One Baptism - Part 1
I intentionally skipped over the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Church of Christ views. It's not because these views are not important to learn, but rather for a couple other simple reasons. The Church of Christ views defaults to salvation by obedience or works apart from grace. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views are roughly similar to the Lutheran view, which I hold to. The debates between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic view tend to revolve around what baptism washes away (in Rome it's original sin for infants) and what makes the baptism effective (Lutheran - God's Word, Rome - the Priest, Holy Water, etc). The last comparison is simplistic, but suffice it to say, we agree that baptism is a means of grace that does something for the recipient from God.
Today we will focus on the Scriptures that speak about baptism as well as the Nicene Creed that speaks about the same. The Creed states: "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins."
I'm not to deal with all the passages about baptism in the synoptic Gospels or John, but I will deal with a few. Here are the Scriptures fromthe Gospels and Acts.
Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
Mark 16:16: He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
John 3:22: After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
Acts 2:38: Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10:47: Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?
Acts 16:15: And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:33: And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Acts 19:3-5: And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 22:16: Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’
There are a cross-section of Scriptures speaking about baptism from the Gospels and from Acts. Here are some Scriptures from the didactic epistles.
Romans 6:3-4: Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
1 Corinthians 12:13: For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Galatians 3:27: For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Ephesians 4:5: one Lord, one faith, one baptism
Colossians 2:12: having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
1 Peter 3:21: Corresponding 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,
And there are the didactic epistles.
Generally, passages from Acts are descriptive history and the didactic epistles teach us doctrine, although that is not to say that Acts contains no doctrine or that the epistles contain no history. That being said, we are wise to look to the doctrinal epistles to tell us what something is, instead of trying to infer what something is from a historical account. This is true of baptism just as other doctrines.
The only two baptism passages I provided from the synoptic Gospel accounts are the two Great Commission passages. St. Matthew says that disciples are made by baptizing them and teaching them. Or at least, that is the interpretation that the majority of scholars take to the Great Commission passage in Matthew 28. St. Mark says that those who believed and are baptized shall be saved, and unbelievers will be condemned. The passage I provided from St. John's Gospel is important because it helps us understand the new birth discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus. Jesus speaks of being born from above by water and the Spirit in St. John 3:5. Immediately when the new birth discourse is completed (St. John 3:1-21), Jesus and the Apostles are going around baptizing people. (St. John 3:22) In other words, in a baptism, water and the Spirit are together. One baptism.
St. Matthew places baptism before teaching and St. Mark places believing before baptism. In short, a person cannot be dogmatic based on either of these passages regarding the order of baptism and belief. The best solution, and indeed I would propose the biblical one, is that belief, teaching, and baptism all go together. You can't have belief without teaching, and St. Matthew places baptism first. And a baptism without belief that precedes or follows is condemning. In other words, I don't think St. Matthew or St. Mark are proposing an order here. Neither one of them is saying that every person everywhere must believe first then be baptized after as an outward profession of faith, although we certainly do have ample historical example of first generation Christians believing then being baptized. But we also have ample examples of first generation Christians bringing their entire household to Holy Baptism. Some folks may object that those passages say nothing about infants, and they're right. But the objection is seriously weak. Surely, every single household baptism in Scripture did not involve all adults and adolescents who could articulate a profession of faith and know what baptism is.
I included Acts 10:47 because it shows that sometimes people are saved pre-baptism. We know this to be true. Even as a Lutheran who affirms the efficacy of baptism and indeed, baptismal regeneration, we do not hold that baptism is the only means of grace by which God saves. His Word saves us, and that comes to us in baptism, but also preaching, the Lord's Supper, and absolution. We affirm that baptism is the normal means and the usual means. In other words, it's necessary, but not absolutely necessary.
Acts 19:3-5 is included because it shows that John's baptism and Christian baptism are not completely identical. Tons of overlap for sure.
Acts 22:16 is included because it flatly says that baptism washes away sins.
The didactic epistles, which teach us doctrine, are very clear on this topic. St. Paul says that baptism buries and raises us with Christ in Romans 6, then again says the same thing and says we are actually raised in faith in baptism in Colossians 2. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we see that it is the Holy Spirit who baptises us into Christ.
On a side note, many Christian churches now days have two baptisms in practice. One is water baptism, and is just a sign and symbol of an inward change. Then they have what is called the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is based on texts such as Acts 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13.
The obvious problem here is that if this doctrine is true, Ephesians 4:5 is false. If we can change Ephesians 4:5 to two baptisms instead of one baptism, why can't we change it to two Lords and two faiths as well? There would be no reason why we couldn't, and I am sure no Christian is interested in doing that. The solution to this supposed dilemma is not to invent another baptism, but to recognize that Christian baptism is one, and it contains water and the Spirit. One baptism with water and the Holy Spirit. Not two.
That's why I include passages like Acts 2:38. This is talking about Christian baptism and St. Peter includes water and the Holy Spirit in his statement. Many non-paedobaptists (infant baptizers) and memorialist baptizers (Baptists) try to point out that "Repent" precedes "be baptized" in Acts 2:38. And that is true. But I've already argued that these things are part of one whole and go together, not a logical order. Or else St. Matthew (and Jesus, who said it) is quite possibly in error in the Great Commission by putting baptism first.
The final passage is from St. Peter's first epistle. This, I think, gives quite a bit of clarity to his words at Pentecost in Acts 2. Baptism, which correponds to this (God saving Noah and his family through water in the ark), now saves you. That's pretty clear. Baptism saves you. Not by water (although water is a means), but by the resurrection of Christ (Or, it raises us in faith, as St. Paul says in Colossians 2:12).
"I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins." ~Nicene Creed
This brings us to the Nicene Creed, which is an orthodox and ecumenical Christian creed. All Christians everywhere ought to hold to this creed. Not all Christians do. That does not necessarily mean they all are unsaved, but it does mean they are dangerously deviating from standard Christian teaching that has been held for 2000 years.
The Baptist view of baptism cannot account for this phrase very well. Granted, the phrase says nothing about paedobaptism (although earlier ecumenical councils take paedobaptism for granted. Carthage 253, for example). But it does say that baptism remits (forgives, same thing) sin. The Baptist view rejects this idea. They would have to reinterpret that Nicene phrase to make the "for" mean "because of." Such as: "I acknowledge one Baptism for (because I already have) the remission of sins." Yes, I believe a Baptist baptism is still valid. It is done in the Name of the Triune God and done with water.Water + Word = Baptism. I had a Baptist baptism.
The Reformed view of Baptism is oh so close. It's a bit confusing until one looks into it a bit. They acknowledge that baptism does something and is indeed a means of grace. They likewise baptize their children in the covenantal model of theology that they follow. However, they do not connect baptism to regeneration. In short, baptism is a means of grace, but it does not regenerate, for that is done by the secret inward call of the Holy Spirit apart from means.
The other big reason as to why the Reformed cannot accept baptismal regeneration is their theology that is rooted firmly in God's decrees and their doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. In other words, in order for the Perseverance of the Saints AND baptismal regeneration to be true, every baptized person ever in history must be elect and finally saved. We all know this not to be the case. Hence, they cannot accept baptismal regeneration and thus, like the Baptists in this regard, have a hard time with this phrase in the Nicene Creed.
The Lutheran (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox too) view of Baptism has no issue with this phrase. We accept baptismal regeneration first and foremost on Scriptural grounds. St. Paul, St. Peter, and the book of Acts all teach it. The authors of the Nicene Creed held to this as well.
Baptism is a very core foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. Discerning Scripture's teaching on it is quite important. And with any other doctrine,the "higher"view one has of it, the more important it becomes within that church body.
We hold, as Lutherans, that baptism is one of the chief articles of the faith. It is a sacrament. A work done by God for us. We receive it, and it is not our work.
Thanks be to God.
No comments:
Post a Comment