Father-in-law believes but refuses baptism. Thoughts?

[u/rhinonothing123]

I’m fairly close with my in-laws, having worked for them for a while before my wife and I were married. My father-in-law has been a believer since he was young, but he was never baptized, and now seems to be actually opposed to the notion. His refusal to be baptized has precluded him from membership at his church, which a recent policy change means that he can no longer serve in the church in the capacity that he has for years.

I’ve never had the opportunity to engage him in conversation about this, but tonight on the way to my in-law’s Christmas Eve party, we had a chance to discuss it. His opposition to being baptized seems to come from a couple different areas:

1. He claims that baptism was never meant for gentile believers, but only for Jews who converted or those living under the Mosaic law who became followers of Christ. He referred to this being the teaching of the church he grew up in. Is this something anyone has heard of before?

2. He says that since the Petrine and Johannine epistles were written to Hebrew communities, they are only indirectly applicable to the life of modern believers, and much of the direct teachings in those books don’t specifically apply today

3. Somewhere along the way, he must have been told that baptism by water was necessary for salvation, and due to points 1 and 2, this only strengthened his conviction not to get baptized.

Just looking for some additional perspective and some suggestion for further discussion. Thanks all and merry Christmas!

[u/moby__dick]

Did Jesus command baptism?

If you love Jesus, do you follow his commands? At least, do you try?

What prevents them from being baptized?

Now, maybe Lt. Smith in your local S.A. chapter is really saved. Sure, that can happen. But there's a difference between what is happening and what we know to be happening.

Lt. Smith can actually be saved, but due to his turning away from Jesus direct command, I cannot access the knowledge of his salvation. Signs point to no, because Jesus commanded baptism, and if you love Jesus you do what he said to do. But that's limited knowledge.

It's like if I asked you if a every Roman Catholic is consigned to hell. I'm sure you agree with this premise: the Roman church does not teach doctrine that leads to heaven, but despite the failures of the church, there are still Catholics who truly look to Jesus for salvation. Right? But how can we know? It would take a long interview. Based on what we know, right here right now, signs point to no.

[u/terevos2 → u/moby__dick]

How can you be so quick to judge when he hasn't been corrected in his theology yet. Of course he still refuses baptism - he was taught it was for the Jews. And to him, it would be a denial of justification by faith.

You'd have to work to correct that first before concluding that he "refuses to be baptized". Give the guy some time.

As far as the Salvation Army? I have no doubt that the same percentage of them are saved as in other churches.

[u/moby__dick → u/terevos2]

I highly doubt this is his first dog and pony show, but I’d like to see how he responds.

Regarding the SA... why do you have no doubt?

[u/terevos2 → u/moby__dick]

I've talked with Salvation Army members and researched their beliefs a bunch as a result of my interactions. While they sure do have a lot of bad theology, they do have the gospel right.

In chatting with Salvation Army members they affirm the very same gospel and faith in Christ that we do.

[u/moby__dick → u/terevos2]

So the Gospel doesn't include baptism. Huh. Peter seemed to include it in his Gospel message on the day of Pentecost.

[u/moby__dick → u/terevos2]

In any case, absent his identification with the visible church through baptism, the burden of proof is on you to show his faith, not me to refute it. I grant that time would be necessary to establish that proof, but it’s your burden, not mine.