Baptism - Did you do it right?
So I've been blogging on a good buddy's site about what baptism is and is not. I was raised in a Southern Baptist church so, aside from horror stories around the campfire on dark nights, I had no idea that any 'true' Christians actually practiced the rite of sprinkling (as opposed to dunking) until I was an adult. In fact, I remember going to a Presbyterian church in my late teens and seeing a 'coloring page' for the youngsters which depicted John the Baptist 'sprinkling' Jesus. I was appalled! I half expected God to rain down judgement on that church at any moment and was afraid someone would associate me with this pagan group (sorry my Presbyterian friends) just because I had visited. I felt the strong urge to proclaim, "I had nothing to do with this blasphemy!"
I have since become aware that many great theologians and Bible students have had baptism experiences different than I. This has, in turn, forced me to reconsider why it is we are baptized, what baptism accomplishes, and whether or not deviation from the SB norm is acceptable in God's eyes.
Why are we baptized? Is it for the 'remission of sins' as indicated in Acts 2:38? Is it part of the salvation process as indicated in Gal. 3:27? Is it merely because we're commanded to do so in Mat. 28:19? How important is it, anyway? Well, with respect to the first two questions, I think it imperative that we make a distinction between 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and 'baptism with water'. I do believe that baptism of the Holy Spirit is an integral part of the salvation experience and does, in fact, accomplish remission of sins. I believe, however, that baptism of the Holy Spirit is that spiritual act of 'death and resurrection' as alluded to in Rom. 6. Our old selves are 'buried' and our new, alive spirits are 'raised to walk in newness of life'. I cannot believe that baptism with water accomplishes either remission of sins or salvation in the baptizee. If it did, salvation would be, at least in part, based on a work of ours - and I adamantly believe that it is not.
So, then, if baptism of water doesn't 'accomplish' anything in us, why are we commanded to do so. Well, Scripture doesn't seem nearly so clear as to 'why' as it is that we are to do it (Mat. 28)As best as I can glean, it is a public proclamation of our association with Christ and it is a 'picture' of what Christ accomplished - through His death and resurrection physically and our death and resurrection spiritually (Rom. 6).
So, if we believe that 'water baptism' is nothing more than a symbolic representation of what has occurred spiritually - and that it accomplishes no spiritual feat, then how important is it that: (a) we are baptized at all, and (b) we perform it by immersion as opposed to sprinkling or some other symbolic gesture? I believe it is important primarily because we are commanded to do so. Secondarily, water baptism almost always follows proclamations of faith in the new testament writings, so that we have strong precedent to do so. Finally, I truly believe that it serves as a public proclamation of association with Christ. The second part of the question, however, is more difficult for me. If water baptism truly accomplishes nothing spiritual within us (and I don't believe it does), then I personally am willing to accept as fellow brethren/sistren those who have been 'sprinkled' assuming that: (a) they did it in honest obedience to Christ's command to be baptized (as opposed to an attitude of rebellion against immersion), (b) they did it in an open and honest desire to be associated with Christ's death and resurrection, and (c) they did it in full recognition that the rite of water baptism carried with it no supernatural significance (i.e. that is was not part of the salvation experience).
Do I believe immersion baptism to be the strongest picture of what Christ accomplished according to Rom. 6? Absolutely. Am I willing to exclude brethren/sistren from Christian fellowship because they believe sprinkling to be as symbolic as immersion? I am not.
Post Tinebrae Lux
I have since become aware that many great theologians and Bible students have had baptism experiences different than I. This has, in turn, forced me to reconsider why it is we are baptized, what baptism accomplishes, and whether or not deviation from the SB norm is acceptable in God's eyes.
Why are we baptized? Is it for the 'remission of sins' as indicated in Acts 2:38? Is it part of the salvation process as indicated in Gal. 3:27? Is it merely because we're commanded to do so in Mat. 28:19? How important is it, anyway? Well, with respect to the first two questions, I think it imperative that we make a distinction between 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' and 'baptism with water'. I do believe that baptism of the Holy Spirit is an integral part of the salvation experience and does, in fact, accomplish remission of sins. I believe, however, that baptism of the Holy Spirit is that spiritual act of 'death and resurrection' as alluded to in Rom. 6. Our old selves are 'buried' and our new, alive spirits are 'raised to walk in newness of life'. I cannot believe that baptism with water accomplishes either remission of sins or salvation in the baptizee. If it did, salvation would be, at least in part, based on a work of ours - and I adamantly believe that it is not.
So, then, if baptism of water doesn't 'accomplish' anything in us, why are we commanded to do so. Well, Scripture doesn't seem nearly so clear as to 'why' as it is that we are to do it (Mat. 28)As best as I can glean, it is a public proclamation of our association with Christ and it is a 'picture' of what Christ accomplished - through His death and resurrection physically and our death and resurrection spiritually (Rom. 6).
So, if we believe that 'water baptism' is nothing more than a symbolic representation of what has occurred spiritually - and that it accomplishes no spiritual feat, then how important is it that: (a) we are baptized at all, and (b) we perform it by immersion as opposed to sprinkling or some other symbolic gesture? I believe it is important primarily because we are commanded to do so. Secondarily, water baptism almost always follows proclamations of faith in the new testament writings, so that we have strong precedent to do so. Finally, I truly believe that it serves as a public proclamation of association with Christ. The second part of the question, however, is more difficult for me. If water baptism truly accomplishes nothing spiritual within us (and I don't believe it does), then I personally am willing to accept as fellow brethren/sistren those who have been 'sprinkled' assuming that: (a) they did it in honest obedience to Christ's command to be baptized (as opposed to an attitude of rebellion against immersion), (b) they did it in an open and honest desire to be associated with Christ's death and resurrection, and (c) they did it in full recognition that the rite of water baptism carried with it no supernatural significance (i.e. that is was not part of the salvation experience).
Do I believe immersion baptism to be the strongest picture of what Christ accomplished according to Rom. 6? Absolutely. Am I willing to exclude brethren/sistren from Christian fellowship because they believe sprinkling to be as symbolic as immersion? I am not.
Post Tinebrae Lux
posted by posttinebraelux | 2:06 PM
|
9 comments
