Baptism, non-essential!

[NotWorthy]

John I don’t believe you’ll see any association with water baptism in Hebrews, the author speaks of spiritual baptism.
Circumcision of the heart, John (born again).

Then why does he mislead us, espcially if the author is Paul who has talked of water baptism in numerous other Epistles. Whenever the Apostles speak of baptizing, they speak of water. Yes, the Spriit is integral to this, and only comes when the proper form is used “Trinitarian Baptism”, but it also needs the proper matter “water”.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Also, look at the final line of that scene:

"Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day."

Baptism is the seal of (or the inititiation into) the New Covenant. When the Apostles instituted the New Covenant 3000 souls were added. Just as when Moses instituted the imperfect Mosaic Covenant, 3000 souls were lost due to the rejection of the Covenant.

3000 were baptized after they had recieved the word, also look at phillip and the eunuch, whats **very important **is that Phillip specifically asks the eunuch of his belief in Christ before agreeing to baptize him…

 

[RobNY]

Martin, are you interested in answering my question, or would you prefer if I just reasoned it out on my own?

1. One is either under the law, or under grace, right?

 

[runandsew]

I was listening to Dr. J. Vernon McGee the other day, and he was saying that Christians don’t need to be baptized, since they are ‘automatically’ baptized in the Holy Spirit’ when they come to believe in Jesus. He was giving a bible study of the book of acts, and quoting the many times that Acts says “and they received the Holy Spirit”.

I have heard other Protestants say that you need to be baptized, but it is just an ordinance, an outward sign of your conversion.

Others say that you can baptize infants, others say you only can baptize believing adults.

Again, is there more than one truth?

What happens if the truth is that, in fact, you do need to be baptized, and someone has listened to Dr. J. Vernon McGee, and doesn’t get baptized?

Is his eternal soul in danger?

Did any of the church fathers teach that baptism was a non-essential? Was this view held by anyone at all before the protestant reformation?
If so, could I please see the references, if not, then how could the church get it wrong for over 1,500 years?

I know that we can only sway myfavoritmartin by scripture, but how can that be done when he is already set in his mind of what scripture is teaching him.
We can show him every scripture passage in the bible which shows that baptism is essential, but that isn’t going to change his way of thinking, because he has his own tradition that he filters scripture through.

myfavoritmartin, I will leave you with one last question.
Don’t be quick to pop off a preconceived answer, take time to contemplate this.

If baptism is not essential, then why did Jesus command his disciples to do it?

Matthew 28:16-20
But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

 

[RobNY]

3000 were baptized after they had recieved the word, also look at phillip and the eunuch, whats **very important **is that Phillip specifically asks the eunuch of his belief in Christ before agreeing to baptize him…

That verse is not in the earliest and best manuscripts. It is very unlikely that it was a part of Scripture as originally written.

-Rob

 

[runandsew]

3000 were baptized after they had recieved the word, also look at phillip and the eunuch, whats **very important **is that Phillip specifically asks the eunuch of his belief in Christ before agreeing to baptize him…

Yes, you need faith before you are baptized. Baptism doesn’t make you have faith. As for infants they are baptized because of their parents faith, which will be passed on to their child.
Just as the paralytic was healed because of the faith of his friends who dropped him down through the roof of Peters house.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Martin, are you interested in answering my question, or would you prefer if I just reasoned it out on my own?

1. One is either under the law, or under grace, right?

Where did you pose it? I want to see context…Remember I am debating with multiple persons at once. Be patient…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

This still leaves it unexplained.

Why does it say, wash away your sins? Using the last part of the verse to avoid interpreting the rest of it is a dodge, not an explanation.

-Rob

it says and wash away thy sins.

 

[Philthy]

FIRST…CONTEXT>

*“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit,” (John 3:3-8).

Let’s look at five basic interpretations to this section of scripture in reference to water.

The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.
**The first option **looks to the context of Jesus’ words dealing with being born “again” (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4). Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (3:6). The implication is that the first birth is the natural birth and the second birth is the spiritual birth. In other words, the water refers to the water of the womb – the first birth. This seems to have support in the understanding of Nicodemus about entering into the womb to be born a second time. However sadly, this view is not the most commonly held view.

I completely disagree with you.
The first reason is because it makes no sense at all for Christ to have included “born again of water and the spirit” IF he were trying to answer Nicodemus’ question and clear up the “2 births” issue. First off, Nicodemus has already prefaced the discussion with an acknowledgement that we are talking about people, all of whom are born from “their mother’s womb” and he asks plainly, “Do they need to re-enter their mother’s womb to be born again?” IF Christ wanted to clear up the discussion the way you claim, the most obvious answer to Nicodemus would be, “No, they don’t need to re-enter the womb, they need to be born of the Spirit” That would have unambiguously removed all doubt, on to the next question. For Christ to, instead, redundantly (remember, Nic has already acknowledged the person was born of the womb) introduce a new, ambiguous, unprecedented term - “born of water” - to restate what Nicodemus has already stated clearly with “enter your mother’s womb” is way too much of a stretch. It is illogical, unecessary and completely misleading and I have to reject it.
The other reason which leads me to reject Martin’s analysis is that Titus 3:5 so closely parallels John 3:5 in that it contains the same water and spirit formula for salvation, and it is impossible to render the water portion of that verse to refer to the natural birthing process. Here it is:
“…He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit” The problem (for Martin’s viewpoint) is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to render the water reference to the birthing process. Without being able to do that we would have to assume that the water/spirit formula used by Christ is, for some unknown reason, different than that water/spirit formula used by Paul. And we would have to do this why? To attempt to justify a theology unheard of in the early Church? Im sorry, but from where I stand that simply makes no sense and, again, I must reject it.

 

[RobNY]

Dear Martin-- I just wanted to question you, with some simple questions, and see if we didn’t agree. I see that you have your hands full. So, I offer what my questions would have led you to in post form here.

One is either under the law or under grace. Those under the law must fulfill the law’s impossible legal obligations in order to be justified-- hence, no one will be justified under the law. For the person under the law to be justified he must cease to be under the law and enter into the covenant of grace in Jesus Christ.

Now, the question is, how is one released from the law?

As Paul says, “the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives.” (Romans 7:1). What Paul explains is that one must die to the law to live to Christ.

But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter.(Rom 7:6)

We are liberated from the law by dying to it, so we can live in the freedom of Jesus Christ.

Paul says point blank:

you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong… to the one who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God. (Rom 7:4)

As Paul says, “a dead person has been absolved from sin” (Rom 6:7). By being put to death to the law, and sharing in Christ’s death, we are absolved from sin and can then live with Him in newness of life. Verily, “if… we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (Rom 6:8).

Paul is very emphatic about this. One of Paul’s most beautiful verses, here, “if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection” (Rom 6:5).

So you must all be wondering… Paul… how do we die to the law with Christ? How do we become the dead person, absolved from sin, and free to rise with Christ in newness of life?

But Paul tells us.

3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.(Rom 6:3-4)

This is the controlling idea behind both Romans 6 and 7 which I’ve been quoting.

I must ask you Martin, “are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” And all those who were baptized into his death have been put to death to the law-- as a dead person, absolved from sin-- and by growing in union with Him in a death like His, we are united with Him in His resurrection so that we might live in newness of life.

-Rob

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I never said water Baptism was sufficient for salvation, I said it was necessary (barring extreme circumstances).

How can circumstances circumvent necessity?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I must ask you Martin, “are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” And all those who were baptized into his death have been put to death to the law-- as a dead person, absolved from sin-- and by growing in union with Him in a death like His, we are united with Him in His resurrection so that we might live in newness of life.

-Rob

Don’t confuse baptism of the spirit with baptism by water…

 

[RobNY]

it says and wash away thy sins.

Yes martin, it does. But explain to me why it says, ‘wash’ in reference to forgiveness of sins, if baptism has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin? The terminology of, ‘wash’ must refer to baptism, because baptism involves water. You’ve offered no explanation to the contrary.

-Rob

 

[bilop]

How can circumstances circumvent necessity?

There are other types of Baptism that circumvent the necessity of water Baptism. Baptism of blood (martyrs), baptism of desire (one intend to be baptized, but dies beforehand).

I just didn’t think we needed to go into the execptions for this discussion.

God Bless

 

[RobNY]

Don’t confuse baptism of the spirit with baptism by water…

Martin,

Might I suggest that your problem is making an unnecessary distinction between the two? This would solve all your problems-- as Scripture says in Ephesians, there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.

As for the problems with your interpretation:

It is completely groundless. You can only interpret that baptism in Paul’s context means, “baptism in the spirit” and isn’t baptism which includes water because you come to the text with the preconceived notion that it must not be water baptism.

If you are going to interpret Scripture, then give me credible reason, based on context that it is what you call, ‘baptism of the Spirit’ and not baptism (water). When Scripture uses the word baptism it means with water unless the context is expressly to the contrary-- give me that context if you really claim that.

The word baptism itself carries with itself the freight of being involved with water, so the burden of evidence is on you to prove otherwise.

As it is, the context suggests that it *is. *The imagery is starkly baptismal. You were indeed buried with him through baptism into death. The image is of going down into the water, of being, “buried” with Him by going under the water, and when being lifted out of the water being, “raised” to new life. Colossians uses the same imagery (Col 2:12).

Your interpretation isn’t credible. Paul is referring to, “water baptism.”

-Rob

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Yes martin, it does. But explain to me why it says, ‘wash’ in reference to forgiveness of sins, if baptism has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin? The terminology of, ‘wash’ must refer to baptism, because baptism involves water. You’ve offered no explanation to the contrary.

-Rob

Christ shed blood is what washes sin from us…

Behold the Lamb of God whom takes away the sin of the world!

New covenant
Heb 9:15
For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

Like moses in the old

Hebrews 9:19-22
For when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, saying, ‘This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.’ And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

 

[RobNY]

Christ shed blood is what washes sin from us…

I agree that it is by the merit of Christ’s blood that we are forgiven, but you’ve dodged the question again.

Why does Scripture state that our sins are, ‘washed’ away? What is with the peculiar terminology of, ‘wash?’ I’m not asking you to explain why God forgives our sins, but why this particular Scripture uses the word, ‘wash’ in regards to forgiveness of sins.

-Rob

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Martin,

Might I suggest that your problem is making an unnecessary distinction between the two? This would solve all your problems-- as Scripture says in Ephesians, there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.

Yes and if you read Ephesians 4 you’ll see it is all about the unity of the spirit. (baptism of the spirit is what they speak of here)

Unity of the Spirit

1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it says,
“WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH,
HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES,
AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN.”
9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) 11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

 

[RobNY]

Yes and if you read Ephesians 4 you’ll see it is all about the unity of the spirit. (baptism of the spirit is what they speak of here)

Let us suppose, then, that they are talking about baptism of the spirit. It says there is one baptism. Not two.

However, at the end of the gospel of Matthew our Lord commands the apostles to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

If this is talking about, ‘baptism of the spirit’ then we have two baptisms-- one water and one of Spirit. But that’s ridiculous, Scripture says there is but, ‘one baptism.’

Besides, the easiest and best path to take is to agree with our Lord’s words in Jn 3:5-- one must be born of water and Spirit-- in other words, there is no schism between the baptism of water and baptism of Spirit, but they are in reality one baptism.

If you profess two baptisms you contradict scripture.

-Rob

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I agree that it is by the merit of Christ’s blood that we are forgiven, but you’ve dodged the question again.

Why does Scripture state that our sins are, ‘washed’ away? What is with the peculiar terminology of, ‘wash?’ I’m not asking you to explain why God forgives our sins, but why this particular Scripture uses the word, ‘wash’ in regards to forgiveness of sins.

-Rob

Rob, first you need to know what baptism is. It is an outward representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the reality of the inward washing of Christ’s blood upon the soul. Lets look at scripture…
That is why it is used in different ways.
**It is said to represent the death of the person **
**Rom. 6:3-5Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

the union of that person with Christ**

Gal. 3:27As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

the cleansing of that person’s sins

Acts 22:16And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.”

the identification with the one “baptized into” as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses

1 Cor. 10:2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

and being united in one church

1 Cor. 12:13For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus. It is in this sense a sacrament. A sacrament is a visible manifestation of something spoken. It is also said to be a visible sign of an inward grace. For example, the communion elements of bread and wine are called the sacrament of communion. When we take communion we are partaking of the sacrament.
The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and Man where God promises to Man eternal life. It is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and the condition is faith in Jesus Christ. As the Communion Supper replaced Passover, baptism, in like manner, replaces circumcision.
Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant; it did not save. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties and that is exactly what the Abrahamic covenant was. God said to Abraham, “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you” (Genesis 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not only every adult male, but also 8 day old male infants as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This is why Moses’ wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses’ feet. (Ex. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received it. It was a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family of God (who were then the Jews).