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:
hello my friend! I didn't finish reading your post, but will get back to it. Didn't have an email address but was reading over some of the comments you made on my site awhile back and came across the one in which you call yourself a "sovereignist". Anyway, I don't know if you read Peter Lumpkins site, but there is an interesting post he just put up today. Thought you might like it. I'm not toying with you, either. It's interesting, given the fact you don't agree with some of ol' Cal's actions of old. SelahV
Baptism...yes, I did it right. I was fully immersed. Can't go wrong if ya get soaking wet. My problem with sprinkling isn't whether a person's commitment is any less than mine. It is that if baptism is immersion and we are commanded to be baptized, and it is symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection, then how can water sprinkled on one's head symbolize that? Here's where my heart, mind and soul questions the logic.
I have dear dear dear Christian friends who have been sprinkled. Some are under the watchcare of our church and are greater servants to the Lord than most deacons. But I can't escape the immersion as the way Christ exemplified baptism. So, here I am...baptized and believing...SelahV
Selah,
I agree 100% with you on the symbolism behind immersion baptism and if I had to do it over, I'd choose immersion baptism every time. I'm just not sure the symbolism involved is significant to tell a brother or sister - 'no, you can't worship with me or be a part of my local congregation.'
Grace to you sister,
PTL
PTL: What church is saying, "'no, you can't worship with me or be a part of my local congregation.'"
I suppose there are some Baptist Churches doing this. I know many who do not allow folks to take leadership positions unless they are believers "baptized" by immersion. But don't other faiths, such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran expect one to agree to their doctrines in order to become a member of their churches? I don't know, PTL. I'm guessing here. SelahV
Selah,
Dr. Brad Reynolds would say that, unless you submit to immersion baptism, you wouldn't qualify to be a part of his local congregation as a 'member'. As best as I can decipher the comments left on his post, I'd say there are several of that opinion. I think you're probably right about other denominations expecting some form of conformacy, but the churches I'm familiar with are not quite the sticklers about baptism that SB's are. Specifically, I've visited a Methodist and Presbyterian church/pastor who were very comfortable accepting one who had been 'immersed' (me) into their fold.
PS - I echo your prayer for my son daily. Thank you sister.
Grace to you,
PTL
PTL: When you were accepted by the other churches by immersion, were there other things doctrinally which you would have to agree to in order to be part of their fold? And if so, did you agree with all of them? Just wondering. SelahV
Selah,
Never changed - been SB all my life. I did, however, have the opportunity to visit with those two pastors as I was seriously considering changing at one time - although I never seriously considere the Methodists, just the Presbyterians. :)
PTL
so glad...:) selahV
prayed for Patrick again. He's on my heart now. And you. The Lord does that to me. Watch for the mini-miracles as you wait for the main one.
How is your wife dealing with it? Usually moms are closer to sons. :)
Selah,
She still has such a strong desire to 'mother' and he is usually pretty antagonistic toward that desire - not toward her, just toward her mothering. She has become, however, somewhat resigned due to the continual disappointments. She has come to 'expect' disappointment. She is so easy to win back over, though. She is always looking for that glimmer of 'coming back'. I often think of us as the parents in the 'prodigal son' story. We try not to intervene and REALLY try to allow him to make his own mistakes - but we are on constant vigil looking for his return to his roots. She's doing ok. You are most gracious for thinking of her - it's the maternal thing I'm sure.
I have learned to accept all things (trials) as God's plan to make us more like His son. I believe that with all my heart - some day Patrick, Teresa, and I will be perfect - but it will be on the other side, not this one. :)
Have a blessed weekend sister,
PTL
Post a Comment
<< Home