When it comes to baptism, one of the few things all Christians agree about is that all Christians should be baptized. That’s where the discussion begins, not where it ends.As infants or as adults?
By immersion, by sprinkling, or by pouring?
By a pastor/priest or by anyone?
Symbol or sacrament?
What is the relationship between baptism and salvation?
Of course, what’s fascinating about all this is that a practice which was intended to signify the unity of the Christian Church has now become a massive point of division among people who all claim to love Jesus.
Here is a cursory outline of how various important texts on baptism tend to fall on the questions above.
Passages which indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation (8)
Matthew 3:14 (I have NEED)
Mark 16:14-18 (Although there is dispute over the authenticity of these verses)
John 3:3-5
Acts 2:38-41
Acts 8:35-39 ( Notice the Eunuch's immediate reaction to Philip's preaching, and then notice that the Holy Spirit takes him away immediately after baptism is completed, as though that's the complete transaction.)
Galatians 3:27
Titus 3:3-7
1 Peter 3:18-22
Passages which indicate that baptism is not necessary for salvation (13)
Luke 23:39-43
John 1:12-13
John 3:14-18, 36
John 5:24
John 15:3
Acts 10:44-48
Acts 22:16
Romans 10:8-11
1 Corinthians 1:11-17—especially verse 17
1 Corinthians 6:9-11—Seems to indicate the word and the name do the washing.
2 Corinthians 5:17—Although when combined with 1 Corinthians 12:13, perhaps means in Christ by baptism.
Ephesians 1:13-14
Ephesians 2:8-9
Passages which indicate that children should be baptized. (9)
Genesis 17:1-14
Matthew 19:13-15
Mark 10:13-16
Luke 1:41—John the Baptist was a believer in his mother’s womb
Luke 18:15-17
Acts 16:14-15
Acts 16:30-33
Acts 18:8—Does not say it very clearly, so give this one only some weight.
Romans 4:11
Passages which indicate that believers should be baptized.(3)
Acts 2:38-41
Luke 3:8—Some were turned away from being baptized by John.
Acts 8:37—Although this verse is of uncertain authenticiy.
Passages which indicate baptism by sprinkling (5)
Numbers 8:5-7
Numbers 19
Ezekiel 36:22-28
Hebrews 9:19-22
Hebrews 10:22
Passages which indicate baptism by immersion (4)
Matthew 3:13-17
Mark 1:4-11
John 3:22-23
Acts 8:35-39
Passages indicating that water baptism was to be replaced by Holy Spirit baptism.(7)
Matthew 3:11
Mark 1:4-8
Luke 3:16
John 1:25-34
John 4:1-2 (Jesus’s baptism is not of water, else He would have been baptizing.)
Acts 1:5
Acts 11:16
Passages indicating that water baptism was not to be replaced by Holy Spirit baptism.(2)
Acts 10:44-48—Also it’s clear that baptism with water does not have to precede HS, although usually it does
Acts 19:1-7—Paul rebaptizes in Jesus’s name and thereafter they receive Holy Spirit
Passages indicating baptism is more than merely symbolic.(6)
Matthew 28:18-20
Romans 6:1-11
1 Corinthians 12:12-14
Ephesians 5:26-27
Hebrews 6:1-2
Colossians 2:8-12
Passages supporting rebaptism.(1)
Acts 19:1-7
Passages opposing rebaptism (1)
Ephesians 4:4-6
10 comments:
Jeff Durbin of Apologia Christian Ministries has raised some emphatic questions about the things I have said about baptism. He is the caller with whom I argued for about 15 minutes last Tuesday. If you want to read them, go here.
http://apologiachristianministries.blogspot.com/
http://defendthefaith.org/
One difficulty with his blog is that he does not have comments enabled because of the rude remarks he gets from some people, so I decided to host the discussion here, where anyone can participate.
I wrote Jeff an email today which read thus:
Jeff,
I have a lot of things to comment on regarding the issue of baptism, but before I do that, I have two questions for you.
1. Is it conceivable to you that our conversations would ever lead you to believe that baptism is an essential part of a normal New Testament salvation?
I know you don't believe this to be the correct Biblical position, but I want to know whether you can imagine yourself ever being persuaded to adopt this conclusion? In other words, are you open to this possibility, even though I know you don't currently accept it? I should hope you would know that I am fully open to changing my own view on most any point other than that there is no possibility I would ever give up believe in Christ and Him crucified. I can certainly imagine being convinced that baptism of children is wrong (I used to believe so), that baptism is purely symbolic with no sacramental value at all (I used to believe so), and perhaps many other things. All I'm wondering is whether you are equally open to the possibility that you might be mistaken.
2. Even if you can't see yourself ever accepting the possibility that baptism is an essential part of a normal New Testament salvation, can you see yourself accepting the possibility that someone who believes it is at least is not preaching heresy or a false gospel?
For instance, I hope I'm right in guessing that you believe in believer baptism rather than infant baptism. This means you disagree with RC Sproul. If I've guessed wrong about you, then you do believe in infant baptism, which means you disagree with John MacArthur. Either way, there is someone on our station with whom you disagree about baptism. The question is, do you believe that both of these men are within the bounds of Scripture, even though one view is better than the other, or do you believe that only the one who agrees with you is teaching orthodox Christianity and the other is a heretic? Would you say the one with whom you disagree is teaching a false gospel? I am hoping you would say that one of these men is right and the other wrong, but both are within the bounds of Biblical orthodoxy nonetheless. And what I want to know is whether you can see yourself ever having that level of tolerance toward my own view.
I ask these questions because it seems these are the two main points of your current assertion: I am not merely interpreting the Bible incorrectly, but I am interpreting it so incorrectly that I am actually teaching heresy in the process. I, on the other hand, simply believe that you are missing enough things in your interpretation that your view is not the best one, although it is certainly within the bounds of orthodoxy. The question is whether you can ever see yourself saying the same thing about me.
Obviously, the alternative is that you are so convinced of your own view that no amount of discussion is really capable of producing meaningful movement on your side. I am being called to either embrace your view or else be condemned a heretic and a teacher of a false works-based salvation. So, before I spend a lot more time discussing this with you, I'd like your honest evaluation of how purposeful such time can be. It's possible I may still find it worthwhile to talk with you even if you are so trenchant that you can't answer "yes" to either question, but I'd certainly be a lot more eager to do so if you can honestly answer "yes" to both of them. In other words, if you are willing to actually explore this topic with me, I'm very excited. But if you're only interested in seeing me conform to your view or else stand condemned, I'm pretty unexcited.
One final note. I'm going to post our comments on my blog as a running conversation, starting with this one. If you ever want to email me without me posting it, or if you want me to not post your answers, I will honor that, although I will probably post something simply to the effect that you don't want your replies posted. Since it best relates to the topic blog on the subject, I'll put the stuff there rather than under the Thought of the Day where you originally linked your website.
Andrew
Someone has anonymously posted comments here which are extremely libelous against Mr. Durbin. I am not interested in having any of that sort of nonsense on my blog. If you have relevant points to contribute to this discussion, please post those. Thank you.
Andrew, I was asked to write a full response for this topic but first I wanted to ask you for a bit of clarification. With a topic like this many times people talk past each other and not necessarily to each other. So for my clarity on your position, Are you saying that baptism is a necessary part of JUSTIFICATION? Because as a seminary professor I do not know of anyone in Evangelicalism who takes that position. Or are you saying that baptism is an essential part of SANCTIFICATION? Sanctification being a part of our salvation and since baptism is commanded if one refuses you would question the sincerity of their faith. This is a more typical view. So when you say "normal NT salvation" are you referring to justification or sanctification which would encompass how we live our lives in Christ.
Thanks for the clarity around this. I look forward to reading your response.
Just an FYI. I have disabled anonymnous comments on my blogs. They are still open to anyone to post, but you have to identify yourself with a Google account or some other form of online ID. I didn't think I would need to do this, but I strongly prefer to know with whom I am speaking. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this may cause any of you.
There are two views which I reject:
View 1: That baptism saves all on whom it is performed.
View 2: That baptism does nothing at all and is purely an external sign with no substantive effect whatsoever.
My main concern in discussing this subject on the air is that I believe Christians, and particularly Evangelicals (the label I prefer for myself), falsely embrace View 2. This reduces baptism to the point of insignificance, an oversimplification which I perceive is the actual doctrine taught by many pastors. When I spoke with Jeff on the air two weeks ago, I heard him making this same mistake. It's entirely possible I misheard him. Unfortunately, that view is insupportable with Scripture, as, of course, is the first.
In the terminology I often hear, baptism is described as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us," but this is only the first part of the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer. The full statement reads, “The sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.” I’m concerned to see that the latter portion of that sentence is honored, since it is a false reduction of Scripture without that part.
I perceive View 2 being common as an over-reaction against View 1 (which it probably is, historically speaking). As such, my presentation is a reaction to their over-reaction, which might make me perhaps seem (falsely) to embrace view 1. My hope is that this explanation is clear, although my expectation lags a bit behind my optimism.
I don't quite know how to answer your question because (and here I must apologize) I'm just not comfortable with your terminology. Allow me to let someone much more skilled than I speak for me on this subject. I agree with everything I read in John Stott's excellent paper "The Evangelical Doctrine of Baptism." The paper can be read here:
http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_112_1_Stott.pdf If Stott is not an Evangelical, then it's not clear to me who would be. And if me advocating his view represents an apparent shift in my own view, that is only because I am woefully unskilled at explaining my own.
Andrew, thank you for the response and for the clarification. Of course I am familiar with John Stott, having read a bit of his work in Seminary. I am grateful for your reference to his article as well. I can see know where the debate lies between you and Jeff. Stott is coming from an Anglican (high view of sacraments) position where there is more than a visual representation of a spiritual reality. In a conversation like this what is meant by the term "salvation" needs to be clarified. When we talk theologically about salvation we need to ask if we are referring to JUSTIFICATION (being made right before God through faith); SANCITFICATION (how we grow in Christ-likeness from that moment on); or GLORIFICATION (when we leave this world and experience eternity with Christ). What I believe Jeff heard you say was that baptism was necessary to justify someone. This is clearly not the case from John Stott's perspective for he states, "Over and over again the New Testament writers declare that we are justified by faith, or (more accurately) by grace through faith. It is impossible to reconcile this doctrine with the view that justification is by grace through baptism, with or without faith." Even as he compares Baptism and the sign of the covenant to circumcision he states "The place and function of circumcision is defined in Romans 4:11, where Abraham is said to have ‘received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised’." This becomes even more apparent when he states "Yes, it does matter. People need to be warned, for the good of their soul, that the reception of the sign, although it entitles them to the gift, does not confer the gift on them. They need to be taught the indispensable necessity of personal repentance and faith if they are to receive the thing signified." Baptism is thus for Stott and those in this camp a “a title or pledge for the grace of the sacrament upon worthiness” (worthiness being defined as one who has been justified by faith). I hope this was helpful. Thank your for the dialogue!
Hey guys! I have begun the response. Here is the link to my blog. I will also respond to the Stott situation.
http://apologiachristianministries.blogspot.com/
Blessings!
Jeff
Apologia
Post a Comment