Two parts of baptism?

1Corinth 7:4 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy?

Can this verse be seen in the light that Baptism can be an external washing that put into effect the New order? In other words because baptism was a charge given to the disciples to go into all the world and do this at that time can it be seen at all in the above verse that the children become Holy because that which was passed through Adam is now retranslated through Christ? As in Adam all died in Christ all will be made alive.

Christ came to redeem those under the law, Paul needed to explain to them that God bound them over to it (to disobedience) because the law is not of faith, you can't please God that way because the law made nothing perfect. Their consciences were condemning them through that approach to God. The baptism they underwent was not the removal of dirt from the body but a pledge of good conscience toward God, forsaking the way of or dying to "The Law"= Free from the power of sin itself. Here is the washing of regeneration and renewing through the Holy Spirit believing God is able to accomplish what concerns us.

I'm pondering these things really, its such a divisive doctrine, I'm wondering if its fully understood in light of the fact that something New was starting here and something Old was passing and BECOMING obsolete which I consider this day to be obsolete (The older order of things). There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Though I did think there were two baptisms myself, that of John and into Christ. Johns was a baptism of repentance, but why then are Gods gifts and callings without repentance? Gods kindness leads you there anyway and if as I believe it is of God not men why then do we hold so vehemently to the actual ritual verses what truly goes on in the heart. Just seems to me that somethings amiss, or I might not be "getting something" here. I know I'm dealing with all kinds of perspectives here but somewhere there has to be a unifying factor built into this. Gees even Jesus was baptised and didn't need it, supposing in fulfilling all righteousness He did it to impart that work to us if any of us fell short on getting it as we seemingly all do.

I personally believed and was immersed but was also baptised according to the will of my parents as an infant, I depend on neither but on Him who I desire to know. I don't trust in it or advocate it. It was a beautiful ritual to me personally, but men have a habit of making what is beautiful ugly and I think it makes others lose the blessing in it because of that. Good Lord, I don't think the kind of contention seen over the ritual baptism was ever intended, but probrobly very much foreseen knowing He knows us so well.

In Him Kim

 

Kim, I don't think for most of us its that contentious. For example, I have various Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Lutherans in my family. We all celebrate each other's Baptisms, Christening, Confirmations, etc.

Its fun and interesting and thoughtful and important that we debate these things, but it does not make one of us Christian and one of us not.

Peace be with you.

 

Sir Ed,

No doubt I understand what you are saying. Most are not contentious and this seems to be a pretty good discussion so far. I didn't mean this particular discussion in general, but a good many I have witnessed didn't seem to leave the hearer with anything beneficial.

In Him Kim

 

Probably because all the ones you met were ELCA. Although I would admit there are a few LCMS, WELS, and ELS pastors who couldn't explain the Lutheran faith either, not for lack of understanding more for lack of good teaching skills for most of them.

[ July 17, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

The unifying part would be the part that faith-onlyists reject:

(Gal 3:26-27) "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

 

As a person you describe as faith alone I don't have any problem with Gal 3:26. It would be the people who believe that baptism is solely a human work, that would have a problem with that.

 

Good point, Chemnitz. Sorry about that.

[ July 17, 2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

WOW, I go to Six Flags for a day and I am so far behind this discussion I don't know where to start. I am very pleased to see the tone on this topic stay so positive. Almost gives hope that we can be of one accord in Christ and yet have different opinions on some issues.

Adam, Ed and Chem, I do have a fair understanding of Lutheran doctrine having been raised in the church and all (ELCA - actually I think it was the ALC at one point). Anyway, If the Baptism does not do anything outward and faith is the key, why say in the baptism service, "Marked with the cross of Christ and SEALED by the the Holy Spirit forever". I believe that is basically word for word out of the Lutheran hymm book. The point is that this forever is not forever if you can walk away or those who are sealed can break the seal of the Holy Spirit. (which would actually make them more powerful then God, in a sense).

Then, what do we do with the verse that say in Christ we are a new creation (or is it creature) old things have passed away, behold all has become new. (someone can post the actual verse if they would like). When does this change occur in a person. At Infant baptism? at Believer Baptism? At the point trust by faith is placed in Christ? (Which some would call, "true belief"?)

Also, one final thing to keep in mind is that the Greek word baptizmo(I may have blown that spelling) means "immersed" in English. We immerse ourselves in our Bible study our families and our jobs at times and none of that has to do with water. Baptism as a word in the NT can be dry, depending on context.

Thats it for now,
In Christ,
Brian

 

Well Briguy, Some of those questions I really can't answer myself very well so I'll leave that up to Sir Ed and Chemnitz to explain better. And yes, those words are from the "green book" as we always called it (Or the "Lutheran book of Worship" my parents church now also has a "blue book" but I don't remember what that one is called).

I think that perhaps the answer would lie in that God never does desert us, we have still been marked with His seal, yet we can still walk away from the relationship, but it's not God doing the walking.

When studing this word, which I would be happy to do later today when I have more time, I think we should remember in what context the word is being used. Is it being used to indicate a water baptism? Or baptism by fire? I think each verse is unique.

I too am pleased with the tone. Especially with the fight that has gone on in the general discussion forum the past couple of days.

Bro. Adam

 

Every day of our lives. Every single day.

 

Lutheran Worship ring a bell?

LW uses the this "Receive the sign of the holy cross both upon your forehead and upon your heart to mark you as one redeemed by Christ the crucified." No mention of forever, so it can be argued that LW better reflects the Lutheran doctrine.

 

Every day of our lives. Every single day.</font>[/QUOTE]Sir Ed,

It does seem that Lutherans are big on the process of santification and that it is a process that takes place daily. What boggles my mind is why in the world there are such an increadible number of passive, lukewarm Lutheran Christians. At my former Lutheran church there was no life in the church. I was one of probably 5 or 6 people who lived a strong Christ-like life. We had a weekly church attendance of probably 100 to 120 persons, but our membership role was well over 250 (many of whom we saw twice a year- Easter and Christmas). Yet even most of those who came were nothing more than pew warmers, getting their Christian duty done only to leave and live worldly lives.

Now not to say that there aren't great Lutheran churches out there, and there aren't great Lutherans out there (I met hundreds at the huge gathering in St. Lious a few years back), but why the passiveness in the church?

Bro. Adam

 

Matthew 20:22 (KJV)
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

Mark 1:4 (KJV)
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Ephes. 4:5 (KJV)
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

1 Peter 3:21 (KJV)
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:

All of these verses dealing with baptism have the same Greek root for the word baptims (you were only off by one letter :

baptisma, Greek 908, Strong’s
baptisma, bap'-tis-mah; from Greek 907 (baptizo); baptism (technical or figurative) :- baptism.

baptizo, bap-tid'-zo; from a derivative of Greek 911 (bapto); to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technical) of the ordinance of Christian baptism :- baptist, baptize, wash.

And finally: bapto, bap'-to; a primary verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N.T. only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literal) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye) :- dip.

While there really is nothing that can be said that condemns any other form besides immersion from the New Testament, that is the only way of baptism we see.

Yet as you can see the Greek root clearly shows us that baptism refered to in the New Testament is to "cover wholly with a fluid"

Bro. Adam

 

I would prefer not to get sidetract again on the translation of βαπτιζω, but it bears refuting
βαπτιζω can mean immerse but always in the sense of cleaning, it can also mean to pour out and has been translated that way(Acts l:5 and Acts 2:17-18). So to limit it to immersion is a bad idea.

That is an unfortunate occurance at too many of our congregations. Working with my field ed. supervisor I understand the frustration pastors have in trying to get people active in the congregation.

 

Adam, Thanks for the definition and clarification on the Baptism word in Greek. I think we all can see that there is a root meaning and then variations depending on the context.

New creature verse: KJV 2 Cor. 5:
"5:15: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
5:16: Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
5:17: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
5:18: And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
5:19: To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"

I added the couple verses before and after. Ed, your "everyday" answer is interesting but does not fit the text very well. Is being reconciled to God in your view the asking of forgiveness of daily sin? or is it being saved from SIN as in the nature that must be removed to enter Heaven? In the verse we have old and new. I have a very sick example to use but it is the only one that comes to mind so I apoligize beforehand for this one.
When your "old" dog dies and you get a "new" dog do you keep the "old" ones body around, letting it rot or do you get rid of it never ever to see it again. The point here is that something "passed away" and something is "new". It is hard to look at this as the daily forgiveness of sin, as I believe you are. (Also, the new can't be in Baptism because so many many many people are baptized and are not "new".

In Love and truth,
Brian

 

Adam, I know you think Lutherans are passive and lukewarm about their Christianity. I have to disagree; I would describe them as stoic. Unfortunately, I think its a cultural thing. Most Lutherans have traditionally been of German or Scandanavian heritage. Those aren't exactly evangelical, clap your hands kind of folks.

BTW: There are exceptions, but from what I have read, in any denomination having 1/3 to ½ of your congregation there on a given Sunday is pretty typical. I could be wrong.

Brian, I mean "that the old Adam in us should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, in turn, a new person daily come forth and rise from death again."

 

Sir Ed writes: """"Brian, I mean "that the old Adam in us should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, in turn, a new person daily come forth and rise from death again.""""

Does this newness happen by the day, hour, minute?
new, old, new, old etc... ?

Ed, your explanation does not fit the verses at all. The nature passes away one time and we are then reconciled, thus it matches verses in Acts where it says and so many thousands of people were "saved" on a given day.

In Love and Truth,

Brian

 

What Sir Ed is describing is the daily war that the saved believer goes through until the day they are called to be with our Lord. In Lutheran theology, the true fight with Satan does not start until a person is in God's camp(saved). Because before that point satan already has you so there is no fight. Satan uses our basic sinful nature against us in the hopes of bringing us down and causing us to turn from God.

 

Sir Ed,

I'm not really talking about the clapping your hand kindof folks (the only time I have seen hand clapping in my Baptist church is when someone sings a song really beautifully at a concert). We here Amens occasionally, but generally no hand clapping.

Actually what I am talking about is living a life for Christ, and there is no reason a person can't do that in humility and meakness. I won't get into specifics, but a great number in my old Lutheran church really were passive. On the other hand I can say I have been to Lutheran churches (one in Texas, one in New Hampshire, and one right here in Grand Rapids) that we're very "alive". Not in energy necessarily, but in the lives they were living.

Bro. Adam