Debate for "Beliefs on Baptism."

[Darron Steele]

Option 1 doesn't apply, as it is not commanded today. It is a gift given to each believer at conversion.
Option 4 doesn't apply as there is no option about it. It's automatic. I believe my option 5 is correct.

Holy Spirit baptism in Scripture is automatic, so the context of my question excludes it. The only baptism that we are ever commanded to administer and undergo is water baptism, so therefore I had to have been talking about it. What are Baptists most famous for? Answer: baptism in water. Hence, I do not believe the clarification on `What baptism are we talking about' should have been needed.

Hence, since you do not believe we have to undergo water baptism to not be sinning, option 4 is closest to your belief. Evidently, your version of the category of beliefs covered by option 4 is that water baptism has been replaced, and if this were the case, it is natural that you would believe we are not sinning by not undergoing it. Am I correct?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DS:
"The only baptism that we are ever commanded to administer and undergo is water baptism"

GE:
Where?

 

[Darron Steele]

DS:
"The only baptism that we are ever commanded to administer and undergo is water baptism"

GE:
Where?

Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
--NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.

Acts 2:38a “Arrependei-vos, e seja batizado cada um de vós em nome de Jesus Cristo, para | remissão dos vossos pecados” (DA ERC|DA ERA).
="You-people-repent-you, and let-s/he-be-baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, in-order-for the pardon/remission of you-people’s sins"
Acts 2:38b "and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (ASV).

This passage is often misused to teach `salvation by completed baptism.' The "and" should be understood as "and so." The stronger verb tense is on the strong imperative "You-people-repent-you," with the "let-s/he-be-baptized" being an obligatory subjunctive. Repentance was "in-order-for the pardon/remission" and baptism was obligated by such repentance.

Hence, in Matthew 28:19-20, we are told to administer baptism. In Acts 2:38, we are told to submit to being baptized.

 

[Matt Black]

At Darron's request, I've copied and pasted this particular exchange from the poll thread:-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Black
I'm with Chemnitz - I can't vote.


Darron:

Then do not participate.

If I have nothing to contribute to a thread, I do not post.

But I do - my issue was with your poll which was flawed in the questions it sought to ask and did not encompass the Reformed, Episcopalian or Methodist views of Baptism, amongst others. It was pertinent to the poll, which was why I posted it. I was unaware of the existence of this thread until this morning.

I then responded:-

Darron, if you want to disenfranchise people from voting, then why on earth did you post a poll in the first place?

You replied:-

Read the opening post. Mr. Black, I think it is very unfortunate that my desire to have statistics to help me take up for Baptists is only getting me criticized -- but not by their slanderers among the denominations I frequent.

Now, why did you not take your post to the parallel thread in the debate area, as specified and linked just three posts above? There are people posting there who have respected the purpose of this particular thread.

With respect, this struck me as being more than a tad arrogant:-

1. You start a poll the premise of which is deeply flawed, claiming to be gathering stats "to help me take up for the Baptists"; I'm not sure how it can do that since the questions are incomplete.

2. When posters point this out and say they can't vote in your poll, you endeavour to estopp them voicing their concerns and demand in a high-handed fashion that those concerns are posted here and nowhere else

OK, I'm voicing my concerns here as requested. Please answer them; your poll excludes theLutheran and Reformed view, which incidentally incorporates the Episcopalian view as per art 27 of the 39 Articles:-

27. Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession and a mark of difference by which Christians are distinguished from those who are not baptized. It is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, through which, as through an instrument, those who receive baptism in the right manner are grafted into the church, the promises of the forgiveness of sin and of our adoption as sons of God by the Holy Spirit are visibly signed and sealed, faith is confirmed, and grace is increased by virtue of prayer to God. The baptism of young children is undoubtedly to be retained in the church as that which agrees best with Christ's institution.

 

[J. Jump]

Simply that the term, "Baptist" is not a term that is applicable for todays believer, outside its proper manifestation as a gift given by the Holy Spirit and His indwelling at conversion. It was a specific sign to Israel that their long promised Messiah was near at hand. The fact that this sign has been adopted for a huge group of people today is simply wrong headed. Baptism by human efforts is not only adding nothing to the Holy Spirits work but it can be viewed as actually denying it.

Hillclimber can you show us in Scripture where the Bible says baptism is a sign? And am I following you correctly in that you don't think people should be baptized today regardless of whether one thinks it is part of the salvation process or not?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darron Steele: The only baptism that we are ever commanded to administer and undergo is water baptism, so therefore I had to have been talking about it.

HP: What makes you so sure about this? What about being baptized into Christ or baptized by the Holy Ghost and fire? Where is water mentioned in either one of those baptisms?

 

[Samuel Owen]

I posted this little example I wrote a long time ago on another forum concerning things necessary for Salvation. Including the absolute Baptism that some hold to for Salvation. There are cases where Baptism by water are impractical, such as someone crippled, or on their death-bed. Are we to say these cannot be saved? - I think not!. However I would not say that anyone refuse Baptism, that would cast some doubt in my mind as to their true feelings, and profession.



One dark day on Calvarys Hill, a man was dying on a cross, a man who deserved hell, and he knew it. He was a thief and a murderer. Yet in his last few moments he turned to Christ and said, I deserve what has happened to me, but you have done nothing wrong, Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom.
At that moment Jesus turned to him and said, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.

That man is in Heaven today.

Not Because he could come down from the Cross, and be baptised.

Not Because he could come down from the Cross, and take communion.

Not Because he could come down from the Cross, and give money to charitable work.

Not Because he could come down from the Cross, and live a good life.
He had been a wicked and Godless man, that deserved nothing in this world, but yet he was saved by the tender Mercy and Grace of God.

Samuel Owen. †

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darron Steele: The only baptism that we are ever commanded to administer and undergo is water baptism, so therefore I had to have been talking about it.

HP: What makes you so sure about this? What about being baptized into Christ or baptized by the Holy Ghost and fire? Where is water mentioned in either one of those baptisms?

GE:
That was my question-assertion too, when I asked, 'Where'?'

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The differentiation is marked, when John the baptist says, I baptise you with water, but He will baptise you with fire and spirit. The Baptist was a messenger of the Christ -- an Apostle; so were the twelve. These only received direct inspiration / command / authority to baptise with water as sign of this their sole mandate. We others who followed them in the Faith, are only followers; not leaders. We have never been told to baptise with water. So the method and age etc. etc. of baptism found in 2000 years of in-fighting in the Church has been most unbecoming the Disciples of Christ!

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron Steele: The only baptism that we are ever commanded to administer and undergo is water baptism, so therefore I had to have been talking about it.

HP: What makes you so sure about this? What about being baptized into Christ or baptized by the Holy Ghost and fire? Where is water mentioned in either one of those baptisms?

GE:
That was my question-assertion too, when I asked, 'Where'?'

Post #21 on this thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=905914&postcount=21
Post #23 on this thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=905914&postcount=23

In Post #21, I indicated that Holy Spirit baptism is automatic from God Himself. We do not make the choice to undergo it or not, and we do not administer it. Given the fact that Baptists are most known for emphasis on water baptism, I did not expect such a clarification as to what I am discussing here to be needed.

The passages in Post #23 that I quoted tell us to baptize, and they tell us to get baptized. In the New Testament book of Acts, throughout the book, people are described as being baptized, and Acts 8:26-40 makes it explicit that the baptism being chosen and administered is in water.

 

[Darron Steele]

At Darron's request, I've copied and pasted this particular exchange from the poll thread:-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Black
I'm with Chemnitz - I can't vote.



Darron:

Then do not participate.

If I have nothing to contribute to a thread, I do not post.

But I do - my issue was with your poll which was flawed in the questions it sought to ask and did not encompass the Reformed, Episcopalian or Methodist views of Baptism, amongst others. It was pertinent to the poll, which was why I posted it. I was unaware of the existence of this thread until this morning.

I then responded:-

Darron, if you want to disenfranchise people from voting, then why on earth did you post a poll in the first place?

You replied:

Read the opening post. Mr. Black, I think it is very unfortunate that my desire to have statistics to help me take up for Baptists is only getting me criticized -- but not by their slanderers among the denominations I frequent.

Now, why did you not take your post to the parallel thread in the debate area, as specified and linked just three posts above? There are people posting there who have respected the purpose of this particular thread.

- With respect, this struck me as being more than a tad arrogant:-

1. You start a poll the premise of which is deeply flawed, claiming to be gathering stats "to help me take up for the Baptists"; I'm not sure how it can do that since the questions are incomplete.

2. When posters point this out and say they can't vote in your poll, you endeavour to estopp them voicing their concerns and demand in a high-handed fashion that those concerns are posted here and nowhere else

OK, I'm voicing my concerns here as requested. Please answer them; your poll excludes theLutheran and Reformed view, which incidentally incorporates the Episcopalian view as per art 27 of the 39 Articles:...-

Thank you, Mr. Black, for finally bringing your concerns to a thread fitting for what you wish to discuss. I will gladly discuss them with you here.

I did not wish for a thread in the fellowship forum to be turned into a debate thread. To me, open Christian fellowship is supposed to build bridges between Christians of various denominations. That was my first concern. I was quite naive in forgetting how much many Christians like to argue their denominational distinctives when the matter of denominational distinctives is even brought up, how much they want to disclaim substantial agreement with others by pointing to a trivial difference, and how some would insist upon arguing their denominational distinctives even if the setting was not appropriate.

Second, I did not want the thread and poll's message to be lost in a pile of unrelated debate posts. The poll's message: to most Christians here on a Baptist discussion board, they may not believe in `salvation by completed baptism,' but they do believe that they ought to be baptized.

Mr. Black, my goal, as indicated by the opening post of the thread in question, is to contradict a specific slander often parroted in certain common United States denominations. Because of this slander, others within these denominations genuinely believe it. In the Churches of Christ, and less so in the Independent Christian churches, it is often claimed that Christians who do not believe in `salvation by completed baptism' do not believe in obeying the command to be baptized at all. My church attendance is typically in these congregations, but whether I agree entirely with another Christian group or not, I do not like to see them misrepresented. I wanted numbers to show that this is a misrepresenation. Hence, I tried to create options that account for the categories of belief about water baptism's relation to salvation.

My goal was not to create a thread to take a vote on every conceived of belief about water baptism. This would not even be possible. It is my understanding that the traditional Reformed view would have chosen option 1. I do not believe that the Reformers considered anything other than faith alone to save, did not seem to link willingness to obey in baptism with faith, and I do not believe that they taught water baptism was something that the Lord was indifferent to.

 

[Darron Steele]

The differentiation is marked, when John the baptist says, I baptise you with water, but He will baptise you with fire and spirit. The Baptist was a messenger of the Christ -- an Apostle; so were the twelve. These only received direct inspiration / command / authority to baptise with water as sign of this their sole mandate.

Acts 8:26-39 presents a scenario where an Acts 6 deacon of the Jerusalem congregation named Philip baptizes someone in water. He is called "Philip the evangelist" (ASV) at Acts 21: 8.

So the method and age etc. etc. of baptism found in 2000 years of in-fighting in the Church has been most unbecoming the Disciples of Christ!

I agree. Let us just simply do baptism exactly as the Bible calls us to, remembering that the Bible is the Word of God. Let us simply use Bible methods, do so on the Bible timetable, and most importantly, let us do it.

However, this is not happening. Therefore, it is best to remember Ephesians 2:8-10 “for by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|ICB|ESV). Completed baptism is not what makes us saved Christians. Hence, we should be charitable with each other regarding our different perspectives on baptism, including errant ones. My thread in the fellowship forum was an attempt to do this.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DS:
"Completed baptism is not what makes us saved Christians. Hence, we should be charitable with each other regarding our different perspectives on baptism, including errant ones. My thread in the fellowship forum was an attempt to do this."

This a most practical issue. I agree with you so much even though I don't know what you mean with 'completed baptism'. I would have said 'water-baptism' -- in any modus operandi.
But I said it is practical issue - so practical today as ever before. Which denomination is going to accept you 'in the Fold' if you have not been baptised - and then, have not been baptised in this way, or in that way, or in the other way. You are excluded a priori. You are excommunicated; simply you are a poor damned soul! We do not want to assosciate with you; or better, we don't want you to associate with us!

Another such issue is Sunday observance. And these two certainly are the most pertinent. According to these two 'standards' a person is either in the Church or out of the Church; it's the harsh reality, sorry, no more grace for you.
Let's be honest and straight: so is it. Is it Christian?

 

[hillclimber1]

Hillclimber can you show us in Scripture where the Bible says baptism is a sign? And am I following you correctly in that you don't think people should be baptized today regardless of whether one thinks it is part of the salvation process or not?

Paul declares; believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and though shall be saved, and your household. Acts: 16 Contrast this with Peters statement that you must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Acts: 2, something

Either one or both of them is wrong, or there is a new program is in effect. Or........explain to me the discrepancy between them.

Man should not baptize people today, as the Holy Spirit indwells us (baptizes) at conversion. It would be the same as saying that the Holy Spirit's baptism wasn't valid, or good enough, and we must do it ourselves, to make sure. We are making an outward expression of an inner thingy. I forget what it is you all say. But it's definitely not for today.

 

[hillclimber1]

I posted this little example I wrote a long time ago on another forum concerning things necessary for Salvation. Including the absolute Baptism that some hold to for Salvation. There are cases where Baptism by water are impractical, such as someone crippled, or on their death-bed. Are we to say these cannot be saved? - I think not!. However I would not say that anyone refuse Baptism, that would cast some doubt in my mind as to their true feelings, and profession.



One dark day on Calvarys Hill, a man was dying on a cross, a man who deserved hell, and he knew it. He was a thief and a murderer. Yet in his last few moments he turned to Christ and said, I deserve what has happened to me, but you have done nothing wrong, Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom.
At that moment Jesus turned to him and said, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.

That man is in Heaven today.

Not Because he could come down from the Cross, and be baptised.

Not Because he could come down from the Cross, and take communion.

Not Because he could come down from the Cross, and give money to charitable work.

Not Because he could come down from the Cross, and live a good life.
He had been a wicked and Godless man, that deserved nothing in this world, but yet he was saved by the tender Mercy and Grace of God.

Samuel Owen. †

He simply demonstrated his belief in Jesus Christ, and was saved, like anyone else.

 

[Darron Steele]

DS:
"Completed baptism is not what makes us saved Christians. Hence, we should be charitable with each other regarding our different perspectives on baptism, including errant ones. My thread in the fellowship forum was an attempt to do this."

This a most practical issue. I agree with you so much even though I don't know what you mean with 'completed baptism'. I would have said 'water-baptism' -- in any modus operandi.
But I said it is practical issue - so practical today as ever before. Which denomination is going to accept you 'in the Fold' if you have not been baptised - and then, have not been baptised in this way, or in that way, or in the other way. You are excluded a priori. You are excommunicated; simply you are a poor damned soul! We do not want to assosciate with you; or better, we don't want you to associate with us!

Another such issue is Sunday observance. And these two certainly are the most pertinent. According to these two 'standards' a person is either in the Church or out of the Church; it's the harsh reality, sorry, no more grace for you.
Let's be honest and straight: so is it. Is it Christian?

Baptism in water is Christian. Jesus made it timeless at Matthew 28:19-20. How we often treat each other because of it, however, is not Christian.

Now, the meaning of "completed baptism." In the denominations I created this thread to address with numbers, it is commonly believed that no person is saved until s/he arises from the water. The person's faith is held to not be enough.

I try to correct this proposition not because I want to denigrate the importance of baptism. I believe in light of such passages as 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38 that any genuine faith in the Gospel will motivate a genuine believer, when given opportunity and proper information, to be baptized. I believe that Scripture teaches that a person who is knowingly insubordinate to biblical water baptism is not a genuine believer.

However, we do not live in a perfect church or a perfect world. Not everyone is well-informed, and not everyone gets a chance if s/he converts away from water during impending death, or baptism is withheld from the believer. Teaching that people are only saved when they arise from the water is not only unbiblical, but it could also cause unnecessary worry about others or one's self if s/he is `running out of time,' and it hampers recognition and acceptance of some Christians by others.

 

[hillclimber1]

Why did Paul proclaim he was glad he didn't baptise but a handful?

 

[Darron Steele]

Why did Paul proclaim he was glad he didn't baptise but a handful?

Paul, starting at 1 Corinthians 1:12 "Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1COR 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?
1COR 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
1COR 1:15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name." (ASV emphasis mine.)

The Corinthians were dividing into factions based upon loyalty to people for their own pride to the disparagement of others. Paul was grateful that none of them could claim baptism by him as a basis for further such activity.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Paul declares; believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and though shall be saved, and your household. Acts: 16 Contrast this with Peters statement that you must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Acts: 2, something

Either one or both of them is wrong, or there is a new program is in effect. Or........explain to me the discrepancy between them.

Man should not baptize people today, as the Holy Spirit indwells us (baptizes) at conversion. It would be the same as saying that the Holy Spirit's baptism wasn't valid, or good enough, and we must do it ourselves, to make sure. We are making an outward expression of an inner thingy. I forget what it is you all say. But it's definitely not for today.

GE:
I agree!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DS:
"1COR 1:15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name." (ASV emphasis mine.)

The Corinthians were dividing into factions based upon loyalty to people for their own pride to the disparagement of others. Paul was grateful that none of them could claim baptism by him as a basis for further such activity."


GE: Water-baptism isn't doing any better today than then: Causing division and strife in the Church.