Question for Madists.

[musterion]

I would agree with you here. But that is not the same thing as saying that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Some might, but I suspect it would be a small number of groups.

"You ought to be baptized because Scripture teaches it" is not the same thing as "you cannot be saved if you are not baptized."

If they tell you it's an issue of disobedience if you neglect or refuse it - and all of them will if pressed because "Jesus commended it!" - they are saying it's a sin issue. In which case, it automatically darn well becomes a salvation issue. Even if they don't say it out loud, that WILL BE in the back of their mind.

 

[steko]

If they tell you it's an issue of disobedience if you neglect or refuse it - and all of them will if pressed because "Jesus commended it!" - they are saying it's a sin issue. In which case, it automatically darn well becomes a salvation issue. Even if they don't say it out loud, that WILL BE in the back of their mind.

I've had some say that one ought to be water baptized 'just in case' and I reply, 'In that case, one's faith is not exclusively in Christ's finished work, is it?'.

 

[Brother Ducky]

If they tell you it's an issue of disobedience if you neglect or refuse it - and all of them will if pressed because "Jesus commended it!" - they are saying it's a sin issue. In which case, it automatically darn well becomes a salvation issue. Even if they don't say it out loud, that WILL BE in the back of their mind.

Let's assume it is a sin issue.

If so, would they say that this particular sin is not taken care of by the work of Christ?

 

[musterion]

Let's assume [THEY VIEW IT AS] a sin issue.

If so, would they say that this particular sin is not taken care of by the work of Christ?

Apparently they would have to say that, else what would be the point of pushing people toward water EVEN IF one has already professed belief in the saving Gospel (assuming that's what they preach)? No...they put stock in WB and take it very seriously, just as Rome does. To what degree isn't really the point -- that they do lend it salvational importance is all that matters and why they should be shunned if they won't repent of it.

Do you view it as a sin issue if one neglects or refuses any form of w.b.?

 

[musterion]

I've had some say that one ought to be water baptized 'just in case' and I reply, 'In that case, one's faith is not exclusively in Christ's finished work, is it?'.

Duck, did you read that?

That is EXACTLY THE POINT, brother Steko. And apparently some folks here would be amazed at the number of mainline "faith only, no works" evangelicals and denominationalists who will mentally go off-line when asked your question.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Apparently they would have to say that, else what would be the point of pushing people toward water EVEN IF one has already professed belief in the saving Gospel (assuming that's what they preach)? No...they put stock in WB and take it very seriously, just as Rome does. To what degree isn't really the point -- that they do lend it salvational importance is all that matters and why they should be shunned if they won't repent of it.

Do you view it as a sin issue if one neglects or refuses any form of w.b.?

I would have to say that I know of none that would say that the unpardonable sin is the lack of/refusal of baptism. Of course, they take it very seriously. I take it seriously, as do most Christians. Most would take it as something that God has commanded.

Personally, I believe that Christians should be baptized. I would not break fellowship with someone who was not baptized or even who argued strongly against it. There are few things that are required of a Christian.

Your computer might have been hacked. I noticed that there had been some changes in my post that you quoted.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Duck, did you read that?

That is EXACTLY THE POINT, brother Steko. And apparently some folks here would be amazed at the number of mainline "faith only, no works" evangelicals and denominationalists who will mentally go off-line when asked your question.

Yes, I read that. Not sure all that was intended with the "just in case."

I do not think we can assume the "just in case" means that it is a matter of salvation unless the speaker believed categorically that there is no salvation without baptism.

Is there anything that a MADist would say belongs in the category of "oughtness?"

 

[Right Divider]

Is there anything that a MADist would say belongs in the category of "oughtness?"

Yes, do right and don't do wrong.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Yes, do right and don't do wrong.

Sounds good. What makes something "right" or "wrong?"

 

[Right Divider]

Sounds good. What makes something "right" or "wrong?"

The things that God says that we should do are good and we should do them.
The things that God says not to do are bad and we should not do them.

 

[Brother Ducky]

The things that God says that we should do are good and we should do them.
The things that God says not to do are bad and we should not do them.

So if one believes that God says to be baptized, then it would be a good thing?

 

[glorydaz]

All I'm saying is, almost everyone who believes in water baptism adds some often unspoken spiritual/sanctifying/obedience to God weight to it, and most often don't fully realize it until pressed. Then, when it's pointed out, they tend to get upset. That's been my experience many times. And speaking from my own background, I was able to hold those two contradictory thoughts in my own skull for some time, until I realized they can't both be true.

Yep, and that's why understanding Mid Acts is so important. Until one sees what the Lord taught while in the flesh, and to whom it was taught in comparison to the baptism which Paul preaches which is baptism by the Spirit into the body, it's confusing at best.

 

[musterion]

I would have to say that I know of none that would say that the unpardonable sin is the lack of/refusal of baptism. Of course, they take it very seriously. I take it seriously, as do most Christians. Most would take it as something that God has commanded.

I had an old IFB pastor ask me and the wife TWICE if we'd been water baptized, without ever asking us what the Gospel of our salvation is. Yeah...lots of folks you might not expect take it very, very seriously.

Personally, I believe that Christians should be baptized.

I figured, but...

I would not break fellowship with someone who was not baptized or even who argued strongly against it. There are few things that are required of a Christian.

So...why be baptized at all if it's not make or break fellowship/obedience/sin issue? If it's not required, whence the "should"?

I added brackets to my insertion in your quote. That does not constitute an alteration, just a comment.

 

[musterion]

Yep, and that's why understanding Mid Acts is so important. Until one sees what the Lord taught while in the flesh, and to whom it was taught in comparison to the baptism which Paul preaches which is baptism by the Spirit into the body, it's confusing at best.

Speaking of, I was reading Colossians 1 this morning; it was like I had a fresh set of eyes (thyroid meds can sure clear the mind).

 

[musterion]

Is there anything that a MADist would say belongs in the category of "oughtness?"

Sure.

Believe the Gospel of grace and be saved.

Be renewed in the mind according to the mind of Christ, the Word of God.

Be practically putting off the old man who was judicially put off at the cross.

Be walking in/by the Spirit.

Be keeping the mind set on heavenly things.

Be holding fast to the hope of glory, Christ in us.

Be growing in the knowledge of God.

And other things.

Water rituals are not listed for a reason.

 

[glorydaz]

I would agree with you here. But that is not the same thing as saying that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Some might, but I suspect it would be a small number of groups.

"You ought to be baptized because Scripture teaches it" is not the same thing as "you cannot be saved if you are not baptized."

Scripture taught it for the Jews. It was not to be forbiden to those Gentiles who asked for it.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?​

 

[glorydaz]

Interesting that that has been no follow-up on the Lord's Supper or on sanctification here.

The Lords Supper, "As often as you do this...." It's not a requirement.

1 Corinthians 11:24-26
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. ​

Sanctification is being set apart as holy, so what kind of a "sacrament" is that?
One is through the law, and the other is by the Spirit.
Just like baptism really.

 

[Brother Ducky]

I had an old IFB pastor ask me and the wife TWICE if we'd been water baptized, without ever asking us what the Gospel of our salvation is. Yeah...lots of folks you might not expect take it very, very seriously.



I figured, but...



So...why be baptized at all if it's not make or break fellowship/obedience/sin issue? If it's not required, whence the "should"?

I added brackets to my insertion in your quote. That does not constitute an alteration, just a comment.

Well, one should rather expect a Baptist pastor to take baptism seriously. I do not understand the twice aspect but that would probably depend on timing. I suspect that for baptistic folk baptism presupposes some form of profession of faith/conversion experience. Might be a verbal shorthand.

I suspect that there are few here, much less in the real world who would agree with many on everything that we see as doing right or wrong. If you would break fellowship over anything that you disagreed on, you would have fellowship with few.

 

[glorydaz]

Their baptism with fire is in reference to the purging of Israel.

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Luke 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.​

I've also heard it refers to the refiners fire. :think:

1 Cor. 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.​

 

[Brother Ducky]

Yep, and that's why understanding Mid Acts is so important. Until one sees what the Lord taught while in the flesh, and to whom it was taught in comparison to the baptism which Paul preaches which is baptism by the Spirit into the body, it's confusing at best.

Did Paul water baptize?