I dont believe in water baptism

[Matthew1344]

I have a good friend that says "The bible does not teach water baptism after salvation in the new testament."

He loves the doctrines of grace.

His points are that the
- baptism in NT is only of the Spirit.
-And that other than Corinthians, baptism isn't in the epistles.
-why would I be baptized? I'm already saved.

Other than him, I have never heard someone say that before. Have yall ever met someone that says this?

 

[chuckd]

"Why would I be baptized? I'm already saved."

Are you sure he loves the doctrines of grace? Because apparently baptism, prior to conversion, is a back door to salvation.

 

[Matthew1344]

"Why would I be baptized? I'm already saved."

Are you sure he loves the doctrines of grace? Because apparently baptism, prior to conversion, is a back door to salvation.

Yes, and I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[chuckd]

Yes, and I don't understand what you are saying.

Let's say you just had a child. The hospital administrator comes and asks for the correct spelling of the child's name to put on the birth certificate. You answer "Why would he need a birth certificate? He's already born."

It suggests the certificate is what makes him alive.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Does he adhere to the RPW? If so, he has his directive in the Great Commission.

 

[Andres]

-why would I be baptized? I'm already saved.

Why pray? Why read the Bible? Why receive the Lord's Supper? Why sit under preaching? Why go to church at all?
After all, we're already saved, right?

As for his claim that baptism isn't in the epistles other than Corinthians, I can think of numerous examples of baptism references in Galatians, Romans, & Colossians so I don't know what in the world your friend is talking about.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Perhaps all that is necessary is for your friend to see in the text that Christian baptism as performed by man is properly done with water. This is a case where the Scripture narrative is a fine place to start.

Act.8:36,38 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?... And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

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

These two are NT passages (leaving aside John the Baptist's obvious dependence on water), post-Pentecost, where baptism with water is patent. Why should the epistles carry more weight? More significantly, if he recognizes it once (in 1Cor.) why isn't that enough to convict him? Does doctrine or practice depend on the number of times it is mentioned? Does he recognize any water-and-baptism connections in Rom.6, Gal.3, Eph.4, Col.2, Heb.6, 1Pet.3? How about allusions to baptism, ala Tit.3:5 and Eph.5:26?

When Jesus commissions his disciples, commanding them to baptize, Mt.28, does your friend imagine that Men baptize with Holy Spirit? The Spirit blows where he wills, Jn.3:8. The Spirit is sovereign. The Spirit is content to baptize those whom the Son designates, the will of God being unified. Those who believe Man baptizes others in the Holy Ghost are but a small step from baptismal regeneration.


If the issue continues for him that under the NT, Man doesn't baptize, then I don't know how many verses or even if reasoning from Scripture will persuade him. It seems like an a priori.

 

[JimmyH]

Thinking of our Lord's baptism, relative to this question, I pulled this page of commentaries up on Bible Hub ; Matthew 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

Excerpt from The Pulpit Commentary on that page ;

"Let me be baptized by thee now," our Lord says to John, "for it is fitting for us, in this spirit of submission, to fill up every part of righteousness." Our Lord thus pleads for the absolute submission of John and himself to every portion of righteousness as it may be proposed to them by God to perform; his words thus somewhat resembling those to St. Peter, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me" (John 13:8). Thy duty is to baptize, mine to be baptized. It has generally been thought that in this verse our Lord implies that his baptism was to constitute his own formal recognition and acceptance of his distinctly Messianic duties - an act which involved the complete leaving of his past life and the giving himself up to a new and public life (cf. Weiss, 'Life,' 1:322).

 

[Phil D.]

The 19th century Presbyterian James Dale (author of the famous four volume Baptizo series) took the position that no NT passages about baptism have water baptism in view unless the word "water" or a cognitive term ("River Jordan", etc.) is explicitly used in direct connection with it. As such he maintained that passages like Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19 were only in reference to a "spirit" baptism. This stemmed from his core proposition that in Greek the term "baptize" simply means "to influence" in various ways. I have interacted with a few people, including a Reformed minister, who have read Dale and imbibed or at least seriously entertained this view.

 

[nicnap]

Have yall ever met someone that says this?

I have heard one other man say this, and he was a hyper HYPER H.Y.P.E.R. Dispensationalist. Your friend is certainly heterodox at this point.

I must confess that I haven't heard a Presbyterian hold to such, though now reading Phil D.'s post, I have to ask: is your friend Dispensationalist?

 

[Mushroom]

Paul mentions having baptized some folks in 1 Cor. 1:13-17. His ministry was obviously NT era, and seeing that God (not Paul) administers the baptism of the Spirit, how could he not be referring to water baptism?

 

[Matthew1344]

I am pretty sure he read the Dale books. And I don't know if he is a dispensationalist or not

 

[Jonny.]

How would he explain a passage like this? It would make no sense if water was not involved in baptism?

because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3: 20-21)

It doesn't sound like the nature of baptism is the biggest issue here. If he dismissed water baptism because "only" one epistle mentions it, then his view of Scripture is fundamentally wrong and he's likely to fall into all sorts of other errors. If I was trying to help him, that's where I'd be looking to focus the conversation.

 

[Phil D.]

I probably should have clarified that Dale still believed in the sacrament of water baptism, although it seems almost reluctantly so. To be sure--and this was the reason for my original posting--his rationale for still believing in it are oddly stilted by his denial that it is in view in Peter's sermon on Pentecost or The Great Commission - a position which also led him to assert that there was no specific biblical warrant for using the Trinitarian formula in water baptism. Again, to clarify that particular point, he thought that using the Trinitarian formula was still valid, just not biblical (!), and he surmised that perhaps some day the church would return to the alleged apostolic practice of baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. Dale was apparently a New Side Presbyterian, and certainly not a confessional one.

 

[whirlingmerc]

maybe he's confused over different types of baptism... Jesus baptizes in the spirit and fire according to John the Baptist, but the apostles certainly baptized with water

 

[Matthew1344]

So you guys believe 1 Peter 3 is about water baptism? But it says "not the removal of dirt from the body". I saw this as Peter saying "I'm not talking about water baptism". I also thought that since it saves this baptism saves you, he couldn't be speaking of water baptism.

I'm interested in learning. Can yall help me out?

 

[Jonny.]

So you guys believe 1 Peter 3 is about water baptism? But it says "not the removal of dirt from the body". I saw this as Peter saying "I'm not talking about water baptism". I also thought that since it saves this baptism saves you, he couldn't be speaking of water baptism.

I'm interested in learning. Can yall help me out?

Yes, I believe it's about water baptism. Water is what links Noah and his family being kept safe, and Christian baptism.

The fact that Peter says "not the removal of dirt from the body" actually points to water being involved. If water wasn't involved, why would Peter have felt the need to clarify that the key significance of baptism isn't the removal of dirt from the body? That line only makes sense if baptism does to some extent involve the removal of bodily dirt, which therefore points to the presence of water.

It would be like me saying: "I love my car, but not because it's blue." That line only makes sense if my car is actually blue.

 

[TheOldCourse]

So you guys believe 1 Peter 3 is about water baptism? But it says "not the removal of dirt from the body". I saw this as Peter saying "I'm not talking about water baptism". I also thought that since it saves this baptism saves you, he couldn't be speaking of water baptism.

I'm interested in learning. Can yall help me out?

In Peter's epistles as elsewhere in the Bible there is a very close association between the sign and the thing signified, such that Peter can talk about both baptism (which is by water) and the spiritual washing of regeneration and union with Christ it signifies. Think of the way the OT sacrifices were often spoken of. When the Scriptures speak of them as atoning for sins, we know that which atones is not the sacrifice itself but that which the sacrifice is signifying. Nevertheless, it is still speaking of an actual, real animal sacrifice being offered on an altar.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So you guys believe 1 Peter 3 is about water baptism? But it says "not the removal of dirt from the body". I saw this as Peter saying "I'm not talking about water baptism". I also thought that since it saves this baptism saves you, he couldn't be speaking of water baptism.

I'm interested in learning. Can yall help me out?

Yes, I believe it's about water baptism. Water is what links Noah and his family being kept safe, and Christian baptism.

The fact that Peter says "not the removal of dirt from the body" actually points to water being involved. If water wasn't involved, why would Peter have felt the need to clarify that the key significance of baptism isn't the removal of dirt from the body? That line only makes sense if baptism does to some extent involve the removal of bodily dirt, which therefore points to the presence of water.

It would be like me saying: "I love my car, but not because it's blue." That line only makes sense if my car is actually blue.

This reply is good and accurate; it clearly identifies the analogue--how does the reference to water even make any sense to the reader/hearer unless the ordinary visible sign is something known?

There is another interesting aspect to the text from an analytic perspective. Peter ties NT baptism and the OT event of the flood together (as I once preached the 1Pet. text titling the message: "The First Baptism").


We can set up a diagram for this analysis:

act/symbol -- washing in water: removal of dirt from body; external​

Baptism--<

meaning -- an asking of God for what he alone can give, namely a clean conscience (internal); the removal of guilt, in other words, sparing from judgment​

We can set up the flood diagram similarly:

act/symbol -- water application; resulting in judgment for everything and everyone who is exposed; from which some are protected by the enclosing ark (which is pounded without, just as the whole earth and the rest of humanity, and see Luke 12:50)​

Flood--<

meaning -- for which, look to baptism​

So what is interesting about Peter's theology here, is that he takes the OT type, and rather than relating type to antitype in this-worldly terms, i.e. flood to baptism; he relates the real-world event (flood) to the meaning of baptism; he cross (X) connects the diagram. One of Baptism's major symbols is the reality of Judgment (see in http://www.puritanboard.com/content/circumcision-baptism-compared-60/ ).

Conclusion: the OT and the NT are profoundly unified.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Hi

This is a rare but extreme form of dispensationalism. The second pastor of my previous church held this view. (He left the church of england over it. The church was blessed numerically under his ministry more than any other, which is neither here nor there). I haven't come across anyone who believes this in my own lifetime.

As I understand it, this extreme view was that water baptism was for the jews only. But its been a long time since I looked into it.

J

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

I don't guess he is of this "vibe" but I have known a number of very contemporary very low church modern Evangelical churches - of a distinctly megachurch culture - who do not do any communion and place a terribly low emphasis on baptism. Those churches are not where I'd expect to find anyone loving the Doctrines of Grace, though.

 

[jwright82]

I would say that since water baptism was done since as far back as we can tell historically, what are the chances that the church has been wrong on this for 2 thousand years and finally he has learned the truth. We're the apostles that ineffective in teaching that their immediate hearers baptizid with water?