Subject: Unbaptized children |
Bible Note: Greetings Kin! Thanks for the response! Let me touch on each point briefly! 1) I can see your point here, but I'm not sure I would agree with it. I am not one who puts as much "gap" between the Old and New Testaments as some do. But, since this point is debatable, I'll let it slide! :-) 2) I think this point is still the strongest argument against your postion. Yes, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit occurred in unusual ways at the beginning of pentecost. However, the fact remains that the Holy Spirit only fell upon believers. Therefore, Peters request to baptize these Gentiles demonstrates very strongly that their salvation had already taken place before they were baptized. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit could not have fallen on them. 3a) Mark 16:16 is a familiar argument and I'm sure that you've heard it before. However, there are two problems with putting too much emphasis upon Mark 16:16. 1) This verse has two clauses. The first mentions baptism, but the second doesn't. Logically, the element that is mentioned in both clauses in the essential element. 2) The ending of Mark is a disputed text. No one knows for sure what the original text said. Therefore, I would be extremely cautious of basing a doctrine upon it. 3b) This is a debatable point simply because we are arguing from silence. However, I think there is a strong point to made here simply because if baptism were as important to salvation as you believe, then surely there would be some passage of Scripture either in Jesus' teachings or the rest of the New Testament that dealt with it. Instead, we only have a couple of statements that never explain the significance of baptism. 4) One thing is clear from the text of 1 Pet. 3:21, whatever "saves" means in this verse, it does not mean "the removal of dirt". So, what does Peter mean when he says that baptism saves? Verse 22 even makes it clearer that the salvation actually occurs through the resurrection of Christ! 5) The reason I use the term "symbolic" in reference to Rom. 6:1-4 is simply because we don't literally die, get buried, and rise again. Thus, baptism is a symbol of our identification with Christ in all of these things. These three happened to Him, but did not literally happen to us. 6) What about Paul's statement that he did not come to baptize? I understand your convictions my friend. My only concern though is that this line of thought turns baptism into the Christian equivilent of circumcsion. The Judaizers, in Paul's time, tried to make the case that one really wasn't saved unless they were also circumcized. Scripture is clear that salvation is through grace alone. This is my primary concern. But, I appreciate your interaction. I always learn by discussing issues with people. One thing I have learned in this discussion is how little baptism is discussed in Scripture. There are occasional references, but not many passages that define or discuss it. I was very surprized at this fact! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |