The following is a research paper written for a theology class regarding the issue of baptism within the Christian faith. Some of the proper formatting has been lost in transferring the text to this blog, but this should not detract from being able to read and follow the end notes. Enjoy, and I pray that this will challenge your thinking and encourage you to become more grounded in an understanding of the Scriptures and proper Doctrine.
THEOLOGICAL RESEARCH PAPER I: THE BAPTISM DEBATE
Within the confines of this study, we will be looking primarily at five aspects of baptism, beginning with a look at the meaning, followed by its purpose and merit within the Church, who the practice is meant for, a look at what mode of practice is Biblical, and finally some concluding thoughts on the research presented. History along with Scripture has much to say regarding the issue of baptism in general, and these five aspects specifically. Let us now begin by developing an understanding of the meaning of baptism.
When we examine Scripture for references of the practice or instruction of baptism, we only find this occurring within the New Testament. When we observe more closely the terminology used regarding this subject, we find three primary Greek terms each varying slightly from the other. The first is the Greek baptizo (verb), transliterated as “to baptize, wash; the baptizer”, and is used a total of seventy-seven times throughout the New Testament.1 The second is the Greek baptisma (noun), which transliterated means “baptism”, and is used twenty times throughout the New Testament.2 The third primary word used is the Greek baptismos (noun), transliterated as “baptism, ceremonial washing”, and is used in the New Testament three times.3 One explanation of the term baptism finds its roots in the Greek baptisma, and simply put “denotes the action of washing or plunging in water”.4 Put this only helps to define the mode of baptism, and not so much the meaning behind it. (We will address this issue in more detail later).
While the practice and instruction of baptism is found only in the New Testament, the idea of baptism can be found within the pages of the Old. When we examine the Scripture we find the idea and practice of ceremonial washing popping up numerous times within the Mosaic laws dealing with purification.5 We see this idea presented as early as when God instructs Moses to “bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting and wash them with the water”.6 It is here we see the implementation of the law of purification that had to be done prior to anyone entering the Tabernacle. One could not enter unclean, as they were going before the Holy God. Other passages in the Old Testament paint the same picture, and this is carried on into the New Testament and developed into the practice and instruction of baptism for Believers. This new meaning and significance was brought about with John the Baptist.7 We see this event, particularly the participation of Jesus being baptized by John in Matthew 3:13-17, and when John is preaching and confronting the people who came to be baptized by him in Luke 3:3-6.
When John began the practice of baptism, as mentioned previously, he injected into the act a new meaning and significance. Instead of simply being an act of ritual purification practiced by the Jews, it became symbolic of one’s conscious decision to submit to Christ as Lord and be transformed from within by the Spirit. But this meaning was not fully understood when John began this practice. One can find explanation of this significance later in time, when Jesus spoke of his own death being a “baptism”.8 In Luke 12:50, we find Jesus speaking to His disciples about His mission. While speaking of the judgement that was to come, Jesus speaks of a baptism in which He was to go through. This being said after He had already been baptized by John indicates as has been concluded by Scholars, that He was speaking of His coming death.
We see more evidence to support this view of Jesus’ future baptism in passages such as Matthew 20:22, and Mark 10:38. In these passages, though one indicates that the disciples ask and the other their mother, Jesus is responding to a request for James and John to sit at His left and right hand. In both responses He speaks of the cup that He will drink, a reference to His death and suffering. In the Mark passage there is an addition not found in Matthew, that being reference to the baptism. In the context of His speaking about the cup (death and suffering), one can conclude that the baptism He speaks of is also linked to this death and suffering. And this is where we find the meaning behind the practice for us today. It is strongly symbolic, first in that Christ died and was raised from the dead, and that like Him we die to ourselves (our former, sinful way) and are raised again to new life in Christ as a child of God. As mentioned before, this does not bring salvation, as is explained throughout Scripture, but signifies our salvation as a way of identifying ourselves with the risen Lord.
But the meaning of baptism is not just simply symbolic; it is also subjective, in that through the Holy Spirit it brings the believer into a right standing before God.9 Paul helps explain this along with tieing in the symbolism of the act, particularly in his letter to the Roman church. In Romans 6:3-5 Paul explains the significance of their own conversion in light of Christ’s death and being raised again. But what of the purpose and merit of baptism? We can see that the meaning behind it is substantial, yet the purpose and merit it holds is strongly linked to the meaning and all the greater.
Paul was not one to beat around the bush when it came to the issue of salvation. He was forthright regarding the nature of man and the implications this had on our relationship with our Creator. One can find a great deal of explanation regarding this issue in his letter to the church in Rome. All throughout in passages such as 3:23-24, 5:6, 6:3-11, 6:23 just to cite a few, we come to understand the state in which every human being is in prior to the saving grace of Jesus. But to be clear, salvation is not automatic; this free gift requires a conscious choice on our part to accept Christ’s death as our own. In these passages, Paul explains that everyone is a sinner, that our sin is what separates us from God eternally, and that there is only one way to solve this eternal problem: Salvation through Jesus Christ who died on a cross in our place. And at the same time of explaining this, he connects the symbolic and subjective meanings of baptism to what Christ did, and makes it clear for us to understand the significant merit of both. One might argue that many of the Scriptures brought up here give merit to Christ’s sacrificial death alone, and not baptism. But I believe based on the context of the passages and the purpose behind Paul’s writing this letter that he intended to tie Christ’s sacrifice, the act of baptism, and the gift of Salvation together for his readers to understand more fully the merit of all three.10
The purpose of baptism is closely related to its merit, and one might even say they are one in the same. As discussed before, the merit of baptism lies heavily in the connection between our sinful nature and the sacrificial death of Christ on our behalf. While the merit of the act is theological in nature, the purpose is more practical. That being said, the purpose is to act as a visible testimony of one’s unity “with Christ in his death and resurrection”; they have been transformed through a conscious choice to trust and follow Christ, from their sinful ways that resulted in spiritual death and eternal separation from God to new life in Christ and eternal solitude with God.11 But one must be careful to not confuse baptism with salvation.
While closely related to each other in a sense, they are not interchangeable nor are they dependent on one another both ways. We must understand that baptism does not dictate one’s salvation. Yet on the other hand, baptism without one’s conscious confession of faith in Christ is meaningless. We see evidence of this distinction very clearly in the scene of Jesus on the cross with the thieves. While one mocks Jesus along with the crowd, the other in the midst of his pain and agony rebukes his fellow man and asks Jesus that he be remembered when He enters His kingdom.12 Jesus tells this thief that he will be with Jesus that day, indicating the man’s salvation; yet he is on a cross dieing, incapable of partaking in the act of baptism. But as we see, this lack of baptism for the man does not hinder his salvation. And while some have argued that the term “paradise” used here may have meant something other than heaven, based on the Greek here meaning “garden”, it can be concluded that the word used here is referencing heaven when one studies it more deeply along with other Scripture and context.
Now to address a question that has caused perhaps the most debate within the issue of baptism: who is it for? Adults? Believers? Babies? Everyone? With each suggestion comes varying opinions, supports, and contradictions from one extreme to the other. The primary views we will examine all take much of the information shared already into consideration, interpreting it one way or another. I have shared with you how I view it in light of what I have studied and believe. However, there are two main views within Evangelicalism that differ from one another dealing with baptism. The first, known well as the “Believer’s Baptism” view believes that baptism is for believers only. In their view, this disqualifies infants simply because they are not able to consciously make a choice to believe on their own.13 In addition, they also point to a different understanding of baptisms taking place within households of the New Testament. Unlike paedobaptists, those of the Believer’s Baptism view do not believe that infants were included in these household baptisms, one main and very strong reason being that children (unlike servants) were not considered part of the “household” in ancient Rome.14 Paedobaptists, more commonly known as the Infant Baptism view, see things differently.15 Unlike their counterpart, they do believe that infants were included in the ancient Roman household, giving them historical support for their view. Granted, historically within the Church, infants have more often than not been baptized. In fact, this is still a practice done by Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox Church, and Presbyterians today.
After looking more closely at the two opposing views, the view of Believer’s Baptism seems to be the most logical. While there is a history within the Church of infant baptism, we must remember that “tradition” does not justify practice. The fact that the practice of infant baptism is historical is just that, history; it does not give it weight of being right. In addition, when we examine passages of Scripture used to support the view of infant baptism in light of passages such as Romans 6:4, 6, and 1 Peter 3:21 it becomes difficult to explain how these instructions can be legitimately accepted if infants are incapable of fulfilling them.
I personally was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran Church, and re-baptized when I was nine years old and came to understand what it meant to follow Christ at a basic level. When I look back, I recognize that my infant baptism had no effect on me other than being a part of my life history. It did not affect me on a personal level as it did when I was nine, because I was not able to comprehend the act or its significance. I believe that much of what drives the idea of paedobaptism is fear and misunderstanding; misunderstanding of Scripture, God’s grace, and a misplaced fear breed out of the two. When we do not understand the biblical grounds for salvation, it becomes easy to fall into the trap of believing something can save us that cannot.16 As mentioned before, baptism is not what saves us; our faith and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and in what He did for our sake is what bestows the free gift of Salvation upon us. I conclude therefore, that baptism is for not just adults, but anyone who comes to a saving knowledge and understanding of who Jesus is and what He has done for them.
Last is the issue of the mode of baptism. Like the issue of who should be baptized, over the years of church history three primary views on the mode of baptism have been established. When we examine the experiences in the New Testament it seems clear that new believers were immersed in a body of water, and this is the only way we find it being done. However, as we move through church history, we begin to find baptism being done by way of pouring or sprinkling of water on the persons head.17 One must be mindful before going to deep in this issue, that it is not primary but secondary in importance.
We have already established that baptism has no saving power and is primarily symbolic of one’s commitment to follow Christ. But again, one should also be cautious to not let historical tradition of a practice trump what Scripture has to say regarding the issue. In this case, as mentioned, immersion is the mode in which baptism should be done. However, this does raise questions regarding baptism for those who are unable to be immersed. Should this mean that they not be baptized, or that their baptism is less significant than one who’s was done by immersion? I believe not. While I believe that the symbolism of immersion is powerful (being buried and raised to new life), the act is primarily about our commitment to following Christ, not imitating Christ’s death and resurrection.
Should an individual be able to be immersed, I believe that this is the mode in which it should be done based on the example given to us in Scripture, regardless of the inconvenience it may cause. However, if doing so is not realistic, either pouring or sprinkling of water can be used. Again, this is not a primary issue and should not be met with hostility over opposing views. We should however strive to follow the example given to us in Scripture whenever possible, understanding that God is gracious and understanding that our circumstances do not always allow us to do so.
Many sub-issues circulate within the main issue of baptism. It has been an issue of debate for years, and most likely will continue to be so in the days to come. We as believers are responsible for understanding to the best of our ability when Scripture teaches regarding these issues, and then to practice them in our day-to-day life. We understand that baptism is a one-time-only necessary event; that meaning it is unnecessary for a believer to be baptized more than once. It symbolizes one’s commitment to a new life in Christ, and brings us into a right standing before God by work of the Holy Spirit thought our faith in Jesus Christ.
_____________________________
1. Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance (strongest Strong's), Supersaver ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 1535.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 129.
5. J.D. Douglas et al., The New International Dictionary of the Bible, Pictorial ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999), 123.
6. Exodus 29:4
7. J.D. Douglas et al., The New International Dictionary of the Bible, Pictorial ed. (Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999), 123.
8. Ibid., here we read that “John’s baptism was, nevertheless, only transitory - his baptism of repentance was but preparatory to a baptism of identification”. We learn that it is “only in the light of the redemptive death and resurrection of Christ” that the full meaning of baptism can be understood.
9. Ibid., 124.
10. Ibid., 870. The issue I am referring to is that of theology. At this point the church in Rome, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, were struggling to come together theologically and therefore Paul used this time to address the theological issues of sin, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Throughout Paul draws from the Old Testament and then makes practical applications and gives meaningful insights for the members of the Roman church.
11. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 1110.
12. Luke 23:32-43
13. Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 215-220.
14. Ibid., 218.
15. Ibid., 220-225.
16. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 343.
17. Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 138.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical
Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.
Douglas, J.D., revising editor, Merrill C. Tenney, and general editor. The New International
Dictionary of the Bible. Pictorial ed. Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.: Zondervan, 1999.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Academic, 2001.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Rev. and expanded. ed. Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2008.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998.
Goodrick, Edward W., and John R. Kohlenberger III. The Strongest Niv Exhaustive Concordance
(strongest Strong's). Supersaver ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004.
Hannah, John. Our Legacy: the History of Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs, Colo.:
NavPress, 2001.
Koessler, John, and general editor. Foundational Faith: Unchangeable Truth for an
Ever-Changing World. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003.
Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide: a Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate
Christians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.
Ministries, Published by Ligonier, and General Editor: R. C. Sproul. The Reformation Study
Bible: English Standard Version Burgundy Leather 2nd Ed W/maps. 2nd Edition with Maps ed. 400 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL 32746: P & R Publishing, 2008.
Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. 2nd ed. Mason: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment