Baptism--Why?

[bmerr]

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

 

[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

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Frank:
Hillclimber,
Paul was saved when he acted. Acts 22:16. The gospel of Paul was the same as the one Peter preached. Unless, you are going to accept Peter was to be accursed. cf. Gal. 1:6-8. Please note verse 33 of your text in Acts 16. it reflects the completed work of the cross. cf. Rom. 6:3-6.

If you see that Peter's ministry, and indeed the ministry of Jesus, was solely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Gentiles were far off, and lost. Their only hope was to become a proselyte Jew. Under this Mosaic law, one must confess their sins, repent of them, be baptised.
Pauls ministry was different in that he was to put down any and all barriers between Jew and Gentile. Salvation is simply belief in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Plus or minus nothing. And that is a huge difference in salvation messages.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by bmerr:
...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.

bmerr,

I would like to address the statement above in bold letters. I certainly agree with the first part of that sentence, but the second part deviates from what I believe the Bible teaches.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (KJV)

This was told to Paul three days after his Damascus Road experience. When did Paul get saved? He testifies in I Corinthians 15 that he was saved on the road to Damascus when he met Jesus. When they told Paul to be baptized, they were encouraging him to demonstrate on the outside what had already taken place on the inside.

As you well know, the Jews required a sign for just about everything (I Cor 1:22). Paul was being encouraged to make a public demonstration of the salvation experience that occurred three days earlier.

Acts 2:38 is very much a similar passage. Peter exhorts these people to take on the public profession of the religion of Christ, by being baptized in His name; and so acknowledging themselves to be His followers.

Clarke says:

In reference to the remission or removal of sins: baptism pointing out the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit; and it is in reference to that purification that it is administered, and should in consideration never be separated from it. For baptism itself purifies not the conscience; it only points out the grace by which this is to be done.

 

[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]

Double post - I hit "quote" instead of "edit."

Moderator, please delete.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

bmerr,

First, let me thank you for the very civil demeanor in which our dialog has remained thus far. Sadly, this is not always the case. I have exited, without explanation, many threads that have resorted to inappropriate means.

I believe that Paul is giving testimony of his salvation in verse 8 of I Corinthians 15.
1 Cor 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. (KJV)

I interpret Ananias' statement to Paul in light of other Scriptural truths. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would prompt Ananias to command Paul to do something that would violate Scripture.

Regarding Clarke's comment - I would say that you have taken it one step too far. You said, "Basically, the water of baptism does not in and of itself cleanse the conscience." I would say that baptism in no way cleanses the conscience, in the context that we are speaking, but rather symbolizes or demonstrates the work of Christ in purging our conscience from dead works. Hebrews 9:14

I can agree with you in much of what you posted with the exception of the following statements:

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.

Many have held to this understanding of baptism, but have, in my opinion, taken isolated verses and built a doctrine around them. I believe the Word of God as a whole clearly supports the view that baptism is solely symbolic and commanded as the first step of obedience to God after salvation.

 

[Nevertheless]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
If you see that Peter's ministry, and indeed the ministry of Jesus, was solely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Gentiles were far off, and lost. Their only hope was to become a proselyte Jew. Under this Mosaic law, one must confess their sins, repent of them, be baptised.

Hmmmmm. . . I guess that's why God didn't use Peter to bring the gospel to the household of Cornelius, a Gentile. And then to defend that action before the Church in Jerusalem.

Or did He?

 

[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]

Originally posted by bmerr:
What other truths would you balance Ananias' words with?

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (KJV)

As I believe that Paul was saved three days prior to this event, I cannot believe that this verse supports baptismal regeneration.

Since, in my opinion, the Bible overwhelming supports that baptism is nothing more than a symbolic external representation of an internal cleansing of the soul by the blood of Christ, and a demonstration of His death, burial, and resurrection, then I could not accept that Ananias was giving Paul instruction otherwise.

Ananias was merely encouraging baptism for the fact that it is an ordinance divinely appointed as illustrative of the washing away of sins, or of purifying the heart.

I believe Paul fully understood Ananias' words in this context, seeing that he (Paul) wrote this in a later epistle: "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." Heb 10:22 (KJV) Obviously, I assert that Paul is the author of Hebrews, but that is another topic altogether.

 

[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.

Since, in my opinion, the Bible overwhelming supports that baptism is nothing more than a symbolic external representation of an internal cleansing of the soul by the blood of Christ, and a demonstration of His death, burial, and resurrection, then I could not accept that Ananias was giving Paul instruction otherwise.

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

 

[Pastor_Bob]

…could you explain the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration"?

In a nutshell, baptismal regeneration can be defined as, “the belief that baptism is essential to salvation, that it is the means where forgiveness of sins is made real to the believer.”

To illustrate the difference in baptismal regeneration and what I believe, let's suppose that a man, deeply under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, calls upon the Lord, repents of his sin, and trusts Jesus as his Savior. It is my belief that the Bible teaches that at that very moment this man is saved.

Now, suppose that this man rises from where he is kneeling and sees a church across the street. He then walks across the street to get baptized, but in the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Is he saved or is he still lost? If he is saved, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If he is still lost, then trusting in Jesus alone isn't sufficient for salvation.

To declare that baptism is essential for salvation is erroneous because it is saying that there is something that we must do to make salvation complete. In my opinion, this is false doctrine and violates clear Scripture.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

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

For sake of clarity, allow me to cite to the conclusion to which you refer.
“…the Bible overwhelming supports that baptism is nothing more than a symbolic external representation of an internal cleansing of the soul by the blood of Christ…”

Without adding my personal opinion, I will allow these passages to stand on their own merit as a basis for my belief in this matter:

Romans 6:3 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.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1 Peter 3:21 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:

Plus the passages in which baptism is used symbolically: I Cor. 10:1-2, I Peter 3:20, Matthew 3:11

 

[RTG]

Bmerr, what do you make out of Acts10:43-48?

 

[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

 

[bmerr]

Pastor_Bob,

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

In a nutshell, baptismal regeneration can be defined as, “the belief that baptism is essential to salvation, that it is the means where forgiveness of sins is made real to the believer.”

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

 

[Link]

Here are some controversial, but Biblical reasons for baptism:

1. for the remission of sins.

Peter told the people in Acts 2 to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins.

The Ananias who baptized Paul told him to arise and be baptized, and calling upon the name of the Lord, wash away his sins. Paul quoted this while evangelizing Jews in the temple.

2. putting on Christ

For as many as have been baptized into Jesus Christ have put on Christ.

3. Burial into Christ's death

See Romans 6.

 

[hillclimber]

bmerr,
Starting with 10:39, Paul gives the complete gospel. This is chronologically before the Holy Spirit falls upon them. This coincides exactly with the gospel today of "Believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

The reason that the Holy Spirit falls upon them is that, for the first time, the Holy Spirit initiates His Baptism on these new believers. From that time on the Holy Spirit promises to dwell in any and all believers at conversion. They always before had to baptise before any indwelling. We still have baptisms today but the real ones are of God the Holy Spirit.

Now Peter is still practicing baptism as he hasn't been shown that it is to be ceasing. All these sign gifts are still in effect and Israel still has the ability to accept Christ as their Messiah, but of course they don't. It isn't till the end of Pauls ministry that we see some final evidence of the sign gifts being gone. Care to guess what it is?

 

[RTG]

Bmerr,while I don't agree with everything you posted,I thank you for your time and reply.

 

[ascund]

Hey bmerr

You packed a lot into this paragraph - - -

Originally posted by bmerr:
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. Rom 6 is often used to support water baptism. I take two serious differences to that view. First, is context. Paul spends five chapters shows the worthlessness of human obedience, Christ as the only basis of righteousness, Abraham as the father of faith for either testament who was justified by faith alone, and parallels between Adam and Christ.

That's five chapters on justification. Only in chapter 6 is baptism mentioned. So baptism comes AFTER justification.

Second, where is the word "water?" since it isn't here, it must be referring to Spirit baptism. It is God's Spirit Who immerses us into Christ (I Cor 12:13). Moreover, the word "water" isn't used anywhere in Romans.

conclusion: Romans 6 baptism is the Spirit's baptism - just like Cornelius!

II. ACTS 2:38 is taken out of context. Peter was preaching to national Israelites who needed to repent in order to receive their promised Messiah Whom they had rejected and crucified. Perhaps it wasn't to late for that "untoward generation" to escape the coming judgment.

It is wrong to take a passage point designed for national Israel and apply it to any Gentile.

I guess this is long enough.
Shalom
Lloyd

 

[Michael52]

bmerr

Care to give us your take on Pastor_Bob's question? I'm really interested in hearing your opinion on this.

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
To illustrate the difference in baptismal regeneration and what I believe, let's suppose that a man, deeply under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, calls upon the Lord, repents of his sin, and trusts Jesus as his Savior. It is my belief that the Bible teaches that at that very moment this man is saved.

Now, suppose that this man rises from where he is kneeling and sees a church across the street. He then walks across the street to get baptized, but in the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Is he saved or is he still lost? If he is saved, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If he is still lost, then trusting in Jesus alone isn't sufficient for salvation.

--- Thanks