Water Baptism

[losthorizon]

He that starts his car and puts on his hat will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't.

I found this analogy the other day while researching this topic further. For the record, I'm pretty much neutral on this topic. I think both sides make excellent points. But let's look at this analogy a bit closer.

The truth presented in the words of Jesus are, clear, logical and grammatically correct. One doesn’t need a car analogy at all to understand the truth presented by the Lord. The first clause will always remain true: it is the one who believes and is baptized who will be saved. In the second clause: the one who refuses to believe will be condemned whether he is baptized or not. Jesus did not need the redundancy of mentioning baptism in the second clause because it is a biblical fact that baptism without belief in Christ is useless. According to the rules of grammar and logic the truth remains true and that truth is this - one must believe and be baptized and then that one “shall be saved”.

[losthorizon]

No. Just trying to remove a little tension with a bit of inane semi-intellectual humor. Personally, I've been wound a little too tight at times about a few of these topics, and needed to chill a little and just walk in love. I even learned YOU have a sense of humor... image that. :-D

And I appreciate your humor. Why don’t you take a more active role it your thread – I think your posts are about where we should be on this subject and I would like to see more of your thinking on this important topic.

[divaD]

This type of analogy is quite weak when dealing with Scriptural types and shadows, symbolism, etc. A hat has absolutely nothing to do with driving; it doesn't have even a remotely symbolic relationship to driving or home. How could this in any way represent baptism, whether essential or not?

Fortunately it wasn't my analogy. But I thought it made a good point nonetheless..but perhaps not.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

And I appreciate your humor. Why don’t you take a more active role it your thread – I think your posts are about where we should be on this subject and I would like to see more of your thinking on this important topic.

Well...okay. I just don't think opinions or convictions are gonna change, but wanted to have some idea where various members stand and divert baptism subject traffic here and provoke more thought and exchange. I know you think the nomenclature is faulty, but the poll choices are very descriptive; especially to show that Essential Baptism is not necessarily Baptism Regeneration, which I'd think you might appreciate. One's overall theological views will directly affect this view.

I've been torn for a number of years about this. I see both the mandates of baptism inclusion in Scripture and the overall emphasis on belief. Personally, I was literally baptized according to Acts 2:38, and believed in baptism as the component of salvation where remission of sin was accomplished. I've since come to view that as paradoxical in relation to those who ARE baptized, yet hold the interpreted view of Believer's Baptism.

My main issues are Exclusive Essential Baptism and my contending against "No-Name" Baptism. I don't see any way that a person's baptism and salvation is invalid if their faith wasn't directed to include baptism. My bigger concern is why the actual name of Jesus is specifically ignored. None of the references to positions (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Lord, Spirit) are names, and name doesn't simply mean "in/by the authority of Jesus" INSTEAD of naming His name.

If someone has truly repented, believed, and been baptized, they have Scriptural salvation; regardless whether their faith included baptism. I'd sure want the actual name of Jesus to be a priority if I was involved in dunking or being dunked. Baptismal Regeneration can be heretically non-salvific or semantics, depending on perception. I think it diminishes the vital salvific elements of repentance and belief. Infant baptism is absurd.

I hope that effectively summarizes my view of Scripture on the matter.

[divaD]

This type of analogy is quite weak when dealing with Scriptural types and shadows, symbolism, etc. A hat has absolutely nothing to do with driving; it doesn't have even a remotely symbolic relationship to driving or home. How could this in any way represent baptism, whether essential or not?

Perhaps the analogy was weak, but it was making the same point as Mark 16:16. It wasn't the lack of being baptized that damned someone, it was the lack of belief. And what about the thief on the cross? How do we explain him? He came to believing in Jesus while on the cross. It would be ridiculous to suggest that one of the disciple previously baptized him. How can that be so, when he apparently didn't even believe in Jesus until his last hours on earth?

If some conclude that the thief represented OT, then how does one explain all the baptizing that was going on, even before Jesus died? What did all that mean? And how does one explain that Jesus forgave sins right there on the spot, yet nothing recorded, that He commanded them to baptized also?
My biggest concern here is that you all seem to be implying if one isn't baptized, then they weren't saved, and until they are baptized, they are not saved, regardless that they believed first.

What about Judas? Do you think he was baptized? If so, then apparently it didn't save him. And what about Simon the sorcerer in Acts? He both believed and was baptized, but it's debatable he was even saved. My point is, being baptized no more guarantees one's salvation than believing does. One can simply fall away from the faith, regardless.

[losthorizon]

I hope that effectively summarizes my view of Scripture on the matter.

Thanks for sharing – I think we may be close in our beliefs regarding faith, repentance and baptism.

If someone has truly repented, believed, and been baptized, they have Scriptural salvation; regardless whether their faith included baptism.

The one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, repents and is immersed in water is saved and added to the body of Christ by the Lord. What do you mean when you say "regardless whether their faith included baptism"?

I'd sure want the actual name of Jesus to be a priority if I was involved in dunking or being dunked.

If the candidate for baptism – at the point of baptism - is told s/he is being baptized “by the authority of Jesus Christ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” would that meet your requirements?

Baptismal Regeneration can be heretically non-salvific or semantics, depending on perception. I think it diminishes the vital salvific elements of repentance and belief.

What is your definition of “Baptismal Regeneration”?

Infant baptism is absurd.

Baptism without belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is useless.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thanks for sharing – I think we may be close in our beliefs regarding faith, repentance and baptism.

If so, I have misunderstood you all along. I consider those with faith-only/Believer's Baptism views to have been Scripturally saved and baptized, even though their initial faith didn't "include" baptism.

The one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, repents and is immersed in water is saved and added to the body of Christ by the Lord. What do you mean when you say "regardless whether their faith included baptism"?

I'm referring to Exclusive Essential Baptism, that demands initial faith itself must include baptism, or salvation is not in effect. IOW, those who view salvation as repentance/faith followed by Believer's Baptism as an outward sign AFTER actual salvation are unsaved because their faith lacks "complete" belief in all three salvation components.

My perception all along from your many posts is that you held this Exclusive view.

If the candidate for baptism – at the point of baptism - is told s/he is being baptized “by the authority of Jesus Christ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” would that meet your requirements?

I kinda cringe at wording it as "my requirements"; but I see name (onoma G3686) as indicating an actual invocation of His actual vowels/consonants/syllables name. The Old Covenant name of YHVH has been superceded by the more excellent, highest name of Jesus.

What is your definition of “Baptismal Regeneration”?

Baptism as a sacramental salvific act, as per the RCC.

Baptism without belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is useless.

Agreed.

[losthorizon]

If so, I have misunderstood you all along.

I based my opinion on your statement that you were “literally baptized according to Acts 2:38” believing in “baptism as the component of salvation where remission of sin was accomplished”. Do you no longer think the Bible teaches that the believer is to be baptized for the remission of sins?

I'm referring to Exclusive Essential Baptism…

And herein lies the matter of nomenclature confusion I mentioned in my first post on the thread. You have noted Essential Baptism (Inclusive), Believer's Baptism Exclusive, Essential Baptism, "No-Name" Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration and faith-only/Believer's Baptism. These terms are your terms – they are not found in the Bible and you set your own peculiar value for each term thus you muddy the water.

The Bible notes there is but “one baptism” applicable to all Christians… one Lord, one faith, one baptism…and that one baptism is the ordinance commanded by the Lord. In your theology is the ordinance of baptism essential to salvation as noted by Peter in 1 Peter 3:21...“baptism now saves us”?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I based my opinion on your statement that you were “literally baptized according to Acts 2:38” believing in “baptism as the component of salvation where remission of sin was accomplished”. Do you no longer think the Bible teaches that the believer is to be baptized for the remission of sins?

I do; inclusive of all who have received what is doctrinally referred to as Believer's Baptism. I oppose the teaching that initial faith and repentance must recognize and acknowledge baptism as that third salvific component, as long as they do receive baptism. I would be more concerned about the exclusion of the specifically invoked name of Jesus Christ.

And herein lies the matter of nomenclature confusion I mentioned in my first post on the thread. You have noted Essential Baptism (Inclusive), Believer's Baptism Exclusive, Essential Baptism, "No-Name" Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration and faith-only/Believer's Baptism. These terms are your terms – they are not found in the Bible and you set your own peculiar value for each term thus you muddy the water.

Well... I've provided what I perceive to be relatively accurate descriptions (not definitions) to clarify interpretational views. If you have better "nomenclature" to delineate the various interpretational views, please feel free to share them. Like it or not, there are different views that need to be somehow "labeled" for better communication.

(Let's not get started about terms not in Scripture, because we'd have to start with trinity and rapture.)

The Bible notes there is but “one baptism” applicable to all Christians… one Lord, one faith, one baptism…and that one baptism is the ordinance commanded by the Lord. In your theology is the ordinance of baptism essential to salvation as noted by Peter in 1 Peter 3:21...“baptism now saves us”?

I don't think many are contending for multiple baptisms; there's just disagreement about what that one baptism's relation is to the actual punctiliar salvific imputation. Baptism is an ordinance, not a sacrament. Whether someone believes it to be a salvific component or not, when they come out of the water they have remission of sins. Do you agree? Or is it possible to repent, believe, and be baptized without receiving remission of sins?

I was literally baptized according to Acts 2:38; invoking the literal name of Jesus, after repenting and believing, which included baptism as the specific component whereby sins are remitted and washed away. I won't exclude others' repentance, faith, and baptism based on a technicality. Those who refuse baptism are a totally different issue than those who go INTO the water with faith they are already saved.

One thought: the water saved those eight souls by bearing up the ark (representing Jesus Christ, like water does baptism) whom they had already entered into before the water came.

[chad]

Well Technically Jesus did not say the thief was saved, or his sins were forgiven. He said today you will be with me in paradise. Although the implication is that Jesus saved him by allowing him to be in paradise with him.


[QUOTE=divaD;2554496]And what about the thief on the cross? How do we explain him? He came to believing in Jesus while on the cross. It would be ridiculous to suggest that one of the disciple previously baptized him. How can that be so, when he apparently didn't even believe in Jesus until his last hours on earth?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Perhaps the analogy was weak, but it was making the same point as Mark 16:16. It wasn't the lack of being baptized that damned someone, it was the lack of belief. And what about the thief on the cross? How do we explain him? He came to believing in Jesus while on the cross. It would be ridiculous to suggest that one of the disciple previously baptized him. How can that be so, when he apparently didn't even believe in Jesus until his last hours on earth?

If some conclude that the thief represented OT, then how does one explain all the baptizing that was going on, even before Jesus died? What did all that mean? And how does one explain that Jesus forgave sins right there on the spot, yet nothing recorded, that He commanded them to baptized also?
My biggest concern here is that you all seem to be implying if one isn't baptized, then they weren't saved, and until they are baptized, they are not saved, regardless that they believed first.

What about Judas? Do you think he was baptized? If so, then apparently it didn't save him. And what about Simon the sorcerer in Acts? He both believed and was baptized, but it's debatable he was even saved. My point is, being baptized no more guarantees one's salvation than believing does. One can simply fall away from the faith, regardless.

I'm not saying I disagree with you personally; I was saying how poor that analogy was. I do not discount Believer's Baptism.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well Technically Jesus did not say the thief was saved, or his sins were forgiven. He said today you will be with me in paradise. Although the implication is that Jesus saved him by allowing him to be in paradise with him.

And what about the thief on the cross? How do we explain him? He came to believing in Jesus while on the cross. It would be ridiculous to suggest that one of the disciple previously baptized him. How can that be so, when he apparently didn't even believe in Jesus until his last hours on earth?

Sounds like we need a "paradise" thread.

[losthorizon]

I do; inclusive of all who have received what is doctrinally referred to as Believer's Baptism. I oppose the teaching that initial faith and repentance must recognize and acknowledge baptism as that third salvific component, as long as they do receive baptism.

Agreed.

Baptism is an ordinance, not a sacrament. Whether someone believes it to be a salvific component or not, when they come out of the water they have remission of sins. Do you agree?

Yes. Is baptism a salvific component of the gospel of Christ?

Those who refuse baptism are a totally different issue than those who go INTO the water with faith they are already saved.

Agreed. Are one’s sins washed away by the blood of Christ before baptism?

One thought: the water saved those eight souls by bearing up the ark (representing Jesus Christ, like water does baptism) whom they had already entered into before the water came.

Another thought: baptism in water is the act of obedience via faith that puts the believer “into Christ” (Gal 3:27) – IOW just as the water of the flood separated Noah from the world lost the water of baptism separates the saved from those who perish as the ‘old man” of sin goes into the watery grave of baptism calling on the name of the Lord and rises up out of the water “a new creature in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:3-5) - born of water and the Spirit.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Agreed.

:-)

Yes. Is baptism a salvific component of the gospel of Christ?

Yes.

Agreed. Are one’s sins washed away by the blood of Christ before baptism?

"By" baptism.

Another thought: baptism in water is the act of obedience via faith that puts the believer “into Christ” (Gal 3:27) – IOW just as the water of the flood separated Noah from the world lost the water of baptism separates the saved from those who perish as the ‘old man” of sin goes into the watery grave of baptism calling on the name of the Lord and rises up out of the water “a new creature in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:3-5) - born of water and the Spirit.

Interesting that the type and shadow remains, whether it was a regional or worldwide flood. Same water and ark; same covering of death unto life.

This clears up much, IMHO. I truly thought you held what is commonly referred to as Believer's Baptism to be invalid, along with the faith that preceeds it.

[losthorizon]

This clears up much, IMHO. I truly thought you held what is commonly referred to as Believer's Baptism to be invalid, along with the faith that preceeds it.

As I have noted throughout the thread - the one who truly believes, repents and is baptized calling on the name of the Lord is the one who will have his sins remitted.