Debating Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter ahs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“The like figure * whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

Peter says that water baptism does indeed save us. How much would baptism be a “like figure” to the Flood if it did not involve water, and how is filth (or dirt) washed away from the flesh but by water?*
 
“The like figure * whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

Peter says that water baptism does indeed save us. How much would baptism be a “like figure” to the Flood if it did not involve water, and how is filth (or dirt) washed away from the flesh but by water?*

In the same way that John the Baptist differentiated between his baptism in water, and Jesus’ baptism “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Luke 3:16) so Peter continues the comparison between the outward and visible sign (literal water baptism) and the inward and spiritual grace (spiritual baptism). It is baptism in the resurrected Christ that saves us. Christ is the ark of safety from the flood of God’s judgment.
 
So the sacraments confer the actions they claim.
This is the kind of over-generalization that drove the Reformation!

You probably want to confine your statement to the subject of baptism (which is debate enough) but if you want to include all the sacraments, then you have to account for how simply partaking of the bread and wine in the Eucharist conveys eternal life … the inward and spiritual grace of which this sacrament is the outward and visible sign … especially if you consider Paul’s warning to the Corinthians that partaking may actually make some guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
 
But my main confusion is related to another aspect of what is being argued…namely that because Paul (*if *Paul indeed) did not mean the “water ritual” in every instance where he speaks of Baptism, that the “water ritual” is therefore not necessary.

I’m no scholar…just a layman, so still I tend to fall back on “no Christian held this understanding until recently in Christian history”. But is there something more substantial I could offer to get the point across?
Dave, Paul wrote much about the relationship between Christ and baptized believers … between Christ and the Church.

Recall that sometimes the church is referred to as the “Bride of Christ”. Jesus is the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride. Paul wrote explicitly about that relationship in his letter to the Ephesians (5:25-30). That’s pretty specific; but to be sure there’s no misunderstanding, in v.31 Paul then quotes from the Genesis account of Creation (Genesis 2:24 – God’s standard for marriage) and in v. 32 he confirms the significance of this passage in his context (“… I am saying it refers to Christ and the church”).
So in Paul’s understanding, a man and woman come together in marriage, and as husband and wife they are joined together in an inseparable unity; they’re together in everything, through thick and thin … which Paul then declares is just like the relationship between Christ and His Church. We come together in the same way, and unite together into an inseparable oneness – like a bride and groom, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us …

No. Wait!!! Not even death has the power to separate us from Christ!! And THIS is exactly the point Paul makes in Romans 6. Our unity with Christ is so permanent that it survives everything, including death! Not that death is the only important thing, but we cannot ignore the fact that our oneness with Christ is so all-encompassing that sharing in His death is an unavoidable part of the whole package.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, written about a year earlier, Paul had more to say about this baptism. (I Cor.12:12-14,26,27). Read the whole chapter for a fuller understanding; but there are three things worth noting in these few verses.

(1) Paul emphasizes that in this union with Christ, we never lose our personal identity. There is no hint in his writing that we’re swallowed up by, or absorbed into, or immersed into this body of Christ. We are, each of us, individually, separate parts of the body. We retain our own identities.
(2) We are baptized by the One Spirit into the One Body of Christ Jesus. There’s the same phrase as in Romans 6:3, but amplified for us. It is the Holy Spirit that produces this union. The Holy Spirit, working in and through us, points us to Christ, draws us to Christ and joins us to Him. That joining process is baptism.
(3) A point he develops further in Romans 6 is that, if one part of the body suffers, we all suffer.
In Romans 6, Paul reaffirms the idea that, as Christ suffered and died, so as parts of His body we also suffer and die. His death becomes our death. We die to sin, and to the power that sin once held over us; and we die to the old self, and the lusts and passions that once drove us. So, still united with Christ, we pass through the experience of death, and we are raised with Him to new life – eternal life – never to die again!

Some people accept only water baptism, and insist that Paul’s reference to being “baptized into Christ” is a metaphor for the real thing (immersion in water). But for Paul, it is clear that the baptism of believers by the One Holy Spirit into the One Body of Christ … THIS IS the real thing! It happens on a spiritual level, but it is just as real. There are no metaphors here; there are two distinct realities: the earthly and the spiritual. It is this baptism into Christ, and the resulting unity we have in Him, that is the subject of Paul’s continued teaching.

Paul uses the outward and visible, the earthly and familiar, like marriage between husband and wife, and a human body with many parts, to describe the inward and spiritual baptism into Christ. (It’s a proven formula … that’s how Christ taught, in parables – earthly stories with heavenly meanings.) And that’s the sacramental outlook of a sacramental church.

You may discover that the main difference you encounter in doctrines of baptism stems from the fact that along with the Catholic church, many mainline Protestant churches also hold baptism as a sacrament … while others, such as Baptist and Pentecostal, do not have sacraments. They regard baptism as an ordinance of the church, a ceremony performed because Christ commanded it, but having no connection with any “inward and spiritual grace”. This radically affects your belief.
 
I’m not sure what you mean when you say “water ritual”. Of course water is a very necessary component of baptism. When a person is baptized they either have water poured over their head or they are dunked in water while the priest or whoever the minister is says “I baptize you ‘name of person being baptized’ in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
 
Here was my reply…I am open to critique:

Person 1: Christ’s example? Could you provide an example of Christ baptizing with water?

Person 2: John 3:22, read with John 16:7

Person 1: ahs, if you read just a few passages later it says “Jesus, Himself Baptized NOT.” Did you miss that part? Sure the disciples baptized, we all know that, but that has never been in contention. The Scripture is clear, Jesus while He is the baptizer, never water baptized anybody.

John 4 "
Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. (though Jesus Himself baptized NOT)"

Think about it:

Jesus is the baptizer
Jesus NEVER water baptized anybody.
Baptism therefore CANNOT refer to only water

The Bible does NOT always use baptism to mean water as you claim.

Jesus saves,but He does not need water to do it.

**Person 2: You are missing the bigger picture. John 3:22, and read it with John 16:7.

“After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized.” (John 3:22)

John 4:2 does say that it was His disciples doing the actual baptizing…yet we know it was credited to Jesus because of both verses John 3:22 and John 4:1-2. “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized—” (John 4:1-2) In other words, the direct contrast is made between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus.

So what we know from these verses is 1) real baptism is taking place 2) and it is the baptism of Jesus…not that of John.

Now, read that in light of the other verse I referenced: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

See, a Jesus baptism is really taking place, and we know it must be a water baptism because “batism” means “immersion” or “plunging” and we also know the Holy Spirit had not yet come.

What you are proposing is that Jesus was just going through some motions with people for no real reason. I do not believe that Jesus ever just did things without a reason. Everything He did was to set the example for us…to teach us…to save us.

Byt the way, I never said “baptism” can ONLY refer to water. I was rather explicit and detailed several posts ago…I suggest you go back and re-read. “Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit…” (John 3:5) You see, it is AND/BOTH, not “only”/either/or. **
John taught he baptised them with water, but Christ would bring a baptism of FIRE ( HS ).

So, while our Priests perform the water Sacrament …it is Christ who accomplishes the instilling of HS, which accomplishes the transformation of the soul.

As St. PETER rightly said, water baptism is an APPEAL to God for our Rebirth via HS. As long as we cooperate with Christ’s command that we undergo Trinitarian water Baptism, He will do his part to make us Fully Graced Children of the Father.
 
Sometimes that say that water is not important because Paul dosen’t mention it when he is talking about baptism. Here is such a passage on CAF.

I Corinthians 12;13, “In the one Spirit we were baptised…one Spirit was given to us all to drink.”

This passage is right smack dab in the middle of speaking of the gifts of the Holy Spirit given to various members of the Body of the Church.

Look at the paragraphs immediately LEADING UP to this passage, and it is readily apparent that Paul is talking about the variety and unity of gifts given to members by the Holy Spirit.

Look at the paragraphs IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING this passage, and again it is readily apparent that Paul is talking about the analogy of the body and the importance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the church’s members.

Therefore the subject of baptism is not the focal point, and therefore water is ommitted.

In I Corinthians 12;13 “In the one Spirit we were baptised…one Spirit was given to us all to drink.”

He is talking here about the ONE Spirit running thu all the members of the church because we are ONE body, with many gifts benefitting one another. There is no intention on Paul’s part to give a lecture on baptism, but rather to emphasize that one Spirit is threading the many members, receiving gifts of the Spirit to help each other, and to function together as one church. The context presents us with the principle point that Paul is making, is not baptism, but the one Spirit running thru out the Church.

And so water is not addressed here.

Notice too, that one Spirit is placed first in the sentence, and baptism is last, The weight is on one Spirit, not baptism. And therefore water is not mentioned.

The importance of the one Spirit runs thru out all of these passages. The word baptism does not appear again. Which means that baptism is not the subject of Paul’s interest in
these passages. And so water is not important.
SAY WHAT ??? WATER NOT IMPORTANT!!

Yes, normatively it is. Unless, one’s situation is unique & no time allows… like thief on cross.
Thats the Baptism by Blood type !!

I hope u were saying its some Protestants who claim water Baptism is not necessary
 
SAY WHAT ??? WATER NOT IMPORTANT!!

Yes, normatively it is. Unless, one’s situation is unique & no time allows… like thief on cross.
Thats the Baptism by Blood type !!

I hope u were saying its some Protestants who claim water Baptism is not necessary
Reread the passage carefully. Paul’s principle aim was not baptism in the particular but rather he was stressing the Holy Spirit in the church. Therefore he omitted mentioning water. And the protestants are useing this passage as proof that water is not needed.
Please reread.
 
Reread the passage carefully. Paul’s principle aim was not baptism in the particular but rather he was stressing the Holy Spirit in the church. Therefore he omitted mentioning water. And the protestants are useing this passage as proof that water is not needed.
Please reread.
Yes, you were making the case of some Protestants …to show how they misuse scripture by ‘cut & paste’ tactics !!
 
Yes, you were making the case of some Protestants …to show how they misuse scripture by ‘cut & paste’ tactics !!
As a Protestant, I wonder what you imply by that criticism. There is an obvious differentiation between the outward and visible sign of the sacrament (the application of water) and the inward and spiritual grace which it signifies. When Paul teaches the Corinthians about being baptized into Christ (by the Holy Spirit) he makes no reference to the sacrament, so there is no use, no place, and no purpose for water in his message.

Still, I have never heard any Protestant suggest that the sacrament of baptism can be conducted without water. But it is a commonly understood principle that one’s salvation depends not on the outward sign, but on the inward grace.

One can receive the Holy Spirit without being baptized with water, and one can be baptized with water without receiving the Holy Spirit.
 
In the same way that John the Baptist differentiated between his baptism in water, and Jesus’ baptism “with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Luke 3:16) so Peter continues the comparison between the outward and visible sign (literal water baptism) and the inward and spiritual grace (spiritual baptism). It is baptism in the resurrected Christ that saves us. Christ is the ark of safety from the flood of God’s judgment.
I see what you are saying and I hope you do not think I’m saying, contrary to the very passage I quoted, that water is by its own nature what saves. That’s not what I said and I don’t think that’s what OP meant. The objectionable position is that water baptism is a meaningless formality because although the the “putting away of the filth of the flesh” does not save, baptism by water is the normal channel by which God has chosen to impart his grace which does save (Jn 3:5).
 
This is the kind of over-generalization that drove the Reformation!

You probably want to confine your statement to the subject of baptism (which is debate enough) but if you want to include all the sacraments, then you have to account for how simply partaking of the bread and wine in the Eucharist conveys eternal life … the inward and spiritual grace of which this sacrament is the outward and visible sign … especially if you consider Paul’s warning to the Corinthians that partaking may actually make some guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
I fail to see how you have constructed an argument that refutes my point. If Christ were telling the truth, and the bread and wine become His Body and Blood, then partaking of His Body and Blood WOULD convey eternal life…unless (and this is the point St. Paul was making), we partook of His Body and Blood in an unworthy manner, or partook while not in a state of grace. If we receive Him with mortal sins unconfessed, we are bringing Him into a soul that has severed the divine life. We are bringing Him into an unclean and unworthy temple. Or if we receive Him in a lackadaisical manner, or irreverently, we are insulting the King of the Universe.

To make my point even stronger, consider two fiances. Five minutes before their marriage, are they husband and wife? Nope. It is ONLY by performing the sacrament that they become husband and wife. So the sacrament performs the action it represents. There is a REAL change to the persons involved in the marriage. They are utterly and completely changed.
 
… one can be baptized with water without receiving the Holy Spirit.
I once attended a church where a man and his wife submitted to baptism. She seemed genuine and sincere; but shortly after the service he was laughing at the whole process mockingly. He personally denied the Christian faith. He did not repent of any of the things that were claimed by others to be sins. He was not asking for forgiveness and he refuted the “promises” he had made, insisting the whole thing had been a joke. He did it for his wife.

I do not believe that man received the Holy Spirit. God does not impose it on anyone unwillingly.
 
I fail to see how you have constructed an argument that refutes my point. If Christ were telling the truth, and the bread and wine become His Body and Blood, then partaking of His Body and Blood WOULD convey eternal life…unless (and this is the point St. Paul was making), we partook of His Body and Blood in an unworthy manner, or partook while not in a state of grace. If we receive Him with mortal sins unconfessed, we are bringing Him into a soul that has severed the divine life. We are bringing Him into an unclean and unworthy temple. Or if we receive Him in a lackadaisical manner, or irreverently, we are insulting the King of the Universe.
In your statement you acknowledge that there are circumstances possible in which people may partake of the bread and wine without receiving God’s grace signified by the sacrament. That’s all I said, and you apparently agree with me. Simply participating in the ceremony is no guarantee that God will force anyone to accept His grace.
 
In your statement you acknowledge that there are circumstances possible in which people may partake of the bread and wine without receiving God’s grace signified by the sacrament. That’s all I said, and you apparently agree with me. Simply participating in the ceremony is no guarantee that God will force anyone to accept His grace.
Well all of the sacraments, to impart the grace they promise, presume that the proper matter, form and intent is followed. Two men can’t get married, you can’t baptize with wine, you can’t receive absolution in confession without contrition, etc. And the same follows with the Eucharist. Christ guarantees that grace and eternal life come to those who partake of the Eucharist, but this presumes obeying His instructions.
 
True …

SIMON the Sorcerer was Baptized by Philip, but did not receive the HS !
*Acts 8:9 A man named Simon used to practice magic in the city and astounded the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. 10 All of them, from the least to the greatest, paid attention to him, saying, “This man is the ‘Power of God’ that is called ‘Great.’” 11 They paid attention to him because he had astounded them by his magic for a long time, 12 but once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized. 13 Even Simon himself believed and, after being baptized, became devoted to Philip; and when he saw the signs and mighty deeds that were occurring, he was astounded.

14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, 16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me this power too, so that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive the holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money. 21 You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that, if possible, your intention may be forgiven. 23 For I see that you are filled with bitter gall and are in the bonds of iniquity.” 24 Simon said in reply, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” 25 So when they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem and preached the good news to many Samaritan villages.*

Nope. Look again. They were validly baptized by Philip, who was a deacon. They had the Holy Spirit and sanctifying grace, but they did not have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Those gifts of the Holy Spirit came upon them when the bishops (Peter and John) conferred upon them the sacrament of Confirmation. (Philip a deacon could not confer this sacrament on them.)
 
Well all of the sacraments, to impart the grace they promise, presume that …
… but this presumes obeying His instructions.
Finally! Yes, there are conditions, beyond a mere ceremonial participation in the outward and visible sign. Sometimes those presumptions are satisfied, and the inward and spiritual grace is imparted.

But sometimes they are not, and in those situations, God’s grace is not imparted, despite the performance of the ceremonial act.

Many people, however, forget about the presumptions, the conditional aspects of the sacraments. They will argue that all I have to do is attend a Eucharist service, and whatever my heart attitude towards it or towards God, my participation alone – simply eating the bread and drinking the wine – guarantees I will receive the eternal life signified by that sacrament.

No further need to accept Christ into my life, no need to do anything else, ever.

Likewise, they will argue that simply participating in a baptism ceremony – whatever my heart attitude towards it or towards God, and whether or not I am repentant – my sins become irrelevant, my participation alone guarantees me the ‘gift’ of God’s Holy Spirit, whether I want it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top