Baptism - Is it Innert or Effectual?

[Josiah]

Baptism - Is it Innert, Just a Symbol?

.


Is Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite? A ritualistic act that God cannot use for anything? Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Or does Scripture suggest that God actually can accomplish something via Baptism, that God can use it for something?


In the late 16th Century, the radically synergistic Anabaptists overturned 1500 years of Christian faith by inventing a new dogma that baptism is an ineffectual, inert ritual that accomplishes nothing (spiritual or otherwise). They invented an entirely new and never before heard of concept that "Baptism is visible, outward proof of the person choosing Jesus as their personal Savior." In effect, they claimed that Baptism is what Christians had held Confirmation is. It was a radical idea, a brand new one, reversing 1500 years of universal Christianity.



What does SCRIPTURE say?


I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual. IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distictive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission because... well... it is meaningless, worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma.

But there are several, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at those (hopefully the program here will bring them up for you to read)...


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication.
And of course we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual, useless ritual; only a symbol.


We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all.




What Did the Early Christians believe?


Again, we find none - NOT ONE Christian prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual or symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol...

Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating an inward decision." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something.

Not until the late 16th Century.... not until the Anabaptists invented the new dogma of "Baptism Can't Do Anything" did ANY Christian agree with that view or even express it.

The Anbaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians .... it is a radical new dogma invented out of the blue by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century





.

 

[MennoSota]

Water or Spirit baptism? Be specific.
Tell me about your magic water, Josiah.

 

[Josiah]

Water or Spirit baptism? Be specific.

Ephesians 4:5

I agree with the Bible that there is ONE baptism.

 

[Lamb]

There is one baptism. Jesus told the Disciples to baptize and that always meant with water or he would have clarified that there were two baptisms, but there are not.

Whenever God has given and ordinance there is something that happens...such as looking at the bronze serpent on the pole to save God's people, brushing blood on the doorways to save God's people, etc... When God gives an ordinance He attaches promises to them and they are effective.

 

[MennoSota]

Ephesians 4:5

I agree with the Bible that there is ONE baptism.

Yep, one baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
For in one Spirit
we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Water not needed.

 

[tango]

I think this is an area where it's important to maintain perspective on both sides.

Jesus told the disciples to go into the world, preaching the gospel and baptising. The call to "repent and be baptised" suggests the two need to go together (and, further, that the baptism should follow the repentance rather than necessary occurring some time afterwards). I don't have the reference to hand (I think it's in Acts) where Paul baptised a eunuch who said something like "here is water, why shouldn't I be baptised?" which supports the notion that this is the right thing to do.

On the other hand I think it strays into potentially dangerous theological territory to conclude that God can only operate if we are treated with water in a particular fashion. Throw in the way different denominations handle baptism, whether it is intended for adults or children, whether it is by sprinkling or by full immersion, and the whole thing turns from a minor denominational disagreement into something far more substantial. If baptism by full immersion is required then baptism by sprinkling is clearly inadequate, so those who are so "baptised" cannot be considered to have been baptised at all. Children who are sprinkled at the ripe old age of a few months cannot be considered to be baptised. At least using human logic it isn't so serious if the intention is the other way - if Scriptural baptism requires little more than the application of some water then those who have been fully immersed qualify by virtue of having had a larger quantity of water applied to them.

And of course we also have the story of the thief who repented on the cross, who couldn't exactly ask if he could be taken down and baptised before being hung back on his cross, and yet Jesus assured him of a place in paradise. I think that man's example is a pretty strong indication that a place in paradise is not contingent on baptism, however the word "baptism" is interpreted.

 

[Albion]

Nice treatment of a subject that is full of land mines, but on the final paragraph, the danger is of people taking the case of the Good Thief and talking like his experience is applicable to everybody, so you can just choose to be baptized--or refuse it--as you like. I have run into this POV more often than I care to remember.

 

[tango]

Nice treatment of a subject that is full of land mines, but on the final paragraph, the danger is of people taking the case of the Good Thief and talking like his experience is applicable to everybody, so you can just choose to be baptized--or refuse it--as you like. I have run into this POV more often than I care to remember.

As with much else it's important not to draw conclusions that are hugely far-reaching based on one example. The thief was in a place where he repented but there was no way anyone was going to baptise him between his repentance and his death. Given the choice between being baptised and being crucified to get out of baptism, I think I'll take the dunking. That said, I think it's important to consider the thief as a counterbalance to the notion that we absolutely, positively, must be baptised without exception. It's easy to come up with scenarios where someone repents of their sin but for some reason is unable to be baptised right there and then, and equally easy to come up with scenarios in which someone repents and dies before being baptised.

As you quite rightly say we shouldn't take the example of the thief on the cross as justification for a free decision that we don't feel like being baptised, although it does give indicate that repentance isn't invalidated if something prevents us from being baptised.

 

[Arsenios]

Ephesians 4:5

I agree with the Bible that there is ONE baptism.

I agree agreeably with your agreement with Ephesians...

Jes' sayin'...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I think this is an area where it's important to maintain perspective on both sides.

:mug:

Jesus told the disciples to go into the world, preaching the gospel and baptising. The call to "repent and be baptised" suggests the two need to go together (and, further, that the baptism should follow the repentance rather than necessary occurring some time afterwards). I don't have the reference to hand (I think it's in Acts) where Paul baptised a eunuch who said something like "here is water, why shouldn't I be baptised?" which supports the notion that this is the right thing to do.

Exactly the point, which the Eunuch well understood... "Disciple all the nations baptizing and instructing them..." is a Commandment directly from the Mouth of our Lord...

On the other hand I think it strays into potentially dangerous theological territory to conclude that God can only operate if we are treated with water in a particular fashion. Throw in the way different denominations handle baptism, whether it is intended for adults or children, whether it is by sprinkling or by full immersion, and the whole thing turns from a minor denominational disagreement into something far more substantial. If baptism by full immersion is required then baptism by sprinkling is clearly inadequate, so those who are so "baptised" cannot be considered to have been baptised at all. Children who are sprinkled at the ripe old age of a few months cannot be considered to be baptised. At least using human logic it isn't so serious if the intention is the other way - if Scriptural baptism requires little more than the application of some water then those who have been fully immersed qualify by virtue of having had a larger quantity of water applied to them.

Christ Himself established the NORM for Baptism - All the rest are for the economia of exceptions...

And of course we also have the story of the thief who repented on the cross, who couldn't exactly ask if he could be taken down and baptised before being hung back on his cross, and yet Jesus assured him of a place in paradise. I think that man's example is a pretty strong indication that a place in paradise is not contingent on baptism, however the word "baptism" is interpreted.

He was the very first man into Paradise - The only one who confessed Christ on the Cross, and co-suffered with Christ in that Confession...

So I suppose, if you prefer the Way of the Wise Thief to Baptism in the Jordan, something could be arranged...

Lemesee... We'll need a cross, and something to break your legs... What else?

Oh yes, and you will need to confess Christ Whom you just met as a fellow criminal...




Arsenios

 

[Albion]

He was the very first man into Paradise

That depends on what we think Paradise means, I suppose.

 

[Albion]

As with much else it's important not to draw conclusions that are hugely far-reaching based on one example. The thief was in a place where he repented but there was no way anyone was going to baptise him between his repentance and his death. Given the choice between being baptised and being crucified to get out of baptism, I think I'll take the dunking. That said, I think it's important to consider the thief as a counterbalance to the notion that we absolutely, positively, must be baptised without exception.

Well, not only that but he was also speaking with God face to face. No one we know today has had that experience.

 

[Josiah]

I think this is an area where it's important to maintain perspective on both sides.

Jesus told the disciples to go into the world, preaching the gospel and baptising. The call to "repent and be baptised" suggests the two need to go together (and, further, that the baptism should follow the repentance rather than necessary occurring some time afterwards). I don't have the reference to hand (I think it's in Acts) where Paul baptised a eunuch who said something like "here is water, why shouldn't I be baptised?" which supports the notion that this is the right thing to do.

On the other hand I think it strays into potentially dangerous theological territory to conclude that God can only operate if we are treated with water in a particular fashion. Throw in the way different denominations handle baptism, whether it is intended for adults or children, whether it is by sprinkling or by full immersion, and the whole thing turns from a minor denominational disagreement into something far more substantial. If baptism by full immersion is required then baptism by sprinkling is clearly inadequate, so those who are so "baptised" cannot be considered to have been baptised at all. Children who are sprinkled at the ripe old age of a few months cannot be considered to be baptised. At least using human logic it isn't so serious if the intention is the other way - if Scriptural baptism requires little more than the application of some water then those who have been fully immersed qualify by virtue of having had a larger quantity of water applied to them.

And of course we also have the story of the thief who repented on the cross, who couldn't exactly ask if he could be taken down and baptised before being hung back on his cross, and yet Jesus assured him of a place in paradise. I think that man's example is a pretty strong indication that a place in paradise is not contingent on baptism, however the word "baptism" is interpreted.

Tango,

No one holds that God cannot save if Baptism is not administered. It would be MY position that GOD is not bound to baptism (and yes, the Thief on the Cross would be a prime example.... I'd also mention every believer before Christ instituted baptism - including Mary and the Apostles). But I would hold that just because God CAN work otherwise does not prove that ergo God can NOT work via Baptism.

I agree with you that the EXAMPLE of the Thief on the Cross does not prove baptism is irrelevant or optional (examples aren't normative at all). It ONLY shows that God is not rendered impotent if Baptism is not administered (in this case, not possible!). But the issue before us is not if God is bound to Baptism (and cannot work outside of it) but rather if Baptism is an inert, ineffectual ritual or symbol that God does not employ - a mere outward symbol proving the person saved himself OR is there a valid basis for the universal belief (for 1500+ years) and majority position (for the past 500 years) that baptism can be used by God? Is the Dogma invented by the Anabaptists that Baptism is ONLY an ineffectual, inert, outward SYMBOL supported by a larger. stronger corpus of Scriptures?



Thanks!


-- Josiah






.

 

[MennoSota]

Nice treatment of a subject that is full of land mines, but on the final paragraph, the danger is of people taking the case of the Good Thief and talking like his experience is applicable to everybody, so you can just choose to be baptized--or refuse it--as you like. I have run into this POV more often than I care to remember.

Is water baptism a magic ordination as Lamm implies. Is it like the serpent stick that had to be destroyed because the people started to worship it as a god?

I call people to be water baptized (immersion preferred) upon confession of faith as an act of obedience, not as a magic means of getting something from God.

 

[Josiah]

I call people to be water baptized (immersion preferred) upon confession of faith as an act of obedience.

Wrong thread. In the IMMERSION ONLY BAPTISM and in the CREDOBAPTISM threads (two of the 3 dogmas invented out of thin air by the radically synergistic Anabaptists), you already stated what YOU call on people to do. You proved you can't show GOD does but that seems irrelevant to you.


Now, read the opening post. If you have a series of Scriptures that all at least imply that Baptism is just an inert, ineffectual ritual God cannot use, then list them. If you can list a number of important early Christians who clearly taught that Baptism is just a inert, ineffectual ritual, that is is just "an outward SYMBOL of what the person inwardly accomplished" then quote them. Here is your golden opportunity to show that SCRIPTURE supports the Anabaptist dogma and tradition you parrot - compare the list of Scriptures and quotes that I shared in the OP with your lists - can you better substantiate that (water) baptism does nothing, that it is an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual? That it is "an outward symbol of what the person first achieved?" Or will you just dodge the whole point, evade any substantiation for the new denominational tradition you so perfectly parrot? Let's compare your list of Scriptures about (water) baptism, your quotes from early Christians with the ones I offered.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Wrong thread. In the IMMERSION ONLY BAPTISM and in the CREDOBAPTISM threads (two of the 3 dogmas invented out of thin air by the radically synergistic Anabaptists), you already stated what YOU call on people to do. You proved you can't show GOD does but that seems irrelevant to you.


Now, read the opening post. If you have a series of Scriptures that all at least imply that Baptism is just an inert, ineffectual ritual God cannot use, then list them. If you an list a number of important early Christians who clearly taught that Baptism is just a inert, ineffectual ritual, that is is just "an outward SYMBOL of what the person inwardly accomplished" then quote them.

Correct thread. Think outside your box.

 

[MennoSota]

Please provide scripture where any writer provides an allegory between circumcision and infant baptism so as to create a covanental relationship between the two, prior to confession of faith.
I have looked and cannot find any. It is a prevailing tradition that is rooted outside of scripture.
The Holy Spirit, upon God granting faith by grace, baptizes the elect child of God into Christ Jesus himself. The child is seated at the throne of God because Jesus is seated at the throne of God.
Ephesians 1:16-23 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Ephesians 2:4-7 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Perhaps people, here, are ignorant of the Holy Spirit's role in immersing us into Christ. Perhaps the above verses will open some eyes to the Spirit's work.
Physical, water baptism, symbolizes what the Holy Spirit has already done spiritually.

 

[Lamb]

Is water baptism a magic ordination as Lamm implies. Is it like the serpent stick that had to be destroyed because the people started to worship it as a god?

I call people to be water baptized (immersion preferred) upon confession of faith as an act of obedience, not as a magic means of getting something from God.

Did God attach a promise concerning the serpent? Did He fulfill His promise?
Did God attach a promise concerning the blood on the door posts? Did He fulfill His promise?

Those are key things to look at when looking at the bible as a whole and understanding how God works.

 

[Albion]

Is water baptism a magic ordination as Lamm implies.

Lamm did not imply any such thing.

Next question.

 

[Arsenios]

Is water baptism a magic ordination

Was Christ Baptized in water that ALL Righteousness be Fulfilled?


A.