I agree.
I have been criticized recently on the forum for writing that: "A ceremony is an outward sign of an inward reality."
And that statement in reference to baptism. Or more specifically to believer's (adult/of age children) baptism.
That is what we believe also, baptism is confirmation that your dedication is already a reality.....it's like the wedding ceremony of an engaged couple. The intent is already established, and the ceremony just follows as confirmation of the commitment.
No one was baptized in the name of John. It was a baptism of repentance, which was good. Baptism in Jesus' name was another thing. And though Jesus disciples were baptizing people, it doesn't appear that the baptism in Jesus' name began until after the outpouring at Pentecost.
Acts 19:4-6 NIV
Paul said, “
John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5
On hearing this,
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[
a] and prophesied.
Full immersion, as I understand it, is a symbol of the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Actually, we see it as following the model set by Jesus.....when he presented himself for baptism, it was the beginning of a new course in his life.....one that he knew would end in his death. His baptism was a symbolic death and resurrection signalling the beginning of his role as Messiah.
As his disciples, we too need to be baptized as "Christians" and this involves our personal dedication to God and all that it involves in being a 'footstep follower of Christ". (1 Pet 2:21) Our baptism also needs to be full immersion....and we need to live up to the meaning of it every day. But because of sin, sometimes we stumble, but if we are repentant, we can seek God's forgiveness on the basis of Christ's blood.
I accept infant baptism as a practice of Catholic and high church denominations.
They have their reasons and scriptural/tradition support for it. So, I make no issue with them.
(build bridges, not walls) But...
To me, baptism is not a salvation issue. So, whether believer's baptism or infant baptism, okay either way.
Infant baptism is not something supported by scripture at all IMV...."tradition" yes, but "scripture", no way.....because no person can be baptized by proxy, and no person can come to Christ in baptism without the ability to make conscious vows along with the ability to take responsibility for what baptism means.
However, in my church, believer's baptism is done. Babies are dedicated to the Lord.
Jesus was not baptized until he was 30 years old, so we will not baptize infants because we believe what Paul said in 1 Cor 7:10-16 concerning the situation of believing parents with unbelieving mates....
"To the married people I give instructions, not I but the Lord, that a wife should not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife.
12 But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; 13 and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving one chooses to depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not bound under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace. 16 For wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Or, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?"
This shows that unbelieving mates are sanctified in relation to their believing spouses...'otherwise their children would be unclean, but now are viewed as holy'. So the children are safe on the merit of their believing parent(s) until they are of age to make their own dedication.....there is no chronological age for that because individuals are different and mature at different ages.
A question for you:
The end of the Gospel according of Matthew, we find the Great Commission (as it is called)
instruction us to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Yet in the Book of Acts and the rest of the NT we see baptisms in Jesus' name only.
Which is correct?
Matthew 28:19-20 NIV
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
In our view "the great commission" is a command rather than a mere suggestion, to go out and actively preach the Kingdom message. It involves seeking people out and actively teaching those who want to learn, "all the things Christ commanded" so that they were then in a position to understand the role played by all three of those vital elements on their journey to where they were confident to take the serious step of baptism. The Father, his son and the holy spirit have always played a role in the outworking of Jehovah's purpose. We acknowledge all three, but do not combine them into one God.
Its not just words to say, but it involves a full understanding of what your baptism means, in the big scheme of things.
In the first century the disciples were sent out to find the 'deserving' ones....
Matthew 10:11-15....
"Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. 12 When you enter the house, greet the household. 13 If the house is deserving, let the peace you wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from you return upon you. 14 Wherever anyone does not receive you or listen to your words, on going out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah on Judgment Day than for that city."
They went "from house to house" (Acts 20:20) looking for those "rightly disposed for everlasting life".
Acts 13:45-51...shows us what reception they got....especially when they started to preach to the Gentiles!
Paul wrote...
"When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began blasphemously contradicting the things Paul was saying. 46 Then Paul and Barʹna·bas boldly said to them: “It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you. Since you are rejecting it and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. 47 For Jehovah has commanded us in these words: ‘I have appointed you as a light of nations, for you to be a salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48 When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers. 49 Furthermore, the word of Jehovah was being spread throughout the whole country. 50 But the Jews incited the prominent women who were God-fearing and the principal men of the city, and they stirred up persecution against Paul and Barʹna·bas and threw them outside their boundaries. 51 So they shook the dust off their feet against them and went to I·coʹni·um."
This is what "shaking the dust off" means.....it was customary for Jews to wash the feet of all who came in to them as a gesture of hospitality, but refusal to do so was an insult to the visitor, so Jesus said to "shake the dust off" against them, as a sign that this house was undeserving of their time and attention.....so they were to move on.