All Comments for: Immersed in a Baptism Brouhaha | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > September (Web-only)

Christianity Today, September (Web-only), 2007 |

Theology in the News

Immersed in a Baptism Brouhaha

Changes of heart renew centuries-old divisions.

Collin Hansen | posted 9/28/2007 09:12AM

Few noticed when in June presidential candidate Sen. John McCain talked with McClatchy Newspapers about his faith. Every candidate gets these questions, and McCain has never previously effused on Christianity. ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 47 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Anonymous

Posted: October 10, 2007 7:30 PM

I can't believe that someone qualified to write for CT would commit such a gaffe as this: Meanwhile, will Presbyterian or Methodist or Anglican pastors recognize infant baptisms from any other church? If not, where do they draw the line? Where has this guy been. We Presbyterians not only recognize other church's baptisms but staunchly refuse to rebaptize anyone! James Quillin Highland Heights Presbyterian Church Memphis, TN

Erdman Klassen

Posted: October 08, 2007 11:14 AM

Concerning mode.Peter in Acts 2 quotes the Prophet Joel. I will pour out my Spirit on all people,in vers 17 and again in vers18,pouring out of the Spirit is again and again referred to in the Scriptures, there is a congruity here between water and the Spirit that should not be violated.The New Testament refers to 2 examples of Baptism where God himself performed the Baptisms( 1 Cor 10 & 1 Peter 3. For those that dogmatically assert that baptize can only be understood as immersion may want to note that the children of Israel and Noahs family were seen to be baptized ,while the unbelievers were literally immersed.In a careful study of mode in the Scriptures immersionists cannot prevail.

roland lim

Posted: October 05, 2007 7:24 AM


Jesus was baptise by John the baptist (recorded in all four gospels), so those who believe shall follow.

Ephrem Hagos

Posted: October 04, 2007 5:05 AM

The "IMMERSION IN A BAPTISM BROUHAHA" is only one of the high costs Christians are paying for barking the wrong trees. "Because everyone was asleep" (as in the Parable of the Weeds, Matt. 13: 24-30; 36-43), we have succeeded to displace the primary source of the teachings of Jesus Christ by the secondary sources of the teachings of the Apostles, which were never meant to stand on their own, independent of the former. If Paul could say that Jesus Christ Himself, and not any other man, taught him the Gospel as the only source of sound teaching (Gal. 1: 11-12; 1 Tim. 1: 10-11), why should we settle for less? The ultimate measure of the costs of displacement of sources is the lttle known subject of Jesus Christ's death on the cross as the source of God's secrets, the revelation of the immortalaity of Christ and the key that opens all the hidden treasures of God's wisdom and knowledge as taught and put to practice by Jesus for our first-hand experience (John 14-19; Col. 2:3).

Hesed

Posted: October 03, 2007 6:27 PM

Good article in general, but I find the following quote completely unintelligible: "Meanwhile, will Presbyterian or Methodist or Anglican pastors recognize infant baptisms from any other church? If not, where do they draw the line?" As a Presbyterian pastor myself, I have no difficulty recognizing baptisms administered by Methodists or Anglicans, nor does any Presbyterian I know. Where does this question come from? It sounds to me like an attempt to show that difference of opinion exists within both the paedobatist and credobaptist camps, when in reality no such difference exists among paedobaptists.

andy christ

Posted: October 03, 2007 11:23 AM

A lot of persons do not understand religion. Baptism is presenting messages of great hope and or joy. Cleaning your body in baptism will give a new feeling, a clean feeling and not annoying dryness of the skin that stops a chance at you from receiving the holy spirit. Messages such as Gal 3:2. Are wonderful. Also key discernment messages of God are. God is the main event. The 1 friend. Stop and listen for him every second! He is giver of eternity of friendship, great food, hugs, clear lakes and other great things! Amen! Glory to lamb of God! Evry knee shall bow that selfcenteredism(sin) or unrightoeus(sin) is wrong and disgusting. Be ready for satanic armys or mobs. Dueteronomy 20!Thank you for your time. 1corinth 14:26.

Don	Posted: October 02, 2007 4:20 PM

Baptism is not a condition for salvation. It is an outward symbol of faith. We are saved by faith alone, not the symbol! Remember Christ said to the criminal on the cross "Today you will be will me in paradise." Baptism was not a factor in His promise of salvation. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Rather than getting mired in worthless theological arguments and denominationalism (which I believe is contrary to God's will), we do well to follow Christ's example. To put this issue in its proper perspective, consider the number of people Jesus baptized during His earthy ministry. Christian energy is better devoted to genuine expressions and examples of Love rather than pointless, legalistic arguments.

danielballinger

Posted: October 02, 2007 1:47 PM

The bible states that baptism is when you are buried with Jesus in his death. How can a person be saved without burying the old man and becoming a new one through the power of the Holy Spirit? Water baptism is to identify you with The Lord! Also baptism should be administered in the name of the Lord JESUS Christ for remissoin of sins, especially since JESUS is the name in which the Father,Son,HolySpirit are revealed Isiaha 9:6, John 14:26, Matt. 28:19,Acts 2:38,Acts 10:44-48,Acts 19:2-6, and No-one was ever baptized any other way in the Bible than immersion in the name of the Lord JESUS Christ! Why have we let Church traditions creep in to the faith that can not be backed by scripture and history in scripture! It's time to go to back the Apostolic doctrine that was taught in the early church! ACTS 2:38 Then peter siad unto them repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of JESUS Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost!!!

Scott Williamson

Posted: October 02, 2007 9:33 AM


Confirmation is a solution to this problem, as I see it. One can confirm his infant baptism by words or by actions. By words, one can say, "My parents promised to raise me within the family of God, and they did. Here I am." By actions, one can say, "Okay, you want me to show you, not just tell you? Fine, I'll get wet today."

Raymond Takashi Swenson

Posted: October 01, 2007 2:15 PM

I was interested by the comments demonstrating the chaos among Christians on whether baptism is necessary for salvation, whether one must be immersed, and whether baptism of infants is equivalent to baptism of an accountable child or adult. You can accept so much variation on something that is at the heart of the Christian gospel within "Christianity", but cannot accept members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Christians over less fundamental differences. Mormons follow the Bible and baptise, in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and by immersion, only people who are mentally capable of knowing good from evil and can covenant with God that they will follow Christ into baptism "to fulfill all righteousness". The history of Christianity reveals the later non-Biblical creation of infant baptism out of a lack of faith in the saving power of Christ for innocent infants and as a substitute for circumcision, which some Jews thought was a saving ordinance.

Billy

Posted: October 01, 2007 2:06 PM

There is no salvation in the act of baptism. A person can be saved in the absence of baptism. The thief on the cross was saved with no baptism. However if one confesses Christ as his Lord and Savior, he should be obedient as Christ was and submit to baptism. He needed no baptism but yet in obedience he submitted to it. This did please God. Baptism is only symbolic in that when you are baptized, you 're saying that I am commemorating Christ's death (We die to the old sin and are justified: in the right relationship and fellowship with Christ), burial (We bury the old sins are covered by Jesus' work of redemption on the cross; old sins are casted and away; we start with a clean slate as we grow in sanctification), and ressurrection (now we walk in a newness of life because we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and now we have some inside help to live in this world; however we need to pray daily throughout the day for a filling of the Holy Spirit because as Spurgeon"we do develop leaks.

Bill Beattie

Posted: October 01, 2007 9:25 AM


While we Christians argue over baptism, real problems receive little of our attention. Whether baptized or not, children and adults die every day from starvation, war and disease. Let's stop looking inwardly at our disagreements and look outwardly at the world we are called to minister to. There's plenty of work to keep us busy!

E Law

Posted: September 30, 2007 6:15 PM


Just to be fair, should not this article be entitled "Immersed/Sprinkled in a Baptism Brouhaha"?

Cyndy

Posted: September 30, 2007 6:00 PM

In 1 Cor 7:14 the unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" in as much as they do not defile the believing spouse but unbelievers are not saved. The practice of infant baptism clearly preceeds a believer's baptism. Even John's Baptism was a baptism of repentance that they may recognize the one who would follow, that is Jesus. Paul later baptized some followers of John the Baptist. (Acts 19:3-5) The baptism that saves is the the baptism of sin upon Christ at Calvary. (Luke 12:50, Mark:10:38) A clear pattern for personal redemption is to repent, believe in the gospel and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. This promise is for you, your children and all generations to come.

T	Posted: September 30, 2007 9:11 AM

Baptists advocating adult baptism see scriptures from an individualistic view. It is, rather, true that the faith of others can save you which is closer to the Godly perspective. Infants properly raised by the whole family believing and carrying out their baptismal commitments have more chance of saving someone than individuals left on their own without support. But, God plays his part and accepts the child into His family, especially on the basis of the promises of others when infant-baptism occurs. Advocates of strict adult baptism forget the Authority of God who is our Father and welcomes children into His family."Suffer the little ones". What kind of monstrous faith do the adult baptists follow who ignore the fatherhood of God and who leave the salvation of a person to his own willpower? "Acts16:15 The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized,she invited us to her home." One adult was called and many were baptized

Ben	Posted: September 30, 2007 12:57 AM

From what I understand - folks that do infant baptism teach it is a sign of entrance into the New Covenant - and equate it to circumcission in the Old Covenant. Here's that catch: The Old Covenant was conditional. Those who were under the Old Covenant could be blessed or cursed based on their obedience or disobedience. (By the way, salvation has always come by faith in God, which has always trumped the letter of the covenant anyway.) The New Covenant is a covenant of eternal blessing. We enter that covenant BY FAITH. So whether you sprinkle, immerse, or splash a baby, they are still outside of that covenant until they believe. Then what value does a symbol of entrance into a covenant they are not yet part of have? Of course the answer is no significance. It's entirely pretended. It is for the comfort of the parents, not for the glory of God. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anonymous

Posted: September 30, 2007 12:05 AM

Paedobaptists in the reformed tradition view infant baptism a precious gift of God, a sign that our children are included in the covenant family of God. Of course we expect, hope, pray our children will later own that baptism through public profession of faith which is done in Presbyterian circles before the congregation at one of the regular celebrations of Lord's Supper. Whilst we can argue to and fro Biblically over the issue I have always found the analogy with circumcision compelling as well as Acts 16:33, 34 (my own translation from the Greek), "he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptised, he and all his own at once. He brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he exalted with all his household because he had believed in God. In other words on the basis the gaoler, the head of the household believed they too were baptised. Although we might hope all believed along with him, the text remains silent on this point.

David Ogletree

Posted: September 29, 2007 10:34 PM

(To the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers") Like a mighty Turtle, moves the church of God Brothers we are treading, where we've always trod. We are not united, many sects are we, Some will sprinkle, some will dip, some will dip times three*. Onward Christian sluggards, marching as before, With the cross of Jesus, dragging on the floor! The first verse I owe to a college professor, Bruce Porter. The baptism line I added during my seminary days as a student at a school that taught the correctness of rebaptism by triune immersion, that is immersed *three times (forward, no less) of those who had only experienced single immersion as a believer. While certainly theological reasons may be given for the timing of baptism in relation to faith and/or discipleship, the many arguments over the amount of water and whose water is used seem to be trivial by comparision.

Keith S. Andersen.

Posted: September 29, 2007 9:44 PM

I was raised Lutheran/mainline, and as such recieved infant baptism. I strongly feel that I came to faith as a young child through this upbringing. I now attend a large nondenominational church that requires adult baptism for membership, which I have not yet undertaken, and await clear leading from the Lord before doing so. With all due humility, I pretty much feel that those making such a strong stance for "believers baptism" are oversimplifing the biblical case. There are no specific instructions to refrain from baptising children, and the cannon was closed before generations of Christians were produced; we cannot find guidance pro or con as to infant baptism. Those described as coming to faith in 33 AD were necessarily not previously believers in Christ, whereas being raised in a Christian family is a different case. An adult male convert to Judaism in old test. times would be circumcised (analagous to believer's baptism), whereas his progeny recieved the sign soon after birth.

Paul Vance

Posted: September 29, 2007 7:57 PM


I believe that in baptism a person is publicy identifiying with the work of Christ in their life and publicly identifying themselves as part of a local body of believers at the same time.

water baptism does not match the real Baptism of Jesus

Posted: September 29, 2007 4:49 PM

We read that old Baptism is John's water baptism "Matthew3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I... He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." So, the call of Jesus, at his discretion, burns like fire and comes like a gentle breeze. God says you aren't doing wrong to follow the scriptures with water baptism because God is kind and accepts our baptisms including infant baptism. Matthew 3:11 "I baptize...But after me will come one who is more powerful than I... He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. It is THEREFORE not legalism to follow scriptures; but it's legalism to be hard-hearted and without grace and good spirit towards those who baptize infants, because God is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit in the end. God accepts all those young and old who are brought to him and at his generous discretion baptizes them with fire and wind and even his blood. So we all fail to be kind like God

j d howard

Posted: September 29, 2007 3:07 PM

Being raised baptist, I believe that baptism is an outward sign of accepting Christ after the age of accountability. But that baptism is only a sign, not a condition of salvation, that signifies our public pronouncement that Jesus Christ is Lord and that we are saved by our confesssion of this fact and the grace of our Lord. There are times when baptism is not possible or practical. For instance some one on their deathbed. We have a teenage son who is ready to make his public confession. He is in a wheelchair and it is more than likely not possible or practical to attempt to baptise hime. But in either case, the lack of baptism does not negate their salvation. And the fact we have a handicapped child has not influenced my belief on this matter. Finally, I believe that if you can physically follow the admonition, then immersion should be done. And if you want to join a Baptist church, then you should have been baptised in a Baptist Church or do so up moving your letter.

Anonymous

Posted: September 29, 2007 11:44 AM

The words baptism, baptisms, baptize, baptized, and baptizing occur 89 times in the New Testament in the New American Standard Bible. The words repent, repentance, repentant, repented, repenting, and repents occur 77 times in the entire Bible in the New American Standard Bible. Following the argument of those who say that Baptism should not be held as essential for church membership, should we not say the same thing about repentance based on how often the subject is mentioned in Scripture? Claiming a doctrine is not essential is a dangerous game.

Randy Davis

Posted: September 29, 2007 11:24 AM

Baptist are being accused of being legalistic because they follow the example of Scripture. If baptism was not important, then Scripture would have said so. It is not up to us to decide what is what is not important. There is no doubt that baptism is by immersion. And there is no example of anyone but believers being baptized in the New Testament. Arguments from silence are not acceptable. We cannot speculate our way to infant baptism. And the suggestion that one can be a member of the “universal” church and not be baptized is another bogus argument. The real question is if we believe the Bible to be the word of God, why do some resist proper baptism of the proper candidate? It is not because the Bible de-emphasizes baptism. It is not because the issue is unclear in the biblical text. The only reason I can see is because of pride. It seems so old fashioned to have be dipped into water. It is inconvenient, gets my hair wet-all good reasons to reject God's instructions.

Tim Perry

Posted: September 29, 2007 11:06 AM


I am baffled that this question is lobbed as though it is somehow unanswerable: "Meanwhile, will Presbyterian or Methodist or Anglican pastors recognize infant baptisms from any other church? If not, where do they draw the line?" The answer is simple: "Yes, provided it is in the triune name of God."

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment