Tom, I appreciate your views on this subject. They make a lot of sense. But how do you reconcile the account written by Luke in Ch. 9 with Paul's own account as he stood before the Jews in Ch. 22? Particularly, v. 16: "'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.' " I don't want to argue about it, I really just want to know what you think.Tom Butler said:
-
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
Tom Butler said:
Tom,
Yeah, I know it is. There are several verses concerning salvation and baptism that seem to conflict with other verses, unless we do some sort of acrobatic interpretation to get around them. I think it really all comes down to a couple of things: (1) We should never have staked out positions on either side of baptism as to when salvation occurs. If we (by we I mean those on both sides of the argument) had just accepted that we're saved by grace through faith and that Jesus said to be immersed in His name and not tried to split hairs as to exactly what happens when, we would all be better off. (2) Baptism seems to be a meeting of the physical and the spiritual and as such it just may be that we're not really going to understand how it, or God, actually "works". For me, this meeting of the physical and spiritual ties back to the Incarnation - how is Jesus fully God and fully man at the same time? God knows?
Also, concerning Paul: I think the reason Ananias refers to Paul as "brother" is because he is a brother Jew. It could mean what you say it means, but that is contradicted by what he later tells Paul about "wash your sins away", as noted above. But like I said, I think we try to split hairs too much about when salvation occurs - it could just be that Ananias considered Saul/Paul to be in the process of being saved although the deal had not been fully sealed by immersion.
I really wish I could just accept the majority view on immersion and salvation, I really do. Life would be much simpler. I struggled with this for years and it was the book on baptism by Beasley-Murray that finally convinced me that our understanding needed some adjustment.
Anyway, as I said to Marcia, my point isn't really to convince anyone that they are wrong, just that another understanding isn't unreasonable and shouldn't be a reason for not accepting someone immersed with that different understanding.
I hope this makes sense. I came into work about two hours early this morning and am still somewhat incoherent and so I apologize for any gross spelling or grammatical errors.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marcia,
One question - why on earth would you have been immersed if you didn't believe in Jesus? Didn't you have to make a confession that you believed Jesus to be the Son of God before you were baptized? If someone dunked you knowing you weren't a believer, that was just wrong.
Thanks,
Les
One question - why on earth would you have been immersed if you didn't believe in Jesus? Didn't you have to make a confession that you believed Jesus to be the Son of God before you were baptized? If someone dunked you knowing you weren't a believer, that was just wrong.
Thanks,
Les
Tom Butler
New Member
Zenas said:
lbaker also brought up Chapter 22 in his response right after yours, so I'll respond to both your comments.
I'll begin with a question? How many sins are washed away by baptism? Any? All? Some? The question is rhetorical, of course, since I'm assuming that your answer is none.
The next question to be answered is, when was Saul actually saved? Was it on the road to Damascus, or three days later? I say, when he met Jesus. Saul was on his way to persecute followers of Jesus, whom he hated. As soon as Jesus identified himself, Saul immediately called him "Lord." Followed by, "what do you want me to do?"
This is consistent with Paul's writing to the Romans. In 10:9 he tells us to confess Jesus as Lord, believe in his resurrection, and we'll be saved. This is exactly what happened on the Damascus Road.
Two scholars--Charles Ryrie and Kenneth Wuest--both say that the Greek in Acts 22:16 renders the verse "Having arisen, be baptized, and wash away your sins, having called on his name."
But what about "wash away your sins?" Since I think we agree that baptism does not save us, what, then, does it mean? I believe it is symbolic. Since Saul's sins had already been washed away at his conversion, Ananias is telling him to now take the public step of demonstrating outwardly what has happened to him spiritually. Which, by the way, is exactly what we did when we were baptized.
This is also consistent with what Peter preached in Acts 10:42-43: "And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and testify that he who was ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever shall believe in him shall receive remission of sins."
Now, we know that in both Acts 9 and 22, Saul received his sight before being baptized. It is less clear as to when he was filled with the Holy Spirit. We get help with this question later in Chapter 10, right after Peter's sermon at Cornelius' house. When he finished, the Holy Spirit fell on all of them, a clear sign of their salvation. Only afterward did Peter bring up the subject of baptism (v.47). Thus, I believe that Paul was filled with the Spirit prior to his baptism.
lbaker, you mentioned Dr. Beasley-Murray's influence on your thinking. I have his book on baptism, in which he states his position that new believers receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of water baptism. The Cornelius episode weakens this view, in my opinion.
Zenas, I've run quite long in this post, thanks for your patience in plowing through it.
I'd welcome your own comments, and from lbaker, as well.
Tom Butler
New Member
Getting back to the OP for the moment:
To those who would accept a Church of Christ baptism as valid for membership in your church, the reasoning seems to be that if a person is saved, then dunked, regardless of who did the dunking, everything is okay.
Further, the reasoning also seems to be the individual's view of salvation and baptism trumps what the baptizing church teaches. This is quite a stretch, to assume than an unbeliever will have a different view. Can you picture a new believer in a conversation with the C of C minister, thusly:
CofC: Okay, now that you've obeyed the gospel and declared faith in Jesus Christ, we'll schedule your baptism to complete your conversion.
Convert: Hold on a minute. I believe my conversion is already complete since I have repented of sin and trusted Christ. I don't mind being baptized, but not to be saved. I'm already saved.
(The C of C minister then follows with a detailed argument for the C of C view of salvation and baptism)
Convert: Okay, I understand. I don't agree, but I'll let you baptize me as long as you understand that I'm not doing it to be saved. But that's okay. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. A dunk is a dunk.
Now, what do you think the response of the C of C preacher will be at that point? What should it be?
Now, wouldn't it make more sense for the new convert to go to a church that shared his view of baptism to get baptized?
That's assuming that a new convert even has a view of baptism.
It makes about as much sense as a new C of C convert asking for membership in a Baptist church, saying "I trusted Christ, but I completed my salvation with baptism. I agree with the C of C, but I like your church, I like your youth program, I like your nursery. I want to be a member but I won't change my beliefs. I'm saved, baptized and here I am." Is his baptism still good enough for you?
To those who would accept a Church of Christ baptism as valid for membership in your church, the reasoning seems to be that if a person is saved, then dunked, regardless of who did the dunking, everything is okay.
Further, the reasoning also seems to be the individual's view of salvation and baptism trumps what the baptizing church teaches. This is quite a stretch, to assume than an unbeliever will have a different view. Can you picture a new believer in a conversation with the C of C minister, thusly:
CofC: Okay, now that you've obeyed the gospel and declared faith in Jesus Christ, we'll schedule your baptism to complete your conversion.
Convert: Hold on a minute. I believe my conversion is already complete since I have repented of sin and trusted Christ. I don't mind being baptized, but not to be saved. I'm already saved.
(The C of C minister then follows with a detailed argument for the C of C view of salvation and baptism)
Convert: Okay, I understand. I don't agree, but I'll let you baptize me as long as you understand that I'm not doing it to be saved. But that's okay. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. A dunk is a dunk.
Now, what do you think the response of the C of C preacher will be at that point? What should it be?
Now, wouldn't it make more sense for the new convert to go to a church that shared his view of baptism to get baptized?
That's assuming that a new convert even has a view of baptism.
It makes about as much sense as a new C of C convert asking for membership in a Baptist church, saying "I trusted Christ, but I completed my salvation with baptism. I agree with the C of C, but I like your church, I like your youth program, I like your nursery. I want to be a member but I won't change my beliefs. I'm saved, baptized and here I am." Is his baptism still good enough for you?
Tom,
Yes, I can see how some folks would interpret and view salvation/baptism the way you do, although I don't agree.
I still maintain that we would all have been better off if we just followed what Jesus said to do and let God sort out just exactly when the saving occurs. I think it varied, and probably still varies, from one individual to another. God is not locked in to any set procedure of how He is gonna do salvations.
Bottom line is we are saved by Grace through Faith, not by how well we understand the process.
Les
Yes, I can see how some folks would interpret and view salvation/baptism the way you do, although I don't agree.
I still maintain that we would all have been better off if we just followed what Jesus said to do and let God sort out just exactly when the saving occurs. I think it varied, and probably still varies, from one individual to another. God is not locked in to any set procedure of how He is gonna do salvations.
Bottom line is we are saved by Grace through Faith, not by how well we understand the process.
Les
Tom Butler
New Member
lbaker said:
I think we're not that far apart, but you'll have to admit that your view is different from the traditional Baptist view, as is Dr. Beasley-Murray's.
You have made me think, and boy, does that hurt!
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:
My mother thought it was time for me to be baptized. We happened to be visiting in her hometown and my great-grandfather had founded the church (a Baptist one). My mother thought it would be nice for me to be baptized there. I guess the pastor went along with it because I gave the "right" answers. I did not want to mess this up for my mother or get her mad (I think she was a nominal Christian at the time and was that way until shortly until before she died). I thought it was kind of neat because I was being treated in a special way and getting attention. I absolutely did not understand the true significance - to me it was just something you did at a certain age. I did believe Jesus had lived historically and was a real person and I thought this meant I "believed" in Jesus (or so I told myself).
I deliberately rejected Chrisitanity in high school, concluding it was empty and boring, and thus began my spiritual journey which led to Eastern religions, astrology, and the New Age.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:
I know you were addressing Tom so this is an interjection from me. It's not a question of when or how we are saved, but what the Bible teaches on baptism. It clearly does not teach the CoC view and therefore, we are to "contend for the faith" and not accept false doctrine. 1 and 2 Timothy and other books tell us to hold to sound doctrine.
It's not a question of God being "locked" into something but what does He teach in His word that is the issue.
Marcia said:
Hey, no problem, feel free to interject. Bless your heart you did get a false start it sounds like. I am glad God brought you through all that. Although I think you are being a little unreasonable I do respect your determination to "contend for the faith" as you see it.
Here's a link to an article on baptism that I pretty much agree with. Y'all might find it interesting if you haven't already read it. It is from one of our theological journals.
http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt/SBJT_1998Spring2.pdf
http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt/SBJT_1998Spring2.pdf
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:Hey, no problem, feel free to interject. Bless your heart you did get a false start it sounds like. I am glad God brought you through all that. Although I think you are being a little unreasonable I do respect your determination to "contend for the faith" as you see it.
lbaker, I appreciate the sentiments, but I did not have a "false start" so much as that I willingly rejected God and Jesus Christ as Savior at an age when I could do that (high school and beyond, when I became hostile and hardened toward the gospel).
I want to clarify something though -- are you saying I am being "unreasonable" by defending the teachings of scripture re the fact that we are not saved at water baptism?
Note I say "water baptism" which is the topic here, because when we are saved, we are "baptized" into Christ and "baptized" by the Holy Spirit. The water baptism comes afterward to represent this and our identificiation with Jesus' death and resurrection.
Marcia said:
Les here: My understanding (reasonable or not in your opinion) is that when Paul talks about being baptized into Christ he is referring to water baptism at which time we receive the Gift of the Spirit.
Did you get a chance to read that article I mentioned in the earlier post?
Marcia
Active Member
lbaker said:
So you are equating water baptism with receiving the Holy Spirit or with salvation or with both? The NT clearly gives examples where people receive the HS before baptism.
I have the article bookmarked but have not been able to read it yet. I'll start it but if it's too long, confusing, or difficult, I just don't have time for that.
Whether a CoC person is a believer or not is not the issue, so please don't make it about that. What we are to look at as Christians is how they (or anyone) misuse the Bible to teach what they do about baptism. It's wrong according to God's word.
<<But what about "wash away your sins?" Since I think we agree that baptism does not save us, what, then, does it mean? >>
Are you washed in the Blood of the Lamb?? (old gospel song)
Here's another one:
There is a fountain filled with blood
drawn from Emmanuel's veins;
and sinners plunged beneath that flood
lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains,
lose all their guilty stains;
and sinners plunged beneath that flood
lose all their guilty stains.
There's your answer.
Are you washed in the Blood of the Lamb?? (old gospel song)
Here's another one:
There is a fountain filled with blood
drawn from Emmanuel's veins;
and sinners plunged beneath that flood
lose all their guilty stains.
Lose all their guilty stains,
lose all their guilty stains;
and sinners plunged beneath that flood
lose all their guilty stains.
There's your answer.