Wormwood said:
You need to look at the context of that 1 Peter passage. Peter is saying the water of the flood in Noah's day symbolizes the baptism that now saves you. In other words, the waters of the flood that purged the world of sin "symbolizes" the present-day waters of baptism that now save you from your sin. It is not saying baptism is a symbol. It is saying Noah's flood symbolizes the saving power of baptism. This is not referring to a "spiritual" baptism as it is clearly referencing water.
Of course there are people that are dunked in water who are not "baptized" in the biblical sense. As 1 Peter 3 says, this baptism is done as a plea to God for a clean conscience. If a person is not crying out to God for cleansing through faith in Christ, then it isn't a "baptism." I would never suggest that merely taking a bath saves a person. Yet biblical faith demands a response. According to the NT, that response is to be repentance and baptism. When a person believes or is "cut to the heart" by the message of Christ, they are called to respond to it. God commands people to respond through repentance and baptism. So, faith with no response is meaningless as so is baptism with no faith.
IMO, the problem with your "showing grace" analogy is that is ignores the clear biblical mandate to respond to the Gospel through baptism. Who are we to say that baptism is unnecessary? Jesus said that we are to make disciples by going, baptizing and teaching all he commanded. Is it for us to say, "Lord, as long as they act in kindness after we tell them the Gospel, is it okay if we just ignore the whole baptism command?" To me, this is like saying, "Does a person really have to repent of their sin as long as they are kind to others?" I just dont think we should determine based on our own assessment of things what is necessary and what is not. Do I believe people were not baptize are in heaven? Yes. Does this mean that I believe we should ignore the biblical mandate to baptize new disciples or not teach them that in baptism God promises to wash them, give them the Spirit and clothe them in Christ? No. The NT clearly teaches it and I am committed to following the Scriptures rather than a tradition started in the 1500s by Ulrich Zwingli that water baptism was meaningless and a work. I think anyone who sees a biblical command and ignores it because they do not feel it is necessary really has to rethink what it means to call Jesus, "Lord."
so, i can't disagree with any of that, but i would like to expand on it. The passage
27
The man who is uncircumcised physically but who keeps the Law will condemn you who break the Law, even though you have the written Law and circumcision.
comes to mind, even if many would insist that the distinction there is Jew/Gentile only. And there are several, many passages that reinforce the concept. So, although i have a different concept of "people in heaven" than you do--if you believe that souls are going to heaven only after they physically die--a central point might be that you admit to some attaining heaven who have not been baptized in water, which we can witness that many Christians would argue with, so this is almost like a marginal concession, or an afterthought, when imo it should be much more central.
And, we have many or most Christians who have done the water part, but could not describe any knowledge or experience of the other two baptisms, although Pentecostals make a pretty good show of the
spirit one--if one accepts glossololia as spirit baptism anyway. But the baptism of fire, who can witness? Who even gets a sermon on these concepts? I haven't heard one yet, not in 40+ years. So i see the same thing going on as with the foundation being re-layed, over and over; Christianity is turned into discussing sin and death--or death and sin, your choice--even as half or more of the Book is made spiritually unavailable to a "baptized" Christian immediately, as they are encouraged to disregard the passages that would most allow them to grow in Grace--the lessons of Cain, Esau, two men in a bed, on and on--because they now apply to the "unsaved."
In the Early Church, water baptism literally marked a person as "other" to the Jews, and no doubt even predicated many deaths. Now, the one baptized considers the unbaptized "other," even as they advocate and finance the deaths of others. So to me, it has become chiefly--although not wholly--associated with the oppressors, and used as a yardstick to judge others, at least by the Pharisees and Sadducees of Christianity, many or most of whom would not be as generous as yourself, at least it seems to me.
So while i cannot disagree with your premise, i am left with no practical way to advise a new believer where they may go and even carry out the ritual, unless they are also willing to be associated with oppression, speaking broadly. Of course there are still bathtubs and ponds, and it is supposed to be about the new believer, but it is also a public profession, about who others will associate them with; and who could argue that 99%+ of these newly baptized would not be immediately enveloped in the arms of a church of penance, a system of works, iow, whereby "baptism" has become another box to tick on the way to being saved,
that day, and the most important lessons of Scripture spiritually removed from them? Even if by the most well-meaning people?
So, when water baptism has changed from making one "rejected by the world" to "accepted by the world," i am put in the disgusting position of recommending that a new believer either get baptized in secret, or determining whether their baptizer has, what, signed a Contract for Jesus, i guess. By all means, get water baptized to cleanse you of your past sins, that you cannot practically ask forgiveness for, from those you sinned against--and then run, as fast as you can, from the one who baptized you?
Of course i am being dramatic there, and there are many unaffiliated churches now where Grace is breaking out; but the new Christian is nonetheless going to be associated with other "Christians" now, and as sad as i am to say it, and as much as i love Christ, when someone new to me volunteers (too quickly) first thing that they are a Christian, experience has taught me to be cautious with that person; red flags go up, iow. (Practically speaking, just as of lately, the last 5 years or so, i take it as a message from God that i am going to get screwed by this person, and to be prepared to not react as i have in the past; not to distance myself from them, necessarily)
Yes, ritual water baptism is meaningful. Have someone who can witness the baptism of fire to your satisfaction perform it.
And while i would not completely disqualify someone who signed a
501 (6)
c3 (6)
[1023 (6)], because
36
But now if you have a purse, take it...
i would certainly consider that a bonus.
note to any new seekers who wander across this post; you are not where i am, spiritually speaking, and none of this effectively applies to you, who cannot be expected to know all this at your current stage. Go and get water baptized, by whomever you are led to, and recognize that you are going to find what you seek, even in Christianity, even in the most legalistic church. If you are seeking a quick fix, and a way to feel superior to other people, you are prolly in the right place. If you seek further, you are also still likely in the right place, at least until you are led to find a new Right Pastor, which in my experience means when you don't wanna leave, you maybe should, and vice-versa. It is what is in your heart that matters. It is even conceivable that you are closer to your "first love" than i am, and i am the one you should be running from. "The old wine is better,
they say."
