…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit(Matthew 28:19 – ESV)
Now Jesus explains how we make disciples, the first thing is by baptism, and THEN comes the rest of the teaching. If we are not baptizing, and baptizing first thing, then we are not properly making disciples. Again, you don’t produce converts, you make disciples, and that starts with baptism. You don’t make people believe, you make disciples of those who do. Baptism is the first step in the discipleship process.
Baptism is normative – it is a regular part of becoming and being a Christian – the established pattern of discipleship, established by Christ Himself (His own baptism and His command), expanded by the disciples (they were baptized and baptized others), and extended to all believers (Acts 2, etc.). Jesus made baptism a normative part of becoming a Christian in Matthew 28:19, and the apostles carried this out, and we are instructed to keep on baptizing, to keep on discipling, to keep on following the established command of Jesus.
This is why the church has always made baptism a requirement for church membership, not that baptism is what saved you, but baptism is the start of the discipleship process. Baptism is a requirement for those who are being discipled; it is the first step of discipline. If you have been a Christian for some time but haven’t been baptized, you are missing a key link in your discipleship process. If you won’t submit to baptism you don’t submit to Christ.
We are supposed to be taught to do whatsoever (KJV), and baptism is the first thing Jesus lists, and then He says whatsoever, but if you can’t do the first whatsoever then how can you expect to do anything whatsoever?
We speak of baptism as being important but we all seem to want to think of it as a salvation issue, whether or not it saves us or not, and if we believe it isn’t necessary for salvation we somehow believe it isn’t necessary at all. This is bad teaching. Baptism is a vital part of your sanctification, an indispensable part of the discipleship process, as our text here proclaims in no uncertain terms. It is not so much a salvation issue as it is a sanctification issue, it is setting yourself apart, publicly, declaring that Jesus is the Lord of your life, and that you intend on following Him the rest of your life, empowered by His life. We get so hung up on what baptism isn’t that we forget what it is, a command by our Lord Jesus Christ. How can you say you are being sanctified when you haven’t set yourself apart to be sanctified? Discipleship without baptism is like a lollipop without the stick. It just isn’t right.
To begin the process of discipleship, just add water. People that have been Christians for awhile feel like they have got to meet a certain level of obedience before they can be baptized, but they need to be baptized THAT IS the level of obedience they need to meet. It is not your righteousness that merits your baptism your baptism is saying you are leaving your righteousness down at the feet of Jesus and taking up His worth, not your own. Perhaps that is why you have a hard time obeying His commands you missed the first one! If this is you, get baptized today! Stop looking at yourself and look to Him, and follow Him into His own righteousness.
26 comments:
"...and if we believe it isn’t necessary for salvation we somehow believe it isn’t necessary at all. This is bad teaching. Baptism is a vital part of your sanctification, an indispensable part of the discipleship process,..."
While I understand that my former understanding of baptism was incorrect (you must be baptized to be saved), I don't understand why anyone would think baptism is unnecessary or optional. The example of it and reference to it is throughout the NT. Even if I didn't have a right understanding of its' purpose, there's no denying that the early believers did it....and so I would feel compelled to follow their example.
For some reason, "man" has made it an "issue" and in the process confused many a heart! IMHO
It may not be a means of grace, per se, but it is a sign of grace, at least...
Would baptism be a part of being "spiritually healthy"? (ref. from yesterday)
Indeed...
What of the parents of those little ones who give their life to Christ but hold off on baptism until the child is able to give a coherent and non-coerced proclamation of the faith that saved them? Do they do well to keep their little ones from the water until after the sacrament can be understood by them?
Blogger is really giving me fits today...
Now Daniel, as to your loaded question...
;-)
those little ones who give their life to Christ
?...It all depends on whether they can articulate what salvation is and what baptism signifies, if they have shown they understand faith in Christ...if they can, even on a childhood level, then it is time to baptize them...that being said, my conviction is that this doesn't happen until at least 6 years of age (the earliest I have seen), and usually isn't appropriate to even ask about until 8 or 10...I know of teenagers who couldn't articulate these things even though it had been taught them, and so, no go...it all comes down to having the marks of repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ..so then what of a mentally slow person?...as with all, it is a case by case basis...if someone shows the fruits of faith, the water is waiting...
the sacrament
(whistle sound)
...penalty, Daniel, 5 yards for imitating a covenant theologian while being of baptist-type mindset...
I don't call baptism and the Lord's Supper sacraments, but ordinances, that is a problem right off the bat, the word sacramanet implies means of saving grace, and this takes from the cross of Christ...
Not that the word sacrament itself is sacred or taboo to me, but that some, IMO, have simply replaced sacerdotalism with sacramentalism...and this leads to infant baptism beign a saving thing, or baptism beign a saving thing for believers, etc., as we swing the pendulum too far either way...instead, let us look at this text and see what it says, that baptism is the first mark of discipleship...
If a child is old enough to be able to understand what giving their life to Christ means, are they not also old enough to make that proclamation?
If baptisim is "extended to all believers, is a normative part of becoming a Christian, is the start of the discipleship process", then why would we want to delay their entrance into that process?
We wouldn't and we don't, as you know, Chris, but it does come down to case by case...
To anyone interested...If you click on the "baptism" label at the bottom of the post, you will come upon other articles I have written which will further explain my views...
Looking over those posts again, make sure to read the comments sections they really will answer a lot of questions...
Yeah, to be precise (and we ought to be) I should have said ordinance, I am glad you know what I meant though.
I am of the same opinion. My own little ones are not yet baptized, though the two eldest have made professions of faith, and the eldest is pretty close...
"but it does come down to case by case..."
Yeah, I know, it's not a "cookie cutter" situation. :D
Chris asked, If a child is old enough to be able to understand what giving their life to Christ means, are they not also old enough to make that proclamation?
I can only answer for myself, but I know that when I heard the gospel at the ripe old age of 8, I said it not because I comprehended it, but because I was afraid of hell, and because I was told that if I say this prayer I would become a Christian and get to go to heaven. The prayer was the standard "I repent (whatever that means) so please come into my heart (whatever that means)" kind of prayer, and though they cheered over my salvation, I was by no means saved, and had someone baptized me, it would have been as empty as my salvation.
Which is only to say that for my own children, and this opinion of course carries into my ministry in the church, I regard the profession of a faith given by a child as very possibly coerced, invalid, and quite possibly motivated by fear or favor rather than by faith. I think it is right to baptize those who show evidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives, and that evidence is most visible in a strong conviction of sin, and of righteousness. A child may well weep over disobeying a parent because they deeply regret offending their parents whom they love - without ever coming under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. But a child who begins to show evidence of an understanding of, and a real desire to be free from sin - this one is showing evidence of a spiritual baptism, that is, of being born again, and who are we to withhold baptism from those who show evidence of the very thing it pictures.
It is one thing to be sorry that we have sinned, and quite another to be broken over our sins. I wait until I see the brokenness that identifies a true believer.
I would suggest as well, that this goes for adults too, which puts me in the fringe minority I am sure. ;-)
Everything you said is why I'm glad that I'm not (in) a leader-type position nor should I ever be.
I have seen plenty of (adult)people say and do what they thought was expected of them but I had doubts about their conversion....for a lot of reasons...I guess that puts me in the fringe minority as well.
I have a great respect and am thankful for the Godly men (full of the Spirit)whom God has granted the responsibility of figuring all that out!!!!!
Good discussion.
I heard that in Saudia Arabia when a convert wants to be baptized he could be imprisoned, or even forfeit his life. So a missonary told me they have dry baptisms. What do you think?
Also I was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church, and then again in a Pentecostal Holiness Full Gospel Church. Was I baptized twice? I suppose we may all agree here, but I have friends who see it different than I do?
Interested in your thoughts.
Great stuff. Too many Christians exploit grace and say that we are all going to heaven and God's grace will just cover our disobediences. They tell God that they are being good enough for Him, and because of His promise of grace, they will go ahead and sin, but ask for grace tomorrow.
Oh wait, that was me!
This message unfortunately for me came 17 years too late. I thank God for His mercy!
I heard that in Saudia Arabia when a convert wants to be baptized he could be imprisoned, or even forfeit his life. So a missonary told me they have dry baptisms. What do you think?
If that is true the it is sad, and complex, but I don't see how "dry" would be any less of an offesne to those opposed to "wet"...
Also I was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church, and then again in a Pentecostal Holiness Full Gospel Church. Was I baptized twice? I suppose we may all agree here, but I have friends who see it different than I do?
Don, I probably see it just as you do...I think you have been baptized once in the New Testament sense...especially as the RCC baptism was understood by those baptizing you as having salvific properties...
This message unfortunately for me came 17 years too late. I thank God for His mercy!...
Me too, although I defer to God's sense of timing...
:-)
I often wonder about my years where I thought I was okay, but...for more, read my recent sermon, "Give It Up" where Dr. Scott Christmas speaks of rededication and not actually being saved yet, and I will be breaking that sermon up into several separate posts soon...
JD,
I was taking a perspectives course, and a missonary from the middle east was shaing about the baptisms being without water, and that this seemed to be alright within the community.
I'll go back and check on it some more. I'm going from memory from a wile back, and I do remember the discussion in the class was quite divided.
The reason i threw the other question was I heard RC Sproul say if you were baptized in the RCC and were to be baptized again that you would be sinning. It took me by surprise.
I agree with your thought JD. Thanks for sharing that.
Really? I guess that is because RC is a paedo-baptist, not a creedo-baptist...hmmm...I wonder if he would feel the same way if we were talking about havng been baptized in a Jesus-only modalistic church, or any number of other churches?
I missed that quote by RC if he said it in his Systematic Theology series. But if that's the case, I definitely disagree with the good man on this point. My parents had me sprinkled in the RCC, and I really don't think that's the same thing as a good credo-dunk. I felt convicted that after I believed, I needed to get baptized in order to be obedient (to the biblical ordinance) and as an outward sign of an inward change.
I'll do a little more checking into RC's position on RCC baptism.
I think he believes the Catholic church goes back to the begining, and that it is the original church, which went apostate, and then God used Luther to reform it.
I better quit with my crude explanation right here.
I will have to write to his ministry and check the whole thing out.
Post a Comment