The need to see Romans 6:3-5 as Spirit baptism

Preach the Word:

I believe we have the same thought in ! Cor. 12:13
"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be bond or fre; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit"

Robert

 

Then how do we deny baptismal regeneration in obvious water baptism passages such as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc.? Do we keep going through and changing them all to Spirit baptism?

 

Ugh, that's a low blow... kick a guy while he's down why don't you?

Eric (Red Sox fan)

 

"First, water baptism does not unite a person into the death of Christ. No earthly work can unite a person to Christ.
Second, this passage gives a foundation to overcome sin (v.5). Water baptism cannot do that.
Third, (this is huge) if water baptism is involved, than baptismal regeneration CANNOT be denied."

I disagree.

In v. 3 Paul argues that death to sin is an integral part of becoming a Christian. Baptism, says Paul, involves us with the death of Christ (of course Christ's death is a death to sin).

In v. 4Paul concludes that, since baptism involves a believer with the death of Christ, we have also been buried with Him throgh that same baptism. The burial marks the end of the old life and is part of the transition to the new life in which we are called to walk.

At this point it is important to note a few things:

1) Paul is not talking about the ritual of baptism perse, but the event of baptism. Such a symbolic view simply does not do justice to he context. Paul makes clear that baptism is the means by which we come to be buried with Jesus. It is not the place wherein we are buried with Christ. Further, ther e is no evidence in Ro 6 (or anywhere else in the NT for that matter) that show the actual physical movements as having symbolic value, that is, that the movements in baptism are to be taken allegorically.

2)Paul is not saying that we have beeen joined with Christ in baptism but that we have been buried with Him. So the idea that baptism brings us to a point of being regenerated are at a loss.

Burial with Christ, in reality, is, as Moo puts it: "a dscription of the participation of the believer in Christ's own burial, a participation that is mediated by baptism."

Thus we can say that: 1) Water baptism does allow us to participate in Christ's death. Abd this does not mean that we are being joined with Christ, but that we join Christ in His death. Two different things.

This does no mean though that baptism is salvific. Baptism is NOT the time or place where we are buried with Christ, but the means by whcih we are buried with Christ. If we are to look for a "time" we must look in two places. One is Calvary, teh second is conversion. Not either/or nut in fact both. We are dealing witha a "redemptive/historical" event.
In our modern era, wherein baptism and conversion can be events separated by months and perhaps years, this may seem strange. But given the view of the early church, which saw conversion and baptism as parts of a unified experience, it is not so strange at all. Faith in the NT is always assumed to lead to baptism. In the same way, baptism presumes faith (and the gift of the Spirit) for its validity.
2) The participationist view allows for people to see tat they are empowered to walk in newness of life. Paul is here grounding a beliver's present participation in new life "in the spiritual power Christ's resurrection." (Moo) So Christians are in these verses called to and remnibnded that they have been empowered to, live a new life to God.

3) Water baptism can still be denied, for Pau is nt saying that person actually is saved trough baptism, not united with Christ in baptism, but united with Christ's death. It is participation, not regeneration, that is view here.

 

"Are you suggesting that only those who have been properly baptized have the opportunity to overcome sin?"

No. The Spirit comes at conversion.

"If you say yes, then their are alot of ignorant Christians that are stuck in sin because they just don't know."

That may well be true in any event. Of course they would be people who only THINK they are Christians.

"If you say no, then Paul's whole point is moot."

Not at all. That Baptism is not necessary salvifically does not render it superfluous. Paul wants people to look back at theri baptism, at the participation that took place at that time, and see remember that they have been empowered to walk in newness of life. you are presenting a flase dichotomy.

"Keep reading in the passage. The old man is crucified with Christ and is now able to present his members as instruments of righteousness. How is this done? Christ does this through us. Water baptism has no part in this whole discussion."

Hardly. It is you who needs to understnd that while water baptism is not the point (it is not the ritual but the event that is important) we cannot deny that teh event takes place in the context of the ritual.

It is simply not possible to render baptism in these verses as ONLY a metaphor for incorporation into the Body of Christ. I acknowledge that this idea is present, but it does not deny water baptism. Moo: "By the date of Romans, "baptize" had become almost a technical expression for the rite of Christian initiation by water, and this is surely the meaning the Roman Christians would have given the word." Moo points out that only one instance of the word baptizo in Paul does it NOT carry the meaning of water baptism.

It is surely incumbent upon you then to say why we should accept such amarginal meaning as yo put forward.

 

Gal. 3:27 is listed as referring to water baptism, as does 1 Co. 12:13 (though this one is debatable).

the only passage that clearly is not referring ot water baptism is 1Co. 10:2. But even there it is an analogy to water baptism.

So yes parallels, but not the way you think!

I agree that the parallel with Gal 3:27 favours a union. But being united with Christ, as a parallel to Romans 6, means being united with Him in His death, not being regenerated.