I grew up in a church denomination that believed, at the time I was born, in baptizing babies. Now, by that very statement, you could surmise that they also believed in baptizing by sprinkling, rather than immersion, people once they were older and you would be right. Why mention this? Because this is my foundation. This is what I KNEW was right and true from a very young age. And I hope you realize that when I say I "KNEW" it was right and true, that simply means I felt that way because it's what I'd always known. In fact, until I was an adult, I never thought twice about it, to be honest.
In that sense, my foundational experience is no different than anyone who grew up in a belief system that stated you could only be baptized by immersion. Anyone raised that way, whether from a young age or whether that was the method first presented to them after they accepted Christ, likely feels very strongly there is only one method of baptism.
A few questions, then, should come from this for people on either side of the proverbial fence. One, do I feel the way I do about baptism because it's something I was taught or do I feel the way I do because the Bible specifically states it? Two, is my unwillingness to consider the alternative viewpoint on this issue due to stubbornness via the foundation built in me or do I think I have "proof" my viewpoint exists Biblically?
Third, and key to me utilizing the term "legalism" in the title of this entry, is this: Regardless of how you feel, do you attempt to push your conviction on others who do not share it in an effort to garner acceptance, say in the form of church membership?
Wow! If you are in the immersion camp right now you're fighting to keep from tuning me out, but please listen, because I'm not saying any of this out of a desire to change convictions. I'm about to give you some ideas on why this does indeed fall into the category of legalism, and it's maybe even more common than the others that are more visible, namely concerns over appearance, clothing or music. Those topics will show up on here in later entries.
So let's look at this issue a bit; get a little foundation of our own to draw from without going too deep. I could give a ton of Bible verses here, but you can look it up. If you're in the immersion camp, you're drawing from several verses in the New Testament and have decided that since references appear to speak only to being immersed, that must be the only option. This would be great, if the Greek word baptizo only meant one thing. But you see, it doesn't. Oh sure, it can very much mean immersion considering it is used as such to describe things ranging from baptisms in rivers and special pools to Jesus describing His being "immersed" in suffering.
On the other hand, it can also mean a "pouring" out of, well, as we think of it, water. Although the term is also used in the original Greek texts to speak to a pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Now, I could go on all day and get into the language of it all, the meaning of words in their original language and intent, but I don't think it would benefit any of us. I say this because none of what I've said so far is good enough to convince anyone to side one way or the other.
But that's good, because that's not what I'm trying to do. What I need to get through your thick skull and mine is that whatever method we believe in, there is nothing specific in the Bible to uphold either side. Oh sure, immersion appears to receive more obvious references, but can you really do anything with regard to theology based solely on the outer skin? And really, do you firmly believe this has anything to do with salvation? With all apologies to my Catholic friends on that point, who have so many man-made rules they can't see the forest for the trees, the method by which you were or choose to be baptized has absolutely no right or wrong and nothing to do with getting into Heaven. Baptism should, technically, come after someone has put their faith in Christ, as a sign of obedience to Him.
Before I close out with my grand argument, so to speak, I have to share something extremely alarming I pulled up in preparation for writing this. And make no mistake, I'm writing this to get it off my chest that I'm sick and tired of legalism and how it has even translated into this area. But here it goes, and I'll give you a direct quote:
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
I bolded that last line because it's just so unbelievable to me. As my brother, a Wesleyan pastor, stated to me, "To add anything on top of the grace of Christ is heresy." I'm going to make a very strong statement and say the last line of the quote above falls into that category. Now, would you like to know where this came from?
This quote comes directly from "The Baptist Faith and Message", page 6. You can find this on the Southern Baptist denomination website and several of its subsidiaries. What really bothers me is that I attend a Southern Baptist church...and THIS is what the denomination holds as valid and true? That somehow, even if I am a Christian, if I am saved, unless I have been baptized by immersion, I'm not good enough to take communion? Ummm, WHAT?????? Exactly where is THAT one in the Bible? It's not, which means it is, at the very least, a legalistic man-made rule.
I have to say I didn't expect to find anything so blatantly legalistic, so blatantly heretical, anywhere within the Southern Baptist statement of beliefs. Count me sufficiently shocked and, for the moment, glad most of the churches within the denomination are self-managed, connected primarily in name with the SBC so as to give an identity.
Let me be very clear in stating this is not an attack on the SBC. If I wanted to attack specific denominations or religions, I'd be writing something entirely different and probably not using this forum lest I begin receiving all kinds of hate mail. This is simply sharing with you something I found that is so incredibly man-made I can't believe it even exists.
I've been promising a statement meant to sum up why I don't believe anyone has the right to push their convictions regarding baptism on others, which would be legalism in action. And, I'll admit, it's going to be slanted against those who believe immersion is the only way to go. So here are two things for you to chew on.
From Easton's Bible Dictionary we get the following:
The gospel and its ordinances are designed for the whole world, and it cannot be supposed that a form for the administration of baptism would have been prescribed which would in any place (as in a tropical country or in polar regions) or under any circumstances be inapplicable or injurious or impossible.
And then, from, of all sources, the Catholic.com website, I offer this set of paragraphs which I think sums it up extremely well:
After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.
Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).
Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.
What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command.
I especially like a few things in that last quote. Primarily, my thinking has always aligned with the thought that, in ancient times, there is NO WAY anyone living in the Arctic or several desert climates would have had an option to be baptized by immersion. Where was the water for them to do this if they lived where it was always frozen, or where was the water if their climate was so much a desert that it was simply impossible?
Are you telling me people from these areas made yearly treks, kind of like their own visit to Mecca, just to be baptized in a pool or river? I have to think if this was happening, we'd have heard about it by now. Even the last bit of that quote, speaking of those who believe immersion is the only option (referred to as Fundamentalists), has a very valid point on the matter.
With all that information presented, the only question is, do we hold to our belief in the proper method of baptism because God made the rule or because man made the rule? I would submit to you that if you defer to either method and refuse to accept the other as possible that you believe in man more than God. You believe that man was able to decipher something God never specifically stated in the Bible. You believe the Greek can only be translated one way, when in fact is means multiple things (as many, many Greek words do and hey, that's just like our own English language; go figure).
Last, I would submit to you that in order to align yourself properly on this issue, and to not be legalistic about it, you must consider how your belief in the method of baptism fits in places where immersion is not possible. That alone is the key issue as far as I'm concerned and the only reason this has been written.
No comments:
Post a Comment