Tom Butler
New Member
Havensdad said:
Yes we should, for they are not of like faith. This one of those doctrines which I consider a test of fellowship.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Poll: Would You Accept A Church of Christ Immersion as a Valid NT Baptism?
- Thread starter Tom Butler
- Start date
Yes we should, for they are not of like faith. This one of those doctrines which I consider a test of fellowship.
Marcia
Active Member
Havensdad said:
I don't know - it depends on what view they have. Some believe if you lose your salvation, that's it. You can't be saved "again."
But the thread is about accepting baptisms from CoC. We clearly have shown that they believe a false teaching that salvation is applied at baptism.
No matter how we categorize people who think they lose their salvation, it does not affect the view that the CoC has a false view of salvation and baptism.
You've introduced a red herring. Start another thread on it but I won't discuss it here further.
Marcia said:
I think you are disagreeing with yourself. Faith is an intellectual agreement or belief in something. Do we or do we not "require" some sort of response to God in order to be saved? If we don't we are just talking intellectual agreement and if we do that is no different than saying someone must be baptized.
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:
I am not disagreeing with myself and this has nothing to do with intellectual agreement vs. faith.
Salvation is applied at baptism: unbiblical and false teaching. Period. One is baptized from obedience and desire to show he or she is saved already. One is not baptized in order to have salvation applied to them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:
Are you saying that you are unfamiliar with the Baptist teaching on water baptism and/or are unfamiliar with the teaching that one is baptized after salvation? Or that you disagree? Are you not a Baptist?
Do you believe that one must be baptized to be saved? If you do, please say so. And if that's the case, then start another thread, "Does one need water baptism to be saved?" and we can go from there.
Marcia said:
I am familiar with Baptist teaching on baptism. I consider myself a generic christian and happen to belong to a Baptist church. No, I don't believe one must be baptized to be saved. I leave that decision up to God. But, I do agree with the other poster that in NT times it appears that it was the normative case to associate baptism with conversion.
You made a very definite statement as to what the purpose of baptism is earlier but I don't know of any scripture that specifically supports that statement. I was hoping you would enlighten me.
Marcia
Active Member
- [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
LBaker, if you are unfamiliar with the Biblical passages that support water baptism after salvation but not necessary for salvation, then a study on this would be good.
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:
I agree it was the normative case to associate baptism with conversion, but it was after conversion. It is not the same as teaching that salvation is applied at baptism, as the CoC teaches.
Rom. 6 teaches that being baptized is identification with Jesus' burial and resurrection.
In Matt. 28, Jesus commanding disciples to go and and make disciples, and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit suggests that baptism is a sign or admission of one's belief.
Believers being baptized in water after confessing Christ in the NT suggests that being baptized in water is a public confession of faith in Christ.
What decision do you leave up to God? That one must be baptized to be saved? We don't need to leave it up to God because He's already given the answer in scripture.
I absolutely agree that folks should be baptized (immersed) only after they are believers.
But, none of those passages actually state what you say the purpose of baptism is:
One is baptized from obedience and desire to show he or she is saved already. One is not baptized in order to have salvation applied to them.
Also, the only passage that clearly indicates salvation before baptism is the one from Acts 10. In the others (the "normative" examples) it isn't really clear whether they are saved before baptism or not.
But, none of those passages actually state what you say the purpose of baptism is:
One is baptized from obedience and desire to show he or she is saved already. One is not baptized in order to have salvation applied to them.
Also, the only passage that clearly indicates salvation before baptism is the one from Acts 10. In the others (the "normative" examples) it isn't really clear whether they are saved before baptism or not.
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:
Obedience because we are told to be baptized. I gave passages for the other - to show we are saved by identifying with Christ. It's a conclusion you come to from reading the scriptures.
Probably a better way to put it than what I said is that it is the biblical pattern for a believer to be baptized.
Give an example.
Marcia said:
blue = Les
In Acts 2:41 we observe that they received the word, THEN they were baptized.
This passage doesn't say they were saved. Received doesn't necessarily = saved.
In Acts 8:12,36,37 we find that they believed, THEN they were baptized.
Again, doesn't say believed = saved.
In Acts 10:43,44,47, it is plain to see that those who believed received the Holy Ghost, and THEN they were baptized. (Lost people do not receive the Holy Ghost).
Yep, this one certainly looks like Cornelius, etc. were saved before baptism. But, this was certainly not the "normative" case as the Spirit was given to show Peter and the others that God also accepted Gentiles for salvation.
When the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved...." (Acts 16:30-34). Paul did not tell him to be baptized to be saved. His baptism came AFTER his believing, which sets the scriptural standard.
One could maintain, based on Paul's statements elsewhere, that baptism is implied by what Paul said about belief. Paul tells them that if they believe on Jesus they will be saved. That could, imply that the assumption is that if they believe of course they are going to be baptized. Especially since the whole family went out in the middle of the night to be baptized. Seems they thought baptism was a very urgent issue. But, that is only inference and doesn't really prove the case either way.
My point with all this isn't to really change your mind about baptism and its purpose. But, I would like to make the case that associating baptism and salvation isn't as far out as it sounds. It is something that reasonable people can disagree on without making it something to stand in the way of fellowship. By the way, I'll be heading home in a bit so if I don't respond until tomorrow that doesn't mean I got mad or am ignoring you.
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:
I did a word study on "believed" in the book of Acts once. Every time it says someone believed, the strong implication is that the person is saved. This is used throughout Acts, almost as a theme. It would going against reason and against the context to think it does not mean the person was saved. Surely you know the Bible doesn't say "X was saved" every time someone becomes a believer! It is totally unreasonable and against the text to think otherwise, if you go through Acts and look at the word "believe" and how it's used. Also, do a word study on the Greek word for this - something like "pistis" or something like that (going from memory here).
"Receiving the word" is another term for believing - they received the word. They accepted it as truth - are you questioning this? Do you think God is telling us that these people "received the word" and were baptized as believers but we are not to think of them as believers?? Do you think that? God doesn't play games with us. We aren't supposed to read this and think the people were not believers - that would be pretty misleading.
Don't worry, there's no danger of changing my mind on this! It would be like saying you were going to change my mind on Jesus being God. Zero chance.
I never said salvation and baptism were not associated. If that's all you were saying, I wasted about 2 or 3 hrs. on this thread. It seems like you are changing the issue here. The issue was: is salvation applied at baptism? Clearly, it is not.
Okay. I don't get on the BB every day and so I don't draw conclusions from whether someone is responding or not. In fact, it's fine if you don't respond. I've only been responding to you the last few posts.
Tom Butler
New Member
lbaker said:
Now I'm confused again. Here we have your specific statement that you don't believe one must be baptized to be saved. Then you follow by associating baptism with conversion.
Maybe we're just not speaking the same language, so will you go into detail about what you mean by associating baptism with conversion. I know what I mean, but I'm too dense to figure out what you mean. Using my frame of reference, it seems to me that you are saying that baptism doesn't save, but baptism saves. I don't think you're advocating two opposing positions at the same time, so some clarification will help me.
Tom Butler said:
Okay, sorry about the confusion. Here is where I've studied myself to at this point...
First of all baptism in and of itself has no value at all without faith. Faith is what really matters. But, it appears that the NT writers, and Jesus, associated baptism with salvation. The best way I can say it is that it looks like while faith is the critical thing, salvation seems to have been timed to occur at immersion in the normal, or normative examples in the NT. This is certainly not to say that baptism caused the salvation!!!!!! It seems to have been God's choice to save people when they responded in faith by being baptized. Another thing to remember is that even though it is our faith that is the active ingredient from our point of view, it is really Jesus who did the saving work. So, with that in mind it would be erroneous to credit anything of ours, even faith, as saving us. Jesus saves us!!!!
Of course I'm not saying that no baptism = go to hell. The thief on the cross blows that away. While there is a passage that says if you "believe and are baptized" you will be saved, the scripture is silent on those who believe and aren't baptized. With no passage to back it up either way I have to leave that one up to God, unless you have an explicit example like the thief where someone is declared to be saved. As far as I know there is no passage that says one cannot be saved without baptism, so I ain't going out on that limb.
Hope this helps to clear up things.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marcia
Active Member
It doesn't necessarily equal saved, but certainly someone can be saved and not be baptized. Btw, I was not baptized until about 14 months after I was saved, because the pastor of the church I was in a few months after being saved (a Disciples of Christ Church) would not baptize me since I had been baptized at age 11 (although I was not a believer then). I finally was able to be baptized in another church when I moved to another city. I was definitely saved the moment I believed in Christ. That is when one is saved, not at baptism.
My convictions are based on God's word, which is clear. No, I'm afraid I don't see how a reasonable person could come to another conclusion if that person studies the applicable scriptures in context. If they just look at one or two verses, and take them out of context, I can see why they think what they do. But that's not the way to come to a conclusion.
When you said "associated" I was thinking that it means that baptism follows salvation and comes from a desire to obey Christ. That is what I meant by an association, not that salvation itself is linked to baptism, which it is not. If God wanted to do it that way, He would teach it that way in scripture. But He doesn't.
Tom Butler
New Member
lbaker said:
It does and thank you. Agree on some, disagree on other parts of your comments.
First, I disagree with the part I highlighted. To arrive at your view that salvation occurs at immersion, I would require clear, unequivocal scripture saying so. And the "normative examples" you cite are not consistent enough.
In addition to the thief on the Cross, I have one other example of one who was declared saved, but baptized later. He is Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9. God sent Ananias to the house where the blinded Saul was. In verse 17, Ananias calls him "Brother Saul," a clear indication that Ananias believes Saul is saved. Ananias further related that he had been sent by God so that Saul would get his sight back and be filled with the Holy Spirit--another clear indication of salvation. Only after these occurred did Saul arise and be baptized (v.18). Here we find a clear separation between salvation and baptism.
Your position on baptism is complicated. You say baptism does not save, then say salvation occurs at the moment of baptism, but baptism is not the cause; faith is critical to our salvation, but it's not caused by our faith, which is something we take credit for, because Jesus saves.
Here's the crazy thing. As complicated as you have made it, I think I actually understand your position. It's flawed, in my opinion, because you have tied baptism so closely to salvation, at the same time denying that baptism is the cause of salvation. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. I understand the subtlety of your position, but I think it's done in by the examples of the thief on the cross and Saul of Tarsus.