Baptism: It's All About Certainty

[TriuneUnity]

I came across this on a blog. It was so good, I couldn’t resist posting it here for mutual edification.

"How to know you are a child of God? That is the question on many minds. Much of the holy Christian church teaches that either through good works or some other peering at oneself one can tell if he or she belongs to Jesus. That is dreadful because we are such dismal failures in all we think, say or do. We will either overestimate or underestimate that which we see in ourselves. In fact sin itself is one turned in on oneself. So it is highly doubtful that God would want us to check ourselves out for assurance.

Peter 3:18-22: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Since we are unable to go back in time to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus he has instituted the sacrament of baptism in order to know we have the forgiveness of sins. This is upsetting to many who insist that baptism is nothing more than getting wet for Jesus. However, God created water and is quite comfortable using it to deliver the earth from sin as well as those who receive this gift.

Many complain that it is false comfort to look at baptism for assurance. That many will go to hell thinking they are saved which are actually lost. This is not understanding that those who do not believe are the ones under condemnation. If a person does not trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus the baptism does him no good. Neither would a wonderful sermon. It would unfortunately fall on deaf ears although faith comes by hearing the words of Christ most definitely.

Hebrews 10:19-22: Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

In the name of Jesus. Amen."

(From Lutheran blog, Five Pint Lutheran)

 

[churchcamefirst]

So then are you saying that all Protestants will go to hell?

 

[MrStain]

So then are you saying that all Protestants will go to hell?

I’d lean more toward purgatory.

On a serious note, not all Protestants deny the conferral of grace in Baptism. I’m pretty sure all – or most – of the original Protestants held the traditional Christian view of Baptism. Here is the early Lutheran & Anglican view.

“*That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints… Thus it appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God’s own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new man, and is and remains ever efficacious until we pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory.” *- Martin Luther - Exceprts from his Large Catechism

"*XXVII. Of Baptism. Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ*." - Excerpt from The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

 

[Contarini]

Well, for one thing TriuneUnity is a Lutheran!

For another, I don’t think it follows from what he says that one must believe all the right things about baptism in order to receive grace. Most Protestants are baptized. They just tend to rely too heavily on their own subjective experience and too little on the word of promise sealed upon them in baptism.

Edwin

 

[MrStain]

Well, for one thing TriuneUnity is a Lutheran!

For another, I don’t think it follows from what he says that one must believe all the right things about baptism in order to receive grace. Most Protestants are baptized. They just tend to rely too heavily on their own subjective experience and too little on the word of promise sealed upon them in baptism.

Edwin

Ya, I noticed the Elbe Swim Team in Triune’s signature. That is too funny!

You nailed it with the statement that many rely on “their own subjective experience” regarding Baptism. It is our own feelings that often mislead us and it is really no wonder so many in modern evangelical Protestantism get rebaptized. Many who get rebaptized must feel the first one just never “took”. Trusting in God’s promises above one’s own feeling is a much better way to go.

 

[mikeledes]

I came across this on a blog. It was so good, I couldn’t resist posting it here for mutual edification.

"How to know you are a child of God? That is the question on many minds. Much of the holy Christian church teaches that either through good works or some other peering at oneself one can tell if he or she belongs to Jesus. That is dreadful because we are such dismal failures in all we think, say or do. We will either overestimate or underestimate that which we see in ourselves. In fact sin itself is one turned in on oneself. So it is highly doubtful that God would want us to check ourselves out for assurance.

Peter 3:18-22: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Since we are unable to go back in time to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus he has instituted the sacrament of baptism in order to know we have the forgiveness of sins. This is upsetting to many who insist that baptism is nothing more than getting wet for Jesus. However, God created water and is quite comfortable using it to deliver the earth from sin as well as those who receive this gift.

Many complain that it is false comfort to look at baptism for assurance. That many will go to hell thinking they are saved which are actually lost. This is not understanding that those who do not believe are the ones under condemnation. If a person does not trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus the baptism does him no good. Neither would a wonderful sermon. It would unfortunately fall on deaf ears although faith comes by hearing the words of Christ most definitely.

Hebrews 10:19-22: Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

In the name of Jesus. Amen."

(From Lutheran blog, Five Pint Lutheran)

How would a Lutheran respond to the claim made by many Protestants (Calvinists, Baptists, etc.) that baptismal regeneration is works salvation? That if you believe you receive forgiveness of sins through baptism, you are basically earning that forgiveness?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Publisher]

Well, for one thing TriuneUnity is a Lutheran!

For another, I don’t think it follows from what he says that one must believe all the right things about baptism in order to receive grace. Most Protestants are baptized. They just tend to rely too heavily on their own subjective experience and too little on the word of promise sealed upon them in baptism.

Edwin

I agree…as a Friend I trust in the work of the Holy Spirit to baptize and regenerate the believer…I trust that any who come to Him in faith, He will not turn away…He is Baptizer and Healer.

 

[Pokedaughter]

“You nailed it with the statement that many rely on “their own subjective experience” regarding Baptism. It is our own feelings that often mislead us and it is really no wonder so many in modern evangelical Protestantism get rebaptized. Many who get rebaptized must feel the first one just never “took”. Trusting in God’s promises above one’s own feeling is a much better way to go.”

Speaking personally as a protestant, some get rebaptized not as a re-baptism but as a re-confirmation of faith and a renewed committment to Christ as Lord and Redeemer of his/her life.

When I was married my husband had never experienced an immersion baptism. He chose to participate in the “believers baptism” (different from infant baptism of his Methodist faith and the Catholic faith) and as a sign of becoming “one” with him through marriage and faith, I wanted to be baptized with him (even though I had received the ordinance of and immersion baptism at the age of 7). It was an outward sign of an inward change.

The difference in the Catholic belief of baptism and some Protestant beliefs regarding baptism is this:

Catholic theology: Baptism is a Sacrament resulting in Salvation
Some Protestant Theologies: One chooses Baptism (an ordinance) as a result **of **Salvation.

I think if this fundamental difference is understood then it is easer to see why one would choose to be “re-baptized”. It’s not a re-do because the first one didn’t take, haha, it is done as a statement of renewed faith. That’s all. Many of my Methodist friends choose to participate in immersion baptism even though they already participated in infant baptism because it is such a beautiful and humbling act of devotion to God through Christ’s sacrifice. I had a friend once witness an immersion baptism and she was brought to tears. She stated: “Why would anyone choose to do it any other way?” She was deeply moved by the beauty of God’s love when they chose to express their committment to Him through the ordinance of baptism showing they accepted God’s “washing” of their sins and their desire to follow Him in the “newness” of Christ.

 

[TriuneUnity]

How would a Lutheran respond to the claim made by many Protestants (Calvinists, Baptists, etc.) that baptismal regeneration is works salvation? That if you believe you receive forgiveness of sins through baptism, you are basically earning that forgiveness?

God Bless,
Michael

The claim would be true IF we approached Baptism the way THEY approach Baptism. To symbolic Baptism Protestants, it is a work of man. It’s a statement that “I’m serious about following Jesus” or some variant thereof.

Baptism, however, is a work, but it is a work of God, not man. It is God coming down to us to tell us that He has adopted us as His own and sealed us with the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. It is no more our work than preaching is our work. Most Protestants will say that God converts through the preaching of the word; the last time I checked, it required a human activity to preach the word, the Bible doesn’t preach itself. In the same way, it requires a human to pour the water and say the Triune Name; but these are means, the Spirit works the ends.

 

[mikeledes]

The claim would be true IF we approached Baptism the way THEY approach Baptism. To symbolic Baptism Protestants, it is a work of man. It’s a statement that “I’m serious about following Jesus” or some variant thereof.

Baptism, however, is a work, but it is a work of God, not man. It is God coming down to us to tell us that He has adopted us as His own and sealed us with the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. It is no more our work than preaching is our work. Most Protestants will say that God converts through the preaching of the word; the last time I checked, it required a human activity to preach the word, the Bible doesn’t preach itself. In the same way, it requires a human to pour the water and say the Triune Name; but these are means, the Spirit works the ends.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Steadfast]

From Luther’s explanation of the third article of the creed, found in the Small Catechism (and I think this is one of the best things he ever wrote, I have it nailed to my heart):

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

More specifically on Baptism, when the question is asked how water can accomplish what Scripture says it does; i.e. regeneration and the washing away of sin:

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

 

[bpbasilphx]

They just tend to rely too heavily on their own subjective experience and too little on the word of promise sealed upon them in baptism.

Which is why I say that pop-evangelicalism tends towards Pelagianism.

 

[bpbasilphx]

More specifically on Baptism, when the question is asked how water can accomplish what Scripture says it does; i.e. regeneration and the washing away of sin:

Ask them, "How can mere paper and ink contain the uncircumscribable Word of God?"

 

[Steadfast]

They just tend to rely too heavily on their own subjective experience and too little on the word of promise sealed upon them in baptism.

Which is why I say that pop-evangelicalism tends towards Pelagianism.

True 'dat!

 

[Contarini]

They just tend to rely too heavily on their own subjective experience and too little on the word of promise sealed upon them in baptism.

Which is why I say that pop-evangelicalism tends towards Pelagianism.

Indeed, and this is a criticism that more traditional Protestants (particularly Lutherans) have made of Pietists/evangelicals from the beginning. The Pietist movement, from which evangelicalism springs, redefined in many ways what “justification by faith” meant. It was in response to an overly intellectual definition which had become popular (arguably), but it identified “faith” with an experience in a way that the original Reformers (particularly Luther) had never done.

As a Wesleyan (theologically) with strong Catholic leanings (that’s why I’m an Anglican), I have fewer problems with this in many ways. But clearly experiential piety needs to be grounded in a robust understanding of God’s grace as offered through the sacraments. And that’s what’s missing in so much evangelicalism (well, one of the things that is missing).

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

To me, the understanding of Baptism truly separates the “orthodox” from the heterodox in Christianity. Those who hold that Baptism has no importance in and of itself are on dangerous ground biblically and theologically.

I have noticed that those who accept a view on baptism similar to the Catholic one tend to have more fleshed out theologies and make for better discussion partners than those who do not.

 

[TriuneUnity]

To me, the understanding of Baptism truly separates the “orthodox” from the heterodox in Christianity. Those who hold that Baptism has no importance in and of itself are on dangerous ground biblically and theologically.

I have noticed that those who accept a view on baptism similar to the Catholic one tend to have more fleshed out theologies and make for better discussion partners than those who do not.

 

[Peter_J]

I came across this on a blog. It was so good, I couldn’t resist posting it here for mutual edification.

"How to know you are a child of God? That is the question on many minds. Much of the holy Christian church teaches that either through good works or some other peering at oneself one can tell if he or she belongs to Jesus. That is dreadful because we are such dismal failures in all we think, say or do. We will either overestimate or underestimate that which we see in ourselves. In fact sin itself is one turned in on oneself. So it is highly doubtful that God would want us to check ourselves out for assurance.

Peter 3:18-22: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Since we are unable to go back in time to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus he has instituted the sacrament of baptism in order to know we have the forgiveness of sins. This is upsetting to many who insist that baptism is nothing more than getting wet for Jesus. However, God created water and is quite comfortable using it to deliver the earth from sin as well as those who receive this gift.

Many complain that it is false comfort to look at baptism for assurance. That many will go to hell thinking they are saved which are actually lost. This is not understanding that those who do not believe are the ones under condemnation. If a person does not trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus the baptism does him no good. Neither would a wonderful sermon. It would unfortunately fall on deaf ears although faith comes by hearing the words of Christ most definitely.

Hebrews 10:19-22: Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

In the name of Jesus. Amen."

(From Lutheran blog, Five Pint Lutheran)

(Although I think “Baptism: It’s All About Certainty” is a rather strange title. )

 

[MrStain]

“You nailed it with the statement that many rely on “their own subjective experience” regarding Baptism. It is our own feelings that often mislead us and it is really no wonder so many in modern evangelical Protestantism get rebaptized. Many who get rebaptized must feel the first one just never “took”. Trusting in God’s promises above one’s own feeling is a much better way to go.”

Speaking personally as a protestant, some get rebaptized not as a re-baptism but as a re-confirmation of faith and a renewed committment to Christ as Lord and Redeemer of his/her life.

When I was married my husband had never experienced an immersion baptism. He chose to participate in the “believers baptism” (different from infant baptism of his Methodist faith and the Catholic faith) and as a sign of becoming “one” with him through marriage and faith, I wanted to be baptized with him (even though I had received the ordinance of and immersion baptism at the age of 7). It was an outward sign of an inward change.

The difference in the Catholic belief of baptism and some Protestant beliefs regarding baptism is this:

Catholic theology: Baptism is a Sacrament resulting in Salvation
Some Protestant Theologies: One chooses Baptism (an ordinance) as a result **of **Salvation.

I think if this fundamental difference is understood then it is easer to see why one would choose to be “re-baptized”. It’s not a re-do because the first one didn’t take, haha, it is done as a statement of renewed faith. That’s all. Many of my Methodist friends choose to participate in immersion baptism even though they already participated in infant baptism because it is such a beautiful and humbling act of devotion to God through Christ’s sacrifice. I had a friend once witness an immersion baptism and she was brought to tears. She stated: “Why would anyone choose to do it any other way?” She was deeply moved by the beauty of God’s love when they chose to express their committment to Him through the ordinance of baptism showing they accepted God’s “washing” of their sins and their desire to follow Him in the “newness” of Christ.

Thanks, Pokedaughter. I definitely understand the differences. You see, I grew up in the Baptist Church and I’m very familiar with re-baptisms and those “renewed faith” altar calls after one had “back-slidden”. I’ve seen first hand the happiness these people have when they feel like they’ve come back home to Jesus. I’ve shaken their hands and hugged them in great love for their renewed commitment to Christ. However, Scripture says there is one Baptism (Eph 4:5) and as was posted earlier in the thread, 1st Peter makes a case that Baptism “now saves you” (1 Pet 3:18-22).

Again, I understand the desire to let others know publically how you feel about Jesus and a public re-Baptism is one quick way to get your “street cred” in evangelical circles so to say. People in your congregation will know that you are serious. However, I just want to point out that it is in no way supported by Scripture or the history of the Church. Have you ever consider how Paul brings up & compares the OT Rite of Circumcision and the NT Rite of Baptism? (Col 2:11-12) Circumcision was the rite that brought young men into God’s family in the OT and Baptism is the new means. Just like there was only ONE circumcision, so there would be ONE baptism.

 

[mark_a]

Hello Triune,

I see that you are WELS. Are you familiar with this gentleman?

Just curious.