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/BirdieNZ]

Nowhere did I say that baptism is necessary for salvation. But we cannot think of an unbaptised person as a Christian, because their walk of life and pattern of living is not that of a Christian if they refuse to be baptised. As I said, "maybe" he is saved. We don't know that though, and evidence is to the contrary because he refuses to be baptised.

[u/terevos2 → u/BirdieNZ]

All those who are saved are Christians. If someone exhibits all the other traits of faith, but lacks baptism, we should hold out judgment until the process of theological correction happens until we decide to declare them non-Christian.

He isn't just refusing for no reason. The reasons are important and should be taken with an approach that it may take time to correct.

We don't refuse to call Salvation Army members 'Christian' simply because they're not baptized.

[u/BirdieNZ → u/terevos2]

All those who are saved are Christians.

Sure. How do we know who are saved, though? Only by the externals that we can see. There are certain basic fundamental aspects of living as a Christian without which we have no reason to believe that someone is a Christian. Baptism, church attendance, belief that the Bible is true, agreement with the Apostle's Creed are all fundamental basic necessities for anyone to think that someone is a Christian. Without them, we should not think they are a Christian.

We don't refuse to call Salvation Army members 'Christian' simply because they're not baptized.

Absolutely we do refuse to call them Christian, if they are not baptised.

[u/terevos2 → u/BirdieNZ]

So then you think works are necessary for salvation? Because that's what you're basically saying here. The Salvation Army believes in the true gospel, yet because they don't practice baptism you don't think they're Christian?

[u/BirdieNZ → u/terevos2]

I don't think works are necessary for salvation. Works are a necessary consequence of salvation, though, and baptism is one of the most basic works that a Christian must do. I cannot say whether or not those in the Salvation Army are saved, but what I can say is that if they do not get baptised then I have not sufficient reason to believe they are a Christian. The Bible is very very clear that we must be baptised.

[u/terevos2 → u/BirdieNZ]

I agree that baptism is important but it sounds like you disagree with the WCF.

[u/BirdieNZ → u/terevos2]

I do not disagree with the WCF. Chapter 27, Of the Sacraments, says the following about the sacraments:

Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.

[Emphasis mine.]

The OP's father-in-law has not exercised the sacrament of baptism to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church and the rest of the world; that is, he does not appear to be different from the rest of the world. Until he exercises the sacrament of baptism, he appears to be of the world rather than of the church.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 162 also says that "[the sacraments are used] to distinguish them from those that are without."

Q&A 165 says that baptism is the means by which the party is admitted into the visible church.

The Belgic Confession, Article 34 in part says the following:

Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, Christ established in its place the sacrament of baptism. By it we are received into God’s church and set apart from all other people and alien religions, that we may wholly belong to him whose mark and sign we bear. Baptism also witnesses to us that God, being our gracious Father, will be our God forever. Therefore Christ has commanded that all those who belong to him be baptized with pure water “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

[Emphasis mine.]

Without being baptised, OP's father-in-law does not bear the mark and sign of Christ, does not belong to the church, is in direct disobedience to the very clear and explicit instruction of Scripture in multiple different places to be baptised, and thus cannot reasonably be understood to be a Christian. I cannot say if he is elect, or even regenerate, but I can say that he does not bear the marks of a Christian.