Week 6 - Baptize
This week in summary| Day 1 : Baptism | 2 Kings 5 |
| Day 2 : The Community that Baptizes | Genesis 6-7 |
| Day 3 : Breaking Baptism | Genesis 8-9 |
| Day 4 : Prepare | Exodus 13-14 |
| Day 5 : Team Building: | Exodus 15 |
| Day 1 : Baptism | 2 Kings 5 |
| Day 2 : The Community that Baptizes | Genesis 6-7 |
| Day 3 : Breaking Baptism | Genesis 8-9 |
| Day 4 : Prepare | Exodus 13-14 |
| Day 5 : Team Building: | Exodus 15 |
"How do I become a Christian? Do I say a special prayer? Sacrifice an animal? Confess a creed? Sign papers? Jump up and down saying, 'I'm a Christian,' three times? What do I do?"
Though biblical Christianity is not strictly a religion or a government-and certainly is no club-it nevertheless has its own rite of enrollment as part of the package. And why should it not? When you become, for example, a naturalized citizen of a country, there is a process for that and you take a solemn oath of allegiance before an official who will proclaim you naturalized. When you enter into marriage, you also take oaths before an official of some kind because marriage is meant to be a serious matter. How much more so, then, when committing oneself to God and His community (the Church). Though God knows our hearts individually, He isn't one to allow us to lean on words and sentiments alone. He's a god of action. And the simple action He's prescribed for public declaration of our intent to follow Him is a simple application of water to the woman or man so desiring to follow Him in what's called baptism. It's how you "sign the papers" and make your citizenship in His kingdom official.
But just as traditions change, grow, or take on characteristics that weren't there originally, so goes it with baptism. Some Christians, for example, baptize by either pouring or sprinkling water on the candidate's head. Others do so by full immersion of the person in water. Some baptize infants. Others do not. Why all the variation? Is there a right or wrong here? Does it matter? Is the Bible unclear? Does the Word of God not say enough about the subject to arrive at any cut-and-dried conclusions?1 If Christians are all using the same Bible, essentially, shouldn't they come to the same conclusions? This author would suggest that on several points, the Bible is clear, but we humans have, unsurprisingly, muddied the waters.2
Ironically and unfortunately, one of the very rites that is supposed to unite us as a people ends up dividing us sharply. Christians typically hold strong differences over the mode and meaning of baptism and, therefore, who should or shouldn't be baptized.
The mode of baptism is very simple. In the first century, it was full immersion that was practiced. The word "baptize" is a carry-over from a Greek word that means to submerge or immerse. If I go to a local ice creamery and ask for a hard shell chocolate ice cream cone, they would dip it in chocolate. That action is what it means to baptize something in the original understanding of the word.
So one might wonder, "Why do some churches pour water over the head or sprinkle holy water on the people?" Simple: Situations arose in the early years of the church that challenged the standard practice. One of those situations was in the event that a person could not, for whatever reason, be immersed. The Church made exceptions for such things. If full immersion were impossible, one solution was that copious pouring of water, and later sprinkling, was acceptable, but only as a substitute. The exceptions became the rules in many places and the word baptism lost its original meaning.3
The necessity of baptism is also a fairly settled question. After His resurrection from the dead, Jesus appeared to His disciples over a period of forty days. On one occasion, He left them instructions to "disciple the nations" by first baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and then by teaching them to keep all that He commanded. If that wasn't enough, Peter repeated the command in Acts 2:38 and the emphasis on baptism in water is reiterated in Acts 10:47-48. Further, as we read through the book of Acts, we will see that there isn't one conversion that occurs without immersion. It's the rule. And because of its meaning and effects, it should never be divorced from the whole package of what it means to follow Jesus.
Whom do we baptize?
Under the old covenant, it was possible for infant boys to receive a sign and symbol of a faith that they didn't exactly own just yet. Because of this, some draw the conclusion that we should or can effectually baptize infants, too. By contrast, however, under the new covenant, we find no clear indication that infants are candidates for baptism. Rather, all who are baptized are adults or, at least arguably, people old enough for accountability. Again, no explicit mention of infants being baptized is ever made, nor does God command infants be baptized.
We might wonder, then, why some Christian denominations baptize infants. Simply put, one reason has to do with a teaching called, "original sin." Original sin is the teaching that we're born-even conceived-evil beings (Psalm 51:5). We inherit Adam's guilt (Romans 5:19 being cited by advocates of this teaching) and are therefore conceived children of wrath in need of salvation. The reasoning further goes that since in the first covenant infant boys could be circumcised, even though they were too young to understand what was going on, so also can infants be baptized to save them from hell.
This, of course, raises further inevitable questions: What if a baby dies before being baptized? Is he or she in hell? Some among us know the logical and emotional fallout of those questions all too well. Some priests and pastors go right ahead and teach that unfortunately there is no hope. Others teach that God only knows. Still others teach that God, in His mercy, receives children and infants (in which case, why baptize them?). In either case, the whole question dries up if we simply understand that scripture teaches no such thing as "original sin," but only something akin to it,4 which places no one in hell who hasn't had a living chance to respond to God's call after they've reached a reasonable developmental stage of accountability. But, we might wonder, does the Bible not teach that we're born sinful? After all, in Psalm 51:5 it says, "Surely I was sinful from birth-sinful from the time my mother conceived me!" By way of response, we must first understand that it's a little precarious to build theological absolutes based on an emotional outcry that David had. This is poetry and hyperbole. Further, in 2 Samuel 12:22-23 we witness the very same David, who had just poured out his heart to God in Psalm 51, saying, after the death of his child, that he would go to his child, but his child would not return to him.5 Was David expecting to join his baby son in hell? Obviously that's not the conclusion we should draw. David's expectation was to join his son someday in the presence of God.6
Scripturally, if we see that the teaching of "original sin" doesn't square, then we see there really is no need for infants to be baptized. We also note that baptism is something done as a choice. Infants can't choose. They don't yet understand good or evil except in the most rudimentary of ways.
What happens at baptism?
The author supposes it would be very easy on the reader to simply read a list of what happens at baptism. But rather than do the work for the reader, the author has done half the work in listing relevant passages of scripture to read through in order to gain a better understanding of what happens at immersion. This is called an inductive study and is best used in individual study first, and then a group discussion later. See the Immersion Inductive Study in the appendix.
1 No pun intended here or anywhere else, of course.
2 The author himself was raised in the Lutheran tradition-baptized as an infant with water poured over the head. In light of what he learned later, he was immersed as a young adult.
3 For the history buffs: Early Christian commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:29 suggests that proxy immersion might have been practiced by some as an answer to, "What about those who can't be immersed?"
4 A full discussion of this warranted, but beyond the scope of this current study and will be covered elsewhere, but for now it will suffice to say we are born with a built-in tendency to sin, but that doesn't make us guilty sinners destined for hell from conception.
5 Note, too, that the child died on the 7th day-before he could be circumcised! No covenant inclusion for him, yet David believed him to be safe in the arms of the Almighty (2 Samuel 12:18).
6 Pastorally, by the way, those who have lost children can very much take heart that their loved ones are safe, happy, and waiting in the presence of Him who loves us and never lets even a sparrow fall to the ground without His knowing it.
In a healthy community of believers, we immerse new or long time believers in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We do so preferably soon after they make a decision to follow Christ. By extension, we receive-individually and as a community-the blessings and benefits promised to us in baptism, and especially in regards to the receiving of the Holy Spirit. The community of believers should start to reflect the characteristics of the early church, which is a reflection of Christ in us. What does that look like? In the book of Acts we find a few general examples:
[The believers] devoted themselves to the ambassadors' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the ambassadors. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved
Acts 2:40-47.
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the ambassadors continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales, and put it at the feet of the ambassadors, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need Acts 4:32-37.
Expanding on that, we should see things lived out that fall under the banner of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. We'll see a sense of faith, hope, and love lived out in the lives of the believers. We should find a congregation of people who aren't in it just for the sake of their own fellowship, but who are actively seeking to grow both numerically and spiritually. This means opening up new homes to meet in with new community leaders appointed who can also lead others to do the same. This isn't to say that baptizing people is a silver bullet approach to the growth of the church, but it is essential to it since it is connected to those things that do bring growth.
Discussion starters
In what ways do you see your current community living out these characteristics?
In what ways do you not see it?
In each case, why do you suppose this is?
A community of believers that doesn't immerse is a community that will be operating at bare minimum at best. There might be a lot of talk about great theological truths and, perhaps, a lot of talk about "easy peasy" ways to live, but there will be little by way of vital influence-a lot of inspiration, but very little actual life. We might find such a community asking itself, "How did we get here?" Such a community will likely feel a strong weight as it lugs along, never growing, never knowing the deep joy of the Holy Spirit, never demonstrating the fruit of the Holy Spirit. We might expect to find such a community void: long on talk, short on action. We shouldn't expect to see a whole lot of change in the lives of those who have opted out of baptism simply because some believe it to be important, but not essential.
In the book of Acts, again, we have examples of believers who hadn't quite fallen under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The first is a believer named Apollos.1 The second is a group of twelve unnamed disciples in Ephesus.2 In both cases, these believers were familiar only with John's baptism. In both cases, someone saw that something was lacking in the disciples-even if they had a lot of good things going for them. In the case of Apollos, we're not told he was baptized into the baptism of Jesus, so we can't rightly presume anything. But in the case of the disciples at Ephesus, they were baptized into the name of Jesus-even though they had already received John's baptism.
This might raise some questions in light of more contemporary issues. Some might ask, "What if I was baptized as an infant? Does that still count? I was raised to believe in Jesus and that He died for my sins."3 In light of how the infant baptism doctrine came about, it is the author's opinion that whether one received the Holy Spirit at some point in his life previously or not, water immersion should still be done. He bases this on Peter's instructions in Acts 10:47. The Holy Spirit was received while Peter was still speaking his words. Was there any need for them to be immersed in water? Well, one might argue, not really. After all, they believe and they have the Holy Spirit, so why immerse in water? Yet Peter went ahead and insisted that they be immersed in water (10:48). Indeed, the author himself also followed suit and was immersed after considering this question.
Again, some might say, "Well does this mean my sweet Catholic grandmother, who never harmed a soul and who wasn't immersed is in hell?" The author doesn't believe this logically and necessarily follows. God is judge and we are not. The author's intent is only to restore the practices found in the New Testament and which are commanded under the new covenant-not condemn those whose arguably incidental paths led them to God. He also believes that we're responsible more for what we know than what we don't know, and that God knows more than we do. He doesn't see being immersed as a statement against all those believers who went before him or as an intended testimony against his own family members (who are Lutheran and/or Catholic), but as a step of personal obedience in relation to God and the Church.
1 Acts 18:18-28
2 Acts 19:1-7
3 This was a question the author faced in his late teen years as he was raised Lutheran