Naked Bible Podcast Episode 002 - Baptism: Contradiction in the Creeds, Part 1

In the first podcast episode on baptism, I made the comment that many well-known Christian creeds are internally contradictory when it comes to articulating the clear gospel (salvation by faith in Christ apart from any work or merit of our own) and baptism. That might seem hard to swallow, but it’s true. In this episode, I illustrate the problem via the Belgic Confession, whose clear description of the gospel turns to muddled thinking when it comes to the section on baptism.

[alexsantana]

The problem is that many fail to see that FAITH is a Theological Virtue and that there must needs be an OBJECT of faith. That is, the Person of Jesus Christ, which includes His whole Body of Teaching (the Deposit of Faith), and His Divine Institutions including the Sacraments, the first of which is Baptism. Sacrament meaning "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace". Thus, the Sacraments are ACTIONS or WORKS of Christ in and through His Church. They are JESUS Acting, JESUS Working, JESUS continuing His Ministering to His People until He comes again in all His visible and manifested Glory. What was visible in our Incarnate Lord has "passed over" into His Mysteries/Sacraments.

[penibiukoto]

The subtle nature of deception in the creeds and theology can be difficult to detect. I call it playing it safe by keeping the feet in both saved by faith and saved by water baptism. Discrepancies I see in my limited readings are based on these ambivalence in interpretation of scripture on salvation and baptism.

[n.holt]

Paul connects baptism of the Spirit and the circumcision without hands, but that does not mean they are the same or that what is true for one is true for the other. The circumcision without hands replaces the circumcision with hands, not baptism. Baptism by the Spirit into Christ replaces John's baptism for repentance, not circumcision. Circumcision deals with the removal of something while baptism deals with the joining of 2 things. They should be viewed as connected, but different just like faith and repentance are connected, but different. Let there be no confusion, however, I do not at all agree with this creed or reformed theology.

[archam]

Water baptism is a baptism of repentance. John even said that he baptized with water,
but one would come after that baptizes with fire and the Spirit.
Water baptism doesn't always mean you receive the Spirit, when it happens. I'm sure
the Apostles were baptized with water after seeing and knowing Christ had been baptized,
b4 the start of his did they receive the Spirit???
Waaayyyy later at pentacost.
Believers were following Paul in a later chapter in Acts (i think chapter 19)....saying to Paul
specifically that they were baptized with water, but hadn't received the Spirit yet. He ask
what baptism they received....they said, "Johns baptism". He responded with, "John baptism
was a baptism of repentance." Then laid hands on them and they received the Spirit.

There are countless people who've been baptized with water and turned into child molesters,
apostates, and I would be willing to bet, that not one single person, whos been
baptized with "fire and the Spirit", has ever become any of those things.
Water baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant. It just shows that, out of all the
beliefs that are out there, you believe in Christ and are going to start following Him and
growing in the faith.

[Monkofmagnesia]

At the end of the Gospel pf Matthew, Jesus said we should be Baptized. Questioning why Baptism should be done seems pointless. Jesus said so. Questioning what Baptism does for us or why Jesus said we should be Baptized, although interesting, is just a side light. We Batosd because Jesus said to Baptise.

[dkgrace]

The Colossians context is not talking about physical circumcision or physical water baptism. It tells you this by the words in the verses. No interpretation needed. Just read the words.

Col 2:11 KJV In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 KJV Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Notice "without hands". Real circumcision was WITH hands, it was physical. In Baptism we are NOT buried nor do we rise from being baptized. It furthers says it was through "faith" of the operation of GOD, not a person dipping us in water.

Thank God Paul makes it clear his new gospel given to him through Jesus Himself did not include water baptism...
1Cor 1:17 KJV For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

...but a Spirit baptism.
1Cor 12:13 KJV For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Paul also goes on to tell us there is only one baptism:
Eph 4:4 KJV There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 KJV One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 KJV One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

If every believer HAS TO be baptized (identified) into the body of Christ by the Spirit, then adding another baptism by water would make 2 baptisms. The math is clear - one baptism the Spirit does it, into the body of Christ. Pretty clear. Water baptism is not for today in any way, for any reason.

[jesuscorona]

I can't believe anybody would argue that baptism (something that God instituted for our peace of mind as an objective means of receiving forgiveness and salvation) isn't really there for our benefit. people leaving the church after being baptized is not evidence that baptism (as viewed by many churches) doesn't work. people leave your church also and that does not mean God's Word is not living and active. this guy is ironically not even paying attention to the implications of his own teachings.

[jesuscorona]

this is unbelievably bad! I cant believe anyone would consider this man to be a good theologian. again, his whole argument is, if people are baptized and then leave the church then baptism doesn't do what the bible says it does. this is ridiculous, now he's going to superimpose his corrupt ability to reason over the word of God. this man needs to stay away from teaching theology for sure.

[jesuscorona]

and then he says, baptism can't save because then it would't be trough faith alone. to what I say: baptism is not a work of man but of God, read Titus chapter 3 for heavens sake! if you use that logic then going to church and hearing the word is also a work. wow this guy is terrible. he might be a good scholar but a really bad theologian.