Ok ... now that we have gotten rid of the riff-raff, let me ask a serious question of you other gents in the thread.

First of all, lets set aside the whole "Faith Only" argument. I don't even want to see that rear its ugly head in this thread. It is obvious that easy-believism is just plain wrong, and it is not what this thread is about.

That having been said ...

Can sincere believers and disciples of Christ who are convinced that baptism is a necessary act for salvation have any agreement with sincere believers and disciples of Christ who believe it is an act of obedience and a sign of a person's inward committment?

My current pastor believes the latter. But before you jump all over him (and me by proxy), know this: He is VERY outspoken against easy-believism, he has said publically (in fact just this past week) that he doubts the salvation of anyone who says they believe but will not be baptized, he believes that we are to be faithful unto death, and he is adamant that baptism should come immediately upon one's accepting Christ by faith, and that immersion is the only valid NT form. But he balks that it is efficacious as an agent of salvation, so he would fall outside of the camp of most of the people who post here. (Unless I am misunderstanding someone somewhere, which is always a possibility ...)

My question is (since I see the points of both sides) is this: does it make a whole lot of difference between someone who believes the Bible says you must be baptized to be saved, and someone who believes the Bible says you must be baptized to obey Christ, if on every other point they appear to agree? Can they accept each other as brothers in Christ who just disagree on this one thing? Is this bringing up what the writer of Hebrews warned against?

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2002

Answers

Good question. Give me a day or two to think about it.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2002

Alright John.....I'm ready to deliver my answers. Your qeustions and/or statements are in parenthesis.

("Can sincere believers and disciples of Christ who are convinced that baptism is a necessary act for salvation have any agreement with sincere believers and disciples of Christ who believe it is an act of obedience and a sign of a person's inward committment?")

There is MUCH we have in common with the Protestant/Evangelical world. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by the term...."have any agreement with." Maybe you could elaborate.

("But he balks that it is efficacious as an agent of salvation")

How can he make the claim that he doubts the salvation of any who are not baptized....and then question the efficacious nature of immersion??? I have yet to read a Scripture concerning baptism that does not speak of it in an efficacious sense.

("My question is (since I see the points of both sides) is this: does it make a whole lot of difference between someone who believes the Bible says you must be baptized to be saved, and someone who believes the Bible says you must be baptized to obey Christ")

There is a dichotomy here John....that I just cannot for the life of me understand. How can one say "You do not need to be baptized to be saved....but you have to be baptized to obey??" Are we to deduce logically then that one can disobey and still be saved??

I guess I'm too dense to understand.....but I'm nust having a hard time making the distinction.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2002

Again John....I think he forces a dichotomy the Scripture simply does not do. His carries more of a tone of "Calvinism" to it....for nowhere (with one exception)....does the Scripture refer to baptism as a "work."

The one place it is referred to as a "work"...Colossians 2:12...it becomes clear....God is the one doing the work....not man.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2002

(I hope I put the issue right and didn't mis-state anyone's positions.)

/me waits for the Saffolding ... oh, wait, he's not here anymore ...

/me relaxes ...

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2002

John,

Isn't it an oxymoron to say one is "baptized to be saved" and "baptized to obey Christ?"

I think in a sense both is wrong statements are wrong. We are baptized into Christ, the water has no efficacy. It is the power of Christ that regenerates us. The actual questions, to me are, can a person be saved without being regenerated, and can we be regenerated with out the water and the spirit, ergo, where does water and spirit meet to make us "born from above?" It is only immersion.

For me I don't have the right to tell someone they are going to Hell. I have the responsibility to teach them the truths of the word. To that I add, if I don't love those who have not been immersed into Christ, and accept them as loved by God, then I will never teach them the truth. My attitude in this regard has allowed me to have a significant impact in bringing people to Jesus through the years.

Having said that, it drives me crazy the many references about baptism in the NT and the fact that many would ignore its part in the plan of salvation.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2002

Now, ya see, THIS is exactly where my last posted question was going to go before I was so rudely interrupted by E. Lee.

Clearly, according to the scriptures, we are saved by God's grace when we commit our faith to Him. And just as clearly, we do not have properly commmitted faith unless we are willing and desiring to obey what He says, part of which is to be baptized. But I am starting to think that it is the OBEDIENCE that is the mark of faith. ALL of it. I am commanded to repent. So I repent. I am commanded to confess His name and my faith in Him before others. So I do. I am commanded to be baptized. So I do. But I am not to stop there.

I am commanded to not sin, to live a holy life. AAAARRRGGGGHHHH! I keep messing up that part. And yet God still sees me in the blood of Jesus. So, also just as clearly, although obedient faith is required of me to enter God's grace, COMPLETE obedience has proven elusive if not impossible! HOW MUCH obedience is required?

Possible answer -- as much as I am currently capable of, given my knowledge, understanding, and moment-by-moment willingness to submit to the guidance of God. NOT that my obedience is what brings the salvation (Paul makes it clear that we are justified the same way that Abraham was, who was "credited with righteousness" before he ever obeyed anything, but because God saw in him a faith that WOULD obey when the time came.)

Other possible answers?

And before you answer that, please read this. This will, I think, answer Danny's question of me in another thread ("What's the point of your question??"). I'm going to be asking a lot of questions and posing a lot of points in these threads in the near future that will sound odd for a person who believes that baptism is part of what we are called to do. I have all my life held classic Restoration beliefs and doctrines. And I am now coming to look at some of them in different ways and ask questions about them I've never asked, much in the spirit of what John has done here.

So, please, if I ask a question that seems to be pointed at making a point, understand that it is not that at all. I'm trying to figure some things out, and may sound odd at times along the way. I may well actually press some points that I don't actually believe, or at least have not become convinced of yet, in order to get you to help me think thru them. Kind of like playing "devil's advocate" with myself, to try to get some things clear. I hope you can all put up with some of that in the effort for understanding.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2002

This is the kind of discussion I wanted to have in here, without being blasted by a thousand pages of "party line" every time the subject was brought up. Still flinching a bit tho, waiting for the other Saffold shoe to drop ...

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2002

I guess I'm still in "defending against Saffold mode", when I wrote, "can we have any agreement with them." For Lee would have jumped at this question and say they are all damned to hell and we must have nothing to do with them. Not in those words precisely, but the intent of his thoughts would be the same.

As far as your question, "Are we to deduce logically then that one can disobey and still be saved??" No, and that is the stand my pastor makes as well, yet he takes the position that we are saved through our faith and not through any works, and places baptism in that category. So you see he is insistent that we must be obedient to be saved, and therefore be baptized, yet it is not the baptism that saves us, but the faith that leads us to obey and be baptized.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2002

John,

I always ask people do be baptized in obedience to Christ's command. The issue is not do they understand everything about the theology of baptism?; but are they willing to do what Christ asks them to do?

The proof-text used in this forum in the past to say one must believe baptism is for the remission of sins for it to be effective is Acts 2:38:

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Immediately after hearing this command, 3,000 people were baptized. I wonder how many of them had a full understanding of the theology of baptism? In addition, if it was necessary for them to be baptized specifically for the remission of sins, or they would not be saved, we must logically deduce that they also had to have full understanding concerning the gift of the Holy Spirit to be saved.

In some circumstances we must accept the fact that some people will obey their way into understanding, rather than understand their way into obedience. The issue is not, do they have all the right theology, but are they willing to follow Christ's leading.

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2002

Barry...you stated concerning the people on the day of Pentecost..."if it was necessary for them to be baptized specifically for the remission of sins" Your statement would hold water (forgive the pun).....IF.....Peter was not VERY CLEAR about the purpose of immersion.

What purpose, other than the remission of sins.....could people on the day of Pentecost have possibly gotten from what Peter stated in 2:38???

I mean....if words mean things....and I believe they do.....how could they have possibly been confused about that???

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2002

Barry Man.....turn off your italics!! :)

-- Anonymous, February 09, 2002

To simplify things, believer's baptism is the time and place (assigned by the Spirit-revealed Word) for receiving the gifts of justification and regeneration. That baptism does not regenerate is clear from 1Peter 3:21. I do not believe for a moment that Paul's "washing of regeneration" is a reference to Christian baptism, but a reference to regeneration itself [which is a sovereign act of God] that just happens to coincide with immersion into Christ as the time and place of reception. Those that teach "baptismal regeneration" are all wet (if you will pardon the pun :) Unlike the "Evangelical" majority, we do not have to do a lot of guessing concerning "when and where" these blessings were received - they are conferred IN baptism. Grant it, there are a few exceptions to this rule in Acts, but the exceptions confirm the rule, not the other way around.

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2002

italics fixed :)

-- Anonymous, February 12, 2002

Danny,

I'm not denying that the Pentecost believers heard clearly what Peter said, nor that they misunderstood. But the underlying premise of baptism is obedience to Jesus Christ. In the NT period this would not have been a question, but the reality that each of us deals with is that people have been baptized, and never been taught the theology behind it. Does that mean that the effect of baptism is null and void because they lacked full understanding? I would say, no.

In addition, my question to all who believe a correct knowledge is essential to baptism being effective is, do they also have to believe in the gift of the Spirit being poured out at baptism? If so, this would mean people who hold to E. Lee's view would not have been scripturally baptized.

I think we put an unbalanced emphasis on remission of sins, if we do not also require that the person believes baptism is for the reception of the Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2002

Barry....you stated..."each of us deals with is that people have been baptized, and never been taught the theology behind it. Does that mean that the effect of baptism is null and void because they lacked full understanding? I would say, no."

And I would agree with you Barry. I have been perfectly happy accepting those immersed in denom. churches who clearly believed they were baptized in obedience to Christ. I do not accept the oft times presented premise...that if you accept the baptism...you accept the doctrine. I once accept the immersion of someone in the Mormon church whose position on the Godhead was as orthodox as anyone on this board....including myself. I'm willing to accept anyone who does something just "because Jesus said." However....before I accept them into membership....and I believe this is quite appropriate.....I MAKE SURE...they understand the churches position on baptism FOR the forgiveness of sin....and make sure they would be willing to support this position as members. If they say..."NO!"....then we have a problem. Honestly, however.....I have only met 1 or 2 who said "No"...in 20 years!!

Then you ask Barry...."In addition, my question to all who believe a correct knowledge is essential to baptism being effective is, do they also have to believe in the gift of the Spirit being poured out at baptism? If so, this would mean people who hold to E. Lee's view would not have been scripturally baptized."

Which possibly might even include me....because I'm sure I did not fully understand who the Holy Spirit was.....or what His role was.....at my baptism. Does that make it null and void?? Hardly.

You finally state...."I think we put an unbalanced emphasis on remission of sins, if we do not also require that the person believes baptism is for the reception of the Holy Spirit."

I could not agree more!! However, I will state this.....could what sounds like an "overemphasis".....just be a "biblical" emphasis....since the majority of the denom. world is silent on the issue of baptism??

Something to ponder.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

To be perfectly honest, I too receive immersed believers from other church backgrounds, as long as they can give me any indication of what that baptism meant to them personally. Salvation is such a personal issue that God often sees to it that the new believer grasps the basics of it, in spite of us preachers.

On the other, my experience has been that these newcomers (immersed members of other churches) frequently end up being problematic, causing all kinds of strife for the congregation. I suspect that it can be blamed on their faulty understanding of justification rather then error regarding baptism in itself.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

Danny,

I guess I misunderstood your position. I don't disagree with anything you've stated here.

What is amazing in my situation is the number of unimmersed believers that have come to our church. I am in the NW suburbs of Minneapolis/St. Paul. If you're not Catholic, you're Lutheran. I have only had one of these not agree to be immersed almost immediately after having simply read the Scriptures that deal with baptism. It has taken no lengthy arugments, etc...the Scriptures themselves are enough for those with open hearts.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002

Just an observation: It's amazing how much we have in agreement once the strident pedantic rhetoric has been removed ...

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2002