There are certain doctrinal issues that we tend to treat as Leatherman tools. They become, in our hands, what we want them to become. If we desire pliers, then pliers they are. If it is a corkscrew we want, so be it. If we are seeking a can opener, a few movements and we have what we want. For some reason, this metaphor came to mind as I considered the issue of baptism for the remission of sins. This issue generates such a diversity of opinions, so many of them based, not on what the Bible says, but on that with which we are comfortable.
- Some see sprinkling as OK because it is more convenient or because their church has always done it that way.
- Some validate infant baptism because of their views on original sin or their commitment to church tradition.
- Others validate infant baptism as a sign of the parents' commitment to raise the child to love and honor God, not as any kind of saving action.
- Some say that believers are baptized as a sign of what has already happened in their heart when they professed faith in Jesus Christ.
- Some reject the need for baptism in any form, considering it an option. The argument is that, because we are saved by grace alone, baptism (considered a work) cannot be a part of the justification process.
- Some refuse to discuss water baptism much because what matters more is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is simply an outward sign of the Spirit's work in us.
I suppose we could add more, but this gives us a few sides to view. Of course, I am now prepared to whip out my baptismal Leatherman, and defend it. In short, I would say it this way. From my understanding of Scripture, those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and the One through whom forgiveness of sins comes, will submit to water baptism (immersion), understanding that it is a part of the process through which God justifies us and pronounces us clean.
- I do not consider our submission to baptism to be a mere matter of opinion, because the New Testament has too much to say about baptism to relegate it to the category of opinion. See Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 4:3-6; Colossians 2:11-13; 1 Peter 3:21. To declare baptism a matter of opinion, basically gives us the option to embrace it or ignore its importance altogether. The latter does not seem at all consistent with the contexts of the passages in which this matter is raised.
- The nature of the discussions surrounding baptism are never centered around baptism as a mere symbol. Instead, baptism (even in the pre-Pentecost references in the Gospels) is always implied to be a transforming event. It is depicted as a happening in which a line is crossed - from death to life, from unclean to clean, from impure to pure, from slavery to freedom, from sinful to holy, from old to new.
- Baptism is not the only factor involved, however. Grace, the Holy Spirit, faith, confession, and repentance (and perhaps other factors) are included in this transforming process.
- Baptism is not a work, in the sense that our efforts achieve God's acceptance. It is a work, in the sense that it is something we agree to do, or better yet, agree to have done to us.
- Baptism is very compatible with grace, for its submissive nature depicts a dying to sin and a raising to life that is far beyond our control. Interestingly enough, the far less disputed commands of repentance and confession are much more works-like than baptism. Nevertheless, they are "works" which grow out of genuine faith. They do not earn grace. They merely act as out-reached arms and opened hands, ready to accept the grace that God offers.
- Again, baptism is grace-compatible, in that it is so often associated with the "gift" ("grace") of life. It brings the new creation to us by washing us and bringing us the indwelling presence of God's Spirit - two acts that we can never accomplish for ourselves.
I refuse to display an argumentative spirit about baptism. This is my understanding of baptism from Scripture. I have come to the point where I will not entertain the inevitable questions that are posed: "Do you believe baptism is essential for salvation?" and "If a believer were on their way to be baptized and were hit by a bread truck and killed, would they be saved?"
I have my opinions on the matter, but I leave those hypothetical queries to God who judges justly. It is more important that I know what the Bible says and that I develop the mind of Christ and conform my behavior to it personally and in my sharing with others.
I'll fold up my Leatherman now and put it back in my pocket. I'll always carry it with me, but only pull it out when I need it. How do you see it?
5 comments:
Dave,
While Baptism is part of the holistic understanding of salvation, you cannot differentiate between ecclesiology, soteriology and eschatology at times in Paul's writings (Romans 6 is a good example). Paul spent his entire letter arguing for Gentiles and Jews alike being made righteous by the faithfulness of Christ. (pisteou tou christou) Christ is the one who saves us, and our acceptance of his faithfulness is what makes part of the new covenant in christ. The last thing that Paul would do is to add a law about how we are to become Christians. Therefore, Romans 6 is ecclesiological more than it talks about Salvation.
I was looking through that book by Jack Cotrell, and while he makes some interesting points about baptism, from what I saw he ignored the jewish context of baptism. Baptism was used a both a purification ritual and a rite of entry into a group. One thing that certain sects of Judaism would proscribe before entry into their group was baptism. Baptism was an initiation rite and one way of many to retain purity. This was not the way that Jews became right before a holy God. They maintained their clean status, but this did not ever have any connotations of salvation attached to it, and I really don't think that Paul ever attached ideas of salvation to baptism. On top of that, the only time Jesus mentions baptism is when he's leaving.
All throughout his ministry, he makes statements regarding his call to discipleship, and he doesn't mention baptism. How odd. Maybe, just maybe, Christ himself didn't see baptism as the way to become a part of his kingdom.
Instead, If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. (luke 14:26-32, ESV)
I'm not sure how ecclesiology, soteriology and eschatology cause our understanding of baptism to be altered. This is precisely my point about the Leatherman analogy. We tend to take something God has established as seminal and adapt its meaning depending on our need for the moment. Whether Paul is teaching about the Church, or salvation or end times, he does not alter his understanding about what baptism is, does or means. He may expound more deeply on facets yet undeveloped, but he does not take elements away.
In fact, Romans is an excellent example of Paul's teaching on salvation as it is considered by many scholars to be his gospel presentation to a church that he fears he may not have the chance to teach in person. The first 11 chapters address salvation and its ramifications, while chapters 12-16 develop the ramifications of salvation in regard to the Church.
I completely agree that Paul's emphasis on Gentile and Jew being made righteous by Christ alone is foundational to his teaching. I just don't see baptism as being considered a "law" through which we earn grace, any more than I do a prayer that must be repeated or a confession that must be voiced (though I don't consider either of them wrong). Baptism (and prayer and confession) are acts of surrender acknowledging our inability to save ourselves and our desire to be given mercy. They can't be equated with laws of sacrifice, restitution or purification. In fact (and this would be an interesting study) even the Old Covenant laws were never considered by God as powerful to remove sin. Then, as now, faith in the righteousness of God/Christ was the issue (see Romans 4). And yet certain acts of obedience are called upon by God to reveal genuine faith. Why God calls for things like circumcision, sacrifice, baptism, etc. I don't fully know. But I obey lest I SAY I believe but betray that by my actions.
In regard to the Jewish understanding of baptism, it makes sense that Jesus only deals with the issue at the outset of His ministry to declare His commitment to the God of the Old Covenant, His fulfillment of the law, and to clarify His Jewish ties. He does not come back to that rite until after His resurrection because it is then that baptism becomes more symbolically powerful (not that baptism is only about symbolism). The image of burial and resurrection has much greater impact after Jesus has modeled it. Paul uses this same image in Romans 6.
All in all, I still struggle with making baptism a Christian shibboleth, because it seems so Old Covenant-like, but I cannot get away from the repeated references in the NT that tie it to our new life in Christ. I am trying to simply be true to what the NT teaches and models while avoiding making rigid judgments on the "essential" nature of baptism.
Dave,
While I'm glad to see that Aaron is learning all those big words in college, and still keeping an open mind :) ... I prefer to keep my thoughts on this in more of a "layman" style.
I have thought for a long time that baptism is, at the very least, an act of obedience. Not a "work" like being "good" to gain acceptance into the kingdom, but an "act" like caring for the lost or helping the needy. These are not "works", they are "acts" that reflect our devotion to being more like Christ, or Christians (little Christs) if you prefer.
**(sounds of fumbling with a wooden soap box are heard in the background)**
My problem with the entire baptism "issue" is that some in our so called "doctrinal brotherhood", hold to a strict militaristic view of what it is to be a Christian. This view purports that if you have not been "immersed", you are not a Christian, and therefore cannot be considered "fellowship-worthy" as it were, to group together in worship (or whatever) with our "doctrinal brotherhood" in any way we would consider to be a "fellowship of believers", because they believe non-immersion equals non-Christian. This has, and still does, make me crazy!!!!!
I suppose that many of my personal experiences and beliefs on this subject are rooted in the Baptist doctrines of my youth, which required baptism as an "act" (not a work) of obedience, as well as a physical affirmation (preferably public) of a previous "decision" (heart decision, that is) to follow Jesus. Not the reverse, as seems to be the doctrine of some in our "brotherhood".
Okay, I know I shouldn't, but I'll say it...some in our "brotherhood" feel (quite strongly, I might add) that the instant you are "saved", as it were, is the instant you are "raised up" from the immersion pool. Yes, I know about the dove and all that when John (the baptist) baptized Jesus, but to derive from that example, an entire doctrine, seems to me to be a little far-fetched, to say the least! What if Jesus was doing it to be obedient? Are we not "well pleased" with our childeren when they are obedient to us? Was Jesus not following God until the day He was immersed? The Bible seems to say that He was already following His Father WAY before that day in the river with John!
I was baptized as a child at Temple Baptist church in Sullivan. My great Aunt and Uncle told me that was what I needed to do (as a start) to affirm my decision to be a follower of Jesus. So I did it. I'm not sure if I fully understood what I was doing (I was like ten or something) but I did it to be obedient. I already thought I was saved 'cause I did the "prayer", and all that stuff. I don't personally belive that being immersed "saved" me. I am glad I did it though. Okay, enough of that...
I agree that a lot of the sprinkling and baptism of babies may be a "off", but I don't believe that allows us as a "brotherhood" to write entire people groups off as unbelievers! And I for one refuse to do that! I have had wonder times of "corporate" worship and prayer with brothers that our "brotherhood" would call non-Christians. As for me, I'll lert God decide that :)
Cactus Jack had a great name for those who forwarded the belief in immersion above all else, he called them "water dogs". I really miss that guy :)
Eric,
Some of the issues that you raise are exactly why this doctrine can be so problematic. You used the word "required" of baptism, yet insisted you can be saved without it. Which is it?
Scripture seems to create the same tension. We are saved by grace through faith, and yet baptism is referenced enough in the NT record that it cannot be considered an irrelevant rite/act/ceremony.
The account of Jesus being raised from the baptismal waters and verbally and visually favored by God is not one that I would use to indicate the role of baptism in salvation. Passages like Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; 1 Peter 3:21 more fully establish the bond between the physical act of baptism and the part it plays in spiritual transformation. It suggests that baptism is more than mere symbol.
This is why I have come to a point in my teaching life in which I insist that baptism be a part of the conversion process, but try less to explain exactly what it accomplishes, or when one "becomes" a Christian. There is much mystery here. And I am OK with that.
As for drawing lines in sand in regard to fellowship, I will not do that. If a person with whom I share life has not been immersed I will try to convince them to be submissive to that act (for I simply desire them to be in line with Scripture as closely as possible), but I will not check them off my list as a "brother" or "sister" in Christ.
Thanks for the comments. Our discussion pushes me to think more Biblically about issues such as these.
Wow! What an intelligent discussion on baptism! I'm glad to see that from everyone. I also appreciate Eric's great comments. When I get more time, perhaps I'll add my two cents in, but until then I'm certainly glad to see this discussion.
Post a Comment