Baptism purpose Sign of the covenant.

[sojourner]

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'. 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.

I never said that baptism wasn't for forgiveness of sin and salvation. What I said is that it is an outward sign of God's effective work toward that end.

 

[e.r.m.]

I never said that baptism wasn't for forgiveness of sin and salvation. What I said is that it is an outward sign of God's effective work toward that end.

Ok, but unfortunately, the purpose issue. I don't see both.

 

[sojourner]

Ok, but unfortunately, the purpose issue. I don't see both.

So, you're saying that baptism isn't an outward and visible sign? You're saying that grace isn't inward and invisible? i don't understand.

 

[e.r.m.]

So, you're saying that baptism isn't an outward and visible sign? You're saying that grace isn't inward and invisible? i don't understand.

Grace is a characteristic of God. The effect of God being gracious/bestowing undeserved favor on a person is both inward and outward, invisible and visible.
Acts 9:3-4
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. [4] He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

1 Corinthians 15:10
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them---yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

The inward and invisible grace terminology was developed later.

Baptism as a sign - as a possible side effect or after thought. But of no Biblical significance.

 

[sojourner]

Grace is a characteristic of God. The effect of God being gracious/bestowing undeserved favor on a person is both inward and outward, invisible and visible.
Acts 9:3-4
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. [4] He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

1 Corinthians 15:10
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them---yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

The inward and invisible grace terminology was developed later.

Baptism as a sign - as a possible side effect or after thought. But of no Biblical significance.

Ok, but you've got to remember that you're dealing with people -- especially the writer of Mark and Q -- who were dealing with the world on an extremely physical level. To them, the idea of a dualism between material and spiritual was largely unknown. So their perspective of the world and how it works is completely different from ours. But that doesn't necessarily mean "that's the way it is." What it does mean is, "That's the way they perceived it."

 

[e.r.m.]

Ok, but you've got to remember that you're dealing with people -- especially the writer of Mark and Q -- who were dealing with the world on an extremely physical level. To them, the idea of a dualism between material and spiritual was largely unknown. So their perspective of the world and how it works is completely different from ours. But that doesn't necessarily mean "that's the way it is." What it does mean is, "That's the way they perceived it."

I agree, I think.
I'm slow. Would you please connect the dots for me? I don't see your point.
Thank you.

Are you saying that Mark and Q -- should have believed in dualism between material and spiritual, or should they not have?
I think you are saying that they were missing this piece. Am I correct? Just trying to understand.

I personally see the school of thought of dualism between material and spiritual as a bad thing.

 

[e.r.m.]

In order for a belief to be Biblical, for me, the belief has to have at least one foundational scripture or verse. Being that the purpose of baptism, as an outward representation of inward grace, doesn't have one, I consider it as a Biblical myth like:

-Adam and Eve eating an apple,
-Mary Magdelene committing a sexual sin,
- & The three Magi.

 

[Desert Snake]

In order for a belief to be Biblical, for me, the belief has to have at least one foundational scrtipture or verse. Being that the purpose of baptism, as an outward representation of inward grace, doesn't have one, I consider it as a Biblical myth like:
-Adam and Eve eating an apple,
-Mary Magdelene commiting a sexual sin,
- & The three Magi,

So what, in your opinion, is the purpose of baptism?

 

[e.r.m.]

So what, in your opinion, is the purpose of baptism?

IMO,

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.


In short, I see the purpose of batism as forgiveness of sins/savlation, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and for a good conscience.

 

[Desert Snake]

IMO,

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [a]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.


In short, I see the purpose of batism as forgiveness of sins/savlation, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and for a good conscience.

So, then my question is, why do you think these statements are referring to everyone and not just to the people being addressed?

 

[e.r.m.]

So, then my question is, why do you think these statements are referring to everyone and not just to the people being addressed?

Good question.

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
The command was not limited to those in Jerusalem at pentecost.

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
They started in Jerusalem and baptized them for the reason stated above.

Peter followed Acts 2:38 with 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off —for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Peter said it was for all who are far off —for all whom the Lord our God will call. Not limited to that particular crowd.

Acts 8:5 Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized.
They baptized in Samaria.


They went into the world and baptized disciples in Rome, Corinth, Colossae, Galatia, etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

Good question.

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

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

They started in Jerusalem and baptized them for the reason stated above.

Acts 8:5 Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah there. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized.

They did the same in Samria.


They went into the world and baptized disciples in Corinth, Colossae, Galatia, etc.

O.k., then my other question would be about infant baptism, do you view this as the same thing as adult baptism, where one is clearly making a choice to be baptized?

 

[e.r.m.]

O.k., then my other question would be about infant baptism, do you view this as the same thing as adult baptism, where one is clearly making a choice to be baptized?

Not the same. Only those who are of age to be able to repent and be baptized according to Peter's command in Acts 2:38.

The Bible directly states it's teaching on baptism. There's no justification for anyone to go making up new purposes for baptism, especially purposes contradicting the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

Not the same. Only those who are of age to be able to repent and be baptized according to Peter's command in Acts 2:38.

The Bible directly states it's teaching on baptism. There's no justification for anyone to go making up new purposes for baptism, especially purposes contradicting the Bible.

I don't think it's quite so clear as you're letting on here. The bible is also pretty clear that individuals "and [their] whole household" were baptized. This would have included children. You're failing to take into account two very important cultural differences between us and the ancients:

1) The ancients viewed redemption as more communal than individual. Remember, God was saving the nation -- not individuals within it.

2) In that culture, the man of the house was not only legally and temporally responsible for those in his household, but also spiritually responsible. The man spoke for his wife, children and servants, because they were afforded no voice for themselves.

In light of this, it's probable that small children were baptized, upon their father's consent, and that that baptism was considered efficacious.

 

[e.r.m.]

I don't think it's quite so clear as you're letting on here. The bible is also pretty clear that individuals "and [their] whole household" were baptized. This would have included children. You're failing to take into account two very important cultural differences between us and the ancients:

1) The ancients viewed redemption as more communal than individual. Remember, God was saving the nation -- not individuals within it.

2) In that culture, the man of the house was not only legally and temporally responsible for those in his household, but also spiritually responsible. The man spoke for his wife, children and servants, because they were afforded no voice for themselves.

In light of this, it's probable that small children were baptized, upon their father's consent, and that that baptism was considered efficacious.

1) The ancients viewed redemption as more communal than individual. Remember, God was saving the nation -- not individuals within it.
Most of my comments were directed at baptism as a sign of the covenant, but I find this interest also. I have read this position on this website several times and have given it some thought. I believe protestants take "personal savior" too far, but it's not completely without merit. Jesus did save people individually. Zaccheus, the woman who washed his feet with her hair, the paralytic, etc. Peter said "you (plural) with the help of wicked men put him to death on a cross." Peter also said "repent and be baptized each one of you..." John the baptist baptized many and refused to baptize others, calling them a brood of vipers. These definitely indicate an indiviual sifting process as opposed to a universal type salvation. Repentance was a big deal to these men, which also goes against the idea that they may have baptized children in the jailer's home.

2) In that culture, the man of the house was not only legally and temporally responsible for those in his household, but also spiritually responsible. The man spoke for his wife, children and servants, because they were afforded no voice for themselves.
I agree this was the culture. But infant baptism is an inferred doctrine at best. And at worst, it contradicts the biblical expectation to repent before being baptized. Paul also says that baptism is in order that people may walk in the newness of life. A baby doesn't need a newness of life. I believe if infant baptisms were the norm, it would have been mentioned (explicitly) in the Bible. If it was an exception, I don't think Paul would have been the one to make that exception in the jailer's home or Peter in Cornelius's home, knowing their views on baptism.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[sojourner]

1) The ancients viewed redemption as more communal than individual. Remember, God was saving the nation -- not individuals within it.
Most of my comments were directed at baptism as a sign of the covenant, but I find this interest also. I have read this position on this website several times and have given it some thought. I believe protestants take "personal savior" too far, but it's not completely without merit. Jesus did save people individually. Zaccheus, the woman who washed his feet with her hair, the paralytic, etc. Peter said "you (plural) with the help of wicked men put him to death on a cross." Peter also said "repent and be baptized each one of you..." John the baptist baptized many and refused to baptize others, calling them a brood of vipers. These definitely indicate an indiviual sifting process as opposed to a universal type salvation. Repentance was a big deal to these men, which also goes against the idea that they may have baptized children in the jailer's home.

2) In that culture, the man of the house was not only legally and temporally responsible for those in his household, but also spiritually responsible. The man spoke for his wife, children and servants, because they were afforded no voice for themselves.
I agree this was the culture. But infant baptism is an inferred doctrine at best. And at worst, it contradicts the biblical expectation to repent before being baptized. Paul also says that baptism is in order that people may walk in the newness of life. A baby doesn't need a newness of life. I believe if infant baptisms were the norm, it would have been mentioned (explicitly) in the Bible. If it was an exception, I don't think Paul would have been the one to make that exception in the jailer's home or Peter in Cornelius's home, knowing their views on baptism.

Those are my thoughts.

I disagree. I don't think it's "inferred at best." I think it may be implied, thus, no need to mention it specifically.

 

[e.r.m.]

I disagree. I don't think it's "inferred at best." I think it may be implied, thus, no need to mention it specifically.

I respectfully disagree, if it was implied and not inferred, then they (not us) would have to debunk belief and repentance, on the part of the baptizee, as a condition for baptism.

 

[sojourner]

I respectfully disagree, if it was implied and not inferred, then they (not us) would have to debunk belief and repentance, on the part of the baptizee, as a condition for baptism.

You didn't read my previous post, did you.
In that culture, the man of the house was the only person who could make such decisions. Even for adult women and slaves.

 

[e.r.m.]

You didn't read my previous post, did you.
In that culture, the man of the house was the only person who could make such decisions. Even for adult women and slaves.

They had a deep convition of following God's word. They prioritized God's will when it conflicted with culture.
John 4:7, 9
When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" [9] The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans. )

Acts 10:27-29
Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. [28] He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. [29] So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"

Acts 22:21-22
"Then the Lord said to me, `Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.' " [22] The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"

Acts 28:28, 30-31
"Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" [30] For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. [31] Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't see either Peter or Paul debunking their own convictions of belief and repentance as conditions for baptism, in order to preserve culture. Nor do I see any infants speaking in tongues or praising God in Cornelius's household.

In all cases, the greater likelihood is that they baptized only those who were of age.

 

[sojourner]

In all cases, the greater likelihood is that they baptized only those who were of age.

I disagree.