I wrote this series of posts on baptism several months ago when the topic was of great interest to me (well, it is still of great interest to me, but you know what I mean). For a Baptist who firmly believes that baptism is only a symbol, to seriously consider that a physical rite like baptism could impart a real, spiritual grace is akin to a materialist suddenly having an undeniable encounter with a ghost, fairy, angel or the Loch Ness monster. The world very quickly turns into a much bigger, scarier and more wondrous place.
This series of posts may be a bit of overkill and I do not mean to insult anyone who thinks differently than I do on this topic. I have had two godly examples in my life who have differed on this issue. One is my father (a dedicated Baptist deacon) and my late father-in-law (a dedicated deacon in the Church of Christ denomination). They were both godly men, they both believed the Scriptures, they both attempted to read the Bible honestly and without eisigesis - yet they both disagreed on the meaning of baptism. My father believes it was merely a symbol while my father-in-law was adamant that it was necessary for salvation. I do not doubt either man's intentions or integrity and neither do I intend to do so to anyone else who has a divergent viewpoint.
I originally wrote these for my wife who has had a hard time deciding what she truly believes on the doctrine (being raised Church of Christ and marrying a Baptist youth pastor will do that to you). My attempt has been to address this to a relative newcomer to the topic, but to also do so in a way that was as thorough as I could make it.. So if I gloss over certain details, leave out historical evidences or use imprecise terminology it is because I attempted to make this easy to understand. If you find it difficult to understand, chalk that up to the complexity of Scripture and my inexperience as a writer.
Pt. 1: How did I get here???Someone who grew up Church of Christ, Catholic or Lutheran might not realize how big of a shock it is for a Baptist to first realize that baptism might be a normal requirement for salvation (for the sake of trimming down on these already long posts, the belief that baptism is connected with salvation is called "baptismal regeneration." Don't you feel smarter already?)
This series of posts may be a bit of overkill and I do not mean to insult anyone who thinks differently than I do on this topic. I have had two godly examples in my life who have differed on this issue. One is my father (a dedicated Baptist deacon) and my late father-in-law (a dedicated deacon in the Church of Christ denomination). They were both godly men, they both believed the Scriptures, they both attempted to read the Bible honestly and without eisigesis - yet they both disagreed on the meaning of baptism. My father believes it was merely a symbol while my father-in-law was adamant that it was necessary for salvation. I do not doubt either man's intentions or integrity and neither do I intend to do so to anyone else who has a divergent viewpoint.
I originally wrote these for my wife who has had a hard time deciding what she truly believes on the doctrine (being raised Church of Christ and marrying a Baptist youth pastor will do that to you). My attempt has been to address this to a relative newcomer to the topic, but to also do so in a way that was as thorough as I could make it.. So if I gloss over certain details, leave out historical evidences or use imprecise terminology it is because I attempted to make this easy to understand. If you find it difficult to understand, chalk that up to the complexity of Scripture and my inexperience as a writer.
Pt. 1: How did I get here???Someone who grew up Church of Christ, Catholic or Lutheran might not realize how big of a shock it is for a Baptist to first realize that baptism might be a normal requirement for salvation (for the sake of trimming down on these already long posts, the belief that baptism is connected with salvation is called "baptismal regeneration." Don't you feel smarter already?)
Unlike those brought up in those faith traditions (and many others) I have no such pre-disposition towards accepting a view of baptismal regeneration; actually I had a very strong, anti-baptismal regeneration upbringing. Baptists preach and teach, sometimes quite forcefully, that baptism is just a symbol. This is the view every pastor, every Sunday school teacher, every professor, every theology class and every New Testament Bible class taught me.
Yet here I am, having nearly made a 180.
For me these thoughts started not months ago, but years ago. One day a friend from our Baptist congregation came by my office. This friend and his wife were expecting to adopt a young girl from Asia in a few short weeks. Yet amidst all of their joy they were having arguments with some part of the family who were Lutheran. The Lutheran part of their family wanted my friend's adopted daughter to be baptized quickly upon arriving in the States as they believe in baptismal regeneration and also that infants should be baptized (whether or not this is standard Lutheran protocol, I will not venture to guess). My friend and his wife were having a hard time convincing the family of their Baptist viewpoint and, believe it or not, they were actually considering baptizing their daughter. My friend asked me to do some research into the subject to help them make their decision and to help them discuss it better with their family.
"No, problem" I thought. "Those silly Lutherans have obviously never read the Bible before and I shall effortlessly blow them away!" I started where any good Baptist would start... the Bible! I looked through every verse that mentioned baptism and I assumed it would rather easily prove my theology. It did not.
I recognized that if someone was simply looking at the verses of Scripture on their own it would be very easy for many of them to think that the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration. On the surface the passages sure looked like they were... and I knew better! I knew it was only because of my training that I didn't believe in baptismal regeneration... if I was interpreting this on my own with no outside pressure I would likely have believed in baptismal regeneration; I could feel it in my bones. This bothered me.
So I looked through my theology books, websites and class notes. I thought they made a good case for "symbol-only baptism." But, in all fairness, I knew I should consult sources that taught baptismal regeneration to better understand their position and also to correctly critique their belief. After all, my friend's Lutheran family would try to "spin" Scripture in their favor and I needed to prepare them. "I'll use their own sources against them," I thought. "Haha, silly Lutherans won't even know what hit 'em!"
Again to my shock and horror, I was forced to admit that the theologians who supported baptismal regeneration were quite intelligent and they had compelling reasons for their beliefs. And, even better than 'my side', their interpretations of the verses on baptism actually looked like they made good sense of the plain meaning of those verses while (to my eyes at any rate) the Baptist view looked more like it was trying to escape the obvious meaning of the text and 'explain away' rather than explain the Scriptures.
Basically it took me so long to research the topic that a few weeks later I found out that my friend and his wife just ended up talking to our senior pastor about it on their own and they were satisfied (I use a similar stall tactics to get out of doing the dishes, cleaning up dirty laundry, etc). I never had to give them my research. I had a thousand other things to worry about at the time so while I did not actively pursue this doctrine much it has been on the back of my mind for years, always haunting me, slowly eroding at my once firm symbol-only belief.
I have not written all of this to "convince" anyone of anything. I've come to grips with the reality that I can influence, but ultimately I cannot convince. That is between that person and the Holy Spirit; I'm content with my role in background.
Mostly I wrote this because, whether I am right, wrong or full of bologna for spending so much time on this, I do owe it to some people in my life to explain my beliefs. I also hope to escape the charge of being a lazy, perpetual and shallow jokester. I tend to kid and make lights of so many things it is hard to know if I am ever serious, but I do know how to buckle down and seriously consider things... especially in a field where I am somewhat knowledgable and trained. I also hope that perhaps this series of posts can be useful to anyone else who reads them, as a "database" of sorts to help with this issue. I know I am not the only person interested in this topic (and certainly, I am not the smartest). If anything I say is helpful then I am grateful. If it is unhelpful, then please say a prayer for me and don't worry too much about what I say. Read only what you want and only as much as is edifying to you.I wrote this series of posts on baptism several months ago when the topic was of great interest to me (well, it is still of great interest to me, but you know what I mean). For a Baptist who firmly believes that baptism is only a symbol, to seriously consider that a physical rite like baptism could impart a real, spiritual grace is akin to a materialist suddenly having an undeniable encounter with a ghost, fairy or the Loch Ness monster. The world very quickly turns into a much bigger, scarier and more wondrous place. Yet here I am, having nearly made a 180.
For me these thoughts started not months ago, but years ago. One day a friend from our Baptist congregation came by my office. This friend and his wife were expecting to adopt a young girl from Asia in a few short weeks. Yet amidst all of their joy they were having arguments with some part of the family who were Lutheran. The Lutheran part of their family wanted my friend's adopted daughter to be baptized quickly upon arriving in the States as they believe in baptismal regeneration and also that infants should be baptized (whether or not this is standard Lutheran protocol, I will not venture to guess). My friend and his wife were having a hard time convincing the family of their Baptist viewpoint and, believe it or not, they were actually considering baptizing their daughter. My friend asked me to do some research into the subject to help them make their decision and to help them discuss it better with their family.
"No, problem" I thought. "Those silly Lutherans have obviously never read the Bible before and I shall effortlessly blow them away!" I started where any good Baptist would start... the Bible! I looked through every verse that mentioned baptism and I assumed it would rather easily prove my theology. It did not.
I recognized that if someone was simply looking at the verses of Scripture on their own it would be very easy for many of them to think that the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration. On the surface the passages sure looked like they were... and I knew better! I knew it was only because of my training that I didn't believe in baptismal regeneration... if I was interpreting this on my own with no outside pressure I would likely have believed in baptismal regeneration; I could feel it in my bones. This bothered me.
So I looked through my theology books, websites and class notes. I thought they made a good case for "symbol-only baptism." But, in all fairness, I knew I should consult sources that taught baptismal regeneration to better understand their position and also to correctly critique their belief. After all, my friend's Lutheran family would try to "spin" Scripture in their favor and I needed to prepare them. "I'll use their own sources against them," I thought. "Haha, silly Lutherans won't even know what hit 'em!"
Again to my shock and horror, I was forced to admit that the theologians who supported baptismal regeneration were quite intelligent and they had compelling reasons for their beliefs. And, even better than 'my side', their interpretations of the verses on baptism actually looked like they made good sense of the plain meaning of those verses while (to my eyes at any rate) the Baptist view looked more like it was trying to escape the obvious meaning of the text and 'explain away' rather than explain the Scriptures.
Basically it took me so long to research the topic that a few weeks later I found out that my friend and his wife just ended up talking to our senior pastor about it on their own and they were satisfied (I use a similar stall tactics to get out of doing the dishes, cleaning up dirty laundry, etc). I never had to give them my research. I had a thousand other things to worry about at the time so while I did not actively pursue this doctrine much it has been on the back of my mind for years, always haunting me, slowly eroding at my once firm symbol-only belief.
I have not written all of this to "convince" anyone of anything. I've come to grips with the reality that I can influence, but ultimately I cannot convince. That is between that person and the Holy Spirit; I'm content with my role in background.
This series of posts may be a bit of overkill and I do not mean to insult anyone who thinks differently than I do on this topic. I have had two godly examples in my life who have differed on this issue. One is my father (a dedicated Baptist deacon) and my late father-in-law (a dedicated deacon in the Church of Christ). They were both godly men, they both believed the Scriptures, they both attempted to read the Bible honestly and without eisigesis, but they both disagreed on the meaning of baptism. My father believes it was merely a symbol while my father-in-law was adamant that it was necessary for salvation. I do not doubt either man's intentions or integrity and neither do I intend to do so to anyone else who has a divergent viewpoint.
I originally wrote these for my wife who has had a hard time deciding what she truly believes on the doctrine. It is written with someone in mind who may or may not have much theological training. So if I gloss over certain details, leave out historical evidences or use imprecise terminology it is because I attempted to make this easy to understand. If you find it difficult to understand, chalk that up to the complexity of Scripture and my inexperience as a writer.
Pt. 1: How did I get here???
Someone who grew up Church of Christ, Catholic or Lutheran might not realize how big of a shock it is for a Baptist to first realize that baptism might be a normal requirement for salvation (for the sake of trimming down on these already long posts, the belief that baptism is connected with salvation is called "baptismal regeneration." Don't you feel smarter already?)
Unlike those brought up in those faith traditions (and many others) I have no such pre-disposition towards accepting a view of baptismal regeneration; actually I had a very strong, anti-baptismal regeneration upbringing. Baptists preach and teach, sometimes quite forcefully, that baptism is just a symbol. This is the view every pastor, every Sunday school teacher, every professor, every theology class and every New Testament Bible class taught me.
Yet here I am, having nearly made a 180.
For me these thoughts started not months ago, but years ago. One day a friend from our Baptist congregation came by my office. This friend and his wife were expecting to adopt a young girl from Asia in a few short weeks. Yet amidst all of their joy they were having arguments with some part of the family who were Lutheran. The Lutheran part of their family wanted my friend's adopted daughter to be baptized quickly upon arriving in the States as they believe in baptismal regeneration and also that infants should be baptized (whether or not this is standard Lutheran protocol, I will not venture to guess). My friend and his wife were having a hard time convincing the family of their Baptist viewpoint and, believe it or not, they were actually considering baptizing their daughter. My friend asked me to do some research into the subject to help them make their decision and to help them discuss it better with their family.
"No, problem" I thought. "Those silly Lutherans have obviously never read the Bible before and I shall effortlessly blow them away!" I started where any good Baptist would start... the Bible! I looked through every verse that mentioned baptism and I assumed it would rather easily prove my point.
It did not. I recognized that if someone was simply looking at the verses of Scripture on their own it would be very easy for many of them to think that the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration. On the surface the passages sure looked like they were... and I knew better! I knew it was only because of my training that I didn't believe in baptismal regeneration... if I was interpreting this on my own with no outside pressure I would likely have believed in baptismal regeneration; I could feel it in my bones. This bothered me.
So I looked through my theology books, websites and class notes. I thought they made a good case for "symbol-only baptism." But, in all fairness, I knew I should consult sources that taught baptismal regeneration to better understand their position and also to correctly critique their belief. After all, my friend's Lutheran family would try to "spin" Scripture in their favor and I needed to prepare them. "I'll use their own sources against them," I thought. "Haha, silly Lutherans won't even know what hit 'em!"
Again to my shock and horror, I was forced to admit that the theologians who supported baptismal regeneration were quite intelligent and they had compelling reasons for their beliefs. And, even better than 'my side', their interpretations of the verses on baptism actually looked like they made good sense of the plain meaning of those verses while the Baptist view looked more like it was trying to escape the obvious meaning of the text and 'explain away' rather than explain the Scriptures.
Basically it took me so long to research the topic that a few weeks later I found out that my friend and his wife just ended up talking to our senior pastor about it on their own and they were satisfied (I use a similar stall tactics to get out of dishes, cleaning up dirty laundry, etc). I never had to give them my research. I had a thousand other things to worry about at the time so while I did not actively pursue this doctrine much it has been on the back of my mind for years, always haunting me, slowly eroding at my once firm symbol-only belief.
I have not written all of this to "convince" anyone of anything. I've come to grips with the reality that I cannot convince anybody of anything. I can influence, but ultimately I cannot convince. That is between that person and the Holy Spirit; I'm content with my role in background.Mostly I wrote this because, whether I am right, wrong or full of bologna for spending so much time on this, I do owe it to some people in my life to explain my beliefs. I also hope to escape the charge of being a lazy, perpetual and shallow jokester. I tend to kid and make lights of so many things it is hard to know if I am ever serious, but I do know how to buckle down and seriously consider things... especially in a field where I am somewhat knowledgable and trained. I also hope that perhaps this series of posts can be useful to anyone else who reads them, as a "database" of sorts to help with this issue. I know I am not the only person interested in this topic (and certainly, I am not the smartest). If anything I say is helpful then I am grateful. If it is unhelpful, then please say a prayer for me and don't worry too much about what I say. Read only what you want and only as much as is edifying to you. Honestly, I'm not an expert on all of this and I may not be 100% sure of where I am at with all of this but one thing is certain: but I am not where I was once was.
No comments:
Post a Comment