Since Baptism began being discussed heavily in the other thread, I figured I'd start a new one.

Basically there are 2 main camps, and some others half in between.

1. Water Baptism is 100% required for Salvation...belief, faith and repentance alone isn't enough, one must be water baptized. Incomplete if water baptism isn't done.


2. Water Baptism is ceremonial and represents dieing to the old and being reborn in Christ. Water isn't what cleanses the heart, Jesus does that. As an act of obedience to Scripture, water baptism is performed, but it isn't what actually saves a person...belief, faith and repentance does that.

Let's discuss, civilly.

Personally, I'm under the understanding that water baptism is the OUTWARD EXPRESSION of an INWARD REALITY. It is a step of obedience where a person outwardly shows that Jesus has entered their heart and has done a heart change. That inward reality of Christ now dwelling/abiding within calls for a showing...the outward expression and profession to man so that it may be known. It is not the water that cleanses the heart, but Christ who does so.

It is much like Old Testament circumcision. Cutting the foreskin was an outward expression of an inward reality too under the law. Jews had a heart for God or the converts did, so that heart condition was expressed via circumcision. They were required by God to do this step.

Under the New Covenant, we no longer are under the law or called to circumcise our bodies, but in actuality we are to figuratively circumcise our hearts. Christ is the one who does the heart change. This heart change now is called for an outward expression of obedience that comes from the salvation and changed heart...through Baptism.

Now, many may disagree perhaps on the order and requirement. Let's discuss. And if you could, please address the heart issue within your comments.

***The reason for me starting this thread is for us to engage in discussion that builds each other up, not to tear anyone down. Also, there are many missionaries in the world that are leading people to Christ. I fully believe there are souls that are saved with Christ dwelling in them that have yet to be baptized by water. I think every believer should partake in water baptism to be obedient, but I don't believe salvation has to wait until the dunking. So that is the context of my writing. ****

Many denominations baptize babies, so to me that part is ceremonial and there's no inward process there.

I would agree. My PCA church sprinkles children as "covenant children"...children belonging to saved, Christian parents who are promising to raise their kids up in Christ. To me that is ceremonial, such as a baby dedication in other churches. Once that child is of age and accepts Christ, I'll be honest in that I'm not sure if they baptize again or not. I know they do with adults who are first time professing Christians...but unsure on how they do with covenant children.

I'm of the understanding that it's more #2. the water, itself, isn't what saves you. It's just symbolism. Look at the thief on the cross, for example.

Jesus is all about our hearts! We can be baptized one hundred times and if we have not let the blood of Christ cleanse our hearts we are just wet. That being said we have a lot examples of water baptism and I think it is to be done. We like to put the cart before the horse sometimes.

Dave

I believe all scriptural examples of baptism come after the personal act of repentace and turning to Christ. Not sure how that would happen as a baby. Parents should commit to raising Godly children, but noone can chose to follow Christ but you, so noone can be obedient in baptism but the one being saved, parents can't do it for you.

1

How could the theif on the cross next to Jesus have been going to heaven that day if baptism is required?

You beat me to it. To me this trumps all other arguments. Jesus himself proclaimed it.

It is a way to let the outside know of the commitment in your heart. For this reason we didn't have our son baptized when he was a baby. We had him dedicated instead. When he is ready he will chose to be baptized.

1. Jesus was God on Earth and had the power to forgive anything he desired.
2. Jesus was still alive therefore the thief was still an Old Testament Jew. The new covenant did not go into affect until Jesus rose from the grave. The thief could not have been baptized as a New Testament Christian even if he wanted to because he never lived under the New Testament.

If you read the New Testament closely and study the 1st century church, every person who has a conversion experience is baptized immediately. Not next week. Not next month. Immediately. Here is water, what doth hinder me, the Ethiopian eunuch asks. Baptism is not an outward expression. It completes the process. The thief on the cross is bandied about a lot in this discussion. The important point to remember is that Jesus wasn't dead yet nor was he resurrected. The new covenant had not yet gone into effect when the thief was on the cross. After that, it is always, always baptism for the remission of sin. I was raised Baptist and heard the ceremonial outward expression of faith thing all my life. I was never comfortable with that from my own personal study of the Bible. I married a Church of Christ girl and realized a lot of people feel the same way I do. But I also believe we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and I don't write this to condemn anyone else's belief. For me baptism is an essential part of salvation.

Remember also the devil believes and trembles...

Thanks I'm Bibled out for the day.

What I want to know is why do you think does the Old Covenant argument holds up? How did a person become righteous under that Old Covenant? Not by upholding the law.

I know the answer but I want to know what you think.


Then there's this statement.
1. Jesus was God on Earth and had the power to forgive anything he desired.

The scripture clearly tells that God is no respecter of persons yet you want us to think he gave this man special consideration but requires something different all of us.

I'd also like to add....
If baptism is strictly a New Covenant concept, why was John the Baptist baptizing believers before the crucifixion?

Not really sure what you're asking of me with the first part. I was just pointing out why baptism wouldn't apply to the thief....because he lived under the old testament.
As far as the second part goes, if we are using God not being a respector of persons as an argument, I would ask if there were other instances in the Bible where there is an apparent respect shown for some over others by God. There clearly is. I could argue that God was a respector of those that were miraculously healed because not everyone was. I could argue that God was a respector of persons when he commanded the Israelites to wipe out entire races so they could have their lands.
You ask why God would require something different of us than the thief. Many were clearly commanded to be baptized in the New Testament so why should what they were commanded to do be any different than what we are commanded to do?

John's baptism was not for the forgiveness of sins. If it were then Jesus wouldn't have been baptized by him because he had no sin.

I'm done for the evening, gotta whatch the daughter play volleyball. Good discussion and good honest questions by all. Thanks for keeping everything gentlemanly.

#2. Ceremony.