I've been thinking a little more about how to explain what I mean by "baptism matters." Let me expand a little on the education analogy (acknowledging that no analogy is perfect).
To say that baptism doesn't matter unless it is a get-it-right-or-be-lost issue seems to me to say that the only things that matter are those that keep you out of heaven. To me that says that following Jesus is just a pass-fail class and nothing matters except what is required to pass the class. I'm reminded of those students in a college class (I've had some of these in my classes) who don't care about anything but the minimum required to pass. If you don't have to do it to pass, then it doesn't matter to them.
But better students want more than just to pass. They want to learn. They want to become competent in a field of study. They want to be good students. They want to be the best they can be. They want to grow. Other things matter to these students than just what it takes to pass. They want to know what it will take to make an A. They want to do more, read more, study more, discuss more, and attend class more than students who only care about passing.
Aren't there things in the Christian faith that matter even if failure to do them or understand them correctly doesn't keep you out of heaven? Do I really want to stand before God and say, "Nothing you said in the Bible mattered to me except what I thought was a requirement to get into heaven"?
Figuring out what is on the "heaven or hell" list is not always easy. But I think Jesus put his emphasis on something other than baptism.
Rob
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi Rob,
Continuing our conversation from the other thread.
'But to be honest, this post puzzles me. Most of my blog was about "in what sense does baptism matter."'
I read back over the blog entry, and can find only one paragraph which could be said to address in what sense baptism matters. The conclusion that you are driving at throughout is that baptism matters much less than we have traditionally thought. In fact, you have seemingly lowered it to the level of any other command which we ought to obey. But there is no other command/event in the New Testament with so many promises and blessings bound up in its immediate execution. It is associated with the putting off of the body of sin (forgiveness), the gift of the Holy Spirit, the circumcision of the heart, salvation, the new birth, entry into Christ, being buried with him and raised with him to new life, being clothed with Christ, and no doubt others that I missed. You are saying that some believers experience all of these benefits at some other time than at baptism - on the basis of what promise of God, I do not know. Such a position actually _seems_ to contradict the statement of Jesus from John 3 that I quoted in my previous comment. You said you rejected that position. I'd like to be able to confidently put it aside once and for all too, so I wish you would explain what your reading of that passage is. The only possibilities that occur to me are that I have erred in thinking that Jesus is referring even partially to baptism by the birth of the water and the Spirit, or maybe that his strong statement ("No one can enter the kingdom...") is a bit of hyperbole. But neither of the possibilities appear likely to me; perhaps there is another viewpoint that hasn't occurred to me.
In any event, the argument would more convincingly be made from the Scriptures than from the many questions approach. I never doubted the sincerity of your questions, by the way, I just find the method of persuasion unsatisfying and indirect.
'As for scriptures, part of the problem is that there are no scriptures about how to view Christians who see baptism differently than I do, because at that time there don't seem to have been the debates on this subject we have now. As I noted in the blog, there are no passages whatsoever about how baptism relates to children who grow up in the church. None. Not to support infant baptism. Not to support adolescent baptism. Believers baptism supporters like us put the emphasis on the baptism of repentance passages and try to figure how they apply to kids who always believed.'
Yes, all of this is troubling to me, especially since baptism is given such a critical significance in the New Testament. I'm forced to conclude by this, and by many other vexing ambiguities and inexplicable omissions, that, contrary to Campbell in the Declaration and Address, the NT is not a "perfect...constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church." This one fact is what makes me much less strident about baptism and other issues as I used to be. But I still have a hard time making a good case that baptism is optional to salvation. After all, the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19 - presumably a good, decent, believing, God-fearing group of people, like those you reference in your article - did find it necessary to be immersed again.
'I hope that helps clarify my intent.'
Yes, your comment and subsequent post did clarify things. I see that I drew a few unwarranted inferences, and apologize for that. But many difficulties still remain for me...
By the way, I'm surprised to see you endorse tithing. But I guess that's an issue for another day.
Casey
Casey,
I'm out of town and have had no access to the internet. I only have a few minutes now, so a better response will have to wait till I get back to Nashville.
Again, I appreciate the conversation, and your comment here helps clarify some of your concerns.
For now, I'll say that I am saying New Testament baptism (as I understand it) does not matter in the absolutely essential way it has been required by some in our movement in the 20th century. However, my view on baptism is very close to that held by those who began our movement. Alexander Campbell had a lot to say about the "pious unimmersed". I think my views are very close, if not identical, to his. I would argue that the exclusivist view that came to dominate many mainstream Churches of Christ by the middle of the 20th century (and subsequently to dominate the International Churches of Christ) is not true to our original vision of our appeal for unity based on simple, biblical, nondenominational Christianity. So what "we have traditionally thought" needs to be clarified--which part of our tradition and at which time?
I think I understand your concern about an approach that raises questions rather than quotes scripture. But I would say this may point to a deeper issue about how we read and interpret scripture. I am raising questions that have to do with the interpretation and application of Scripture. They have to do with the broad theological framework of Scripture in which individual passages must be understood. I think this is the approach Jesus used. For example, when the Pharisees questioned Jesus about healing on the Sabbath, he asked questions like, "Is it lawful to good or to do harm on the Sabbath?" He asked people to think about God's will and how the Sabbath laws fit into a deeper understanding of the gracious love of God for people.
While I agree that baptism in the New Testament is integrally connected with a number of promises related to salvation and new life, there are passages which evangelicals are fond of quoting (such as John 3:16, Romans 10, and Ephesians 2) which speak of faith without mention of baptism. The problem we have today is that many Christians come to faith in Christ without baptism--a problem that did not seem to exist in the New Testament period. Many more would say that they have indeed been baptized in the name of Christ, but it was done as babies and we question it's validity based on our understanding of the relationship between baptism and repentance in the life of those raised in Christian homes. Again, this is a problem not addressed in the New Testament. Until the last century, virtually all Christians of every denomination affirmed "we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins" (it's in the Nicene Creed). I am not willing to say such followers of Jesus are not Christians and not saved because they do understand what I believe to be the importance of an immersion of repentance.
I need to respond to more in your post, but that will have to wait till I can get back to the internet. Let me close by saying I think baptism matters a great deal. In the New Testament it receives much more importance than just "any other command we ought to obey." And I don't think I placed it on that level (at least I didn't intend to).
On the other hand, when Jesus is asked what we must do to be saved, he places much more emphasis on other subjects than baptism. It would be an intersting discussion to speculate on why many Christians put more emphasis on Peter's answer than on Jesus' answer.
More later. Thanks again.
Rob
'I am raising questions that have to do with the interpretation and application of Scripture. They have to do with the broad theological framework of Scripture in which individual passages must be understood. I think this is the approach Jesus used. For example, when the Pharisees questioned Jesus about healing on the Sabbath, he asked questions like, "Is it lawful to good or to do harm on the Sabbath?" He asked people to think about God's will and how the Sabbath laws fit into a deeper understanding of the gracious love of God for people.'
I consider this a promising answer. Presumably baptism was made for man, and not man for baptism. I'm still a bit cautious, though, because the vagueness of a "broad theological framework" approach puts me in mind how some judges find support for strange conclusions from the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Constitution - that is, from stuff that's not really there. But it is obvious that Jesus expected the Jews to have reasoned from the Scriptures as he did, and to be able to learn to discern the character of God and what things were most important.
Certain passages still need to be adequetely explained, such as the one I mentioned from John 3. Also, even if I accepted your basic conclusions, I still would not feel justified in confidently pronouncing an unbaptized person free from all danger or need of baptism. They still ought to be taught the truth about baptism in the scheme of things.
If baptism is not necessary, by the way, what is the benefit of understanding correctly God's intention and purpose for it?
'So what "we have traditionally thought" needs to be clarified--which part of our tradition and at which time?'
I hesitated to use the word "we", because I don't really identify with Churches of Christ or the Restoration Movement, given all of my non-orthodox views. However, I do attend a Church of Christ and am a product, partially at least, of the Restoration Movement. But it is probably obvious to you by now that I have no particular attachment to anything traditional solely on account of the fact that it is traditional. But, in my formulation in the previous post, I was referring to more recent history (last 100 years or so).
'I need to respond to more in your post, but that will have to wait till I can get back to the internet.'
I look forward to your further responses.
Casey
Casey,
I appreciate your caution. The "intent of the framers" is a much preferable interpretive principle for reading the Constitution than approaches which use the language of the Constitution to articulate principles which sometimes seem diametrically opposed to positions held by those who wrote that document in the first place. In the same way, "the intent (or will) of God" should be the guide for our interpretation of Scripture. But I think Jesus shows us that merely quoting Scripture does not in itself establish the clear will of God.
You noted: "Certain passages still need to be adequetely explained, such as the one I mentioned from John 3."
I agree, and I'll try and do that soon (though I don't know how much more time I can spend on this discussion).
You went on to say: "Also, even if I accepted your basic conclusions, I still would not feel justified in confidently pronouncing an unbaptized person free from all danger or need of baptism. They still ought to be taught the truth about baptism in the scheme of things."
I would draw a distinction between "free from danger" (that is, "saved by grace") and "need of baptism." I think everyone needs baptism and, therefore, everyone should be taught the truth about baptism (at least to the best of my understanding of that truth). When talking with believers who have not been baptized, I often point to the example of Jesus. If there were every any human being who could argue he had no need of baptism, it was Jesus. Why should he who had no sin be washed in a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"? But he said it was necessary to fulfill all righteousness. If someone believes she has already been saved by God's grace through faith because of an earlier conversion experience, can she really say, "I don't have to do what the Lord said that he himself had to do"?
You asked: "If baptism is not necessary, by the way, what is the benefit of understanding correctly God's intention and purpose for it?"
Here I would return to my original question: Is the only sense in which something matters to found in whether it is absolutely essential to get to heaven? Isn't obedience necessary, even if God will forgive us our disobedience? My goal should be to do all that God wants of me, not merely what is on some hypothetical list of bare minimal requirements.
I see a benefit in the experience of a washing of repentance (Luke 3, Acts 22), in the sharing of one common baptism with other believers (Eph. 4, 1 Cor. 12), in the enactment of a burial and resurrection (Rom. 6), in the imitating of the example of Jesus (Mat. 3), in the obedience to the Great Commission (Matt 28), and in maintaining the simple observance of the practice of the earliest Christians (Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, etc.). That is why I continue to teach the importance and necessity of baptism.
But I also am firmly convinced of the grace of God which can and does save us in our sins and misunderstandings. I trust that will include those who have not understood God's will regarding baptism. After all, it is possible that I myself have not understood God's will regarding baptism; but I hope and trust that I am saved by grace as the gift of God.
Thanks again for the good discussion.
Rob
Casey,
I am sorry to be so long getting back to this. Here are a few thoughts on John 3. I think that "born of water and spirit" is a typically abstract phrase in the Gospel of John, which refers to baptism. Throughout the New Testament the Holy Spirit and water are associated with baptism. However, it is important to note that there has been extensive debate among Christian interpreters since the Reformation over whether this passage refers to baptism. In my opinion, Beasley-Murray's book, Baptism in the New Testament , presents a definitive argument in support of the position that the passage refers to baptism (ironically, he is a Baptist scholar).
So at first reading, the passage would appear to say that unless you are baptized you cannot enter the kingdom. However, I think this stretches the intended meaning of the passage too far. Jesus is not debating baptism with Nicodemus. Nicodemus would likely have had no problem with baptism itself. Ritual immersion was a common practice among Jews in Jesus' day. The emphasis in John 3 is not on water, but on the Holy Spirit. "Water" is only mentioned once. The focus is on the need for a rebirth "from above"--a work of the Holy Spirit which moves like the wind in ways not immediately visible to the human eye.
I think the passage says that entry into the kingdom of God is not possible without a spiritual rebirth. I think the text assumes, as do other passages on baptism, that followers of Jesus will be baptized. The problem faced today of people being converted to Christ without being baptized simply did not exist in the New Testament. So I think reading Jesus as saying that water baptism is just as essential to salvation as rebirth in the Holy Spirit is to force the passage to say more than it was intended to say. That seems too much to be carried by an abstract and debatable reference to water baptism.
So I would say that Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born from above, by the Holy Spirit, and alludes to the fact that this was associated with baptism in water. I am not prepared to say that someone who does not understand this passage in the way I do, or who was not taught about baptism as part of their conversion, therefore cannot have the Holy Spirit at work in their life, giving them rebirth and renewal. That seems to me to be too restrictive of the work of the Spirit, which this very passage says works in unseen ways.
Rob
Post a Comment