This is an automatic translation pending revision
Baptism
Questions and Answers
The "Christian church" for many years supported
the sprinkling and why not now? What about the baptism of children, how old
they should be baptized? If a brother had been baptized as a child (and spray),
you can rely on that form of baptism or not?
These questions relate to baptism by water
that was initially practiced by John the Baptist to represent repentance from
sin, and continued by disciples of the Lord Jesus (John 4:1-3). After the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ that baptism came to be practiced by the new
converts among the Jews, but now in Christ's name in an act of identification
with Him
Before his ascension, the Lord Jesus commanded
to make disciples also of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Currently, those who call
themselves "Christians", practice the following forms of baptism:
1.
Infant
baptism (pedobaptism), arguing that the baptism of the new alliance is similar
to the circumcision of boys in the alliance abrâmica, that the baptism of whole
families mentioned in the book of Acts probably included children, and that the
biblical promises regarding the family would infant baptism (1 Corinthians
7:14). This mode is usually performed by spraying, immersion, but also has been
used.
2.
The
baptism of those who become, as a testimony of his conversion. Some adopt the
practice of sprinkling, that is to pour water on the head of those being
baptized. The arguments used by those who do so are: a) that the Greek word
"baptizo" is used in a secondary
sense, "put under the influence of" spray and translate this best
sense; b) spraying best portray the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the believer
c) the dumping of thousands of converts at once unlikely and virtually
impossible in Acts 2:41, 8:38, 10:47, 16:33; d) in Hebrews 9:10 the word
"baptize" is used to describe the ritual sprinkling of the Mosaic
law; e) would, they say, the form used by most who call themselves Christians.
3.
The
others take a full immersion in water because: a) is the normal direction and
the primary Greek word "baptizo", b) the normal sense here of Greek prepositions (in,
inside) and k (in, out) indicates immersion in water, c) the baptism of Jewish
proselytes were made in total immersion, which indicates that the baptism of
John and the disciples of Christ were also d) the practice of the early church
was immersion, and) each " difficulties "cited by aspersionistas
truly do not prevent baptism by immersion, f) the Greek language has specific
words for" sprinkling "and" shed ", but they are never used
in relation to baptism; g) immersion depicts what is the best Baptist ministry
of the Holy Spirit at conversion, according to Romans 6:3-5: 'water is the
identification with Christ in his death, the sinking is a figure of
identification with His burial, and we emerge from the water the likeness of
His resurrection.
Historically, the "doctrine of
regeneration" by baptism began to spread at the very beginning of the
second century AD, with clericalism which gradually came to dominate the local
churches. The first news we have of infant baptism is the year 197 the
Christian era, when a writer of the time condemned the custom that was
emerging, along with the baptism of the dead.
The sprinkling, instead of diving, simplified
the ritual of religious apostates, who has come to mean to "wash" not
only symbolic but actual sin "original" and therefore applied to
newborns that were saved from Hell ...
Although religious institutions reformed, or
"Protestant churches" have abandoned the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration, they continued with the tradition of sprinkling both new converts
and children. For a long time after the Protestant Reformation, there was
severe persecution of believers to adopt independent groups that baptism by
immersion for converts. Zwingli, for example, one of the greats of the
Reformation, ordered that all who baptize by immersion, in Zurich, were
drowned! In Germany they were nicknamed "Anabaptists" because they
did not consider valid the baptism of infants. Of them derived from the
Baptists of our day.
The New Testament in independent churches
still vary in their practice of baptism - sprinkling or immersion - and some
still baptize children.
Some of the pioneer missionaries in Brazil,
who developed his work in the region of the states of Rio de Janeiro, south of
Minas Gerais and São Paulo, were "aspersionistas," and many churches
in these localities still preserve this tradition. Do not put in doubt his good
faith.
To the extent that these other churches
compenetraram that sprinkling as a form of baptism, emerged only in the second
century, and became convinced of the legitimacy of the Bible "dip" of
new converts, they were leaving the tradition of sprinkling and infant baptism,
starting to carry out the immersion.
As children, we can not establish a standard
age for baptism of converts. Once a child reaches sufficient spiritual maturity
to understand their own sinfulness, she can come to Christ to receive Him as
your Lord and Savior. She will be baptized and sealed with the Holy Spirit and
begin their new life in Christ. What a blessing when it happens at a young
age! She has every right to give his testimony through baptism. It is
the responsibility of those who baptizes make sure the child is not being
coerced, she knows the basic truths of the Gospel, and has the maturity to
really understand and receive the Lord Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior,
knowing well the what this means.
Whoever converts to Christ should give his
testimony through baptism, according to the commandment of the Lord, is this
your first step in the Christian race. The characteristic of any testimony, is
that it is given after the occurrence of the event, never anticipating it. So
any supposed baptism prior to conversion was not and never will have value as a
testimony of the new believer, no matter whether it was by dipping or spraying.
There is a precedent even in the Bible it.
I want to emphasize that no one should rely on
baptism as a premise for salvation, either by dipping or spraying, whether as a
baby, child or adult.Baptism does not save anyone, nor is it a ritual to give
us entry into the church of God. Our faith is grounded solely in the redemptive
work of our Savior Jesus Christ, and it is through this faith that we receive
eternal life by God's grace and through him we are adopted as sons.
Yeah, it seems to me, a good practice to
require that new converts to baptize before being received into full communion
in the local church - this is not a ritual, but an ordinance, and is a way to
publicly show their submission to the will Master's and to give a public
testimony of his conversion. This implies that baptism shall be conducted soon,
and I see no Biblical support or convincing justification for that baptism is
delayed for too long, as the practice is encouraged by some local churches.
There are among us, however, those who are
evidently true believers, who walk in the light of Christ, but who came from
other practice of baptism. Never been baptized by immersion, but in everything
give ample public testimony of their faith. We have enough love and
understanding for those brothers and sisters so that they extend our
fellowship. I know of some that just received, felt that they lacked this act
of obedience and baptized voluntarily, some years later. I always have in mind
the words of the prophecy of Hosea "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" used by Jesus against the
Pharisees (eg Matthew 12:7).
For mercy is better (at times) let go of
certain practices about which there is controversy among believers than despise
our brothers in Christ for not obeying the letter of any command as we
understand it. "Love one another", is the great commandment
(eg 1 John 3).
R David Jones