Church Voices

13 Responses to “The Offense of Baptism”

1. Christian Says:
   March 2nd, 2006 at 3:12 am

   Greater men have written on this subject than I, and it goes way off my initial question (Although ironically you too are offended by the thought. Certainly not to the extent a person dealing with a pride issue would be, but the idea being “troubling” to you is more offensive than bothersome. At least from the thoughts you share.)

   Before I address your actual concerns, let me suggest reading Baptism: A biblical study by Jack Cottrell. Or if you prefer, search your N.T. for references to baptism and spend a few hours with the Word of God.

   I also suggest doing a search on this site for baptism and reading many of the resources linked, quoted, or otherwise provided.

   You have two issues that contradict each other - you don’t believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation and at the same time you think it would be better if we believed that children should be baptized…so they could be saved, or that nobody should be baptized for salvation…so the children can be saved. Your making a mistake in beleiving that those are the only two options, and that God lets us decide which one makes us feel more comfortable.

   Now, the first and most basic concept/argument for not baptising babies and children is that Scripture makes belief, repentance, and confessions of the mouth a requirement for salvation. See Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 and Rom. 10:9-10. An infant is not capable of this. In addition, children are never mentioned in Scripture as being baptized.

   You ask “If our emphasis is on baptism for the completion of God’s salvational plan why do we allow children to make their decision when we know that baptism is so important?” We cannot make or force another soul to be saved. If I go and dunk a prostitute and tell her she’s saved, that doesn’t make her saved. We “allow” children to make their own decision because that is what God requires from all of us. A decision. Believe me, I’ve tried to tell someone that they have to believe…and they have to do it now. It didn’t work.

   I think we make a mistake in the Christian Church by using words to describe how important baptism is instead of simply stating that baptism is a part of the answer to the question “How can I be saved?” Believe, repent, confess, be baptized. Why do you question baptism which is clearly discussed in Scripture and not question the validy of the confession of Jesus as Lord?

   To answer your primary qualm that baptism is not necessary let us read Acts 2:38, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” and 22:16, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” My logic goes something like this: Sin separates us from God. Christ died on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven and that we might be reunited with God. If we are still in our sin (unforgiven) we cannot be saved. Our sins our forgiven/washed away at baptism. Hence, baptism is necessary for salvation.

   There is so much more about the subject, and like I said, greater men than I have written on it. But I would say to start with your own honest look at what the Word says. And when you do, being in the presence of God because your sins have been forgiven, ask Him to give you wisdom in understanding this very important part of the Gospel through His Holy Spirit whom you received at baptism.

2. Tim Reed Says:
   March 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 am

   Sal,

   In Acts 2:38 when Peter is asked what must be done he replies, “repent and be baptized” for the forgiveness of sins. An infant obviously can’t repent, even if you hold to a doctrine of original sin. Does baptism alone guarantee salvation? If I were to grab random non-Christian and baptise him against his will would he then have salvation? No. The only facet of salvation that its even possible for a baby to be involved in is baptism. Faith, repentance and any other act or attitude you throw in there is out of a baby’s reach.

   So I toss your own question back to you. If faith, repentence, etc. is necesary for salvation why are infants left out of it?

3. Tim Reed Says:
   March 3rd, 2006 at 5:25 pm

   Now, please answer my question about YOUR child having terminal cancer at age 3 (God forbid). Knowing what you know about baptism would you baptise your child?

   Looks to me like you already did Sal.

   And repentence, why would the infant need to repent if he has no sin (i’m not using any doctrine just logic)?

4. Tim Reed Says:
   March 4th, 2006 at 1:03 pm

   I’m not avoiding it, I’m answering it.

   Baptism does not stand alone in the salvation process. Anyone who cannot have the other parts is only getting wet.

   You’re not pointing out “flaws” in theology you’re pointing out things you don’t like in scripture. That’s a far different thing.

5. Christian Says:
   March 4th, 2006 at 11:54 pm

   First of all, Steve, if I have the time someday I’ll adress your comments (I think much of that would be setting down some definitions for some of the words I used). As for this statment “For me, it’s enough that all Bible believing Christians can plainly see those who claim to follow him should believe, repent, get dunked, and end up doing good things pretty soon afterward. It seems following this method covers all the practical bases while still remaining parsimonious.” I don’t know what parsimonious means, but I agree with the outlook you present and I hold to it in practice in my preaching, teaching, discipleship, and evangelism.

   Sal,

   I apologize if I have seemed unattentive. I’ve had a busy few days and shouldn’t be on here now (I have to preach in the morning and I’m not ready). I understand some (not all, but some) of your qualms with the Restoration movement churches. Much of the “attitude” that has developed over the years has already been recognized as a problem among many of “our” congregations. I’m sorry you haven’t had the opportunity to witness a more grace-filled congregation. As for myself and I’ll speak for Tim (he can always correct me later) I’d like to refer to something C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity. I say refer because I can’t quote it but within the first few chapters he makes reference to the idea that many discussions should be left between theologians (for the weightier matters) and even amongst Christians. This to say that there are many things you don’t go around telling to non-christians. There are much more important things to share. Unfortunately some independent Christians have gotten bogged down in their ability to evangelize because they go around telling people how they are against a particular view instead of showing those people the way, the truth, and the life. I believe Steve would agree that his statement I quoted at the beginning of this comment is true to showing people the Way.

   That being said, my article is not for non-Christians. As far as I know, this is not an evangelistic website. My article is for Christians. I wanted you to know where I am coming from (and you’ll continue to get a picture of that as I discuss).

   Sal, I would like to know where you are coming from. How old are you, do you have children, how long have you been in the CofC, do often do you read your bible? I already know you grew up in the Catholic church.

   Let me begin to address some of your comments. First, i’ll admit to arrogance at least twice a week, probably more. Something I’m working on. But that doesn’t negate somebody else’s pride. I must admit also that I enjoy opening up the Bible and picking out flaws in other denominations’ theologies. But I’m an equal opportunity offender and enjoy doing the same with my own brotherhood. I don’t enjoy the flaws, or shaming anybody, but I enjoy truth, the search for truth, and the fight to improve myself, my church, my brothers and sisters, and the body of Christ at large. The thing about that comment is that the Bible is where we should get our theology. If we believe something that Scripture tells us is another way than what we believe, then we need to correct ourselves.

   That being said, I did tell you in my first response that there are much greater men than I to deal with these issues. I also suggested that you go to the source and spend some time with God specifically about this issue. Did you?

   As far as my own three yr old, I don’t have a three yr old. But I do have a 19 month old. She’s the cutest. Do you have children? Cause I have to tell you, she doesn’t know right from wrong, good from evil, faith, and repentance. How do I know infants don’t have faith? I’ve had one. And my child is ahead of the curve. She has a great vocabulary and is extremely bright (a little fatherly bragging right now). I also know this to be true because of Isaiah 7:15. In this singular passage, a prophecy about Jesus Christ’s childhood is given. It says, “He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.” There exists an age (or age range) at which a child has aquired the knowledge to refuse evil and choose good. Children back then were breastfed until about the age of three. I personally believe that for a child to be given the choice to follow Christ, that he must be able to “choose good.” This follows with what has already been said about a child needing to be able to believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. Until that time, I believe that children are in God’s plan of grace. Not that they don’t need it because they have not sin, but they are freely given it because they have not the knowledge that they need it. Our concern is that we follow Christ’s commands to make disciples and trust that God in His sovereignty has a plan to take care of the “what if’s?”

   I need to study and go to bed. I will continue to respond to this discussion.

6. Tim Reed Says:
   March 5th, 2006 at 9:01 am

   Sal,
   Honestly, you’ve now made this discussion unpleasant. We’ve answered you several times, and more comprehensively than what you demanded. Your entire challenge to the issue is comprised of a hypothetical situation in which you’ve rigged the outcome to be essentiall “baptism or hell”. When we’ve attempted to re-set the discussion into its proper terms you get all upset and start name calling.

   You can answer this entire question for us: is the salvation process more than just baptism? If yes, then the examination of individuals for those other elements before baptism is proper. In the context of this discussion then we’ve had both faith and repentance acknowledged by all parties. Can an infant have faith and repentance?

   You claim that an infant can have faith. But James tells us that faith without works is dead. That works are the evidence of that faith. What works do an infant have to show evidence of their faith?

   Or how about repentance? Repentance first requires sin, which is an issue you still haven’t addressed. But beyond that an infant is incapable of feeling sorry for his or her sins and repenting for them.

7. Tim Reed Says:
   March 5th, 2006 at 4:15 pm

   Sal,

   I’m sorry that you can’t deal with someone disagreeing with you without accusing them of sin. I’ve got plenty of sin to criticize, but you’ve not bothered to get to know me well enough to be in any position to point it out.

   I’ve answered you over and over again. I noticed, however, that you didn’t answer my question about what is a requirement for salvation.

   But then again what do I know. I’m so horribly prideful that I’m blinded. Of course, I imagine evertime you lob that grenade its at someone who disagrees with you. Odd what a coincidence that is.

8. Tim Reed Says:
   March 5th, 2006 at 10:06 pm

   Sal,

   How can you know any of that about me? Are you stalking me?

   And I have answered you. Again and again. Scripture is clear there are several elements required for salvation for everyone. There’s no clause excluding infants from the requirements which they are unable to fulfill.

   But of course you can’t stand that answer. And so you throw around insults judging the crap out of me and my walk, without knowing me in the least. I suppose its easier for you to throw insults than it is to accept that someone doesn’t agree with you.

   BTW, I never wrote anything close to this:

   You’re settled into your comfortable stance of living out your Christian walk with no regard to practical appications on such weighty matters . You’re content in believing that salvation isn’t attainable because one must have faith, repentence, confession and baptism (in that order) in order to be saved. Salvation just isn’t in the cards if death comes prematurely for Christian believing people who lose there children because it’s just not found in the bible so it’s my job to tell you they didn’t make it!

9. Tim Reed Says:
   March 6th, 2006 at 12:35 am

   Your “stock” answer of how the CofC teaches the salvational plan is not answering the personal question I purposed to you.

   What changes on the personal level? Was scripture not meant to be applied to individuals?

   I’m not judging you,

   So what exactly do you call it when you start accusing people of being “prideful”, “arrogant”, and a liar?

   Funny you say I can’t accept your answer when I’m a full baptised member of the CofC. What’s really going on is you can’t deal with the reality of my question and that our theology shouldn’t be used as a tool for divison.

   Its odd, you never did answer the question I asked you.

   Theology is exactly what divides. Why are you in the Restoration Movement at all if you don’t think theology should ever divide? Or any sub-group of Christianity at all? Shouldn’t you be in Bahai or something? Cause theology always divides. Its one of the things we have to struggle with our entire lives.

   This is our biggest problem in the CofC’s Tim, we want to tell everybody about Jesus and our interpretation of the bible, but God forbid we get challenged on our theology.

   How is that not an issue with every single individual, movement and denominatin?

   …And we wonder why the CofC isn’t growing. :roll:

   What are you talking about? Through the 90s the Restoration Movement was one of the fastest growing in all of Christianity.

10. Tim Reed Says:
    March 8th, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    1. Without a doctrine of original sin there has to be a clear understanding of moral issues on the part of anyone before there is the necessity for salvation. If a child isn’t old enough to understand faith, repentance, confession and baptism then is he or she old enough to understand moral principles?

    2. Acting like random circumstances are more powerful than God’s desire that none should perish is just silly.

    BTW, you still haven’t bothered to explain why you think that baptism apart from everythign else is effective for anything other than the washing away of baby gunk from the baby.

11. Christian Says:
    March 9th, 2006 at 12:53 am

    Sal, I don’t think any of us have said, or even implied, that a member of a denomination that baptises infants is going to hell.

    - It matters where you are coming from because it is easier and much more productive to have a discussion with a person you know more about. That and it helps to know past experiences to know how to go about answering a question. For instance, I never tell a person who just lost a loved dog that dog’s don’t have souls; but I do teach that dog’s don’t have souls. If they ask about it and they have had a bad experience, I will give a biblical answer, but I will do it in an apropriate way.

    - Also, you refered to me coming to a conclusion based on my “feelings” and that is not true. Nowhere did I mention that I felt a certain way about the subject at hand. I did use the word believe but I meant that in the strict sense of acknowledging revealed truth.

    Finally. Sal, please share exactly what scripture says about your question. You don’t have to quote but at least give the reference so I can look it up and read it.

12. Tim Reed Says:
    March 9th, 2006 at 10:39 am

    Sal,

    Abslolutely not true.

    In Romans Paul writes “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Which seems a pretty strong indication that the act of sinning is what causes the falling short. Also the entire idea of the atonement offered through Christ relies on this principle. The sinless offering of Christ replaces our sinfulness. Scriptures is pretty straightforward on what sin does. Inferring what being sinless would mean is not apart from scripture.As opposed to applying baptism only and expecting it to be effective.

13. Tim Reed Says:
    March 11th, 2006 at 12:12 am

    I answered you directly. I even quoted the passage you alluded to from Paul. At some point an understanding of moral issues is reached by a child. At that point they can sin, and when they sin they are need of Christ. I’ve been quite clear and I’ve answered you directly again and again.

    Now, answer my question. Where do you see sola baptism anywhere in scripture?

Leave a Reply