Baptism-only an outward sign?

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Frank:
The thief was not subject to the new testament of Christ. Jesus was still alive and could forgive sins any way he wanted (Mark 2:7-11).
The thief, if he were Jewish, would be subject to the baptism of John ( Mark 1:4, Luke 7:29; 1:77). A testament is only in force upon the death of the testator ( Hebs. 9:15-17). Therefore, using the thief on the cross as an example for those under the new covenant is to assert a false view of salvation under the blood of the new covenant ( Mat. 26:30). [/QB]

This is wrong on a number of counts.

#1. The New Covenant was in force in the OT. (OT and NT are not the same thing as OC and NC).

#2. The New Covenant is the only one that promises forgiveness of sins. As Heb 10 points out - no animal-blood based covenant COULD offer forgiveness.

#3. It is silly to argue that the Thief had MORE freedom WITHOUT the New Covenant than we do WITH it.

#4. It is silly to argue that OT saints were all saved via John's Baptism. Notice that in the Heb 11 list of OT saints - not a single one in the list was baptized by John.

#5. The view promoted in that quote - trashes the NT Gospels as "pre-cross not applicable" and all of the OT as "not applicable". Which means that the arguments that the NT authors made FROM scripture are all made "void". Further it introduces a "two-gospel" model that is condemned in Gal 1:6-11.

Just a "few" of the problems with the view posted above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[eschatologist]

The early church taught baptiam as a necessity. They wrote it was when one came out of the water is when the convert received the Holy Spirit, just as it was with Christ. It was around 200-300AD when this belief started to change, as well as the manner of baptism(i.e.immersion vs.sprinkling or pouring).

What seems to be the biggest misunderstanding in the modern christian church today is the belief that baptism is a work! Baptism is no more of a work than believing, confession and repentance. They are all a part of faith. Not many will believe you could become saved without believing, or even without repenting or confessing. Yet because of their misunderstanding of baptism they are quick to throw it off to the side. The Bible says you must believe, repent, confess and be baptized to have forgiveness of sins, yet so many are so willing and jump at the chance to omit baptism!

I suggest you read Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Romans 6:1f, John 3:3f, Gal.3:27 and 1Peter 3:20,21 as well as other passages. And there are several accounts when people believed they were immediately baptized.

Or you can fall in line with the popular modern day theology and toss baptism out the window and take your chances with whatever and whoever instructs you on what to believe. And maybe the next big fad will be to tell people that you don't really need to repent or confess, because it's just an outward feeling of some inward belief-- an ordinance that has no important meaning. Or you can take the example that Christ gave us.

Yet I will be the first one to agree that without first believing and repenting and confessing your sins to God that being baptized will only result on you getting wet. But when you get your mind and heart right with God, baptism is more than just some ordinance-- is is a part of faith. It is being dead in Christ and then being raised, as Christ was raised, then coming out of the water you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and are a new creature, walking in the newness of life, being clothed in Christ. This is what baptism is all about. Go with God not with man!!!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Eschatologist,

Good post. I also once believed that making baptism a "requirement" for salvation somehow introduced "works" into the equation. However, that's not the case. I look at baptism as the occasion in which we receive God's grace through faith. Or another way of putting it, the baptismal font is God's chosen medium in which He bestows the new birth to the repentant sinner.

 

[Frank]

Bob:

This is wrong on a number of counts.

#1. The New Covenant was in force in the OT. (OT and NT are not the same thing as OC and NC).

#2. The New Covenant is the only one that promises forgiveness of sins. As Heb 10 points out - no animal-blood based covenant COULD offer forgiveness.

#3. It is silly to argue that the Thief had MORE freedom WITHOUT the New Covenant than we do WITH it.

#4. It is silly to argue that OT saints were all saved via John's Baptism. Notice that in the Heb 11 list of OT saints - not a single one in the list was baptized by John.

#5. The view promoted in that quote - trashes the NT Gospels as "pre-cross not applicable" and all of the OT as "not applicable". Which means that the arguments that the NT authors made FROM scripture are all made "void". Further it introduces a "two-gospel" model that is condemned in Gal 1:6-11.

Just a "few" of the problems with the view posted above.

Number 1. unsubstantiated assertion.
Number 2. Mark 2:7-11 makes it clear Christ could and did forgive sins under the old law. All men who died before the blood fo the cross were judged under that law. The blood you speak of was retroactive. In other words, the blood went back before the cross and covered the sins of those who died before the redemptive sacrifice. The Bible says in Hebrews 9:15-17, the Bible says,¶And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
3. There is no argument about the freedom of the thief. The thief was bound to the law under which he lived. This law was the old law( see Hebrews 9:15-17).
4. The Bible says men were saved through the baptism of John. Mark 1;4, Luke 7:29, Luke 1:76,77,Luke 1:17. It is not silly, but it is true.
5. The Bible teaches the law and the prophets were until John ( Luke 16:16). The gospel of Christ superceded the law and John at Pentecost ( Acts 2). The patriarchs, prophets,and the disciples of John were judged by the law under which they lived. They were not amenable to the law of Christ because they did not live under it. It requires the death of the testator to put his testamemnt in force ( Hebrews 9:15-17). This does not diminish the redemptive work of Christ. Rather, it stresses the importance of his work that provides forgiveness for all. The Hebrew writer in 9 and 15 teaches the blood went all the way back to the days of the old testament days.

 

[eschatologist]

Doubting Thomas

To some extent I can see why many misunderstand what baptism represents, being that there is an actual act that the believer does in water that symbolizes Christ's blood. What they fail to see, though, is that believing is also something that you consciencelessly do, as well as confessing and a decision to repent. God does not use some devine baseball bat to clock us over the head until we submit! Yet He does leave doors open, should we decide to enter, and He does knock, hoping we will open the door and let Him into our hearts.

So as you can see here, belief and repentance and confession requires some action on your part, yet who in the world would label these as works? But since they are so focused on the action of going down into LITERAL water that SYMBOLIZES Christ's blood, they seemed to get mired in confussion and misunderstanding about just what is taking place-- and oh what a pity! They miss the very point that baptism is an integral part of faith that must be obeyed. There is no opinion on our side to the effect that it is just an ordinance left up to us to decide if we want to participate. Christians need to really look in depth at Romans 6:1f to get the genuine and beautiful understanding as to what actually takes place in baptism. And they need to dig deep into these passages and put themselves into it rather than just simply scratching the surface and believing what has become the popular downgrading theology of baptism today. Maybe as great as the movie "The Passion of the Christ" will help us to see the reality of what Jesus endured for us, maybe a movie about the "Passion of Being Baptized Into Christ" could help steer the masses away from neglecting the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in which all christians can and should become a part of. Because unless you put off the old self, how can you become a new creature in Christ?

 

[BobRyan]

#2. The New Covenant is the only one that promises forgiveness of sins. As Heb 10 points out - no animal-blood based covenant COULD offer forgiveness.

Hebrews 10
1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

“Impossible”? Yes! “Impossible”! As Paul has shown in Hebrews 9 – the sacrifice of Christ “ALONE” could forgive sins. Chapter 10 simply makes the same point “again”.

The two-gospel model of some would have animal blood forgiving sins JUST like blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible denies that. In the Bible the point is made that all those forgiven in the OT were NOT being forgiven by “animal blood”. For “it is Impossible”!

Paul goes on to show that God is NOT satisfied with Animal blood and would not forgive sins using animal blood as “payment” for sin. ALL forgiveness seen in full, in Heb 11 – in the OT – was through the blood of Christ “alone”.

5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "" SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
6 IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
7 "" THEN I SAID, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'''
8 After saying above, "" SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them'' (which are offered according to the Law),
9 then He said, "" BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.'' He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

Christ takes away the first in order to establish the second. Mankind no longer has anything to “offer” by way of sacrifice in our worship service.

10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Those who argue that unless Christ is offered “continually” we are not sanctified through the offering of His body – are missing this key point. It is “ONCE” for all – offered “once for all” and that is why we can have faith that we are in fact sanctified through it. IF we had to continually offer the sacrifice we would have the same problem as the OT service.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

#1. The New Covenant was in force in the OT. (OT and NT are not the same thing as OC and NC).

This is "obvious".

Jeremiah tells us about "The New Covenant" and the Hebrews 8 quote of Jeremiah emphasizes the OT fact - of the New Covenant.

As for the OT not = OC and NT not = NC - observe that the NT starts before the birth of Christ - with the Birth of John the baptizer. Surely we can "see" that the OC and NC is NOT a nother term for OT and NT. This is just obvious.

In Christ,

Bob