Baptism - Is it Innert or Effectual?

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 said:

Water or Spirit baptism? Be specific.

Click to expand...

Ephesians 4:5

I agree with the Bible that there is ONE baptism.

tango said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.



.