“Online” Baptism? Can/Should a Church Internet Campus Baptize via Webcam?
- Posted on November 05, 2009
- Viewed 849 times
- (24) comments
A video on YouTube shows a woman being baptized at her home bathtub in Georgia. The pastor is at the church, Flamingo Road Florida. Both parties are connected through internet webcams.
This is actually quite old (February of 2008), but I just saw a newspaper article written up on this.
Click here to read the article (that shares different views on whether or not this should be done)...
So... what do YOU think?
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, your picture will displayed on any website that supports gravitars.
Steve Long on Thu, November 12, 2009
I would add one more thought. God looks upon the heart and alas I cannot. To me the scripture is plain. Among other elements baptism saves you. If this is God’s true position on the matter then barring something that he has not revealed to us a person who is not baptised (I am leaving out important concepts surrounding baptism to get to the central point) is not saved.
CS on Thu, November 12, 2009
Steve Long:
Before I begin, let me again qualify that I believe that all believers should be baptized, and that reluctance to show this would show problems of that person’s salvation. But, let’s hit the details, starting with the big thing.
“Among other elements baptism saves you.”
I disagree. If baptism is what saves us, then we would have some contribution to our own salvation which would go straight against Ephesians 2:8-9. Instead, Christ saves us, we respond through repentance and faith, and in obedience then get baptized.
“The Spirit of God speaking through Peter said ’ “it is baptism that now saves you and through Paul the same Spirit said, By faith you have been saved. No other alternatives are offered by the Spirit, alternatives like, ‘except in the case of a deathbed confession’ then baptism isn’t neccessary.”
Two things. First, you cut off the rest of that verse from Peter that says, “but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” See, the baptism is the response of the conscience of the person who has been saved by God, which is in line with what I have been saying.
Second, your statement would completely disallow anyone being saved in situations where something happens between repentance and faith and before they have a chance to be baptized. By this token, children, the infirmed, soldiers, and the unfortunate few who hear the Gospel and die on their way, would not be permitted to go to Heaven. That doesn’t sound right at all and would not be in line with God’s will. Remember, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…” Which moves into the next quote.
“A fair question from you would be, Do you beleive that there are exceptions to baptism?... and my answer would be none that I would dare teach because they would not come from the scripture.”
I would look to the criminal hanging on the cross next to Jesus as an example of someone who did not have the ability to be baptized yet was assured salvation. However, I would never teach that a person never has to be baptized either; I’ve declared why in this and other posts.
To summarize, it sounds like you adhere to the concept called, “baptismal regeneration,” where the action of the individual contributes to his salvation through baptism. I disagree with this doctrinal stance, as do many other notable and more well-studied Christian pastors over time.
—
CS
Steve Long on Fri, November 13, 2009
CS
I think you rely too much on noted and well studied pastors though. The people Jesus was the most frustrated with were the teachers of the Law, the scribes and Pharisees, the ejumucated dudes. They had careers, status and notariety at stake when they discussed scripture with Jesus or any one. I must confess I have never found a notable, well studied Christian pastor that had it all worked out so like a berean I look into the subject myself. We are instructed to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and that means I can respect another persons ideas but I am thoroughly responsible for things I believe.
I will return to a statement that I made earlier and expand on it because you seem to not want to let go of the notion that faith (or your conceptualization of it reigns supreme and all other scripture, even when baldly stated scripture that seems to compromise the supremity of faith can be contorted to not mean exactly what is says. (If scripture says it is baptiam that now saves you it must not mean exactly what it says because Ephesians 2:8-9 trump it) I believe with the same fervency that you do that Epehsians 2:8-9 has it exactly right. We are saved by faith and not works. And without any schizophrenia involved I believe that Baptism saves us.
I will use an analogy that is probably lame but serves the purpose to illustrate my thinking. Suppose I wanted to go to the moon. A car, boat, bus or plane will not work for that purpose but a rocket will. Just having a rocket does not guarantee my trip to the moon. I need fuel, enough to get me there (and back if I want to return). I also need a trajectory plotted because not any trajectory will get me out of the atmosphere. And I need a launch time so that my trajectory will get me to the moon and not just empty space somewhere in the moons orbit path. Without a rocket (faith) all of these other elements are pointless but without all of these other elements the rocket stays on the ground and I can�t reach the moon. This is what I think James is saying when he says faith without works is dead. Faith without baptism, without obedience, without,confession, is dead. So Ephesians 2:8-9 is exactly right. The rocket gets us to the moon, and so does the fuel, and so does the trajectory. Voila� unification of these seemingly competing statements.
My view of the apostolic writers use of the word �work� is probably a little different than yours too. Sometimes Paul uses the term �works of Law� and other times he uses the word �works�. Employing the �law of precedents� we see that Paul first uses the term� works of law �before using the shorthand version �works�, which his audience would understand differently than a post calvin bible reader would. The great early threat to the early church were the judaisers and so Paul would say to the Galatian churches, � 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?� An to the Ephesians he would make the same argument using different words to the same effect, �8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith�and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God� 9not by works, so that no one can boast.� These passages are dedicated to reversing the efforts of Jews who were subverting the gospel by demanding a return to the jewish structures that became meaningless at the cross.
Steve Long on Fri, November 13, 2009
Sorry. Have to do this in two installments. It wouldn’t take the post in one bite.
To accept your understanding of �work� just makes Philippians 2: 12, �(12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed�not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence�continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,)� hard to grasp.
Because you have chosen (and it is a choice) to see works as anything that we physically do you are obliged to skew I Peter 3:21 and call baptism a work. I wonder how you can call baptism a work though. If you went to the local cemetary and watched the workment take the remains of a dead person and bury them you would not say that the dead person put out any work toward that event. When someone comes to be baptised they are dead in their sins. They are lowered into the water by the hand of another. The one who baptises them calls on the fullness of God, the Father, son and Holy Spirit to invest heavens power into the event (baptism in the name of) and God does the heavy lifting by giving new life. This sounds exactly like Romans 6 doesn�t it?
If we apply your definition of works to Romans 10:9, 9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Then confession with your mouth is a work�so that funny little prayer that people pray so that Jesus will come into their lives (which cannot be found in scripture) IS A WORK. It is more of a work than baptism to the nth degree. Just a noteIf your review Romans Chapter 10 you will find Paul using the term �works of law� and arguing against a righteousness that is by law.
Now to the issue of the thief on the cross. If we can establish some agreement about one thing I think we will be able to discard this argument as a red herring. Jesus lived his entire life under the old covenant. He even said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Not only did he fully fill the law but he embodied the law and he was the end that the law was aimed at. The law still exists but I wouldn�t recommend it to anyone because it is seriously not an alternative to grace. Not only did he live under the law but he died under it. Read the works of the Jewish leaders as they argue with Pilate for his death. John 19:7, � 7The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
So as Jesus hung upon the cross the only thing in force was..you got it..the law. The thief was a most fortunate fellow because he wasn�t next to any ordinary sacrifical lamb. He was next to the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. Jesus said to him, �I will see you this day in paradise.� Paradise not heaven..where Jesus is now. Jesus spoke of paradise in the parable of the richman and Lazarus. Paradise is where people went to before the cross. There was no gospel to preach to the world until Jesus rose from the dead. No one needed to be baptized before the cross. The command to baptise came from Jesus AFTER the cross and 50 days after his resurrection, on the day of Pentecost Peter preached Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Steve Long on Fri, November 13, 2009
Cs
One more thing, You commented on I Peter 3:21 and you used a bible version that reads this way, , �but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.� There are several words from the Greek that can be rendered �answer and they actually mean different things. You have used the KJV rendering but the emphasis you have placed on � answer is in the Greek, ap-ok�-ree-sis a response: � answer which is not the word found in I Peter 3:21. That would be eperotaymah an inquiry: � answer the root of which is eperotaho to ask for, i.e. inquire, seek: � ask (after,questions), demand, desire, question. What is going on in I Peter 3 is more of an appeal for a clear conscience in baptism (according to the Greek) than a response of someone who already had a good conscience. The verse itself, gives a clue that this is a more faithful rendering because the first part talks about an interior cleansing that goes on in contrast to an external one. Baptism is not a bath-external; it is a conscience cleansing-internal so we can answer up to God when he calls us in the garden instead of hiding with our fig leaves.
Steve Long on Sat, November 14, 2009
CS
I would like to make a small correction in something I said in my second entry on Wednesday the 11th. I referred to the warning of Jonah to the world that was about to be flooded. He wasn’t the one who was bourne through the flood waters in an ark. He was the one who was bourne through the stormy waters in a Fish. I need to attribute Noah’s obedience to the right fellow. I think it was the late hour. I don’t take back anything else though.
Steve Long on Mon, November 16, 2009
CS
Are you processing or have you quit?
CS on Mon, November 16, 2009
Steve Long:
“Are you processing or have you quit?”
Nah, it was just the weekend.
I think my major problem is this: instead of saying, “Christ saves,” initially, you said, “baptism saves.” When you later said, “Faith without baptism, without obedience, without,confession, is dead,” I agreed with this. The condition is that the monergistic act of Christ saving us is the thing that is saves us, and we respond in actions that demonstrate and exemplify that saving action, such as repentance and faith. The way you stated it put the cart before the horse.
However, I do disagree with you in that if someone dies before having the opportunity to be baptized that that person’s soul’s state is indeterminate. I believe firmly that that person is saved by Christ, as evidenced by those actions above, even if the person dies along the way, will go to Heaven.
—
CS
Steve Long on Mon, November 16, 2009
CS
My �baptism saves� comment was in response to what one of your earliest comments was that baptism didn�t save you, it was just obedience. Where you and I seem to differ on this matter is that you see baptism as a significant thing and I see it as an essential thing in our salvation. Jesus dying, buried, and risen is the power that make baptism more than a command. The words rite, ritual and ordinance are not found in any scripture associated with Baptism. Things under the old covenant were rites and rituals because they were shadows of later substance that would be found in Christ and His body (the church). Consider this: In the O.T. the High Priest went behind the veil one time per year to offer for the sins of Israel. Look at the command carefully.
Leviticus 16:3-4, 3�Aaron shall enter the holy place with this: with a bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 4"He shall put on the holy linen tunic, and the linen undergarments shall be next to his body, and he shall be girded with the linen sash and attired with the linen turban (these are holy garments) Then he shall bathe his body in water and put them on.�
Aaron had garments specially made that he was to only wear when he went into God�s presence. God dwelt behind the veil and whoever entered into God�s presence must be wearing special clothes. Before that person goes beyond the veil they must bathe completely, then dress.
Now consider Galatians 3:27, �26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Jesus gave his life so that we had something to cover our sin.We put on �Jesus� clothes when we are baptised. Notice that this description of the effect of baptism is the next sentence after we are told we are sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Our faith in Jesus Christ causes us to pick up the Clothes God made for us in Jesus and put them on�..IN BAPTISM.
In Galatians 3:26-27 Paul tells us that baptism is where we are clothed in Christ. It is the baptism of a repentant believer that prepares us to enter into the presence of God fully clothed in the clothing made for such an occasion at the cross.
This isn�t the first time that God showed us that we could not cover our sin, that there would have to be a death to cover our sin. Gen. 3:21, �21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.� Fig leaves didn�t cut it with God. Men could not devise their own solution to sin�ritual, rites, works of Law. God sent His Son and told us if we believe in Him to put Him on..in baptism. If you hang with me CS I have much more to add. But I will give you a hint where to do some investigation on your own�if you are really into truth. In Bible college the debate is is framed by the argument between John Calvin and Jacob Harmenson (Arminianism) or it is framed further back in history as a heresy introduced by Pelagius ca. 400 ad against established church structures (embryonic Catholicism). I think it would do you some good to read the writings of the early church fathers (not that I hold them in more esteem than the modern clergy system-but they lived nearer to the initial teachings of the early church). Search out the words of writers in the first 400 years of the church on baptism and I think you will be surprised at what you find. Many of these men were heretics and schismatics in their own time but on the issue of the essential nature of baptism to salvation they virtually all agree�..with me�.or�.I agree with them!
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2
Post a Comment