The importance of water baptism within Wesleyan theology

[ByTheSpirit]

Good afternoon,

I want to preface this by stating (and emphasizing) I am not trying at all to create conflict. I know how touchy the subject of water baptism can be, but as someone who is attending a Wesleyan church (I believe its a Nazarene church), this is something I'm interested in. I come from a Baptist/Pentecostal background, so water baptism has always been something obedient Christians should do, but it's not really even necessary for much of anything. Maybe I'm horribly misrepresenting that, but I do know that water baptism was never taught much or even emphasized a great deal. In my Baptist church if you were saved (via the sinners prayer) you were encouraged to get baptized the following week, but again not "necessary".

I've heard (and read in some parts) that Wesleyan theology is a bit different and I'm intrigued. My current view is while I don't think it's entirely necessary for salvation, I do believe that people should be baptized immediately or as quickly as possible. I really don't want to explain my view on the topic as that may distract from what I'm trying to accomplish here, and that is learning. So please if you could help me with this, again I promise I won't argue but am genuinely trying to learn, thank you in Christ for your responses!

 

[actionsub]

Something that might be a complicating factor from your perspective is the fact that most Wesleyan churches, including the Nazarenes, practice infant baptism as well as credobaptism.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Good afternoon,

I want to preface this by stating (and emphasizing) I am not trying at all to create conflict. I know how touchy the subject of water baptism can be, but as someone who is attending a Wesleyan church (I believe its a Nazarene church), this is something I'm interested in. I come from a Baptist/Pentecostal background, so water baptism has always been something obedient Christians should do, but it's not really even necessary for much of anything. Maybe I'm horribly misrepresenting that, but I do know that water baptism was never taught much or even emphasized a great deal. In my Baptist church if you were saved (via the sinners prayer) you were encouraged to get baptized the following week, but again not "necessary".

I've heard (and read in some parts) that Wesleyan theology is a bit different and I'm intrigued. My current view is while I don't think it's entirely necessary for salvation, I do believe that people should be baptized immediately or as quickly as possible. I really don't want to explain my view on the topic as that may distract from what I'm trying to accomplish here, and that is learning. So please if you could help me with this, again I promise I won't argue but am genuinely trying to learn, thank you in Christ for your responses!

I'm not sure why no much emphasis is put on water baptism. At least that is my impression. John the Baptist made it clear that His water baptism was nothing compared to the Holy Spirit Baptism brought in by our Lord. It almost seems like water baptism should come before as John describes the process as a repentive action in other words changing from unbelief to belief.


“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Something that might be a complicating factor from your perspective is the fact that most Wesleyan churches, including the Nazarenes, practice infant baptism as well as credobaptism.

nah no complications, again this is strictly about me learning. I think Ive read that some Wesleyan groups (Methodists maybe) believe in infant baptism for regeneration/salvation, while others like Nazarenes do so only as a sign of Gods presence or blessing. Im probably way off on that and its been a while since I can remember reading that but is that close?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I'm not sure why no much emphasis is put on water baptism. At least that is my impression. John the Baptist made it clear that His water baptism was nothing compared to the Holy Spirit Baptism brought in by our Lord. It almost seems like water baptism should come before as John describes the process as a repentive action in other words changing from unbelief to belief.


“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

Id wager its probably got more to do with groups are afraid that water baptism can be viewed as teaching a works based gospel. I have certainly been accused of that, which is unfortunate. But I honestly have no clue why its lacking importance in modern church

 

[disciple Clint]

Good afternoon,

I want to preface this by stating (and emphasizing) I am not trying at all to create conflict. I know how touchy the subject of water baptism can be, but as someone who is attending a Wesleyan church (I believe its a Nazarene church), this is something I'm interested in. I come from a Baptist/Pentecostal background, so water baptism has always been something obedient Christians should do, but it's not really even necessary for much of anything. Maybe I'm horribly misrepresenting that, but I do know that water baptism was never taught much or even emphasized a great deal. In my Baptist church if you were saved (via the sinners prayer) you were encouraged to get baptized the following week, but again not "necessary".

I've heard (and read in some parts) that Wesleyan theology is a bit different and I'm intrigued. My current view is while I don't think it's entirely necessary for salvation, I do believe that people should be baptized immediately or as quickly as possible. I really don't want to explain my view on the topic as that may distract from what I'm trying to accomplish here, and that is learning. So please if you could help me with this, again I promise I won't argue but am genuinely trying to learn, thank you in Christ for your responses!

Wow this is one of those, it depends on your denomination, theological questions. Are you saved if you accept Jesus and then die before baptism, my answer would be yes. Should you get baptized if you are a believer, again I would say yes. Obviously baptism is more important if you are a sacramental based denomination because of the grace come through sacraments belief. I think it is universally accepted that baptism is a affirmation of your faith and eliminates and sin you have. Paul indicates that in baptism your old man dies with Jesus on the cross and the new spirit filled man born due to the resurrection of Jesus who overcame death. Hope I have provided some light on the subject for you.

 

[Methodized]

I'm a United Methodist pastor. Just the fact that you keep saying "water baptism" sounds odd to my Methodist ears. It often indicates that you have been in some kind of Pentecostal or Holiness denomination as pretty much all the rest of Christianity just calls that "Baptism." For us the terminology is redundant. All baptism is "water baptism."

For us baptism is a sacrament, meaning it is a means by which God shares grace and love with the candidate. As it is an act of God the age or understanding of the candidate doesn't matter. Just like when you parents did loving things for you as an infant you benefited from those loving acts even before you understood them.

I'm not familiar with the term "credo baptism" that was used above.

 

[actionsub]

I'm not familiar with the term "credo baptism" that was used above.

"Credobaptism" simply means baptizing those who are able to make a conscious profession of faith, as in the Baptist churches.

 

[Methodized]

"Credobaptism" simply means baptizing those who are able to make a conscious profession of faith, as in the Baptist churches.

Ah, I would have thought it had something to do with the creeds.

 

[Rawtheran]

Good afternoon,

I want to preface this by stating (and emphasizing) I am not trying at all to create conflict. I know how touchy the subject of water baptism can be, but as someone who is attending a Wesleyan church (I believe its a Nazarene church), this is something I'm interested in. I come from a Baptist/Pentecostal background, so water baptism has always been something obedient Christians should do, but it's not really even necessary for much of anything. Maybe I'm horribly misrepresenting that, but I do know that water baptism was never taught much or even emphasized a great deal. In my Baptist church if you were saved (via the sinners prayer) you were encouraged to get baptized the following week, but again not "necessary".

I've heard (and read in some parts) that Wesleyan theology is a bit different and I'm intrigued. My current view is while I don't think it's entirely necessary for salvation, I do believe that people should be baptized immediately or as quickly as possible. I really don't want to explain my view on the topic as that may distract from what I'm trying to accomplish here, and that is learning. So please if you could help me with this, again I promise I won't argue but am genuinely trying to learn, thank you in Christ for your responses!

Greetings ByTheSpirit how are you doing? So in the Church of the Nazarene it is taught that Water Baptism in of itself does not save you, wash away your sins, or endow you with any kind of magical powers lol. Water Baptism is seen as a means of grace by which someone is choosing to come forward and publicly state that they are a genuinely saved Christian and they wish to profess their faith in front of the entire Church Community and before God. Water Baptism is seen as symbolic of what the Holy Spirit does to us when we are regenerated and given a new nature when we accept Christ and have repented of our sins and is also a Sacrament that Christ himself partook in and requests us to do as well. The other component that I would also like to add about Water Baptism and it's significance in Wesleyan Theology would be that in the vow of Baptism someone is not only publicly acknowledging their Christian faith in public but they also are officially becoming a part of and being received into membership of the church by the community. The community in turn is also making a covenant with those being Baptized to journey alongside them and help them in their walk with God through prayer and discipleship. I'll add finally that in the Church of the Nazarene we do allow for Infant Baptism but most families opt for Baby dedication and then allowing them to become baptized when they are able to understand the meaning of salvation and want to choose to get baptized themselves. We also do Baptism by the sprinkling of water and by full immersion.

 

[Methodized]

I'll add finally that in the Church of the Nazarene we do allow for Infant Baptism but most families opt for Baby dedication and then allowing them to become baptized when they are able to understand the meaning of salvation and want to choose to get baptized themselves. We also do Baptism by the sprinkling of water and by full immersion.

Baby dedications aren't allowed in the UMC as a baby dedication basically purposefully delays an individual from receiving the sacrament of baptism and the grace it imparts. And for United Methodists it just looks too much like baptism without the water. Jesus commands us to baptize, not do dedications.

 

[renniks]

Baby dedications aren't allowed in the UMC as a baby dedication basically purposefully delays an individual from receiving the sacrament of baptism and the grace it imparts. And for United Methodists it just looks too much like baptism without the water. Jesus commands us to baptize, not do dedications.

But there's literally nothing in the Bible about baptizing infants.

 

[Methodized]

But there's literally nothing in the Bible about baptizing infants.

There is literally nothing in the Bible about not baptizing infants either.

The baptism of Cornelius' household may include the first infant baptisms recorded.

Baptisms of infants is attested to at least by the 3rd century a.d. in the writings of early Christian authors. Infant baptism has been performed for most of Christian history. The idea of believers baptism only wasn't popularized until the 17th century. Pretty recent history.

 

[Rawtheran]

Baby dedications aren't allowed in the UMC as a baby dedication basically purposefully delays an individual from receiving the sacrament of baptism and the grace it imparts. And for United Methodists it just looks too much like baptism without the water. Jesus commands us to baptize, not do dedications.

Having once been in the UMC I do understand where you are coming from but baby dedications can be found in scripture and were apart of the Torah. Hannah dedicated her baby the Prophet Samuel to the Lord when she conceived and Jesus himself was dedicated to God at the Temple shortly after his birth. When doing a baby dedication the parents in the congregation are making a covenant with God and the community to raise this child up in the faith and to give them mutual support and love as they grow. Curiously we don't see Jesus getting baptized as a baby, he only got baptized when he was an adult.

 

[Methodized]

Curiously we don't see Jesus getting baptized as a baby, he only got baptized when he was an adult.

I am familiar with baby dedications. I am a former Baptist.

We don't see Jesus baptized as a baby (or before he was 33 years old, an older man by that days standards) because baptism as performed in the Church wasn't invented until Jesus' Great Commission when Jesus gave his instructions to make disciples and baptize in his hame. John's Baptism wasn't Christian baptism and Jesus' baptism was not for the same reasons that we get baptized.

 

[renniks]

There is literally nothing in the Bible about not baptizing infants either

Following that line of reasoning, we could find ourselves with all kinds of unbiblical traditions.

 

[Methodized]

Following that line of reasoning, we could find ourselves with all kinds of unbiblical traditions.

You really can't make an argument from silence. I can't imagine you'd argue that you would forbid any practice that the Bible is silent about. the Bible doesn't say we can have baptisms in a baptistry or font. the Bible doesn't say we can use warm water heated by a water heater. the Bible doesn't say lots of things about baptism that are common practice to almost all churches.

The Articles of Religion of the UMC, the same as those given to us by John Wesley, tell us that if it isn't in the Bible we can't be required to believe anything particular about it.

One of the problems I see in churches and denominations who want to act as if they are being a "New Testament" church is that they ignore all of Christian history after the first 100 years. The Church made decision about what was appropriate practice hundreds of years ago. The majority of Christians around the world were baptized as infants and it has been done so for nearly 1,700 years. Then in the 17th century some newbie denominations come along and insist that what the Church has done for most of the time it has been in existence is suddenly wrong because the Bible didn't explicitly say anything about it one way or another.

 

[renniks]

I can't imagine you'd argue that you would forbid any practice that the Bible is silent about

I don't think you have really thought this through. The Bible doesn't explicitly say we can't worship naked in church.

 

[Methodized]

I don't think you have really thought this through. The Bible doesn't explicitly say we can't worship naked in church.

Feel free to disagree with me. But, I've been pastoring for over 30 years, I've thought most of my theology through. The Bible isn't the only source of doctrine for United Methodists.

Our doctrinal standards require us to take into a account "Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience." the Bible says nothing about worshipping naked, but reason tells us that this goes beyond our current cultural standards for modesty and Paul does speak, for example, to the issue of being properly clothed for worship.

From the Articles of Religion of The United Methodist Church

"The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." (Bolding added by me.)

 

[Methodized]

By the way renniks, this is a forum for Wesleyan Christians. So that's the viewpoint you should expect to get here.