Baptism and Salvation

[The Remonstrant]

Baptism and Salvation

It is not at all marvellous to suppose that the the majority of evangelicalism (particularly relating to those in North America) could be wrong on the significance and purpose of baptism in the NT. As a matter of fact, today the perspectives of baptism as either (1) purely a covenant sign (eg, Calvinism) or (2) as merely symbolic for believers only (eg, baptist thought) are the 'newer' ones; the latter gained ground from the Protestant movement loosely known as 'Anabaptism' (sometimes referred to as the 'Radical Reformation'), the former apparently came to fruition from the mind of magisterial reformer Zwingli having gained tremendous momentum in a relatively short period of time with Calvin's approbation and subsequent advocation thereof.

If you have a weaker view of baptism and are willing to undergo a most enlightening analysis, read Baptism: A Biblical Study by Jack W Cottrell, from College Press (1989). But even if one has not engaged in a great deal of study on the matter, doesn't Acts ii. 38 seem to point quite clearly to repentant believing sinners being baptised for the purpose of forgiveness of sins (ie, justification), to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (ie, regeneration; being born again)? Isn't this precisely what the passage says?

Whatever the case may be, baptism is always a significant part of the gospel presentation in the NT. This is demonstrated quite lucidly throughout the entire book of Acts, beginning to end. Though there are many objections to this position, apparently Scripture teaches an extremely strong view of baptism while much of evangelicalism espouses an almost insidiously weak concept of the same. Oftentimes baptism is treated as if it were something optional for the believer; another 'good Christian work,' or some relatively unimportant commandment of Christ's that for one reason or another is insisted upon in the NT writings.

Yes, it appears that much of the evangelical world is, sadly, incorrect regarding the importance and meaning of baptism in the gospel message. It seems baptism is the time God has promised to justify and regenerate repentant believing sinners. (This would exclude infants and those mentally incapable of perceiving the basic gospel message. Also, immersion is the scriptural mode of baptism. In this post, however, I am primarily concerned with the discussion of the mode of baptism.)

Are, then, baptism and salvation intimately connected? Yes. Whenever expounded upon in Scripture, and whenever the gospel message is proclaimed in the NT, baptism is always taught in a salvific context. In conclusion, it is my belief that the good news is, by and large, being inadequately presented and obscured by a major modern Protestant bias and failure to present the gospel call to salvation in its fullness, preferring to adhere to the traditions of man rather than the word of God. This is a call for evangelicals and Protestants at large to reexamine the biblical witness and doctrine of baptism as proclaimed in the NT. Let us put Scripture first and worry about tradition, philosophy, and practical concerns and implications later. I believe it was John Goodwin who said something to the effect, 'It is better to stand on a rock alone than to sink in quicksand with company.' So it should be with us.

[spitndirt]

Baptism and Salvation

It is not at all marvellous to suppose that the the majority of evangelicalism (particularly relating to those in North America) could be wrong on the significance and purpose of baptism in the NT. As a matter of fact, today the perspectives of baptism as either (1) purely a covenant sign (eg, Calvinism) or (2) as merely symbolic for believers only (eg, baptist thought) are the 'newer' ones; the latter gained ground from the Protestant movement loosely known as 'Anabaptism' (sometimes referred to as the 'Radical Reformation'), the former apparently came to fruition from the mind of magisterial reformer Zwingli having gained tremendous momentum in a relatively short period of time with Calvin's approbation and subsequent advocation thereof.

If you have a weaker view of baptism and are willing to undergo a most enlightening analysis, read Baptism: A Biblical Study by Jack W Cottrell, from College Press (1989). But even if one has not engaged in a great deal of study on the matter, doesn't Acts ii. 38 seem to point quite clearly to repentant believing sinners being baptised for the purpose of forgiveness of sins (ie, justification), to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (ie, regeneration; being born again)? Isn't this precisely what the passage says?

Whatever the case may be, baptism is always a significant part of the gospel presentation in the NT. This is demonstrated quite lucidly throughout the entire book of Acts, beginning to end. Though there are many objections to this position, apparently Scripture teaches an extremely strong view of baptism while much of evangelicalism espouses an almost insidiously weak concept of the same. Oftentimes baptism is treated as if it were something optional for the believer; another 'good Christian work,' or some relatively unimportant commandment of Christ's that for one reason or another is insisted upon in the NT writings.

Yes, it appears that much of the evangelical world is, sadly, incorrect regarding the importance and meaning of baptism in the gospel message. It seems baptism is the time God has promised to justify and regenerate repentant believing sinners. (This would exclude infants and those mentally incapable of perceiving the basic gospel message. Also, immersion is the scriptural mode of baptism. In this post, however, I am primarily concerned with the discussion of the mode of baptism.)

Are, then, baptism and salvation intimately connected? Yes. Whenever expounded upon in Scripture, and whenever the gospel message is proclaimed in the NT, baptism is always taught in a salvific context. In conclusion, it is my belief that the good news is, by and large, being inadequately presented and obscured by a major modern Protestant bias and failure to present the gospel call to salvation in its fullness, preferring to adhere to the traditions of man rather than the word of God. This is a call for evangelicals and Protestants at large to reexamine the biblical witness and doctrine of baptism as proclaimed in the NT. Let us put Scripture first and worry about tradition, philosophy, and practical concerns and implications later. I believe it was John Goodwin who said something to the effect, 'It is better to stand on a rock alone than to sink in quicksand with company.' So it should be with us.

OK.....let's test some of these theories shall we? I was baptized by way of 'sprinkling' in a Lutheran Church in Iowa by a Pastor. Does any of this matter? Is my Baptism salvific regardless of this. I mean, I wasn't baptized in the Jordan river by John if we were to follow the logic of some if carried to a consistent conclusion.

Next, I am not a trinitarian and will never be, I reject outright the doctrine of eternal torment in hell fire, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I'm not Catholic, Protestant or any other such things. My soul is not immortal. - and on and on and on.

Yet, I heard the Word of God (Gospel message) and believing it obeyed this command "...be Baptized every one of you, etc....". My confession is I am what I am in the Lord....and I am the Church of God in Christ.

What do you think? Is Baptism salvific in my case? Some say yes....some say no. Why should I trust either side?

Peace

[The Remonstrant]

OK.....let's test some of these theories shall we? I was baptized by way of 'sprinkling' in a Lutheran Church in Iowa by a Pastor. Does any of this matter?

Yes, I believe it does. Though on this thread I was wishing to explore the meaning or purpose of baptism primarily as it relates to salvation, it is true that if one seeks to be biblically baptised, it will be by immersion.

[1] Is my Baptism salvific regardless of this. [2] I mean, I wasn't baptized in the Jordan river by John if we were to follow the logic of some if carried to a consistent conclusion.

(1) Baptism in and of itself cannot result in salvation unless the one being baptised is repentant and believing. There is no magic in the water. The view presented here must be properly differentiated with baptismal regeneration.

(2) John's baptism is clearly distinguished from Christian baptism in Acts xix. In Christian baptism (inaugurated at Pentecost), the location is not of great importance at all. Proper baptism could take place in a lake, an ocean, a bathtub, &C----as long the individual/s being baptised can be fully immersed.

Next, I am not a trinitarian and will never be, I reject outright the doctrine of eternal torment in hell fire, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I'm not Catholic, Protestant or any other such things. My soul is not immortal. - and on and on and on.

Regarding the immortality of the soul, it is true that the Bible does not teach this doctrine. As to the nature of final punishment, I am certain it is eternal, but am unsure of whether hell's occupants will forever remain conscious in their punishment, or will eventually cease to consciously exist. Regarding the full deity, equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as existing in three eternally distinct persons, you are clearly beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. I can understand the reluctance of some to employ extrabiblical terminology such as 'trinity,' 'the triune God,' and 'trinitarian'; I am not insistent at all that Christians should use this language. The crux of the matter, however, is that the concept of the trinity is clearly taught in the NT Scriptures.

Yet, I heard the Word of God (Gospel message) and believing it obeyed this command "...be Baptized every one of you, etc....". My confession is I am what I am in the Lord....and I am the Church of God in Christ.

To believe God we must except what he says is true. What God has said he has spoken through the Old and New Testament writers. There are certain doctrines of the faith that cannot, by any means, be compromised, for they are essential to the understanding of the gospel.

What do you think? [1] Is Baptism salvific in my case? [2] Some say yes....some say no. Why should I trust either side?

(1) I will not presume to judge you subjectively. Objectively speaking, only the one who accepts God's truth as revealed in his word (ie, the Bible), and his conditions for receiving salvation will attain to salvation. The objective truth must always be placed above subjective feelings and experiences, human reason, and practicality.

I do hope that you will reexamine your views and come to believe God as he has revealed himself in his word.

[spitndirt]

Hello The Remonstrant (TR?), thanks for your response.

Yes, I believe it does. Though on this thread I was wishing to explore the meaning or purpose of baptism primarily as it relates to salvation, it is true that if one seeks to be biblically baptised, it will be by immersion.

I would say that while the "immersion thing" does seem to be the Biblical impression, in my own case I know that God accepted my Baptism by sprinkling. Chiefly because I have remained in Him and He has not left me to this day. I have in the past (in my pentacostal years) been counceled to be re-Baptized by immersion but I quickly declined. While it would have served as a basis for acceptance where those instructing me were concerned, for me it would have meant "unbelief" - that God had already accepted me and my initial Baptism. For me, then, it became a choice between trusting my God who was with me.....or those men who couldn't seem to stand the thought that I was merely sprinkled. To them I seemed unclean still....or that was the impression they gave me.

(1) Baptism in and of itself cannot result in salvation unless the one being baptised is repentant and believing. There is no magic in the water. The view presented here must be properly differentiated with baptismal regeneration.

Yes....no magic in the water. Precisely why I personally reject the notion that those things connected to the water - i.e., immersion vs. sprinkling - are corporately meaningful except to those insisting upon one vs. the other.

You speak of Baptismal regeneration. I am familiar with this term (from my Lutheran years). Frankly, It has become incomprehensible to me. In my case regeneration came before Baptism....and Baptism itself did not cause regeneration. This is why it is written "...by water and the Word, or Spirit..." - the Word itself being Spirit and Life. It is the Word/Spirit that is literally the agent of regeneration. Jesus said "...my words are spirit and they are life..." and also "...you are clean by the words that I have spoken to you...".

(2) John's baptism is clearly distinguished from Christian baptism in Acts xix. In Christian baptism (inaugurated at Pentecost), the location is not of great importance at all. Proper baptism could take place in a lake, an ocean, a bathtub, &C----as long the individual/s being baptised can be fully immersed.

I cannot be convinced of this.....how could I be?

Regarding the immortality of the soul, it is true that the Bible does not teach this doctrine. As to the nature of final punishment, I am certain it is eternal, but am unsure of whether hell's occupants will forever remain conscious in their punishment, or will eventually cease to consciously exist. Regarding the full deity, equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as existing in three eternally distinct persons, you are clearly beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. I can understand the reluctance of some to employ extrabiblical terminology such as 'trinity,' 'the triune God,' and 'trinitarian'; I am not insistent at all that Christians should use this language. The crux of the matter, however, is that the concept of the trinity is clearly taught in the NT Scriptures.

While I do not deny the full Deity of Christ I cannot accept orthodoxy's assertions concerning the nature of this Divinity. Though I would assert back that they are plain wrong it is not so much their assertions, but their demanding assent with threat of condemnation. Nowhere is there a Biblical command to embrace trinitarianism. But there is this command saying "...No man beyond what is written..." and also the one where we are instructed not to receive any other Gospel other that the one we first received. Here's the deal......God accepted me before I ever heard the particulars of the trinity doctrine. So how could such a doctrine be counted as essential knowldege? Truly, he who loves knows God (1John). Whatever Gospel command there is culminates in the one command "...love one another...". This is also what Paul was concluding when he said "...all that counts is faith expressing itself in love...". Love, and love alone, is the expression of faith. Assenting to theological particulars has nothing to do with love really.....and so it must count for nothing in the end.

To believe God we must except what he says is true. What God has said he has spoken through the Old and New Testament writers. There are certain doctrines of the faith that cannot, by any means, be compromised, for they are essential to the understanding of the gospel.

What cannot be compromised are the instructions of God that have promises attached to them. Things like "...ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened..." or things like "...come to me and I will give you rest - whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved - if any lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives to all impartially....etc.etc...". Jesus said to the Pharasees "...if you were Abraham's children you would do the things Abraham did...". Abraham is the father of faith in God's eyes....and what was he found to be always doing? Abe always obeyed the Word that he heard while believing the promises of God. We are to do the very same things. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. If we hear God's voice we obey it believing that He is well able to bring all of His Word to pass. So we see that doing God's will results in obtaining God's promises. My question would be....what does assenting to theological particulars have to do with this way?

(1) I will not presume to judge you subjectively.

Thank you for that. It's good to see that you do not presume to be my God....

Objectively speaking, only the one who accepts God's truth as revealed in his word (ie, the Bible), and his conditions for receiving salvation will attain to salvation.

.....you do, however, presume to speak on God's behalf. So I am hearing from you "...I will not judge you but God will judge you according to what I say...". Just an observation. Might I point out that the scriptures testify of only One - Jesus, the Christ....Son of the Living God. We are commanded to follow this One. Gotta get beyond the book my friend....

The objective truth must always be placed above subjective feelings and experiences, human reason, and practicality.

I would say the Word of God (Jesus, the Word made flesh) is supreme in matters of faith and salvation.

I do hope that you will reexamine your views and come to believe God as he has revealed himself in his word.

Translation: "...I (you) am inside looking out at you (me) but I do hope you will come to your senses and join me in this place...". Sorry....but this is what I am hearing you say.

Peace....thanks again for you response.

[Berean Todd]

Are baptism and salvation intimately linked? Absolutely. Is baptism important? Most definately. Is baptism salvific? Absolutely not. Does Scripture teach that it is salvific? Absolutely not.

You spouted alot, but try supporting your claims from Scripture and let us build the argument from there. Before I go to exegeting any passages, you are the one who made the claims in the OP, defend them with Scripture and let us see what comes out in the wash.

[spitndirt]

Are baptism and salvation intimately linked? Absolutely. Is baptism important? Most definately. Is baptism salvific? Absolutely not. Does Scripture teach that it is salvific? Absolutely not.

You spouted alot, but try supporting your claims from Scripture and let us build the argument from there. Before I go to exegeting any passages, you are the one who made the claims in the OP, defend them with Scripture and let us see what comes out in the wash.

Ummm.....isn't there a scripture that says '...Baptism now saves you...'? - or am I thinking of something that those dern Lutherans teach. Even so Baptism cannot be by water only....but by water and the Word/Spirit. Through these together all things to do with salvation are initiated and accomplished. So....if you are speaking about water Baptism alone then you are right. But Biblical Baptism is never a water alone thing.

My thoughts.....

[Berean Todd]

Ummm.....isn't there a scripture that says '...Baptism now saves you...'? - or am I thinking of something that those dern Lutherans teach. Even so Baptism cannot be by water only....but by water and the Word/Spirit. Through these together all things to do with salvation are initiated and accomplished. So....if you are speaking about water Baptism alone then you are right. But Biblical Baptism is never a water alone thing.

My thoughts.....

Spirit baptism happens the moment one accepts/trusts in Christ. Water baptism is an action that should follow such a moment, and is important, but which plays absolutely no role in salvation.

[spitndirt]

Spirit baptism happens the moment one accepts/trusts in Christ. Water baptism is an action that should follow such a moment, and is important, but which plays absolutely no role in salvation.

So.....obeying the Word of God counts for nothing where salvation is concerned? I mean, water Baptism is commanded. Is this a Gospel command.....or another command that is wholly unrelated?

Also, there are cases presented in scripture where the Spirit was before the water and other cases where the water was before the Spirit. What is the meaning of this?

Peace....

[The Remonstrant]

Spirit baptism happens the moment one accepts/trusts in Christ.

Where is the scriptural support for this claim? Where in the NT is it indicated that individuals are saved (ie, justified and regenerated) as soon as, or the very moment, they believe (have faith; place faith) in Christ?

Water baptism is an action that should follow such a moment, and is important, but which plays absolutely no role in salvation.

I hope that in your asserting this, (that baptism 'plays absolutely no role in salvation,') you recognise (1) how historically novel this idea is (refer to my comments in the opening post), and (2) the lack of biblical warrant in positing a sharp distinction between 'water' and 'spirit' baptism, as Christian baptism is identified by Paul simply as 'one' (see Eph iv. 5). It may be appropriate in distinguishing the two for John's baptism of repentance (Matt iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16), but not for Christian baptism, as Acts xix. 1-5 makes abundantly clear. John's baptism is not to be conflated with the baptism God inaugurated as part of the New Covenant at Pentecost. John's was one of preparation, and he was so baptising under the Old Covenant. In the final analysis, the line that needs to be drawn is between John's baptism and Christian baptism, not between 'water' and 'spirit' baptisms.

[The Remonstrant]

[1] Ummm.....isn't there a scripture that says '...Baptism now saves you...'? - or am I thinking of something that those dern [sic] Lutherans teach. [2] Even so Baptism cannot be by water only....but by water and the Word/Spirit. Through these together all things to do with salvation are initiated and accomplished. [3] So....if you are speaking about water Baptism alone then you are right. But Biblical Baptism is never a water alone thing.

(1) Yes, it is 1 Pet iii. 21.
(2) I agree.
(3) As I replied to Berean Todd, I do not believe that in Christian baptism a distinguishment between 'water' and 'spirit' baptism can be properly made with scriptural justification. Recall Jesus said one must be born of water and the spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God (see John iii. 5).

[The Remonstrant]

So.....obeying the Word of God counts for nothing where salvation is concerned? I mean, water Baptism is commanded. Is this a Gospel command.....or another command that is wholly unrelated?

Good point.

[Kane]

Personally, I'm curious to know why some consider infant baptism wrong.

[Littlejoe]

Context, Context, Context. Act 2:38 is spoken to a strictly Jewish audience. They are familiar with the whole concept of baptism. In fact there were baptismal pools everywhere during this time that were used for ritual cleansing. (The pool of Siloam in John 9:7 is one of them). But look what Paul tells the Gentile jailer in Acts 16:31... They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Now there is no stated requirement to baptism to be saved. They (the jailer and his household) were baptized the next day. What about the thief on the cross? He was never baptized.

1 Peter actually, in context, stresses that the water baptism is not what saves you, but The Holy Spirit who raised Christ.

LJ

[spitndirt]

Context, Context, Context. Act 2:38 is spoken to a strictly Jewish audience. They are familiar with the whole concept of baptism. In fact there were baptismal pools everywhere during this time that were used for ritual cleansing. (The pool of Siloam in John 9:7 is one of them). But look what Paul tells the Gentile jailer in Acts 16:31... They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Now there is no stated requirement to baptism to be saved. They (the jailer and his household) were baptized the next day. What about the thief on the cross? He was never baptized.

1 Peter actually, in context, stresses that the water baptism is not what saves you, but The Holy Spirit who raised Christ.

LJ

Hi LJ,

Yes...the thief on the cross. Good point. I recall no record of him being baptised. I have thought of this in the past....but still don't know quite what to make of it except that he made a good confession and asked to be remembered. Clearly this was faith in action. Besides it's God's to have mercy upon whom He will have mercy and I doubt that He is unreasonable in this. Clearly the thief was in a predicament that would hinder him from being baptised in water. Of course the other possibility is that he was baptised (perhaps by John?) at some point and there simply isn't any record of it. Dunno...?

Still.....if anyone asks me whether they should be baptised in water I always say yes. It is standard Christian practice. But I add that true baptism consists also of Word/Spirit. Then I think.....why are they asking me anyway? Doesn't the Word and the Spirit say "yes and amen"? What am I compared to these??? Hmmmm....

Peace in the Lord my friend.....

[spitndirt]

Personally, I'm curious to know why some consider infant baptism wrong.

.....Well, I guess to prove it is altogether wrong one would have to show that no man who was baptised as an infant went on to become a true child of God in Christ. Personally that would be a task way to great for me to accomplish.

Likewise, I dunno if I would go so far as to say that all who were baptised as infants have been a shoe-in. Can't very well circumvent God's purpose in election now can we?