LOL! Thanks for making me laugh. So Katie and I were discussing what the next discussion topic might be. One idea was the way God communicates truth. I'm thinking he leaves much for us to discuss and wonder about. If I had to guess why, it's so we might have the enjoyment of having discussions like these. I imagine you'd have some memorable conversations with Calvin over the purpose of baptism.
The way Calvinists explained it to me is this: Baptism is like circumsicion. It is the Christian community's profession to raise the infant to become Christian. For Calvin said, "Before a child reaches seven, teach him all the way to heaven."
So I don't know if you are as curious as I am, but I wonder: To whom did God reveal the truth about the true purpose of baptism--you and Katie, or Calvin, or neither? You see, I'm wondering if God doesn't communicate all truth, but leaves some truth--like baptism--for us to figure out for ourselves. People love a good mystery and enjoy thoughtful conversation, or sometimes debate. Maybe he is providing for such needs?
Thank, but don't worry. I was not offended. Yes, I agree.
So it seems the discussion has been resurrected into how God reveals truth, which I'm glad to discuss. My question to Atpollard--and you too if you would like to share your thoughts--is this: Why do you think the Holy Spirit gave the truth about the purpose of baptism to you and Atpollard but not to the esteemed evangelist and Bible teacher John Calvin? He taught it is a serious violation of God's will to fail to baptize a baby. I'll provide a link or two if you want to confirm Calvin's view or learn why he held it. my thought is that it cannot possibly be a lack of sincere and serious Bible study that led to his deception. So what do you think deceived him?
One reason people differ in interpretation may be because they come into a study with preconceived ideas. I don't think it's really intentional. It's something we can't help sometimes, and it's very very hard to make yourself go into a study with fresh new eyes. I'm sure you're aware of what's called cognitive dissonance.
Paul wrote that God sends strong delusions to those who aren't willing to receive the truth. He allows those kinds of people to believe a lie.
I'm not God so I can't speak to John Calvin's motives, or heart, whether he truly was seeking truth or if he was just studying to support what he already believed.
I can speak for me, however. I spent a good year or more trying to understand the true purpose of baptism and whether it was necessary for salvation.
Before I set out each day, I would pray to God that He help me get to the truth and to help me let go of my own personal views.
I also made it a point to study all related verses in their context. I can't say enough about context and how important it is!
In the end, I concluded that the purpose of baptism is indeed "for the remission of sins." I based my conclusion on what the Scriptures say. I don't try to make them say something they don't say.
One of the most powerful verses is Acts 2:38. I've read the "eis" arguments from both sides. In the end, I conclude that the verse says what it means and means what it says. "Let each of you repent and be immersed for the forgiveness of your sins..." Every English version reads the same. None say repent and be baptized BECAUSE your sins have been forgiven. Not one!
The same can be said of 1 Peter 3:21. Peter says "baptism now saves you." People have twisted that verse to the point where it says "baptism does NOT now save you." When a person changes the outcome of a verse to say the opposite of what the verse says, something is very wrong.
Besides my study of Scripture, I read a lot of early church history. The early church Fathers unanimously agree that baptism was for the remission of sins. You can do some research for yourself if you're interested.
For 1500 years, the church believed and taught that baptism was for remission of sins. It was not until 1523 that Zwingli claimed a different purpose for baptism. He said baptism was an outward sign to show that a person was already saved. Zwingli took the water out of baptism and made it totally spiritual. He literally created two baptisms, one physical and one spiritual where Paul wrote that there is ONE baptism. You can research this for yourself if you are interested. I have a great book about Zwingli's teachings.
My conclusion about the necessity part is that Jesus said to do it. How can anyone dare to call Him LORD, and then say His commands are unecessary to obey? My conclusion is based on Jesus's own words. "If you love Me, keep my commandments." That about sums up for me why baptism is necessary. I've no doubt you've read through the entire Bible. I think you would agree that obedience is a major theme and very necessary throughout His word. God expects us to obey Him, or at the very least, do our best to, and not contradict His commands.
Can God save people who are not baptized? Of course! He's God. He can do anything He wants.
By the way, the thief is not a good example of what someone should do to be saved under the Law of Christ. Jesus had not instituted christian baptism until after His resurrection. No question the thief had faith. He showed his faith. He repented. He even confessed Jesus publicly. And for all we know, he could have been baptized with John's baptism. The Bible doesn't tell us either way, and truthfully, it doesn't matter. I don't believe the thief is our model for how to become a christian under the New Covenant. I believe that is found all over the book of Acts.
