Theology Recap Wednesday - REVISED
On Monday night at class, an interesting debate arose during our time together that I thought I'd get your feedback on as well.
The issue of Baptism. Always a good one to get people going, right? Infant baptism, or baptism according to the age of accountability: when they finally accept the Lord for themselves? Will your children go to hell if they're not baptized straight out of the womb?
But what if we took it even on step further...
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19).
Do you notice that Jesus says nothing here about baptizing them in water?
Hmmm.
My friend S. looked up the original Greek definition for the word "name" and it actually means "authority".
So being the resident class clown/intellectual that he is, and now affectionately nicknamed "The Stumper" on account of his knack for stumping our professor almost every time class meets, he presented this argument to our class:
"All over the Bible, you can find stories of John, Jesus, etc... baptizing with water. Baptism, generally speaking, is always referred to in conjunction with water. But interestingly enough... not in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs us to baptize 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'. Well," he said, "do you think there could be something TO that? If Jesus is telling us to baptize the disciples in the "authority" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but doesn't specify *with water*... well... could we have been doing something wrong all this time?"
Good question, S.! Nice work! So now what? Where do we go from here?
Interestingly enough, our minds must have been working totally in sync that night, because as I see S.'s wheels turing as we're going over material in class, I begin formulating the same question in my mind: and once he started presenting his argument, all I could do was wildly nod my head in total and complete agreement.
So, give me your feedback, people! What do you think this could mean, if anything? Is S. full of poo, or does he make a valid argument? Any key verses you would like to share in agreement of opposition to this theory?
The issue of Baptism. Always a good one to get people going, right? Infant baptism, or baptism according to the age of accountability: when they finally accept the Lord for themselves? Will your children go to hell if they're not baptized straight out of the womb?
But what if we took it even on step further...
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19).
Do you notice that Jesus says nothing here about baptizing them in water?
Hmmm.
My friend S. looked up the original Greek definition for the word "name" and it actually means "authority".
So being the resident class clown/intellectual that he is, and now affectionately nicknamed "The Stumper" on account of his knack for stumping our professor almost every time class meets, he presented this argument to our class:
"All over the Bible, you can find stories of John, Jesus, etc... baptizing with water. Baptism, generally speaking, is always referred to in conjunction with water. But interestingly enough... not in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs us to baptize 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'. Well," he said, "do you think there could be something TO that? If Jesus is telling us to baptize the disciples in the "authority" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but doesn't specify *with water*... well... could we have been doing something wrong all this time?"
Good question, S.! Nice work! So now what? Where do we go from here?
Interestingly enough, our minds must have been working totally in sync that night, because as I see S.'s wheels turing as we're going over material in class, I begin formulating the same question in my mind: and once he started presenting his argument, all I could do was wildly nod my head in total and complete agreement.
So, give me your feedback, people! What do you think this could mean, if anything? Is S. full of poo, or does he make a valid argument? Any key verses you would like to share in agreement of opposition to this theory?
What are your thoughts?
******************************************
Alright. After talking with my roommate last night, and reading all of your comments today, I realized something rather important:
I did a VERY poor job of putting my thoughts on paper this time around.
I am very appreciative of all of your comments about baptism (infant and adult) because that issue is a huge one that definitely deserves a good, hearty debate.
However. Because I was having a momentary lapse of brain activity when I wrote this, I feel that I need to reword my thoughts a bit. Here goes:
S. didn't really present a "new theory" necessarily, nor was he questioning the need for baptism itself or it's significance, rather posed a question in class while we were discussing the topic of baptism.
The question he posed was:
why there is no mention of water when Jesus commands His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19. Typically, anywhere there is mention of baptism, there is mention of it being done with water. Not the case in this particular verse. And this is JESUS COMMANDING us... why wouldn't there be a specific there? More than that, if the word "name" in the original Greek means "authority", then Jesus is telling us to "baptize in the authority of the Father, and of the Son...", etc. So could our definition of baptism be a little off? Could Jesus have maybe been commanding us to "'immerse' in the 'authority' of the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"? Could it be more of a spiritual baptism rather than a physical - much like being baptized in the Holy Spirit?
I think it's also important to point out that S. and I both understand that ALL OVER the Bible baptisms are being carried out with water. Not refuting that fact. Just took notice of a rather big detail which then obviously sparked a question in both our minds.
*************************************
Okay, hopefully I didn't just confuse the subject even more, rather, clarified things a bit. So on that note...
NOW what are your thoughts?
posted by Stephanie @ 9:55 AM
10 Comments:
ok off the cuff - Christ was baptized Himself in water and God used it as a mark of His sonship, therefore water does play a major role in baptism. Now to this verse specifically is it saying to baptise in the authority of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit through water? Did Jesus realize his disciples knew what this was since I assume they themselves had been baptized (but then were they because I don't think it is mentioned in scripture that they were). I will do some inspecting and come back with more background but that is me on the spot.
I'm with Katie, Jesus was baptized himself in water. The greek or hebrew or whatever of baptize is baptizmo or something and it means "to emerse" - pretty self explanatory. No sprinkling.
As far as going to heaven w/o baptism, tell me if Moses, or Abraham would be excluded? Abraham was even pre-law so baptism=go-to-heaven is an invalid argument. That's like saying you have to accept Jesus and then give $10 to get to heaven. I'll just give my $10, right? It's just faith and Jesus ... if it wasn't then I would get to heaven with good works.
Don't get sidetracked in these types of arguments. It's always only faith and Jesus as far as salvation goes from Genesis to Revelation.
~Jef
Check out these verses from 1 Peter 3, pay special attention to verse 21. It's clear that the baptism of water does not save us, no matter when it occurs:). Hope this helps.
18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
Our examples of baptism are of Christ - with water, and of people that made a conscience decision to give their lives to Christ and to accept Him as their Savior. After doing so, they wanted to make a public proclamation of their faith. And give a visual example of how He washed our sins away. There are no examples of infant baptism, and it doesn't seem to correspond to the purpose of baptism.
I think that the baptism "in the name of..." is what you say, but is not all that it encompasses. Again, the visual comparison of our sins being washed away, and our old self being replaced by our new self.
My two cents anyways.
Hey, I know that Mark Miller kid...He's a good guy that Mark Miller is. Yep, true story.
While there may not be a verse that says: "Baptize with full emersion at the age of accountability with water after a true repentance." I think the principles are all there to show that this is a very positive thing.
The early apostles practiced baptism after conversion too:
Ac 8:39
And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Yea for baptism!
Will your children go to hell if they're not baptized straight out of the womb
No, most early Christian, Gentile believers would have damned before they even accepted Christ...for that matter most Jewish children do to.
I think when Christ says "baptize" in the great commission that he was, at least in part, referring to water. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a divine event that no man can initiate in and of himself. He can pray for it, yes, but to say that we baptize our conjure something of ourselves that cannot be of ourselves is uncomfortable ground for me.
Also it should be noted that the 3,000 new believers following Peter's first sermon were baptized with water after they believed, (Acts 2) and Philip baptized the Ethiopian as well. Paul refers to those he baptized in 1 Cor. and then says that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the Gospel (1 Cor. 10-15). Since these are references well after the death of Christ, his ressurection and his ascension. Good questions/thoughts Stephanie.
Brad
Jesus was baptized in water but HE never baptized anyone with water - his disciples did. Baptism, as notably pointed out can not in and of itself save anyone. It is an outward expression of your faith, but not necessary for salvation. I wasn't baptized until about 1 year ago but I don't consider myself unsaved up until that point....
The baptism of the HolySspirit I believe comes when you accept Jesus as your personal Savior from sin and nothing we can do apart from that gets us there.
I'm with Müzikdüde on this one.
~Jef
Hey Stephanie - I'm coming back way late on this, and girly I know you are thinking out loud here and digging deep into the scriptures (go girl) so I have some cross references to share that also mention baptizing in the name of the trinity (or more specifically Jesus) Acts 2:38, 8:16, Romans 6:3, 1 Corintians 1:13,15, and Galatians 3:27.
The main point of all these verses is an alignment with Christ, to be baptized into Him is to become a part of Him, to align with Him, to be forgiven by Him and lastly to be indwelled with the Holy Spirit (a mark of sealing in Christ). So I think that this command by Christ "to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Sprit" immediately following His command to make disciples is to specify who they were called to make disciples in, specifically Christ (and therefore the entire trinity).
So we have the physical act of baptism, which the Bible shows as being with water and a public announcement of faith, and the spiritual act of baptism in Christ, when we die to ourselves and become like Him (as marked by the Holy Spirit being present in our life).
So is this a different baptism? No, it is one in the same because baptism is a mark of faith in Christ.
Paul talks later about the people being baptized into him or other disciples instead of into Christ, and I think that also points to the idea that Christ was making sure that all the disciples knew exactly who they were to be telling the people about and where salvation could be found, only in Christ.
Sorry if this is rambling and I am excited to hear your thoughs.
Katie: "13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[a] the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name." I LOVE this verse. It speaks to my heart in such a strong way, and I haven't quite figured it out yet, but what I DO know is, yes: this makes it crystal clear who and what baptism is for.
Thank you for the cross references! I think it's very clear by the scripture you have given me what the purpose of baptism is for: with or without water. I guess that's not so much the point. But yes, looking back in history, Baptism with water was, has been, and is, standard practice. No doubt about that.
Logan: I repeated your argument to S. last night after class, and he just smiled and shrugged. He said he's not satisfied with the answers he's recieved about this particular issue, but is not sure where else he can take this right now. I really liked what you had to say about this issue though Logan: very good argument!
Everyone: I know I'm a little late on my response, but I was struggling with today's post for a few days now, and had focused the majority of my attention on that. I thank you for all of your thoughts and insights on this issue. Like I told Jeff on his site: I'm not trying to pick apart the Bible for the sake of being argumentative, nor is it distracting me from the simple truth of salvation: not at all. I'm a theology student. It's my job to ask questions and dig deeper: actually, it's good for all of us to do that. Think about it: what are you doing when you "dig deeper" and ask questions? You're digging into God's Word, right? You're challenging the your own knowledge, and the knowledge of others, thereby bringing everyone into a deeper level of understanding of Christ, God, and His Word.
Praise God for the Living Word that He has given us, that it is ALWAYS new, that for as long as we live, we will always be learning something from it: and more importantly, teaching others through it.
Post a Comment
<< Home