, that it may give light to all that are in the house.


If baptism is a "symbol only", then let's start making the cross any way people want to. How would you feel if a member of your church said this; "Let's put the cross upside down in the church, sideways, make it look like a "plus sign" etc, because the cross we use is not the same cross that Jesus died on, and therefore a mere symbol, and anyway will do"(and I know that no one on here would want any of these things to happen). I feel that that's the way baptism is being handled nowadays. "Anyway is okay with me," is the soup de jour. I am not directing this at anyone, just thinking out loud. No one would want the cross in their church placed upside down, sideways, made to look like a "plus sign", or any other way than the way it looks now. So, why would they want baptism to be anything less than FULL IMMERSION? Any other way than that is not baptism. If baptism was good enough for Jesus, why should we settle for less than what He did, by being baptized??I pray that everyone sees where I am coming from on this.


i am I am's!!

Willis

PS Read Acts chapter 10 where Peter went to Cornelius' house. Peter wanted those gentiles to be baptized the same as the Jews!!ps
This sounds very much like a paper I wrote on Baptism at the age of 20 when I was baptized. My views have changed a bit over the years, and I think them more biblical now.
 
Top