Baptism - Is it Innert or Effectual?

[MennoSota]

What happens when an adult is brought to faith during a church service and then turns away from God? It's the same thing. Man has the ability to reject God and has had that ability since Adam decided he wanted to be his own god. It does not mean that God failed to do His job of being merciful and gracious.

First, that has nothing to do with baptism.
Second, everything you just discussed is about man saving himself or damning himself. Nothing about the effectual work of God.
Third, read atpollard's verses because Jesus does not teach what you are teaching

 

[Lamb]

First, that has nothing to do with baptism.
Second, everything you just discussed is about man saving himself or damning himself. Nothing about the effectual work of God.
Third, read atpollard's verses because Jesus does not teach what you are teaching

You asked me a question and I asked it.

The fact of the matter is you don't want to believe that God can baptize someone without them first meeting some sort of standard your denomination has placed upon that person.

The fact of the matter is that you brought up about infants rejecting God later...but what you fail to realize is that YOU don't know if that rejection is still there on their deathbed. Did God plant that seed and has saved the person in the end??? YOU do not know. So, did God fail? You reject infant baptism because you just don't know if God is saving that infant in the end...that's how you brought it up.

 

[Josiah]

What did God actually do if the person is dead in their trespasses and sins and spends eternity in hell?

Ah, so your mandate is we must forbid anything and everything unless it results in everyone ending up in heaven. Thus, you must forbid preaching and evangelism and mission work.... you must forbid anyone from entering your church.... after all, LOTS of people who receive the Gospel message don't end up in heaven. You reject (water) baptism in some cases because the recipient MAY not ultimately end up in heaven BUT you don't reject preaching/evangelism because MOST of the recipients don't end up in heaven. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction?


Very, very many people who heard the Gospel preached have no faith and are antagonistic toward the Gospel. Does that prove that the Word is ineffectual, a "waste of time" as someone here said of baptism, "an outward symbol of a personal inner accomplishment?" No. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction? Do you forbid any to heard the Gospel because you can list a bunch of people who heard it and are antagonistic toward Christ? If not EVERYONE who sets foot in a Baptist Crusade doesn't accept Christ, do you insist God is a liar and a failure? Even though there are Scriptures that speak of faith comes by hearing, etc. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction?




Now, read the opening post. I listed some Scriptures and early Christians that suggest that Baptism is NOT simply an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (to quote you), "just an outward SYMBOL of an inner personal accomplishment." Indeed, some pretty significant things seem to be associated with it. Now, even at this late point, perhaps you will finally list some Scriptures and perhaps early Christians that present Baptism as an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual... "worthless".(to quote you), "just an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment." Then we can compare our two lists.




.

 

[MennoSota]

You asked me a question and I asked it.

The fact of the matter is you don't want to believe that God can baptize someone without them first meeting some sort of standard your denomination has placed upon that person.

The fact of the matter is that you brought up about infants rejecting God later...but what you fail to realize is that YOU don't know if that rejection is still there on their deathbed. Did God plant that seed and has saved the person in the end??? YOU do not know. So, did God fail? You reject infant baptism because you just don't know if God is saving that infant in the end...that's how you brought it up.

How is baptism effectual when humans can simply reject it at anytime?
You answered your position on free-will, but you didn't tie this to the effectual work of baptism.
My point is that your position on free-will nullifies your position on baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Ah, so your mandate is we must forbid anything and everything unless it results in everyone ending up in heaven. Thus, you must forbid preaching and evangelism and mission work.... you must forbid anyone from entering your church.... after all, LOTS of people who receive the Gospel message don't end up in heaven. You reject (water) baptism in some cases because the recipient MAY not ultimately end up in heaven BUT you don't reject preaching/evangelism because MOST of the recipients don't end up in heaven. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction?


Very, very many people who heard the Gospel preached have no faith and are antagonistic toward the Gospel. Does that prove that the Word is ineffectual, a "waste of time" as someone here said of baptism, "an outward symbol of a personal inner accomplishment?" No. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction? Do you forbid any to heard the Gospel because you can list a bunch of people who heard it and are antagonistic toward Christ? If not EVERYONE who sets foot in a Baptist Crusade doesn't accept Christ, do you insist God is a liar and a failure? Even though there are Scriptures that speak of faith comes by hearing, etc. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction?




Now, read the opening post. I listed some Scriptures and early Christians that suggest that Baptism is NOT simply an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (to quote you), "just an outward SYMBOL of an inner personal accomplishment." Indeed, some pretty significant things seem to be associated with it. Now, even at this late point, perhaps you will finally list some Scriptures and perhaps early Christians that present Baptism as an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual... "worthless".(to quote you), "just an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment." Then we can compare our two lists.




.

My question is:
What did God actually do if the person is dead in their trespasses and sins and spends eternity in hell?
Second, you still don't provide any effectual function of baptism. Please provide what it effectually does for an unrepentant infant, child or adult.

 

[MennoSota]

Ah, so your mandate is we must forbid anything and everything unless it results in everyone ending up in heaven.

Thus, you must forbid preaching and evangelism and mission work.... you must forbid anyone from entering your church.... after all, LOTS of people who receive the Gospel message don't end up in heaven. You reject (water) baptism in some cases because the recipient MAY not ultimately end up in heaven BUT you don't reject preaching/evangelism because MOST of the recipients don't end up in heaven. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction?


Very, very many people who heard the Gospel preached have no faith and are antagonistic toward the Gospel. Does that prove that the Word is ineffectual, a "waste of time" as someone here said of baptism, "an outward symbol of a personal inner accomplishment?" No. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction? Do you forbid any to heard the Gospel because you can list a bunch of people who heard it and are antagonistic toward Christ? If not EVERYONE who sets foot in a Baptist Crusade doesn't accept Christ, do you insist God is a liar and a failure? Even though there are Scriptures that speak of faith comes by hearing, etc. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction?

What a massive strawman and false equivalency you have presented here. It has literally nothing to do with baptism and what the effects of infant baptism is on the recipient.

Now to your real complaint that you bring up and call a contradiction.
You complain that God fails to save everyone who hears the gospel and thus the preaching of the gospel is ineffectual.
My response:
We obey God. God commands us to go and make disciples. He does not command us to make the gospel effective to those who are not disciples. He does not command us to baptize those who are not disciples. He only commands us to baptize disciples.
Jesus repeatedly tells us that all whom the Father has given him will be his sheep and he will not lose one. When we preach the gospel, God chooses his sheep to believe and leaves the goats to remain in their trespasses and sins. God does not contradict himself in this process of redemption.
Your false equivalency is that you make baptism out to be just like evangelism. Baptize anyone and everyone and perhaps they will respond in faith, just like preach the gospel and perhaps they will respond in faith.
However, does God ever teach us that baptism is the same as preaching the gospel?
No. God never equates baptism with gospel preaching. Every instance of baptism shared in the Bible is after the person responds to the gospel in faith and confesses his/her sins.
Random baptizing of everybody and/or anybody for the purpose of perhaps giving them faith is...NEVER...presented in the Bible. Your attempt to equivocate baptism as being the same as preaching the gospel is a complete and utter false equivalency. You have created a strawman that falls apart upon evaluation.

 

[Lamb]

The question posed by Mennosota is what did baptism do if man can reject God?

Josiah already answered the question by saying, what good is preaching the Word of God then if man can reject God?

Do you see where your own denomination has gotten in the way of solid scripture (which Josiah has continuously provided to you) because you reject what God does in baptism?

Baptism is God's work. It effects what God has promised (again, see the scriptural verses both Josiah and I provided).

Mennosota, you have yet to provide a verse that states baptism does nothing for man.

 

[MennoSota]

The question posed by Mennosota is what did baptism do if man can reject God?

Josiah already answered the question by saying, what good is preaching the Word of God then if man can reject God?

Do you see where your own denomination has gotten in the way of solid scripture (which Josiah has continuously provided to you) because you reject what God does in baptism?

Baptism is God's work. It effects what God has promised (again, see the scriptural verses both Josiah and I provided).

Mennosota, you have yet to provide a verse that states baptism does nothing for man.

Do you think baptism is just another form of evangelism that is equivalent to preaching the gospel, as Josiah has attempted to argue?

 

[Lamb]

Do you think baptism is just another form of evangelism that is equivalent to preaching the gospel, as Josiah has attempted to argue?

Jesus told the disciples to teach and to baptize. That's evangelism. God's word is in the teaching. God's word is in the waters of baptism because God attached promises to baptism.

So I've answered your question. It would be great if you could prove where it says in the Bible that baptism does nothing.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus told the disciples to teach and to baptize. That's evangelism. God's word is in the teaching. God's word is in the waters of baptism because God attached promises to baptism.

So I've answered your question. It would be great if you could prove where it says in the Bible that baptism does nothing.

He said go. Make disciples. Baptizing...them (the disciples). Never does he say baptize all humans regardless of whether they are my disciples or not.

 

[MennoSota]

What specific promise does God make to unregenerate, non-faith filled person's when they are baptized and do not have faith?
Please provide these specific promises to unregenerate man.

How is "God's word" in the waters of baptism for spiritually dead people?
There are NO verses in the Bible that make the claim that Lammchen has made. Not one verse.

 

[Lamb]

Mennosota has refused for 12 pages to answer the question of where in the bible it says that baptism does nothing.

 

[Josiah]

My question is:
What did God actually do if the person is dead in their trespasses and sins and spends eternity in hell?

I reject your parroting of the radical synergism that is the basis of all your baptism dogmas... I reject your premise that God is impotent to bless unless FIRST the dead unregenerate person performs and accomplishes x,y,z and thus earns God's reward. The premise of your question is one I reject since I'm not a radical synergist.


The question of this thread is this: Is (water) Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite? Does it only symbolize stuff or remind some 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.

you still don't provide any effectual function of baptism.

Of course, it is YOU who has yet to provide anything but your denomination's invented tradition to support that (water) baptism is just an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (to quote you) ritual, just an "outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment."


Here is what I provided that suggests that is wrong:


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



If you have any Scriptures that substantiate your dogma that (water) Baptism "does nothing" and is "worthless" (to quote you), is just an inert and effectual ritual, is but "an outward SYMBOL of an INNER personal accomplishment" then it might be good to share such (we are on page 12... how long will you keep us waiting?); if you have quotes of ANYONE (heck, I'd accept even a non-Christian) ANYONE who stated your view prior to that radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, then how about posting it?






.

 

[MennoSota]

I reject your parroting of the radical synergism that is the basis of all your baptism dogmas... I reject your premise that God is impotent to bless unless FIRST the dead unregenerate person performs and accomplishes x,y,z and thus earns God's reward. The premise of your question is one I reject since I'm not a radical synergist.


The question of this thread is this: Is (water) Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite? Does it only symbolize stuff or remind some 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.








Of course, it is YOU who has yet to provide anything but your denomination's invented tradition to support that (water) baptism is just an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (to quote you) ritual, just an "outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment."


Here is what I provided that suggests that is wrong:


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



If you have any Scriptures that substantiate your dogma that (water) Baptism "does nothing" and is "worthless" (to quote you), is just an inert and effectual ritual, is but "an outward SYMBOL of an INNER personal accomplishment" then it might be good to share such (we are on page 12... how long will you keep us waiting?); if you have quotes of ANYONE (heck, I'd accept even a non-Christian) ANYONE who stated your view prior to that radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, then how about posting it?






.

Josiah, interpret every Bible passage you list. I can randomly list Bible passages as well. Do your job and interpret each passage to make your point or stop wasting my time.
You must prove your position by actually explaining how the scriptures make your point.
I have already shown each verse/passage in the book of Acts to make my point. I don't need 16th century people to make the point that Luke already records for you and me to observe.
Do your job. Go over every verse you cite and prove your case...or acknowledge you have no legitimate argument.

 

[Josiah]

Do your job and interpret each passage

No need.


When we read the Scriptures together.... and the quotes from Early Christians.... just READING THE WORDS (no "spin" needed - not at all, not a bit).... it's pretty obvious Baptism is not just an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (to quote you) ritual, only "an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment." You could try to SPIN them to "mean" the exact opposite of what the words state but I have no need for that.


Your 'job' is to list all the Scriptures that indicate that (water) Baptism is just an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (to quote you) ritual, "just an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment" and perhaps to show that at least one person (I'm not even limiting you to a Christian) who agreed with that before that radically synergistic Anabaptist invented your view in the last 16th Century. But you likely won't accept your "job". IF you had anything, I suspect by now you would have shared it. But if you do, how about ceasing to keep us waiting?





.

 

[Lamb]

Menno, you have NOT given any scripture that states that baptism does nothing. Is that because there IS NONE and you're afraid to admit it?

 

[MennoSota]

Menno, you have NOT given any scripture that states that baptism does nothing. Is that because there IS NONE and you're afraid to admit it?

I have given every verse in Acts and shown what Baptism accomplished in each instance. Showing you and Josiah the symbolism involved. I have addressed the covenant between the redeemed sinner and God that is established. I cannot do more than this as that is what scripture presents.
Now, it is your turn to exegete the scriptures that Josiah has cited and prove your position from those verses.
I wait, expectantly, for your and Josiah's exegesis.

 

[Josiah]

I have given every verse in Acts and shown what Baptism accomplished in each instance.

Come on. We ALL KNOW you have not even attempted to list even ONE Scripture and/or even ONE Christian (before that radically synergist Anabaptist) that indicates (water) Baptism is "worthless" and "does nothing" (to quote you), that it is just an inert, ineffectual ritual, that it is just "an outward SYMBOL of an inner personal accomplishment." You haven't even attempted to do that. Everyone knows it. Come on.

I wait, expectantly, for your and Josiah's exegesis.

I have no need to "spin" ANYTHING. I'm just accepting the words - "as is." I have no need to force the words to "mean" something different than what they do. "No spin zone" on my side. I'm just accepting what the verses say, the words the Holy Spirit put there. Maybe YOU feel a requirement to SPIN them so that the "meaning" is the opposite of the words.... maybe... but I have no such need.



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




.

 

[Arsenios]

Citing the pre-Nicene Fathers is a good thing...


A.

 

[Arsenios]

Menno, you have NOT given any scripture that states that baptism does nothing.
Is that because there IS NONE and you're afraid to admit it?

Indeed is Apostolic Baptism so central that it is included in the Apostolic Discipling of the Nations by Christ Himself,
together with teaching all that Christ had commanded...

Without Baptism into Christ, there is no Christianity...


Arsenios