The Baptism of Everett

SteveF

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by SteveF » Wed May 06, 2009 9:35 am

Here's the orginal post from 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!
The fact he quite willing obeyed is a sign that he is following Christ. My question is, what if he died at 95 and was just as willing at that time to do whatever Jesus asked him to do but hadn't been baptised yet? Or to put it another way, what if he didn't understand the verses in the correct way then died?

If I'm reading the posts correctly, I think Homer would say Everett would have failed to do something Christ commanded us out of ignorance, but Homer wouldn't make a categorical statement on the destiny of his soul (or maybe he would be inclined to think someone like this would indeed be saved). I think Allyn would say he can't be saved because he wasn't baptised. Am I understanding both of you correctly?

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by TK » Wed May 06, 2009 9:45 am

Paidion wrote:
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.
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 have a problem trying to distinguish baptism from these other things that we are supposed to be obedient in. but that is probably because i do not think that baptism "does" anything other than evidence and announce that we are being obedient and have entered the kingdom. If baptism is required for salvation (i.e. it really really DOES something) then Jesus stressed it very little.

And again, if Baptism really DOES something and is required for salvation, then people have and are being taught wrongly by the millions, if not billions.

TK

P.S. I sure would like to hear Steve G's take on this discussion.

SteveF

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by SteveF » Wed May 06, 2009 9:55 am

Allyn wrote:
SteveF wrote:Allyn wrote:
Personally, I am satisfied that it is water Baptism as a necessary act that is the issue because of the sins that need to be washed away. Just as necessary as asking for forgiveness of sins we commit thereafter.
Hi Allyn, please forgive my ignorance regarding this position. I think you're saying the washing of the water during baptism washes your sins away. The question that's nagging me is, how are your sins after baptism washed away? Sorry in advance if I misunderstood you.
That's a good question SteveF. I don't think one could actually see the sins floating around in the baptismal water so I must believe that it is spiritual cleansing of the inner man.
Thanks for responding Allyn. Your answer went over my head though. Perhaps there is a basic outline that explains your denomination's position on basptism I could read. If there is something you can link me to that would be perfect. I think I first need to understand your use of terminology.

Thanks
Steve

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by Homer » Wed May 06, 2009 9:59 am

Danny,

Forgive me, but I must say your last post is full of caviling and quibling. Something is being missed here. Most of what God expects of us as Christians falls into the category of moral law, or what was once known as "natural law", because it is naturally understood to be right. Thus it is said to "have crutches". There are inducements, inclinations, and natural propensities. But a positive law is an absolute test of loyalty. Positive laws, or commands, are right simply and only because the law giver declares them to be so, whether it be a government or God. They may not even make sense to us. They may not only seem to be of no worth, but they may seem to be less than useless, even morally wrong. Many in this category can be seen in the OT. You think God would never command something that we would think morally wrong? And that as a test of faith? Check out the story of Abraham taking Isaac up to offer him as a sacrifice. But then again you will probably view that as an old tale.

Consider this: how many positive laws or commands are the Christian obliged to keep? Baptism, the Lord's supper, assembling, singing, and praying might be included. The beauty of them is that they are all good for us! And unlike moral law, where we all stumble, they can be kept perfectly. The yoke is indeed easy. Just look at the Law of Moses, and the great number of positive commands in it. Carry the Arc exactly this way; touch it if you are the wrong person and you die! How gracious God has been, and how easy we have it!

No, our Lord did not lay a heavy burden on us when he commanded baptism as the initiatory rite into His body. It is the least we can do for Him, after all, He went to the cross for us! Yet we cavil and say what good will it do? Do I really need to? Can't I do it some other way? How about a sinner's prayer? Walk down to the alter? Sign a card? Or worst of all, "everyone close your eyes and hold up your hand if you want to accept Jesus into your heart". None of these substitutes for baptism are found in scripture. Think of it. Can you find one instance in the conversion narratives where anyone is told to pray?

Sounds uncomfortably like offering "strange fire" to me (Leviticus 10:1-2).

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by TK » Wed May 06, 2009 10:58 am

In response to allyn's verses quoted earlier:

1 Peter 3:21 the Bible says:
"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you (not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"


It is not the water that does it (note that it is water that removes physical dirt) but the appeal to God for a good conscience. He is referring to immersion in Christ’s death and resurrection.

Acts 22:16
"And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name"


Paul was recounting what Ananias told him after his conversion. The phrase “wash away your sins” should be connected with calling on His name, not baptism. I believe that Paul was converted when he said "Who are you, Lord? Despite his question, He knew who it was and was convinced and was His at that moment.

Acts 2:38
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"


“and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” is a parenthetical phrase, i.e.: "And Peter said to them, "Repent, (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins"

Mark 16:16
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

This verse may prove the opposite; it is belief that saves. Baptism is simply the outward symbol of the inward reality. Otherwise the second clause would say “but he who has disbelieved or he who has believed but was not baptized shall be condemned.”

I think that many of the references like those noted above can be explained by the fact that in the very early church baptisms almost always occurred very close in time to actual conversion, so much so that they were almost synonymous, and so much so that it might appear that the baptism is doing the saving.

TK

User avatar
Allyn
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:55 am
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by Allyn » Wed May 06, 2009 11:34 am

TK wrote:
I think that many of the references like those noted above can be explained by the fact that in the very early church baptisms almost always occurred very close in time to actual conversion, so much so that they were almost synonymous, and so much so that it might appear that the baptism is doing the saving.

TK
Absolutely right, TK. So close that in fact at the very time of conversion and every time. There was never an indication of delay nor that there was a delay allowable. If there was a conversion then there was a baptism.

User avatar
Allyn
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:55 am
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by Allyn » Wed May 06, 2009 11:40 am

SteveF wrote:

Thanks for responding Allyn. Your answer went over my head though. Perhaps there is a basic outline that explains your denomination's position on basptism I could read. If there is something you can link me to that would be perfect. I think I first need to understand your use of terminology.

Thanks
Steve
I don't belong to a denomination, Steve. Maybe I can take the time later to go into what I was meaning.

P.S. I do attend a Baptist Church but I don't agree with their attitude toward baptism either. They give an invitation for baptism this way:
We will be having baptisms on April 26th. If anyone would care to be baptized then please let the office know before that date.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by TK » Wed May 06, 2009 11:50 am

that sounds very familiar allyn- much like my church. i dont like it either.

TK

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by Homer » Wed May 06, 2009 11:52 am

In response to allyn's verses quoted earlier:

1 Peter 3:21 the Bible says:
"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you (not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

It is not the water that does it (note that it is water that removes physical dirt) but the appeal to God for a good conscience. He is referring to immersion in Christ’s death and resurrection.
Yes, and immersion is an inseparable part of that "appeal" (eperotema in the Greek)
Acts 22:16
"And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name"

Paul was recounting what Ananias told him after his conversion. The phrase “wash away your sins” should be connected with calling on His name, not baptism. I believe that Paul was converted when he said "Who are you, Lord? Despite his question, He knew who it was and was convinced and was His at that moment.
Baptism is a form of calling on His name: "wash away your sins, calling on his name". Wash your face, using soap, make disciples, baptizing them...etc. "for Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved".
Acts 2:38
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"

“and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” is a parenthetical phrase, i.e.: "And Peter said to them, "Repent, (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins"
This is an old Baptist argument. The parenthesis is an invention. The people at Pentcost who heard Peter say this had already repented in the sense of changing their mind about the Christ. "They were pricked in their hearts and inquired what they must do". A beter translation would say "be reformed" (i. e. turn your life around) rather than repent. Peter was telling them exactly what the great commission says: be baptized and follow Jesus.

The old argument insists that "for" (that the Greek preposition eis here means "because of"). As noted in a lengthy article in the Theological Dictionary appendix. eis has never been shown to have a causitive meaning. In every case it is used it makes sense if it is translated "into, toward, for", etc. It is a word indicating progression.
Mark 16:16
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

This verse may prove the opposite; it is belief that saves. Baptism is simply the outward symbol of the inward reality. Otherwise the second clause would say “but he who has disbelieved or he who has believed but was not baptized shall be condemned.”
And why would Jesus think someone would be baptized who did not believe? He took it for granted that they would not, just as the Pharisees refused John's baptism. And does bare belief of facts save, apart from a faith that motivates one to obey step #1 in becoming a disciple?
I think that many of the references like those noted above can be explained by the fact that in the very early church baptisms almost always occurred very close in time to actual conversion, so much so that they were almost synonymous, and so much so that it might appear that the baptism is doing the saving.
And how do you explain the obvious sense of urgency regarding baptism in the conversion narratives?

User avatar
Allyn
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:55 am
Location: Nebraska
Contact:

Re: The Baptism of Everett

Post by Allyn » Wed May 06, 2009 11:59 am

TK wrote:that sounds very familiar allyn- much like my church. i dont like it either.

TK
We relate

Post Reply

Return to “Prayer, Praise & Testimonies”