The Importance of Christian Baptism
Christian baptism is, according to the Bible, an outward testimony of what has occurred inwardly in a believer’s life. Christian baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The Bible declares, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Romans 6:3-4). In Christian baptism, the action of being immersed in the water symbolizes dying and being buried with Christ. The action of coming out of the water pictures Christ’s resurrection.
In Christian baptism, there are two requirements before a person is baptized. The first is that the person being baptized must have trusted in Jesus Christ as Savior. Second the person must understand what baptism signifies. If a person knows the Lord Jesus as Savior, understands that Christian baptism is a step of obedience in publicly proclaiming his faith in Christ, and desires to be baptized, then there is no reason to prevent the believer from being baptized. According to the Bible, Christian baptism is important because it is a step of obedience as well as publicly declaring faith in Christ and commitment to Him, which brings an identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.
I HAVE UPDATED MY MUSIC & BOOK SPOTLIGHT
BE BLESSED & ENCOURAGED
Tags: Baptism, Burial, Death, obedience, Resurrection, testimony
In this post you claim that baptism is “an outward testimony of what has occurred inwardly in a believer’s life.” In your description of baptism you employ terms such as “illustrates,” and “symbolizes.” The subject of Christian Baptism is something to which I am now, for several reasons committing a great deal of time to study, and will be writing about it in the near future. It seems to me that your definition of what baptism is, namely a symbol, testimony, and illustration of some inward reality is inconsistent with the very text you cite in your definition. To me the text states that baptism IS union with Christ, IS burial, IS resurrection, IS new life. What scriptural support can you offer for the view that baptism is NOT the reality of conversion but a mere symbol?
Also, you state that a person “must understand what baptism signifies” in order to be a proper candidate for baptism. Where do you see this requirement in Scripture?
Grace & peace,
Chris Gates.
The significance of baptism as a New Testament ceremony is that as believers in Jesus Christ, we are baptized into His death (Romans 6:3) and raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4 KJV). The Lord understood the significance of baptism to the extent that He Himself was baptized by John the Baptist (Mark 1:9) at the start of His ministry. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.
The question of faith alone or faith plus works:
Compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
Even when we were dead in sins, Ephesians 2:5, He made us alive, listen to this, together with Christ and has raised us up together and made us sit together. We died with Christ. We rose with Christ. We ascend with Christ. We reign with Christ. And he says at the end of the third chapter of Revelation, “It is given to you to sit with Me in My throne.”
Why is the action of baptism used then? Because baptism, that wonderful, beautiful symbolic act, had become the outward identification of an inward faith. He’s not advocating salvation by water. That would be to contradict Romans 3, 4 and 5. Water baptism was a fixed sign for faith. In those days who put their faith in Christ were baptized.
Examples: Paul can say that Christ was put on in baptism, Galatians 3:27. And Peter can even say baptism doth also now save us, 1 Peter 3:21. And Titus can say we were washed with the washing of regeneration, Titus 3:5. And it can be said that our sins are washed away in Acts 22:16. And in all of these cases we’re not saying you’re saved by water, but it just became the symbol of faith.
Chris,
I must say that your observations are provocative, but I do not see a problem with that Pastor Leo is stating. In fact, I believe he made quite the case for Believer’s Baptism. I visited your site (nice BTW) and you claim to be a “Reformed Evangelical” so I would simply like to remind you that there are 5 Solas of the Reformation: Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. I don’t see where Sola Baptizo is in this and by virtue of the fact neither did the Reformers.
Well, apparently my reply did not post (or I forgot to click “submit”). What I said was we should remember that the great solas of the Reformation, especially “sola fide” (faith alone) came from Martin Luther, the Father of the Reformation. It would do us good to remember that Luther held to the doctrine of “justification by faith alone” AND the doctrine of “baptismal regeneration.” Luther’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration says that God conveys saving grace on a sinner through baptism when combined with faith. For Luther baptism is a means of grace, but it can not be apart from faith. Luther’s entire ministry was built on the concept of sola fide, and yet he believed that baptism was a means through which God meets the sinner in salvation. This is either a gross inconsistency on the part of Luther, or simply his being faithful to the “whole” text of Scripture. The very texts you cite in your post are texts that speak in a “sacramental” way about baptism. In Paul’s theology of baptism especially, baptism is actual union with Christ, identification with Christ, immersion into his death, and resurrection with him to new life. Baptism is the means by which we are given the “circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2). Given the Pauline view of baptism, any interpretation of one passage (such as the “faith alone” passages) that is inconsistent with another passage can not be the correct interpretation. I offer an alternative interpretation: the “faith alone” passages all say that our justification comes by faith and NOT from “works of the law” (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16). The key to interpretation here is the phrase “works of the law.” Paul means that our justification comes to us by faith in Christ’s finished work on our behalf (i.e. the cross) and not by means of our keeping the law. As far as I know, baptism is nowhere commanded in the Hebrew law. It could be argued, and rightly so, that all of our responses to God are a kind of “work” in that they are something that we do in response to God’s word, even something that we are required by God to do. There is no way around the fact that we have to DO something in concert with the grace of God. God does not save us apart from a proper response to his word, namely faith. Baptism, therefore is simply one of the means (like repentance, faith, confession, etc) through which grace is applied to us by the power of the resurrected Christ. So to say that baptism has to be a mere symbol of an inward reality because “we know” that salvation only comes by grace through faith is first a misunderstanding of the “faith alone” texts, and second a failure to acknowledge what Scripture so clearly declares about baptism, namely that “Baptism . . . 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. 3:21).
Thanks for the kind interaction with my comments on this post. It is my prayer that we would prayerfully consider the truth of Scripture regarding baptism and come to the right conclusions.
In Christ,
Chris Gates.
Chris,
I can’t argue on Luther’s postion, you are correct on that. But that does not mean that he is correct. It would make some sense (to me at least) that he would hold that view, he was a german monk. Lutheranism mirrors catholicism in it sacramental systems. I believe its mere tradition as opposed to biblical mandate. Even infant baptism, where is the scriptural evidence for that? I don’t think there is a strong argument for it and I am reformed in my theology! I conclude with this, if you and Luther are right then all Baptists and Evangelicals are really wrong. Just a thought. God bless.
Mike,
I do not have a problem saying, “All Baptists and Evangelicals are really wrong.” I have been a Reformed Baptist for many years now and I have discovered several areas in which we are frequently wrong, both theologically and in practice. Part of Christian humility is admitting when we are wrong and changing in accordance with the truth of God’s word.
As for Lutheran theology “mirroring Catholicism in its sacramental system” you are simply incorrect. Catholic theology says that everyone who is baptized is cleansed from original sin. They claim that the Word of God enters into the waters of baptism and effectually saves an individual apart from faith. The Lutheran view, however states that God’s word is present in and with the water in the act of Baptism in the context of the local community of faith. The water itself does not confer grace on anyone, but God confers grace on the recipient through baptism. This may sound similar to you, but the two views are worlds apart theologically. Evangelicals do not have a problem viewing preaching as the sole means of grace in their theology. They rightly cite 1 Corinthians 1:21 which states that God saves us “through the folly of what is preached.” Would you say that it is the preacher who saves sinners by preaching to them? Would you say that everyone to whom the gospel is preached is saved? Would you, as a Reformed Evangelical say that you were saved through the power of your intellect to understand propositions about the gospel that was preached to you? Or would you say that you are saved by grace through faith by the preaching of the gospel? It is no different to speak of being saved through baptism in the same was as being saved through preaching. Why are evangelicals ok with preaching as a means of grace and not baptism, or communion, or the Christian community itself?
Your position (i.e. that baptism is a mere symbol) still lacks support biblically. And unlike infant baptism, which does not enjoy a great deal of “direct” scriptural support (and yet there is no “direct” scriptural support against it), the idea that baptism is a mere symbol enjoys no scriptural support whatsoever. To the contrary the verses you cite in your post above portray baptism as the reality of the means through which we are united with Christ by faith.
Remember, not everything about the church in the 16th century needed to be reformed.
Blessings,
Chris Gates.
Pastor Leo,
At the end of your original post you stated, “According to the Bible, Christian baptism is important because it is a step of obedience . . . which brings an identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.” This statement is correct and consistent with the teaching of scripture on baptism. However, it is inconsistent with your previous statement that, “Christian baptism is, according to the Bible, an outward testimony of what has occurred inwardly in a believer’s life.” Also, you stated in your response to me, “The significance of baptism as a New Testament ceremony is that as believers in Jesus Christ, we are baptized into His death (Romans 6:3) and raised to walk in newness of life.” This statement, however biblical, is inconsistent with your view that baptism is a mere symbol of our union with Christ and our identification with his death, burial, and resurrection. You can not have it both ways. Christian baptism simply can not be both the reality of union with Christ and at the same time a mere symbol of the reality.
As for baptism being an act of “publicly declaring faith in Christ and commitment to Him,” the burden of proof is on you, sir. Where does Scripture offer this as the meaning of baptism?
-Chris.
Chris,
I’m leaving on vacation for about a week, so I will not be able to reply. The relationship of water baptism to salvation is the relationship of obedience to salvation. Having been saved we enter into obedience. Baptism was the immediate and inseparable indicator of salvation. Why? Because salvation basically produces obedience. And so, believers were obedient to be baptized, the day of Pentecost, 3.000 believed, 3,000 were baptized, 3,000 continued in the Apostles’ doctrine, prayer, fellowship and the breaking of bread. No loss, 3,000 believed, 3,000 baptized, 3,000 continued. Everybody was baptized, everybody was baptized immediately. That’s God’s standard. That’s God’s command.
Pastor Leo,
I’m not simply trying to stir theological waters. I am seriously interested in knowing why you hold that particular view of baptism and whether or not the traditional Baptist view stands up to scriptural scrutiny. Thank you for your patience and humility. Have a great vacation.
Grace & peace,
Chris Gates.