The Baptism of Everett

[TK]

dash it all, Homer. i thought my post would convince you!! and if you believe that one....

TK

[Paidion]

But why draw the line at baptism? You and Allyn and Homer SEEM to be saying that being obedient via baptism is REQUIRED to enter the Kingdom of God. But are we always obedient to EVERYTHING that Jesus commanded? Do we ALWAYS love each other as we should, for example?

I did give examples of other individual acts of obedience without which God would not have acted. It wasn't until the blind man washed in the waters of Siloam that he received his sight.

Baptism differs from other points of obedience to Christ's commands, in that it is like the signing of a contract, or more accurately, agreeing to a covenant with the Lord Jesus to become his disciple. Such an agreement has an "outward" expression of what is going on internally. That is the Lord's way of sealing the agreement. We need to be cautious with any decision on our part to trivialize the significance of the seal of baptism. If God requires it to seal our discipleship, then who are we to gainsay God's word?

As for the man of 96 having died before he carried out his intention, doubtless God who knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts, would act accordingly. I am sure the intent to be baptized, though unable to physically carry out this intention, is fully recognized by God.

On the other hand, what if the man of 96 said, "I've lived for many years as a Christian; I saw no need for baptism, and I still see no need for it. It has nothing to do with being saved; I refuse to be baptized." Here is a deliberate rejection of God's way of sealing one's discipleship, of signing the contract so to speak. Would God have accepted him anyway?

[Danny]

Hi Allyn,

D: By the same token, where in the Bible does it say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved?

A: By the fact that every time the Gospel was preached, Baptism was never left out of the equation.

I take it you're referring to the Book of Acts, which is an historical narrative; not necessarily the best place to derive absolute doctrinal teachings (otherwise we'd be putting out fleeces just like Gideon did in the narrative about him). Even within the constraints of Acts, however, your assertion is incorrect. For example, Paul clearly preaches the Gospel at the Areopagus in Athens and some became followers, but there is no mention of baptism.

As I pointed out earlier, in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 Paul makes a clear distinction between the Gospel and baptism, going so far as to say the he was sent to preach the Gospel but not to baptize. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Paul makes it very clear what the Gospel that he preached was: "...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." There is no mention of baptism.

Even if your assertion that baptism was included in every proclamation of the Gospel had been correct, it would not follow ipso facto that baptism was necessary for salvation.


Hi Paidion,

It would seem from your argument that you think the command to be baptize all nations was no more universal than the command above.

Not exactly. The various commands you listed were one-time commands. Obediance to them was obviously necessary to the people who received the commands. Likewise the command to baptize to those whom it was given to. Paul, it appears, felt the command to baptize did not apply to him. I believe those who did baptize understood it's implications as a known ritual that conveyed a deeper meaning. Over time the deeper meaning has often been lost with only the "shell" of the ritual remaining. The same can be said for communion: A plastic shot glass of grape juice and a cracker are not the same thing as sharing a meal among friends in the presence of the Lord.

My point was that obedience is essential. For where God has commanded (whether specific as in the case of washing in the pool of Siloam, or universal, as in the case of making disciples of ALL nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe ALL that Christ had commanded) and man does not comply, neither does God act in the way that He would have if obedience had been forthcoming.

I agree that obedience is essential. But if our emphasis is obedience to the letter (as interpreted by ?) over the Spirit, then we may end up turning the New Testament into another Law--another Torah.


Hi Homer,

Forgive me, but I must say your last post is full of caviling and quibling.

If so, it wasn't intentional. I think in some ways we are using the same words but attaching different values to them. A prime example is your two paragraphs about law. Moral law and natural law and positive law, etc. I just don't read the New Testament that way. Nor do I follow Jesus that way. I approach being a Christian, first and foremost, as a living relationship with our Savior and Creator. Obedience occurs within that relationship--not out of duty to law, but out of love.

The questions I have about the efficaciousness (and therefore the need) of water baptism are not due to stubborness or questioning the "why" or considering it an inconvenience. It has to do with experiencing the Reality versus the Symbol. I go back to my analogy about my two "married" friends who were never married.

To me, this is not about following a law but a Truth and the Truth is a Person.


In conclusion,

I've been trying to respond as thoroughly as I can to points, objections and question that have been made, but I must confess that I feel like many of my points and questions have been ignored. That's a little disheartening. I don't know if I can add much more to this discussion without becoming repetitive.

Allow me to summarize the discussion, from my perspective:

1. I believe that baptism into Christ means so much more than immersion in water; to the point that immersion in water is not necessary for baptism to occur. I do not believe that immersion in water itself has any effect on our spiritual state. Further, I believe that the early Christians understood the distinction between the Spiritual Reality of baptism into Christ and the Symbol that portrayed it. When they engaged in the latter, it was to commemorate that the former had already occurred. I do not believe it is necessary to be water baptized in order to be saved.

2. Some folks agree that water baptism is largely symbolic but believe that it should still be carried out due to scriptural commands and church tradition. I suspect that most non-mainline Protestants fall into this category.

3. Other folks believe that water baptism is an absolute necessity for salvation.

Fair enough?

There are a couple of questions that I would still really like to hear answers for, especially from Allyn. These are really just variations of my original question about Everett. I'm hoping for a more substantive answer than "That's up to God." Your theology should enable to answer these questions, at least in the theoretical:

1. There are vast numbers of Christians today and throughout history who were never baptized as adults or via immersion. Where they saved or not?

2. Let's assume (God forbid) that Everett had passed away without being baptized, but had been a devout Christian with a close walk with Jesus (we'll assume he was in the Salvation Army or a Quaker)--what do you believe his fate would likely have been?

Homer, I apologize for hijacking your thread. God bless Everett!

[Allyn]

Hi Allyn,

D: By the same token, where in the Bible does it say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved?

A: By the fact that every time the Gospel was preached, Baptism was never left out of the equation.

I take it you're referring to the Book of Acts, which is an historical narrative; not necessarily the best place to derive absolute doctrinal teachings (otherwise we'd be putting out fleeces just like Gideon did in the narrative about him). Even within the constraints of Acts, however, your assertion is incorrect. For example, Paul clearly preaches the Gospel at the Areopagus in Athens and some became followers, but there is no mention of baptism.

As I pointed out earlier, in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 Paul makes a clear distinction between the Gospel and baptism, going so far as to say the he was sent to preach the Gospel but not to baptize. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Paul makes it very clear what the Gospel that he preached was: "...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." There is no mention of baptism.

Even if your assertion that baptism was included in every proclamation of the Gospel had been correct, it would not follow ipso facto that baptism was necessary for salvation.

Danny, by your reasoning then wherever repentance is not mentioned then it too can be eliminated from the requirement. Cool.