The Baptism of Everett

[Homer]

At church on Sunday morning, the minister, as is his custom, gave an invitation at the close of his sermon. Everett, a frail elderly gentleman, made known his desire to be baptized by immersion. He had been sprinkled in his youth but had been reading his bible, and thought he ought to be immersed. Within a few minutes Everett was baptized. Everett is 96 years old!

[Danny]

That's nice, though I have to wonder...

Is Everett more "saved" after being immersed than he was before?

[Homer]

Danny,

You wrote:

Is Everett more "saved" after being immersed than he was before?

IMO only God can answer your question. But I am sure God is very pleased that His command was obeyed. It is certainly not too much to ask of us.

[Allyn]

Danny,

You wrote:

Is Everett more "saved" after being immersed than he was before?

IMO only God can answer your question. But I am sure God is very pleased that His command was obeyed. It is certainly not too much to ask of us.

I agree, Homer - and how can we dare leave out baptism as part of the Gospel when the early church never did?

[Paidion]

Homer, as you know, you and I agree on the subject of baptism.

I was wondering what you make of whole denominations who think baptism is unnecessary, for example, the Salvation Army. I can understand God rejecting someone who refuses to be baptized, thus showing that he is not a disciple of Christ, but I am unsure about people in denominations who don't practise baptism. Does God excuse members of those churches because they don't know any better? Or would such a person be classified with the servant who did not know his master's will, and yet did what deserved a beating, and thus shall receive a light beating? (Luke 12:48)

[Danny]

Do you think God is really that uptight about whether one is baptized or not? I come away from reading the Bible with the notion that God is way more concerned about how we treat one-another and particularly how we treat the least.

[Paidion]

Danny, are you addressing Homer, Allyn, me, or all three?

[Allyn]

Do you think God is really that uptight about whether one is baptized or not? I come away from reading the Bible with the notion that God is way more concerned about how we treat one-another and particularly how we treat the least.

I can't disagree with this. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is the golden rule after all. But doesn't it say somewhere that even the heathen show love to those who love them? My point is that we as believers do have a better role to play in this life then just going along with the moral majority. We must be obeidient in all things as well. One of those things happens to be baptism.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

I was wondering what you make of whole denominations who think baptism is unnecessary, for example, the Salvation Army.

I would hate to be in the position of one who has taught people that it is not necessary to obey Christ's explicit command:

James 3:1 (New King James Version)

1. My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

For almost 2000 years Christians have discussed and debated the mode of baptism, what it accomplishes, who can be baptized, who is authorized to baptize, etc. The one thing almost all have agreed upon is that the command must be obeyed. It is difficult to understand how anyone is excused, based on ignorance, who can read their bible. Yet baptism can be a bit inconvenient or embarassing, and people too ready to hear that "it isn't necessary". We are saved by faith, after all.

And Paidion asked:

...... I am unsure about people in denominations who don't practise baptism. Does God excuse members of those churches because they don't know any better? Or would such a person be classified with the servant who did not know his master's will, and yet did what deserved a beating, and thus shall receive a light beating? (Luke 12:48)

Perhaps your suggestion is correct. It may be as an old preacher on the radio said, "God may take some folks out behind the wood shed when they get to heaven". But then again, the person who is not baptized, I think, misses out on assurance that they are forgiven. How can you know when you have neglected the initiatory rite, commanded by Jesus, whereby we are inducted into His body? After all, this business about being baptized was His idea.

Danny wrote:

Do you think God is really that uptight about whether one is baptized or not? I come away from reading the Bible with the notion that God is way more concerned about how we treat one-another and particularly how we treat the least.

Bro Danny, you are off by one commandment. Loving our neighbor is #2 in priority.

Matthew 22:36-39 (New King James Version)
36. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37. Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38. This is the first and great commandment. 39. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

And coupling that with this:

John 14 (New King James Version)

15. “If you love Me, keep My commandments.

23. Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

Everett has shown us he loves Jesus.

One thing that is commonly overlooked today is that baptism is a divine positive law, or command. Positive law is not right in and of itself, as moral law is, but is right solely because the authority says it is (God in the case of baptism). In Old Testament times, we find that God was incensed when His positive commands were disobeyed. Uzzah touching the arc is a famous example, as is Moses striking the rock. And to my mind, this idea (positive law) is the best explanation of why Saul was cast aside as King and David was not. Up until the time Saul was informed that he was rejected as King, I do not believe you will find any account of any significant moral failure on his part. Yet he was done because he violated positive law. David, on the other hand, sinned horribly against his neighbor, violating moral law, and was allowed to remain as King.

[Paidion]

First God's imperatives; second moral imperatives. Interesting perspective, Homer. Seems to coincide with the teaching of our Lord.