A question for Baptists about Baptism?

The figure is not baptism, but the flood. Look at the NRSV "And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you..." or the BBE "Baptism, of which this is an image...", etc.

Yeah, there is. How could the flood prefigure baptism? The only noticeable similarity is water. Furthermore, why would Peter need to say "The part that saves isn't the washing of your body" if no water was involved?

The water did too; Peter says so.

That's why we're baptized into Christ and into His atoning death (Rom 6:4) so that we can be spiritually raised into the likeness of His resurrection (Rom 6:5)

[ August 16, 2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

DHK --

I want so much to make a smart aleck retort, but
I am refraining. It is in my heart, on my anxious
fingers, but I am resisting the temptation. 8o)
Bless you, I am not ignorant of the traditions of
the churches. Let's be civil, okay? 8o) I want to
be!!!!

 

Through water (di udatov). "By means of water" as the intermediate agent, an apparent change in the use of dia in composition just before (local use) to the instrumental use here. They came through the water in the ark and so were saved by the water in spite of the flood around them. Peter lays stress (Hart) on the water rather than on the ark (Heb_11:7) for the sake of the following illustration.

Which also (o kai). Water just mentioned.

After a true likeness (antitupon). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah's deliverance by water. For baptisma see on Mat_3:7. For antitupon see on Heb_9:24 (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (antitupa) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (tupon Heb_8:5) for the earthly. So here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah's family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over- fanciful.

Doth now save you (umav nun swzei). Simplex verb (swzw, not the compound diaswzw). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in Rom_6:2-6), not actual as Peter hastens to explain.

Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (ou sarkov apoqesiv rupou). Apoqesiv is old word from apotiqhmi (1Pe_2:1), in N.T. only here and 2Pe_1:14. Rupou (genitive of rupov) is old word (cf. ruparov, filthy, in Jam_2:2; Rev_22:11), here only in N.T. (cf. Isa_3:3; Isa_4:4). Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh either in a literal sense, as a bath for the body, or in a metaphorical sense of the filth of the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience (Heb_9:13f.). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin.

But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God (alla suneidhsewv agaqhv eperwthma eiv qeon). Old word from eperwtaw (to question as in Mar_9:32; Mat_16:1), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate's approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether eiv qeon (toward God) be taken with eperwthma or suneidhsewv.

Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (di anastasewv Ihsou Xristou). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Rom_6:2-6). See 1Pe_1:3 for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.
(Robertson's Word Pictures)

 

If you are going to throw plain language aside and say that the saving in 1 Peter 3:21 is just metaphoric, then why can't the next guy say that the saving in Ephesians 2:8 is metaphoric? It's the same word "save" in English and Greek. In fact, why not say that Jesus only metaphorically died on the cross? You are ridiculous!!!!

Furthermore, whether it's the inquery, answer or pledge, it must be the ordinance to be any of these. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is beyond our control and cannot be our answer, inquery, or pledge - only water baptism can be....BUT WAIT, you already abandoned your argument that's it's not the ordinace and that water is no where mentioned in the passage. ALL that you hold to is that "save" doesn't mean "save." My, my, what shaky ground you stand on!

By the way, I can quote what other people say too. Here, let me show you.

[ August 16, 2002, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

[/QUOTE]

Why didn't you read and/or quote the rest of what John Gill had to say on 1Peter 3:21? Could it be because he does not believe that baptism saves?

Consider again:
In verse 20, the water was a destructive force. They went "through" the water (dia). They were saved "through" the water. Others were destroyed, but because they were in the Ark, they were saved. It was not the water that saved them; it was the ark.
Peter goes on to emphasize this fact. Baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh. It cannot save. It cannot wash away your sins. There is no water that can do that. You are dreaming if you think that water can wash away sins. Peter says it can't: "Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," he says.
But rather, he says, it is an appeal to God of a good conscious. That is similar to a good confession, or confessing God with a pure conscience. That is what is pictured when one is baptized, and that is what was pictured when Noah came out of the Ark. In both scenarios they came out of the water picturing the resurrection; for baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ. No matter which way you look at it, H20 will not get you to Heaven, and it won't wash away your sin.
DHK

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I am examining this Baptist board, and afterall it is a
"Baptist" church, yes? There is a focus on baptism, yes?

But, why argue about the procedures of how it should be done, when the big
question...I see is the significance of the baptism itself.

Why do you all call it "symbolic"? Where is that in the Bible?

Is not the act of getting baptized...walking in faith that you are following the Lord's will and believing what it means to be baptized? IT IS A HEART CONDITION. WALKING IN FAITH.

Getting dunked in water is not going to do anything if your heart is not right.

Why get hung up on how the water is applied to the body? Did Noah's folks get wet? Did Moses' people get wet? Yet, they went through a baptism...at least that is what my Bible says.

If you all are so dogmatic about baptism being a "public declaration", why do you not show Scriptures that prove that that is a public declaration? And if it is "symbolic", why don't you prove that with Scriptures that it is a "symbolic" gesture?

I'll look at this forum later to see if any people posted Scriptures to my questions here.
Thank you very much. Even more, I would like Baptists to answer, for that is really who I am directing my questions to with great personal interest. Thank you.

God bless you in Jesus' Name.

 

The answer to your question is really very simple. In every case of baptism given in the New Testament, the person who was baptized was immersed after his profession of faith in Christ, never before. Baptism is not a part of salvation, never has been. It always takes place after one puts their faith in Christ. So it was with the Ethiopian Enuch, the Philippian jailor, the 3000 in Acts 2, etc. They all confessed Christ first, and then were baptized.

The symbolism is then given in Romans 6:3,4
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.

Notice in verse 4: LIKE AS Christ was raised up from the dead...EVEN SO we also should walk in newness of life. That is part of the picture of baptism. The words "like," and "even so," are indicative of a symbolic picture. Our life is pictured as one who was dead to our old life in sin, and then raised again to newness of life in Christ. It is a picture of what Christ had done in the life of the believer.
Thus it takes place after salvation.
DHK

 

The answer is even simpler than that. They deny the Scriptures. When the Bible says something "saves" they say "no it doesn't." ! Peter 3:21

 

Sola:
Since we are quoting people. I would like to quote A.T. Robertson on Acts 2:38. It is a similar message Peter has in I Pet. 3:21. In reference to baptism the baptist scholar suggests that because of could be an alternate meaning of eis. However, in his book Historical Grammar,he revealed more than he desired stating, " sometimes grammar MUST GIVE WAY TO THEOLOGY" pg 389. He at least was honest, He knew full well that eis is NEVER translated because of. He was simply trying to justify his scholarship and his baptist theology. It is apparent he could not do so in his own book.
Daniel B. Wallace agrees eis is for unto the obtaining of the remission of sins. His book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. 1996. He is accepted around the world as a greek scholar. Ray Summers of the Souhtwest Baptist Theological Seminary concures with Wallace.These men are Baptist scholars. Fellow Lexicographers Arndt- Gingrich also agree with those previously mentioned as does William Thayer.
Do you thnik Peter meant the same thing in Acts 2:38 as he did in I Pet. 3:21? I do not think Peter is as confused as those who proclaim baptism does not now save us!

 

To address these issues on baptism, we need to begin with the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. First in John's Gospel, Jesus said:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit (i.e. baptized), he cannot enter the kingdom of God." [John 3:5; RSV]

In Mark's Gospel just before Christ ascended into heaven, He told His disciples:

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." [Mark 16:16]

At the end of Matthew's Gospel, Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." [Matt. 28:19] This command from Jesus would be a waste of time if we were saved by merely accepting or trusting in Him.

In the second chapter of Acts, the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit. St. Peter stood up and addressed the crowd. After telling them that God made Jesus, whom they crucified, both Lord and Messiah, they were shakened and asked "what shall we do?" St. Peter answered:

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to Him." [Acts 2:38-39]

It is interesting to note that baptism and repentance are both connected to the forgiveness of personal sins - a key step towards salvation. Also noteworthy, this promise includes children; no age requirements are stated. The only requirement stated is "every one whom the Lord our God calls to Him" and not whoever is old enough to accept Jesus. Later St. Peter also wrote:

...in the days of Noah,...eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,... [1 Peter 3:20-21]

This Bible passage explicitly states that baptism "now saves you."

St. Paul also taught on the importance of baptism for salvation. In Acts 16:25-34, the jailer of Paul and Silas asked, "Men, what must I do to be saved?" [Acts 16:30]. Paul and Silas verbally replied:

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." [Acts 16:31]

However, almost immediately during the midnight hour, Paul and Silas continued their answer not by words but by action:

...and he (the jailer) was baptized at once, with all his family. [Acts 16:33]

Now these baptisms were performed with a sense of urgency. If baptism were not necessary for salvation, then why did St. Paul baptize the jailer and his family almost immediately during the midnight hour? Since baptism is a one-time event for a person, it was more expedient for St. Paul to simply baptize the whole family than to tell the jailer that baptism is necessary for salvation.

This particular passage leads into the second issue: infant baptism. Even though the Bible does not directly address the issue of infant baptism, it does record the baptisms of three different families. As quoted above all of the jailer's family were baptized (Acts 16:33). Also the family of Lydia (Acts 16:15) and the family of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16) were baptized. Typically a family includes children. These three passages infer infant baptism, even though they may not explicitly indicate the baptism of children. There are no indications that only adults were involved. Now it is possible that a family may be childless; however, the chance that these three families had at least one young child is greater than the chance that all three had no children. A Christian, who objects to infant baptism, must interpret these three Bible passages with the assumption that each family had no young children.

Some may object to infant baptism since they claim that a person receiving it should be able to believe or have faith in Christ. Supposedly infants and young children cannot believe in Christ. Christ actually makes reference to little children who believe:

...but whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin... [Matt 18:6]

Elsewhere Jesus said:

"Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it. [Luke 18:16-17; also see Matt 11:25]

According to Jesus little children not only can believe but can have a faith superior to adults. Finally heaven may belong to children but we can still hinder their encounter with Jesus.

It should be stressed that nowhere in the Bible does it condemn infant baptism. Likewise nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that only adult baptisms are valid. St. Paul in Col. 2:11-12 actually compares baptism to circumcision - an important religious ceremony for infant boys. (Jewish circumcision is anatomically inappropriate for girls.) St. Irenaeus in 190 A.D. acknowledged infant baptism in his book, Against Heresies (II 22:4). The custom of infant baptism dates back to the time of the Apostles as witnessed by Origen in the third century. St. Cyprian of Carthage in the third century and St. John Chrysostom in the fourth century encouraged infant baptism. It should be noted that during the third century, Christians were still dying for the faith and did not tolerate any novel teachings. Finally some may still object since the Bible does not record an actual infant baptism. However it should be remembered that St. John admitted to the fact that not everything Jesus or the Apostles did or taught were written down in the Bible (John 20:30; 21:25; 2 John 12; 3 John 13-14).

Now what happens to infants who die unbaptized? The answer to this question has not been revealed by God; however, we can be confident in God's justice and mercy that they are not condemned to hell. The "Limbo of Children" is theological speculation and has not been defined as doctrine by the Church.

It must be rightfully understood that we are saved by grace - a free gift from God due to Christ's death on the cross (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8). We are not merely saved by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior (Matt 7:21-23). Our faith in Christ, our acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, our good works and our repentance of personal sins are the fruits of actual grace - God working through us but respecting our free will (Phil 2:12-13; John 15:5; 2 Cor 6:1). Through baptism we are born again by receiving sanctifying grace which makes us right with God (1 Cor 6:11). Whether we are baptized as adults or our parents baptized us as infants, salvation is still a free gift - an inheritance (1Cor 6:9-10). Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

Here you refer to the statment in Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." The children were not baptized immediately any more than "those who are afar off" were. The promise was to those of distant lands and to the children, but as of yet it was only a promise for them and not a reality, for they could not yet participate.

And no where do we read that their were infants in any of these families. In fact, we read that Paul preached to all those in the house (and you can't preach to infants).

Why did Jesus say "Let the children come" rather than "force them to come" and "drag them all over here right now"??? Firstly, He is talking about children and not infants, but secondly He is speaking of children with a WILL to come. There is no talk of godparents dragging their children to something that they have no understanding of but of children coming on their own accord in faith.

 

Blackbird,
A great story.Thanks for sharing
(1)no as in power to save but yes in obedience to Christ's demands,just as repentance is a condition to receive grace.

(2)no
(3)yes

God bless you all,Charles

 

I have another story and a question.

First, the question. Some believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. You have to be dunked in order to be saved. Well, if the water is what washes the sins away--when Jesus was there in Jordan River to be baptised--He had no sins to wash away. He is the sinless, spotless Lamb of God! I know why--He was makeing a profession of something that was coming on the horizon. He was telling the crowd there that His death was coming--His buriel was coming--and His resurrection was coming and that it was not His will but the Father's will that was being done! And that by His death, buriel, and resurrection--the "Whosoever Wills" can be saved!!

Last Sunday morning we had a 35 year old lady who repented of her sins and received Jesus as her savior and Lord. She made a public Profession of Faith just like Jesus said in Matthew 10: 32-33--there that same Sunday.

We have a problem we work out here at our church. We are in the middle of a building project and have demolished our old Worship Center and therefore we have no inside Baptismal pool. Our temp Worship Center is set up in our gym! We used the local creek nearby to baptize 4 folks not long ago--that baby is ice cold even in Mississippi August!!

Anyway, our new Worship Center will be completed in December and this lady who made the Profession of Faith--simply asked me if she could wait to be baptized in the new baptistry. I said yes--so we'll take our Worship Center's "Dedication Day" and let her make that bold statement again that day that simply states to the crowd--Jesus did with His blood what I can't do with this water and in the immersion in this water I am telling the crowd that my old life died the day I got saved, its being buried, and that I am riseing again to walk in newness of life--all in Jesus!(Romans 6: 1-following)

 

Wow,Blackbird,
That was a beautiful story and so true to my understanding of baptism,although I'm CoC.

When my parents planted the Church of Christ in their home many years ago,the baptismal hole was in the creek and when people responded to the gospel,there was delays in baptism because of inconvenience.Maybe days.

In winter,I have observed them being baptized in overcoats.For humor,I often ask if they should be baptized again since I'm not sure God washes off the overcoat's sins.

God bless,Charles

P.S.I would say that the apostles were only following Jesus's commands by baptizing,their aim was to make disciples first since we are justified by faith.In baptism,we simply obey a command by our Lord.

 

Where does it say that the children where not baptised immediately?

He was preaching to the adults, and yes its true that they do not mention infants but you can not be sure there was no infants either. The likelyhood is that there would have been at least one infant in one of those families.

In Luke 18:15 People where bringing infants to him that they may touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them You see they were being brought to Jesus and said not to hinder them from coming. He didnt care if they walked on their own or where brought to him by a parent. For the Kingdom of God is for all, not just for older people. If we say that it is only for those of reason we leave out the mentally handicapped as well.

Another interersting thought is on full immersion baptism. While this is most likely the way Jesus was baptised, no where do they truely say immersion is the only method. The immersion method becomes difficult in arid regiions where there is very little water also the sick and aged would have a very difficult time with immersion. When Paul baptised whole households I do not think they had a tub in those days. When Jesus breathed on the disciples he poured out the Holy Spirit upon them. I concur that baptism by immersion is valid and the most symbolic of new life but from a practicality point of view it is not always possible.

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

Multimom,
Any time the word baptism is mentioned,it becomes a trigger for debate.And the beat rolls on and on and on.....

God bless,Charles

 

The answer to that question is yes. As far as the doctrine of Baptism itself is concerned almost all Baptists agree: it is symbolic of a person's death to his old life of sin and his resurrection to a newness of life in Christ. It is symbolic, done in obedience to Christ after salvation. It is not part of salvation. In previous posts on this thread you have heard various other religions posts their views. But that is the Baptist view that almost any Baptist would adhere to whether SBC or IFB.
DHK

 

If your translation says infants, it's a bias. Secondly, even your biased translation doesn't put "infants" into Christ's words but only into the text prior to them. Even if some brought infants, Christ was talking about children with faith when he said "Let the CHILDREN come" - he didn't say "let the parents come." Read Justin Martyr's section on baptism in his First Apology before we discuss this anymore or go over to the circumcision thread and see what I posted there.

 

Solascriptura; sorry I've been so slow responding to your reply to my post; I've been busy for a couple of days; my point was that the "New Testament" Baptism (Mikveh Tevilah) is the same (I mean from a physical standpoint) as the "Old testament Baptisme (Mikveh Tevilah). In other words there was never precedent for sprinkling.