Thursday, July 29, 2010

Baptism: Another View (Part 2)

Read Part 1

In Part 1 of this series, I gave a basic outline as to the two dominant views on water baptism in Protestantism as I have heard them. There are more views of baptism than these two, such as the Roman Catholic and certain cult views, with ideas of baptismal regeneration, but I'm addressing dominant protestantism here. Another view I propose here and I will follow with explanation as to why.

Water baptism isn't necessarily the sign and seal of the new covenant, Scripture isn't detailed in any prescription as to mode of water baptism (whether sprinkling, pouring or immersion), nor is it detailed in any prescription as to who are proper subjects of water baptism (adults only, professing believers of whatever age, children of covenant believers, etc.).  I will explain this further in future posts in this series.  Scripture isn't even absolute in describing proper timing of baptism in relation to either profession, conversion, discipleship or birth. Not only this, but Scripture isn't always clear as to which type of baptism it speaks about in a certain passage, whether water baptism, baptism of fire or baptism of the Holy Spirit. In conclusion, I have decided that a wide array of modes, subjects and times of water baptism upon people throughout Christian history are not contrary to scripture, and therefore scripturally valid, and I am determined not to hold most of these in contempt or nullification simply because any particular church, denomination or theological circle says so.  In short, I recognize various people's baptisms as they come from differing traditions.

I realize that what I just said could start excommunication proceedings in many churches and denominations, or it could prevent me from becoming a member in certain churches, and also potentially stands as fuel for intense cyber flaming (which I have experienced on this very topic in the past). So be it. But that is the sad part, in my view. Why is such a thing necessary?  In my next post, I will give my personal story as I have interacted with each of the two views I explained in Part 1.

Read Part 3.
Read entire series in a single post.


  1. Well, I certainly agree with you, (and that is one of the reasons I am not a member of a 'church'). I especially understand that water baptism isn't the sign and seal of the new covenant as it is never mentioned in a Covenantal way. The institution of the cup however is: Matthew 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins". The shed blood of Christ is the cost for the saints to be in glory!

    There are many Steve who do think the same way as you have described here and stand by their convictions, regardless of the myriad of traditions in Christendom! Looking forward to the rest of your view!

  2. Thanks, Eileen. The series should make it into the double digits in parts. I'm looking forward to getting it all out there.