Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Validity of Baptism Message-ID: Date: 30 Nov 90 09:01:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Lines: 301 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) writes: > >Am I hearing you right in saying that baptism is a ticket into >heaven? That regardless of a persons condition and position with >Christ, that by act of baptism the person is justified? That by >simply quoting some Scripture and splashing some water, that faith is >produced and sins are washed away? 1. I did not say that baptism justifies. All people are justified by Christ's life, death and resurrection. We are all offered this justification as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8,9) Christian receive justification by faith. Baptism is not the ticket to heaven, it is a means of receiving the ticket, which is offered as a free gift. 2. I do believe it is possible for a person to reject his or her baptism. Some baptized infants do this (at what point in life we don't know) and some baptized as adults do this. I suppose if you baptize someone who willfully rejects it, then they do not receive the benefits of baptism. That one can resist the Spirit is plainly shown in Stephen's words to the Jews: "You always resist the Holy Spirit." >Even the verses you mentioned above don't state that. I'm not sure what you mean by 'that'. I referred to those passages to show that baptism has the power to wash sins away and work regeneration. That is clear from the passages. How it does this is indeed a matter of theology. I presume you would agree that this power does not derive from the water. > Have you >differentiated between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water >baptism? The church confesses "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" (Nicene Creed) Christians practice only one baptism, baptism with water "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" In this baptism we are born of water and the Spirit [see below], we are 'born again' >Doesn't your assertion that baptism saves put it on the same >plain as works? Something that man can do to enter heaven aside from >accepting the atoning work of Jesus? I have been very consistent in saying that baptism is God's work, not ours. See my comments on Colossians 2:11, below. >I am quite sure that I, a born again Bible believing Christian who has >baptised others, could take an ordinary non-believer and soak him in >the ocean saying a few verses over him and come up with a perfectly >wet sinner. I pray that pride in being born again does not make you into a Pharisee. I caution you that being born again is the result of God's work, it is no work of yours. I furthermore pray that you will understand that God can take an unbelieving baby, sprinkle a little water on him, say a few words, and make a christian out of him. He might even have a better chance with the baby than with a heart-hardened adult. >I agree with you on a lot of things, David, but this one I am having >trouble with. > >Gary Hipp Sorry to trouble you. Read some more: In article farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >We need to stop and think how our theology >reflects back on the character of God. One may ask, what kind of God is it >which would condemn an infant because the negligence of perents or because >of where the baby was born. Even if we believe that an infant which received >no baptism can be saved, doesn't resolve the problem, because it was clearly >indicated that baptism will provide an advantage to the infant. Meaning, >that if there is two infants, one which received baptism and the other >didn't, the one which did would be better off. A god which would set such >laws would be no God at all. Infants can't sin and they are not responsible >for their actions. They have no control over what their parents are, or what >their parents will do or not do. > You are setting yourself up as a judge over God here. I don't recommend it! By baptizing infants we confess, in particular, that they need God's salvation. Apart from God's baptism, they stand as condemned sinners. Here are a few scripture passages on that topic: Psalm 51:5: "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, from the time my mother conceived me." Genesis 8:21: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." John 3:5: "Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You must not be surprised at my saying, 'you must be born again.' This last passage, connecting baptism (born of water) with being 'born again' is interesting. It is very helpful to compare this with Ephesians 2, which speaks of our being 'dead in our transgressions and sins' before conversion, but being 'made alive in Christ' after. Those who have only experienced physical birth are still 'dead' in their transgressions in sins; they are not yet born of the Spirit. Christ is very clear on this point. But in Baptism, even infants are 'born of the Spirit', or born again. That this is true is apparent in the many Christians whose doctrine and lives have clearly shown that they have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Reference was made in an earlier article to the Council of Carthage. The question before this council was not whether or not to baptize infants. It was whether infants could be baptized before the eighth day. The reference to circumcision is clear, as is the obvious danger of legalism. But the Council managed to avoid legalism: they declared that Baptism should be denied to no human being from birth. Other items of history that have been previously posted simply show that infant baptism was the practice in the church from its infancy. If this had not been the case, there would have been a glorious fight over whether or not to baptize infants. But we have no history of such an event. [My source on this is Kretzman's 'Popular Commentary', New Testament, Vol I, p. 162-163. I frankly don't know where to look for 'original sources' regarding the Council of Carthage, nor to I have time to find them.] >We have no recorded child baptism in the Bible at all. This is for a very >good reason. For baptism is unto repentance, and infants have nothing to >repent of. > >Matt 3:8 >"Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance:" > >Matt 3:11 >"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance..." None of these make repentance a prior requirement for baptism. Indeed repentance is a result of baptism -- which does not say that it cannot happen as a result of faith, but prior to baptism. >One must be of an age of accountability before baptism becomes a >requirement. This is not found anywhere in the Scripture. On the other hand, Baptism is clearly connected with circumcision in Colossians 2:11:12: "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." This is a wonderful passage, because it not only connects baptism with circumcision, which was performed on eight day old males, but it tells us that Baptism replaces circumcision, or in fact *is* circumcision, as a means of making a person a part of God's covenant. It further tells us that it is Christ who baptizes us, not just men, so that Baptism is no empty sign but has the power of God behind it. Finally it also describes Baptism (and/or conversion) as a resurrection, consistent with the rest of scripture. (See John 3:5, above) What is the 'first resurrection' of Rev. 20? A rapture? No! It is Baptism, or conversion. "Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God (cf. 1 Peter 2:9) and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." Rev. 20:6 These are strong words of comfort to people under persecution! You are reigning with Christ, and will continue to do so even after you die, until the Day of Judgement comes when you will inherit the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world (Matt 25:34). > Baptism for the thief is in fact a requirement for his >salvation. The idea that the thief went to heaven is false. The scripture >tells us that Jesus didn't go to "heaven". This is what Jesus said following >the resurrection: > >John 20:16 >"Jesus answered her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: >but go to my bretheren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your >Father; and to my God, and your God." Jesus had not yet ascended bodily to his Father in heaven. But where do you think his imperishable, fully divine spirit went between his death and the resurrection of his body? Do you think he spent three days in hell? But Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43. You seem to have a very strange idea of what 'paradise' means. I admit that the business of what happened to Jesus between his death and resurrection is difficult, especially his 'preaching to the spirits in prison' (1 Peter 3:19). But you are the first person who has told me that the thief was not saved. Frankly I do not think you are coming close to understanding the Scriptures. The best I can make out of this, is that after his death, his imperishable Spirit went to heaven (with the soul of the thief). He was made alive by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18) and somehow also raised himself from the dead (John 2:19 : "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.", then descended bodily into hell and preached to the spirits in prison. This was a preaching of judgement and victory, not the saving Gospel (there are no 'second chances' after death, for salvation). He then appeared to the women at the tomb, and later to Peter and the other disciples. Later he was seen bodily ascending into heaven -- giving us assurance that we too, will someday be bodily resurrected and live with new, transformed bodies with God on a new earth for eternity. > >I believe that you would expect to find the thief where Jesus went "today". >Peter tells us where Jesus went following his death and before his >resurrection: > >I Peter 3:18-19 >"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that >that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but >quickened by the Spirit:" >"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;" > >I Peter 4:6 >"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that >they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to >God in the spirit." > >The thief went into the spirit world to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. I admit, this almost had me stumped. But it is a mistake to connect 1 Peter 4:6 with 1 Peter 3:19. First, he says, 'the gospel *was* preached even to those who *are* now dead'. It does not say they were physically dead when they heard the gospel. If we look at the context of 4:6 we see that Peter is talking to Christians, urging them to lead sanctified lives in an evil world. He comforts them with the message that the immoral unbelievers around them will be judged, they 'will have to give an account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead'. But perhaps they have doubts about their faith and their savior, for some who believed in the promise of eternal life have died. So he tells them that these Christians received the gospel so that they 'might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.' Unless the Day of Judgement comes first, we all die, we are 'judged according to men in regard to the body'. But our spirits will live with God in heaven. On Judgement day our spirits will be reunited with our new bodies, which will be our own flesh (Job 19) but transformed and perfect, just as Christ's resurrected body was. > >I Corint 15:29 >"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise >not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" Paul here uses one kind of erroneous practice to make fun of false doctrine concerning Christ's resurrection. Surely it makes more sense to baptize infants, who are physically alive but spiritually dead, than it does to baptize those who are completely dead, and have neglected to make good use of their time of grace. > Our moderator writes: >[By the way, it seems a failure of Christian charity to use the >inflammatory label "teachings of men" for practices that have a >reasonable argument for being Biblical -- even if you don't agree with >the argument. Since rites such as baptism do not seem to be >essentials for salvation, perhaps we should practice the sort of >tolerance suggested in Rom 14: 1-6 towards those who believe they are >called to do things differently than we do. > >--clh] I agree that we should try to be civil to one another. However Romans 14 is about tolerance regarding adiaphora (things indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden by God), not tolerance regarding things clearly taught in Scripture, that is, doctrine. Paul makes this clear in the very same letter, in Romans 16:17-18: "I urge you brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." Sorry for being so long winded. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "Wake, awake, for night is flying," The watchmen on the heights are crying; "Awake Jerusalem, arise!" Midnight hears the welcome voices And at the thrilling cry rejoices: "Oh where are ye, ye virgins wise? The Bridegroom comes, awake! Your lamps with gladness take! Hallelujah! With bridal care Yourselves prepare To meet the Bridegroom who is near." --"Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme" v. 1 --Philipp Nicolai, 1599 --from 'The Lutheran Hymnal', #609. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [Unfortunately the Greek of I Pet 4:6 does not quite suggest the distinction that you are relying on in the English translation. Literally it is simply "the gospel was preached to the dead". There's no "them that are dead", just one word, "dead", whose grammatical case implies "to the". The UBS 2nd edition doesn't show any textual questions in this area, so it looks like a simple mistranslation. --clh]