the meaning of Baptism

[Josiah]

Friend,

Frankly, I'm not SURE that - by verbatim words of Scripture alone - it can be dogmatically stated what God can do and/or does do in and through Baptism. In MY opinion, it often comes down to whether one proceeds from a monergistic or synergistic framework. For the monergist, who believes that Jesus does the saving, that God can use Baptism in his plan of salvation ... and that "Baptism now saves you" means that... seems very possible. And certainly that was the earliest understanding of Christians and the only one until the Anabaptists came around in the 16th Century. BUT the synergist, who believes that salvation is a cooperative, synergistic, process of Jesus doing His part and self doing our part.... who understand that people must be ABLE to jump through all the hoops they must jump through to be saved.... infant baptism makes no sense (after all, I wasn't even conscience.... and more than a few babies sleep through the whole thing, usually to the delight of the pastor and parents). Does one assume that God alone gives life (and thus God causes us to be born again) OR is God only the helper or enabler or possibility-maker and we must be ABLE to do our part? Is God impotent to save those under a certain age or IQ or other ability? Or is that irrelevant because it's Jesus who saves (Jesus being the Savior). For the synergist, infant baptism will be silly (what can babies DO to save themselves?), but to the monergist, God is no less able to save a baby than an adult - no less able to move John the Baptist still in the womb than to move some 45 year old dude with an IQ of 300, 6 Ph.D., and has been ordained in 5 denominations. All comes down to who does the saving: God or self? To monergism or synergism. But, yes, based on ONLY the verbatim words in the Bible, I don't think we can prove EITHER that Baptism is effective or not, whether God uses it or not (does seem strange it is seem as SO important if it's so ineffectual, however... why command something EQUALLY with teaching if it's pretty much a waste of time and water?).


But to ME, there are two separate issues here: Whether God can and/or does use Baptism and teaching? And whether God forbids any to be baptized and/or taught if they have not yet attained the age of X (whatever that age is; never can seem to get anyone to say). Those are NOT the same issue. True, the only verse found in the first is "Baptism now saves you." And for the second, "Go and baptize... teach.... all nations." But here's what I don't see: "God is impotent to save those under the age of X or under the IQ of X" and "You are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X."


Understand my perspective?


- Josiah


.

Infant baptism unto salvation would be a synergistic concept, meaning, God plus. "To procure salvation for an infant one must baptize them" is an adding of human effort to God's gracious salvation.

1. That synergistic argument only works for Anabaptists, not for those who don't forbid children from recieving baptism and teaching. Your argument only works for those who believe that baptism is something a person must do to contribute their part and who deny that God simply blesses by grace.


2. Friend, baptism is PASSIVE - the one blessed doesn't do anything (heck, I wasn't even breathing) - the very point that bothers the "must be over X years old" crowd is that the receiver doesn't DO anything for God. Well.... you can't have it both ways, you can't claim that the little baby who is sleeping through the whole thing is contributing to their salvation AND is not able to contribute to their own salvation.


3. No one says that a person must RECEIVE baptism in order for God to save them.


4. True, the one administering the baptism is doing something. But then that's true for teaching, too. So are you forbidding any to teach those under the age of "X" because the teacher has to DO something in order to teach? Friend, synergism says the RECEIVER must do stuff to contribute to their own salvation, that salvation is not by grace but by their own works such as deciding or saying the "sinner's prayer" or responding to an altar call or loving or giving God the steering wheel of their life - friend THOSE are the folks who are going to reject infant baptism because, as they shout endlessly and constantly, "How can a baby DO _______?" The theology is the receiver has to DO something in order for God to save and bless them. It's called synergism in theology.

If you are going to follow a monergist view you should admit that God is more than capable of adopting infants and mentally disabled persons by His choice, apart from anything we do.

He is. As He did with John the Baptist still in the womb of Elizabeth. But God never commanded believers to just trust that He'd save folks without ministry, He commanded us to GO and BAPTIZE and TEACH.

If you believe that God can grant faith apart from baptizing and teaching, then why deny that He can grant faith via Baptism? It's seem illogical to argue God is all soverign and powerful but is rendered impotent by any under the age of "X".

Baptizing infants has no spiritual value.

Well, that's an opinion..... one in direct conflict with the faith of nearly every Christian for over 1500 years.

I just wonder why Baptism would be placed equally with teaching in the Great Commission, that two things were put into the Great Commission (BAPTISM and teaching), that Baptism was SO very, very important in the NT and until Anabaptist came along, if it's a waste of time and water, doing nothing, having no value (except getting someone a little bit wet). And that verse, "Baptism now saves you" being thus misleading. Odd, I think. Beyond curious. But textually POSSIBLE, I guess, it could be that Jesus and the everyone in the Bible put SO much emphasis on something of no value.



Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually it's God trained since God works in baptism.

God's baptism is by the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is merely a symbol of what the Divine has already wrought.

 

[MennoSota]

I'd agree with you except that I am fairly sure that you think that the baptism performed by the Holy Spirit does not involve water.

No wonder Baptists get all confused when people read the bible to them.

:smirk:

Indeed, water is not essential to God's immersion of us into Christ. In fact, it's quite a silly thought as immersion is a one way process. If we force water as essential then every person would die under the water as we remain immersed.

 

[MennoSota]

1. That synergistic argument only works for Anabaptists, not for those who don't forbid children from recieving baptism and teaching. Your argument only works for those who believe that baptism is something a person must do to contribute their part and who deny that God simply blesses by grace.


2. Friend, baptism is PASSIVE - the one blessed doesn't do anything (heck, I wasn't even breathing) - the very point that bothers the "must be over X years old" crowd is that the receiver doesn't DO anything for God. Well.... you can't have it both ways, you can't claim that the little baby who is sleeping through the whole thing is contributing to their salvation AND is not able to contribute to their own salvation.


3. No one says that a person must RECEIVE baptism in order for God to save them.


4. True, the one administering the baptism is doing something. But then that's true for teaching, too. So are you forbidding any to teach those under the age of "X" because the teacher has to DO something in order to teach? Friend, synergism says the RECEIVER must do stuff to contribute to their own salvation, that salvation is not by grace but by their own works such as deciding or saying the "sinner's prayer" or responding to an altar call or loving or giving God the steering wheel of their life - friend THOSE are the folks who are going to reject infant baptism because, as they shout endlessly and constantly, "How can a baby DO _______?" The theology is the receiver has to DO something in order for God to save and bless them. It's called synergism in theology.







He is. As He did with John the Baptist still in the womb of Elizabeth. But God never commanded believers to just trust that He'd save folks without ministry, He commanded us to GO and BAPTIZE and TEACH.

If you believe that God can grant faith apart from baptizing and teaching, then why deny that He can grant faith via Baptism? It's seem illogical to argue God is all soverign and powerful but is rendered impotent by any under the age of "X".







Well, that's an opinion..... one in direct conflict with the faith of nearly every Christian for over 1500 years.

I just wonder why Baptism would be placed equally with teaching in the Great Commission, that two things were put into the Great Commission (BAPTISM and teaching), that Baptism was SO very, very important in the NT and until Anabaptist came along, if it's a waste of time and water, doing nothing, having no value (except getting someone a little bit wet). And that verse, "Baptism now saves you" being thus misleading. Odd, I think. Beyond curious. But textually POSSIBLE, I guess, it could be that Jesus and the everyone in the Bible put SO much emphasis on something of no value.



Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

The work is being done by the priest or the pastor in lieu of the infant. It is not grace when an action must be imparted by another individual for the salvation of one's soul. Thus, your issuance of infant baptism is synergistic at minimum and heretical at worst.
Second, infant baptism is not shown anywhere in the scriptures as a practice. It is entirely made up from thin air and propped up by prooftexts taken out of context. There are many fallacies, which the Roman church has followed for 1500 years. They still remain as fallacies no matter the length of time.
Finally, the Great Commission calls for baptism because the symbolic act stands out against a rebel world and it signifies an immersion into the Kingdom of God. One is publicly expressing a change in kingdom allegiance and citizenship. We pass from being the sons and daughters of rebellion to being the sons and daughters of the Almighty King and God of Creation. This is an exciting proclamation of allegiance in the midst of a rebel world.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

1. That synergistic argument only works for Anabaptists, not for those who don't forbid children from recieving baptism and teaching. Your argument only works for those who believe that baptism is something a person must do to contribute their part and who deny that God simply blesses by grace.


2. Friend, baptism is PASSIVE - the one blessed doesn't do anything (heck, I wasn't even breathing) - the very point that bothers the "must be over X years old" crowd is that the receiver doesn't DO anything for God. Well.... you can't have it both ways, you can't claim that the little baby who is sleeping through the whole thing is contributing to their salvation AND is not able to contribute to their own salvation.


3. No one says that a person must RECEIVE baptism in order for God to save them.


4. True, the one administering the baptism is doing something. But then that's true for teaching, too. So are you forbidding any to teach those under the age of "X" because the teacher has to DO something in order to teach? Friend, synergism says the RECEIVER must do stuff to contribute to their own salvation, that salvation is not by grace but by their own works such as deciding or saying the "sinner's prayer" or responding to an altar call or loving or giving God the steering wheel of their life - friend THOSE are the folks who are going to reject infant baptism because, as they shout endlessly and constantly, "How can a baby DO _______?" The theology is the receiver has to DO something in order for God to save and bless them. It's called synergism in theology.




He is. As He did with John the Baptist still in the womb of Elizabeth. But God never commanded believers to just trust that He'd save folks without ministry, He commanded us to GO and BAPTIZE and TEACH.

If you believe that God can grant faith apart from baptizing and teaching, then why deny that He can grant faith via Baptism? It's seem illogical to argue God is all soverign and powerful but is rendered impotent by any under the age of "X".




Well, that's an opinion..... one in direct conflict with the faith of nearly every Christian for over 1500 years.

I just wonder why Baptism would be placed equally with teaching in the Great Commission, that two things were put into the Great Commission (BAPTISM and teaching), that Baptism was SO very, very important in the NTand until Anabaptist came along, if it's a waste of time and water, doing nothing, having no value (except getting someone a little bit wet). And that verse, "Baptism now saves you" being thus misleading. Odd, I think. Beyond curious. But textually POSSIBLE, I guess, it could be that Jesus and the everyone in the Bible put SO much emphasis on something of "no value" (according to you).




.

The work is being done by the priest or the pastor in lieu of the infant.

Then by your argument, the Great Commission is "heretical" (to use your word) since it's directed to Christians to DO things for others.....


No, as you well know, synergism is about the RECEIVER, about what the one who isn't saved must do to be saved. It has nothing to do with what God does to bless them or what OTHERS do as commanded by God and as agents of God. See points 2 and 4 in what I posted to you.


The fundamental argument from the "You are forbidden to baptize those under the age of X" crowd is: "The baby can't do _________." Thus their premise, that the RECEIVER has to do things in order for God to bless them; it's not grace but works they insist and since the baby can't work they can't be the objects of the Great Commission.

It is not grace when an action must be imparted by another individual for the salvation of one's soul.

Then you reject the work of Christ on the Cross since work HE did blesses us. You just renounced the very basis of Christianity, my friend. I'm sure you don't believe that!!!!


You also just made the Great Commission wrong, because Jesus tells Christians to "GO" (that means we are to do things for others).... TEACH (that's active on our part)...... BAPTIZE (that's active on our part). All verbs that Jesus commands believers to do for others. Yes, as with Christ, God often blesses people through what OTHERS do (consider Jesus...... we'd have no salvation without what He did FOR us). Now, the Great Commission is NOT, "the receiver must dunk himself in water and teach himself about Christianity." Come on, friend.


But you're twisting synergism upside down. As you well know, synergism says the RECEIVER must do x,y,z in order for God to save them. You've reversed it. Monergism says that GOD does it, and yes it does involve things done by people (Jesus, for example). By your argument, it would be wrong to preach Christ, to teach Christianity; indeed Jesus was wrong for dying FOR us. Reconsider that, my brother and friend....

infant baptism is not shown anywhere in the scriptures as a practice.

So what?


1. I don't accept the rubric that the teaching of the Bible is irrelevant, only the traditions/examples found in the Bible. Thus, with all due respect, your question is irrelevant. You think so too, I strongly suspect. Can you find even one example in the Bible of posting at a website on the internet? Yet you are doing so. Can you find even one case of a church using electricity or powerpoint? Even one example of a youth group? Even one example of people passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little cups of Welch's Grape Juice? Friend, probably 99% of what your congregation does is not seen anywhere in the Bible. And can you find even one example in the Bible of an African-American or Hispanic or Korean being baptized? One example of a Gentile administering baptism? Did the congregation in Corinth have a website, a parking lot? Did they have a youth group and Sunday School? Did they use electricity? Did the preacher wear jeans and a Ahola shirt and use a mic? Did he hold a floppy, leather cover KJV Bible while he preached? Did it pass around grape juice and white bread for Communion? I'm being foolish but I'm SURE you see my point. With all due respect, I think you too reject your rubric; I don't think you believe your own premise.


2. We have a FEW examples of baptisms in the Bible. Probably fewer than 0.00000001% of the ones done in the First Century (a pretty small sample). And yes, it seems MOST of the very, very, very few examples of Baptism that happen to be recorded in the NT do seem to be of those past the never-disclosed age of "X." But not all of them. In some cases, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the age of those being baptized. For example, we're told that "all in her household" were baptized - with no hint as to the respective ages of each and whether each had celebrated their "X" birthday. True, I can't point to an example that states, "And this person had not yet celebrated their "X" birthday." But then you can't find an example of a Korean or Native American or Italian or German being baptized but that doesn't stop you. And you can't show that even the tiny number of examples in the Bible were all over the age of X.


3. Remember: I'm not the one adding a RESTRICTION on the Great Commission that everyone realizes isn't there. I'm not the one trying to defend adding a restriction to Jesus' command to go... baptize.... teach. What's missing in Scripture is "but you are forbidden from going, baptizing, teaching those under the age of X."



Pax Christi



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

The work is being done by the priest or the pastor in lieu of the infant. It is not grace when an action must be imparted by another individual for the salvation of one's soul.

Actually, that's not the case. The minister is acting on behalf of God in administering the sacrament which Christ instituted, as we all know. The sponsors (usually the parents) are the ones acting on behalf of the recipient, the child.

Second, infant baptism is not shown anywhere in the scriptures as a practice.

You've seen several Bible verses in which whole households are baptized and there are also those verses that speak of the very inclusive nature of Baptism--"all nations," for instance, in the closing verses of Matthew. In addition, the nature of the baptism as a vehicle for imparting grace and forgiving sin applies to children no less than to anyone else.

It"s entirely made up from thin air and propped up by prooftexts taken out of context.

I've decided, for the sake of clarity, not to include replies to parts of your post that were included merely for your own reading pleasure and don't add anything to the facts of the matter under discussion.

There are many fallacies, which the Roman church has followed for 1500 years.

And most of the other significant denominations, don't forget.

Finally, the Great Commission calls for baptism because the symbolic act stands out against a rebel world and it signifies an immersion into the Kingdom of God.

Baptism is not described anywhere in Scripture as a symbolic act. As you would say, that's something that was made up out of thin air and propped up by prooftexts taken out of context.

 

[Lamb]

So God is absent in the Baptist baptism? Is that how I am to interpret it?

 

[Albion]

So God is absent in the Baptist baptism? Is that how I am to interpret it?

No. As a matter of fact, most churches accept the Baptists' baptisms even though the Baptists normally do not accept as valid a baptism performed in a Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. church.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]





Then by your argument, the Great Commission is "heretical" (to use your word) since it's directed to Christians to DO things for others.....
Pax Christi

- Josiah

.

Far too long of a post to respond fully.
I will address your first claim, which is false.
The action of adoption has already happened, which is a result of preaching the gospel. God graciously makes the person alive and God gives the person the gift of faith. That is monergism. Baptism is just a step in the process of sanctification, it has nothing to do with soteriology (salvation). To make it a "magical" action required for an infants salvation is to remove grace from the equation and turn it into salvation by works. It also becomes a synergistic action whereby God needs humans to choose baptism before he can graciously save an infant from his/her sins.
Human (water) baptism is never a part of salvation. Spiritual Baptism, immersion by the Holy Spirit into Christ, is a part of God's salvation (adoption). Thus Baptism does save, but not water baptism. If the immersion (baptism) were physical water, then the person would die by drowning. It cannot, therefore, be addressing water baptism. It must be addressing Spirit baptism.

 

[Lamb]

No. As a matter of fact, most churches accept the Baptists' baptisms even though the Baptists normally do not accept as valid a baptism performed in a Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. church.

That wasn't what I was asking. Being valid is something different.

Baptists apparently disagree that God is present or active in their baptisms. That's what I'm left to surmise from their statements.

 

[MennoSota]

So God is absent in the Baptist baptism? Is that how I am to interpret it?

No.
The Spirit of God baptizes all who are chosen to be immersed in Christ. This is a holy act of God.
Water baptism is a symbolic action expressing what God the Spirit has already done. It is an outward sign of an inward action performed by God alone.
To add human, water baptism, as necessary for atonement is to negate grace and promote synergism as a cooperative action of salvation.

 

[Albion]

That wasn't what I was asking. Being valid is something different.

Baptists apparently disagree that God is present or active in their baptisms. That's what I'm left to surmise from their statements.

Logically so, although I'm sure they'd say that God is present the way he's present in the Lord's Supper, which is also defined by them as simply a symbol. God is the tread spirit who hovers over everything and smiles approvingly...or something like that. But he doesn't have any direct connection to these "ordinances" according that theology.

 

[Albion]

No.
The Spirit of God baptizes all who are chosen to be immersed in Christ. This is a holy act of God.
Water baptism is a symbolic action expressing what God the Spirit has already done. It is an outward sign of an inward action performed by God alone.
To add human, water baptism, as necessary for atonement is to negate grace and promote synergism as a cooperative action of salvation.

Not one but three serious mistakes there. The sacraments are not symbols only and the act of being baptized is NOT a good work that merits favor with God and contributes to one's salvation (as the Catholics say). If that were what a good work consists of, every act of walking into your church, every act of standing or sitting or singling a hymn would be seen as earning merit in God's eyes. It would all be a matter of "works righteousness" yet I know you don't see it that way. The statement you made is incorrect by the theology of all of our churches. In addition, almost no one believes that sacramental baptism is "necessary for atonement" if by "necessary" you mean unavoidable, always required.

And this: "If the immersion (baptism) were physical water, then the person would die by drowning. It cannot, therefore, be addressing water baptism. It must be addressing Spirit baptism." is simply ludicrous. I've been totally underwater many times and did not drown.

 

[Lamb]

No.
The Spirit of God baptizes all who are chosen to be immersed in Christ. This is a holy act of God.
Water baptism is a symbolic action expressing what God the Spirit has already done. It is an outward sign of an inward action performed by God alone.
To add human, water baptism, as necessary for atonement is to negate grace and promote synergism as a cooperative action of salvation.

There are not two baptisms but one baptism. You choose to believe in two and have separated what God chose to make as one because of one instance where people in the bible did not receive the spirit during their baptism and that is because God used that instance as a sign. Baptism is directly connected to the cross where forgiveness is won. We receive the benefits of the cross in baptism as we are clothed in Christ's righteousness.

So God is distant in your baptism and you believe Jesus commanded the disciples to make other disciples by baptizing and teaching and that baptism isn't something that God is involved in at all. Do you believe that God isn't involved in teaching at all too?

 

[Albion]

There are not two baptisms but one baptism. You choose to believe in two....

If a person is intent upon believing in two, he might as well go for all three and come up with some ritual for Baptism with Fire, too.

 

[MennoSota]

Not one but three serious mistakes there. The sacraments are not symbols only and the act of being baptized is NOT a good work that merits favor with God and contributes to one's salvation (as the Catholics say). If that were what a good work consists of, every act of walking into your church, every act of standing or sitting or singling a hymn would be seen as earning merit in God's eyes. It would all be a matter of "works righteousness" yet I know you don't see it that way. The statement you made is incorrect by the theology of all of our churches. In addition, almost no one believes that sacramental baptism is "necessary for atonement" if by "necessary" you mean unavoidable, always required.

You are confusing salvation (justification) with sanctification. One cannot be saved by an action of man. (We should agree on this. No?) Therefore the action of baptism cannot and will not save a person (no matter the age at which a person is baptized).
If that human action does not save a person and salvation is by grace alone, apart from works, then the baptism that saves cannot be done by humans. That baptism must be done solely by God. (Do we not agree on this? If not, then it is an issue of monergism (my view) vs synergism (MCs view).

And this: "If the immersion (baptism) were physical water, then the person would die by drowning. It cannot, therefore, be addressing water baptism. It must be addressing Spirit baptism." is simply ludicrous. I've been totally underwater many times and did not drown.

Did you stay under forever? If so, I am impressed.
The greek word, baptizmo means to immerse and stay immersed. That is exactly what happens when the Holy Spirit baptizes you. You are immersed in Christ. Your life is substituted with the life of Christ.
In physical, water, baptism no one stays immersed. (You would physically die.) Instead, you are extracated from the water. However, the physical baptism does symbolize to the community what God's Spirit has already done.
In sprinkling, there is no immersion at all. Can it even legitimately be called baptism? I would say, no, it cannot. There is no biblical evidence of anyone sprinkling as a form of baptism. Why? Because baptism means: to immerse.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Indeed, water is not essential to God's immersion of us into Christ. In fact, it's quite a silly thought as immersion is a one way process. If we force water as essential then every person would die under the water as we remain immersed.

Only if you think submersion is essential to baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

There are not two baptisms but one baptism. You choose to believe in two and have separated what God chose to make as one because of one instance where people in the bible did not receive the spirit during their baptism and that is because God used that instance as a sign. Baptism is directly connected to the cross where forgiveness is won. We receive the benefits of the cross in baptism as we are clothed in Christ's righteousness.

So God is distant in your baptism and you believe Jesus commanded the disciples to make other disciples by baptizing and teaching and that baptism isn't something that God is involved in at all. Do you believe that God isn't involved in teaching at all too?

There is only one baptism that is effectual. That is the baptism done by the Holy Spirit upon redemption and adoption.
To suggest that physical baptism is effectual for redemptive and adoptive purposes is to remove grace from salvation and replace it with works. This cannot be.
I have not chosen two effectual baptisms. There is only one and it is entirely God's work without any human involvement.
I have explained the difference on numerous occasions. Our fellowship will not be broken by our differing views. However, many Lutherans may perish in hell because they were given false assurance of salvation via infant baptism. That would be tragic. Unfortunately I have met far too many Lutherans (after all, Minnesota is a Lutheran paradise ) who are trusting in their infant baptism and confirmation classes as their certificate of salvation when their life displays no such adoption or reconciliation with Christ. They have substituted their works as the means for salvation and have never known God's grace.

 

[MennoSota]

Only if you think submersion is essential to baptism.

What does the Greek word, baptizo, mean? This is not a matter of what I think versus what you think.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does the Greek word, baptizo, mean? This is not a matter of what I think versus what you think.

It means baptise. It doesn't mean submerge.