The Baptism of Everett

[Allyn]

I hope you caught that I was quoting your own words back to you.

Yes I caught it but I actually thought you had something in mind about me concerning it. Fair is fair however.

I don't know that you are missing anything. My question was prompted by your question: "How can one be baptized into Christ by immersion if water is not involved?" Has your life been immersed into His? Do you have a living relationship with Him? Do you hear Christ's voice? Does He guide you and teach you? Do you feel His presence? Are you secure in the knowledge that you are His and He is yours for all eternity? If so, I'd say you have been baptized into Christ, regardless of whether or not water was involved.

But not according to Gal. 3:27 which was the reason for my original post on the subject."For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Doesn't it stand to reason then that to not be baptized into Christ would be the same as not putting on Christ?


Take care Danny - I have no hard feelings and I have enjoyed the dialog.

[Jill]

.

[Danny]

Doesn't it stand to reason then that to not be baptized into Christ would be the same as not putting on Christ?

Yes, absolutely. We have no disagreement about that. Our disagreement is about whether or not baptism into Christ requires the physical act of immersing one's body in water. We know with relative certainty that immersing one's body in water and calling it baptism does not necessary equate to being baptized into Christ.

I appreciated the opportunity to dialog with you!

[Homer]

Danny,

You wrote:

However, since you bring it up, didn't pretty much the entire church switch to infant baptism a few hundred years after the Apostles died? Wouldn't you consider that "getting it wrong"?

Yes, I would consider that "getting it wrong". However, your point is irrelevant. There is no comparison between those who personally knew and were disciples of the apostles, or were taught by those who knew them, and those who lived many generations later. I consider anything written and taught by the early church fathers by the later part of the second century, and beyond, to be no more valid than our opinions. An example is how the earlier teaching of baptism for the remission of sins was perverted into the idea that any sin committed after baptism could not be forgiven.

As I said earlier, if someone feels that the Holy Spirit is telling them to be baptized in water, by all means they should do it.

Perhaps we can discard the scriptures, where we read of Jesus' commands, and sit quietly waiting for the Holy Spirit to speak. I've heard some interesting accounts about that, where "God" tells someone to leave their wife for another woman. Or was that a mental impression that they confused with the Holy Spirit? Seems to me He speaks most clearly through His (written) word. And He has spoken clearly about baptism, or does the commission in Matthew 28:18-20 no longer apply? His command applies to you if you teach others, and it can not refer to anything other than immersion in water. Those given the command could not have done anything else. Those who teach will be held more accountable than those taught.

We seem to have come a long way from Everett!

[Paidion]

I believe baptism is extremely important. In fact, it is essential. Only I believe it is immersion into Christ, not a pool of water. The former is not dependant upon the latter.

Earlier, I expressed the physical aspect of baptism is analagous to signing a contract.

Suppose a salesman asks Danny to sign a contract with regards to his purchase of a new car. Suppose Danny responds as follows:

"I believe a contract is extremely important. In fact it is essential. Only I believe it is an agreement to purchase, not a signature on a piece of paper. The former is not dependant upon the latter."

If Danny genuinely agrees to the terms of the contract, but does not sign the piece of paper, will he get the car?

[Danny]

Hi Homer,

I get the sense that you are uncomfortable with the idea of people hearing directly from God. Yet the Bible you read is full of them.


Hi Paidion,

I'm having difficulty with your analogy. Probably because it involves a car salesman. When dealing with a car salesman I absolutely want a contract. On the other hand, when dealing with God, I'm willing to take Him at His Word (and by Word I mean Christ).

Here's a different analogy: I have two friends, a man and a woman, who I've known since we were all teens. They were high school sweethearts. They never broke up. It's going on 30 years and they're still together. They never had a wedding ceremony or signed a marriage certificate. Are they married? Most people, including the state government where they live, would say yes. Why don't they just go and make it official? To them, the ceremony and license are irrelevant. It's the relationship that matters.

[Homer]

Hi Danny,

You wrote:

As I said earlier, if someone feels that the Holy Spirit is telling them to be baptized in water, by all means they should do it.

and:

I get the sense that you are uncomfortable with the idea of people hearing directly from God. Yet the Bible you read is full of them.

Are you saying that we need not obey the written word, but wait until we "feel" the Holy Spirit tell us what to do? History is replete with those who claim God spoke to them, such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, et al, all the way back to Muhammud, and beyond. It seems to me if He speaks, it will be consistent with His word. Has He spoken to you regarding Baptism?

[Danny]

Are you saying that we need not obey the written word, but wait until we "feel" the Holy Spirit tell us what to do?

Of course not. But there is much about the written word that is subject to interpretation. If there wasn't, these discussion forums would be pretty dull and a seminary education would take a lot less time. It's often not as simple as "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." Our discussion of baptism is a case in point. God has not spoken to me about baptism. My view is based on my understanding of scripture and its implications. God has spoken to me about other things though. I've never had a situation where His spoken word has contradicted scripture.

Do you believe that God still speaks to us apart from the written word?

[Allyn]

Are you saying that we need not obey the written word, but wait until we "feel" the Holy Spirit tell us what to do?

Of course not. But there is much about the written word that is subject to interpretation. If there wasn't, these discussion forums would be pretty dull and a seminary education would take a lot less time. It's often not as simple as "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." Our discussion of baptism is a case in point. God has not spoken to me about baptism. My view is based on my understanding of scripture and its implications. God has spoken to me about other things though. I've never had a situation where His spoken word has contradicted scripture.

Do you believe that God still speaks to us apart from the written word?

Danny, if you mean does God speak to us with added revelation apart from what has already been compiled in the one Book we call the Bible then I would say, NO.

[Homer]

Danny,

Thanks for your reply! This is very interesting. You wrote:

God has spoken to me about other things though. I've never had a situation where His spoken word has contradicted scripture.

And:

Do you believe that God still speaks to us apart from the written word?

Apart from His written word I am not sure. He has never spoken to me apart from the scriptures, and perhaps people, but then how would one know whether it was God speaking through a person or not? I have prayed earnestly for God to provide an answer in the past, asking for a sign, or anything, but never received an answer that I recognized. Perhaps someone sharing what, by all appearances, was their opinion was from God. How do you discern this?

You say God has spoken to you. In what manner? A clear, audible voice? Dream? Mental impression? Another person? If any but the first of the four listed, how would you know?

Earlier in this discussion you wrote:

Baptism was a Jewish rite. It carried a great deal of meaning in Jewish culture. A Gentile converting to Judaism would undergo baptism. John baptizing in the Jordon was a scandal to the Jewish authorities because he was subverting a sacred cultural and religious ritual (and making them look bad in the process). During the time period that the New Testament was written, the church was still largely Jewish, with a growing number of Gentiles. For a Gentile to become a Christian was, essentially, to join a Jewish sect (hence the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 to determine whether circumcision and obedience to the Torah was required of Gentile converts). In a setting where circumcision of male Gentile converts was seriously considered, the use of baptism makes perfect sense.

Regarding the early church being essentially a Jewish sect, you are in error. Jesus referred to the church as "my church". I hope what you meant to say was that the church could have become no more than a Jewish sect. Thankfully, God did not allow this to happen.

You are correct that baptism was a Jewish rite. They baptized far more often than Christ required; for a Christian, its once and done. However, Jesus clearly intended it to be for the gentiles (i. e. all non-jews). The "great commission" makes that plain - "all nations". And this the Apostles faithfully carried out.

Danny, early on you mentioned that you did not mean to give offense. You have not offended me (astonished perhaps ), and I hope I have not offended you. I am most concerned though, with what you believe, especially since, as I understand, you teach others. I would be very afraid to teach what you indicate you believe regarding baptism.