baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Understanding
Baptism
|
|---|
|
In much of the so-called evangelical church there is a general neglect of baptism, both in practice and understanding. There are even some denominations that have gone so far as to do away with what Christ commanded. In many others, baptism has been reduced to little more than an initiation ritual into church membership. It has become almost completely detached from salvation in both doctrine and practice. It has become largely optional. I was raised in a Lutheran home, but after Jesus delivered me from the depths of sin as a young man I realized that the churches I had been raised in were dead and few if any there knew the Lord. For a few years I resisted scriptural baptism as I had been sprinkled as a baby (so I was told) and continued to quench the proddings of the Spirit. Though I believed deeply that Jesus had died for my sins and I was forgiven in Him, I had yet to learn obedience. Eventually I gave in to the Holy Spirit and was baptized at a Baptist church out of obedience and as an act of commitment to the Lord. For years I mostly accepted the baptist conception of baptism as a testimony to having already been saved, as it seemed to fit my experience. If there is one thing I can testify to is that I was not regenerate before I met the Lord. At least in my case infant 'baptism' DID NOT effect regeneration. Looking back I see that I was totally dead in trespasses and sins, and selfish to the core. But there were doubts creeping in about the understanding of baptism I had received from men. Prompted by the Spirit I began to research the Jewish roots of baptism, wanting to understand what it meant to the people of Palestine in Jesus' day. Secondly, I was uncomfortable having to explain away such seemingly clear statements in Scripture such as:
Paul says we are "baptized into Christ" and "baptized into His death" that we "might walk in newness of life." Now if baptism is not related to salvation, how then are we baptized into Christ? And if we are not in Christ, in what sense are we Christians or saved? It seems stange that those who deny a role to baptism in salvation are willing to accept regeneration by a "sinner's prayer" or an "alter call"!
Again "baptized into Christ." Is baptism just a testimony of what has already occured? And if so, a testimony to whom? The Ethiopian was baptized in the wilderness. It certainly is not a testimony to the world as some assert, for since when is the world invited to or interested in baptisms? Or is baptism an act of faith through which we are incorported into Christ and into the New Covenant? If this baptism Paul speaks of separate from water baptism? If so, how is there one baptism? And why is the believer baptized "in the name [with the authority of] of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"? A mere testimony doenot require a baptizer to act as an agent of God Almighty.
Peter could be using baptism as a symbol for salvation but why? Why can we not read it for what it says? Peter also call baptism an "appeal for a good conscience." One does not have to appeal for something one already possesses.
Many argue that the second clause "he who has disbelieved shall be condemned" proves that baptism is not required for salvation. Yet it merely proves that faith is necessary. A person who is baptized and does not believe "shall be condemned." The first clause eliminates those who merely have an empty faith without any commitment to Christ. Saving faith obeys Christ and the first step of obedience is baptism. As a pastor I take my responsibility to teach the truth of the Word of God seriously. A doctor may play around with therapies and prescriptions, but a pastor had better get it right. He is dealing with the eternal destiny of people. Woe to the man that preaches what he is taught by men rather than what he is taught by the Spirit and the Word. These scriptures just do not fit comfortably into the evangelical/baptist theology of baptism as merely a testimony of salvation. And if your theology does not rest comfortably in all the scriptures have to say, there is a problem with your theology. Baptism is indeed a testimony to faith, but not in the sense commonly used by Baptists. Baptism did not begin with John the Baptist. In fact, in Jesus' day it was the final act of conversion of a Gentile becoming a Jew. All male converts had to be circumcised, but all converts, male and female, had to be baptized. This is why the Jewish authorities sent a delegation down to John to find out why he was baptizing. You see, John was baptizing Jews! He was in effect saying: Jews needed to be converted also, it was not enough to be born Jewish according to the flesh. John was calling the best of the Jews a "brood of vipers" and asking "how shall you enter the kingdom of heaven?" John's baptism was an act of repentance, a turning away from dead religion and a plea to God to make them new and holy. And "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." Baptism was conversion from Moses to the coming Messiah, from the old covenant to the one that was soon to be purchased with the blood of the Son, the Lamb of God. So what did the Jews of Jesus' day believe about the proselyte
and Jewish baptism?
For the Jews, baptism of a gentile proselyte was a new birth. " He has past from darkness to light and from death to life. He had entered into the Covenant of God and had begun a new life. It also marked his death to his old life. He was no longer a gentile. He was now dead to his past. It was likely that his family would disown him since he had publicly rejected their gods, their values, and their culture. Even if they did not disown them, through baptism he had largely disowned them. They could never again occupy the place they once held in his life. This understanding of the baptism of converts does much to explain the biblical record and use of baptism. These concepts permeate the writings of the Apostles. It explains why the Jewish authorities sent representatives to find out why John the Baptist was baptizing. For he was baptizing Jews, not Gentiles. In effect he was preaching that "the flesh profits nothing," Jews must repent and be converted just like Gentiles. It explains why Jesus connected "born of water and the Spirit" in His discourse with Nicodemus. It also and most importantly links Jesus' command to baptize with the New Covenant: forgiveness, new birth, and the Gift of the Holy Spirit. (see Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ezekiel 36:24-29 etc.) In John 3: 5 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God", given the contemporary understanding of baptism in conversion as a "new birth" it is indeed most probable that Jesus was in fact referring to water baptism when He spoke of "born of water and [the] Spirit". So, we may confidently say, the New Testament baptism is derived from the jewish practice of baptizing proselytes into the [old] covenant of the Law. Therefore, as would have been clearly understood by Jesus' contemporaries, baptism into Christ was identification with Him and seen as entrance into the New Covenant, which included the promise of forgiveness, a new heart, a new spirit, the indwelling of the Spirit of God, and the personal knowledge of God (which includes eternal life, according to Jesus -John 17:3). But let us return and examine the ministry of John the Baptist, who was sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah. As the material above reveals, baptism did not originate with John, but was part of the Jewish religious practice of his day. What was unique about John's baptism was he applied it to Jews, and it was a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
It is important to note that for repentance can be translated as upon repentance, as in "and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins" (Matthew 3:6) and John refused to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees demanding they first "bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance" (Matthew 3:8) But it was also a baptism for repentance, to prepare the hearts of the people for the coming of the Messiah as we see:
Most people do not understand how radical the message of John was and why it was mostly the sinners that came to be baptized. As we have already noted, John was baptizing Jews, not Gentiles, thereby proclaiming that the covenant of circumcision did not make one acceptable to God. It was not sufficient to be a descendent of Abraham, acceptance of God was not racial or communal, but individual. John preached a person's life must produce fruit in keeping with repentance, ritual and rote doesn't cut it with God. Please note that John's baptism destroys the idea that infant baptism saves, for his baptism denies the power of circumcision to save. A person must repent and be baptized, no one can do it for you, it is an act of faith.
Secondly, John preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Here we find the reason that the sinners were coming to John. Under the Law of Moses the sacrifices could only atone for sins committed in ignorance. There was no forgiveness for deliberate sin. There was no sacrifice a jewish prostitute, or a tax collector could offer to God that would effect forgiveness. These people under the Law were cut off from the covenant and without hope. John came with an offer of pardon to ALL who would repent. Thirdly, John preached the one who would come after him, namely Jesus Christ. In fact, it was Jesus who would provide an offering that would atone for all sin, committed in ignorance or not. John is the herald of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He marks the end of the covenant of the law and proclaims the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. (John 1:29,36) And he is the friend of the Bridegroom (John 3:29). Fourthly, John baptized by commission of God. "And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' (John 1:33) We see this also the the Great Commission of Matthew 28, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." A person is baptized by an agent empowered by God to do so. A person cannot baptize himself. Nor is the Roman Catholic teaching true that anyone, even an unbeliever, can baptize in case of necessity. As for the traditional baptist/evangelical understanding of baptism as a testimony of a salvation that has already taken place, we must ask: If it is a testimony, why cannot a person baptize himself? And what does "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" then mean? Moreover, because John introduces the pervasive New Testament theme of the Bride (Church/Christian) and Bridegroom (Jesus), and the fact that Paul says Christians are betrothed to Christ Jesus; we can confidently say that the New Covenant is a covenant of marriage, and baptism corresponds to the marriage vows. In fact the scriptures say the Holy Spirit is given as a pledge (like a wedding ring) of that covenant which will be fully consummated when the Bridegroom return to claim His Bride. Let us now go on to baptism as practiced in the Church after (and on) Pentecost.
On repentance Peter said, "repent and be baptized..." The word translated as repent literally means change of mind. He does not say "repent of your sins" but simple "repent." This mean change you mind about sin, and about your own self righteousness. It means to stop arguing with God and believe what He says. It means to see your self as God sees you: a sinner, rotten through and through, hell bound and without excuse. It means to throw yourself at the foot of the cross with no hope but the mercy and grace of God. The first preaching of the Gospel under the New Covenant
Those who cried out "what shall we do" were already under the conviction of the Holy Spirit and had believed the message that Jesus is risen and is both "Lord and Christ." Yet Peter did not say, "go in peace, your faith has saved you." Nor did he say, "repeat this prayer after me", nor "with every ey closed and every head bowed, if any whish to receive Jesus as savior just slip up your hand while no one is looking. Yes I see that one over there and that one..." NO! He preached in the fullness of the Spirit, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." He commanded them to REPENT and BE BAPTIZED. --In order that they mights have their sins remitted and receive the promise of the Spirit. In other words, enter into the New Covenant and receive it's promises. (Jer 31:31-34 Eze 36:25-27) He did not say "you are saved!" but "BE SAVED!"
Some argue that "born of water" does not refer to baptism, but to natural birth or something else. Yet for 1500 years the Church understood it to refer to baptism in water. The burden of proof in on those who propose a novel understanding of Jesus' words. And remember the larger context. Both Jesus and John were baptizing. And Nicodemus surely knew of the baptism of the conversion of gentiles and the refering to this baptism as a "new birth."
These are the words of Ananius spoken to Paul. Paul had already seen the Lord Jesus and believed. The Lord had told him "rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do." (Acts 9:6) It seems that believing Jesus has risen from the dead and calling Him Lord is not enough. He still needed his eyes opened, his sins washed away, and to be filled with the Holy Spirit.
All who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death. Paul does not call baptism a symbol of a new birth, but the act (of faith) by which we are joined to the death and resurrection of Christ "so we too might walk in newness of life."
It is clear that in all these scriptures, to be baptized into Christ to to be identified with Him, and is more than a mere symbol of the faith one already has. It is the act of commitment to Christ, the binding together of the Lord and Savior by an act of God [in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] with His disciple.
How are we to make disciples? By baptizing in the name (in the authority of) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them "to observe all that I commanded you." Infant baptism In regard to the issue of infant baptism: there is no evidence that it was practiced in the first 150 years of the Church. If it was part of the teaching of the Apostles we surely would have expected a clear record of it in the New Testament. In two cases Paul mentions entire households being baptized (the household of Lydia and that of the Phillipian Jailer), and from this an argument is made that infants must have been baptized. Yet at least in the case of the Jailer we know this is not true for the scriptures say: "having believed in God with his whole household." (Acts 16:34) Infants don't believe. And speculation on the presence of infants in any household is just that: speculation. However, Paul makes a remark in his 1st letter to the Corinthians that completely refutes infant baptism:
Though Paul is not speaking of baptism but the problem of a believer being married to an unbeliever, his teaching bears decisively on infant baptism. Note he says that the unbelieving spouse and the the children are held in a special relationship with God by virtue of their relationship with the believer. If the Church practiced infant baptism, Paul would not have made this argument in regard to the children for they would have been holy (set apart to God) by virtue of their baptism rather than through their believing parent. Baptism without faith is worthless Baptism is an act of faith, an act of commitment to Christ, a voluntary response to the call of God in the Gospel to enter into the New Covenant with Jesus. Baptism for any other reason, such as: pleasing family or friends, social acceptance, business contacts, or as part of a manmade plan to earn God's favor renders baptism null and void. For God looks on the motives of the heart, not just on outward actions. Clearly both faith and baptism are bound together in entering into a saving relationship with Christ; a relationship the Bible calls the New Covenant. The difficulty is that so many have heard that faith is merely believing that Jesus died for our sins. This is what the Catholic church calls assensus, regarding in the mind the claims of the Gospel as being true. Indeed, this marks the beginnings of faith, but is not a sufficient faith to save. The Greek word translated as faith also signifies commitment and faithfulness. It was used of contracts and covenants, including marriage. In baptism we move beyond mere believing and into commitment and covenant. We enter into the New Covenant which Christ bought for us with His own blood and bind ourselves together with in in a new creation. We take Him not only as Lord and Savior, but also as our Husband. In baptism we promise to love, honor, and obey. In baptism, we are set apart to Him alone. And He gives us His abiding presence in the Holy Spirit as proof that we are His and He will return to take us to be with Him forever. The Church has no right to change what Christ has commanded. Preachers cannot replace the call to repent and be baptized, with an "altar call" and a "sinner's prayer" because is is more convenient than baptism. Perhaps multitudes who have not been biblically baptized have still been saved, for God often takes our ignorance into account, but at what cost? Are you willing to bet eternity on it? How many have fallen away from Christ and been still-born because some preacher was too lazy or too committed to his tradition and denomination to obey Jesus Christ? How many are in hell because some pastor told them they were saved, born again, and eternally secure because they they prayed the sinner's prayer or were sprinkled as infants? There are those who call baptism a work and because we are saved by faith and not by works they therefore exclude it from salvation. Yet these same persons do not call the sinner's prayer a work, nor the "altar call" a work." Baptism is an act of faith, the act that Jesus Christ ordained and commanded. He said nothing of saying a prayer or coming forward and accepting Him. He said:"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." There are some who call me "heretic" because I call for the same thing Jesus demanded: commitment. And that is the purpose of baptism: an act of commitment to Jesus Christ, ordained by God, and witnessed by the angels of heaven. It is the wedding vows of the Bride and Bridegroom. Many men of God have been burned at the stake or drowned in rivers for this very "heresy." You may choose to follow Billy Graham, Rick Warren, or some other popular preacher and trust in their more convenient and less costly version of the gospel, but as for me, I'll take my stand with Jesus and the Apostles. Testimony of the early ChurchThe following are some selected quotes from the earliest post Apostolic writings (100-200 A.D.). Nowwhere does one find baptism as a mere symbol or testimony of a salvation already received but consistantly as the act of faith and the work of God by which we enter into Christ and His salvation. One may reject the testimony of the early church as a corruption of Apostolic doctrine, but the burden of proof is on the one rejecting to prove that their interpretation of baptism is right and the early church was wrong. Not only that, but it was the uniform testimony until Zwingli (1484-1534 ) and the testimony of the majority of professed Christianity continued to be that Baptism is the "means of grace" through which we enter into the New Covenant and the Body of Christ. Did the Church cease to exist with the death of the Apostles? History shows a gradual corruption of the Church, not a sudden death. One can trace a gradual shift in understanding of baptism from the New Testament to the sacramental understanding of the majority of christendom today but one would be at a loss to explain a sudden and complete shift in understanding from the Apostolic Church of the 1st century to the Church of the 2nd century. Chapter 11 THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (2nd century)
Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) First Apology to To the Emperor Titus chapt. 61
Chapter 66
DIALOGUE OF JUSTIN WITH TRYPHO, A JEW CHAPTER 14
Chapter 43
CHAPTER 86
Ireneas (120-202 A.D.) Against Heresies Book 1 CHAPTER 21
|
|---|
| home | articles | books | links |
|---|
you may contact me at stephen@disciples-of-jesus.net