Baptism: Its Meaning and Significance

[Wormwood]

Christian baptism has different meaning for different denominational groups. For some, baptism is akin to OT circumcision. Thus, infants are baptized because some view it as an act of dedication to the Lord while others view it as a means of cleansing original sin. For others, baptism has no significance at all. Many charismatic groups view it is a spiritual event that has no real correlation to baptism in water. Some groups even reject the practice entirely.

Personally, I would argue that baptism is of great importance. The New Testament is full of teaching regarding the meaning and significance of baptism and first century church precedents regarding its practice. As a result, I would argue...

* Baptism in the New Testament was only administered to believing adults who were knowingly committing their life to Christ. The NT knows nothing of infant baptism.
* Baptism was viewed as sacramental. It was understood that the act of water baptism was directly related to cleansing, being clothed with Christ, being raised to a new life and receiving the Holy Spirit.
* No new convert was ever asked to pray a sinner's prayer to receive Christ. Rather, they were called to be immersed in water.
* Most of the teaching in the NT on baptism is referring to immersion in water, not a subjective spiritual event.
* It is incorrect to view baptism as unimportant or merely "an outward sign of an inward experience." Most often, baptism initiated the inward experience.

For many, baptism is a non-issue and to even speak of it is to be "legalistic." However, in my opinion, this view is very dismissive of a host of NT teachings that not only show the significance of baptism for early believers, but command baptism to be administered to new believers. I think this is immensely significant, not only because of the spiritual implications of baptism, but also because of the teaching in the NT on the event that is of great comfort to believers. For instance, many people question their salvation because the focus in on the validity of their "inward experience." In my opinion, this undermines the faith we are called to. We are not called to trust an inward experience, but the promises of God. Paul uses baptism as a means to teach the Romans about the reality that they died to their old way of life and were raised to live a new life. Peter uses baptism as a promise of cleansing and reception of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is immensely important teaching in the Word of God, and so I think it deserves a careful look.

 

[Polt]

* Baptism in the New Testament was only administered to believing adults who were knowingly committing their life to Christ. The NT knows nothing of infant baptism.

I don't see anything in the New Testament that says only believing adults were baptized. Rather, whole households were baptised when they were headed by a believing father, which would include infants. See Acts 10. Baptism serves exactly the same function, a symbol of inclusion in God's covenant, as circumcision in the Old Testament/ Mp no one would dispute that infants were circumcised when their father became a believer. Also, there are people raised from birth as Christians and have always believed.

 

[Groundzero]

While it's theoretically possible that an infant was baptised, it's never stated, and I would be loathe to build a doctrine on something that is not stated.

 

[Wormwood]

I don't see anything in the New Testament that says only believing adults were baptized. Rather, whole households were baptised when they were headed by a believing father, which would include infants. See Acts 10. Baptism serves exactly the same function, a symbol of inclusion in God's covenant, as circumcision in the Old Testament/ Mp no one would dispute that infants were circumcised when their father became a believer. Also, there are people raised from birth as Christians and have always believed.

Where do you see infant baptism in Acts 10:44-48? It says the Spirit came upon all who heard the message and "they" (the same they that heard and praised God as a result) were baptized. I think the only way one can see an infant in this text is if it is needed to justify a preconcieved notion.

 

[Polt]

Where do you see infant baptism in Acts 10:44-48? It says the Spirit came upon all who heard the message and "they" (the same they that heard and praised God as a result) were baptized. I think the only way one can see an infant in this text is if it is needed to justify a preconcieved notion.

An angel told Cornelius, "Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household." Acts 10 tells us that Cornelius "feared God with all his household." If you want to be technical, any infant in the house likely heard Peter, and so would be among "all who heard the message", so you can't prove anything on a technicality.

"All your household" doesn't seem to express any interest in whether or not there are infants in the home. Rather, it seems to be expressing a principle. In the Old Testament, when men entered into God's covenant, they were circumcised (the men and all the males of their households), exactly as in these New Testament times when people enter into God's covenant, they are baptized with water. We agree infants were circumcised. What's the difference that infants aren't baptised?

It's possible that there were no infants baptized Cornelius's home and I'm not telling any church that they should baptise infants. I'm only pointing out that the Bible doesn't teach the exclusion of infants. This is an assumption. Lydia became a believer, and all her household was baptised. Stephanas believed and he and all his household were baptised. Never once are we informed that infants were excluded.

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

 

[Warrior]

The Holy Spirit comes to a believer when they believe in Jesus and convert, Not when they are baptized. Baptism of The Holy Spirit is different than immersion in water


BTW Will I go to hell if this is not done??

 

[Polt]

BTW Will I go to hell if this is not done??

You think water is going to wash off those pine needles?

 

[Warrior]

You think water is going to wash off those pine needles?

Meaning? lol sorry im 17 I just want to be able to enter heaven, and I don't go out in public too much

 

[Mungo]

The Holy Spirit comes to a believer when they believe in Jesus and convert, Not when they are baptized. Baptism of The Holy Spirit is different than immersion in water


BTW Will I go to hell if this is not done??

A person receives the Holy Spirit when they are baptised in water. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not baptism. It's just a metaphor.

 

[Wormwood]

Polt,

It also says that Cornelius and his household feared God which seems pretty specific. This is not the action of an infant. Its fine if you want to read such ideas into the text as long as you recognize you are implanting them and the text does not expressly. Rather, it seems that the descriptions of Cornelius and his household exclude infants. The same is true with Acts 16:34 and Acts 18:8. All the household texts indicate specific responses of belief and the fear of God by ALL the members of the household.

Inmate,

I don't think the issue of baptism should be looked upon like a legal requirement or a hoop to jump though. Rather, I see it as a promise and an opportunity. Can a person go to heaven if they don't repent? Can a person go to heaven if they don't confess Christ? Our aim should not be about finding out what we can not do and still be saved, but it should be to wholeheartedly embrace God's call and design. Every new disciple in the NT was immersed when they believed. This moment serves as a great promise of dying to the old life, cleansing, receiving the Spirit and being raised to live a new life for Christ. Therefore, I would not look at this issue as "Am I lost because I have not been baptized." Rather, I would see it as, "Look, here is some water! What is preventing me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36)

 

[bosco]

Scripture says water baptism saves us. Seems pretty plain.

 

[Butch5]

Christian baptism has different meaning for different denominational groups. For some, baptism is akin to OT circumcision. Thus, infants are baptized because some view it as an act of dedication to the Lord while others view it as a means of cleansing original sin. For others, baptism has no significance at all. Many charismatic groups view it is a spiritual event that has no real correlation to baptism in water. Some groups even reject the practice entirely.

Personally, I would argue that baptism is of great importance. The New Testament is full of teaching regarding the meaning and significance of baptism and first century church precedents regarding its practice. As a result, I would argue...

* Baptism in the New Testament was only administered to believing adults who were knowingly committing their life to Christ. The NT knows nothing of infant baptism.
* Baptism was viewed as sacramental. It was understood that the act of water baptism was directly related to cleansing, being clothed with Christ, being raised to a new life and receiving the Holy Spirit.
* No new convert was ever asked to pray a sinner's prayer to receive Christ. Rather, they were called to be immersed in water.
* Most of the teaching in the NT on baptism is referring to immersion in water, not a subjective spiritual event.
* It is incorrect to view baptism as unimportant or merely "an outward sign of an inward experience." Most often, baptism initiated the inward experience.

For many, baptism is a non-issue and to even speak of it is to be "legalistic." However, in my opinion, this view is very dismissive of a host of NT teachings that not only show the significance of baptism for early believers, but command baptism to be administered to new believers. I think this is immensely significant, not only because of the spiritual implications of baptism, but also because of the teaching in the NT on the event that is of great comfort to believers. For instance, many people question their salvation because the focus in on the validity of their "inward experience." In my opinion, this undermines the faith we are called to. We are not called to trust an inward experience, but the promises of God. Paul uses baptism as a means to teach the Romans about the reality that they died to their old way of life and were raised to live a new life. Peter uses baptism as a promise of cleansing and reception of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is immensely important teaching in the Word of God, and so I think it deserves a careful look.

Agreed, baptism is how one becomes "In Christ".

 

[Groundzero]

The Holy Spirit comes to a believer when they believe in Jesus and convert, Not when they are baptized. Baptism of The Holy Spirit is different than immersion in water


BTW Will I go to hell if this is not done??

This is not the best place to ask a question like that. Find a church in your area, and then check what they teach you with the Bible.

 

[domenic]

Jesus was baptized at the age of thirty. Thirty in Jesus time was the legal age for adulthood. Today in the U.S.A. it is eighteen. A baby, or child should not be baptized because they do not understand what it means. When one is baptized, they are saying to all in Heaven, and on Earth, they are now a servant of the Living God.

 

[Polt]

Jesus was baptized at the age of thirty. Thirty in Jesus time was the legal age for adulthood. Today in the U.S.A. it is eighteen. A baby, or child should not be baptized because they do not understand what it means. When one is baptized, they are saying to all in Heaven, and on Earth, they are now a servant of the Living God.

Where do you get that 30 was the legal age of adulthood in the Bible? Back in the Bible, people were commonly married in their early teens and were drinking wine as soon as they could stand.

Many denominations agree that baptism is only for those old enough to understand what it means. But, I have put forth an argument for baptizing infants. Jesus was circumcised at the age of eight days, as an infant, even though people of that age are too young to understand what it means. And, technically, we don't receive the same baptism that Jesus received.

 

[Wormwood]

Polt,

I agree with you on the age of adulthood issue. However, viewing circumcision and baptism as one and the same is a big error in my estimation. First, this view completely demolishes all of the biblical imagery of baptism. Baptism is supposed to signify death to self and sin, burial with Christ and being raised to a new life of faith. An infant can't do this. All of Paul's instruction about baptism in Romans 6 would be completely meaningless if infants were being baptized. Moreover, this makes salvation and cleansing about ritual events rather than acts of faith. If "baptism now saves you" can refer to infants who cannot express faith then salvation becomes a matter of ceremony rather than personal identification with Christ. Also, the Church is not a theocratic kingdom as Israel was. We are not identified outwardly by flesh but inwardly by our faith. The baptism of Jesus is "greater" than that of John. If John baptized for repentance, Jesus' baptism encompasses that and more (the Holy Spirit). Baptism, biblically defined, is "calling on the name of the Lord (cf. Acts 22:16, Rom. 10:13). A child cannot "call" on the name of the Lord. Again, there is not one instance of infants being baptized. Paul turned people away from circumcision as an identifying mark of salvation to point people to faith in Christ (expressed in baptism). If your argument is true, then all of Galatians seems ridiculously inconsistent as Paul is merely substituting one rite for another.

 

[sniper762]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be aborn of bwater and of the cSpirit, he cannot denter into the kingdom of God.

 

[Ruth]

In the 16th century a group of Christians (anabaptist) decided we do not need to baptize infants, going against the earliest teachings of the church...why?

We can read in acts families were baptized, we can read in the earliest manuscripts of church history early christians baptized babies....

The modern church is going further away from the teaching of the early church, and instead relying on their own understanding, thus creating so many denominations it makes a persons head spin.

The Catholic Church became corrupt because of politics and kingdom dominance, so I can understand the reformation Martin Luther stood for....but anything after this seems to part from the spiritual wisdom of the early church... Babies were baptized as in circumcision in the Old Testament, ...circumcision did not save then..only faith, and baptism does not save now, only faith...but it is a dedication to The Lord, giving your child to God, and then at the age of 12 as in the OT, that baptized baby as an adolescent must confess his faith in The Lord.

I am leaving the modern evangelical church, it has parted ways with our early Christian fathers, and thinks it knows more than those who were closes to the early church.

 

[Wormwood]

Ruth,

Actually, infant baptism was noted by Justin Martyr as something that started taking place in his day (and he disagreed with it). There is no scriptural precedent for infant baptism. See above.

 

[Ruth]

, the practice of ritually washing newborns prior to circumcision in the Jewish tradition was common. Since in ancient Palestine the head of the household determined what religion would be taught and adhered to, when Acts states that entire households were baptized, it only made sense that when the head of the household converted, the entire household was converted and brought into the faith as well--including children and infants.

Family-wide conversion to a faith was commonplace, especially among Jews. Circumcision was the Jewish equivalent of being included into the promises of God--it was the physical manifestation of God's promises. Baptism would have been viewed similarly and thus Jewish Christians in particular would have already been accustomed to the practice of ritually cleansing their children.

Like circumcision, however, baptism is only effective when it is accompanied by faith, or as Paul states, "circumcision of the heart." Thus, Lutherans do not believe that just being baptized means one is "saved." Faith in what God has done to us in baptism is what saves.