Well a couple: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." 1st cor. 1:17
"There is one body and one Spirit, . . . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism" Eph.4:4-5.
Baptism is a rite, not salvation !
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
"There is one body and one Spirit, . . . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism" Eph.4:4-5.
Thistle
Well-known member
Brilliant! You've managed to wrench that passage completely out of its context…
And taking this passage along with Acts 8:36–39 we know that that one baptism involves water.
robycop3
Well-known member
Obviously, we have different views of what a prophet &prophecy is. I shall stick with mine, which is pretty obvious from its contextual use in Scripture & everyday speech.
Thistle
Well-known member
Apparently so but this isn't down to opinion.
How are use words in English in the 21st-century, or the 20th century, or the 19th century, has nothing to do with what it means in the context of the Bible.
And you have NOTHING from Scripture or 1500 years of Christianity that remotely states that.
Is Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite?
Is it just 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?
NOTE: no one argued that symbolism is involved; the new view is that it is ONLY a symbol. Foot washing is a powerful symbol that Jesus instituted; but there is nothing in Scripture or the Early Church that suggests it is anything MORE than that. And so the ACT was never much emphasized or practiced, and nothing is said in Scritpure about it. The Anabaptist position is that Baptism is just such a pure symbol. No one disputes there is symbolism involved (Luther stressed such), the dispute is the dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the 16th Century that that's ALL it is. Much like foot washing.
In the 16th Century, the 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 stressed that it is ONLY a symbol 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, etc., etc." They repudiated and denounced every baptism in history and of every non-Anabaptist because this view was found nowhere but among the Anabaptist. Additionally, they invented several new prohibitions/mandates on the practice of Baptism: 1) A certain never-disclosed AGE must first be attained by the recipient ("Anti-Paedobaptism - no baptisms for children), 2) The recipient must first adequately prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior ("Credobaptism"), 3) The recipient must first prove they have adequately repented of all their sins, 4) The recipient must have every part of their body entirely and fully immersed under water (Immersion Only Baptism). THIS thread is not about those prohibitions/mandates that they invented. There are already threads on these new inventions, but this is about their theology: Baptism is ONLY an OUTWARD symbol of inner good works performed by the recipient. In effect, they claimed that Baptism is what Christians had held Confirmation to be. 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, SO important in the Early Church because... well... worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma of "ONLY an outward symbol of an inner good work performed by the recipient."
But there are several Scriptures, 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 some...
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
A couple of quick notes: Nowhere in any of these is the word "then" or "after which" used; the word is "kai" (and) which only associates or connects things; it does not mean or imply sequence or chronological order Also the word "wash" in some of the above verses is a variant of the word "baptize" or "baptism."
I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication.
And equally significant is that we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual 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. Jesus used the symbol of foot washing, for example, but that ACT was never given much importance and rarely practiced because everyone acknowledged it was a SYMBOL of something inward. Baptism could not be more different.
What Did the Early Christians believe?
Again, we find none prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, only symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision or good work." 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 a previous good work." 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 Anabaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians .... it is a radical new dogma invented by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, used to denounce and repudiate as invalid all baptisms that did not involve them.
I am NOT saying this is a "slam dunk".... any more than say the Trinity. I'm only saying the suggestion of both Scripture and history is quite solidly on the historic side, and we simply find NOTHING in Scripture or history that supports the Anabaptist reinvention (nor did they even claim such). I wonder, too, about the argument that "it is OBVIOUS by the words in Scripture that Baptism in just a outward symbol of personal accomplishments and good works by the person." IF it's obvious, where are those Scriptures? And why did no one notice that for over 1500 years, if it's "OBVIOUS?"
I welcome Scriptures that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished.
Thank you.
- Josiah
.
Thistle
Well-known member
...
I take your basic point. I would correct one small detail, not to say that I entirely agree with everything that you wrote, but the anti-Baptists were not entirely alone. In 1523 a swiss reformer named Ulrich Zwingli believe that he had come to this inside all on his own. Literally saying that he was the first doctor and all the history of the church that recognize that baptism was disconnected from salvation, I don't have the exact quote right at my fingertips. It was actually through this route rather than the anti-Baptists that the reformed theologians eventually adopted this view. Of course Martin Luther never did adopt that view. And for that reason to this day Lutherans have what you would call more orthodox view of baptism.
PS found it!
"In this matter of Baptism, all the doctors [theologians] have been in error from the time of the Apostles. . . . For all the doctors [theologians] have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach." "The fathers were in error . . . because they thought that the water itself effects cleansing and salvation."
- Ulrich Zwingli
Whether anybody actually attributed power to water is a significant question in my mind. That attribution strikes me as a strawman particularly in view of Colossians 2:12. In fact if you take what Paul said in Ephesians 2:8,9 in conjunction with what he said in Colossians 2:12 you end up with salvation being "by grace, through faith [in the power of God] ," and "in baptism."
Last edited:
Thistle
Well-known member
What you're claiming to "know" is that you're right and Strongs Exhaustive Concordance is wrong about the definition of prophecy. I'm sorry as I can be, but there are very few people who are going to take your word over Strong Exhaustive Concordance.
My apologies I thought you were responding to post 1004.
If the Holy Spirit is bringing about a change in the heart of a convert through the presentation of the gospel why would we think that part and parcel of that, that the Holy Spirit fixes the moment of the remission of sins in a persons consciousness? And for that matter, what makes us think that we would know the difference between the Holy Spirit working to bring about a change in our heart, and the Holy Spirit moving in as a permanent resident in our hearts? I don't doubt your conviction regarding the statement that you made. I doubt the reliability of the insight.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thistle
Well-known member
No I understand that you're giving me your best rendering of these passages and how they inform the doctrine of baptism in you view.
Fair enough. There are a couple of images that John the Baptist evokes when he sees Christ and says "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." We immediately pick up on the reference to the Paschal lamb. With respect to the specific words "who takes away the sins of the world" I think most of us miss a second reference which is to the azazel goat. As you remember on the day of atonement the high priest places his hands on the azazel goat and sends him out into the wilderness caring the sins of the people. As you reflect on the baptism of Jesus where does Jesus immediately go upon being baptized? He goes into the wilderness. What line of descent does John the Baptist come from? He comes from the line of Aaron. Therefore, as John placed his hands upon Jesus to baptize him, like the high priest of old, John transfer the sins of all mankind, for all of time, on the Jesus, who carries them out into the wilderness, and to carry the sins of all mankind from the Jordan River to the cross, through the course of his entire ministry. So where we are baptized for the remission of our sins, Jesus was baptized for the reception of our sins. So to answer your question, that's what Jesus baptism has to do with our baptism. Baptism is the door through which sin passes from us to Jesus, and ultimately to the cross. Our baptism and Jesus baptism are exactly the same door we just stand on different sides. I know this is likely to lead to more questions and discussion and if you want to pursue it further that's fine.
It was just a long answer so now that I know you really wanted it, there it is.
Indeed this is my view.
That is probably a good idea so I'll end here and address the other items and additional posts.
robycop3
Well-known member
From Strong's:
- in Greek writings, an interpreter of oracles or of other hidden things
- one who, moved by the Spirit of God and hence his organ or spokesman, solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration, especially concerning future events, and in particular such as relate to the cause and kingdom of God and to human salvation
- Poets
No prob.
I had no doubt, & I have none now that, had I died before I could be baptized, I would've been just-as-saved as I am now.
Thistle
Well-known member
I must've read that passage 1000 times before I ever got onto this forum. I could've read it 10,000 more times and it never would've occurred to me to apply the parallelism that you're suggesting. Until I got onto this board and discovered that everyone has been fed this answer. Let me restate that. Until I got onto this board and discovered that many find this argument compelling. As I read the passage in English that would never occur to me. The natural reading of John 3:6 is that it directly answers Nicodemus his question in John 3:4 and there is no intention to parallel John 3:5.
I don't think I'm interested in arguing against that, but I neither do I think you brings us to your conclusion.
That's a bit esoteric as pertains what we have immediately before us. My point is that in the same way that weddings turn bachelors into husbands, baptism turns the dead in sin into the alive in Christ. And before you object, I mean this in the sense of occasion, not in the sense of power, nor grounds. So Ephesians 2:8, 9 tells us that "we are saved by grace, through faith" and Colossians 2:12 tells us that we are saved "in baptism." And Colossians 2:12 further clarifies that it is "faith in the working of God." Therefore God is the one who saves not water. All things are within the prerogative of God and he has chosen in his prerogative to use his salvific power in the moment of baptism.
To my mind this one, of course, is perhaps the easiest of all and needs no extensive explication.
"having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." - Colossians 2:12 NASB95
... could you please list all the Scriptures that state that Baptism is only a symbol... and only a proclaimation of one's salvation? That Baptism only results in a wet sinner? Is this YOUR personal feeling or what the Bible states?
See post 1005
.
Thistle
Well-known member
Does your preacher interpret the Bible or not? "an interpreter of oracles." In any case, I gave you right out of Strongs the definition that prove my point above apparently you ignored it.
God bless you.
robycop3
Well-known member
It's there from clear implication, when Jesus tells some to "go & be baptized". And there's the repentant thief on the cross who couldn't be baptized, but Jesus saved him because of his belief. (Please don't cite the beyond-lame excuse that the Holy Spirit hadn't come yet.)
robycop3
Well-known member
Thistle
Well-known member
"The oracles of God" is an alternative name for the Scriptures.
Robycop3
Here's what I posted to you:
Josiah said:
.... so you do NOT "know".....
... so you have not one Scripture that says what you do on this.....
See post 1005
.
robycop3
Well-known member
We all interpret Scripture according to the degree of wisdom God has given each of us.
robycop3
Well-known member
Nupe. But I know what Scripture implies. Scripture doesn't say "Holy Trinity" at all, but we know of it by clear implication. Same for the meaning of baptism.
Thistle
Well-known member
So according to the Strongs definition that you posted above when we share that interpretation we are prophesying.