Baptism in Romans 6, what is the referent?

Ro 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Ro 6:4
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.
Ro 6:5
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

I think Paul is talking about two Baptisms. Verse three (to me) is clearly talking about our one baptism by the Spirit into Christ.

Because of that (therefore), verse four goes on to tell us that our water baptism is in the likeness of that which has already happened in verse three. It is after our baptism in water, which pictures the new christian's Sprit baptism into Christ, that we should walk in newness of life. (It is this verse among others which would verify our need to be baptised very soon after our conversion, IMO)

Then verse 5 continues with the picture. As the Resurrection of Christ demonstrated His rising to glory (in verse 4), so too we, because of our baptism by the Spirit into Christ, our water baptism pictures our future rising in glory when Christ comes to get His own.

Well that is what Paul is saying to me. I think that both views are the same coin. I have found this type of dichotomy to be prevalent in Scipture. It is much like the "election/conditional" salvation dichotomy, IMO. They are both true in their proper context and understood as they are meant to be. But there are others who disagree.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

UZthD.
Since when does getting wet, even totally emmersed in water, give one a new life? Go to a swimming pool, jump into the deep end (assuming you know how to swim). You have now been completely emmersed in Water. When you get out of the water do you have a new life?

The only thing that brings "new life" is spiritual renewal.

 

UZ;
I say verse three is Spirit baptism because baptism in water doesn't put us "into Christ".

Also I would ask you what Paul meant when he said "one baptism" if is wasn't Spirit baptism.

The NT doesn't always say "baptism by/of the Spirit" when referencing our baptism "into Christ" does it? I don't believe so. I would have to look deeper to be sure. This one thing I am sure of is that water baptism doesn't put us "into Christ". It is the answer of a good conscience toward Christ but it isn't actually putting us "into Christ".

This is why Paul goes on in verse four to illustrate what our water baptism pictures. Our water baptism pictures our death, burial and resurrection "in Christ".

The reason there is a change in view from v 3 to v 4 is that word "therefore". The word signifies :
for that reason
because of that
on that ground
to that end

Since we know that water baptism does not put us "into Christ" the word surley is not intended to mean "to that end". So we are left with the other choices. I think Paul is saying, "for that reason, (our baptism by the Spirit into Christ) our water baptism pictures this..." all in that one word "therefore".

Surely water baptism in the NT was an important factor which showed ones' faith right from the start. John was baptising folks as a display of their repentance. He then told them to go and "bring forth fruit". Likewise, Paul here does the same but with the added spiritual empowerment of being "in Christ".

Don't you think that would only make sense based on what we already know about the difference between the two?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

UZThD,
I believe that Baptism is the first act of obedience that a new born Christian can do that indicates to others the change to FAITH within. Other than a demonstration of Faith through an act of obedience, there is nothing in the water but symbolism of what occured in the spirit.

 

No, Chafer does NOT say that at all. He writes, “Three passages develop the doctrinal significance of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection as one achievement on His part and as a substitution for others, namely Romans 6:1-10; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; and Colossians 2:11-13. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 clearly declares Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection as a substitute for sinners that they may be saved; it is unto forgiveness and justification for them. However, in the other passages—Romans 6:1-10 and Colossians 2:11-13—Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection are referred to (in Colossians His death is termed a circumcision) as a judgment of the old nature.” P. 39.

This quote is part of Chafer’s discussion of water baptism, and NOT spirit baptism.

 

Orton Wiley writes, “That these texts have no reference either to water baptism or to its mode is ably and concisely stated by Dr. Wakefield. . . .” H. Orton Wiley. Christian Theology. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1943, p. 181.

David L. Smith, Professor of Religion, Graduate Department, Indiana Wesleyan University, writes, “Significant in the modes of baptism are the overlays of meanings expressed in a number of New Testament passages. The most significant one is that of being united with Christ through his death and resurrection in baptism (Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12). Charles W. Carter, General Editor. A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1983, p. 616.

Willard H. Taylor, Th.D (Boston University), a Church of the Nazarene college professor, writes, “In the Christian community, baptism was undoubtedly practiced from the very first (Acts 2:38, 41; 19:5; et al.; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:14-17; 12:13).” W. T. Purkiser, Richard S. Taylor, Willard H. Taylor. God, Man, & Salvation. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1977, pp. 586-587.

William M. Greathouse writes, “We therefore agree with Dodd that Paul “is not, in the present passage, expounding the nature of a sacrament as such, but exploiting the accepted significance of the sacrament for a pedagogical purpose—to bring home to the imagination a truth deeply rooted in experience, but difficult to put into purely intellectual terms.” William M. Greathouse. Beacon Bible Commentary, Vol. VIII, Romans. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1968, p. 130.

William M. Greathouse also writes, “Our baptism has taken place in view of this very death (3-4). Only the dead are buried.” William M. Greathouse. Beacon Bible Expositions, Vol. 6, Romans. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1977, p. 103.

Therefore we see that Wesleyan theologians do not agree whether we find reference in Romans 6 to water baptism or spirit baptism. Indeed, even in the Church of the Nazarene we do not find agreement.

Commentators on Romans, representing a very wide range of Christian denominations, however, are in virtual agreement that we find in Romans 6 a reference to water baptism rather than spirit baptism (I have 233 of these commentaries on Romans in my personal library), and I concur with that view.

 

===

But I didn't say that water baptism is salvific. In my opinion it is faith in Christ that saves.

Still, thankyou for your "proof" by analogy.

But if water baptism is as meaningless as jumping into a pool , as your analogy might by some be construed, then:

1) why is it commanded as part of the discipling process ? (Mt 28:19) Our Lord does not command swimming in a pool, does He?

2) why is it part of Peter's response to the question of how to be saved? Peter doesn't suggest a day at the beach, does he?( Acts 2:38)

3) Why is it connected with washing away Paul's sin? (Acts 22:16) Ananias doesn't recommend that Paul dog paddles in the Jordan, does he?

I wonder if we Baptists at times in an effort to affirm salvation by faith only sometimes overlook what might in the NT have been ingredients related closely to that faith?

Now, back to faith saving. IF it is only "faith," and nothing else, then why is "calling on the Lord" ( Rom 10:9,10) said to be salvific? Is it not because in addition to an inward faith confession also may be a part of the belief process? Or better, be an expression of faith?

If so, might it not also be seen that water baptism in the NT was viewed as a part of that belief process too?

Perhaps Gal 3:26, 27 is relevant. Here it has been suggested is a chiasm:


sons of God........... = ............put on Christ

through faith .... = .... ...were baptized </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for this very fine post.

I have no doubt that we do. 1 Pet. 3:21 is very difficult to reconcile with traditional Baptist beliefs.

18. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19. in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20. who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22. who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. (NASB, 1995)



[ April 24, 2005, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

Chafer discusses two different themes in Romans 6:1-4. In volume 7, page 39, he discusses the theme of baptism in the context of water baptism. In volume 6, page 144, he discusses the theme of continuing in sin in the context of baptism of the Holy Spirit. Also in volume 6, page 159, he writes, “Both the word of introduction and the concluding portion of Dr. Merrill Frederick Unger’s article The Baptism with the Holy Spirit, already cited, may serve as the closing of this discussion relative to the Spirit’s baptism of the believer to place him into Christ. Dr. Unger writes. . . .” Chafer then quotes Unger for a page and a half, including these words by Unger, “Water Baptism is not in view at all in Roman 6:3,4; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5, Colossians 2:12, and to read it into these passages is to becloud the truth, and to increase the confusion.”

There can be no serious doubt that Unger is dead wrong about Roman 6:3, 4; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5, and Colossians 2:12. It would seem to me that Chafer did not quote Unger for a page and a half to argue for this absurdity, but to summarize his view of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is, however, noteworthy that Chafer did not include so much as a footnote to refute Unger’s absurd claim about these four passages of Scripture.

As I have written in another thread, I have very little respect for Chafer as a theologian because his thinking is very shallow. If he did indeed fail to see the reference to water baptism in Roman 6:3, 4; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:5, and Colossians 2:12, his thinking was much worse than merely shallow.

Thank you for your contributions to this message board, they are very much appreciated.

 

It refers to water baptism. Baptism in the spirit was a rare event that ended during apostolic times. Taking the text literally at face value clearly indicates water baptism. Spirit baptism has to be "eisegeted" into this passage.

 

WHAT?

I cannot think of single theologian, Baptist or otherwise, who would agree with this most ridiculously and absurdly false belief.

 

WHAT?

I cannot think of single theologian, Baptist or otherwise, who would agree with this most ridiculously and absurdly false belief.

</font>[/QUOTE]Now, there's an intelligent well-thought out response. Maybe you should consider the Bible as an authority, not just theologians.

The baptism WITH the Holy Spirit (in my earlier post, I incorrectly used the term "in").

Predicted: Mt. 3:11, Mk. 1:8, Lk. 3:16, Jn. 1:33, Acts 1:5.
The baptizer - Jesus
The medium - The Holy Spirit

Fulfilled: Acts 2:4,17,18; 8:14-17; 10:44-48; 19:1-7
In each case:
- The coming of the Holy Spirit was manifested by speaking in tongues.
- There was at least one apostle present.
- God was validating for the Jews the message of salvation through Christ to both Jews and Gentiles. I COr. 14:21,22; Acts 11:15-18

This ends baptism with the Spirit. It is never again mentioned in Scripture.

Obviously, you disagree with me. That's fine. If I'm wrong, show it to me from Scripture, don't just hurl out adjectives and adverbs. But let's consider this like rational human beings and let the Scripture speak for itself.

 

Pastor Greg,

I suggest that you carefully read the following referenced work because it not only presents most if not all of the relevant passages in the Bible, but it also discusses them in the context of their interpretation throughout the history of the Church. It also includes a 30 page bibliography on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which should give you a good start in the study of this subject.

Frederick Dale Bruner. A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans/Publisher, 1970.

I do not agree with all of Bruner’s conclusions, but he certainly does not believe that the “Baptism in the spirit was a rare event that ended during apostolic times.” If you cannot provide the name of a single New Testament scholar who agree with you, most obviously the rest of us should reject the view as nonsense, and so should you.

 

I noticed you didn't deal with the Scripture. What exactly is your authority? Truth is not based on the agreement of this or that scholar. I gave you everything the Scripture says about baptism with the Spirit. Please point out my Biblical error.