As a rule, I generally don’t discuss baptism. The main reason is that such discussion sways no one. Baptism ties into salvation, and no Christian wants to discuss why they may not be saved. Ultimately, it usually comes down to the question, “Do you think I’m going to Hell because I wasn’t baptized like you?” On the other side, the question comes down to “Why don’t you follow the simple teaching of the New Testament?” The first question hits the emotional issue that only CoC people (and their derivatives) are saved. The second question hits the emotional issue that only CoC people can correctly divine the Word of God.
Needless to say, this captivates my interest like watching mold spores grow. It just gets uglier over time.
But, seeing as there is a posting lull here and seeing how a pretty thoughtful link was provided by Bobber, I figured, why not? I may regret it, but who knows? The folks around here are a pretty thoughtful bunch – maybe this discussion will be different. Granted, most folks here are CoC or their descendants, so it may be preaching to the choir.
The only ground rules I propose are these:
- No Greek. I took two years and I do not feel qualified to argue various English translations of Greek words. This is an arguing over words and not useful.
- Ask questions without making it personal. For example, do not ask, “Do you think I’m not saved?”. However, it is a fair question, “are those not immersed in water saved?” as long as it doesn’t lead into, “you know I wasn’t immersed…”
- If you do not know, say that you do not know. It is acceptable to not know everything. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
- Do not invalidate an argument because enough Scripture is not quoted in presenting that argument. Asking for clarifying Scriptures is needed – I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about dismissing a viewpoint because Scripture wasn’t quoted in every step. If you believe that a point was made that is outside of the Bible, ask for a Scripture.
- Enjoy the discussion. If you’re not enjoying it, take a break. There is enough evil in the world to battle that we do not have to devour each other. This applies especially to me.
Joel Garver begins with thoughts about salvation as an ongoing process. In response, I would say that salvation is a journey. Like any journey, it requires continued effort and movement. The end of the journey is God’s Judgment and ultimately Heaven. Like all journeys, it also has a starting point. I would consider baptism a starting point on that journey. I agree that the sequence, “Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, etc.” usually presented is arbitrary. It may be useful as a teaching tool to help someone come to faith, but like any other tool, it needs to be seen as a man-made device, and not a creed. I also agree that the Spirit works on those that believe and do not believe. A person that hears the Word of God, like the parable of the soils, can have various reactions. The Word of God is powerful enough to encourage the soul to begin the journey of faith and encourage another to persevere at any stage of their own journey. I think of the proverb that the rain falls on the just and the unjust.
Faith in trusting in God and His promises made through His Son, the Christ and His Word, the Bible. Before a person is saved, he or she must come to faith, drawn by the Spirit. Once a person is saved, they must persevere in that faith. Baptism is one of those promises – through baptism the promise of the Holy Spirit and a new life with Christ are offered. When Joel discusses belief before, during, or after baptism in point 4, it strikes me as a non sequitur. Belief is not what saves, even the demons have belief. How can a person trust in baptism retroactively? If a person is baptized it has to be for a reason, even if it is, “because I was told to by the priest”. Baptism is the claim of a promise, not a theological proposition. The disagreement, as I understand it, deals with understanding what is promised.
Thoughts?