Recently in our small group we have been having some heated discussions about Baptism.
When one of the guys in our group was 6yrs, his dad (a Priest) “baptised” him. However it wasn’t full immersion. Now, 20 odd years later he enquired about becoming a member of a Church of Christ and was asked if he had been baptised by full immersion to which he said ‘no’. They are saying that if he wants to become a member, he needs to be baptised by full immersion.
Now, here’s the thing. His dad waited till he was ready to be baptised and that he understood what he was doing. So it wasn’t an infant christening.
My friend has a few questions and I have been reading up on it as I am of the stance that baptism is by full immersion. I have listed the questions below in bold. I would love to hear what different people have to say. I will post my answers in about a week.
I believe that baptism is a step that is absolutely vital in the Christian faith. So when someone confronts the issue of baptism it can be hard to have confidence in what you believe in. It has challenged me to think more about baptism and the significance of it. I hope that someone out there can help shed a little light!!
What is baptism?
What is the purpose of Baptism? What does it do? What’s the Theology behind
Baptism?
How do different denominations treat baptism and its meaning/significance?
What is the biblical basis for baptism?
History of Baptism prior to Christianity (i.e. Jewish basis)
What does the word baptism mean?
29.4.08
What is baptism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Hmmmm I'll have to think about more about it.
One of my Christian friends doesn't ever want to get baptised and gets quite narky if someone suggests it to her. She says it doesn't make her not a Christian if she never gets baptised. I agree - dunking someone in water doesn't make them a Christian, anymore than going to church makes someone a Christian. It's what we do because we're Christian.
Thinking about it, makes me realise it's quite similar to marriage in some ways. A public declaration before witnesses. Some people say they don't need to get married to prove they love their partner and are committed to them for life. I say if you're committed then why not marry them, what's the big deal? If you're a Christian why not make a public declaration to encourage fellow Christians and witness to non Christians?
I read a really good article on the net about baptism last year but I can't find it again...doh! Will keep looking. Sorry I just waffled and didn't really answer the questions.
I 'hope' to give my perspective on this at a later date Bek, it'll take some thought (which is good) and time (which I lack) so shall endeavour to get back to you!
'Mostly' will be along the lines of Sarah (congrats on marriage!) but will endeavour to be a little extensive IF I can find the time:)
I'm emailing you an article. See my blog comments for details....
Hi guys, thought I’d throw in my 2 cents worth, which is by no means an expert opinion
I believe Baptism is a ritual or symbolic gesture representative of the cleansing of sins by the death of Jesus on the cross. It represents an acceptance of Jesus and his sacrifice and a repentance and turning away from worldly was to pursue Jesus’ teachings.
Baptism in and of itself doesn’t save or spiritually cleanse. It’s not magic, nor does it grant any special powers.
I personally do not believe there is theological or scriptural basis for the acceptance of one mode of baptism and not another. Whether it be full immersion, sprinkling, dunking or dipping. The mode used in Jesus’ day was probably full immersion where possible, but this is not specified as far as I am aware and I don’t think the mode is overly important.
With regards to baptism of infants, children and/or adults I don’t believe this is particularly important. It is likely in my opinion that infants and children would have been baptised in Jesus’ day. I do however believe that if an infant is baptised, it should be followed by a public believers confirmation of the baptism by the individual. I also believe that only infants from families of practicing believers should be baptised.
Baptism was/is also an administrative tool. In the early church it was a means of confirming membership – a replacement of the circumcision covenant. These days it’s still an administrative tool, required for church membership.
An interesting point also is that John the Baptist baptised prior to Jesus’ death and resurrection. I think this was a baptism of repentance and used as a preparation for Jesus’ coming.
Just some of my opinions :)
Yes,baptism is a symbol, but it is also a command.(Mt.28:19&20). If we love Jesus, then we obey His commands(John 14:15). Thus, we should be baptised as Jesus commands.(Which includes MODE of baptism as well).
*Re. the mode of baptism - it is not true to say there is no theological or scriptural justification for preferring one mode above another. The Greek word is "baptizo" and it means "to dip, plunge into."
"Baptisma"(Greek) means "to immerse, submerse and emerge" which is the process of baptism by immersion.(ie. you are immersed, then submerged under the water and then you emerge from it.) Baptizo was used to describe dipping a ladle into a barrel to draw out water(you "baptised" the ladle) or to describe the dyeing of a garment. If you want to dye a
shirt from white to blue, do you sprinkle it with the dye or do you
plunge it into the dye mixture? The latter of course: you "baptise" the
garment!
Martin Luther, John Wesley and John Calvin(whose churches today sprinkle instead of baptise AND do this to infants) ALL agree that
IMMERSION was the way they baptised in the early church and that this should be the way WE baptise.(I do not know how their churches got off
track on this!)
We are told re. Jesus' baptism that He was "coming up out of the
water"(Mark 1:10). Sounds like immersion to me! When Philip baptised the eunuch we read "they both went down into the water"(Acts 8:38).You don't
go down into water just to be sprinkled. eg. when you take a bath do you immerse yourself or just sprinkle yourself? Otherwise, you would take a
shower.
If sprinkling was an accepted mode of baptism then why didn't
the eunuch just give Philip some of the water he would have had to drink as a part of the trip he was making?
Re. infants being baptised in NT days - that is PURELY your opinion
without any Scriptural support at all. It is always faith in Jesus
FIRST, then baptism, as a sign of a person's faith.(Mark16:16;
Acts2:38). A baby cannot make that decision. To have an infant baptism later confirmed publicly is to get things back to front because BAPTISM is the public confirmation of a person's faith.
Further, to only allow
the baptism of infants whose parents are Christians is saying that the child's faith is dependant upon the faith of their parents. Tell me anywhere in Scripture where that claim is made - a person must come to
personal faith in Christ themselves, once they understand the claims of Christ upon their life.
I came from a catholic background and I would be more than happy to chat with you about baptism further if you wish!!
Hi Rob, cheers for the comments.
What's wrong with sprinkling?
I must say I'm a little amused/bemused that the creator of the universe would care if you are sprinkled or immersed.
But where is the symbolism in sprinkling pete?
If it was intended to be a sprinkling they would have used a different word other than baptism. Considering all that the word means!
I think you are just trying to be nit-picky and start fights! It doesnt come across that you are wanting to learn anything, rather you just want to debate everything!!
Hey Bek, I've read plenty of theological texts discussing baptism that were both pro-infant/adult/full immersion etc. I've learnt at fair bit on the subject. I was simply offering my opinion or belief on the subject in your blog, that's based on my faith, experience, up bringing and education. I hardly think the way I expressed it is positioning for a fight (but once again that is my opinion:).
I too think the symbolism behind full immersion baptism is nice, dying to sin and being born to new life with Christ. That doesn't mean I will judge people who have chosen or whose church or family have chosen to baptise them by sprinkling. They may find sprinkling just as "symbolic" and have just as much meaning as you see in full immersion. Frankly I feel it's important that they repent and attempt to follow the teaching of Christ and live as he was an example.
Also with regards to the meaning of the word baptism it is reported in various sources to mean
to dip, to immerse, to unite, to associate, to dye, to cleanse by washing, and the list goes on. These are all contextual definitions from texts at the time which are rather limited.
If baptism simply means to immerse in liquid then how does baptise with fire and the spirit make sense? I feel the meaning of the word in Christian context is more than immerse or dip in water. I'm not concerned with being overly legalistic.
And I'm not trying to be nit picky, I am simply expressing that as far as my faith is concerned, and my relationship with Christ, full immersion isn't a stumbling block for me. The important thing I feel is the internal faith and spiritual journey, and will to live as Christ did, and the outward expression of this in baptism is less important.
It's what is the truth for me at the moment and in no way intended to cause fights. I'm not trying to impose my view, simply express it.
:)
Sorry, I guess I am talking about more than just the comments you've made on here, but also how you have been in person. It was just an observation on the whole.
I'm not 'dissing' your opinions, but just trying to offer mine also.
Please enlighten me....what is the symbolism in sprinkling? Is it the symbolism of the parents handing over their child or is there something I'm missing. I think sprinkling takes away ALL that baptism represents!
Don't have time to say much, but came across the following while reading 'The Didache', an early church writing 'estimated' to have been written between 50CE and 120CE, Athanasius(Early Church Father, circa 2nd century) describes it as 'appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of goodness' [Festal Letter 39:7].
Chapter in Question
"Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
It appears 'to me' that arguably, from a very early age, the church was less concerned about the 'mode' than the act. Whilst full immersion in running water appears preferable or desirable, I'm not convinced that it is to be the only way.
If someone has been 'baptised' not by full immersion but they were old enough to understand it, I don't see why they should be foreced to undertake full immersion baptism. Just my thoughts.
A similar discussion can be had on communion. Today we don't seem to care about the 'mode' of communion, the eucharist, the Lord's supper, just that it is observed. And yet this meal was JUST as important in the early church. Jesus commanded us to do it, and so we do. But some people use wine and unleavened bread (like Jesus), others use bread with yeast in it (totally against Judaism) and cordial!
A discussion for a later date, I propose Jesus himself was more concerned with what people 'thought' than what they did. The Pharisees cared about what they 'did', how it was seen, but not the motivation behind it.
My 2 cents worth!
Hey Bek, that's fine and I hope in that case you were fully emmersed. It is however dangerous to judge others and the significance they place on something because you have a different interpretation or have a different understanding of the symbolism.
Full immersion is just one way of symbolically representing Jesus' death and resurrection.
I found this guys blog which is quite interesting (see http://alastair.adversaria.co.uk/?p=705 )
"On a number of occasions in the NT (e.g. Acts 10:47; 16:33) it seems most likely that water was brought to the baptizand and poured over him, rather than the baptizand being brought to a body of water deep enough to submerge himself in. When the NT clearly speaks of a mode of washing in connection with Baptism, it is of the Spirit’s being ‘poured out’ onto the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 2:17-18, 33; 10:44-45). In Titus 3:5-6 we see a connection between our washing of regeneration (i.e. Baptism) and the ‘pouring out’ of the Spirit."
There are many types of symbolism associated with baptism, and pouring or sprinkling seem just as valid and meaningful as full immersion to me. This doesn't invalidate full immersion in my opinion.
Baptism too often divides. And it shouldn't. This was an issue in the early church.
see 1 corinthians 1:10-
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
This process has been really good for me, attending a Church of Christ and being challenged about my beliefs on baptism.
It hasn't however changed my opinion that tolerance is very important.
Ciao for now guys :)
"Baptism too often divides. And it shouldn't. This was an issue in the early church."
Yeah, it sure does. For this very reason, one of my friends refuses to take ANY form of baptism. Now I myself strongly disagree with his stance, but appreciate his holding it. Baptism, IMO, is a symbolic of moving from disbelief, to belief, identifying with Christ. It is this 'identifying' that is the key IMO. Conversion was a 'powerful' experience in the early church and remains so today and baptism is an outward expression of this inward change.
I am having a similar experience to you Pete in that the church I am at now, though it is affiliated with Church of Christ, is unlike any other C of C I have been too. It is challenging and is forcing me to 'rethink' some of what I believe. Whether or not I change my beliefs is not important, I am just really appreciating and enjoying being FORCED to try to understand WHY I believe what i do AND, why the churches that have taught me my current beliefs believe as they do. It's great!
ps check my *NEW* blog
http://discipleoftheway.wordpress.com
!
"...I hope in that case you were fully emmersed."
Now you've just done what you accused me of pete!
I was just offering my opinion also.
Hi guys and gals....
Just a few random thoughts:
Middo, while the Didache is a great resource to find out what was happening in the early church, it is not inspired and therefore not our authority for matters of faith. By the time the Didache was written, there were a number of heresies taking root in the church. I am more interested in what the NT has to say about it, and less interested in what "the fathers" had to say. You make some great points though.
Pete, you say that baptism is symbolic. Spot on! Now...you said that it is symbolic of our identification with Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. If you want to make the symbolism match the identification, what is the best mode to match the imagery of dying, burial and resurrection? That is what we need to consider, I think. It is "only" a symbol, but the symbolism matters.
Several people have mentioned someone who refuses to be baptised because of _______ (fill in the blank). I am pretty simple. (I am USUALLY pretty simple...right?) I think those people are finding "loopholes" and "excuses" why they should not be obedient. If Jesus said to do it, it isn't up for discussion. We just need to fall in line and get with the program. He is God and I am not.
Pete, it comes down to a couple of simple matters (we've talked about this AGES ago...so I won't spend much time re-hashing it...) if you ask me. 1. Were you really expressing your identification with Jesus and were you really a believer when you were baptised? 2. If you really want to express your solidarity with the group you are considering joining, will you bow and be willing to humble yourself in this way for their sake? Is it just pride that says, "NO! I was baptised as a child and you can't make me do it again!" If so, dump it. Defer to the people you so want to identify with and do it for THEIR sakes!
(I say this with experience under my belt....as I have been a part of the mob in question, and I had some significant doctrinal differences with them, but deferred to them in order to be able to be a part of them. Nobody is requiring that you say you think they are right and your Dad is wrong. Just do it man.) ;-)
fletch
Hey Fletch
Thanks for your thoughts. I accept that the 'didache' is most certainly NOT inspired (although some early canon's very nearly included it apparently), just thought I would offer it, not as scripture but as an 'interpretation' of what the NT says. They were trying to do then exactly what we are trying to do now, interpret what Jesus had to say. It is by no means authoritive. It just interested me to see how other groups, closer to the time of writing of the NT, interpreted the means and modes of various things.
Also, whilst there were many heresies taking root in the church, never were any of the elements of the 'Didache' charged with Heresay, so to lnik those two would be a disservice I believe.
But I do appreciate your wish to learn from the authoritative NT, the bible must be first and foremost in all, and I most certainly hold that 'full immersion' is BY FAR preferable.
I also think the question you raised is very valid.
"1. Were you really expressing your identification with Jesus and were you really a believer when you were baptised? "
That is the key, baptism ALWAYS followed faith in the NT, which is why I myself don't like infant baptism.
Submission to church is definately an interesting idea. I wholeheartdly believe in submission to church...but there are definately a few grey areas.
An area I am 'learning' in is the idea of Baptism in the Holy Spirit. My traditional roots have taught 'against' a belief in a seperate baptism, characterised by speaking in tongues, yet my new church wholeheartedly embraces it. Do they believe you must speak in tongues to be saved? No. But must I change my belief system to be one of them? I ask that as an honest question.
For me it is more a question anyway, as I probably AM changing my beliefs in this way...but I'm not convinced I would have HAD to so as to be part of that community.
Just a note, I wrote this whole post with a smile, I am enjoying this discussion greatly and hope that I don't sound like I am trying to shut anyone down:)
Perhaps a solution is to just not seek church membership? Not knowing the actual congregation itself, I don't know how 'highly' they hold membership, as I know some Church of Christ's still hold it VERY highly. But if it be at all possible to be a part of the community without official 'membership' perhaps that is a way of remaining?
Otherwise, like Fletch said...if membership is pretty much imperitive maybe you will need to humble yourself and accept their ruling? I don't know, it is definately an interesting issue!
Hey pete, your comment is fair enough.
I am sure that God is not hung up about the amount of water. But I would also add that where we KNOW what the intent is, then we should adhere to it.
Of course, there would be some situations where this is not possible.
eg. I baptised a lady in Cairns by pouring water over her because she
was dying of cancer and full immersion was not possible. To insist on immersion because this is clearly the teaching of Scripture is not being
pharisaical - it is simply showing respect for God and His Word.
Just to lighten things up a little:
A black Baptist preacher was once
asked by a Methodist(sprinklers) if his baptism would be accepted in the preacher's church. The old guy thought about it for a moment and then said, "Brother, you aint been washed, you jus' been dry cleaned!"
Hi Fletch, hope all is well at your end. You guys have definately added to the discussion, great job.
I definately take your point fletch. It's not a matter of you can't make me. I've been praying and thinking over baptism and it has been suggested to me that I should be rebaptised. Now I don't have any theological issues with this but it's not something I've been called to do yet. But I am open to it.
To the question of my belief and faith at my baptism. I was a believer at my baptism, it was very important to me even then. In some regards looking back I was more passionate then about living as Jesus commanded, even though I lacked the experience I do now. My faith has changed alot since then, and sometimes I'm not sure that I wouldn't prefer to be more as I was back then. :)
I'm a bit torn at the moment about what to do about joining the Church I'm at. It seems slightly hypocritical to me that I can help lead youth, lead a worship team, etc but not be a member because they don't as an administration recognise my baptism. However, I feel the whole experience has been a valuable part of my spiritual journey, irrespective of the direction I am finally led.
Anyways, good discussing guys. Gotta love the internet.
Say hi to the rest of the gang from me Fletch :) and God Bless.
Nice one!
I think this sums my thoughts up.
"Of course, there would be some situations where this is not possible.
eg. I baptised a lady in Cairns by pouring water over her because she
was dying of cancer and full immersion was not possible. To insist on immersion because this is clearly the teaching of Scripture is not being
pharisaical - it is simply showing respect for God and His Word."
Better to, but there are exceptions:)
Shalom!
I take your point Rob. I do think it is sometimes a trap to be to academic about what God might or might not place importance upon.
I think it's simply a shame that baptism so often divides rather than being something believers share.
I found a joke but it's a bit lame. Sorry in advance :)
... Top 10 Signs Your Baptism service is not going as it should....
10. The Coast Guard has to become involved in some unexpected way.
9. The service is held at "Splash Mountain Water Park."
8.The Pastor has to wear a frogman outfit complete with air tanks into the water.
7. As the baptism begins the organist plays the theme from JAWS.
6. The preacher uses plastic animated `Billy the Bass' singing "take me down to the river" instead of the traditional shall we gather at the river.
5. You hear the pastor say, "Oops! Honestly, sister, I didn't know about that drop-off."
4. The pastor can't get the rather large person being baptized back up out of the water and calls for "Help!"
3. The deacon board shows up with fishing gear and packing a cooler.
2. Just as the choir starts to sing, the Crocodile Hunter jumps out of the water and wrestles the preacher into submission.
And the Number 1 Sign Your Baptism service is not going as it should....
1. Two Words: Alka Seltzer
Good discussion and topic once again bekster :)
hehehehe...no. 4 was great!
What/who is alka seltzer....I may have to google that one!
I will never forget the time dad baptised a guy who was scared of going under the water...their were waves coming over the top of the baptismal...it was great!!
Is Rob your dad, Bek?
On the issue of some people not being able to be 'dunked', I also know someone who was scared to go under water so she got 'sprinkled'. I believe in immersion but also in grace to those to whom it's not possible.
Post a Comment