Regarding Baptism part two

I was trying to get this done last week but my mundane job demanded too much of my time.  And my boss just doesn’t see the idea of blogging for money.  So I’m going to have to break this post up a little more.

I started this here.  Let’s continue.

Let’s look at some objections to water baptism that I’ve seen.  This is by no means an exhaustive list I’m sure there are some so called reasons out there that I will not touch upon and that appears paramount in the eyes of the objector.

 

1.)  There are too many modes for baptism so how do we know which one is the right one. 

Typically there have been three modes practiced by the Church:  aspersion, effusion, and immersion.  Or if you will sprinkling, pouring, and dipping.    Baptists have only recognized one mode and that is immersion.  Non-Baptist churches have typically recognized all three modes and for the most part accept the baptism of a person who has been baptized in a mode not specifically practiced by the church in question.  But does a disagreement over the correct mode (and I hold to immersion as the only correct mode) constitute a valid reason as to not getting baptized? 

Not at all even John Calvin who held to paedobaptism and aspersion said this:

Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church. Institutes of Christian Religion Book 4 Chapter 15 section 19 {emphasis mine}

Mode should never be hindrance to baptism a person whose conscience dictates to him a specific mode should consult with his pastor and come to an agreement.  Even churches who hold to any mode other than immersion will in most cases immerse a person upon their request.

 

2.)  Paul taught that baptism wasn’t something that pertained to the Church.  This is a favorite tactic of the Mid-Acts dispensationalist.  They insist that water baptism actually saves the Jewish Christians that had it done: 

As a result, the Jews who believed in Christ were required to be washed (or baptized) with water for salvation (Mark 16:16), as the priesthood required (see also Ex.40:12; Lev.8:6; Lev.16:24; etc.).
Moreover, baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) only applied to circumcised believers, and remained in effect until Peter received his revelation concerning Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. And even then, Cornelius was not saved through the fall of Israel, as we are today (Ro.11:11), since he “blessed” Israel by giving “much alms to the people” (see Acts 10:2). Baptism: A Mid-Acts Dispensational View {emphasis mine}

By their separating the gospel in two distinct categories (Jewish kingdom gospel vs Paul’s grace gospel) and by their equating Paul’s writings as only pertaining to the Church they are a type of semi-Marcionism  denying that the entire word of God was written for us and forms a complete whole.  Because of this presupposition they actually teach that not all the commands of Christ are to be obeyed by the Church:

For another example of why Christians today should not necessarily observe every commandment the Lord gave to His followers, the Lord Jesus Christ even instructed a man to offer an animal sacrifice, after healing the man of leprosy (Mt.8:1-4, compare Lev.14:1-7). But the practice of offering animal sacrifices should never be observed by Christians today, even though the Lord Himself commanded for it to be done at one time. Consequently, we cannot simply take every commandment that the Lord gave to His followers in the Four Gospels, and apply all of them to Christians in the church today. Instead, we must first determine whether these commandments are even relevant for this present dispensation of the grace of God. Baptism: A Mid-Acts Dispensational View {emphasis mine}

To be continued …

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Baptism, Christian, Theology

5 responses to “Regarding Baptism part two

  1. Well you’ve sprinkled in some lame reasons to not get baptized–should be interesting to see the rest–although I know I’ll disagree with some of the things you’ll post…

  2. You do realize that I am arguing for the necessity of being baptized, don’t you? I’m posting the “lame” reasons I’ve heard for not getting baptized.

  3. Yes I realize that, and I am agreeing with you that they are lame reasons.

  4. Heh. Nice. Do you have any suggestions about my training fairness I have a nice fresh joke for you people) Did you hear about the two silkworms that had a race? It ended up in a tie.

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