Featured Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

I am not a Baptist, but I would love to share the truth with you about water baptism.

John the baptizer prepared the way for Jesus. He came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:76-80).

We are still to confess that we are sinners, and to repent, to prepare the way for Jesus Christ into our lives.

Acts 20:21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Acts 26:20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

The Bible tells us before people were baptized-they repented. Infants cannot repent.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 1:5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Acts 19:18
Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done.

Christians are to be water baptized, even after having received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:47 Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Our old nature is to die and we are to be “buried with Him through baptism into death.” We are buried in the water, and raised out of the water, raised to “walk in newness of life” (live like Jesus).

Picture how baptism looks…the believer comes to make the pledge to God, to die to the sins of the world; so now standing in the water the believer falls back, as if dead; then, the believer goes under the water, buried; then, the believer rises up out of the water, raises up to live a new life.

Romans explain this perfectly.
Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Water baptism is a promise of a good conscience to God. See 1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Infants cannot make a promise. Moreover, no one, not even the infant’s parents can make a promise for their child, nor can anyone make a promise for anyone else.

Infant baptism interferes with people knowing and obeying the Truth. Infant baptism confuses non-Christians and those who want to be a Christian. Many people baptized as an infant do not understand why they do not really know the Lord. Those baptized as infants do not usually walk the path that Jesus teaches...unless they learn more of the truth later. Infant baptism has been confusing millions of people for years. It is more serious of an issue that most even realize.

 

I don't need historical evidence. All I need is Biblical evidence, only one portion of scripture. The part where the thief on the cross was admitted into Heaven without being baptized.

 

Wittenberger, you're not going to get many Baptist responses that conform to your request. Most of them don't know anything about the history of the early church and don't care to learn. Moreover, for those few who do know anything about church history, there is nothing to support their position on baptism. The general consensus around here is, "All I need to know is in the Bible." What they don't realize is that those early church historical records were made by men who who were using the Bible as their guide. Being closer in time, they understood Scripture better than any of us possibly could and they were unanimous in concluding that the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration. It's an inconvenient truth that must be ignored around here.

 

Greetings Wittenberger,

I am not interested in the historical position, but willing to question your position from the Scriptures. The Scriptures teach that baptism is the method to identify with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus this is an act of faith and salvation is by faith. There is no change in the water or any healing power of God entering the water as you claim.
Romans 6:1-8 (KJV): 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 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: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

Nor is there any evidence that children were baptised. The following for example mentions only men and women being baptised after belief of the gospel:
Acts 8:5,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

Absolutely yes. And so far my prediction is correct that no Baptists are willing to talk about early church history. 100% of it supports baptismal regeneration. Remember, the O.P. calls for a discussion of church history, not the Bible.

 

Not at all but the O.P. asked for discussion of church history, not of the Bible. And you and the others seem unwilling to do this. Why is that?

I am glad to debate you on the biblical basis for baptismal regeneration. Indeed, it was through studying the Bible, not church history, that I concluded that those who see baptism as merely symbolic are wrong. But this thread is about church history, so let’s try to stay on topic. OK?

 

Of course early Church history doesn't support their position, so they will avoid it like the plague insisting that 'the word of God is all I need, who cares what the earliest Christians believed and practiced, they were mostly heretics anyway.'

 

And now, since we are debating from church history, it is my delight to turn the tables on the entire Latin West -- RCC and Magisterial Protestantism -- and challenge you to defend your positions from the first 300 years of the church. Most of your doctrines result from either the influx of paganism in to the church from Constantine on, or were initiated by Augustine who was heavily influenced by his pagan past.

There was no sola scriptura or sola fide taught in the first three centuries of the church; there was no forensic justification, total depravity, original sin as the West came to believe it, and on and on.

Latin, Western Christianity -- RCC and Magisterial Protestantism -- is a corrupted, pagan-influenced brand of Christianity. Not only is there not scriptural support for it, there is no support for it in the first three centuries of the church.

Since for those first three hundred years, the churches had access to the apostles and then the apostles' teaching in the scriptures, isn't it amazing that none of the distinctive doctrines taught by the Latin West were taught or believed by these earliest churches!

If anyone wants to know what primitive Christianity looked like, study first and foremost the scriptures, and then the early church fathers. You will hardly find a trace of Latin Western doctrines there.

As a footnote, regardless of what anyone believes about the sacraments conveying grace, there is not any Biblical evidence for infant baptism; the Anabaptists had this right. Wrest the scriptures all you want, make torturous and strained inferences all you want; there is still not any trace of evidence for infant baptism in all of scripture.

In the CAC, we allow for infant baptism, but we leave this to the conscious of the individual. As for me personally, I don't believe it or practice it.

 

I do not know how the idea got started that Baptists believe baptism is necessary for salvation. One of the pillars of the Baptist faith teaches exactly the opposite. It is commanded that we do so after salvation, but it is not a requirement, as that is a salvation of works. Someone is getting confused with the Church of Christ.

It sounds like a giant strawman, which so frequently appears around here.

 

Strawman is not a doctrine. No Baptist believes baptism is a requirement for salvation. You are confusing us with the Church of Christ and other off the wall denominations. Calvinism transcends denomination, and affects them all, some more than others. For example, most Presbyterians are Calvinists, most Baptists are not.

 

The O.P. calls for history outside of Scripture. Yet, at the risk of derailing the thread I will answer your question.

The answer is yes. Jesus is the author of the sacraments, and is not subject to them. He can take anyone to Heaven He wants to—even Attila the Hun. But His plan for us is to receive cleansing of all sins through baptism. He commands us to do it and if we do not obey Him we should not expect to enjoy everlasting life. John 3:36.

 

Where did you get the idea that Baptists believe baptism is necessary for salvation. That is just not true. Your question cannot be answered until you explain this.