Baptism, An Exploration: A Poll About Those Who Die on the Way to the Baptistry

Posted on January 20, 2011 by Jay F Guin

[poll id=”2″]

Inspired by HistoryGuy’s suggestion, I thought I’d try out Theoblogger’s polling feature. I don’t intend to be unfair in my list of options. If I need to add more, let me know.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.

View all posts by Jay F Guin →

This entry was posted in Baptism, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Baptism, An Exploration: A Poll About Those Who Die on the Way to the Baptistry

Jhaugland says:

January 20, 2011 at 11:10 pm

God determines who he will save, and that is based upon one's faith in the sin offering of Jesus. Baptism is commanded but I believe it is for US! God doesn't need baptism to save those with faith. If so, he is not sovereign! And, that would mean that a work of man Is necessary before God can save. Baptism allows a penitent believer to express their faith in the power of God to keep what he has promised to do.
steven says:

January 20, 2011 at 11:26 pm

I don't understand the difference between
Saved. God saves all with faith.
and
Saved. He was already saved when he came to faith.
John says:

January 21, 2011 at 6:47 am

I voted OTHER -SAVED: While baptism is the completion in becoming a Christian, it is faith that begins our new birth. That which begins is real.
Robertharry52 says:

January 21, 2011 at 11:41 am

Amen
Jerry Starling says:

January 21, 2011 at 12:09 pm

Saved in the "Other" vote. God will recognize his baptism in the same way He recognized Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, who was on the altar but not slaughtered.
Cathy Mullican says:

January 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm

I have to go with "The Bible doesn't say and so I don't know", but I believe God is merciful, and the person would be saved based on belief, faith, and intent.
Robprater says:

January 21, 2011 at 2:08 pm

Jay,

I voted the Bible doesn't say and so I don't know .

The reason is beacsue your question assumes something that the Bible does not teach, namely that one can be saved before he is baptized.

If we go just by what the Bible says, yes, one is lost until he does what the Lord said do; namely, believe and be baptized (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). That’s what the Word of God says.

Now, of course, I freely admit from my human perspective, this scenario is seemingly difficult. I commented previously about this question with History Guy that I personally believe that God will always make sure that someone who wanted to be baptized would survive until he could be.

I clearly recognize the truth that God “will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, (Romans 9:15) and God is the Judge and all His decisions are perfectly just and righteous. If God decides when looking at something, He wants to grant an “exception to the rule”, that is His place, not man’s. God can do whatever He wants. God will still be God. God has an infinitely better ability to make judgments than man.

Yes, God is merciful, but it MUST be remembered there is NO scriptural support for such a person being saved. God is under no scriptural obligation in such a case.

When God has gone to such inexpressible lengths to give us such a wonderful salvation, it would be wise not to ignore it and put ourselves in the place of God and tinker with His salvation plan, attempting to grant things that only God can grant. Remember, it is God who “makes the rules”, not man! Only a fool would trade something that is absolutely certain for something that is highly questionable.

The Bible does not always spell out what we have to do to be lost. Instead, it tells us what we have to do to be saved and expects us to realize that, if we don't obey it, we will be lost. If God gives us a plan, that when followed, will save us, why try and see how close to the line of being lost we can get?

A person must take advantage of the time that God has given them to respond. A squandering of that time cannot be laid to the feet of God! "Behold now is the day of salvation." (2 Cor. 6:1)

QUESTION:

Jay

If we ask this kind of question about baptism, would it not be fair to ask the following questions:
(1) If a person intends to accept Christ, but dies before he actually does it, is he saved or not?
(2) If a person accepts Christ, but dies before he repents of his sins, is he saved or not?
(3) If a person accepts Christ, repents of his sins and intends to confess Christ, but dies before doing so, is he saved or lost?

Why single out the act of baptism? Why not address all of the required steps for salvation, because what is true of one is true of all! If not, why not? All of the steps of salvation are necessary for salvation. God has given all of us, who are of age and sound mind, time to do what He requires. Again, if we do not take advantage of the time given, the fault lies with us, not with God!

Here’s what we do know. We do know that Christ our Lord spoke the words by which we will one day be judged (John 12:48) “He that believes “and” is baptized shall be saved!” The word “and” is a coordinating conjunction that connects two values of equal import, both of which are necessary to the result of the indicated compound command, i.e., salvation!

Who has the right to say that only one or the other is necessary, or that only one is necessary under certain conditions? To do so is to abrogate the words of our Lord! It is to assume that we have the right to override His authoritative command based on human rationale.

God forbid that we should be so found guilty!

My friends, according to the New Testament, baptism is when our sins are forgiven, this is WHY baptism is so important and it is why Paul baptized the Jailer in the middle of the night without delay. The jailer’s eternal destiny changed when he was baptized, and that was not something that could wait until morning.

Let’s clearly tell the lost what they need to do in order to be saved. “Arise and baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) Leave the guessing games and “what if” scenarios to God.

Sincerely,
Robert Prater
BurntRibs says:

January 21, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Saved – I voted "other." I'm somewhere between "The Bible doesn't say", "God Makes Exceptions" and " God saves all with faith". I believe that in general that baptism is the moment our sins our washed away & we are clothed with Christ, but I also believe that if you have saving faith God will make an exception but those exceptions include misunderstandings about baptism.
HistoryGuy says:

January 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm

Robprater,
While waiting for Jay, I wanted to add food for thought that may help you as we all learn while here. God is not arbitrarily choosing saved, lost, saved, lost, etc as humans go through life. When looking at Romans 9:15, we must ask "who did God choose to have mercy on?" Paul has already answered that question in Romans 8:28-30; 9:30-32 and Romans as a whole. God has chosen in himself to exclusively save those who [of their own FREE WILL] come to Jesus Christ by faith.

Nothing that happens is a "surprise to God." God knew our every thought before he formed us [Jer. 1:5; Psalm 139:16].

Romans 8:28-30 is crucial and known as the "The Golden Chain of Redemption." v29 begins the chain of 5 past tense completed verbs, where God is the subject and the saved are the object. This means that before the creation of the world, God knew the beginning and the end and everyone in between. Therefore, God foreknew [believers – who wouldn't fall away], predestined [to save them], (in time he) called them [through the gospel], justified [by faith], and glorified them [final salvation in heaven].

This corresponds precisely with the fact that God knows who is in "the book of life" before we are even born (Lk. 10:20; Php. 4:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12-15; 21:27). Another example, God told Paul to preach because there were many in the town who were his, though they had not yet heard the gospel, though they would believe when they did! (Acts 13:48; 18:10-11; 2 Thess. 2:13-14).

Maybe this post from Dr. Jack Cottrell will help – http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=39527201…
David says:

January 21, 2011 at 9:59 pm

Voted Other – I believe they are saved. God knows our heart. I am not quite comfortable with the other "saved" options, so I went this route.
K. Rex Butts says:

January 21, 2011 at 10:41 pm

The Bible says absolutely nothing about the fate of those who die on there way to baptism IF we are looking for a mechanical, legalistic, black-and-white answer (which reveals more about who we believe God to be).

On the other hand…

The Bible says a lot about this issue and provides a quite affirmative answer if willing to look at the character God reveals himself to be throughout the entire canon of scripture rather than just a few select passages on baptism.

Grace and Peace,

K. Rex Butts
aBasnar says:

January 22, 2011 at 3:21 am

I voted for "We don't know" because the scriptures are silent on the matter. So, if they are silent, why then do we even debate such questions? Where the scriptures are silent, we are silent as well, isn't that engraved on our "restored hearts"?

But I also agree with K. Rex. The scripture is more about knowing God than knowing all the answers. The better we know Him, the more we will trust him and the more we will be willing to leave the silences to Him in the confidence that God (and He alone) is good.

A third issue: What is not done out of faith is sin. This applies to the one who is not baptized as well as to the church who does not baptize.

Alexander
HistoryGuy says:

January 22, 2011 at 5:29 am

Alexander,
From one of your other posts, the congregation that you at are sounds very hospitable. Perhaps I can meet you all one day! I hope you are not leaving me all alone holding the ECFs on this question (ha ha). Even if you are not comfortable with how I arrive at believing the Scripture does address this question, I hope we can all agree that given the persecution of the early church, the ECFs would know the fate of the unbaptized. After all, those who wrote on the topic were unanimously agreed.

Even if one disagrees with their conclusion, can everyone agree that the "ECFs" considered believers who died before they were immersed saved because they received either a baptism of desire or a baptism of blood depending on the circumstances? I hope so.
aBasnar says:

January 22, 2011 at 10:01 am

I see no disagreement between the two of us. And that's rare enough to be really happy and beaming 🙂

Alexander
K. Rex Butts says:

January 22, 2011 at 12:34 pm

My previous comment was meant to be a bit sarcastic, so let me be clear with this comment. I believe the bible does answer in the affirmative that those who have faith but for whatever reasons, died without being able to be baptized (and it has happened) have salvation in Christ and all the spiritual blessings thereof. The Bible just does not answer the question in the simple, legalistic way that some people believe the Bible (and apparently God too) must function. But that does not mean we can pose such questions upon scripture and ascertain an answer with a reasonable amount of coherent certitude. If that were not the case then we have no business of asking the question "must a person be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit?" (which according to Acts is received both simultaneously, prior too and post-baptism…see Acts 2, 10, 19) because, despite what some would like to believe, that is not even a question the Bible (including Acts 2) is trying to answer. Rather, it is a question we pose upon scripture in response to our own pastoral circumstances. It's called theology. And if we can pose the former question about baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit expecting discover an answer, we can certainly pose the former question and expect the same. As I also suggested in my previous comment, scripture (both OT and NT) is filled with story after story that reveal to us the character of God…what God wants, what pleases God, what angers God, etc… How we can read those stories and say God is silent on the question of those who have come to faith but for whatever reason were not able to submit their life to Jesus in Baptism is beyond me.

Grace and Peace,

K. Rex Butts
Frank Bellizzi says:

January 22, 2011 at 7:29 pm

Based on my reading of the Bible, I'm much less concerned for that guy than I sometimes am for myself. To become a member of the Lord's army is one thing. To actually fight battles is another.

But I have to ask, Doesn't the lead-in "A convert with genuine saving faith" beg the question?
aBasnar says:

January 23, 2011 at 3:28 am

But I have to ask, Doesn't the lead-in "A convert with genuine saving faith" beg the question?

Good Point. I don't like this phrase at all. Fath saves when completed by works, sais James. He uses no differernt word for desctribiung the faith of demons and the faith of Abraham. The distinction he makes is simply: Are you obedient? And then it is not about the time of your conversion, but about your daily walk with Him.

This phrase "genuine saving faith" comes frome the doctrine of unconditional eternal security. It tries to explain, why "seemingly" born again Christians did not persevere to the end. The Answer: Their faith was not genuine to begin with, they were never really born again. But this does not creaty assurance either, when you think it through …

Alexander
Dyr0519 says:

January 23, 2011 at 9:22 am

"Fath saves when completed by works.."

As long as we're pondering hypotheticals, what of the convert that is baptized and killed immediately following. Is their work unfinished and will they therefore be lost?
aBasnar says:

January 23, 2011 at 2:44 pm

If he died in the process of being obedient, (even though it may remain an unfinished work), then he lives outr his faith thw way it should be lived out (even though it was shortlived).

What I don't accept is the distinction beteween "genuine saving faith" and faith, is that this distinction is artificial an unscriptural. It was made up in order to make a true and real conversion experience the cornerstone of eternal salvation. But faith is not that static, it may start out as insignificant as a mustard seed, but it is sown to grow and bring forth fruit. That's why the focus on our conversion is terribly misleading – we are to focus on our walk with Christ.

If He finds us in union with Him at the time of our death, that's good, no matter how far we have walked. If he finds us on the broad way to destruction, although we started in faith and were baptized, we are doomed.

On the other hand: It is good that the scriptures don't say, it is all right to die unbaptized as long as your heart was right, because this would justify any unnecessary delay of baptism. The way the promises of salvation (forgivess, new birth, Holy Spirit) are tied to the act of baptism (but not apart from faith in Christ), should make us very reluctant to utter any promises of salvation prior to baptism. In fact we should be very reluctant to brag about our salvation as if we already had finished the race.

Alexander
Jason Wood says:

January 23, 2011 at 9:03 pm

I voted saved in ‘other’. God judges the heart.
Jason Wood says:

January 23, 2011 at 4:03 pm

I voted saved in 'other'. God judges the heart.
Keith Brenton says:

January 23, 2011 at 8:55 pm

If we can't trust God to save the believing and faithful, whom can we trust?

Anyway, I view the questions absurdly hypothetical. Do we really believe that the God who created the heavens and the earth, cosmos and sub-meson; put eternity in men's hearts and desires that all men everywhere should come to repentance could not or would not delay this baptismal candidate's demise before he has the opportunity to live out a deep desire to put on God's Son in baptism, re-enact/proclaim His death, burial and resurrection, and express the desire to receive His life-breathing Holy Spirit?
Keith Brenton says:

January 23, 2011 at 8:58 pm

If we can't trust God to save the believing and faithful, whom can we trust?

Anyway, I view the question as absurdly hypothetical. Do we really believe that the God who created the heavens and the earth, cosmos and sub-meson; who put eternity in men's hearts and who desires that all men everywhere should come to repentance could not or would not delay this baptismal candidate's demise until he has the opportunity to live out a deep desire to put on God's Son in baptism, re-enact/proclaim His death, burial and resurrection, and express the desire to receive His life-breathing Holy Spirit?
Robprater says:

January 24, 2011 at 9:30 am

Amen Keith!!
guy says:

January 24, 2011 at 12:21 pm

Keith,

Yes! i find there to be some sort of underlying deism behind this question. When entertaining this question, we don't seem to be presupposing a God who is at the helm of history and nature, since we are so focused on the *chance* that a person will die in the middle of God's redemption process.

The question, i guess, is trying to make a point about whether we really want to paint God as a jerk about rule-keeping. But taking that bait seems to paint God in a far worse light in my estimation–God's redemptive mission and means can be thwarted by chance. i'm not sure i believe in that sense of "chance." At least, i haven't found the biblical writers to write as though there is this sense of "chance" underwriting all the events of history and nature. Rather, i take much of the Bible to portray God as having a firm grasp over history and nature.

If that is the case, then what counter-force could stop God from achieving His redemptive purposes in a prospect's life?

–guy
Lyndaw says:

January 24, 2011 at 6:44 pm

I believe God answers this concern here. I always ask God to show me in His Word answers to questions that concern me. And He said just to ask and He will answer. Some people will say that doesn't apply here but all I can say is they have eyes and ears but they can't or won't see nor hear. God truly answers if you truly want an answer.
K. Rex Butts says:

January 24, 2011 at 9:10 pm

While the question does seem rather hypothetical and it would be beyond the realm of normalcy to have someone come to a confessing faith in Jesus and die before being able to be baptized, let's not assume that God would not allow it to happen. First off, to do so broaches certain claims about God's providential will and human suffering and answered prayer (if God's providence acted in accordance with every deep desire, why do some children never leave the cancer ward alive? Did God not want them to grow up and come into a mature faith that repents of sin and submits to Christ in baptism?). Secondly, there have been times when in history people were martyred for their confession of Jesus before they were able to be baptized. Third, just because we have buildings with readily available baptistries as well as a plethora of lakes and rivers in geographical location on the earth, there are people in other places on this planet who do not have immediate access to water…some of them live in prisons, some of them just live in places where living water is scant.

Nevetheless, even though I believe the scriptures have plenty of stories that reveals God as one who saves such people, the normative means by which God seeks to join us with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is through baptism and that is what we ought to teach.
HistoryGuy says:

January 24, 2011 at 10:46 pm

I view the question as absurdly hypothetical. Do we really believe that the God…could not or would not delay this baptismal candidate's demise …

Keith,
I read your blog and respect you. Please note, you would be surprised what don’t know… That said, I am a bit surprised, in a sincere way, that you made such a statement. Was it sarcasm?

If not, you may find it assuring to know that there were so many believers being killed before they could be immersed during the first 300 yrs of Christianity that most of the ECFs had to write about their fate. The unanimous voice of the church was that whether justification by faith as the "root" of salvation, baptism of desire, or baptism of blood, the believer was saved. The ECFs are not authoritative like Scripture, but those who knew the apostles did address a massive problem as early as the late 1st century.

From a Scriptural stand point, on 01/21/2011 07:48 PM I stated several reasons why nothing is a surprise for God, including the fact that he knew the saved, including when they would die, before the world was created. Could you examine that post in light of your question and give me your thoughts?
HistoryGuy says:

January 24, 2011 at 10:47 pm

Keith, Please note, you would be surprised what I don’t know…
guy says:

January 25, 2011 at 11:46 am

i wasn't aware of the ECF literature on the subject, so it gives me pause about what i said before (although those sentiments still feel as intuitive). i'll have to think more about it and find time to read the accounts.

Rex wrote:
"Nevetheless, even though I believe the scriptures have plenty of stories that reveals God as one who saves such people, the normative means by which God seeks to join us with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is through baptism and that is what we ought to teach."

That's really what's at issue, isn't it? The hypothetical question is intended to challenge whether we should teach the essentiality of baptism. i don't see that the question necessarily implies we ought to change what we teach on this subject.

–guy
Price says:

January 25, 2011 at 12:52 pm

Guy, I could be wrong but I don't find that someone teaching that a person is saved by Grace through Faith and that Baptism is an essential element of expressing that Faith to be inconsistent…I would think it very difficult for a person to preach that baptism is totally unnecessary..scripture just doesn't provide support for that doctrine.. That would be a doctrine of faith and a total disregard for obedience only…that's foolishness.

Apparently, if History Guy is accurate, the ECF's realizing the difficulty of the era, determined that Faith was the absolute NECESSARY response to the Gospel and as soon as practiceable thereafter, one should, by obedient response, be baptized. However, if unable, they were allowed to have the same confidence of salvation when imprisoned and facing certain death (or some other unavoidable circumstance).. It seems this pov is scripturally supported and isn't based on a theory that has to include innumerable exceptions to the "rule"…And, as I understand it, there are areas of the world where Christianity is facing as much persecution as it ever faced in Rome so it's not some "long ago" issue..maybe in the U.S. but God isn't just recruiting locally…:)
guy says:

January 25, 2011 at 1:17 pm

Price,

i don't find those teachings inconsistent, but of course, different parties to the debate have differing conceptions of what salvation by "grace through faith" entails.

i don't think the question is meant to say, "see, baptism is entirely unnecessary," but i think there's some connotation in there that it's fine to relegate it to a position of significantly less importance than faith (or the sinner's prayer for that matter) as do many evangelicals. All i was saying is that even if such people turn out to be exceptions, that wouldn't disprove that baptism is essential for those who have opportunity, nor would it disprove that baptism is God's normal point at which forgiveness, etc. is bestowed.

So, if such people do end up being exceptions, what SHOULD we conclude or what SHOULD we alter about our doctrine on the matter? i'm just suggesting–maybe, not much at all.

–guy
K. Rex Butts says:

January 25, 2011 at 2:46 pm

I believe Mark 8.35 is a sufficient promise from our Lord that those who are martyred for the name of Jesus Christ with or with having been baptized will be saved.
K. Rex Butts says:

January 25, 2011 at 2:52 pm

We all (hopefully) want to teach and affirm the necessity of baptism. I don't see that as much as being at stake as I do see the larger claims made about God by the various answers to the question being asked in the poll. Depending on whether a person, answers the question with a "yes," "no," or "maybe"…their answer also makes an affirmation about God. That's just the nature of doing theology and why all attempts at doing theology must begin with humility.

Any ways, I have actually enjoyed the dialogue on this comment thread. It doesn't sound like much arguing but more dialogue and discussion. Thanks for your comments too, I have appreciated them.
Price says:

January 25, 2011 at 3:51 pm

@ Guy.. Appreciate the humility of your response. It is a good example to me, if no one else…I see the whole baptism debate as quite divisive in nature as it usually gets debated..It may make a difference to the very studied theologian as to whether salvation occurs at the exact moment of belief or at the exact moment of faith and complete immersion. For me, faith is the key..But a refusal to be baptized as soon as is practiceable seems at worst rebellious and an indication of one's true lack of faith which immersion wouldn't correct and at best a lack of understanding and/or teaching that could be quickly corrected. Either way, it seems that any person who puts their true and honest faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and who trusts him who made the last offering for sin, for their salvation will be saved..The division and dis-unity that we cause as a result of arguing to the point of the ridiculous over exact moments in time probably breaks the heart of God.. Blessings my friend.
Robprater says:

January 26, 2011 at 10:08 am

History Guy,

Let’s think about the Early Church Fathers (ECF). I do struggle with them. First of all, I’ll be the first to admit that I will use them when they agree with me and not so much when they don’t:)

But when we hear names such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. We usually respond with some reverence. These are early church leaders who lived either at the time of the apostles or within a few centuries of the apostles. Religions such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy base many of their doctrines, at least in part, on what these men wrote. Surely we can learn from these early church fathers, and some of them were right on so many issues, but they were not infallible.

But the fact of the matter is that the post-apostolic early church was not doctrinally pure. Those who attempt to portray it otherwise are revising history. (I’m not saying have tried to).

Again, so many of the ECF wrote so much valuable material for our learning and instruction. At the same time, though, the church fathers often made mistakes, and taught false doctrines.

How, then, do we know what to believe and what doctrines to follow?

Paul and Peter answered that question in Biblical passages such as Acts 20:28-35 and 2 Peter 1:13-15. In Acts 20, Paul knew that he was seeing the Ephesians for the last time. He warned them that false teachers would try to influence them after his departure. How did Paul want the Ephesians to avoid being deceived by these false teachers? Were the Ephesians to just do whatever some "apostolic successor" would tell them to do? No, they were to remember Paul's words (Acts 20:31), as well as the words of Jesus Himself (Acts 20:35).

And we see a similar situation in 2 Peter 1:13-15. Peter knew that he was soon going to die. What did he do, so that people would remember after his death what he had taught? Did he tell them to just follow a "successor", or to believe whatever a hierarchy of men in a particular city (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc.) would tell them?

No, he wrote his teachings down (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). So how do we today remember what the apostles taught? Do we turn to a group of men in Rome? To a seeming "consensus" among modern church leaders? To thousands of pages of church father writings, church council declarations, and proclamations from church leaders of the last two thousand years? No, we turn to the teachings of the apostles themselves, the New Testament. That doesn't mean that we can't learn anything from other sources, but rather that these other sources are not as authoritative as the New Testament, and are not binding to the Christian, nor are they an acceptable foundation upon which to build doctrine.

We know from the “conversion examples” in the Book of Acts that water baptism was done immediately to complete the conversion process. But quickly this begins to change and soon baptism was more and more seen as something the Christian must do after conversion. By the second century baptism was typically not done immediately after conversion. This delay was coming as the result of the unscriptural practice of a training period for a new convert to follow before they were allowed to celebrate the Lord’s Supper or be baptized in water. I understand it is called “catechesis,” the Greek word that means “to sound” something. This training period might last a few months, but most records from the few first centuries indicate it to be more than a year of training and learning. To me this is clear evidence that many of these early Christians did NOT think baptism was ”required” to be saved.

And as you have brought up as examples of “exceptions” to the baptism rule by the ECF, there is in fact mention in Origen (Contra Celsum) and in the Didascalia (both early third century) that should a catechumen meet a martyr’s death prior to being baptized, he/she would be saved through a ”baptism of blood.” This mention is made to show that there is an exception to being baptized (kind of like the thief on the cross for those who insist that water baptism is not a necessity for salvation).

The Didache, as we have it, makes the exception of allowing pouring in place of immersion under certain circumstances, where the clear teaching of the Bible is that baptism is immersion only. The understanding of the church for many years was that one is immersed for forgiveness of sins.

To me what I take away from The Didache and some of these statements by the ECF is that whenever people introduce an exception to a divine command/rule, it doesn’t take long for a “spirit of tolerance” to automatically build on the exception until the original form and manner of the practice is thought to have no authority.

BACK TO JAY’S POLL

I’ve already said I believe “The Bible doesn't say and so I don't know.” And I’ve already said God will be the judge.

My point here is that clearly there was a shift in thinking by the ECF. Many did not believe that water baptism was a requirement for salvation. They just assumed you would be baptized and if you were not they questioned your salvation:)!

Again, I’ll just take Jesus’ words over any early church father or any other man. “He who believes and is baptized, shall be saved.” (Mark 16:15-16)

Jesus said, “Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

If I have never been “born again” of water and spirit, then Jesus says that I am outside His Kingdom!

"And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV). Who were added to the church? Those who were being saved. Who then is in the church? The saved. Who is outside the church? The unsaved.

What did they do to be saved? “Repent and baptized…..” (Acts 2:38)

Is an unimmersed believer saved? Is a person that is killed on his way to be baptized saved? I like what one writer said, 'As the old wise man once said:' 'That's whittling on God's end of the stick.'

If God wishes to make exceptions according to a person’s faith level in Jesus Christ and special circumstances, etc. that is His business.

But my dear friends, WE CANNOT TEACH SUCH BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH ANY EXCEPTIONS!!

We believe in the perfect justice and the perfect grace of God. I (we) do not need to get into the business of Gods judgment in order to preach (teach) the word of God about what people MUST do in order to be saved. (cf. Acts 2:38; 16:31; 22:16) We just need to state what the Bible has said (Rev 22:18-19) with as much love as we can. This we have done as best we can by presenting the teachings of the New Testament.

I agree with what Alexander Campbell wrote:

"I am bold therefore to affirm that every one of them who in the belief or what the apostle spoke, was immersed, did in the very instant in which he was put under water, receive the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If so, then who will not concur with me in saying that Christian immersion is the gospel in water" [Christian Baptist, p.417].

He says further: "I assert that there is but one action ordained or commanded in the New Testament, to which God has promised or testified that he will forgive our sins. This action is Christian immersion" [Christian Baptist, p. 520].

Again, "No man has any proof that he is pardoned until he is baptized, and if men are conscious that their sins are forgiven and are pardoned before they are immersed, I advise them not to go into the water, for they have no need of it" [Christian Baptist, p. 530].

F.D. Srygley, writing in the Gospel Advocate over a century ago, expressed his concern over treading in ignorance on the sovereignty of God and I think offers a much better perspective:

“As I understand the N.T., the ‘pious unimmersed’ ought to be immersed. And in case they are not immersed, I know of no promise in the N.T. that they will be saved. But, as to whether God will make allowance for honest mistakes, and save those who think they are obeying him when in reality they are doing something he has not commanded in lieu of what he has commanded, is a question for God to settle, and I decline to take any part of it.” (“From the Papers”, Gospel Advocate 32, March 26, 1890) 193.

My prayer is that may we all always hold and promote only the teachings and promises of Jesus Christ regarding our salvation. Anything else is in God’s hands.

Sincerely,
Robert Prater
K. Rex Butts says:

January 26, 2011 at 5:21 pm

Maybe instead of arguing why those with faith in God who die before being baptized cannot or might not be saved, maybe we should be praying for their pardon the way Hezekiah prayed for the pardon of the people who at of the Passover while unclean (2 Chr 30.18-21).
Price says:

January 26, 2011 at 11:09 pm

Brother Prater, apart from your disregard for the specific examples given in this discussion regarding the Samaritans and the household of Cornelius which established the foundational importance of Spirit baptism in the first century church and essentially placed water baptism in an inferior position to it, I agree with your assertion that we teach the significance of baptism.. However, it seems that the ECF's and even the other more modern examples that you mentioned all had to find there personal interpretation of Grace or lack thereof..You and I must also..You call it whittling on God's end of the stick, others refer to it in similar ways. Most of us want to give our Heavenly Father credit for finding a way to extend Grace to the exception…I think that is an appropriate reaction to a Loving Father.

However, the issue that I have and that just keeps sticking in my craw as we debate this issue to infinity is this……..If we extend Grace to those that have declared their faith and belief in Jesus as the Son of God, etc.,etc., but are having issues trying to get to the water or can only be sprinkled because of some physical restriction, or actually die before reaching it…….do we extend the same grace to those that have been baptized or sprinkled but have not yet come to a faith in Jesus ?? It seems that the natural response would be NO…if so, have we not then convinced ourselves that Faith is the essential element of our salvation ? Faith without Baptism is either Faith nullified by Rebellion or Faith in Progress. Baptism without Faith is a bath.

A much greater danger than the exact moment of immersion is a baptism in which one receives a powerless, meaningless, do nothing Holy Spirit…
Guestfortruth says:

January 27, 2011 at 12:42 pm

K. Rex Butts,
• The Bible says absolutely nothing about the fate of those who die on there way to baptism. Do he die on the Act of Baptism? I believe the bible does answer in the affirmative that those who have faith but for whatever reasons, died without being able to be baptized (and it has happened) have salvation in Christ and all the spiritual blessings thereof. The Bible just does not answer the question in the simple, legalistic way that some people believe the Bible (and apparently God too) must function. Are you sure K. Rex Butts? What are you teaching concerning Salvation? Do you teach what the bible teach? This is what I found in the bible about the most important question of all the times. What must I do to be saved? This question was done several times in the New Testament . What must I do to be saved? (Acts 16:30) This is the most important question ever to be considered. The same question was ask to the Lord Jesus during his ministry in different circumstances’ . “ what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” ( Mark 10:17; Luke 10:25) Where will your soul spend eternity?
1.- The word "What" is important. There is something one must do to be saved. Some religionist declare that there is nothing one can do to be saved and there is nothing one can do to be lost, once he is saved. The Bible declares:"Save yourselves from this untoward generation: (Acts 2:40), and work in your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil.2:12). The Apostle paul declared, "For by grace are ye saved "THROUGH FAITH"; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (not by our own merit "Grace"): Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9). God's part is by grace, but man's part is by faith in action.
2.- "MUST"!
“ What must I do?” he inquired. The question implies something MUST be done. It is imperative! One must do something, or be Lost!
3,- “ I “
“what must I do to be saved? This is a personal matter. No one else can resolve this question for you. Not your mother, not your father, not your wife not others for you. Indeed, it is what must I do to be saved?
4.- “do” this word implies “action” something to be accomplish.
The answer came from the men of God immediatly. They said,: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. In Hebrews 11:6, we are told it is impossible to please God without faith; while in John 8:24 we are told, “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
The question to be resolved are: what does it mean to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ? Does believing on Christ merely mean giving mental assent to the mind that Christ is the son of God? According to the scriptures, belief in Christ is much more that that. Hear the apostle paul, in Romans 10:13-17. As he quoted the prophet “For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” Now hear the conclusion: “So then faith (belief) comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
They could not believe until they heard. It is very obvious that when Paul told the jailor to believe on the Lord, it was necessary that the jailor be told WHAT to believe before he could believe. He was told to believe only. Many preachers today may be heard to say: “Just believe only and be saved.” Or, “Just lay your hand on the radio,TV and believe on the lord and be saved right where you are,” ,” Just hold up your hand.” Or, “ Just repeat this prayer withme “the sinner prayer.” Not so in the scriptures, however.
BELIEVE ONLY?
Does faith alone save? Faith alone is death! The Spirit concluded: “ Ye see the how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:17-24). There is something one MUST DO to be saved. Believing only never save anyone. The apostle conclude that salvation is “ NOT BY FAITH ONLY” In all the records of the conversions, found in the books of Acts, we never read a person being saved by Faith only.
Having told the jailor to believe on the lord, verse 31, the very next verse states, “and they spoke unto him the word of the Lord” Why did they speak the word of the Lord after having told them to believe on the Lord? Because they could not believe unless they heard, for belief comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). It was necessary for the jailor and those of his company to hear the word of God; then after hearing the Gospel (Rom.1:16), it was necessary for them to believe and obey in order to be saved. Christ is the author of salvation unto all who obey Him (Heb. 5:9).
REPENTANCE-BAPTISM
Obedience to the Gospel is essential to salvation. Paul and Silas preached the “Word of the Lord” and the jailor believed and obeyed the word of the Lord. Those who do not obey the Gospel of Christ will be lost. Paul declared that when Christ comes again, He is coming in “flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 1:7-8). What did they preach when they “spake unto him the word of the Lord?” The Gospel for sure (Rom. 1:16).
Jesus commanded, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” ( Luke 13:5). That they repented of their sins, as commanded by the Lord, is evidenced by the fact that they “washed their stripes,” indicative of a penitent heart. They didn’t wash the lacerated bodies of these men of God when they placed them in jail. The change of heart was the result of hearing the “word of the Lord” and believing what was heard.
Paul commanded the jailor to be baptized into Christ when he “Spoke the word of the Lord. (Gospel).” Jesus commanded, “ Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk.16:15-16). Did Paul and Silas preach this Gospel to the Jailor? There can be no doubt about it; if he preached the “word of the Lord,” This is what he preached because the gospel is in the word of the Lord. As faithful gospel messengersm they told the jailor just what Christ said me must do to be saved, namely: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
Furthermore, we know they preached Christ’s command, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” when they spoke the word of the Lord,” because verse 33 of the divine record reveals “and he took them the same hour of the nigh and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his straightway.”
Question: why were they baptized, even the same hour of the night? Because they “believe on the Lord” ( Not only believe) and obeyed the word of the Lord. They believe Christ when he commanded: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” They were told what they must do to be saved!
“What must I do to be saved?” The jailor and those of his house were saved by faith and obedience. They repented of their sins. They were baptized into Christ where they became new creatures in Christ ( Acts 16:33; 2 Cor. 5:17). Having obeyed the “form of Doctrine.” The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ by Baptism, they were then “ made free from sin” (Rom. 6:3-5, 17,18).
In difficult cases those who are in Hospice or dying and they understand the Gospel of Christ and desire with all their heart to be baptize for the remissions of their Sins, We can make arrangement with the hospice place and ask for a place like a pool or a big inflatable pool and baptizing them for the remission of their sins. Previously understood that what he is doing is for the remission of his sins. And if by the will of God still alive continue teaching the scriptures givin them spiritual milk until God call that person to his presence. But to be save need to be baptize for the remissions of his sins!! We can not assume that just because only believe is already save. Need to obey Jesus command in ( Mat. 28:18-20, Mk. 16:15-16).
Royce Ogle says:

January 27, 2011 at 3:33 pm

Acts 15:8-11 cannot be more clear. After Peter said those words the crowd "fell silent", perhaps not a bad precedent to follow!
Price says:

January 27, 2011 at 5:04 pm

Royce, you sum up things so well. 🙂
Jay Guin says:

January 28, 2011 at 9:58 pm

Guestfortruth,

Please don't repeat long comments. It's not an effective means of persuasion.

This read as though copied from another source. If you are not the author, it's a copyright violation.