Mid-Acts Presentations
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
In reference to the bottom right square in that presentation, and specifically in regard to the issue of water baptism, it seems to me that if a person approaches Paul’s epistles without importing a large theological framework beforehand, it is very difficult to conclude that water baptism is forbidden for members of the Body of Christ, as many Mid-Acts believers teach.
That does not mean that baptism is required. It certainly is not part of the gospel of grace, and Paul himself goes out of his way to distinguish the two. In I Corinthians 1:17 he says plainly, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” That statement alone is enough to remove baptism from the category of saving ordinances. Salvation is through faith in Christ alone.
At the same time, that passage does not condemn the practice. In the very same context Paul acknowledges that he personally baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. His concern in that chapter is not that baptizing them was wrong, but that the Corinthians were dividing themselves into factions based on who baptized whom. In other words, Paul corrects their misuse of the practice without ever suggesting that the practice itself was sinful or illegitimate.
That observation matters because Paul is not shy about correcting things that should not be happening in the churches. When the Corinthians abused spiritual gifts, he corrected them. When they tolerated sexual immorality, he corrected them. When they distorted the Lord’s Supper, he corrected them. Yet nowhere in his epistles do we find an instruction telling believers to stop baptizing people.
Paul also speaks of baptism positively in several places. Romans 6 uses baptism imagery to describe union with Christ in His death and resurrection. Colossians 2 does the same thing. Whether one ultimately understands those passages to refer to Spirit baptism or not, the point remains that Paul employs the language constructively, not polemically.
For that reason it should not surprise us that many sincere believers read Paul and conclude that water baptism may still be practiced as a symbolic expression of faith, even if it is not required for salvation and not central to the gospel message.
From a Mid-Acts perspective we rightly insist that the gospel of the grace of God is faith in Christ apart from works, ordinances, or rituals. On that point there should be no compromise. Baptism does not save, does not cleanse sin, and does not add anything to the finished work of Christ.
However, recognizing that baptism is unnecessary for salvation does not automatically require the conclusion that the practice itself is forbidden.
A Mid-Acts believer could reasonably say something like this:
Paul clearly separates baptism from the gospel.
Paul personally baptized some believers.
Paul never commands believers to stop baptizing.
Paul occasionally uses baptism language positively in his teaching.
Given those facts, one could defensibly conclude that practicing water baptism as a voluntary symbol of identification with Christ is permissible, even if it is not required and carries no saving significance.
In other words, insisting that baptism is necessary would contradict Paul, but insisting that baptism is forbidden goes beyond what Paul actually says.
For those reasons, it seems to me that a Mid-Acts believer could reasonably hold that water baptism is unnecessary, non-saving, and secondary, yet still allowable as a symbolic act for those who wish to practice it.
That does not mean that baptism is required. It certainly is not part of the gospel of grace, and Paul himself goes out of his way to distinguish the two. In I Corinthians 1:17 he says plainly, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” That statement alone is enough to remove baptism from the category of saving ordinances. Salvation is through faith in Christ alone.
At the same time, that passage does not condemn the practice. In the very same context Paul acknowledges that he personally baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. His concern in that chapter is not that baptizing them was wrong, but that the Corinthians were dividing themselves into factions based on who baptized whom. In other words, Paul corrects their misuse of the practice without ever suggesting that the practice itself was sinful or illegitimate.
That observation matters because Paul is not shy about correcting things that should not be happening in the churches. When the Corinthians abused spiritual gifts, he corrected them. When they tolerated sexual immorality, he corrected them. When they distorted the Lord’s Supper, he corrected them. Yet nowhere in his epistles do we find an instruction telling believers to stop baptizing people.
Paul also speaks of baptism positively in several places. Romans 6 uses baptism imagery to describe union with Christ in His death and resurrection. Colossians 2 does the same thing. Whether one ultimately understands those passages to refer to Spirit baptism or not, the point remains that Paul employs the language constructively, not polemically.
For that reason it should not surprise us that many sincere believers read Paul and conclude that water baptism may still be practiced as a symbolic expression of faith, even if it is not required for salvation and not central to the gospel message.
From a Mid-Acts perspective we rightly insist that the gospel of the grace of God is faith in Christ apart from works, ordinances, or rituals. On that point there should be no compromise. Baptism does not save, does not cleanse sin, and does not add anything to the finished work of Christ.
However, recognizing that baptism is unnecessary for salvation does not automatically require the conclusion that the practice itself is forbidden.
A Mid-Acts believer could reasonably say something like this:
Paul clearly separates baptism from the gospel.
Paul personally baptized some believers.
Paul never commands believers to stop baptizing.
Paul occasionally uses baptism language positively in his teaching.
Given those facts, one could defensibly conclude that practicing water baptism as a voluntary symbol of identification with Christ is permissible, even if it is not required and carries no saving significance.
In other words, insisting that baptism is necessary would contradict Paul, but insisting that baptism is forbidden goes beyond what Paul actually says.
For those reasons, it seems to me that a Mid-Acts believer could reasonably hold that water baptism is unnecessary, non-saving, and secondary, yet still allowable as a symbolic act for those who wish to practice it.
Right Divider
Body part
While the argument for "permissibility" seeks a middle ground, a consistent Mid-Acts Pauline perspective suggests that continuing water baptism—even as a symbol—undermines the very revelation it intends to honor.
The "One Baptism" Constraint
The most significant hurdle for the "permissible" view is Ephesians 4:5, which states there is "one baptism". If a believer maintains that they have been spiritually baptized into the Body of Christ (the substance) but also chooses to undergo water baptism (the symbol), they are functionally practicing two baptisms.In the Dispensation of Grace, the focus shifts from the "shadows" of the law to the "substance" of Christ. To maintain a symbolic ritual is to keep one foot in the prophetic program of Israel, where water was a requirement for ritual cleanliness and national priesthood.
1 Corinthians 1:17 is a Positive Exclusion
The text argues that Paul’s statement, "Christ sent me not to baptize," is not a condemnation. However, from a Mid-Acts view, this is seen as a positive command defining the scope of the new dispensation.- Paul isn't just saying baptism is "secondary"; he is saying it is not part of his commission.
- He expresses relief and thanks God that he did not baptize more people. If the practice were a helpful, permissible symbol of identification, it would be strange for an Apostle to be "thankful" he didn't facilitate it more often.
Optimization for Clarity
The argument suggests that if baptism isn't "forbidden," it should be "allowable." However, the goal of the Mid-Acts ministry is optimizing for the clarity of the Gospel.- Water baptism, by its very nature, suggests a human work or a ritual requirement.
- In a world where millions believe water is necessary for salvation, practicing it "symbolically" creates a ministerial problem and causes unnecessary confusion.
- If the Cross is the power, and the Spirit baptism is the reality, adding water is a "distraction" that risks making the Cross of Christ of "none effect" by shifting the focus back to a physical act.
Romans 6 and Colossians 2: Substance over Symbol
The provided text suggests Paul uses baptismal language "constructively." A stricter Mid-Acts reading argues that Paul is redefining the term entirely.- In Romans 6, the "baptism" produces a literal death to sin and a new life. Water cannot do this; only the Spirit can.
- By using the word "baptism" to describe a spiritual operation, Paul is showing the believer that they have the real thing, rendering the water (the ritual) obsolete.
I've heard all of those arguments many time before and they are compelling to a degree but not fully persuasive. At the end of the day, Paul himself was baptized in water as virtually the first act of his own faith and then proceeded to personally water baptize several people. And even if he later dropped the practice, he never explicitly forbids it. It would seem then that the thrust of the above argument would mean that Paul undermined his own ministry by not only practicing the ritual and recording himself as having done so but then never clearly explaining that he had done so in error and that the practice should be ended. Talk about causing unnecessary confusion.
There's more to say, particularly about that last point you make but I'm out of time.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
I, on the other hand, find them fully persuasive.
Indeed, Paul was baptized by a devout Jew that knew nothing of the dispensation that Paul was embarking on. As a matter of fact, Paul himself knew almost nothing about is was well. He learned these things "along the way" as he saw Christ again and again.
Indeed, he later said that he was glad that he baptized so few. It sounds to me like he wished that he had not done it at all. It was not until later that Paul learned that there was ONE baptism for the body of Christ and that it was not water based.
Does he need to explicitly forbid it? His explicit instruction about the ONE baptism seems pretty compelling to me.
While he was still ignorant of his full mission...
But seemingly regretting it and being glad that he had baptized so few.
Does he have to explicitly make such a statement? Is his ONE BAPTISM not explicit enough?
Speaking of unnecessary confusion, from another post that I made earlier: https://theologyonline.com/threads/no-more-water-baptism.61526/#post-1925508
According to the Mid-Acts dispensationalist perspective, water baptism is viewed as potentially confusing for several key reasons:
- It contradicts the gospel of grace: The core gospel revealed to Paul centers entirely on the finished work of Christ on the cross, not on any human works. Preaching water baptism introduces something that you do, which confuses the message that salvation is strictly by grace based on what Christ did.
- It detracts from the power of the cross: Paul explicitly states in 1 Corinthians 1 that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel "lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect". Practicing water baptism is seen as interfering with the preaching of the cross and taking away from its power.
- It creates confusion about church membership: The Mid-Acts view teaches that an individual becomes part of the church (the body of Christ) simply by believing the gospel. When people seek water baptism because they think it makes them a part of the church, it shows an ignorance of how one actually enters the body of Christ, thereby causing confusion.
- It fuels unnecessary theological debates: Because biblical passages aimed at Israel (such as John the Baptist's ministry, Mark 16:16, or Peter's preaching in Acts) clearly tie water baptism to repentance and the remission of sins, trying to apply those passages to the modern church creates dilemmas. It leads to endless debates over whether baptism is necessary for salvation, or if it is merely a tradition or act of service.
- It hides the gospel behind symbolism: Rather than relying on physical rituals to symbolize spiritual realities—such as using water to symbolize dying—this perspective argues that it is much better to preach the plain facts of the gospel directly.
Cool.
Last edited:
That doesn't mean that they actually are.
All of this is interpretation that is based on the premise that water baptism is invalid.
It is question begging, as it seems are most all such arguments, which is why it is not persuasive.
There is one actual baptism for the Body of Christ. That does not automatically prohibit the practice of a symbolic version.
There are Acts 28 dispensationalists that use the same logic to reject the practice of partaking of the Lord's supper, but Paul explicitly gives instructions on the proper practice of that symbolic ritual in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 in spite of the fact that redemption was accomplished once and for all at the cross.
Well, I'd respectfully suggest that you should raise the bar needed to persuade you so completely.
And yeah, I think he does and would have been. Paul's letters contain very direct corrections when churches are practicing things that should not occur. The Corinthian letters alone contain rebukes for division, sexual immorality, abuse of spiritual gifts, disorder at the Lord’s Supper, and doctrinal confusion about the resurrection. In contrast, no passage contains an instruction such as “do not baptize” or “stop baptizing.” The silence itself makes it understandable why many Christians see the practice as permissible.
This presumes facts not in evidence. That is, unless you presuppose the validity of your position, which is question begging.
The simple fact is that the scripture is the scripture. Paul's writings - all of them - are those written to and specifically for those of this dispensation.
But, not because water baptism was wrong. It was because believers were using it as an excuse to divide themselves that made him glad he had baptized so few. The fact that this division issue had become so prominent is direct evidence that water baptism was a common practice among new members of the Body of Christ and Paul's solution was not to forbid the practice of water baptism but rather to condemn the divisions that people were creating based on who had performed the ritual.
Asked and answered.
The same logic applies to the Lord's supper, which Paul very clearly endorsed.
This point would refute those who argue that water baptism is required for salvation, but it does no injury to the position that the practice is entirely symbolic and not salvific in the same vain as the Lord's supper.
Again, only if one sees the practice as salvific. Otherwise, it detracts from the cross no more than does observance of the Lord's supper.
The concept that water baptism "makes [someone] a part of the church" is not biblical. Rejecting this teaching is not the equivalent of proving a biblical prohibition of the ritual.
First of all, we do not formulate our doctrine based on which views will cause the least amount of arguments among believers.
Secondly, I am not here advocating for any position other than that if one desires to practice the ritual, doing so is permissible, so long as it's not done as some sort of meritorious work or taken to be in any way salvific in nature. It is a symbolic ritual, nothing more.
It hides the gospel exactly as much as does the Lord's supper when both are practiced properly.
It seems we have no control over whether confusion is going to continue. People choose all kinds of things to confuse themselves over. I do not accept or reject a position based on how many people are going to get confused by it. If that were a proper policy, there would never have been a reformation and the modern Mid-Acts movement wouldn't exist. We'd all just go along to get along.