While I’m not big on Study Bibles, I’ve found myself making good use of the NLT Study Bible. The notes are often concise and generally good. But I’ve found a study note that I’m not too fond of:
2:12 you were buried with Christ when you were baptized: As in a roughly parallel passage (Rom 6:3-6), Paul assume a strong identity between believers and Christ. In God’s sight, we really were with Christ when he was buried and raised, so we experience the benefits of what Christ did for us. Paul can link that identification with Christ to baptism because water baptism was so closely related to conversion in the early church. (p. 2025, from “because water baptism,” emphasis added)
Here’s the grind: while I don’t subscribe to baptismal regeneration I believe water baptism was part of the conversion experience in the early church, so I take issue with the NLT SB’s “because water baptism was so closely relation to conversion in the early church.” If it wasn’t part of the conversion experience, Why were people baptized the same hour they came to saving faith in Christ?
I think Lydia’s conversion is instructive at this juncture:
One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. (Acts 16:14-16, TNIV, emphasis added)
Notice: the Lord opened her heart to respond to the gospel; she and her household were baptized; and then she says, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.”
Here’s my take: because water baptism was part of the conversion experience of someone who had come to saving faith in Christ, Lydia said, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord…” Or How then should we understand her post-baptism expression?
By “early church” do you mean strictly circa 40-70 (Acts) or the early patristics as well?
Because not long after the Neronic persecution ended, certainly not very long after Domitian either, the church went to a catechumen style, where Baptism was prolonged for up to 3 years after conversion, in order for the catechumens to be instructed on the faith to make sure it was a genuine faith (and people today complain about a month!).
I haven’t looked at the Greek yet, but could that conditional structure be translated “since?”
I.e.
“since you consider me a believer [as is evidence by your baptizing me] come and stay at my house.”
Bryan, the note is based on apostolic times (Col 2:12). By the second century the church had many “weird” developments.
It’s a first class condition, and “since” because of the context would be a good gloss.
Yes, I’ll agree to that rendering.
Well, I don’t think it was weird, as much as it was contextually driven. In the apostolic times, through Nero and into Domitian- an immediate baptism was necessary. They might be alive the next day to follow such a commandment, but when such persecution was not going on, and it was almost fashionable to become a Christian (and this is especially true of the fourth century, under Constantine), they wanted to make sure that the professing person was actually a Christian, and not driven to accept faith on the grounds of the state.
Bryan, that may have been the case, but it seems more of a foreign concept than a biblical one. I see nothing in Scripture forcing immediate baptism but obedience to Christ (Matt 28:19).
Making sure someone is a Christian is too human.
Frankly, in light of the issues and problem of the American church, while espousing “regenerate membership,” I think we could stand to learn a little from that tradition.
If we say we want regenerate membership, but go baptizing everyone who claims to be a Christian which is a prerequisite for membership, we’ll end up exactly where the SBC is- 16 Million Strong! but only 1/2 of which ever actually go to church….
Bryan, I’m interested in what I see in Scripture, not the falling out within the SBC.
Within the SBC the problem is the second part of Matt 28:19-20, v. 20 in particular, “teaching” those who have come to faith in Christ and been baptized.
I don’t think I explained my point clearly then. It is precisely because of unscriptural teaching that the fallout in the SBC occurred. And the SBC is only one example of many in the American Church. And so to be interested in what Scripture says is to be interested in what happened with the SBC and many other denominations.
The problem is that we get people to raise their hands or walk down an aisle, but they haven’t a clear idea of why they are doing it. They think “accepting Jesus into their hearts” means he will fix all their problems, or in the case of Constantine, because it’s the same thing as being a citizen of the state.
The issue is that we don’t give them the proper instruction on what conversion is, and certainly not what Baptism is. The problem in the SBC (and other denominations) starts with not actually making people disciples, or followers, of Christ to begin with. I certainly don’t think we should wait three years between conversion and baptism, as did the church of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, but I do think that it is our duty to make converts and those thinking of converting to realize just what it is that is happening, and why they are doing what they are doing. Instead, what we get are a bunch of people who think they are saved but haven’t been born again, who step into a baptismal and think it actually means something, when all they are doing are getting wet.
I don’t think I explained my point clearly then. It is precisely because of unscriptural teaching that the fallout in the SBC occurred. And the SBC is only one example of many in the American Church. And so to be interested in what Scripture says is to be interested in what happened with the SBC and many other denominations.
True. I’m not going to argue that.
The problem is that we get people to raise their hands or walk down an aisle, but they haven’t a clear idea of why they are doing it. They think “accepting Jesus into their hearts” means he will fix all their problems, or in the case of Constantine, because it’s the same thing as being a citizen of the state.
Well, that’s the naivete of it all.
The issue is that we don’t give them the proper instruction on what conversion is, and certainly not what Baptism is. The problem in the SBC (and other denominations) starts with not actually making people disciples, or followers, of Christ to begin with. I certainly don’t think we should wait three years between conversion and baptism, as did the church of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, but I do think that it is our duty to make converts and those thinking of converting to realize just what it is that is happening, and why they are doing what they are doing. Instead, what we get are a bunch of people who think they are saved but haven’t been born again, who step into a baptismal and think it actually means something, when all they are doing are getting wet.
Well, we have the example of Acts 2:41-47, which is what Matthew 28:19-29 looks like in practice.
Bryan said:
The issue is that we don’t give them the proper instruction on what conversion is, and certainly not what Baptism is. The problem in the SBC (and other denominations) starts with not actually making people disciples, or followers, of Christ to begin with.
This is what I alluded to in another post about salvation. I think Bryan is my clone except he ended up much smarter.
Jeff
Why is my old avatar showing up now?
Jeff
Jeff, blame wordpress for the Avatar vexation.
In coming to Christ, all a person needs to know is that s/he is a sinner and need the Savior. Matters of discipleship come after.
That’s according to the biblical witness, whether Baptists do it or not.
Surely this is why we need to teach those who want to become Christians that they need to surrender everything to Jesus as their personal Lord, and show it by being baptised. I agree with immediate baptism on confession of faith but only if it is clear what that faith means, not mere mental assent to some doctrines but real surrender and commitment to discipleship.
Peter, surely that is a leap in logic. Are you saying that only persons who have made an up-front commitment to the lordship of Christ are to become Christians?
Peter, neither am I arguing for mere mental assent to some doctrines.
A person who has come to saving faith, under whatever the circumstance may be, is not required to make an up front commitment to Christ’s Lordship before becoming a Christ. Where is that taught in Scripture?
Romans 10:9, confessing “Jesus is Lord” is the most basic condition for salvation. There is no saving faith which is not faith in the lordship of Christ.
Of course there will always be people who have made some kind of half-hearted commitment to Christ, asking him to forgive them without truly accepting him as Lord. It is I suppose the job of pastors to sort out these people, and of God only to judge whether they can be saved.
But is this confessing “Jesus is Lord” the same as up-front commitment to his lorship? No, for all we know Paul may have been using kyrios to refer to Jesus as simply deity.
We cannot expect the person coming to Christ to make a full commitment to him without understand it is all about.
How were they able to do so with all those immediate baptisms in Acts?
Well, that’s the naivete of it all.
That doesn’t change the fact that the people coming into our churches are more than likely partaking of that naivete, which is exactly why I am saying what I am. That’s why numbers are inflated on how many “Christians” are in this nation, and why denominations are proclaiming a membership at 200% of what actually are functioning members of the church. You can pass it off as naivete if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that these are the people we are coming into contact with everyday in the streets, and visitors to our churches, who have never heard that the Gospel call is one to pick up our crosses and follow after him, but instead think its doing more good things than bad things and remembering to come to Church on Sundays.
Also, I don’t see how matters of discipleship come after, since that is the first in the progression given in Matthew 28- Go – making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them. People are going, and baptizing. It’s the other two that are being left out a lot of the times. Naivete? Yes, but that doesn’t mean its not up to us to correct that.
Well, we have the example of Acts 2:41-47, which is what Matthew 28:19-29 looks like in practice.
Exactly. But very little preaching matches that example of Acts 2. That is why we must make sure they understand what the Gospel is and what it means, or else we just get a bunch of people walking down the aisle. If people think they are saved because they do good things and come to church- certainly we wouldn’t want to baptize them if the ordinance is for true believers?
That doesn’t change the fact that the people coming into our churches are more than likely partaking of that naivete, which is exactly why I am saying what I am. That’s why numbers are inflated on how many “Christians” are in this nation, and why denominations are proclaiming a membership at 200% of what actually are functioning members of the church. You can pass it off as naivete if you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that these are the people we are coming into contact with everyday in the streets, and visitors to our churches, who have never heard that the Gospel call is one to pick up our crosses and follow after him, but instead think its doing more good things than bad things and remembering to come to Church on Sundays.
You read the introduction to MacArthur’s TGAJ and this is exactly what led him to his LS position.
Churches just need to get back to what the Bible presents as discipleship and church growth. The Acts-narrative is a good place to start.
But we need to separate what is required in salvation from sanctification, less we muddle the gospel.
Also, I don’t see how matters of discipleship come after, since that is the first in the progression given in Matthew 28- Go – making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them. People are going, and baptizing. It’s the other two that are being left out a lot of the times. Naivete? Yes, but that doesn’t mean its not up to us to correct that.
Baptizing, though dependent syntactically, is a one time act, while “teaching,” also dependent, is ongoing. Yes, both are involved in “making disciples.”
I believe you’ll agree that “Going” is Attendant.
Exactly. But very little preaching matches that example of Acts 2. That is why we must make sure they understand what the Gospel is and what it means, or else we just get a bunch of people walking down the aisle. If people think they are saved because they do good things and come to church- certainly we wouldn’t want to baptize them if the ordinance is for true believers?
People need to hear that Jesus died to save them from their sins and from the wrath of God to come, and then to receive him through saving faith, trusting him for salvation, which begins with the conviction of the Spirit.
But we need to separate what is required in salvation from sanctification, less we muddle the gospel.
I agree whole-heartedly. My point on instruction was not about what they must fix before being baptised, but on what the Gospel actually is, and why we are commanded to be baptized, and what the function of baptism is.
When we interview baptism candidates, we get a number of people that say they have been saved for awhile, or were saved recently. When pressed on the issue, however, they realize they never accepted the true Gospel. Upon accepting the Gospel- they are baptized. That is what needs to be combated. I think the three-year catechesis period is obviously overkill- but we can still learn from the reasoning behind it. The fact that people become members of a Christian state under Constantine, and therefore think they are Christian, is analgous to people who think they are Christian because they are members of a church, or walk down an aisle, or whatever other gymnastics the American church has made them perform over the years. Some of them have had a legitimate conversion- that comes out in the instruction process. Many of them have not- that also comes out.
I agree whole-heartedly. My point on instruction was not about what they must fix before being baptised, but on what the Gospel actually is, and why we are commanded to be baptized, and what the function of baptism is.
Bryan, we only have six texts telling us with baptism really is: Acts 10:47-48; Acts 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:26-27; Col 2:12; and 1 Pet 3:21; a union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, putting on Christ; a counterpart to OT circumcision; and a pledge from a good conscience, respectively. None of them involves LS.
When we interview baptism candidates, we get a number of people that say they have been saved for awhile, or were saved recently. When pressed on the issue, however, they realize they never accepted the true Gospel. Upon accepting the Gospel- they are baptized. That is what needs to be combated. I think the three-year catechesis period is obviously overkill- but we can still learn from the reasoning behind it. The fact that people become members of a Christian state under Constantine, and therefore think they are Christian, is analgous to people who think they are Christian because they are members of a church, or walk down an aisle, or whatever other gymnastics the American church has made them perform over the years. Some of them have had a legitimate conversion- that comes out in the instruction process. Many of them have not- that also comes out.
I reject candidates-interview-for-baptism as a human tradition, not biblical at all. Humans save no one, and they certainly can keep no one saved.
If we follow the Acts-narrative, those who came to faith in Christ were baptized that same hour or day. I read of no interview, three-year catechesis, and so on.
Once a person comes to faith in Christ, we just need to teach them to obey the teachings of Christ (Matt 28:19-20).
We cannot prevent false professions of faith. We were not called to do that. Even on the Acts watch, we read of false professions. Simon from Samaria, case in point, no doubt (Acts 8).
I’m not really sure where you’re getting the idea that I said we save anyone. That’s fine that we disagree on this, but some of the points you keep bringing up are baffling to me. Prior, you mentioned something about confusing salvation with sanctification, though I never mentioned it. Here you’ve essentially put the idea that I think we save anyone in their own mouths.
Personally, I rejoice that people have come to true saving faith in talking with our elders about the Gospel, before being baptized and leaning on that to think they were saved when they weren’t. I’m quite fine with our disagreement on the issue too- but if every time I come back to see a reply there’s some accusation that I don’t even believe, then it’s moved beyond edifying discussion to useless going back and forth. So hopefully no offense was given from my end, bro, and I’m sure that a lot of this was me not being clear- but I think I’m going to have to step down from this particular discussion.
I’m not really sure where you’re getting the idea that I said we save anyone. That’s fine that we disagree on this, but some of the points you keep bringing up are baffling to me. Prior, you mentioned something about confusing salvation with sanctification, though I never mentioned it. Here you’ve essentially put the idea that I think we save anyone in their own mouths.
Bryan, I’m sorry you feel that way. For me, it’s all in the spirit of debating.
Personally, I rejoice that people have come to true saving faith in talking with our elders about the Gospel, before being baptized and leaning on that to think they were saved when they weren’t. I’m quite fine with our disagreement on the issue too- but if every time I come back to see a reply there’s some accusation that I don’t even believe, then it’s moved beyond edifying discussion to useless going back and forth. So hopefully no offense was given from my end, bro, and I’m sure that a lot of this was me not being clear- but I think I’m going to have to step down from this particular discussion.
Forgive me for coming across that way. I’ll try to word things differently in the future. I never meant to offend.
“Forgive me for coming across that way. I’ll try to word things differently in the future. I never meant to offend.”
We talked about things earlier, but I wanted to leave another comment because people who view this forum were not able to see our conversation earlier and I don’t want them walking away from this with the wrong idea. As I said to you earlier, you are a dear brother to me in the faith, and there is no offense taken. As I also said in my last comment, I hope no offense was given from my end either. As I said, again, in a far earlier comment, there is more than my share of me being unnecessarily broad and unclear from my end. God bless!
Thanks, Bryan. And yes, you’re a dear brother too.
If I may draw your attention to the following by N. T. Wright, “Through the Waters of Baptism”:
We ought to know the story by now. Jews, ancient and modern, have told it every year and in graphic detail: the story of how God rescued them from Egypt. He brought them through the Red Sea and led them through the wilderness into the Promised Land. Through the water to freedom.
The story itself began, interestingly, with the leader, Moses, being rescued as a little boy from the reedy edge of the Nile River, after his parents had placed him there in a waterproof basket rather than kill him as they had been ordered to do. Moses had to go through (on a small scale) the rescue-through-water which God would accomplish through him later on. After Moses’s death, it happened again: Joshua led the people through the Jordan River and into the Promised Land at last.
These stories look back even further. Creation itself took place, according to Genesis 1, when God’s great wind or breath or Spirit brooded like a dove over the waters, and when God separated the waters into different places and called dry land to appear. Creation itself, you might say, began with an exodus, a baptism. Through the water to new life.
So we shouldn’t be surprised when we find that one of the best-known Jewish renewal movements took shape as a new-exodus movement, and a crossing-the-Jordan movement. Jesus’s cousin John believed it was his calling to get people ready for the long-awaited moment when Israel’s God would fulfill his ancient promises. He called people out into the Judaean wilderness to be baptized (the word means literally “plunged”) into the Jordan River, confessing their sins. Through the water into God’s new covenant. They were to be the purified people, the new-covenant people, the people ready for their God to come and deliver them.
Jesus himself submitted to John’s baptism. He was identifying with those he had come to rescue, fulfilling the covenant plan of his Father. And as he came up from the water, God’s Spirit descended on him like a dove, with a voice from heaven declaring that he was God’s true Son, Israel’s Messiah, the king. Jesus saw his kingdom-movement as starting with that symbolic new-exodus action.
But he also saw it pointing to the action with which his ministry would reach its climax. He spoke on one occasion about having “a baptism to be baptized with”—and it became clear that he was referring to his own death. As we saw earlier, he chose Passover, the great Jewish exodus festival, as the moment to act symbolically to challenge the authorities, knowing what was bound to happen next.
Jesus’s own baptism and his carefully planned Last Supper both point back to the original exodus (the coming-through-the-water moment), point behind that to the original creation itself, and finally point on to Jesus s death and resurrection as the new defining reality, the moment of new covenant, new creation. And to achieve that renewal it was necessary to go, not just through the water and out the other side, but through a deeper flood altogether. All the multiple layers of meaning that were already present in baptism were now to be recentered on the event of Jesus’s death and resurrection. Through the water into God’s new world.
That is why, from the earliest Christian sources we possess, Christian baptism is linked not just to Jesus s own baptism, not just to the exodus and the first creation, but to Jesus’s death and resurrection. St. Paul, in one of his earliest letters, speaks of being “crucified with the Messiah” and coming through into a new life; and in his greatest work (the letter to Rome) he explains that in baptism itself we die “with the Messiah” and come through to share his risen life. The spectacular, unique events at the heart of the Christian story happen to us, not just at the end of our own lives and beyond (when we die physically and, eventually, when we rise again), but while we are continuing to live in the present time. Through the water into the new life of belonging to Jesus.
That is why, from very early on, Christian baptism was seen as the mode of entry into the Christian family, and why it was associated with the idea of being “born again.” Of course, not everyone who has been through water-baptism has actually known and experienced for themselves the saving love of God in Christ sweeping through and transforming their lives. At various points Paul has to remind his readers that they have a responsibility to make real in their own lives the truth of what happened to them in baptism. But he doesn’t say that baptism doesn’t matter, or that it isn’t real. People who have been baptized can choose to reject the faith, just as the children of Israel could rebel against YHWH after having come through the Red Sea. Paul makes that point in 1 Corinthians 10 and elsewhere. But they can’t get unbaptized: God will regard them as disobedient family members rather than outsiders.
In particular, we can now see why Christian baptism involves being plunged into water (or having it poured over you) in the name of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The point is that the story which baptism tells is God’s own story, from creation and covenant to new covenant and new creation, with Jesus in the middle of it and the Spirit brooding over it. In baptism, you are brought into that story, to be an actor in the play which God is writing and producing. And once you’re onstage, you’re part of the action. You can get the lines wrong. You can do your best to spoil the play. But the story is moving forward, and it would be far better to understand where it’s going and how to learn your lines and join in the drama. Through the water to become part of God’s purpose for the world.
Yes, I do admire Bishop’s Exodus motif approach on water baptism. It is one that I’m still exploring. I do see a lot of parallels, especially in Paul.
Bishop Wright makes a great case for this motif in Romans.
I jotted some thoughts on this a while ago and put them on my blog; “Baptism & New Creation”
Let me know what you think!!