With all the discussions on the PCI view etc etc etc...I was wondering for those that don't believe baptism is an absolute necessity in order to be saved, how important then is obedience?
Can someone be saved and not be baptized? Can someone be saved who refuses the biblical command to be baptized?
For the record, I believe baptism is a necessity, but not an absolute one. By that I mean that in the case of someone that comes to faith in Christ and dies before being baptized...say they began to believe where it was impossible to be baptized and had planned on going to somewhere that it could happen and died before that time...in that case I could not say that person was lost seeing that they were intent on obeying.
I have known orthodox Catholics and even ana-baptists that have the same view. Baptism is an essential but someone with faith can be saved without it..not "can" not "will be". God is truely the author and finisher of our faith and salvation.
However in the case of someone claiming to have faith but then refuses to be baptized as per the command, I would say they never were really saved to begin with.
On that note...obedience is to a command to do something. We are told to obey the gospel and in that context the part that is to be obeyed is the part to DO something...the command is to repent and be baptized. We must obey the gospel. What do you think?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
With all the discussions on the PCI view etc etc etc... What do you think?
Good questions. I think that the early PCI people and other Apostolics as well, for that matter, looked at it differently than we do today.
You see they felt that they were a part of a larger fellowship of believers and that this "new" doctrine (Jesus Name baptism/Oneness of God) shouldn't divide that fellowship. So they preached some variation of the "light doctrine" so as not to be setting themselves up as the judges of their own brethren. Baptism in Jesus name was not "essential" at the start. It has only become "essential" as the two sides grew a part.
Today there are those that similarly refuse to set themselves up as the judges of other Christians. These will tend to preach some form of the "light doctrine" where baptism is not essential.
There are others who see the essentiality of following the Apostle's commands as stated in the Book of Acts and the Epistles. But they want to avoid entangling themselves in "legalistic" terminology. So they say that you are saved at repentance, and if you have truly repented then the "refusal" to be baptized in Jesus name will never be an issue. If it is an issue, then we need to go back and look at what it means to "repent."
And then you have the "hypotheticals." What happens to the guy that is run over by a cement truck on his way to the church to be baptized? Is he saved? I say let God sort out the hypotheticals - however in doing so, am I implicitly saying that baptism is not essential in at least this one case? By acknowledging my perplexity on this kind of a question, am I being "weak on the message?" Will my ministry suffer all because of an imaginary cement truck? The answer is sadly, "yes." My brethren will tear me to pieces because of that imaginary cement truck. Both you and I know this to be the case.
So, if we rend and tear one another over the imaginary cement truck, is our problem really one of baptisms? Or do we have more fundamental problems that show the need for us all to go back and re-examine what it means to repent.
Good questions. I think that the early PCI people and other Apostolics as well, for that matter, looked at it differently than we do today.
You see they felt that they were a part of a larger fellowship of believers and that this "new" doctrine (Jesus Name baptism/Oneness of God) shouldn't divide that fellowship. So they preached some variation of the "light doctrine" so as not to be setting themselves up as the judges of their own brethren. Baptism in Jesus name was not "essential" at the start. It has only become "essential" as the two sides grew a part.
Today there are those that similarly refuse to set themselves up as the judges of other Christians. These will tend to preach some form of the "light doctrine" where baptism is not essential.
There are others who see the essentiality of following the Apostle's commands as stated in the Book of Acts and the Epistles. But they want to avoid entangling themselves in "legalistic" terminology. So they say that you are saved at repentance, and if you have truly repented then the "refusal" to be baptized in Jesus name will never be an issue. If it is an issue, then we need to go back and look at what it means to "repent."
And then you have the "hypotheticals." What happens to the guy that is run over by a cement truck on his way to the church to be baptized? Is he saved? I say let God sort out the hypotheticals - however in doing so, am I implicitly saying that baptism is not essential in at least this one case? By acknowledging my perplexity on this kind of a question, am I being "weak on the message?" Will my ministry suffer all because of an imaginary cement truck? The answer is sadly, "yes." My brethren will tear me to pieces because of that imaginary cement truck. Both you and I know this to be the case.
So, if we rend and tear one another over the imaginary cement truck, is our problem really one of baptisms? Or do we have more fundamental problems that show the need for us all to go back and re-examine what it means to repent.
Methinks you have felt one head too many, perhaps even Yorick's. "Where be your gibes now? your gambols?"
Methinks you have felt one head too many, perhaps even Yorick's. "Where be your gibes now? your gambols?"
Yes, indeed. That reference really is quite apt. Looking around the Apostolic movement I have had many opportunities to examine the desiccated skulls of Apostolic gravediggers.
The irony has never ceased to fill me with wonder.
I think at any point, if you refuse to go further in the Lord, then you are in danger. If you understand Jesus' name baptism and/or Holy Ghost baptism and you say that you don't want it, then I think you are in disobedience. BUT there are a lot of people who don't know about these truths, and I don't think they are condemned to hell if they have a true relationship with Christ. They have left Satan's kindom and become a part of God's kingdom.
Linear Mode
