Baptism doctrine, which way?

[ckww]

I believe baptism is not a necessity for Salvation but shows an obedience to God . Jesus was baptised not because He needed it but because he was leading as an example. It serves as a final step of becoming a Christian--confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe baptism is not a necessity for Salvation but shows an obedience to God . Jesus was baptised not because He needed it but because he was leading as an example. It serves as a final step of becoming a Christian--confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior.

If you don't believe baptism is essential to salvation, why do you think Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..."? Why do you think the very last commandment He gave His Apostles before He ascended into Heaven was to go to all nations, preach His gospel and baptize those who would accept it? That strikes me as a little odd if for him to say if it wasn't a necessary step. I also wonder why you would call it the "final step" towards becoming a Christian. To me, it kind of seems more like the "first step" or at least one of the first steps, after faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repentence for one's sins.

 

[Desert Snake]

Baptism is for (not because of) forgiveness of sins as stated in Acts 2:38. Peter later wrote (1 Peter 3:21) ...baptism which now saves you also...
The "for" forgiveness of sins is consistent with 1 Peter 3:21, the "because of" forgivess of sins is not consistent with 1 Peter 3:21. Peter was consistent with what he taught. Although some will 'try' to explain away these scriptures connecting baptism and salvation, the truth is these scriptures are actually written blatantly in the Bible. The teaching that baptism is "an act of obedience done after one is saved" is not written anywhere in the Bible. It is supported 'entirely' on conjecture. Teachings for which there are DIRECT scripture references hold all the weight over teachings that do not.

That was my impression also, the suggestion of baptism being necessary seems presumptuous, at best, when actually referring to scripture. I think people should present verses, in context, backing up this opinion.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Define young. At birth?

No, 4-6 somewhere like that.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism is for (not because of) forgiveness of sins as stated in Acts 2:38. Peter later wrote (1 Peter 3:21) ...baptism which now saves you also... The "for" forgiveness of sins is consistent with 1 Peter 3:21, the "because of" forgivess of sins is not consistent with 1 Peter 3:21. Peter was consistent with what he taught. Although some will 'try' to explain away these scriptures connecting baptism and salvation, the truth is these scriptures are actually written blatantly in the Bible. The teaching that baptism is "an act of obedience done after one is saved" is not written anywhere in the Bible. It is supported 'entirely' on conjecture. Teachings for which there are DIRECT scripture references hold all the weight over teachings that have no scripture reference. In the greek baptism is immersion, cut and dry. Jesus got baptized to fulfill all righteousness and if he had never mentioned baptism again, we might be able to assume in the absence of specific directives that it would be the same for us, but Jesus did get specific in Mark 16:16 on what it would mean for us. Certainly Peter did not misunderstand Jesus when he spoke of baptism (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21) mentioned a few sentences ago. So Jesus's baptism cannot be used as a 'way out' of the purpose for which Jesus assigned baptism to us.

 

[e.r.m.]

Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 carries the purpose of baptism past presumption into crystal clarity. Throughout the Old and New Testaments when God and Jesus forgave sins through whatever means (e.g. - Isaiah 6 the coal on the lips) it was never questioned. If GOD said your sins are forgiven 'this way', then it was just accepted. People didn't ask God if the way He chose to do so was 'necessary'. If Jesus said "Go sell all your riches and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven" you don't ask Jesus "is this necessary?" Peter said "to whom shall we go, you have the words of life." When Jesus said "Those who believe and are baptized will be saved, those who do not believe will be
condemned" Peter then told the people to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins & baptism which now saves you also. Peter simply accepted w/o question that since Jesus says it is for salvation, then it is. Peter did not consider it presumptuous to accept what Jesus taught.

 

[e.r.m.]

In terms of context, I am openly and gently willing to hear the context you are willing to offer. I have spent years reading into the context of the passages I mentioned and make concerted efforts to present as complete a picture as I can without writing a dissertation. As you can tell, I still write a lot. If you have context to offer that I have missed, I will be grateful to receive it and consider it without bias. In the case of Acts 2:38, I offer that this was the first sermon after Jesus death, burial, and resurrection to a crowd of the not yet converted and an excellent example to hear Peter's take on the purpose of baptism, whatever was to be said. I thank you for your previous reply and look forward to any more. May God bless you.

 

[Desert Snake]

In terms of context, I am openly and gently willing to hear the context you are willing to offer. I have spent years reading into the context of the passages I mentioned and make concerted efforts to present as complete a picture as I can without writing a dissertation. As you can tell, I still write a lot. If you have context to offer that I have missed, I will be grateful to receive it and consider it without bias. In the case of Acts 2:38, I offer that this was the first sermon after Jesus death, burial, and ressurection to a crowd of the not yet converted and an excellent example to hear Peter's take on the purpose of baptism, whatever was to be said. I thank you for your previous reply and look forward to any more. May God bless you.

I'm not sure if your answering to my previous post however I'll assume you are. I created a thread named "baptism" that might be a good place for verses, scripture.

 

[uu_sage]

We in the United Church of Christ (UCC) were born out of the Reformed Tradition especially through Presbyterianism. In that Reformed tradition we practice baptism of infants and baptism of adults via sprinkling. Personally I'm more in the Disciples of Christ and American Baptist mindset of baptism by immersion . I respect and honor all forms of baptism including immersion, sprinkling.

 

[e.r.m.]

Ok, I'll look at baptism.

 

[e.r.m.]

First, the baptism of John and the one commanded by Jesus (in Jesus's name) are different - Acts 19:1-5.
Hebrews 9:16-18, 28, Romans 6:3-4, indicate that the new covenant started after Jesus's sacrifice. Jesus had authority on earth to forgive the thief on the thief on the cross, the parylitic, the sinful woman who washed his feet with her hair, etc (Luke 5:24). Therefore, the baptism Jesus, commanded after he resurrected, belonged to the new covenant, whereas John's baptism belonged to the old. We are under the new covenant. That being said...

The purposes which the Bible explicitly assigns for baptism are:
Salvation - Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21
Forgiveness of our sins - Acts 2:38-9, Acts 22:16.

I have heard the concept that people want to be baptized to follow Jesus's example as an act of obedience. In the abscence of any specific instruction by Jesus, then by default that might work, but since there are specific instructions by Jesus and confirmed by his apostles, then the purposes is not 'an act of obedience', but for the reasons stated above (see above). Granted we'd be obeying Jesus to be baptized since he commanded it, but that's a descriptive term, not an actual purpose, as if Jesus had stated something like "Baptize the disciples for obedience's sake" which neither Jesus nor his apostles state anything like that. Consequently, if anyone baptizes/gets baptized for 'the purpose' of an act of obedience and not for forgivesnes of sins/salvation, they are disobeying Jesus.

 

[e.r.m.]

Who can baptize for the remission of sins?

This is an interesting question; I looked it up in the greek, the NT does not specify, it just says 'be baptized'

What method is used, full immersion or other?

Who can baptize for the remission of sins?
This is an interesting question; I looked it up in the greek, the NT does not specify, it just says 'be baptized'. It therefore, from what I can tell, leaves it open to anyone. However, I think if someone baptized himself with no witnesses, it would be his word against anyone's that it really happened.

What method is used, full immersion or other?[/quote]
I also looked up in the greek. baptism is always referred to as full immersion in water.

 

[sojourner]

Who can baptize for the remission of sins?
This is an interesting question; I looked it up in the greek, the NT does not specify, it just says 'be baptized'. It therefore, from what I can tell, leaves it open to anyone. However, I think if someone baptized himself with no witnesses, it would be his word against anyone's that it really happened.

What method is used, full immersion or other?

I also looked up in the greek. baptism is always referred to as full immersion in water.[/quote]
Since baptism is, in part, an initiation into the family of God, it is a community event. It sorta doesn't make sense to "go it alone." Since the church initiates the candidate on Christ's behalf, one cannot baptize oneself.

 

[e.r.m.]

I also looked up in the greek. baptism is always referred to as full immersion in water.

Since baptism is, in part, an initiation into the family of God, it is a community event. It sorta doesn't make sense to "go it alone." Since the church initiates the candidate on Christ's behalf, one cannot baptize oneself.[/quote]


I agree -It doesn't make sense to "go it alone"

 

[e2ekiel]

baptism of water is purely symbolic, a public event for all to see and witness what you profess, just like a wedding ceremony... you can still be legally married ( and before God) without walking down the aisle.

Your salvation does not depend on baptism of water, but the baptism of the Spirit. If you don't believe that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, it won't matter how much water is poured on you or in what manner it is done, you're not declared justified by God.

 

[e.r.m.]

baptism of water is purely symbolic, a public event for all to see and witness what you profess, just like a wedding ceremony... you can still be legally married ( and before God) without walking down the aisle.

Your salvation does not depend on baptism of water, but the baptism of the Spirit. If you don't believe that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, it won't matter how much water is poured on you or in what manner it is done, you're not declared justified by God.

There is 'never' a scripture where the purpose of belief (salvation) excluded baptism. Neither are mutually exclusive. Belief, then baptism, at least after Jesus's resurrection, which is when baptism in Jesus's name took effect. The Bible says both save. The symbolic nature that you talked about is only protestant Zwinglian rhetoric. The Bible says otherwise.
Has it not occurred to you that neither the baptism-public profession of faith ideology nor terminology 'ever' show up in the Bible?

 

[Acts238Believer]

The Apostles answered this exact question on the day of Pentecost. After Peter stood up with the eleven and gave the account of Jesus, those that heard this were 'pricked' at the heart and asked 'What must we do to be saved!?' - 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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.



Every Apostles that baptized did it the same way. Even Paul who was not a part of the Apostles originally but was given revelation by God on what to do.

 

[e.r.m.]

The Apostles answered this exact question on the day of Pentecost. After Peter stood up with the eleven and gave the account of Jesus, those that heard this were 'pricked' at the heart and asked 'What must we do to be saved!?' - 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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.



Every Apostles that baptized did it the same way. Even Paul who was not a part of the Apostles originally but was given revelation by God on what to do.

Indeed.

 

[Villager]

Seems every church and person has their own distinct notions of baptism. The Catholics perform child sprinklings, the Baptist adult immersion, the Mormons for even the dead. Some deny it is even important at all. What are your beliefs concerning baptism and why?

Abraham was not baptised, did not baptise. Abraham was circumcised in the flesh after he was justified by faith. His physical descendants, the Israelites, also physically circumcised, often did not have faith, and were told by their deity to 'circumcise their hearts', meaning that they were to turn from their sins and obey him.

Christians are those who believe that bodily circumcision is neither here nor there, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and that they, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are and were justified because their faith is and was effective because Jesus died for their sins. Ritual water baptism was a method of religious initiation in Egypt and Greece, but not in Israel or Judea, though the notion of ritual washing did enter Abrahamic tradition through Mosaic Law. Water baptism was used by John the Baptist so that people could openly declare their attitude to sin, but John recognised that this was not enough, and that Jesus, "the Lamb of God", would make it possible to 'wash away' sins in the sight of God.

Christians may say that they are 'washed in the blood of the Lamb', referring to their justification as righteous through faith in the death of Jesus on the cross. It is trust in that abstract washing that makes a person Christian, which clearing of conscience is nothing to do with physical washing or even ritual washing. However, water baptism became a form of witness that one had not only renounced sin, but had trusted in the sacrifice of Jesus to remove all one's sins from God's sight. This was like 'pinning one's colours to the mast'- making a public witness to one's faith. It was at times a brave thing to do, due to the persecution of Christians by certain factions. It was not something that infants could do- it was the result of careful and deliberate choice, usually by adults, though children could make that informed choice, also. Now to be a Christian but not make it known to others was impossible, so public baptism was deemed the method by which one made one's faith known. It had no inherent value, no magic power to take away sins, as some were later to believe.

After the Roman Empire had failed to destroy Christianity, it set up its own religions under the name of Christianity, and declared that all including infants were to be baptised in water, thereby making everyone 'Christian'. At that moment, water baptism became worthless for any remaining Christians, and effectively ceased to exist. Today, it is not the case that everyone is baptised, but it is true that anyone can be dipped in water and call himself or herself a Christian- so Christians might consider water baptism in their particular circumstances to be of value, but they may not. What they do not do is baptise or allow church membership to infants or to anyone who has not shown, in public and private, consistent if not long term commitment to Jesus as both saviour and lord.

 

[e.r.m.]

Abraham was not baptised, did not baptise. Abraham was circumcised in the flesh after he was justified by faith. His physical descendants, the Israelites, also physically circumcised, often did not have faith, and were told by their deity to 'circumcise their hearts', meaning that they were to turn from their sins and obey him.

Christians are those who believe that bodily circumcision is neither here nor there, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and that they, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are and were justified because their faith is and was effective because Jesus died for their sins. Ritual water baptism was a method of religious initiatiofn in Egypt and Greece, but not in Israel or Judea, though the notion of ritual washing did enter Abrahamic tradition through Mosaic Law. Water baptism was used by John the Baptist so that people could openly declare their attitude to sin, but John recognised that this was not enough, and that Jesus, "the Lamb of God", would make it possible to 'wash away' sins in the sight of God.

Christians may say that they are 'washed in the blood of the Lamb', referring to their justification as righteous through faith in the death of Jesus on the cross. It is trust in that abstract washing that makes a person Christian, which clearing of conscience is nothing to do with physical washing or even ritual washing. However, water baptism became a form of witness that one had not only renounced sin, but had trusted in the sacrifice of Jesus to remove all one's sins from God's sight. This was like 'pinning one's colours to the mast'- making a public witness to one's faith. It was at times a brave thing to do, due to the persecution of Christians by certain factions. It was not something that infants could do- it was the result of careful and deliberate choice, usually by adults, though children could make that informed choice, also. Now to be a Christian but not make it known to others was impossible, so public baptism was deemed the method by which one made one's faith known. It had no inherent value, no magic power to take away sins, as some were later to believe.

After the Roman Empire had failed to destroy Christianity, it set up its own religions under the name of Christianity, and declared that all including infants were to be baptised in water, thereby making everyone 'Christian'. At that moment, water baptism became worthless for any remaining Christians, and effectively ceased to exist. Today, it is not the case that everyone is baptised, but it is true that anyone can be dipped in water and call himself or herself a Christian- so Christians might consider water baptism in their particular circumstances to be of value, but they may not. What they do not do is baptise
or allow church membership to infants or to anyone who has not shown, in public and private, consistent if not long term commitment to Jesus as both saviour and lord.[/
QUOTE]

If I understand what you're saying correctly, that historically, baptism was intended as a public profession of faith, I have some things to say. If I am mistaken in my understanding, then please forgive me. What I have to say is:
You are fabricating a fictitious history (although perhaps not on purpose) as to the purpose of baptism after Jesus's resurrection. Although yes it would be dangerous for people to be baptized in public during the bouts of Roman persecution (e.g. - Nero, Marcus Auraelius, & Diocletian, etc.), the actual "purpose" of baptism was never for public profession of one's faith. From what historical record did you 'come across' that purpose of baptism? Historically, the notion of baptism for public profession of faith was popularized by Zwingli in the 1520's as part of his battle against the anabaptist who were 'rebaptizing' people who had been baptized as infants. From then it has evolved to its current protestant form. The early church fathers, such as Tertullian, declared the purpose of baptism as forgiveness of sins and salvation. In addition there is no vocabulary in the Bible, in the slightest, describing 'the purpose' of baptism as public profession of faith. Shouldn't that worry you? It would worry me if a "major" doctrine of mine was never even mentioned! The public nature of baptisms in scripture was never mentioned by the authors as "the purpose".