Baptism

Pastor Larry wrote:

"I don't agree with this at all. Paul was not diminishing baptism in any sense. He was talking about a different issue, namely, loyalty to people rather than to Christ. To be filled with the Spirit is to be obedient and one cannot be obedient without baptism."

Paul was diminishing B. in that he did not put it on the same level as salvation. Yes, you are right about the loyality issue, that is obvious. But---- what Paul said is that he came not to baptise but to preach the gospel. He in no way infers that Baptism is part of obedience or he would have chose different words. He said what he said because he meant it. He said "Hey you big goofs, you don't belong to me, Paul, or any man you belong to Jesus, don't get confused about Baptism as I didn't even come to baptise I came to preach salvation in Jesus alone, Man, I am glad I didn't confuse anybody else by Baptising them." That is a modern version of what Paul said. Looking forward to your response Pastor L.

In Christ alone (not baptism),
Brian

 

Paul is not discussing the merits of baptism. He is discussing the divisions in the church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (v. 13)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point is that divisions were carnal because Christ is not divided and you were not baptized into the name of a man but into Christ. He is not claiming that baptism confused anyone. Furthermore, he assuming that every single one of those being divisive had been baptized -- strange indeed if the church planter had not been stressing baptism as a necessary step of obedience. If baptism were so insignificant, why were they all baptized? Why could this point even be made? Obviously because they had all been baptized.

Baptism is about a public declaration of salvation and allegiance to Christ. Hence we baptize in the name of Christ. Paul is saying that in baptism you did not pledge your allegiance to Peter, Apollos, and especially not me because I didn't baptize you. You pledged your allegiance to Christ and you are to put these carnal divisions aside and follow him.

Elsewhere baptism is assumed in conjunction with salvation (cf. Rom 6). Paul would also be contradicting Christ to diminish baptism.

 

Pastor Larry, Very good post and I do see your point. My question remains this. What less does a believer have if he choses not to be Baptized? or If no opportunity for Baptism presents itself, as it could in less developed countries?

In Christ,
Brian

 

Mark 16
16
"" He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Jesus was baptized as an example for the rest of us. There was no other reason for Jesus to be baptized, other than to be an example.

The question is why not be baptized? There is always water, without water people can't live. Throughout the world there are lakes and rivers where people can be baptized if they wish.

It is not baptism that saves, it is the heart of someone that is unwilling to do as Jesus commands that condemns.

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

In relation to Mark Stephen's original question about the relationship of baptism to remission of sins and the "right" reasons for being baptized. Reading all your responses has left me with a few questions of my own.

One question is about the one man hanging beside Christ on the cross. Did he really get saved in the last hours of his life? If so, was he able to get baptized before he died on the cross? If the answer to the question..."Did he get saved" is "Yes" and if he was not taken down to be baptized by immersion after Salvation, how did this affect his remission of sins or any other reason there is to be baptized? Thanks in advance to any who might be able help me understand this.

~~Becky~~

 

Why is every reference of baptism automatically assumed to mean water baptism and not Spirit baptism? Isn't it the Spirit baptism that actually unites us into the body of Christ? Why would water baptism be talked about more then that?

~Lorelei

 

L, Good point. From what I understand is that the greek word that is translated to Baptism mens something like, "to be immersed"
Without water in front of it it is not necessasarily wet, if you get my point.

 

If a believer chooses not to be baptized, he is disobedient and we would have to ask the question why? Is he really saved if he will not follow in a public testimony of obedience? Only God knows but it is certainly out of order.

As for the thief on the cross, it is testimony to the fact that despite what some teach, baptism is not necessary for salvation. It was impossible for him. Those who are hanging on a cross will be excused from the need for baptism For the rest of you ... who knows???

As for the meaning, yes baptism means to immerse. That is why sprinking is not baptism.

 

Public testimony? Are you serious? Being Baptized in front of a church full of believers is not the kind of public testimony that was happening in the early church. on the other hand did the Eunuch (spelling ?) in Acts have an audience?

 

Thank you for answering my questions Pastor Larry I was baptized by immersion shortly after being born again.

As soon as I got saved, a very dear friend of mine, who loved the Lord, said the first thing I should do, is read the book of John in the NT. After reading that, I saw baptism as an act of obedience and did not question it.

I feel sure in my heart, if I did it for the wrong reasons, it will be the Lord who will make it all clear to me. My trust is in Him. If He can create the world that I live in, and also save this old sinner from an eternal hell, He can surely make the reason for my baptism crystal clear to me at anytime if I was wrong. That leaves my heart without worry!!! (If I left it up to this old mind of mine.....ewww eeee I would be worried to death right now )

~~Becky~~

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:
Public testimony? Are you serious? Being Baptized in front of a church full of believers is not the kind of public testimony that was happening in the early church. on the other hand did the Eunuch (spelling ?) in Acts have an audience?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about????? It was a public testimony in the book of Acts and it is today. I would be glad to baptize in front of unbelievers. I have been at baptismal service both in and out of a church building. We baptized in a lake in Brazil, in a river in Colorado. All are welcome to attend. If there are unbelievers at a baptismal service, great. I had a guy who wanted to be baptized in private, at a service just for the family. I refused because there is no basis for it.

Was there a public testimony for the Eunuch? It is hard to say either way. If he was on a major road by a body of water, it is entirely possible that there were other people there. To argue that there was not is an argument for silence.

How do you know what kind of baptism was being performed in the book of Acts? Do you know of a passage I don't know of?

To be honest, I am not sure why the debate here. These things are generally not questioned (which doesn't make them unquestionable). I am just not sure where you are coming from and what you are trying to prove.

 

Furthermore, I am reasonably confident that any church of a good size will have a few lost people in attandance on any given Sunday--perhaps even members!

Chick

 

Larry,

I agree that the New Testament and first century form of baptism was immersion, and I think it's the most proper for symbolizing what happens to the believer; what I have a problem with, however, is not ever allowing for any exceptions, no matter what the circumstance.

Hebrews 9:10 uses the Greek word referred to here to include Old Testament rituals of sprinkling. Perhaps this was God's way of thwarting legalism.

There were people in Jesus's time who were overly concerned with performing outward rituals meticulously and in exactly the "correct" way; Jesus had some harsh words for them.

BTW, what do you say about the Quakers and Salvation Army who don't usually practice water baptism? They have been obedient to God in ways that count more than rituals--loving your neighbor as yourself, part of Christ's "new commandment".

 

Paster Larry, I question B because I see so much concern over the issue. It is flopped around in many different ways. Some say it is a salvation issue, some say it is obedience related. I don't like the focus on it when it should be on trusting the blood of Jesus and his resurection to set us free. My question a while back that no one has answered is what does a person have less of by not being Baptized?
Paster L. You said a while back that the people Paul said he was glad not to have Baptized were ultimately Baptized, how do we know that from the text?
Thanks for your opinions on the issue they do help.
In Christ,
Brian