The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is Baptism equivalent to making a vow?

I'm doing a little study on baptism. I'm not interested in the issue of how or who, but what it represents. My conclusion is that baptism is more than many make it out to be, and today, the full impact of its use is misunderstood. I know that many say it is for the purpose of being added to the covenant people of God, where I can see some merit behind that opinion, but isn't it much more?

I believe that our baptism is in effect, making a vow before almighty God to follow, obey and serve Him for the remainder of our lives. We know Christ's baptism described in Matt. 3:13-15 wasn't for the purpose of repentence, but signified something else. Was it to be added to the covenant people of God or to be identified with them? Wasn't He already so by His lineage? I believe the purpose of His baptism was to publically consecrate Himself into the service of God the Father, making a vow as God in the flesh to do all the Father required of Him. Why else was He taken out into the desert to be tempted right after His baptism other than for Satan to attempt to get Him to break that vow of obedience? Why was the Father pleased with Him if He was just being identified with the covenant people of God? Wasn't Christ making a vow to endure all even death on the cross in His baptism?

My other reason for this opinion is that I believe that the sacrament of baptism is our part in consecrating ourselves to God, where the baptism of the Spirit is God's consecrating us by the Holy Spirit into His service.

In conclusion, my view is that our being baptized is in effect making a vow. Maybe people wouldn't be baptized as quickly if they didn't just think it was a "secret handshake" to gain admittance into the club but a serious undertaking. Something that God also takes very seriously, as vows are not to be taken lightly. I even can see a relation to the Nazarite vow somewhat, but I won't push that. Look at the early church, baptism was in many cases their own death warrant. Just some thoughts I had.

I'm thinking that we already make a vow in baptism. The elders ask 5 questions for anyone being baptized, so in effect they do make a vow.

Warning: do NOT attempt to equate the Lord Christ's baptism to the baptism required by believers. His baptism was unique to His prophetic calling as Mediator and ministry. There are several good articles on Baptism to be found here: Ecclesiology - The Doctrine of the Church. Scroll down the page to the sub-heading "Sacraments".

Also, it is virtually impossible to separate the "who" from what it "represents", i.e., it's definition; what it means.

In His grace,

I am still not convinced by anything I read, I still believe that Christ was in the flesh, offering His human body "conscration" unto the service of God. I read people who said He did it to identify Himself with sinners, well, He already did that when He was born of a woman. Others say He did it to be part of the covenant people of God, identifying with them there, but wasn't He already that by His lineage? I see no other reason for His baptism other than what I said. I know it isn't accepted because then we would get into the issue of whether infants should be baptized. The danger is to hold to a belief so tenaciously preventing further understanding., For those of us that are credo Baptists, this isn't a stetch at all, and actually makes more sense than any other arguments for Christ's baptism. Also, if we insist that it replaced the sign of circumcision, then why do we baptize women, when they weren't circumsized? Just more of my thoughts.

This has nothing to do with wanting to baptize infants and thus working backward to find justification for doing so! I have already stated that one can and must come to a proper understanding of the MEANING of baptism BEFORE one can then apply it, for example, who are the proper recipients. Further, the MEANING of baptism cannot change regardless of who the recipients are, whether believer or unbeliever. This is one of the major areas that credo-Baptists struggle with when challenged because their definition (meaning) of Baptism is incorrect, i.e., it is too narrow a definition and/or it is totally wrong.

Personally, I am NOT going to get into another fruitless debate with a credo-Baptist. If someone else wants to get involved here good, but I've been around this block far too many times already and it is simply a waste of time. There is ample literature in books and online that defend the historic practice of paedobaptism from Scripture. My own study brought me to a position of paedobaptism without the error of "presumptive regeneration". Some of my closest friends are credo-baptists and we have much in common and find no reason to part over our differences. But they in turn do not hold to the strict and most common view of credo-baptism either, e.g., they do not insist that immersion is the only proper mode; aspersion or effusion are equally valid.

For novelty's sake, why not ponder what William McIntyre has written here: The Token of the Covenant. Surely, you haven't read ALL the articles in the section linked to already, have you?

Over and out!

I agree, other modes of baptism are acceptable, I don't believe it necessary to be immersed either. I find that the issue of infant baptism vs credo baptism is like talking about election to an Arminian. We all have our stances and it is hard to persuade, also I'm not implying you are the Arminian I am just pointing to the level of disagreement. It wasn't my intent to debate the who of baptism, I just wanted to comment on some conclusions I arrived at in my study on baptism. I have shared my views about the mode not being important, and because of the church being Credo, they were a little taken back until I explained my reasons for saying so, anyway, I also don't want to get into the argument over infant baptism, I only wanted individuals to consider what I posted. I bellieve the arguments are valid, that's all.

Out and over!!