What's your Viewpoints on Baptism?

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:36 am

If my relationship with the Father is where it should be, then even the tears of grattitude that flow down my face should be baptism enough.

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:38 pm

Beautifully put Carl.

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:51 pm

Thank you, Lora. Great topic, and even after all these years when I think about all that He has brought me through, taught me, and kept me from, I can't help but weep in grattitude.

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:46 am

Just a new thought. Was Peter talking about water baptism (Acts 2:38) or the infilling of the Holy Spirit, as the baptism? We know that, according to the scriptures, he himself was pretty fresh out of the upper room experience with the rest of the apostles and the others at that time. Just a thought. Blessings

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:12 pm

I believe that this verse is not demonstrating that baptism is essential for salvation,
but that baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to publicly
identify ourselves completely and totally with Christ as a manifestation
of the inward work God has done within us.

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:18 am

silverglass wrote:: I do not see either of these to be biblically defensible. In fact, from the writings in the book of Acts and according to the early church fathers baptism was a necessary rite that should not be separated, as it was part and parcel to being saved. Acts 2:38
New International Version (©1984)
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. According to some theologians the article "and" cannot be separated in the text and so required people to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. The article (abbreviated art) is a word that combines with a noun to indicate the type of reference being made by the noun. Articles specify the grammatical definiteness of the noun. So in this text it is a cogent argument to say that the two words repent and baptize are not separately exclusive but both are necessary for remission of sins. Something to ponder.

I see your point, but remember when Jesus was being crusified, and one of the thiefs asked for forgivness? He didn't say, "Only if you manage to get baptized before you die will you get to go to heaven." He said, "Surely you will be with me in paradise this day."

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:51 pm

Very good point, Rael.

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:46 pm

Baptism in water is a public declaration of faith, it follows baptism into the Body, and is usually before baptism of the Spirit; many people don't believe in three baptisms due to Ephesians four saying that there is only one, but baptism is much like the hypostatic union of the Trinity, and that verse is referring to Ephesians 3 where the Gentiles (culturally) thought they had to become Jews before coming to Christ, Paul is saying that there only has to be one baptism into Christianity. I could go on all day :P have been learning about this a lot in seminary lately

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:25 am

Keep up the hard work, Malakhim. May the Lord bless you in your studies. It sounds like you're doing pretty great in school.

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:45 am

Baptism, in the time of Jesus, consisted of one immersing themselves in the presence of one in authority. How it is done in our churches is good, but should we not take notice and immerse ourselves in the Word, in Christ. The word says, "If ye abide in me". I cannot abide in my house unless I go inside it. How much more to get in the Word so that it gets inside us. A complete baptism of the Spirit of God.

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Thu May 10, 2018 9:34 am

silverglass wrote:

silverglass wrote:: On Justification by Faith
Two analysts of very different stripes articulated one major weakness in the expression of Lewis’s soteriology. A. N. Wilson asserted: "If the mark of a reborn evangelical is a devotion to the Epistles of Paul and, in particular, to the doctrine of Justification by Faith, then there can have been few Christian converts less evangelical than Lewis." In fact, the Methodist minister who reviewed Mere Christianity claimed that the book "does not really mention…the central Christian doctrine of Justification by Faith." From the other end of the theological spectrum, J. I. Packer spoke of Lewis’s "failure ever to mention justification by faith when speaking of the forgiveness of sins, and his apparent hospitality to baptismal regeneration…." On one of his radio broadcasts Lewis declared: "There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and…the Lord’s Supper." His meaning and his order of arrangement of the items are unclear.

Hello silverglass, nice to meet you.

I have not read the book and no longer make it a habit of consutling commentaries, but, I might be able to broaden the discussion concerning Lewis' lack of mention in regards to justification, and this is probably going to sound outlandish at first, but I would recommend giving it some consideration (and I am just going to be brief in setting forth the proposal, and await further expansion if and when anyone is interested in exploring the issue).

In a nutshell, I view the Catholic/Protestant debate which has raged 500 years to have one essential error which places both groups, and their students, at a great disadvantage: justification by faith and works (for we cannot separate the two in an Old Testament context lest we nullify Scripture itself) did not...

...redeem on an eternal basis.

It did not reconcile men to God.

It did not bestow eternal life which is the result of Reconciliation and the believer being baptized into Christ, which is synonymous with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost (consult Acts 11:13018). Reconciliation is the result of Atonement for sins which brings the eternal remission of sins which was only a promise of God in the Old Testament Eras. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and that is when men were given the power to become the sons of God. This is when men began to be born of God (which is synonymous with being born again, born from above, and born of the Spirit (God)):

John 1:11-13
King James Version (KJV)

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

So here is the starting point for this discussion (and I realize it would be better to have it's own thread, though it is certainly on-topic when discussing Baptism, because as one said, it is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost which is the only baptism that is truly relevant in a salvific context): while men were justified by grace through faith in the Old Testament, we must not confuse that with being freely justified by God's grace through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus:

Romans 3:21-26
King James Version (KJV)

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

So in order that this response doesn't get longer than it already is, I would just suggest that there is a difference between Abraham being justified and credited as righteous through what he did (believe, obey, works (willingness to offer up Isaac)), and being justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

We must interpret Romans 4 with Romans 3, not the other way around.

silverglass wrote:: The Fate of Moral Non-Christians
Beyond the parameters of traditional Arminianism, however, Lewis expected that some non-Christians would be saved. "Though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life." On the radio he announced: "We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

Paul teaches that there are three primary means of revelation given to man by God, the testimony of Creation itself, an internal witness given to all men (and I speak generally when speaking of "men," this includes both male and female), and direct revelation such as God speaking directly to men, speaking to men through men, and speaking to men through His Word. In Romans we see Gentiles performing the works of the Law (which generally refers to God's revealed will and is not limited to the Written Word, but would include His commands prior to the establishment of the Law):

Romans 2:13-16
King James Version (KJV)

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

His point is that Gentiles who had not been exposed to the Written Word were performing the "things contained in the Law." The Jews had an advantage, because they had the Word of God...yet were not performing it.

Now, how do we place this teaching into a New Covenant context? That is fairly simple, we leave the principle Paul taught intact, and understand that God has always given men exactly what they need to escape eternal judgment. When Christ taught of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Abraham does not point men to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which still remained a Mystery, and would be until the Promised Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost), he directs them to the Law and the Prophets, saying that if the Law and the Prophets was ignored, one rising from the dead (Lazarus returning to warn the brethren) would not do it either. In fact, we do see a Lazarus rise from the dead...and it did not lead even one person to believe on Jesus Christ.

The one thing often assumed by many, which is a direct result of popular modern Theology, is that men were trusting in Christ in an eternal context prior to Pentecost, yet we cannot even find one of the Lord's Own disciples doing that (Mark 16:9-14; John 20:9). So the popular notion that unless one hears the Gospel of Christ and is converted...they are destined for Hell. The problem with that is that we have an entire Old Testament (which runs right up to the Day of Pentecost) believers who were not privy to the Gospel of Christ, and they were...

...saved by grace through faith in the revelation given them. This secured their eternal destinies, but, we must not equate that with being Eternally Redeemed which is accomplished only by the Offering of Christ, and bestowed to those sanctified by His Offering. Hebrews 11 makes it clear that they died not having received the Promises, and died without being made perfect (complete).

So what we can conclude based on the consistency of both the Word of God and the Grace of God is that the guy in deepest darkest Africa (you know the one I'm talking about, the guy who is always asked about in every Sunday SChool class ever assembled) who has not heard the Gospel does have a chance to go to Heaven, if...

...he is obedient to the Law written on his heart.

Now, we do not equate this to one hearing the Gospel and being reconciled to God, immersed into Eternal Union with God (Baptized with the Holy Ghost), because he will die and be judged according to his deeds, which is how God judges those who are not eternally redeemed through Christ.

I was surprised to learn that Billy Graham basically took this view as well, so to hear that Lewis did as well is not surprising. Lewis also held to man being a two-part being (body and spirit) rather than the popular teaching of today which teache man is body, soul, and spirit. HE correctly taught that man is a soul, rather than "man has a soul."

God bless.

Subject: Re: What's your Viewpoints on Baptism? Thu May 10, 2018 9:45 am

Lora wrote:: I believe that this verse is not demonstrating that baptism is essential for salvation,
but that baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to publicly
identify ourselves completely and totally with Christ as a manifestation
of the inward work God has done within us.

Hi Lora, just a few things to consider when we look at water baptism as opposed to the One Baptism, which is being Baptized with the Holy Ghost:

1. Christ is the Baptizer in a salvific context (Matthew 3:11-12), so, we account that His baptism is the one by which we are saved (Act 11:13-18);

2. Baptism holds an identification with whatever one is baptized into. For example, Paul finds disciples of John who had not yet been baptized with the Holy Ghost and when asked what they were baptized into, it was John's baptism referred to. Four times John's baptism is contrasted with Christ's, Matthew 3:11-12 (and I am not counting parallels in the Gospels), Acts 1:4-5, Acts 11: 13-18, and Acts 19:1-6, each contrasting the difference.

3. Baptism in "the name of" also speaks of the authority given to those baptizing. We baptize people in association with Christ based on His command to do so.

4. Water baptism is no different than John's baptism in the sense that when people came to be baptized...they were confessing that repentance had already taken place. Think of the Pharisees and Sadducees John turned away with severe rebuke because their lives made it evident they had not repented. So too with Christian baptism (water), the one being baptized is making the profession that salvation has already taken place.

One member made a great point speaking of Paul's statement "I have not been sent to baptize." We know he very much had been sent to lead men to Christ, so in that we see a denial of salvation being associated with water baptism.

Christ is the Baptizer, not men.

God bless.

» Baptism and Regeneration of the Spirit
» School District Reverses Policy, Allows Equal Access to Religious Viewpoints