Bryan,
Thank you for your clear response to my post that supports the Lutheran view on Baptism. In this response I wanted to emphasize the areas of agreement that we have, and to supplement my position on the connection of faith and Baptism.
If our discussion has given you a desire to look more into the topic of Baptism, I found a very good article on Baptism in the 'New Bible Dictionary' (which should be in your Logos software package.) From this article, let me see if we can agree on some of the foundations for our discussion on Baptism:
I believe we both agree that –
- The Gospel message is an offer of God's forgiveness and acceptance. Jesus' mission was to seek and save the lost;
- The Gospel is a summons to Repentance and Faith;
- The openness of the Gospel offer is also a criticism of those who would restrict the Gospel's offer by ritual requirements or practices.
If we agree on this, then the question we are looking at is whether Baptism is merely a 'ritual requirement or practice' or is there something more to it.
I do not believe Baptism is merely a 'ritual requirement or practice'. My understanding of Jesus' teaching on Baptism and the Apostle's explanation of it in the New Testament, as well as through Church tradition, is that God has chosen to mediate His Grace and Forgiveness through Baptism into Christ. And so, Baptism and Faith in Jesus Christ are inextricably intertwined.
Faith, Faith, Faith, Faith, Faith. Yes, Faith is the centerpiece of the Christian life. But what exactly am I saying that Christians are to have faith in? Jesus taught that a person cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). Jesus taught that only those who believe and are baptized are saved (Mark 16:16). And Jesus' Great Commission to believers is to go and make disciples and baptize them. And so, there is little doubt that Jesus viewed Baptism as an extremely important act of obedience for His followers.
The Faith that Martin Luther teaches about through Baptism is a faith that in what Jesus says is true when He spoke about Baptism. That salvation itself, and entrance into the Kingdom of God depends upon Baptism. That a Christian's life involves teaching disciples and baptizing them, as Jesus instructed in the Great Commission. Let me end with this quote from Martin Luther:
"What is Baptism? It is not simply common water, but water comprehended in God's Word and commandment and sanctified by them. It is nothing else than a divine water, not that the water in itself is nobler than other water but that God's Word and commandment are added to it…" (Luther's Large Catechism, p. 82.)
Therefore, because God's Word instructs us on the importance of Baptism, our faith is that Jesus has commanded us to Baptize and so we should be obedient and do it. Baptism is not a 'ritual requirement or practice', where Jesus taught us to Baptize others and that it was so important that even our Lord and Savior underwent Baptism in the River Jordan with John the Baptist.
OK, one last final note on Infant Baptism. My favorite theologian J. H. Smith in the 'New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge' provides some additional information on the Greek used in the Book of Acts' description of the "household" baptisms of Lydia, the Philippian Jailer, and Stephanus (see last Post on Infant Baptism):
Had oikos in reference to persons been rendered family, New Testament teaching on infant baptism would have been clear. Oikos never means a married pair not having children, or the parents distinct from the children…Oikos designates not only minors, but children in the youngest possible state of life (1 Ti 3:4, 12). It has reference to babes and sucklings, infants, in 1 Ti 5:14, where "guide the house" is oikodespotein, literally despotize the offspring or family, mentioned in connection with "younger women...bear children." Those who ask for Bible evidence for infant baptism have it right here. (J.H. Smith, entry for Acts 16:15)
Thanks again for this discussion. May the Lord bless all those who visit our blogs with a Happy 2009, and blessed service of those in the Body of Jesus Christ. /s/Tom.
2 comments:
Tom,
I wanted to respond to you here as quick as I could because my schedule becomes bloated again next week. So, don’t think I’m quick on the trigger – it’s just about time management. Again, thanks for this discussion.
I understand it is difficult to host a discussion like this on a blog. You offer a bunch of information up, then I respond with a bunch of my information, then you respond with more information, ad infinitum. I can’t possibly respond to every argument you make, and you can’t respond to all of mine either. That’s just the way it goes.
Also, I wanted to invite others to interact and ask questions as well. We’re getting pretty technical here, I know, but I think for both of us our goal is primarily to explain the issues and our thoughts as plainly as possible.
Finally, I’ve posted responses to your newer comments in the earlier posts dealing with baptism, and below I tried to set off clear space between each topic I address, so hopefully it is easy to read.
Let me start off by saying that any act of obedience to God is more than “merely a ‘ritual requirement or practice’”. Without obedience to God the Gospel is proven fruitless in one’s life. I would go further and say that baptism in particular is an important act of obedience since we are directly commanded to be baptized.
You see, I would not say that baptism is necessary for salvation any more than the process of sanctification is necessary for salvation, or exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit is necessary for salvation. Those realities are proof of one’s salvation, not salvation itself. In the same way, being baptized is a symbolic proof of one’s salvation.
Let me revisit the Great Commission because you seem to be hung up on Jesus’ command here. I tried to explain in one of my comments earlier how there really is only one command in the Great Commission and that command is to make disciples. That is the focus of what Jesus is saying. “Baptizing” has more in common with “going” and “teaching” because they are all participles. “Make disciples” is an imperatival verb. “Baptizing” and “teaching” are not the way to discipleship, rather they characterize it. The way to discipleship is with the preaching of the Gospel (salvation in Christ) and response to it (repentance and faith).
Do you see what I am saying? Grammatically speaking Jesus command is this: make disciples! “Go,” because of its location in relation to the verb does carry some inherent imperatival force. But “baptizing” and “teaching” do not gain that imperatival force behind them because of their location in the Greek sentence. That is just Greek grammar.
D.A. Carson in his commentary on Matthew in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary series goes to Luke 6:35 to show a similar grammatical structure. Luke 6:35 says, “…and lend, expecting nothing in return.” “Lend” is an imperatival verb and “expecting” is a participle. Carson writes, “Not expecting anything in return is certainly not the means of the lending, but it is [related to the verb] in that it characterizes the lending….”
We’re getting pretty technical here, huh? The overall idea I am trying to communicate is this: Jesus is commanding his disciples to “make disciples.” That is the only command in Matthew 28:19-20. I think I will leave Matt. 28 there and see if you (or any others) have any questions.
You make an apples and oranges mistake in comparing Jesus’ baptism with our baptism. Baptism is not an exclusively Christian enterprise. Long before John the Baptist’s time other cults and ethnicities were practicing baptism. It was usually done as a purification rite, but sometimes it also was used for things like initiations. In fact, many think (I don’t) that John the Baptist may have communed with the Qumran community because they too practiced baptism. Baptism is hardly an exclusively Christian concept.
Moreover, John’s baptism differed from Jesus’ baptism. That is why people baptized by John were baptized again with the baptism of Jesus (cf. Acts 19). It doesn’t really matter, but I would go further and say that Jesus’ baptism was an entirely unique baptism that no one can share – not even others who were baptized by John. His was a unique baptism reserved for the Son of God.
Finally, on the issue of “households”. I’m sorry to tell you this, but J.H. Smith is wrong. I went to every Greek lexicon and dictionary I own (which is too many) and the ones that offer an explanation of words (as opposed to just giving appropriate words for translation) clearly show that the word is broader than the familial usage.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), which is a very reliable source, says of the word oikos “It is explicitly emphasized that the conversion of a man leads his whole family to the faith; this would include wife, children, servants and relatives living in the house.”
The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains (a source I admittedly rarely if ever have used) defines oikos as follows: “the family consisting of those related by blood and marriage, as well as slaves and servants, living in the same house or homestead”.
BDAG, the hands-down authority Greek lexicon, points to Philippians 4:22 where Caesar’s household is mentioned. Paul writes at the end of his letter, “All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household.” Is that supposed to mean that Paul has an intimate relationship with Caesar and his family? Of course not! “Household” in Greek can refer to more than just family.
TDNT also pointed out that in one of Polycarp’s letters he uses the word “household” in a broader sense, but also with a twist for our discussion. Polycarp writes to the Philippians greeting the widow of Epitropos “with her whole house and children.” Note that “whole house” (or “household”) is used in distinction to children. Hmmm...
I put all this here to point out that unfortunately Smith got it wrong. But let’s assume for a minute that he was right. There still is not enough information to validate the assumption that infants are present in those households. The best argument you can make is that it seems plausible that there could be infants in those households. There is no clear NT command (or OT for that matter) to baptize infants. The practice of infant baptism is the result of theological desires, not biblical, exegetical conclusions.
My head hurts.
bry
I am really enjoying this one! Bryan, this is the most engaged I have ever seen you. I'm used to Tom's thought process, and this thread is a valuable insight into yours. Multiple (but not TOO many) viewpoints make the best discussions. Thank you!
Once again I will give my visceral and intuitive (read: uneducated) response, from the heathen viewpoint.
If I were a debate coach, this round would go to Bryan. While I cannot believe that God places equal weight on all his commands, baptism does seem to one that he is particularly keen on. I have spent the last couple hours looking up passages and have to agree on cursory inspection that God loves baptism.
Of course, I would phrase it differently. I would say that the writers of the gospels saw it as an important way to demonstrate faith, obedience, and inclusiveness, all without leaving any visible traces for the authorities to find (unlike circumcision). It was a natural that Jesus would pick up the practice, embrace it, and teach it. From a public relations and propaganda standpoint, it was an all-win scenario. To have NOT embraced it, would have possibly alienated a majority of the audience he was trying to reach, and contradicted centuries of similar practices.
"PROPAGANDA?!?!?!", you scream! Okay, before you jump on me, please remember that as a bystander, I'm using generic and clinical language that fits my dissections of all religious practices, yours or otherwise...
Baptism can be viewed as having propaganda potential thusly: It is a perfect "first step" in the indoctrination process. Getting someone to follow all your commands, and follow your ideals even unto death does not occur overnight. You don't give a child Shakespeare in 1st grade and expect him to learn to read from it. You use baby steps, and start with the alphabet. You don't take someonr who has never heard of Democracy and expect him to willingly hand over authority to Obama. You start with Greek philosophy, and work your way to the U.S. Constitution and the concept of the American Republic. Then it becomes obvious why Obama was the clear choice (DOWN, TOM, DOWN!). Anyway, the same sort of process holds true in a religious context. To get a person obeying all of God's commands, you give him a really easy one to do, tell him it's really important, help him do it, and then give him lots of inclusive and positive feedback when it's done. Then you move on to tougher sells.
On the Great Commission: I'm going to trust Bryan about the Greek syntax and grammar structure. If he is indeed separating the imperative from the participle, as he says, then what he says makes sense. My high school adviser was also Greek and a teacher of Ancient Greek, so I was exposed to a lot of it back then. Unfortunately, i don't remember any of it, but Bryan's explanation sounds legit...
Dang! Didn't I say my question of tying baptism to Jesus might have already been addressed? Bry, you were a step ahead of me... but you kind of puttered out after declaring Jesus' baptism unique, which it most certainly would have been (voices and doves and all that...). I would like to hear you expand on the differences from a religious standpoint, since I already am comfortable with the psychosocial aspects...
Of course, I wouldn't be me if I didn't, once again, point out the value of taking a ritual that is close or related to that of an opponent (all other religions). By claiming it as your own, you sow confusion among the ranks of the opposing believers "(Hmmm... maybe my god is your god after all!"), and deny them the use of that same ritual ("IF you do that, you are really showing obedience to OUR god, not your false one!")...
The debate about "household" I am staying out of, but the point seems to be to Bry right now, as I like his clear explanation of his research. That ball is in your court now, Tom!
Pax,
~Ed~
Post a Comment