Regarding Baptism

I’ve been away from the blog for awhile contemplating on what to post.  Now Jeremy has many pithy articles and since the last time I posted I tended to show my ability to talk with my foot in my mouth. I thought perhaps I should think a bit before posting.  And in truth I have been over whelmed with work to the point where thinking was really more than I could handle. 

However, while in a chat room, I met a young person who had a few questions on many different subjects one of which was baptism.  Now when I was younger and unreformed in my theology I played the great american game of church hopping with my wife.  Looking for that perfect church.  At the time I was Scofieldian in my outlook and so went and visited with those of the same or similar outlook.  What has this to do with baptism?  Glad you asked.  My wife convinced me for a time to sojourn at the same church that her mother had taken up residence in, she had assured my wife that they were good bible teaching people and that we would learn much.  It turned out the this church had the dispensational distinctive that taught that the actual historical beginning of the Church “occurred some time after the conversion of the Apostle Paul and before the writing of his first epistle.” 

One of their other distinctives was: “The issue of water (ritual) baptism has caused great confusion and division among believers for many centuries. There are many disagreements about the purpose and practice of water baptism in the Church today. Paul, the Apostle sent by God to minister to the Gentile world, was not sent to baptize with water, but to preach the gospel. Nowhere in the epistles of the Apostle Paul do we find any clear instruction for emphasis upon water baptism as essential for the Church the Body of Christ. In light of this, we do not believe that water baptism is a sacrament or an essential practice for the church today.”

So I was not too surprised when this young stalwart said to me:  “I’m not sure that water baptism is necessary” or words to that effect.

Now let me state for the record that with regard to this so called “church” they are in error not only with regards to the beginning of the Church but also their stance on baptism.   

Let’s take a look at the LBC 1689 in modern english with regard to the ordinance of baptism.

CHAPTER 28 – BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER

  1. Baptism and the Lord’s supper are ordinances which have been explicitly and sovereignly instituted by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, who has appointed that they are to be continued in his church to the end of the world.

    CHAPTER 29 – BAPTISM

    1. BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself ‘in newness of life’.

    2. BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself ‘in newness of life’.
      Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12.

    3. The only persons who can rightly submit themselves to this ordinance are those who actually profess repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, being willing to yield obedience to Him.
      Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12,36,37; 18:8.

    4. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the believer is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
      Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 8:38.
    5. Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance.
      Matt. 3:16; John 3:23.

     

    To be continued…

    Advertisements

    5 Comments

    Filed under Baptism, Christian, Theology

    5 responses to “Regarding Baptism

    1. ‘Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensationalism’…I’ve run into that before.
      Personally I’m a ‘Post-Epistolary Johannine Dispensationalist’. Basically, that means that only what was written after Revelation 3 is applicable to the Church today.

      I’m kidding. I just made that up.

    2. Too late its on the internet now some disaffected mid-act Pauline dispensationalist will snatch that up and become a ‘even more child of the devil”.

    3. I’ll wait and see where this goes before I “sprinkle” any comments on it.
      Other than to say this is the opposite error to Baptismal regeneration which overemphasizes baptism to an unhealthy extent. I believe Baptists would be in the middle somewhere.

    4. Pingback: Regarding Baptism part two « DOXOBLOGY

    5. Pingback: Regarding Baptism part three « DOXOBLOGY

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s