Board index ‹ Baptism

[fuzcase]

If you are a Christian and choose not to be baptized as a believer are you being disobedient and therefore sinning?
I realize baptism is not about salvation but is it about obedience?

[jimwalton]

Well, I want to answer your question honestly, so feel free to discuss with me what I say to you.

There is no Scripture that commands people to be baptized. So in that sense you're not being disobedient, and sinning, if you don't.

On the other hand, baptism is a pretty important thing that Christians do. If we start with Jesus, he got baptized by John. If you've been in a church during a baptismal service, you may have heard the pastor say, "...follow Jesus in baptism." The thought is that baptism for Jesus is a figure of death and resurrection (Mt. 3.15, "...to fulfill all righteousness." Baptism carries the image of a quest for a relationship with God through death and resurrection. So I'd have to ask the question, "If you are truly interested in showing the world that you are on a quest for a relationship with God through death and resurrection, what is stopping you from being baptized?" While Jesus never commanded people to get baptized, he did command his disciples to baptize people as a symbol of their discipleship. Mt. 28.19: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." It makes it sound like the first step of discipleship is identifying with the person and work of Christ by being baptized. David Platt says, "Baptism is the clear, public, symbolic picture of the new life we have in Christ. As illustrated in baptism, we have died with Christ—died to our sin and died to ourselves—and we have been raised to life with him."

The apostles seemed to understand that very well. In Peter's very first sermon, on the Day of Pentecost, when he was done preaching he told people, "Repent, and be baptized!" See also Acts 8.37-38. Everywhere they went, the apostles baptized people. In Acts 10.47-48, Peter commanded people to be baptized. They obviously saw it as extremely important, and the first step someone would want to do when they came to Jesus.

In Romans 6.3-4, Paul explains why it's such a big deal. He says baptism means burial. It's a symbolic way of saying I am dead to my sins and dead to my old self. I am crucified with Christ, dead and buried, and I am raised to new life by the resurrection of Jesus. We are united with Christ. That's what baptism is all about.

So while it is not commanded by Jesus, or anywhere in the Bible, it's so important that churches celebrate it as an ordinance—a practice ordained (advised and authorized) by Christ. It's a practice that shows we understand our calling, our status, and our commitment.

A very fair question at this point would be, "What objection does the person in question have against baptism?"

[fuzcase]

Thanks Jim. There's really no objection at issue here, rather the church I attend does not require leaders of the church to first be baptized as adults. Baptism is a requirement, however Infant baptism suffices. As a fellow leader of the church, under much prayer, I find myself unsettled about this.

First, I feel the lack of doing so reflects disobedience at worst or being apathetic (un-inspired by Jesus' example) at best.
Second, to require baptism at all, of which adult baptism is optional, leaves confusion about what is significant in the first place to require baptism at all.

Thoughts?

[jimwalton]

I always promise to be very honest with anybody who posts on this site, and so I will be. First of all, I don't want to say or do anything to cause a breach between you and the other leaders of your church. Unity in ministry is an important and important value.

Secondly, there is a theology about child baptism that goes back at least a millennium. It includes deep Christian thought and a thoughtful and well-studied theology.

Thirdly, I am not a proponent of child baptism for many reasons, so I will give as honest an answer as I can about why. Full disclosure: any church that teaches child baptism will disagree with me.

Now for a little background. A sacrament is something that has holy power in it. If you touch this thing, or bow in a certain way, or eat a certain food, whatever, some kind of power is bestowed on you. God has to, because you did, or said, this thing. Now, among the world religions, Judaism is notoriously anti-sacramental, and never shows any enthusiasm toward this sort of thing. The Ark of the Covenant was no talisman. The sacrifices were a symbol of what God was doing. There were certainly no idols. In Judaism, God was the Holy One. The things didn't carry any power in and of themselves. Evidence? Even when they lost the temple, lost the Ark, could no longer do the sacrifices, and lost the priesthood in exile, they didn't miss a beat. Judaism just kept right on ticking.

More background. Christianity was even less sacramental than Judaism, if that was even possible. There were no buildings, no priests, no holy bowls or pitchers or poles. There was God, and people. And we all have access, and we all have power through the Holy Spirit, and not through anything else. It’s the basic core of Christianity. Our core is Christ.

So where did we come up with the idea that by dipping in water, the power of salvation comes upon you and God is obligated in some way to act because of that "thing" you did? Actually, if you read Romans or Galatians, the point of Christianity is how outright "religionless" it is. Your good works have no power; your self-righteousness does nothing for you, and the water has no power. Christianity does have holy places or holy things, only a holy GOD.

If baptism is a sacrament, the whole point of the church is in dispensing this power, this blessing. Our leaders have the authority to dispense it and create holy people. But such an understanding turns the gospel on its head. We are all priests. There is no holy water that obligates God to dispense blessing.

But, if the water carries power, and the leaders (and only the leaders) have the authority to dispense God's blessing, and God is obligated to respond, then infant baptism makes sense. The church has a right to act in God's name, and God cannot but confer his blessing on the recipient. If the church is the vehicle for dispensing God, then baptism is a rightful vehicle, without regard to the merits of abilities of the recipient. So is baptism a sacrament? If so, then baptize not only babies, but as many people as we can march through the water (as did Emperor Constantine).

Let's talk about the root meaning of the rite of baptism. There are two ways to look at it, and both interpretations of the Scripture cannot be true.

Did the early church baptize babies, because that will tell us not only what mode the early church used, but the meaning of it. Incontestably, every person named or identified in the New Testament as being a recipient of baptism was an adult believer. The burden of proof lies with those who would claim otherwise. In Acts 16.15 and 33, and 1 Cor. 1.16, whole families were baptized. There is no evidence that babies were included. Every other mention of baptism in the NT was with consenting adults who had affirmed belief in Jesus.

Some people argue that infant baptism is the NT version of the OT covenant sign, circumcision. There are many reasons this is not true, not the least of which is what Paul had to say about circumcision in Rom. 2.28-29. This is strong evidence that circumcision and baptism are not seen in the same light. A closer parallel might be Jewish proselyte baptism, but that was practiced on consenting adults who had affirmed belief.

Some people argue that baptism is like the ritual washing of the OT. But ritual washing doesn't carry any of the personal overtones of a two-way relationship that baptism does, and the NT baptism texts don't carry any priestly echoes. The NT never makes washing the central significance of baptism.

Theologically, baptism is identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6.3-4ff.). It was done once for all (something that washing never did).

Here's a key question: Can an infant experience forgiveness? If so, then biblical forgiveness is an impersonal, forensic transaction. In the New Testament, is forgiveness ever operative in a person's life without his knowing that he has anything to be forgiven for, without his knowing what forgiveness is, and without his experiencing anything at all (except a wet forehead)? And what about the concept of repentance that biblically goes along with forgiveness?

I submit that we are far from the biblical concept of repentance, forgiveness, and salvation when we baptize babies. As I said, plenty of Catholics and Protestant Christians disagree with me. In my humble opinion, infant baptism is not biblical. And it's also my OPINION that a Christian church should require their leaders to have been baptized by a means that was a willful, deliberate statement of identification with Christ at a time in their lives when they knew what they were doing. It's also my belief from Bible study that immersion is the best symbol of death, burial, and resurrection that Paul talks about what baptism is all about.

Talk back to me if something needs to be explained better, or if you have more questions or conversation.

[fuzcase]

I really appreciate your response And whole heartedly agree. Trust that I will humbly be approaching my fellow leaders regarding baptism and will place high regard to unity. Thank you so much again