Baptism query

[AnthonyB]

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.)

 

[BobRyan]

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.

I think there is at least one person here who has stated that as a Baptist he refuses to join in fellowship and open communion with Southern Baptists - so I think there are at least one or two who would be willing to engage in some name-calling on the point that you raise above.

Time will tell.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Herald]

Baptism is an ordinance (sacrament, if you will) of the Church (Mat. 28:19, 20). It is to be administrated by those who are "qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ". Typically this would be either the pastor or elders.

 

[JonC]

I do understand baptism as an act of obedience – and an ordinance rather than a sacrament. So my thoughts would be that we are not saved by grace offered by God through the church, but instead that the church is those who have been saved through grace functioning as the body of Christ. These people share the gospel with the lost, but salvation itself is individual and independent of the actual Church.



That being my understanding, I do not think that the churches action impacts the ordinance of baptism. I could be baptized by a pastor who in reality was unsaved, but I don’t think that that would negate my baptism (where if it were an action that depended primarily on the church, there would be an issue – an un-regenerated pastor cannot truly be a part of the body of Christ).



I suppose, however, that one’s understanding of the issue will depend on their understanding of baptism and the nature of the Church. Some believe it to be an ordinance and others see it as a sacrament.

 

[Salty]

Baptism is an ordinance (sacrament, if you will) ....

I will not. Sacrament

 

[Yeshua1]

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.)

water Baptism an outward sign /symbol that points to the reality of a sinner who has already passed over from death to life in Christ!

Done to those who already believe in Jesus...

many who were never water baptized for whatever reason were saved
NONE that were baptized and never trusted in Jesus were!

 

[AnthonyB]

I think there is at least one person here who has stated that as a Baptist he refuses to join in fellowship and open communion with Southern Baptists - so I think there are at least one or two who would be willing to engage in some name-calling on the point that you raise above.

Time will tell.

in Christ,

Bob

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

 

[Herald]

I will not. Sacrament

In Reformed parlance "sacrament" means, "an outward sign instituted by God to convey an inward or spiritual grace".

 

[AnthonyB]

water Baptism an outward sign /symbol that points to the reality of a sinner who has already passed over from death to life in Christ!

Done to those who already believe in Jesus...

many who were never water baptized for whatever reason were saved
NONE that were baptized and never trusted in Jesus were!

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.

 

[AnthonyB]

In Reformed parlance "sacrament" means, "an outward sign instituted by God to convey an inward or spiritual grace".

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

 

[AnthonyB]

water Baptism an outward sign /symbol that points to the reality of a sinner who has already passed over from death to life in Christ!

Done to those who already believe in Jesus...

many who were never water baptized for whatever reason were saved
NONE that were baptized and never trusted in Jesus were!

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.

 

[AnthonyB]

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.

 

[AnthonyB]

I do understand baptism as an act of obedience – and an ordinance rather than a sacrament. So my thoughts would be that we are not saved by grace offered by God through the church, but instead that the church is those who have been saved through grace functioning as the body of Christ. These people share the gospel with the lost, but salvation itself is individual and independent of the actual Church.



That being my understanding, I do not think that the churches action impacts the ordinance of baptism. I could be baptized by a pastor who in reality was unsaved, but I don’t think that that would negate my baptism (where if it were an action that depended primarily on the church, there would be an issue – an un-regenerated pastor cannot truly be a part of the body of Christ).



I suppose, however, that one’s understanding of the issue will depend on their understanding of baptism and the nature of the Church. Some believe it to be an ordinance and others see it as a sacrament.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

can a person be fully justified before God without being water baptized in your understanding?

For amny were water baptized as infants and young childrem that NEVER were sabed, some never been batized, but are saved!

 

[AnthonyB]

can a person be fully justified before God without being water baptized in your understanding?

For amny were water baptized as infants and young childrem that NEVER were sabed, some never been batized, but are saved!

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.

 

[AnthonyB]

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]

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?

The Apsotles did NOT teach sacramental baptism!

 

[AnthonyB]

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]

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).

from the scriptures themselves, there is NO support for batism adding anything to ones salvatiopn, nor in being part of the process of salvation, as its done after one has been saved by what it represents!

The earth church became influenced by wrong doctrines/corrupted with false doctrine early on, so no wonder that truth was somehow "goofed up!"

 

[AnthonyB]

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.