All I have ever heard in my Pentecostal life is that the purpose of baptism is the forgiveness of sins. I do not doubt that baptism involves the forgiveness of sins, but I think it is more proper to understand forgiveness as the consequence of the primary purpose of baptism: to unify us with Christ. Romans 6:1-6 and Galatians 3:27 are key texts:
What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? 6:2 Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 6:3 Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life. 6:5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection. 6:6 We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. (Rom 6:1-6)
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:27)
According to Paul, when we are baptized in Jesus’ name we are clothed with Christ. We are baptized into Him, not merely unto Him. This union Paul describes appears to be a legal union. When we are baptized into Christ we join ourselves to Him so that what He accomplished spiritually on our behalf can be legally credited to us as if we had done it ourselves. When we are baptized into Christ we die to sin just as He died to sin; when we are baptized into Christ our old man is buried with Him; when we are baptized into Christ we are raised with Christ to newness of resurrection life (Notice how baptism is connected with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. This is in contradistinction to our normal way of explaining salvation wherein we die at repentance, are buried by baptism, and rise to new life in Spirit baptism. According to Paul baptism does all three.) Baptism allows for Christ’s victory over sin to be accounted to us as if it were our own. Understood in such a fashion it is obvious why Scripture says baptism if for the forgiveness of sins. It is the natural byproduct of this spiritual-legal transaction. To be dead to sin and experience new life in Christ is to be forgiven. So while forgiveness is definitely a purpose of baptism, it seems to be secondary in effect. It is a consequence of our union with Christ.
As a side point, is anyone willing to take a stab at explaining the relationship between the forgiveness we receive when we repent of our sins, and the forgiveness we receive when we are united to Christ through baptism?
Thinking to Believe 
December 11, 2006 at 9:08 am
Great questions on baptism! I have long thought that the meaning of baptism is much greater than we have commonly taught. We are guilty of reductionism on this point.
First, let me say that I agree with you. Baptism is a symbol of our being united with Jesus Christ. Union with Christ really is the great them of Paul’s doctrine of the Christian’s salvation and baptism is the picture of this reality. In baptism, the Christian is saying that the death of Jesus is his/her death, and that the life of Jesus is his/her life. It is accepting the judgment of God upon Jesus as judgment for your own sins. That’s why baptism is really pointless if the person doesn’t know what is going on to some degree, which brings me to my next point.
Second, baptism is the baptism of believers. I wonder if what is going on in Romans 10:9-11 is perhaps what is to happen at baptism-I think so and I’ve heard some of my baptist professors claim this.
Third, baptism is really the first obedient act of a disciple after turning to God (repentance) (Mt. 28:19). In other words, baptism is the “rite” which takes one from being a follower of flesh/world/devil to being a follower of Jesus Christ.
Forgiveness is a part of the package but it is more than that!
I have other questions about baptism such as this:
(1) is baptism itself in reality a regenerating act, or is it a picture/symbol/sign of it? and;
(2) is that a biblical disctinction; and can we make it without denigrating baptism or loosening our doctrine?
(3) Exactly, the question you stated: what is the relationship of forgiveness at repentance to forgiveness at baptism? I’ll admit that I have no idea and I also would go further and ask: how can we properly distinguish between the “salvific significance” of repentance, baptism, and infilling of the Spirit? And when does regeneration actually occur?
In Christ!
Chad
LikeLike
December 12, 2006 at 12:21 am
I will take a stab. Some of these questions I pondered and tried to make since of a long time ago. I can remember fitting the “pieces” of the puzzle together in a logical conclusion. This conclusion led me to embrace a theology outside of traditional Armenianism and/or Calvinism and also destroys the proof-text used by Universalist. I call the doctrine abdication and I will try to explain it as simply as possible, and maybe we can have a larger discussion on the subject.
Basically, after reading text, such as Jonh 1:29 which states that Jesus “takes away the sin (SINGULAR) of the world.” And 2Corinthians 4:19 “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” Also 1John 2:2 lets us know that Jesus became a propitiation (appeasement for God’s anger towards sin) for the whole world.
So we have these three verses that teaches that Jesus’ has taken away sin, reconciled, and appeased God’s anger for the WHOLE WORLD.
So, how does God himself get out of being a Universalist, if what these three verses teach are true? We find that God abdicated his responsibility to judge the world through his other mode of existence as Jesus Christ. Thus God could legally forgive the world of their sin (He makes it rain on the Just and unjust), and yet still not allow people to experience the full benefits of salvation outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ. Verses that show God abdicated the responsibility of judgment to Jesus Christ can be found at:
JUDGMENT GIVEN TO CHRIST
John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
In the end, it can be proved biblically that forgiveness of sin does not start at Baptism, nor does it start at faith. It starts at the Cross. Once one puts it into that perspective we must conclude that both faith and baptism are the means to make that forgiveness personal. If faith is the statement then baptism is the seal.
Coral J. Cook III
LikeLike
December 12, 2006 at 10:28 am
What is the relationship of forgiveness at repentance to forgiveness at baptism? Great question, and one that I have been trying to answer since 1997, to be exact. Nobody has ever been able to give me a satisfactory answer on that question, not even Dr. Segraves. In fact, the last time I posed that question to him, he response to me was, “I’m not prepared to answer that.” To quote David Bernard, “If a person is completely justified today without water baptism being involved whatsoever, then in what meaningful sense does the person still have sins that need to be remitted?” In other words, if sins are forgiven at justification, which occurs at initial faith, then in what meaningful sense does a person still have sins that need to be remitted at water baptism? Both views cannot be right. I’m leaning towards the position that sins are remitted at initial faith/repentance=justification, and that water baptism is more of an outward and visible sign of our repentance. For example, on the Day of Pentecost, when Peter’s hearers responded to his preaching by submitting to water baptism in Jesus’ name; their response was an outward and visible sign that they had “thought again” or repented about Jesus Christ being the promised Messiah. Prior to Peter’s preaching, they had rejected the belief that Jesus Christ was God’s promised Messiah, and therefore, refused to publicly identify with Him. However, after Peter’s preaching, they repented or had a change of mind about Him being the Messiah, and as a consequence, they were willing to publicly identify with Him by submitting to baptism in His name.
John
LikeLike
December 12, 2006 at 10:43 am
I have long held that the primary function of water baptism is a way of becoming Christ-like, or taking on the idenity of Christ, and to take on Christ–in some sense. I also think the baptism is done because of Christ’s imperative command in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). I have been authoring a book for some time. Therein, I list a few reasons for water baptism:
1. Enter Into The Kingdom (John 3:5).
2. The blood of Christ washes away our sin (Acts 22:16).
3. We receive remission of our sins (Acts 2:38).
4. We take on the nature of Christ (Galatians 3:27).
5. We are buried with Him in the likeness of His death (Colossians 2:12) and thereby are identified with Christ.
I think Bernard would say that the entire process of justification–God declaring and man becoming–brings genuine remission, not just one element.
“Every person whose conversion is recorded in the New Testament was baptized.” “It was instituted by Christ himself who was baptized by John the Baptist. In the writings of Paul, it represents the believer’s union with Christ through participation in his death and Resurrection (Rom. 6:4), and it is efficacious in cleansing from sins (1 Cor. 6:11).”
Baptism is a very big part of the New Testament story; it is not just an ordinance or an option after salvation. In fact, it is part of our obedience by faith in Christ and it is an act of obedience to the direct commands of Christ and His disciples.
Baptism does not save anyone in and of itself. This belief is called baptismal regeneration; it is not the position of Pentecostal theology. Roman Catholics traditionally hold to this view and assert that grace is conferred at the act of baptism.
Scholars (e.g. Wayne Grudem) realize and know that baptism is a command and needful, yet they reject it as being essential. It is indeed a mystery how one can see baptism as a command, needful, and a method of identifying with Christ yet deny its essentiality.
LikeLike
December 14, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Chad,
I would go further than saying “baptism is a symbol of our being united with Jesus Christ” and “a picture of reality.” I would say baptism brings about the reality of our union with Jesus Christ. The elements of baptism (water, formula, immersion) are symbolic, but when the baptizee puts his faith in Jesus something spiritual happens.
While I fully support helping people better understand why they are being baptized before they are baptized, I don’t think an insufficient understanding of the reason and importance of baptism makes baptism “really pointless.” According to Paul in Romans 6, the Romans did not fully understand the importance and spiritual implications of baptism, and yet they received the spiritual realities conferred through the rite of baptism nonetheless. Their problem was that their ignorance was preventing them from living those realities out in day-to-day life. So Paul instructed them about what happened to them when they were baptized (unbeknownst to them), and how they should respond.
For your questions, from what you wrote it seems you already lean in one direction regarding (1).
In regards to (2), no and yes. No, I don’t think it is a Biblical distinction. That said, one could view baptism as symbolic and yet fully maintain the doctrine of Jesus’ name baptism.
In regards to (3), I think our inability to provide an adequate explanation for what the distinction is between the forgiveness we receive when we repent and are justified by faith, and the forgiveness we receive in baptism is a weakness of Oneness soteriology.
How can we distinguish between the salvific importance of repentance, baptism, and receiving the Spirit? Good question. I think the short of it is that it’s a package deal. We should not view salvation as a step-by-step progress report. But that leads us to ask what is the spiritual/eternal status of someone who has repented and been baptized, but not received the Spirit yet (like the Samaritans). If they died before Peter and John laid hands on them to receive the Spirit, would they have been saved? That’s a question the text does not address.
Something similar could be said of your question about the timing of regeneration. Jesus seems to have combined baptism and the infilling of the Spirit with regeneration. Taking the Samaritans again, were they half regenerated when they were baptized, and then fully regenerated when they received the Spirit? Seems silly, but I don’t know.
Jason
LikeLike
December 14, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Coral,
I like your conclusion, but I’m not so sure about what precedes it.
Jason
LikeLike
December 21, 2006 at 7:00 am
Jason,
I agree with you that the reality of baptism, i.e. union with Christ, can be had without “sufficient understanding.” In other words, a person can experience a reality in God without full understanding of it. Indeed we all do that all the time!
When I said: “baptism is really pointless if the person doesn’t know what is going on to some degree” I was aiming at situations in which people are told they need to be baptized and are hurried with no real explanation about why; or situations in which no one attempts to ascertain the sincerity of the person being baptized. I am not saying that in such situations, if the person has real faith, that the reality does not come about. What I mean to say is that it is good, and a better way of doing things, to slow down long enough to explain to the individuals being baptized, what happens in baptism and its relationship to faith in Jesus, and then the meaning of it for them and for their life.
As far as baptismal regeneration goes, I think we all need to do a little study on that. If I’m not mistaken the view of baptismal regeneration is often thought to mean that regardless of faith, or not, baptism is efficacious. Thus, infants can be baptized! I don’t know but we ought to check that out. I know that you are not using it in that manner, but before you, or any of us, use the term too much we should double check its historic associations.
LikeLike
December 21, 2006 at 7:42 am
Jason,
I enjoyed your comments to John about the problem in understanding forgiveness at baptism / repentance as being a tension within the Bible. Many, many doctrinal controversies and debates about interpretation are precisely this problem.
And I think you are right that we cannot throw one group of passages out over the other.
Another good question, is this: can we work together and disagree on the precise meaning and reality of baptism? So that if we all baptize believers in the name of Jesus Christ yet disaggree on the import and significance of it can we work together realizing that the problem is one of differing interpretations and not that someone is a liar? I have heard many doctrinal issues raised to the highest and most severe levels of controversy, debate, and frothy argumentation by someone making the accusation of lying. Now, it does depend on the issue! Nevertheless, can we work together and disagree on some of these issues? I think this is an area which my generation of Pentecostals / Apostolics will have to address if we are to see unity among the churches and cooperate to work for God. I think it will become all the more urgent as more Pentecostals go to school, become educated and acquainted with the issues across the whole range of learning, but especialy theology and biblical studies.
In Christ,
Chad
LikeLike
December 22, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Jason: I think reasons 3 and 4 are synonymous.
James: I believe that your [possible] presuppositional position on “remission” itself causes causes you to view those points as synonymous. I believe that they are both distinct, in some sense. Even if it is a metaphorical distinction of some sort. The idea of “remission” literally involves discharging of something whereas putting “on Christ” refers to a separate spiritual idea of when we are baptized we become more like Him.
Jason: Bernard sees justification as occurring through the new birth (baptism and infilling of the Spirit), not before it as do I, Segraves, and John.
James: I understand Bernard’s view. I basically said the same thing. I believe that Justification occurs before any baptism. I believe that Justification refers, naturally, to the declaring of an individual as righteous. God declares us just. How else could the Spirt of God enter Cornelius (c.f. Acts 10:1-46) prior to water baptism?
Jason: The question is not should we be baptized, but rather what baptism accomplishes. Is it symbolic only, or are real spiritual realities conferred on the baptizee when they place their faith in Christ in the water?
James: Jason, as you well know, this theological conundrum enjoys much historicity. I believe that baptism requires a synergistic effort and that it means both–symbolic and that genuine spiritual realities are conferred at water baptism. Symbolicly, we are buried with Him in the likeness of His death (Colossians 2:12) and are identified with Christ at baptism. Literally, we are now in the “Kingdom of God”; have a record of sin with a penalty of death, remitted or discharged.
This is all I have time for now. I will reply to your post further later on. Thanks.
LikeLike
December 23, 2006 at 12:33 am
Jason: I recognize that there are differences between the Oneness and Catholic view of baptism, but I would consider the Oneness view of baptism to be baptismal regeneration. Unless I am mistaken, the essence of baptismal regeneration is the idea that baptism accomplishes regeneration. Oneness believers hold to that notion. We do not believe regeneration comes without faith, but we believe regeneration comes via baptism.
James: I would say that your conclusions are non-sequitur for at least four reasons.
1. Baptismal regeneration (BR hereon) rests upon the idea of grace being conferred, regardless of faith, at water baptism. This is why padeobaptists continue to baptize infants, as you know. Oneness soteriology never speaks of grace being conferred at water baptism. Unless you can prove me wrong I believe that those are some very irreconcilable differences. I think Benedict would say so anyways. Then again, he has been vocal lately. lol
2. There may be Oneness believers believing in BR, but that does not make it a tenet of Oneness soteriology. There are many divergent views (from established orthodoxy) in most any organized group of believers whether they be a sect of Christianity or a faction of Islam.
3. You said, “we believe regeneration comes via baptism.” Is this a personal conclusion or is there a reference you could point me to? At this point, I do not think I have read where a UPC author explicitly asserts that baptism is the vehicle of regeneration, alone. If so, then that is traditional BR.
4. BR and baptism in Oneness soteriology contain separate and individual concepts apart from each other. For example, baptism, in my view, is submission to the plan of God. This is something that every Christian would never delay or refuse. BR, on the other hand, is passive. BR expects grace to be conferred at the consummation of the baptismal ceremony. It doesn’t really require faith, just the act itself. Brings new meaning to “holy water” I’m sure.
Jason: How can someone regard baptism as needful yet not essential to salvation? Easy. Communion is needful, and yet it is not essential to our salvation. Scholars see the two in a similar light. They are commands that we are to obey, but obeying them does not bring us salvation. They see initial faith as that which brings salvation.
James: Again, I would say non-sequitur. How can one “need” something yet receiving what is needed is not important? When HP tells me that the power cord is needed to operate my laptop then I would logically apply a severe degree of importance to the power cord. Because, if I fail in this then my laptop will not be operable. In other words, I do not think we can make a logical distinction between needing to be baptized and baptism essentiality, as it regards baptism alone.
Second, I believe your view is an anachronism. I cannot substantiate this presently, but I believe the biblical writers as well as many trinitarian fathers placed very strong opinions about baptism and a good amount held to BR. I believe that the idea of baptism being optional is anachronistic to the normative view.
LikeLike
March 24, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Chad,
I agree that we should properly explain to people what baptism is for prior to their baptism. I think the pre-understanding of this matter can make baptism all the more meaningful to the believer.
I accept your caution about the historic meaning of the term “baptismal regeneration.” Off-hand, I’m not sure. But I wouldn’t know of a better term to describe our view of baptism. Do you have any?
As to your question about those who have different understandings about the purpose of baptism working together (and by extension, fellowshipping one another), I think we can. Actually, we already do. The merging of the two groups into the UPC brought with it two different views on the purpose of baptism. We fellowshipped the difference then, and we still do to this day.
What matters most is that we baptize in Jesus’ name, not why we do so. That is only of secondary importance. Obedience is of primary importance.
If baptism actually does confer God’s forgiveness to our account (by applying the benefits of the atonement to our lives in an act of faith), and yet my understanding of the purpose of baptism denies this, the fact remains that my baptism will still confer God’s forgiveness to my account. The efficaciousness of baptism will not be hindered by my misunderstanding.
Having said all of that, our ability to fellowship the difference in understanding lies in the character of us all. Hard-nosed hardliners on either side could make the issue out to have more importance than it actually does, resulting in a split over the issue.
Jason
LikeLike
April 3, 2007 at 11:36 pm
(Jason) In regards to your comments about Oneness believers not being baptismal regenerationists, let me respond accordingly:
(1) I don’t see how my statement is non-sequitar. How does the conclusion not follow from the premises? If anything, it might be a misnomer, but that all depends on how one defines “baptismal regeneration.” If the term is limited to a description of the Catholic view of baptism, then no, we don’t fit the bill. But I think that is too limited a use of the term. According to the meaning of the term itself, apart from any historical baggage or connotations, we are baptismal regenerationists because we believe baptism is necessary for regeneration. There is nothing in the meaning of those words that says anything about the relationship of faith to baptism, or the age of the baptizee. You are importing those ideas from other sources.
(James) I believe BR has considerable definable exclusivity. I could be wrong, but I feel confident that the “historical baggage” is actually what has defined the term (not the individual words). I wonder which source would actually define it much differently? I think when we consult certain sources we would find the definition of BR to be as I have previously defined it and being the most consistent one, amongst the plethora. Any meaning you may add to that term then would be a neo-baptismal regeneration–possibly a secondary Pentecostal view. I would say then that the traditonal definition of BR is not the view of even the most inane of Oneness believers, especially the more astute.
(Jason) (3) I didn’t realize this was a debatable point. To me, it’s common knowledge that the vast majority of Oneness believers understand baptism to be part of regeneration. We have to be born again of the water and the Spirit (Jn 3:3, 5). We are saved by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Spirit (Tit 3:5). Those passages seem to connect baptism with being born again, as though it were the vehicle. Now if all you mean to say is that baptism is not the only vehicle—the Spirit being the “second leg”—then I agree. Otherwise, not.
(James) It is my experience, albeit limited I am sure, that most Oneness do not believe this. I may attempt a poll of this very thing soon though.
Also, I believe that traditional BR would make baptism the point of regeneration, as opposed to a “part of regeneration.” Correct me if I am wrong here. I don’t think your conclusions are accurate concerning baptism being “the” vehicle. I do not think that you could find, very many at least. a Oneness author who makes water baptism “the” vehicle of regeneration. Some might say that it is on board but not the driving force. I think when you said “connect” you may be more accurate, as opposed to “the vehicle.” Nevertheless, we do agree then.
(Jason) In regards to the needfulness vs. the essentiality of baptism, let me say the following. Again, I don’t think what I said was non-sequitar. First, your definition of “need” seems to be “absolutely required.” I don’t buy that. When I say “I need to go to the store,” no one understands me to mean that I absolutely must go or else….” They understand it to mean that I should, and intend to go to the store.
(James) I think we have a logical fallacy then, or at least the grammar, here, is not congruent. You say that you “need to go to the store” and yet that does not mean you “absolutely must go”. However, the understandng of “they” is that you “should” and “intend” to go. Should and intend have some very absolute meanings. Should is something that requires either future action or refers to an action, past, that should have occured. Very clearly then should means you “should”! Also, if you intend then you will. Our intentions and “shoulds” should be aligned with the commands of Christ. When Christ said that we “should” walk in love (1 John 1:6) He meant it quite imperatively, because love is also a sign of a disciple and an expression of God’s nature within us. If neither of these exists we are none of His.
When this is contrasted with Matthew 28:19 we see the commands of Christ concerning baptism. This verse alone then should qualify our shoulds sufficiently.
(Jason) Likewise, when I speak of the needfulness of baptism, and I am talking about the “oughtfulness” of baptism.
(James) I may be playing semantics here, but anything that “ought” to be done is a natural expectation and/or an obligation. Ought is synonomous with need, duty, and obligation. Ockman’s Razor?
(Jason) Clearly many believers believe one ought to be baptized as a follower of Christ in obedience to His command, and yet don’t believe that baptism has anything to do with a change in their spiritual state.
(James) I must disagree completely. I would also say that if anyone feels that water baptism does nothing for their “spiritual state” then they are mistaken. How else does baptism effect oneself (excluding public witness)? Peter made it plain that baptism is like a spiritual cleansing (thesis)contrasted with the washing of filth from the human person (the antithesis)(1 Peter 3:20-21). It is also a part of spiritually identifying with Christ (Romans 6:1-4).
(Jason) I compared this to our view of communion. I think I can safely say that both you and I believe we need to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as He commanded, and yet I don’t think either of us would say that one is not saved until they have done so, or that they will go to hell if they have never done so. If we can believe we need to celebrate the Lord’s Supper without believing it to be salvific, then why can’t others see baptism as needful, without being essential to salvation? And a good number of those who hold to this view due not treat baptism as optional, any more than you and I think of communion as optional. It’s something we are to do, and we do it. Where we differ is in how we think about what it is that we are doing. Is what we are doing (being baptized) essential to our salvation, or not? That’s the difference.
(James) Herein lies the rub, and the root argument of your view, of which I believe to be ultimately emotive. IMHO.
I believe that the Lord’s Supper argument is not congruent with the argument of Water Baptism. The Lord’s Supper is never situated in any soteriological passages, nor is it related to or used with terms such as “saved”, “save” or “save us” etc. The Lord’s Supper is reactionary and continued in the life of a believer. Water baptism is not to be done “in remembrance” of Christ either; conversely, it is a baptism identifying us with Christ. Baptism is connected with spiritual washings as well, and not something only to be remembered. There are a few incongruencies there but, that is basically why I do not see baptism as an ordinance, as do many scholars.
From a practical view though, I do see baptism as being essential. If nothing else, based upon the fact that we cannot belligerently or willingly disobey any commands of Christ and expect continued salvation. This is the ultimate but it is nonetheless true in my estimation. See 1 John 2:3-4, 3:22-24.
LikeLike
April 18, 2007 at 8:27 pm
James,
You may be right. Maybe that term, through historical usage, belongs exclusively to the Catholics (I think the Greek Orthodox could be included here as well). Then what? What would you call the Oneness Pentecostal view that baptism regenerates us other than “baptismal regeneration”? I admit that I don’t recall any UPC publications using the term “baptismal regeneration,” but frankly, I don’t recall them ever trying to name the view we hold to. Which brings me to my next point.
It is my understanding that there is a small element within the UPC that is a carryover from one of the organizations involved in the merger of 1945, that does not connect baptism with regeneration. But for the most part, what I am calling baptismal regeneration seems to be a staple doctrine of the movement. We believe that being born again (regenerated) involves both water and Spirit baptism. Water baptism and Spirit baptism, together, accomplish regeneration.
As far as should, ought, and need, I don’t know what to say. I’m just trying to explain their view. They think baptism is normative for believers, but do not believe it is necessary to be saved.
I said, “Clearly many believers believe one ought to be baptized as a follower of Christ in obedience to His command, and yet don’t believe that baptism has anything to do with a change in their spiritual state.” You replied, “I must disagree completely. I would also say that if anyone feels that water baptism does nothing for their “spiritual state” then they are mistaken.” Do you think I am talking about Oneness believers? I am not. I am talking about most non-Catholic, non-Oneness believers. They see baptism as a public confession of faith; a mere symbol of spiritual realities already received at the point of initial faith. You’re not disputing that, are you?
I tried showing how Evangelicals/Protestants view baptism by finding some Biblical practice that we view in a similar way. I chose communion. You responded, “Herein lies the rub, and the root argument of your view, of which I believe to be ultimately emotive.” I’m confused at this point. First, it seems like you think I am arguing on behalf of the Evangelical view. I am not. I am trying to explain what they believe (not what I believe), and how they view baptism. Second, I don’t see how the comparison deserves to be called emotive. What was emotive about it? I am at a loss to understand what you mean by that.
Jason
LikeLike
November 3, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Hi,
First repent. From what?
For the forgiveness of sins would be in relation to what I am repenting from. Could be so many things for each person who wants to repent.
If a person is not repenting then the person should not get baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
As far as primary that is a long shot question.
Acts 2:38 is the only revelation on how to enter into a covenant with God to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit which is the gift of eternal life/immortality by this gift.
Charles
LikeLike
December 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Baptism involves the mystery of water. In the Bible water has a strong link to regeneration, creation and renewal. Waters covered the earth in the beginning, and the Spirit was with the waters. When the Jews left Egypt, waters enclosed them from all sides and the Spirit was there in the form of a cloud.
When a person has repented and really believes in Christ, he can be baptized. The baptism should be in the name of Jesus Christ (the name given in salvation). During baptism, the old flesh and blood of Adam is disconnected from the spirtual realm. The new and glorious flesh of Christ, which according to Paul constitutes a spiritual body (made from Word), is put on.
Without baptism, a believer would risk rising again on the day of Judgement with his or her old corrupt Adamic flesh. So baptism is not just some legal transaction or a mandatory ritual. It literally connects a human being with the flesh and blood of Christ in heaven, and cuts the blood line of sin that goes back to Adam (and is under control of the serpent).
LikeLike
June 16, 2013 at 6:21 am
You do not recieve forgiveness at initial repentance. You prepare yourself as a dead person and are buried for the forgiveness of sins that comes only through the name Jesus in Baptism where your slate is wiped clean and then rise to walk in newness of life. The male Jewish child was named and circumcized the eighth day after his birth.(Luke 1:59) Now all Christians are Justified and sanctified at Baptism in Jesus name and through the spirit(1st.Cor.6:11) where you also take on the name of the bride groom.
LikeLike