The Baptism of Everett

[Danny]

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

Yes.


Homer, I wasn't attempting to prioritize commandments but rather pointing out that scripture seems to weigh in heavily on the importance in God's eyes of how we treat one another (and especially the least) as opposed to our performance of rites and rituals.

But then again, the person who is not baptized, I think, misses out on assurance that they are forgiven.

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that the physical act of baptism may be efficacious or supplemental for forgiveness? Isn't the cross enough? Isn't the baptism (or in-filling, if you prefer) of the Holy Spirit assurance enough? Jesus' assurance to the thief on the cross that he was forgiven seemed to be enough for him.

Everett has shown us he loves Jesus.

I would assume so and God bless Everett. Of course, many people throughout history have been baptized who clearly didn't love Jesus. Conversely, there have been many people who loved Jesus, and showed it by how they lived their lives, who weren't baptized.

In John's Gospel, Jesus says, "If you love me, you will obey what I command." (14:15), but the command He is referring to is one He had just given: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (13:34)

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

Humor me, which explicit command are you referring to?

[Paidion]

As I understand it, it is not the physical act of baptism itself constitutes regeneration, but the reality of what one's immersion in water represents. There is something happening within the heart and mind of the person which corresponds to the death and resurrection which the immersion depicts. As the person goes under the water, he dies to the self-life. When he emerges from the water, he is resurrected to a new life in Christ Jesus. Thus Justin Martyr declared that one's regeneration occurs as he is baptized.

When one buys a new car, he signs an agreement to clinch the deal. I see baptism as the agreement one signs with God to clinch his discipleship, his dying to self and becoming alive to Christ. Normally one's regeneration occurs simultaneously with his baptism, as well as the receiving of the Holy Spirit.

This is not to say that there are not exceptional cases. Sometimes it may not be possible to be baptized --- for example health conditions may not permit it. In such cases, a person could be regenerated without baptism.

There are also several situations in the book of Acts where regeneration and the receipt of the Holy Spirit were not simultaneous.

After that special day of Pentecost, certain people heard Peter speak, and were cut to the heart for having put to death their Lord and Messiah. They asked him, “ Brothers, what shall we do?” Since that time, every Jewish person who acted according to Peter’s words received the Holy Spirit. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forsaking of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Notice the consequence of repenting and being baptized in Jesus’ name for the forsaking of their sins, was the receipt of a gift. That gift was the Holy Spirit.

Prior to that special day of Pentecost, the Spirit had not yet been given. So those baptized by John the Baptizer and Jesus didn’t receive the abiding Spirit.

One baptism of the Spirit; many infillings of the Spirit.

After his initial regeneration, a disciple may be filled with the HS over and over. He is filled in order to have the power of God in his life ---- power for service to the King. This infilling may be accompanied by tongues, a special flowing of love, special wisdom, discernment of spirits, faith, or any of the other gifts of the Spirit.

During the early days of Christianity, as in the events recorded in Acts, there were special peoples who did not receive the Spirit at the same time as their baptism into Christ. There were special reasons for this which do not apply today:

First notice that Jesus had told the disciples that after they received the Holy Spirit they would be His witnesses to the Jews, the Samaritans, and to the Gentiles. But the disciples were not prepared to go to the Samaritans and Gentiles yet ---- except Philip who went to the Samaritans.

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth."

Story #1

But when [the Samaritans] believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Acts 8:12-17

Why did these Samaritan disciples not receive the Holy Spirit when they were baptized? The Jews had no dealing with the Samaritans. Philip proclaimed the gospel to them, and they repented and were baptized. But the Spirit had been given only to the Jews on that special day of Pentecost. When the apostles at Jerusalem heard about Samaria receiving the gospel, they sent Peter and John to investigate. God wanted to convince Peter and John they even Samaritans could become true disciples, and so He withheld the gift of the Holy Spirit from the Samaritans until Peter and John arrived, so that they could observe the Samaritan disciples receiving the gift.

Story #2

To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives freedom from sins through his name."

While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:43-48

Here is a case where people received the Spirit BEFORE they were baptized. Why? Because these were Gentiles. The Jewish disciples did not think God had anything to do with Gentiles. So Gentiles would never have been accepted for baptism and discipleship. So God performed a special miracle to convince the Jews that He would accept Gentiles as disciples. He poured out the Spirit upon them and they spoke in tongues and praised God. This convinced the Jews, and so they were then baptized in water.

Story #3

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.

And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?"

They said, "Into John’s baptism."

And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all. Acts 19:1-7

There people hadn’t received the Holy Spirit at their baptism because they were baptized by John the Baptizer, and the Holy Spirit had not yet been given at that time.

So God gave the gift of the Spirit to the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Gentiles at three different times --- and then to those who had been baptized before the day of Pentecost.

These were special situations when the Church was young. None of these conditions apply today

[Danny]

Hi Paidion,

As I understand it, it is not the physical act of baptism itself constitutes regeneration, but the reality of what one's immersion in water represents. There is something happening within the heart and mind of the person which corresponds to the death and resurrection which the immersion depicts.

Are you saying that baptism is essentially a symbolic act?

[Allyn]

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

Humor me, which explicit command are you referring to?

Hi Danny,

First, we know this:
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved;

We then know this:

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

[Paidion]

Are you saying that baptism is essentially a symbolic act?

I am saying that the physical act of being immersed in water at one's baptism is essentially a symbolic act. But I don't see that physical act as the essence of baptism. For one can be physically immersed in water, even at a "Christian baptism" without being regenerated.

I see a true Christian baptism as a physical/spiritual act, where outwardly and physically, there is nothing more than an immersion in water, but inwardly and spiritually, there is a death to old self, and a regeneration, so that the new self emerges.

Normally, regeneration does not take place without the physical act of immersion, though God sometimes makes exceptions.

[Allyn]

Are you saying that baptism is essentially a symbolic act?

I am saying that the physical act of being immersed in water at one's baptism is essentially a symbolic act. But I don't see that physical act as the essence of baptism. For one can be physically immersed in water, even at a "Christian baptism" without being regenerated.

I see a true Christian baptism as a physical/spiritual act, where outwardly and physically, there is nothing more than an immersion in water, but inwardly and spiritually, there is a death to old self, and a regeneration, so that the new self emerges.

Normally, regeneration does not take place without the physical act of immersion, though God sometimes makes exceptions.

I think I have finally found something to agree with you on.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You made an important point:

Normally, regeneration does not take place without the physical act of immersion, though God sometimes makes exceptions.

God is not bound by the sacrament of baptism, we are. We have no authority to make exceptions; that's His prerogative.

I must add that I might be a "semi-sacramentalist", in that I believe baptism, apart from that act of faith (on the part of the one being baptized) that is its essence, is worthless.

[darinhouston]

I "accepted Christ" at a young age, and was baptized some time later in a Baptist church when I responded to what I thought was obedience (still quite young). I'm not so sure I was regenerated at that time. I definitely believe God "kept" me from that point with a spiritual conscience that I pricked at over the years, and He held me close to Him and encouraged me to ultimately return (or truly turn for the first time) to follow Him but I wasn't "really" His until much later, at which time I can definitely tell you my heart was changed. I've heard that same "process" pretty often here in the bible belt, so I have to wonder ...

[Danny]

Hi Allyn,

Thanks for responding. I should probably clarify that I'm not attempting to make a case against baptism per se, but I thought Homer's story made a nice jumping off point to have a discussion about baptism and perhaps some of our assumptions about baptism. I hope I haven't caused offense by doing so. My own position--just to be clear--is that I don't consider water baptism to be a requirement. I am a "non-sacramentalist". But if someone believes they are required to do it, wants to do it or feels led by the Holy Spirit to do it, then by all means they should do it.

The parallel passages which you brought up in Matthew and Mark were what I was expecting. This clearly is a commandment. But who was the commandment given to? Was it to all Christians throughout time? In Luke 22:36 Jesus tells his disciples to sell their extra cloaks and buy swords. Yet we don't hand out swords to people when they become Christians. We understand that that command was given to those specific people at that specific time. Some do use Luke 22:36, however, as a prooftext to show that Jesus sanctioned self-defense. I'm not going to argue for or against that here, but even those who believe the verse supports Christian self-defense don't carry around swords. They understand that swords were relevant to that time and culture. In our time and culture they might replace swords with guns or pepper spray or kung fu.

These commands (regarding baptism and swords) were given to a specific group of people within a specific culture at a specific time. The question I have is whether or not they were intended to be continued into perpetuity. Carrying a sword around no longer has the significance it did in first century Judea (and will probably get you arrested). Perhaps baptism has also lost the ritualistic meaning that it had to the original Christian converts. We do see references to baptism in Acts and the Epistles, but that's still within the first century, largely Jewish mileu.

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.

As we all know, it only took a few hundred years for the baptism of adult believers to be largely replaced by infant baptism. I think the four of us agree that infant baptism doesn't accomplish anything in terms of forgiveness of sin or regeneration. Yet for over a thousand years it was the only baptism most Christians underwent. To this day there are vast numbers of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians who have not been baptized as believers.


Paidion,

I see a true Christian baptism as a physical/spiritual act, where outwardly and physically, there is nothing more than an immersion in water, but inwardly and spiritually, there is a death to old self, and a regeneration, so that the new self emerges.

I completely agree with you, except that I would say that the death/regeneration/new birth is not dependent upon having one's body immersed (or sprinkled) in water. It is, as you say, a spiritual and inward thing.

This is a point made by some groups who do not practice baptism: If baptism is symbolic of something inward and spiritual, then the inward/spiritual transformation is the real thing. If we have the real thing, why do we need the symbol that represents it? Especially when the symbol is so often confused for the real thing.

Normally, regeneration does not take place without the physical act of immersion, though God sometimes makes exceptions.

I'm surprised at the sureness with which you make this statement; especially in light of the vast number of Christians today and throughout history who were never baptized as adults or via immersion. Do you believe that most of them were not regenerated?


Homer,

...I believe baptism, apart from that act of faith (on the part of the one being baptized) that is its essence, is worthless.

I agree. Would you also say that a lifetime of faith apart from baptism is also worthless?

[TK]

This is an interesting discussion.

The denomination I belong to (Evangelical Friends) does not stress baptism (we have baptisms about twice per year). However, the Baptist church I attended growing up did not really stress baptism either (maybe once per quarter).

However, I disagree with my denomination's stance on this issue, which is stated thusly:

Evangelical Friends, concerned with the abuses which had grown up about the... use of water in Christian baptism, and which substituted the outward for the inner spiritual reality (an abuse which persists to this day Matthew 15:8-9) placed their emphasis upon the spiritual content and let the outward symbols fall into disuse. However, in 1886 Ohio Yearly Meeting (EFCER)felt constrained to grant liberty concerning the use or non-use of ... water in Christian baptism, cautioning against any failure to achieve real spiritual sharing in the death of Christ and in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus modeled participation in water baptism as a public identification with the prophetic ministry and
message of His cousin, John the Baptizer (Matthew 3:1-17). Throughout the New Testament we see a
common practice of new believers in Jesus Christ being water baptized as a testimony to their faith in
Jesus as Savior. While we as Friends believe the water in Christian baptism can be a very meaningful
outward testimony of what God has done spiritually within, we do not believe that water baptism is
necessary for salvation nor an absolute requirement for all Christians. It is, rather, a public witness to
the saving power of Jesus and a public witness of one’s faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord (Ephesians
2:8-10).

****

In these services it should also be clear that the observances are only symbols of an inward spiritual
experience. Evangelical Friends caution against the too-frequent use of the symbols lest familiarity
breed contempt and diminish their spiritual significance.

While I agree with Danny that baptism does not "save" or "regenerate" anyone, I believe that it is still required, because Jesus said so. And, I would prefer that new converts be baptised immediately or as soon thereafter as possible. I think most of those who attend my church would agree with me regarding the importance of baptism, but perhaps not the timing.

TK