It’s been quite a while since I’ve had a chance to respond to all the things that Nota Bene and Integrity Blog have said in reference to baptism.
Mea culpa–I’ve been running around like a chicken with my head cut off. Which I understand is quite a sight, although I’ve never personally witnessed it. Which puts me in mind of Mike the Headless Chicken.
But I digress…
We’re discussing what it means to follow Jesus, and how baptism relates to that. The Catholic position is that baptism is the way one normally becomes a Christian. So far I’ve limited myself to discussing one specific passage that Sean first mentioned. They’ve made a LOT of observations since I’ve posted, so I encourage you to read their blogs to see what they’ve been saying. There’s no way I could respond to it all without this being my full-time job, so I’ll just do what I can. Hey guys: if I misunderstand, misrepresent, or fail to address what you consider to be your strongest arguments please let me know: I am being selective, but I’m trying to be selective with integrity.
In this post I’ll try to provide a broader understanding of baptism. It may be long, so buckle your seatbelts! My basic thesis will be that baptism is an expression of salvation, and not a means of salvation as held by certain churches. Baptism is of vital importance in the life of the believer and is more than an archaic ritual, yet it is not ultimately salvific.
Jack and Sean’s observations fall into two categories: scriptural and historical.
I’d like to begin by offering my own scriptural observations.
The Bible is clear that salvation issues from placing one’s faith [belief plus trust] in Jesus. There are several relevant passages of Scripture, referencing a few should suffice: John 3.16–18, Acts 16.31, Romans 3.23–24, Galatians 3.26–27, Ephesians 2.8–9, 1 John 5.1.
These passages are clear: God adopts us into His family when we place our faith in Jesus. I don’t see such a clarity in the passages Jack references or in the ones that Sean references. I do see an emphasis on the importance of baptism, but I don’t see a demonstration of baptism as a means of salvation.
The only texts Jack raised which might even seem to teach salvific baptism are towards the end of his post, The Church would also point to the words of Peter and Paul on how baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ: Romans 6:3–4; Col 2:12 … 1 Cor 6:11. [note: I edited slightly for length]. In each of these verses, Paul is speaking descriptively: all the believers had been baptized, so he can speak of baptism as a synonym for being a believer.
Now I’d like to make a few historical comments:
First, I’d like to acknowledge that the early church clearly thought that baptism was salvific.
I’d also like to say that it’s an unpersuasive point. Theology evolves. Over time the church gradually comes to a deeper understanding of the ramifications of the Bible’s teaching and incorporates it into our theology. The most well-known example is the doctrine of the Trinity. All the clues were in the Bible, it just took the Church a few centuries to put them together in a consistent way.
The early church fathers were wrong about baptism. They clearly did not understand the Scriptures at this point. In fact, I’m willing to bet that there were divergent views among the early church theologians about baptism (I just don’t have the historical expertise to know them off the top of my head or the time to ferret them out).
I’d like to close by explaining what baptism does.
Jack asked me what exactly I think baptism does:
1) Baptism forces people to publicly profess their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
2) Baptism requires a public display of solidarity with the Church.
3) Baptism is a test of obedience. Someone unwilling to follow Christ in such a small thing cannot be properly called a follower of Christ.
4) Baptism is an object lesson in faith, and provides excellent symbolism that can be used to help people understand the gospel.
Baptism does all these things, and probably a good deal more. It does not, however, save anyone.
well said, glen.
i think the scriptures you included form a strong foundation for the more modern evangelical view on baptism as the correct one. i would also include romans 10: 9, 13 but as you pointed out there are lots of great passages supporting this position.
as far as the church father’s go, JACK over at integrity isn’t satisfied with your treatment of the topic. he seems to want to know how the church father’s could have been mistaken over something like this, but really the “how” of it is irrelavent: they are either right or wrong on this issue, and if their views are untenable in the light of scripture then that’s that. to me, the real problem is that if we accept the views of the early fathers on baptism, we force the Bible to contradict itself and render it fallible. i’ll expand a bit over at my blog if you care to drop by. otherwise, keep up the good work!
I treasure my baptism “of water and of the Spirit”(John 3).
Being then a “born from above” Catholic Christian am I to believe Jesus, St. Peter,
the other Apostles, the Church Fathers and Doctors,
and the Popes (Matt.28:16–20) or just anyone’s personal interpretation
of what Jesus said about Baptism and Salvation?
Jesus, being Divine, was no dunce with words.
He said what He meant and meant what He said. Since there is no deceit in Him , He said “water” and He meant water, wet water and He said “Spirit” and He meant Spirit, with a capital S, the Holy Spirit. If Spirit is literal then so is water. Should we question the meaning of Spirit also?
I’m a simple friendly man and mean no offense.
I’m writing this comment in the spirit of christian fellowship.
The arguments and personal interpretations about Baptism have been interesting but, I will continue to believe in Jesus,
His Sacred Scripture and His Church over all personal interpretations.
Joe, I think that’s a very interesting personal interpretation that you have. 🙂
Glen,
While the phrasing that Joe used may be his own, the essence of the interpretation that he gives is not only “personally” his own, it also that of the Catholic Church. The Church (that is, the body of believers now and over the course of history) proposed it to him, and he accepted it.
Sean
Glen, sorry I dont do personal interpretations.
The Sacrament of Baptism and the Apostles authority to teach and perform Baptism comes from Jesus.(Matt.28:16–20)(John 3)
You are welcome to misunderstand my words from my previous comment as interpretation, but I in no way wish to interpret
Jesus, St. Peter, the other Apostles, the Church Fathers
and Doctors, the Popes, and the Sacred Scriptures from which
Baptism has been passed down to the Catholic Church (including me)
through the ages. You are 1900+ years too late to credit me with
the Sacrament of Baptism.
Try the 20,000+ and ever increasing christian denominations, that mostly began this last century, they can provide you with many more
interesting personal interpretations on baptism.:-)
Actually, everyone does personal interpretation. There’s no way around it.
The key difference is this: I am focusing my interpretative efforts on the Bible and you are focusing yours on the historical faith of the church.
In this case, you interpret the teachings of the church to include the concept of baptism as an impartation of grace. You have to read (or hear) the teachings, understand them, and then express them in your own words. That’s interpretation. And since most of the church teaching on baptism was not written in English: you’re interpreting a translation, and translation necessitates interpretation. Therefore, you have an interpretation of an interpretation.
Incidentally, I think your interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine is accurate. Interpretation is not equivalent to error.
One final example: when you say “He said ‘water’ and He meant water, wet water” you are engaging in interpretation. Your interpretation is that Jesus was speaking with journalistic literalness.
In fact, the Gospels frequently show Jesus speaking in metaphor–and this is clearly one instance. The phrase “born of water” must be a metaphor–we do not emerge newborn from a puddle.
Glen,
Yes, you are correct. There is no way around “personal interpretations.” Such interpretations come, ultimately, from one’s conscience.
Consciences, however, can be formed in different ways. Although I may be wrong (after all, no one can enter another’s heart), it would appear that Joe, with the aid of God’s grace, has attempted to form his conscience regarding baptism according to the historically consistent interpretation of scripture by the Catholic Church.
How would you describe the way that you have tried to form your own conscience?
And what do you mean by the “historical faith” of the Catholic Church? Do you see it as being something wholly separate from scripture? If you do, I think that this is inaccurate. In speaking about baptism, the Catholic Church clearly bases its teachings on its interpretation of scripture.
Sean
I have tried to form my conscience through understanding the Scriptures, learning from the community of faith, reflecting on my experiences, and responding to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in my life.
As far as the historical faith of the RCC, I didn’t mean that as a perjorative statement. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that he and I were both interpreting, but that our interpretations had a different focus. Historical faith seemed to capture the nuance that I was striving for. Perhaps I was wrong. But Joe and I clearly have a different methodology for interpretation: mine is to examine the text of Scripture, his is to examine the text of Scripture as understood throughout the history of the Church. Those are different, and I’m not sure how to express that difference.
As to your last question, I agree that the RCC attempts to root its doctrine of baptism in the Bible, but I consider them to have made a significant interpretive error.
Well, it sounds like one issue at the heart of our dialogue is that of authority in interpretation and assurance of the truth of any one interpretation.
Now there is an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of my comments.
This is funny, and is an example of the problem with personal interpretations, no offense Glen and Sean:-).I don’t think I need to restate my position.
Baptism in a puddle of water, it certainly is possible.
A Baptismal Font is better, but being Baptized in living, moving water like the Jordan river when St. John the Baptist baptized Jesus(Matt.3:13–17), thats special.:-)
St. Peter Followed just what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 and John 3:5 . Peter preached (acts238)“Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the
holy ghost. Peter knew who Jesus was. He knew the name(singular) of the father ‚son , holy ghost in Mat. 28:19. Peter knew that Jesus was just what the angel told mary (emmanuel: GOD WITH US) Not second person of trinty. But God the father manifested in flesh
(1Tim 3:16)