Water Baptism, is that ENOUGH?

[Imagican]

The mark of a TRUE Christian has lead to a discussion on Baptism more than anything else. To keep from allowing that thread to go 'completely in this direction', I am here offering a thread devoted to the ACT of 'water Baptism' and it's significance.

Feel free to post your beliefs in this doctrine and hopefully MOST can come to some kind of a 'conclusion' as to the BASIC premiss of Physical Baptism.

i AM aware that many different denominations have assorted beliefs on the issue. But WITHOUT a 'basic premiss' and agreement, there is little that can be agreed upon in MANY other questions. Hopefully this will allow MANY to come to a 'closer understanding' and by THIS allow them 'deeper understanding' concerning OTHER issues as well.

So, we have been offered in scripture that Baptism ISN'T the TOTALITY of our submission or conversion. If someone BELIEVES that it IS, then, by all means offer us some 'scriptural evidence' so we can discuss it.

MEC

 

[MISFIT]

Water Baptism is an outward show of ones faith, it has nothing to do with salvation. EG the thief on the cross was never baptized, but was in paradise with Jesus simply for believing who he was.

 

[Imagican]

Water Baptism is an outward show of ones faith, it has nothing to do with salvation. EG the thief on the cross was never baptized, but was in paradise with Jesus simply for believing who he was.

And I agree completely.

Many WERE Baptized in water. But the cleansing offered in Baptism is Spiritual NOT physical. For the flesh is UNABLE to be 'made clean' no matter how MUCH WATER to use to 'wash' it.

MEC

 

[Devekut]

In some mysterious way, for those to whom it is available, water baptism has some role in the cleansing of sins. IMO, if we are to speak plainly and biblically about it.

 

[handy]

The thief on the cross does indeed show that one can be saved without being baptized by water. On the other hand, when was the last time you were nailed to a cross? The point to this question is that water baptism is the norm, not the exception. I tend to believe the same as Devekut. Water baptism is tied some way to the cleansing of sins. It's one of the sacraments that Jesus specifically mentions. It is something that we should do as soon as we understand that we are commanded to do so.

Is it enough for salvation? Obviously not, I cannot think of any Christian denomination that teaches it is. From Roman Catholicism to Calvinist to Baptist, is there any doctrine out there that teaches that water baptism alone saves? Don't think so.

But, I wouldn't say that it has 'nothing' to do with salvation. Jesus was baptized and called upon us to go forth and baptize the nations. He was obviously speaking of water baptism here, not the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, because we can't baptize with the Spirit, only the Spirit can do that. If baptism was only a meaningless 'symbol', why the emphasis on it, and why on earth would Jesus be baptized?

 

[Drew]

But the cleansing offered in Baptism is Spiritual NOT physical.

I do not wish to offend, but I think that this statement is a manifestation of a pervasive and deeply fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of our world. And I too spent decades in this very error.

The error is the "dualism" of believing that there are two fundamentally different kinds of "stuff" in our world - that there is a realm of the "physical" and a distinct realm of the "spiritual". I believe that when most Christians read of the "flesh-spirit" distinction, they think in terms of a "physical - nonphysical" distinction. I think that the New Testament writers used the word "spiritual" to denote an entirely different concept. In 1 Corinthians 15, we learn that for Paul, a "spiritual" body is still a body - it is made out of "stuff" we can see and touch. I think if Paul were reading this thread, he would claim that the "flesh - spirit" distinction really consists in the following distinction:

1. Flesh = the "Adamic" fallen human person.
2. Spirit = the redeemed "new creation" human person

The important point being that Paul would not, in my view, even think in terms of a physical - nonphysical distinction. I submit that Paul sees human beings as essentially monistic in nature and not decomposable into a physical part and a non-physical part. I emphasize "essentially" because I think there are indeed some important qualifications that I would like to add, but will not in this post.

How does this all relate to baptism? If my assertions about Paul's views are correct, I think this strengthens the argument that water baptism may play a mysterious role in salvation because there is no real distinction between the "physical" and what most modern Christians mean when they refer to the "spiritual".

 

[Arj]

I became born again and God changed me from my many evil ways,but ive never been baptised with water.Though i do plan too when the opportunity arises.I was brought up in the catholic church system and baptised as an infant and sometimes i wonder iff that really had any significance?I suppose it cant hurt.

 

[Devekut]

Arj,

Of course the decision to re-baptize is up to you. According to the religion of your birth, Catholicism, your baptism is sufficient seeing as you were baptized "in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is because we acknowledge "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". It is now up to you to live the baptismal life, that is, a life in Christ.

This came up in another thread:

Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran Christians believe that baptism, in light of the New Covenant, has taken the place of circumcision. This means that for converts they are baptized as soon as they convert (as it was the case for Gentile converts to Judaism) , but for children born into the Christian faith and community they are baptized as a sign of their dedication to God and their entrance into the Christian Community; the Body of Christ.

Thus, as circumcision left a permanent mark on the flesh, we believe that baptism leaves a permnanent mark on the soul and ever calls you to living out your life in Christ.

When I realized this personally, I felt as though my infant baptism, far from being just something done without my consent, was a beacon of light and grace during these wayward days in which I was still standing apart from the Christian Community. It meant that I was never truly, or fully cut-off from Christ but that, by virtue of my baptism, my offering to God before and with the community, this Church was truly mine and my rightful place.

Just something to think about.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=31176

 

[cyberjosh]

Of course the decision to re-baptize is up to you. According to the religion of your birth, Catholicism, your baptism is sufficient seeing as you were baptized "in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is because we acknowledge "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". It is now up to you to live the baptismal life, that is, a life in Christ.

Although we must realize that if Arj had never been water baptised in any form in the past, or if he never will be in the future, he would still be saved. The water is not necessary. It is God's work in us (the Baptism of the Spirit) that affects salvation in us.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

How does this all relate to baptism? If my assertions about Paul's views are correct, I think this strengthens the argument that water baptism may play a mysterious role in salvation because there is no real distinction between the "physical" and what most modern Christians mean when they refer to the "spiritual".

I have a paper I have written on the nature of baptism if you care to read it in which (I believe) I persuasively show that the water is not necessary, but in the process of explaining the true saving baptism (the Baptism of the Spirit) I also took occasion to show why water baptism was important (though not essential) as well. I know the water is not necessary, aside from Biblical evidence, also because my Dad is living proof (he has never been water Baptized), and I know for a fact that he is saved and is a Godly man, and he is largely responsible for my Godly upbringing. He is an example in the image of Christ to me as well.

But yes there of course is some overlap between the physical and spiritual, and with my explanation of Baptism, when I finally get to describing the purpose for water baptism I believe I reached a sastisfactory explanation of how the physical act of water baptism can satisfy the requirement for the true saving baptism: Baptism of the Spirit.

P.S. If you would like to read the paper I wrote please PM me your e-mail address and I will gladly send it to you and look forward to your reply.

 

[handy]

Sometimes when writing, it's hard to understand the tone of a question, whether it's a harsh accusation or a curious inquiry. Josh, this question is definitely the later:

Why isn't your dad baptized? This is something Jesus and the apostles did. Why would a Christian refuse to be baptized?

 

[cyberjosh]

Sometimes when writing, it's hard to understand the tone of a question, whether it's a harsh accusation or a curious inquiry. Josh, this question is definitely the later:

Why isn't your dad baptized? This is something Jesus and the apostles did. Why would a Christian refuse to be baptized?

A fair question and I've been asked before by someone about this (as some could mistake the decision for pride). I honestly cannot pretend I know all the details but from what I've asked my Dad, the testimony he gave in front of a roomfull of unbelievers and testified of Jesus with his heart and mouth - which the bible says coupled with belief is all you need to be saved - was the defining moment in his faith for Christ. I know he went into the navy shortly after that for 4 years (during which time I was born), so that could have been big factor of why he was not able to do so immediately, and by the time he was out of the navy he says he never felt a burden on his heart to be water baptised. He confessed Christ often though and in no way made that a secret (which he said was hard in the navy - he said he was actually scared to death to be there [wondering "How on earth did I get here God?"] - and he has told me his particular boat was one of the worst group of degenerates you could imagine, or in his words "close to hell on earth"), but thanks to his stedfastness he has made lifelong friend who was brought to Christ because of him on that boat. To save even one among a generally godless crew is a victory indeed, God's victory.

At the end of my paper (if you'd like to read it I can send it to you) I speak of someone "I know" but leave unnamed to make the point that water Baptism is not necessary, but I am really speaking of my Dad. I wrote:

Bringing this to a conclusion I would like to relate one last story which occurred for someone I know personally. This should help us see in what way water baptism can be important and what role it has by providing an occasion for confession. Now, however, this man I know has never been water baptized ever since he was saved, but God’s evidence of a radical change in his life was very evident. He stopped drinking, smoking, cussing and was cleaning his act up by God’s power working in him and soon after his conversion God prompted him to do something which was quite daunting – God told him to profess his faith openly to the men at his work place. He was scared all day because he knew what he had to do, but in the end he decided that you cannot have a fear of man if you are to stand up for God, and at lunch time that day he publicly declared that Jesus was his Savior and that he had cleaned his act up, not caring whether they laughed at him or not. After that a tremendous peace came over him and he said that was when he really felt the filling of the Holy Spirit in him. God never thereafter prompted him to be water baptized – for it was not necessary. Now if for some reason God wanted him to be water baptized he says he would have done it, but there was no conviction to do so after he had openly confessed Jesus to those men, only that inward peace and testimony of the Holy Spirit.
The reason it was not necessary for him to be water baptized is because he did the very thing that water baptism was intended to do, only in a much more difficult and bold manner: to provide an occasion for public declaration and action to demonstrate one submitting their life to Jesus Christ

That section really is the punch line of my paper, after all the Biblical evidence I gave, because I believe it really personalized it and animated the underlying truth of my conviction on the matter. I hope, if by any means, I have been able to explain this adequately. My Father loves God and has obeyed God in many situations in which it was painful and non-beneficial to do so, but in so doing he has demonstrated by outward witness and testimony that he is a child of God and has truely striven to be conformed to the image of Christ. And I hope that by that testimony of his and with my experiences it may be able to help someone to place the correct emphasis on the Holy Word of God, considering the thoughts with which I closed my paper:

Let us always pay attention to the spirit and reason behind God’s ordinances rather than enacting legalistic observances according to the exact letter of some single account or occurrence in the Bible, for “[God] also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life†(2 Corinthians 3:6) May God’s light shine in you and may his Holy Spirit fill you as he sanctifies you with God’s amazing power. Amen.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Arj]

Id love to be baptised on a beach in front of non believers,that would be sooo cool. :D

 

[mutzrein]

Id love to be baptised on a beach in front of non believers,that would be sooo cool. :D

And even c-o-o-o-o-ler in winter . . .

 

[Imagican]

In some mysterious way, for those to whom it is available, water baptism has some role in the cleansing of sins. IMO, if we are to speak plainly and biblically about it.

John PLAINLY stated that HE Baptized with water, but Him that was to come AFTER would Baptize WITH the HOLY Spirit.

Now, were those Baptised by John 'given life'? Was his 'water Baptism ABLE to place God's 'law' in the HEARTS of those that HE Baptized? Or was this simply a 'precursor' to TRUE Baptism that was ABLE to 'cleanse' the SOULS of those that are TRULY 'born of The Spirit'?

I wonder if the Baptism of John was NOT simply 'another teacher'? Much like the lambs blood over the doorways in Egypt being a precursor to Christ Himself, so TOO, may 'physical Baptism' have BEEN a 'symbolic' SIGN of 'better things to come'.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

But the cleansing offered in Baptism is Spiritual NOT physical.

I do not wish to offend, but I think that this statement is a manifestation of a pervasive and deeply fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of our world. And I too spent decades in this very error.

The error is the "dualism" of believing that there are two fundamentally different kinds of "stuff" in our world - that there is a realm of the "physical" and a distinct realm of the "spiritual". I believe that when most Christians read of the "flesh-spirit" distinction, they think in terms of a "physical - nonphysical" distinction. I think that the New Testament writers used the word "spiritual" to denote an entirely different concept. In 1 Corinthians 15, we learn that for Paul, a "spiritual" body is still a body - it is made out of "stuff" we can see and touch. I think if Paul were reading this thread, he would claim that the "flesh - spirit" distinction really consists in the following distinction:

1. Flesh = the "Adamic" fallen human person.
2. Spirit = the redeemed "new creation" human person

The important point being that Paul would not, in my view, even think in terms of a physical - nonphysical distinction. I submit that Paul sees human beings as essentially monistic in nature and not decomposable into a physical part and a non-physical part. I emphasize "essentially" because I think there are indeed some important qualifications that I would like to add, but will not in this post.

How does this all relate to baptism? If my assertions about Paul's views are correct, I think this strengthens the argument that water baptism may play a mysterious role in salvation because there is no real distinction between the "physical" and what most modern Christians mean when they refer to the "spiritual".

Drew, NO offense taken or even recognized. We are ALL given understanding according what we are ABLE to ACCEPT. You have offered a 'well thought out statement' and the principle that you offer may well have validity.

While I do believe that there is in essence a 'splinter of truth' to what you offer, I would have to say that MUCH of scripture PLAINLY offers that we 'battle principalities and powers that are MOSTLY beyond our very ability to COMPREHEND. And the indication is that this 'other realm' is Spiritual and NOT physical that we battle AGAINST.

Now, the PHYSICAL we ARE able to come to an understanding OF. But the Spiritual is 'something' that we are ONLY priviledged to an understanding that is quite vague and limited. For it is MOST likely that we will HAVE to 'shed' the PHYSICAL COMPLETELY in order to BECOME completely Spiritual. The Spiritual level IS where we are ABLE to have direct communion with the Spiritual. For the physical IS 'flesh' and that is DOOMED.

That water may WELL be able to bring us to an OPENING of the channels between physical and Spiritual is QUITE possible. But water IN and OF itself is simply H2O. Does what I offer NEGATE the act of water Baptism? NO WAY. But we WILL and HAVE witnessed that 'water alone' is a 'diluted' substance that often has NO bearing on the 'fruit' that one is able to exhibit by simply participating in such ritual. Can 'water itself' actually DO anything other than offer the 'physical substance' that physical life 'depends on'? And then when it is ingested, not sprinkled or emersed in.

Water IS what 'cleans the flesh'. We bathe in order to 'clean our physical bodies'. This has taken place well 'before' Christ's visit here on earth. So, is the 'physical Baptism' simply a 'symbolic' cleansing of the BODY in reference to the Spirit? Or IS IT an 'actual' cleansing of the Spirit? You would offer that it is the SAME in that the physical and Spiritual are ONE. I would argue this point.

Now, you have admitted that it, (water Baptism), is NOT the completion of Salvation. That is the issue. A 'start' in the proper direction? Perhaps. But does EACH 'act' of Baptism ACTUALLY signify ANYTHING so far as 'truth' is concerned. IS each that is Baptised offered 'something' or 'anything' by the performance of the simple act?

Now, WHAT IF one WERE Baptized into a 'false Christ'? Would the intent of the Baptizer or the Baptized play ANY 'part' in the 'purpose OR effect' of the ACT?

We have been offered that many that have partaken in the 'ritual' of 'flesh and blood' or 'bread and wine' and have SLEPT for their HEARTS not being conformed to the TRUTH. Wouldn't this work the EXACT same way with Baptism? That those who simply participated in the ritual WITHOUT their hearts BEING truly convicted would gain LITTLE or may perhaps even DO IT to their own detriment? Possible?

MEC

 

[Imagican]

I became born again and God changed me from my many evil ways,but ive never been baptised with water.Though i do plan too when the opportunity arises.I was brought up in the catholic church system and baptised as an infant and sometimes i wonder iff that really had any significance?I suppose it cant hurt.

Arj,

As has been offered: symbolically one NEED ONLY BE Baptized ONCE. But let me offer this:

I BELIEVE that the DECISION being ABLE to BE MADE by the individual would stand to SIGNIFY MUCH MORE than someone BEING Baptized without ANY rememberance or signifant understanding involved at the time that one was Baptized as an infant. I think you already have an understanding but let me explain:

A man is 'asleep', LITERALLY. He goes to bed one night and once he IS asleep, someone comes along and sprinkles water in his face in the 'name of Father, Son and Spirit'. When he 'awakes' with NO recollection of the event; HAS this 'event' had ANY influence on him WHATSOEVER?

I know that some believe that it MIGHT. I am of the persuasion that it takes CONCIOUS decision and participation to have ANY effect.

So, IF and WHEN you have a 'conviction' to BE Baptized, by ALL means, you will offend NO ONE. God DOES love us and wish for us to BE a 'part of His Family'. An outward confession of our understanding of this CANNOT BE a 'bad thing'.

And thank you for your offering. It is refreshing indeed to witness the testimony of our brothers and sisters that it is NOT 'ritual' that brings us to God. For NOTHING that we can physically DO is ABLE to separate nor enjoin us in His grace. Neither SIN nor works are ABLE to 'bring about' an understanding. It is the GRACE of God that GIVES us ANY true understanding. And no matter WHAT one is able to say to another or DO TO OR FOR another that is able to 'bring an understanding' WITHOUT the Spirit BEING the convicting element.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Of course the decision to re-baptize is up to you. According to the religion of your birth, Catholicism, your baptism is sufficient seeing as you were baptized "in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is because we acknowledge "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". It is now up to you to live the baptismal life, that is, a life in Christ.

Although we must realize that if Arj had never been water baptised in any form in the past, or if he never will be in the future, he would still be saved. The water is not necessary. It is God's work in us (the Baptism of the Spirit) that affects salvation in us.

God Bless,

~Josh

Thank you Cyber. For this is EXACTLY the 'point' that I had HOPED to make in this thread. That there is NOTHING that WE can DO on our OWN that is able to BRING us to God. it IS through HIS grace and HIS ALONE that is able to bring us to HIM through His Son. And NO AMOUNT of 'water' is able to offer ANYTHING other than an outward 'sign' that one has 'accepted' the existence of God's Son. And even this is NOT a 'true proof' of anything other than an 'act'.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Let me offer this folks:

I am WELL AWARE of the significance MANY denominations place in the ACT of Baptism. I am NOT here to 'downplay' it's significance, only to attempt to PLACE it in it's PROPER aspect of significance.

Man MAKING a 'decision' on HOW important it is TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY is by NO MEANS 'proof' of ANYTHING. The Bible speaks of it. But what it speaks of as being of MORE import than WATER, IS SPIRITUAL. For, if left on it's OWN, the physical cannot even comprehend OF an existence of the Spiritual. And even when coming to a realization OF the Spiritual, we STILL NEED a cleansing of IT that is unable to be truly completed BY the physical.

And WHEN we 'begin' to believe that WE CAN DO what ONLY God can DO, then we are simply 'fooling ourselves' into a belief that WE are able to DO ANYTHING of significance ON OUR OWN.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

I hope that once this is able to be discerned, that THEN the 'mark' thread will be easier to answer with a 'bit more certainty'.

MEC