The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is water baptism to be practiced today?

Can you give examples where baptism is "dry"? Again, there are two basic references to baptism; water and Spirit which must be distinguished, although as I have stated already, the former signifies and pictures the latter. One can receive water baptism but not have Spirit baptism (Acts 8:14ff). I am still puzzled why you want to virtually dismiss the historical record of the practice of the early Church in the book of "Acts" concerning water baptism? Can you provide good sound reasons for singling out this particular practice as being obsolete in exclusion to the many other practices which were done? To be consistent, would you not also have to likewise dismiss the perpetuity of the Lord's Supper? women's headcovering? giving of alms? praying for the saints in other locales? corporate worship? and even preaching?

Gal 3:27 - "baptized into Christ" cannot refer to Spirit baptism. The formula with eis (into) accords with Matt 28:19 and other passages which means one who is united and identified with Christ and His teaching which is signified in water baptism. (cf. Rom 6:3ff; 13:14; Col 2:12,13; 1Pet 3:21) Paul is speaking not ONLY about the outward sacrament of baptism as if it in and of itself had some inherent power, but about the sign and seal in conjunction with that which is signified and sealed. All those, then, who by means of their [water] baptism have truly laid aside, in principle, their garment of sin, and have truly been decked with the robe of Christ's righteousness, having thus been buried with Him and raised with Him, have put on Christ.

Col 2:12,13 - Hendriksen, I believe is most correct when he writes in his Commentary:

But why does Paul connect "in your baptism" with this having been buried with Christ and having been raised with him? He does not do this because he attaches any magical efficacy to the rite of baptism. See 1Cor 1:14-17; cf. 1Pet 3:21. In the passage now under discussion the apostle definitely excludes the idea that the act of baptizing, in virtue of the action itself, and independent of the condition of the heart of them who here and now professed to believe the gospel, has spiritual value. He carefully adds: through faith in the operative power of God who raised him from the dead. The man who hears the gospel as it is proclaimed must give his heart to the almighty God whose energizing power raised Christ from the dead. He must also believe that the spiritual power that proceeds from the risen Savior (Phil 3:10) will bestow upon him all he needs for body and soul, for time and eternity.

What then is the meaning of the phrase "in your baptism"? Evidently Paul in this entire paragraph magnifies Christian baptism as much as he, by clear implication, disapproves of the continuation of the right of circumcision if viewed as having anything to do with salvation. The definite implication, therefore, is that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Hence, what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism. In the Colossian context baptism is specifically a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him. It is, accordingly, a sign and seal of union with Christ, of entrance into his covenant, of incorporation into Christ's body, the church (1Cor 12:13). The sign of baptism pictures the cleansing power of Christ's blood and Spirit. That vivid portrayal is very valuable (cf. Job 42:5,6). The seal certifies and guarantees the operation of this activity of love and grace in the lives of all those who embrace Christ by faith. Baptism, therefore, shows us a God who tenderly condescends to the weaknesses of his people: their doubts and their fears. (Cf. Heb 6:17; also for the sacrament of communion Luke 22:19.) Surely, Noah did not despise the rainbow (Gen 8:12-17). Happily married couples do not think lowly of their wedding rings.

a) You are making a logical fallacy by comparing the preaching of the Gospel, the means by which the Spirit works to bring people to Christ, i.e., to save them and then equating baptism to the preaching of the Gospel. I find no such implication in Scripture; to preach the Gospel is to baptize. The fact is, the opposite is true. In baptism, the Gospel is preached. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are rightly held to be "visible signs" of God's saving grace in Christ. They are also included as means of grace, along with preaching and praying. This the Christian Church has affirmed for two millennia and has so testified in its Confessions and Catechisms.

re: Jer 4:14 - This is a call for the wicked to repent of their sinful deeds. The emphasis is upon their responsibility and not upon God's sovereignty in salvation.

re: Jh 3:7 - Here Jesus is setting forth the sovereignty of God the Spirit in regeneration. Fallen men have a fundamental need to be "born again" (regenerated) but it is totally outside of their power to bring it about or to even instigate it. The non-Reformed churches have made a damnable error in putting the cart before the horse by teaching that "if/when you believe, you will be born again", thus making a spiritually dead man capable of not only contributing to his salvation but robbing God the Spirit of His sovereignty to save whosoever HE will. In short, in contrast to the preaching of the Word, baptism and prayers, there are no means involved in the new birth. Thus, Jh 3:7 is irrelevant to the subject at hand.