Baptism purpose Sign of the covenant.

[e.r.m.]

In Romans 4, Paul goes into extensive detail and description of how Abraham was considered righteous before circumcision. He called it "the sign of circumcision". (Side note, the law occurred between Abraham's sola fide and the New Testament).
With Paul's incredible descriptive capacity that he displays in chapter 4 of calling a sign a sign, he then leaves baptism completely alone.

It would be inconsistent for Paul to say

(NASB) Acts 22:12-13, 16
"A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, [13] came to me, and standing near said to me, ''Brother Saul, receive your sight!'' And at that very time I looked up at him. [16] ''Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.''

-and then say "Baptism is just an after the fact sign."

If Paul had considered baptism as a sign of the covenant, he demonstrated in chapter 4 that he was more than capable of saying the sign of baptism -explicitly, he did not.
Paul mentions baptism quite a few times, and he had ample opportunity to call it a sign as he did with circumcision, but he did not - nor did anyone else in the Bible.

Zwingli, however, was one of this idea's main proponents. These days many take an extreme liberty of calling baptism a sign of the covenant, where Paul did not.

(NASB) Colossians 2:11-13
and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; [12] having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [13] When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Paul mentions circumcision and baptism in the same sentence without referring to it as a sign of the covenant, but he does throw in "having forgiven us all our transgressions."

 

[Muffled]

In Romans 4, Paul goes into extensive detail and description of how Abraham was considered righteous before circumcision. He called it "the sign of circumcision". (Side note, the law occurred between Abraham's sola fide and the New Testament).
With Paul's incredible descriptive capacity that he displays in chapter 4 of calling a sign a sign, he then leaves baptism completely alone.

It would be inconsistent for Paul to say

(NASB) Acts 22:12-13, 16
"A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, [13] came to me, and standing near said to me, ''Brother Saul, receive your sight!'' And at that very time I looked up at him. [16] ''Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.''

-and then say "Baptism is just an after the fact sign."

If Paul had considered baptism as a sign of the covenant, he demonstrated in chapter 4 that he was more than capable of saying the sign of baptism -explicitly, he did not.
Paul mentions baptism quite a few times, and he had ample opportunity to call it a sign as he did with circumcision, but he did not - nor did anyone else in the Bible.

Zwingli, however, was one of this idea's main proponents. These days many take an extreme liberty of calling baptism a sign of the covenant, where Paul did not.

(NASB) Colossians 2:11-13
and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; [12] having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [13] When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Paul mentions circumcision and baptism in the same sentence without referring to it as a sign of the covenant, but he does throw in "having forgiven us all our transgressions."

The sign of the New Covenant is the blood of Jesus.

Lu 22:20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

Baptism is a sign of salvation.

I Peter 3:18 ¶ Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,
20 that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
21 ¶ which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

 

[e.r.m.]

The sign of the New Covenant is the blood of Jesus.

Lu 22:20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

Baptism is a sign of salvation.

I Peter 3:18 ¶ Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19 in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,
20 that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
21 ¶ which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

Thank you for responding.

The Lord's Supper, yes, because Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me".
Baptism no, the greek says that the water, from vs. 20, is a representation of baptism. It does not say baptism is a representation of anything. It does say that baptism saves you.

udatos
hudatos
G5204
n_ Gen Sg n
water​

w
hO
G3739
pr Dat Sg n
to-WHICH​

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1pe3.pdf

If baptism was considered as a sign in the New Testament church, somebody would have made a reference to it. But "baptism sign" terminology is completely missing from the Bible. First century christians did not see baptism as a 'sign' of salvation. This idea is entirely a product of history, mostly from the Reformation -onward.

 

[sojourner]

Baptism, according to my Episcopal upbringing, is a sacrament: That is, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Neither the water, nor the act, are efficacious. It is God who is efficacious. The water and the act are necessary only to the degree that they serve to embody that grace for human beings with bodies, and who experience God's universe through bodily means.

Therefore, the water and act of Baptism are physical signs of something spiritual that God is doing with us. Since Baptism is a community effort (that is, it takes God, a candidate, and a church for baptism to happen), the water and the act serve as a focal point for such effort.

 

[Jacksnyte]

In Romans 4, Paul goes into extensive detail and description of how Abraham was considered righteous before circumcision. He called it "the sign of circumcision". (Side note, the law occurred between Abraham's sola fide and the New Testament).
With Paul's incredible descriptive capacity that he displays in chapter 4 of calling a sign a sign, he then leaves baptism completely alone.

It would be inconsistent for Paul to say

(NASB) Acts 22:12-13, 16
"A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, [13] came to me, and standing near said to me, ''Brother Saul, receive your sight!'' And at that very time I looked up at him. [16] ''Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.''

-and then say "Baptism is just an after the fact sign."

If Paul had considered baptism as a sign of the covenant, he demonstrated in chapter 4 that he was more than capable of saying the sign of baptism -explicitly, he did not.
Paul mentions baptism quite a few times, and he had ample opportunity to call it a sign as he did with circumcision, but he did not - nor did anyone else in the Bible.

Zwingli, however, was one of this idea's main proponents. These days many take an extreme liberty of calling baptism a sign of the covenant, where Paul did not.

(NASB) Colossians 2:11-13
and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; [12] having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [13] When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Paul mentions circumcision and baptism in the same sentence without referring to it as a sign of the covenant, but he does throw in "having forgiven us all our transgressions."

The Southern Baptist take on this is that it functions as a public profession of faith which is the main requirement when becoming a member of the church.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism, according to my Episcopal upbringing, is a sacrament: That is, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Neither the water, nor the act, are efficacious. It is God who is efficacious. The water and the act are necessary only to the degree that they serve to embody that grace for human beings with bodies, and who experience God's universe through bodily means.

Therefore, the water and act of Baptism are physical signs of something spiritual that God is doing with us. Since Baptism is a community effort (that is, it takes God, a candidate, and a church for baptism to happen), the water and the act serve as a focal point for such effort.

The Southern Baptist take on this is that it functions as a public profession of faith which is the main requirement when becoming a member of the church.

Thank you both. I respect your beliefs, even if I don't share them.

I was reading a little bit in the Trinity thread. Therein it is contended that many ideas belonging to the Trinity are historically based from sources outside of Christianity.

My question to both is that since the purpose of baptism is not described or discussed within the Bible as either
an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace,
physical signs of something spiritual that God is doing with us,
or -a public profession of faith, then how can these ideas not be dismissed in the same way: as historical and extra-biblical in origin?

Thank you and with all due respect.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Thank you both. I respect your beliefs, even if I don't share them.

I was reading a little bit in the Trinity thread that many ideas belonging to the Trinity are historically based from sources outside of Christianity.

My question to both is that since the purpose of baptism is not described or discussed within the Bible as either
an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace,
physical signs of something spiritual that God is doing with us,
or a public profession of faith, then how can these ideas not be dismissed in the same way: as historical and extra-biblical in origin?

Thank you and with all due respect.

Well, I haven't considered myself Southern Baptist since 1984, but, I would have to say that it was a decision made by a group of men a few hundreds years ago to include this tradition in the Southern Baptist church. To them, it was meant as a symbol in line with Jesus' telling his disciples to "confess him before men", or something to that effect.

 

[Desert Snake]

Baptism is in the NT, obviously, however it's how different churches view it's meaning that become an issue. As has been mentioned, amongst Baptists, it holds more importance, I would guess, than among other Protestant groups, however baptism is also extremely important with the Catholic churches, With the Roman Catholic church perhaps taking the lead in importance.
That being said, of course some of the importance placed on baptism is "extra biblical", then again so is much of church doctrine, so I'm not quite sure what your position is regarding all of these extra-biblical traditions.

Question for the OP, do you think baptism is necessary for Christians?

 

[e.r.m.]

Well, I haven't considered myself Southern Baptist since 1984, but, I would have to say that it was a decision made by a group of men a few hundreds years ago to include this tradition in the Southern Baptist church. To them, it was meant as a symbol in line with Jesus' telling his disciples to "confess him before men", or something to that effect.

I agree on the logic, but I would point you to earlier than several hundred years ago to Zwingli in the 1520's
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...foO2zT&sig=AHIEtbTksj4B-5eEvwnpt3U-oqzLp2u-Fw
Zwingli on Baptism: Pages 10,11 - Section III: A.: 2. A pledge of allegiance.

 

[e.r.m.]

Baptism is in the NT, obviously, however it's how different churches view it's meaning that become an issue. As has been mentioned, amongst Baptists, it holds more importance, I would guess, than among other Protestant groups, however baptism is also extremely important with the Catholic churches, With the Roman Catholic church perhaps taking the lead in importance.
That being said, of course some of the importance placed on baptism is "extra biblical", then again so is much of church doctrine, so I'm not quite sure what your position is regarding all of these extra-biblical traditions.

Question for the OP, do you think baptism is necessary for Christians?

I'm not quite sure what your position is regarding all of these extra-biblical traditions.
On this, being that the New Testament, in written form, associates baptism several times with salvation (it really only takes once), then extra-biblical traditions that deviate from the Bible on a salvation issue, I view as very critical. If with extra-biblical traditions one gets wrong a topical like 'music during worship', that's not nearly as important as salvation. I believe one should not be relaxed on salvation doctrine, save that for music doctrine.

Do you think baptism is necessary for Christians?
If you don't mind, I am going to change the question to "Do you think baptism is necessary for salvation?" -because I see a Christian as an already baptized follower of Christ.
The bible refers to salvation and forgiveness of as the purpose of baptism. This was the purpose given after Jesus's resurrection, different from John's baptism which was in effect before Jesus's death. Paul re-baptized 12 men, in Jesus's Name, in Acts 19, even though they had previously received John's baptism.

Being that salvation/forgiveness of sins is the written purpose of baptism, after belief in Jesus, confessing Him as Lord, and repenting of one's sins, I do then see it as necessary. There is at least assurance in the written Word, we do not have assurance in inferred extra-biblical doctrines.

 

[sojourner]

My question to both is that since the purpose of baptism is not described or discussed within the Bible as either
an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace,
physical signs of something spiritual that God is doing with us,
or -a public profession of faith, then how can these ideas not be dismissed in the same way: as historical and extra-biblical in origin?

Your argument is one from sola scriptura. Since I'm not a sola scriptura Xtian, ideas are not "dismissed" simply because they're "extra-biblical in origin." There is really little in the way of a developed theology for baptism in the texts, themselves. the bible is part of the tradition of the Body of Christ -- not all of it. The bible is part of history. Therefore, if one thing can be dismissed as "historical," then the Bible can also be dismissed as "historical."

 

[e.r.m.]

Your argument is one from sola scriptura. Since I'm not a sola scriptura Xtian, ideas are not "dismissed" simply because they're "extra-biblical in origin." There is really little in the way of a developed theology for baptism in the texts, themselves. the bible is part of the tradition of the Body of Christ -- not all of it. The bible is part of history. Therefore, if one thing can be dismissed as "historical," then the Bible can also be dismissed as "historical."

Yes, I understand. We are familiar with each other's positions on sola scriptura. I refer only to the extra-biblical that is in contradiction to the text. I am not against Christian literature. I believe I am not alone in the position of holding the Bible as the standard. I believe Baptists believe in that idea as well.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I understand. We are familiar with each other's positions on sola scriptura. I refer only to the extra-biblical that is in contradiction to the text. I am not against Christian literature. I believe I am not alone in the position of holding the Bible as the standard. I believe Baptists believe in that idea as well.

Yeah, well, I'm not a Baptist. I don't see at all where my stance is in disagreement with biblical tenet.

 

[e.r.m.]

Yeah, well, I'm not a Baptist. I don't see at all where my stance is in disagreement with biblical tenet.

Where we differ I think is the purpose of baptism. I have no problem that, as a side effect or an after thought, baptism could visibly and physically represents the spiritual event which we cannot see, but I do not see any text that supports this as the purpose.

 

[sojourner]

Where we differ I think is the purpose of baptism. I have no problem that, as a side effect or an after thought, baptism could visibly and physically represents the spiritual event which we cannot see, but I do not see any text that supports this as the purpose.

But that is the purpose! First of all, water doesn't effect salvation, otherwise, everyone who showers in the morning would be saved. Second, it's not the act that saves, otherwise, every football coach who gets the Gatorade on the head would be saved. So, if it's not the water, and it's not the human action, what is it? The only element left is God. God doesn't need water in order to save us. But we need water in order to give grace form and experiential "legs."

 

[e.r.m.]

But that is the purpose! First of all, water doesn't effect salvation, otherwise, everyone who showers in the morning would be saved. Second, it's not the act that saves, otherwise, every football coach who gets the Gatorade on the head would be saved. So, if it's not the water, and it's not the human action, what is it? The only element left is God. God doesn't need water in order to save us. But we need water in order to give grace form and experiential "legs."

Not according to Biblical tenet. I here your passion behind this, but why didn't any of the Biblical authors ever refer to baptism this way? Apparently, they thought differently.

 

[sojourner]

Not according to Biblical tenet. I here your passion behind this, but why didn't any of the Biblical authors ever refer to baptism this way? Apparently, they thought differently.

Why should they have to state the obvious?
Another aspect is that by coming and asking, by participating in the act, it shows intent. A thought is married to an action. People can say anything. Action is an indicator of sincerity. God provides the salvation, but we need to provide intention, or the gift is fairly useless.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why should they have to state the obvious?
Another aspect is that by coming and asking, by participating in the act, it shows intent. A thought is married to an action. People can say anything. Action is an indicator of sincerity. God provides the salvation, but we need to provide intention, or the gift is fairly useless.

So infant baptism is just a church fomality, is that your opinion? There is no personal intent to be baptized in that situation.

 

[e.r.m.]

Why should they have to state the obvious?
Another aspect is that by coming and asking, by participating in the act, it shows intent. A thought is married to an action. People can say anything. Action is an indicator of sincerity. God provides the salvation, but we need to provide intention, or the gift is fairly useless.

Why should they have to state the obvious?
They did take the time to state a few verses in favor of baptism for forgiveness of sins and salvation. They had 27 books and said nothing; Neither to qualify nor debunk those first scriptures, nor to state the supposed 'true purpose' of baptism. What was obvious in their minds, they stated.

I agree with you about the intent and participation and God saving, but this compliments not contradicts the scriptures on baptism and salvation. Although I did enjoy your gatorade analogy.

 

[sojourner]

So infant baptism is just a church fomality, is that your opinion? There is no personal intent to be baptized in that situation.

There is intent on the part of the parents, whose job it is to speak for the child.