Baptism--Why?

To All,

bmerr here. Thanks to all of you so far for your comments. Thanks to Frank for giving book, chapter, and verse references for each point. Others have provided some, and thanks are also in order where applicable.

The temptation to get off the subject is great. Postponed kingdom, two gospels, Peter accursed, etc. Each one would be great as its' own thread. I guess I know what to do next, huh?

Bro, James brought up a good point by referring to Heb 9:22, "...and without shedding of blood there is no remission." He asked about getting remission with water. I believe he makes reference to the idea that water can wash away sin. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It won't be the first time.

If I may be so bold, I'd like to try and set the record straight on something. I'll speak for myself, and some of you may give assent, while others may disagree, but here goes. To affirm that the Bible commands immersion in water to obtain the remission of sins is not, I repeat, NOT the same thing as saying that water washes away sin.

I myself affirm immersion in water (baptism) is esssential to obtain pardon for sins under the New Testament. However, I will strongly oppose anyone who asserts that water washes away sin.

Confusing? It may be, but the two statements are very different.

The reason I want to make this clear is that I believe this issue has been a source of confusion between differing viewpoints, namely those who hold that baptism is esential, and those who don't.

Now that there are a few of us in the discussion, (and perhaps there will be more), I thought it good to make the point as clearly as I could.

I hope this aids us in the discussion.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Pastor Bob,

bmerr here. I'd certainly agree that ritualistic ceremonialism (there's a mouthful!) is not part of Christianity. On the other hand, baptism (preceded by faith and repentance) is commanded under the New Testament (Acts 2:38; 22:16) with the end result being the remission, or washing away of sins.

I know, I know, Eph 2:8, 9. I believe those verses just as much as any other. I really don't see a conflict between Acts 2:38 and Eph 2:8, 9. I'm sure we'll discuss all this in time. But the topic is baptism, right?

Anyway, another thing I agree with you on is the fact that the salvation of our souls is dependant upon the work of Christ on the cross. Without that, none of the rest of it makes any sense, nor any difference.

Even in baptism, the work that is trusted is not man's work, but the operation of God (Col 2:12).

Baptism is also, as you stated earlier, a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul in Rom 6:17 calls it "...that form of doctrine which was delivered you". Yet another point we agree on, unless I'm mistaken.

Regarding the verses in Psalms, I think the writer was speaking metaphorically. I don't think he spoke of a literal filth, or stink (marginal reading), but figuratively speaking, a filth, or stench in God's sight, in reference to the behavior of the people, as opposed to their hygienic habits.

Looking forward to your response.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Pastor Bob,

bmerr here. 1 Cor 15 is a long chapter, and I may have simply missed it, but where does Paul say he was saved on the road to Damascus?

Indeed, the Jews were notorious for requiring a sign. And many times they still didn't believe when they saw one! But, like Jesus said in Luke 16:31, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose form the dead."

Regarding Paul being told to be baptized as a "public demonstration of the salvation experience that occurred three days earlier", that would be fine with me personally, but it jsut isn't what he was told. He was told to "...be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord". It seems as if it were merely a public demonstration, Ananias wouldn't have told him otherwise.

If I correctly understood Clark, I think I can go along with what he said. Basically, the water of baptism does not in and of itself cleanse the conscience. That is the operation of God. Do I have that right?

At the risk of sounding contradictary, I would go on to say that the cleansing of the conscience (performed by God) does not occur unless or until the believer submits to baptism for that purpose, since that is the purpose for which God has commanded it.

As I said earlier (page 1), I do not acvocate that water washes away sin, but simply that God, under the New Testament, has commanded baptism (immersion in water) for the remission of sins.

I would also agree that baptism is a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, which one must have faith in prior to one's baptism.

I realize I might be asking you to stretch a bit. Can we agree so far?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Pastor Bob,

bmerr here. I appreciate your civil tone as well, sir. I've been an active participant in some of the "less than civil" discussions, I'm sorry to say. I try not to start it, but I do sometimes get caught up in it. Chalk it up to youth, I guess.

I thought you may have been referring to 15:8, but I didn't want to comment without knowing. His declaration of having been the last eyewitness to the resurrected Christ was, in my opinion, more of a defense of his apostleship than anything else. That was one of the issues Paul had to adress with the Corinthian church (ie. 1 Cor 9:1; 2 Cor 12:12). Certainly it could also be included as a part of his testimony, though.

That "last of all" statement is also a death knell for so called "modern day apostles", since being an eyewitness of the resurrection was one of the qualifications for an apostle (Acts 1:21, 22). Just in case you ever run into one...

1 Cor 15:3, 4 is certainly the doctrine Paul preached wherever he went. As we have both agreed, baptism is a picture, or form, of what we read in these verses.

If we flip over to Rom 6:17, 18 with that in mind, I think we'll find Paul adressing that very thing.

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

It seems to me, (and I'm probably as biased as the next guy), that Paul is telling the Romans that it was at the point of their baptism, (following their belief of the doctrine), that they were made free from sin.

I would certainly agree that Ananias would not have been directed to violate any Scripture in giving instruction to Paul. From my point of view, he could have meant just what he said and stayed well within the bounds of sound doctrine. Of course, we're coming at this from different perspectives, though. What other truths would you balance Ananias' words with?

In closing, I'd like to express my appreciation for the time you've invested so far in our discussion. The time we spend here cannot be retrieved, but I think it's well spent, for the most part.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Pastor_Bob,

bmerr here. No problem with listing Paul as the penman of Hebrews. I've not looked into it much, but others more learned than myself have, and that is the conlusion of many of them. You have added yourself to that number.

If I may divert our discussion just for a moment, could you explain the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration"? I've heard it mentioned in reference to the RCC, and I'm pretty sure they teach infant baptism, which amounts to salvation by "baptism only". Of course, what they're doing isn't immersion, so it really fails at that point too...

Anyway, I've been accused of teaching "baptismal regeneration" in the past, and I really don't know if I'm guilty or not! I don't believe what the RCC teaches, and I don't want to teach anything that the Bible doesn't teach. If I'm in error, I want to correct myself.

Let me say how much I appreciate the phrase, "in my opinion". Unless we can give a direct quote, we really ought to use that phrase as a preface to many of our remarks. I speak in reference to everyone on these boards. Not that truth can't be known, or anything like that, it's just that many (myself too, perhaps) lay out statements based on our understanding as if they're Holy Writ. I commend you on the use of "IMO".

That said, may I ask which passages pertaining to baptism would lead you to this conclusion?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

RTG,

bmerr here. Acts 10:43-48? Well, I guess I'd want to base my take on these verses on whatever evidence I can find that might pertain to them. Keep things in context, as we all should.

Unless, of course, you are specifically referring to verse 43 and the phrase "...whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." I've been asked about this passage from a couple of perspectives, but let me look at this angle first.

IMO, the "believeth" is located "in him". In Jesus Christ is the location of the believer. The Bible gives but one way to get "into Christ", that being through baptism (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27).

Corresponding to that are verses like Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21, etc.

Eph 1:3 tells us that all spiritual blessings are in Christ. The remission of sins would certainly be on the list of spiritual blessings, and therefore, would only be available "in Christ".

Since the only way to get "into Christ" is through baptism, Peter commanded these believers to be baptized in the name of the Lord. When they submitted to this command, they would be "in Christ", and would enjoy all spiritual blessings, one of which would be the remission of their sins.

If you were referring to the fact that Cornelius and household spoke in tongues before they were baptized, I would say that indeed, this is a rare case.

But would their speaking in tongues be an indication of salvation? I don't believe so. Here's why. In Acts 11, Peter gives a chronological (by order - 11:4) account of the events surrounding the conversion of Cornelius, the first Gentile conversion. In 11:15, Peter says, "...the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning".

The "beginning", would be a reference to Acts 2, where the Holy Ghost fell on the apostles (2:1-4). The "they" in 2:1 is a pronoun that refers back to the last subject mentioned, which was "apostles" (1:26). IMO, this was a bad spot for a chapter break.

Nevertheless, Peter had to go all the way back to the beginning (approximately 8-10 years), to find another example of the Holy Ghost falling on someone as He did with Cornelius. This was not common to all conversions.

But did their speaking in tongues mean that they were already saved? I'd say "No". Now I understand that speaking in tongues was a spiritual gift, exercised by some in the first century church. But there are a couple of things to consider.

1. It is in baptism that one is added to the church by the Lord, and is saved (Acts 2:40-41, 47; 1 Pet 3:21). They had not yet been baptized, and were not in the church.

2. They were not "exercising" the gift of tongues by choice (1 Cor 14:32). This was not a "gift given to them", but a sign demonstrated through them. This manifestation of the Holy Ghost was, IMO, to convince the Jews present (11:12) that the Gentiles were also to hear the gospel. Remember, this was the first Gentile conversion.

3. They had not yet heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You'll likely want an explanation for #3. Back to Acts 11:15. Peter tells us in this verse that it was, "...as [Peter] began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

The account in Acts 10 tells us what Peter preached first, and then tells us about the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius. But Acts 11 is "by order".

Remember that Peter was sent to tell Cornelius "...words whereby [Cornelius and household] shall be saved" (10:6, 32-33; 11:14). What did Peter say as he began to speak?

10:34, 35 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

These are the words Peter spoke as he "began to speak". Now it could also be the case that Peter didn't get anything said before the Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles, but either way, whether Peter said nothing, or whether Peter said the words in 10:35-35, he had not yet preached the gospel.

Since Peter had not yet preached the gospel, the Gentiles could not yet have had faith (Rom 10:17) by which to be saved.

So the events in order would be:

1. Peter speaks 10:34-35, or nothing,

2. The Holy Ghost falls on Cornelius and household,

3. Peter preaches the gospel,

4. Cornelius and household believe the gospel,

5. Peter asks if there are any objections to baptizing the Gentile believers,

6. Peter commands the new believers to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

If we compare the conversion of Cornelius to the other conversion accounts in Acts, all the basics are the same, the only differences being the fact that this was the first Gentile conversion, and that the Holy Ghost fell on those who hadn't yet been preached to.

Didn't mean to be so wordy. I hope I answered your question. If not, I'll give it another try.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Pastor_Bob,

bmerr here. I'd say that according to the definition you gave,

that I'm guilty as charged. I would emphasize that baptism is for the repentant believer. I do not advocate salvation by "baptism only".

In reference to the Galatians passages, I would agree, for "...by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." (Rom 3:20). I don't see how those verses apply to baptism though. Baptism for the remission of sins is not commanded under the Old Testament, but the New Testament.

Keep in mind that Paul was battling against Judaizers, who would have brought the early Christians under the Mosaic Law. That's what Acts 15 was about. These Judaizers were going around teaching, "...Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1).

IMO, the law Paul speaks of in the verses you cited is the Mosaic Law, and the issue was circumcision, not baptism.

In your illustration of our different views, you make mention that the man in question had "called on the Lord". How does one do that?

The other verses you cited do, indeed, stand without need of commentary. I'm not sure how their doing so lends credence to your view of baptism, though, that being that baptism is not essential.

As has been covered earlier, and as we have both agreed, baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. In this respect, I would agree that it is symbolic. But it seems that it is by submitting to baptism that one is freed from sin (Rom 6:17-18), has his sins remitted, or washed away (Acts 2:38; 22:16), puts on Christ (Gal 3:27), and enters "into Christ" (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27) where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3).

I just don't see how any of these things could be optional regarding salvation.

It's time for supper, so I'm off for now. Thanks again for your time.

In Christ,

bmerr