Baptism Word 2022

 Baptism: Its Meaning, Its History, Its Forms, and Its Practices An Outline and Bible Study/Sunday School Lesson for New and Returning Members By Floyd Knight, BA, M.Div. Executive Director New Heaven Ministries 113 Arrowhead Lane Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440-1901 Pastorfloydknight@gmail.com Table of Content Lesson One: I. The Five Symbols and Metaphors for Baptism in the Bible II. Formulas and Commands (Ordinances) for Baptism Lesson Two: III. Forms of or Means for Baptism Lesson Three: IV. Theological Arguments for and Against the Necessity of Infant Baptism V. The Congregational Position--A Matter of an Informed Conscience A. Each Individual Pastor's B. Each Individual Congregant's VI. Re-Dedication I. The Five Symbols and Metaphors for Baptism A Passing Through the Waters 1 Cor. 9:24-10:14 1 Peter 3:13-22 Hebrews 11:1-7, 23-29 Cf. Genesis 6-8 Exodus 14 Joshua 3-4 Isaiah 43:1-3a Creation & New Birth John 3:1-8 2 Cor 5:11-21 1 Peter 1:3-9 Cf. Gen. 1:1-10 Isa. 65:17-25 ("New heavens & new earth") Isa. 66:14-24 Eze. 36:22-36 ("A new heart and a new spirit.") Ezekiel 37 (The valley of dry bones as a re-creation.) Washing & Purification Acts 22:6-16 Acts 2:37-41 1 Cor. 6:9-11 1 Peter 3:13-22 Titus 3:4-8 (John 13:1-12) Cf. Num. 19:1-10 & 2 Chr 4:1-6 (waters of cleansing.) Lev 16:1-34 & Num. 19:1-10 (Day of Atonement) Ex 29:4-9; 30:17 ff.; & 40:12 ff. (Cleansing of the High Priest) Num. 31:21 ff. (Utensils Purification) Lev. 14:8 (Disease Purification) Psalm 51:1-7 (Wash me) 2 Kings 5 (Cleansing of Naaman) Isaiah 6:1-7 Eze. 36:22-36 (Cleansing of Israel) Clothing or Covering Gal. 3:23-29 Romans 13:8-14 Cf. Ex. 28-29; 40:11-16; & Lev. 8:1-36 (The consecration and purification of priests.) Lev. 16:1-34 (Washing and covering for the Day of Atone-ment.) Zech. 3:4-10 (Clean Garments for the High Priest.) Cf. Isaiah 61:1-3 ("Bestow a garment of praise. . ..") Death & Resurrection Rom. 6:1-11 1 Cor. 15:1-34 Colossians 2:6-15 Cf. Isa. 26:19 ("The dead . . . will rise, you who dwell in the dust, will wake up.") Ezekiel 37 (The valley of dry bones as a resurrection metaphor.) Daniel 12:2 ("Multitudes who sleep in the dust. . . will awake.") I have included in outline form the five major symbols or metaphors for baptism. The upper horizontal section lists the New Testament passages; the bottom the Old Testament passages to which the New Testament writers were probably alluding. I believe that once a person has read and reflected on these passages, the meanings and significance of these passages will become transparent--except for the fifth column. In the second column, the inclusion of Gen. 1:1-10 may seem out of place, but not if one understands that the world was also created in a watery womb: God separated the lower and upper waters and created dry land in the midst of the waters. The inclusion of this Genesis passage, then, is very justifiable. In most ancient cultures, birth, creation, and water are co-current symbols. Hence, its placement in the new birth section with the Gospel of John text: "Unless you are born again or born from above you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." A Mnemonic Aid A mnemonic aid to remembering the five metaphors for baptism is that of the process of human birth and delivery. The water must break (1. Passing through the waters) before the birth of a baby (2. New birth). Right after the delivery, the medical personnel check the baby and then wipes the blood and body fluids off the baby (3. Cleansing) and then wrap or dress the baby (4. Clothing or covering) before giving daddy his new precious bundle to hold. Of course, all babies that are born are also destined to die and be resurrected (5. Death and Resurrection). Some will taste the second death; others will live forever with Christ. Other Positive Water Metaphors (This section is optional. Class members may elect to explore other water images if time allows.) Tumult (A sign of Future Blessings): Genesis 1:1-2, 6-7; John 5:1-11; Acts 27:13-44 In this section, a stirring of the waters (e.g., God's spirit moving over the waters, a storm, or an angel stirring the water) results in something marvelous happening. This has implications for our own spiritual journeys. Source of, or an Essential for, Life: Genesis 1:1-2, 6-7; John 5:1-11; Acts 27:13-44; John 4:14 ff. & 7:37; Gen. 12:1-3, 6-7; Isa 55:1-13 (Galatians 3-4) In this section, water is symbolized as being necessary for life. Water is also used--as in some of the above passages already listed--as being something essential for spiritual (true) life. II. Formulas and Commands (or Ordinances) for Baptism In this section, one of our purposes is to explore why different churches choose to use one formula for baptism rather than another. We will also see why many feel that the controversy over the correct formula or wording is a non-event and a non-issue when correctly understood. In the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:16-20 In the Name of Jesus Acts 2:32-41 and Acts 10:42-48 Cf. Mark 16:14-20 The Trinitarian formula is used by most Christian denominations; however, a small number of Pentecostal and Apostolic churches and denominations will use the "Jesus Only" formula. Why the impasse? The students should read the passages and reflect on the context. They should read the passage while simultaneously praying for the Spirit to give them wisdom and understanding. They should wait in silence while keeping the text in their focus. [Prayerfully read and reread the passages above in their immediate contexts.] The key to this impasse: The key to this apparent impasse in wording or formula is found in the phrase "in the name." What does this phrase mean? What does it mean when someone says, "In the name of X"? How would you explain its use in the two baptism formulas? (See discussion helps below.) Discussion Helps #1: Jesus said that he and the Father were one in John 17:6-19, esp. 10-11 (Cf. John 1:1-5, 10-14; 3:18; 6:25-59; 8:12-58) 10All that I have is yours, and all that you have is mine, and they will bring glory to me. 11Holy Father, I am no longer in the world. I am coming to you, but my followers are still in the world. So, keep them safe by the power of the name that you have given me. Then they will be one with each other, just as you and I are one. Something to Think About: What principle can be derived from this passage? How would you apply this principle to the phrase, "in the name," in the baptism passages? Discussion Helps #2: Pagans (non-Jewish and non-Christian) incantations involve spells that require the person to say the right words with the right emphasis, right accent and/or right inflections for the spell to be successful. In addition, some require the right sacrifices or gifts to be presented at the same time. (See, for example, the Harry Potter's movies and the Fox network's Charmed Series.) Christians, on the other hand, have traditionally maintained that our God cannot be manipulated by the words or actions of others. God enacted God's own plan, provided God's own sacrifice, at the time of God's own choosing before God created the universe so that we could have full communion with God. In fact, we are told not to participate in such rituals and not to consult sorcerers, witches, astrologers, mediums, and necromancers. Something to Think About: Is God captive to our commands? Must God obey us simply because we say a particular word or phrase? Should Christians have a religio-magic understanding of God in a way that is like what witches and warlocks (i.e., Wiccan devotees) and shamans, pagan priests, and witch doctors have regarding their gods? If we do not say a particular word or phrase correctly, will God, then, reject our prayers and petitions? Does God judge the heart or just the words that a person says? (See texts below.) Jeremiah 17:10--I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct. . .. (NIV) Psalms 90:8--You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. (NIV) 1 Chronicles 28:9--For the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you. . .. (NIV) Revelations 2:23--I am he who searches the heart and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. . .. (NIV) Have the Class Brainstorm How to Reverse Engineer What the Author Presented. * How did the author discover or find the five symbols for Baptism? * What are two or three ways in which anyone can discover and categorize the symbolism of Baptism and/or other topics?i Note: Teachers may wish to end the first day of class here. If there is additional time remaining, he or she may wish to go back and explore the other positive water metaphors above or do a question and answer session on the materials covered so far. For example, examine how the metaphor of death and resurrection can be spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically uplifting in that it gives hope to those who have gone through personal and financial misfortune. If God is the God of Resurrection Sunday as well as Good Friday, then family, character, or economic failures do not spell the end; but only the beginning of a new life in God. ***************************Option 1--End of First Session****************************** III. Forms of, or Means for, Baptism In this section, we will be exploring (1) why different churches and pastors use different methods of baptizing (sprinkling or immersion), (2) why some will baptize infants and others only adults, and (3) why some churches and pastors will refuse to baptize persons as adults again who were previously baptized as infants. We will begin by looking at the etymology of the word "baptism" and the different methods of baptism (including their genesis and history). In section IV, we will explore why Christians have different theological understandings of baptism and grace. A. Etymology of the Word Baptism 1. Greek word "baptizo" is most often translated as to "dip" or to "immerse." This is the meaning consistent with its classic "etymology" [that is, origin, development, and expansion of its meaning(s)]. 2. Argument for expanding the meaning of baptism to include sprinkling and pouring. a. It has been argued that the Jordan River is a creek too small to support immersion. It has been advanced that upon visiting the Holy Land, modern tourists can easily see that the Jordan River is too shallow to support "immersion." Consequently, it is argued that the meaning of "Baptizo" also includes "pouring" or "sprinkling." Jesus, therefore, is said to have knelt in the Jordan and allowed John to pour water on him to baptize him. 3. Counterarguments against expanding the meaning of baptism a. The Modern Jordan is a Controlled Body of Water. Because the Israeli government has built a hydro-electric dam and plant south of the Sea of Galilee and because much of the water that would flow through the Jordan to the Dead Sea is diverted for agricultural use by both Israelis and Jordanians, one cannot take the present volume of the Jordan River as indicative of the volume and flow of the Jordan River in ancient Palestine. In the two sketches made in 1849 by a United States Marine Expedition to Palestine, one can see that the Jordan did support immersion before the modern period of irrigation. As to the claim that immersion is impossible in the Jordan River today, see photos below. In 1991, Park Manor Christian Church went on a tour of the Holy Land and some of the members reenacted their baptisms by being immersed by Pastor Demus and Akers. This is proof positive that the Southern Jordan river is, indeed, deep enough for baptism by immersion. Tour Group Baptism Rafting on the Jordan Pastors Demus and Akers In the Jordan (c)Donald N. Reid Ministries (c) Jordan River Rafting Ltd. b. Old Testament Evidence Regarding the Jordan In ancient Palestine, the Jordan was relatively unregulated, just as it was in 1849 when the US Marine Expedient drew the above sketches. The Bible states in Joshua 3:15 that the Israelites encountered a Jordan at flood stage. In 2 Kings 5:14, we are told that Naaman, the commander of the Syrian Army, dipped himself seven times in the Jordan and was healed of his leprosy. Both passages suggest that the ancient Jordan river, at least during the "flood" stage, had plenty of water to allow one to be immersed. c. New Testament Evidence that Advance the Position That John and Jesus Practiced Baptism by Immersion After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. (John 3:22-23) The point of citing this passage is that if Jesus or John preferred sprinkling or pouring, they would not have journeyed to a place with plenty of water. If you were sprinkling or pouring, a creek or brook with a depth of six or 18 inches of flowing water would have been adequate. They would not need "plenty of water." 4. Conclusion Regarding the Etymology of the Word "Baptizo" We have found that the argument for broadening the definition of the word "baptizo" to include "pouring" or "sprinkling" because of the physical limitations of the present Jordan River is without a sound foundation. While the word 'baptism' today includes "sprinkling" and "pouring," it probably did not have this meaning in the New Testament. Biblical and extra-biblical evidence points to the Jordan as allowing for immersion. 2nd and 3rd-century evidence for the sprinkling of infants will be considered below. B. Types of Baptism (Immersion to Sprinkling) 1. Evidence for Adult Immersion a. The Jordan River and "Baptizo" i. The Formal Etymology of "Baptizo" ii. Old and New Testament Evidence Regarding the Jordan River ii. Sketches of the Jordan from 1849 iv. Modern Evidence b. Didache (circa 90 AD to 130 AD) This early second, late first, century manual of the Early Church shows that the early church preferred baptism by immersion in a living (that is, flowing) stream or river. Next was immersion in still water, followed by the pouring of water over the head three times. What conditioned or occasioned the different forms of baptism was the scarcity or plenitude of water and the condition of the believer (for example, whether he or she was on their death or sickbed that would rule out the immersion method). VII. Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. Having first rehearsed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and, if thou canst not in cold, in warm. If you have neither, pour water thrice [three times] on the head in the name, etc. . . . Before the baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and others if they can. And order the baptized to fast one or two days before. . .. c. Evidence from the Bible i. Jesus' Baptism by John in the Jordan ii. Ethiopian Eunuch's Baptism by Philip iii. The concern of Jesus and John to Baptize in a place where there was "plenty of water." Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. (John 3:22-23) 2. Evidence for Infant Baptism and Sprinkling a. 2nd and 3rd Century church documents support infant baptisms b. Evidence from the Bible i. No explicit evidence of infant baptism, only explicit evidence of adult or believers' baptism ii. Implied Biblical evidence of children and infants in the term "household." Pros of Implied Argument Children and infants are not shown in the Bible as being explicitly baptized although many Christians believe that the baptism of children may be implied from those texts which state that the "whole household" was baptized (e.g., Acts 16:15 & 16:33). They argue that if children were not to be baptized, the Bible would have expressly forbidden it. They hold that the practice of the 2nd and 3rd-century church were the norm also for the 1st-century church. Otherwise, the 2nd and 3rd-century documents would have left some trace of opposition to the practice of infant baptism. Contrary Arguments The opponents of infant baptism argue that if adult baptism was the only form acceptable for the 1st-century church, then there would be no need for the Biblical writers to explicitly forbid children from being baptized since the question of baptizing children would not have been an issue since everyone already knew that baptism was only for adults. This is the way it is in Baptist households today. Suppose a Baptist was speaking to another Baptist and said that his whole household had been baptized, the other Baptist will know that either (1) the speaker is excluding infants and toddlers in his remarks or (2) all of his children were baptized after they had reached the age of accountability. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd century sources, the crux of this "argument from silence" is considered naïve and a rhetorical and logical fallacy. This type of argument is really an Appeal to Ignorance or Ad Ignoratum. To say that since "the 2nd and 3rd-century documents that we now have did not leave some trace of opposition to the practice of infant baptism," they, therefore, prove or indicate that "infant baptism" was the norm for the 1st-century church is miss leading and is unsound logically and historically. First, we do not have a uniform and/or systematic collection of documents from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. (We do not have access to a 2nd or 3rd century LexisNexis or Religious Periodicals in Review.) One must first make the argument that these documents from the 2nd and 3rd centuries that have survived represent a statistical and representative sample of the opinions held by the Christians of that period. Those who hold to this view cannot provide such evidence. Second, 60 to 100 years are a long-time to start and have established new traditions. The controversies of 150 AD (CE) to 230 AD (CE) are not those of 70 AD (CE). For example, if we were to randomly collect 100 church newsletters each from 1980 to 2020 from several mainline National Council of Christian Churches (NCCC)) congregations, I doubt we would find one or two which spoke to any of the past controversies regarding (1) the use of organ, piano, or instrumental music in the church that was a controversy from 1860 to 1920, (2) the "damnable" act of movie-going (from 1905 with the opening of the first nickelodeon through the 1960s) or (3) the equally "damnable" act of shopping on Sunday and the selling of alcoholic beverages (i.e., Blue Laws) that took place during the last 30 years of the 19th and the first 60 years of the 20th centuries (1870-1960). These modern examples demonstrate that 60 to 100 years can make a big difference in what and how a society or group of people believe. Time can render the opposite or former perspectives, mores, and ethical values mute. My Conclusion What are we to do with the evidence? I believe that (1) explicit statements in most cases take precedent over implicit statements and that (2) arguments from ignorance or silence are to be given less weight than arguments that are explicit. Since we have explicit Biblical and historical information from the 1st and early 2nd centuries, we should tentatively hold that the late 2nd and 3rd-century practices were later additions, a falling away from pure doctrine and practice, rather than a sign of continuing orthodoxy. 3. Side Matter--Evidence for Substitutionary Baptism for the Dead The church in Corinth appears to have made substitutionary baptism for those who died before they could be baptized (1 Corinthians 15:29). [Read the passage in question in its context.] a. Does this mean that we can 'stand in the place of' a dead person and be baptized for that dead individual as the followers of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints believe? No. There are several reasons why this text cannot be used to support this interpretation and belief. First, the text does not support the assumption that this practice extended to other churches in other cities. The description or mention of a practice does not automatically mean that the practice is morally or ritually prescriptive, that is, that this is the normative practice everywhere. Nor can we use an argument from silence, that is, argumentum e silentio, as supporting the acceptance and the condoning of this practice. There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 15:29 that warrants us making the interpretation that Paul considered this ritual proper or not. Just because Paul did not condemn the practice does not mean he accepted the practice as orthodox. To make this leap in logic is to make the rhetorical fallacy of an argument from silence. Second, Paul's primary purpose was to argue for the resurrection of the dead. The ritual of substitutionary baptism was mentioned only as a supporting argument. Paul's argued that this act (baptism) was unnecessary if the dead were not to be raised. Paul's explicit point was that a cornerstone of our faith is our hope and faith in the resurrection of the dead for which baptism was a symbol or metaphor. Third, Gleason L. Archer argues that the preposition "for" is being incorrectly interpreted. See below. b. Another interpretation for the phrase "for the dead." Gleason Archer argues that the term "for the dead" means "on behalf of" or "at the request of" the dead. The dead in question were Christians who had died and had already been baptized; but who had left survivors who had not yet decided to follow Christ. Before they died, the deceased would have implored their loved ones to choose Christ to ensure that they would be reunited again at the resurrection. These survivors of the departed had finally succumbed and eventually decided to receive Christ by faith as requested by the departed. They had finally honored the request of their departed to be baptized so that they would participate in the resurrection of the saints and be reunited again with the departed in the future. Consequently, they would have been receiving baptism "on behalf of the petition of the departed or dead loved one" or "at the request of the departed or dead loved one." Hence, they were baptized on behalf of or for the dead. Mindful of the exhortation of their now-departed loved one, they would prepare themselves for public confession and baptism according to the practice of their local church. As they finally took this fateful step in the presence of witnesses, they would in a very real sense be submitting to baptism "for the sake of the dead" (the preposition hyper is intended to mean "for the sake of" rather than "on behalf of" in this particular context)-even thought their primary motivation would be to get right with God, as sinners in need of a Savior. No first-century believer reading Paul's epistle could possibly have misinterpreted the expression hyper tōn nekrōn ("for the sake of the dead") to mean that the faith of a living believer could possibly be reckoned to the benefit of a dead unbeliever, whether he was genealogically related to him or not. . . . This, then, is what is implied by v. 29: "for what shall they do who are baptized for the sake of the dead? If dead people are really not raised up, why are they baptized for their sake?" Verse 30 carries the same thought: "Why are we also subjected to danger every hour?" And then in v. 31 he concludes: "If dead people are not raised [bodily from their graves], let us simply eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" In other words, if the hope of the bodily resurrection of believers is a delusion, then Christ Himself could not have risen bodily from the grave. And if He never rose from the grave, the entire gospel proclamation is a fraud; and there is no deliverance from sin, death, and hell. . .. Therefore, the doctrine of the bodily resurrection is not a matter of option for the Christian; it is the very essence of salvation. But that salvation is available only to those who personally respond with repentance and faith to the Master's call. There is no conversion by proxy. (Gleason L. Archer Jr. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 401-402.) c. Conclusions To interpret 1 Corinthians 15:29 as meaning that the Corinthians considered baptism as a necessary ritual that must be enacted to bring about salvation would mean that baptism is to be seen in the same light as a pagan incantation ritual. This type of pagan magic would have been rejected by many in the early church and by many first century orthodox Jews. (See our discussion above in "Section II: Formulas and Commands (or Ordinances) for Baptism.") Second, the rhetorical and discourse analysis and outline of 1 Corinthians 15 show that Paul's primary concern is the necessity of the resurrection of the dead for Christian faith, hope and witness. "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" (1 Corinthians 15:19 NIV). Third, opponents of believers' baptism and immersion, who argue that since Paul didn't explicitly condemn the practice of substitutionary baptism in the passage above, we must deduce that such practices were orthodox for Paul, have employed an argument from silence and, therefore, have created a rhetorical and logical fallacy. Such arguments are not to be considered as rhetorical, literary, or logical support against believer baptism. And finally, Archer's interpretation of the phrase "for the dead" would clear up why Paul did not make an explicit condemnation of "substitutionary baptism." Paul was not referring to "substitutionary baptism." The interpretation of the phrase "for the dead" by Archer is also more in keeping with the rest of the Scriptures, and especially with Paul's own writings regarding justification and salvation. Paul says elsewhere that we are "saved by faith," not by works or through rituals. (See Romans 1:17, 3:20-22, 4:5-10; Galatians 3:11; Philippians 3:9. Also compare Ephesians 2:8.) ***************************Option 2--End of Second Session****************************** IV. Theological Arguments for and Against the Necessity of Infant Baptism Facilitator's Note: Have the class read the following: Romans 5:12-8:17 (esp. 5:12-14 and 8:5-8), and Psalm 51:5, The theological argument for infant baptism rests upon the "original sin" problem, its "results" for the rest of humanity, and the various proposals for overcoming the results. In general, there are three basic positions that churches have proposed. All of them are Biblical--some more so than others. A fourth position rest upon another understanding of "original sin" and its results. Two of the Biblical texts that are used for arguing for the reality of "original sin" are Romans 5:12-8:17 and Psalm 51:5. Suppose one holds to the traditional view, attributed to the 4th century, North African pastor Augustine of Hippo, then original sin is an inherited genetic defect that prevents humanity from comprehending and understanding the Gospel and God's salvific actions. This is the concept of "total depravity." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines the term or phrase this way: [Total depravity is a term used] to express the extreme wretchedness of man's condition as the result of the Fall. It emphasizes the belief that this result was not a mere loss or deprivation of a supernatural endowment possessed by un-fallen man, but a radical corruption or depravation of his whole nature, so that apart from Christ he can do nothing whatever pleasing to God. Even his reason has been radically vitiated [/ˈvɪʃɪeɪt/ to make faulty, defective, or debased] so that . . . all-natural knowledge of God is held to be impossible without outside Divine aide. One position is to see instruments of Grace as divine aides that help humanity understand and grasp God's presence and the gospel. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church has this to say regarding the classic theology of Grace. In the theology of grace, the following distinctions have been currently drawn: 1. Habitual or sanctifying grace. The gift of God inhering in the soul, by which men [and women] are enabled to perform righteous acts. It is held to be normally conveyed in the sacraments. 2. Actual grace. A certain motion of the soul bestowed by God ad hoc to produce some good act. It may exist in the un-baptized [and was the actual mode of grace operating in the Old Covenant and in the Old Testament]. 3. Prevenient grace. That form of actual grace which leads men [and women] to sanctification before reception of the Sacraments [that are the means for receipt of habitual grace or sanctifying grace]. It is the free gift of God ('gratuitous') and entirely unmerited. A. First Position: Infant Baptism as a Solution to the Stain of Original Sin Baptism is seen as the sacrament of grace [Habitual grace] that removes the genetically or physically inherited stain or curse of original sin. (Although not an official part of any church's formal doctrine or endorsed by any church's official leadership, some laypersons consider baptism to be a means of protecting the baby from satanic and demonic forces. This belief is considered by all official Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, to be pagan and superstitious.) In any case, Habitual grace is received through baptism. If the person is an adult, this person would first receive Prevenient grace so that he or she can understand the gospel. Prevenient grace empowers his or her will to make a decision to receive or to reject the gospel. If the decision is positive, he or she will then receive, via baptism, habitual grace. B. Second and Third Position: The Theology of "Strong" Grace and the Rejection of the Need for Infant Baptism 1. Sanctification Afforded Through the Believing Parent. Infants and children are covered by Grace under the faith of their believing parent(s) until the age of accountability. The believing parent provides for the temporary sanctification of their children. (Read 1 Cor. 7:12-14) This is why children can eat the Passover and participate in the various Jewish festivals and celebrations. The point of this understanding of grace as it is applied to baptism is found in the fact that the children do not have to do anything to be sanctified. They are sanctified by virtue of one of their parents being a believer. This understanding is based on a judicial or forensic understanding of grace rather than on a mechanical or medical one. 2. Infants and young people receive "actual grace" until the age of accountability like the Old Testament saints. The question is, "if God used actual grace on the Old Testament saints to allow them to overcome the moral and rational defects brought about through original sin, why would God stop using this vehicle now?" If actual grace was also used by God to forgive Old Testament saints of their sins and to heal and reestablish the covenant relationship, why would God not use actual grace today? One may add something without subtracting. For example, just because I add a fuel additive to the tank of my car does not mean I stopped putting gasoline in the tank. The argument for this solution is based on the application of grace and justice that Paul espouses in Romans 1 and 2. Consequently, infants, like adult gentiles or pagans who have not heard the Gospel preached, are judged, saved, or condemned by their level of consciousness of and obedience to the will of God to which they have access via Actual Grace and/or Prevenient Grace. (See subject headings under "Natural Theology," "Natural Philosophy," and "Moral Theology" in various other denominations' doctrines and reference resources for more information.) When applied to the doctrine of baptism, this theology of strong grace [or of strong actual grace] makes the use of sacraments unnecessary. Grace is given directly by God to the Christian without the mediation of the sacraments (that is baptism). C. Fourth Position: The Rejection of the Traditional Theological Understanding of Original Sin. 1. Original Sin as an Inherited Forensic or Legal State: A Re-interpretation of Romans 5:12-8:17 and the Rejection of the Inherited Genetic State The classical metaphor of original sin as a genetic stain passed down generationally is rejected. It is deemed a misreading of Romans and other Biblical texts. It may be argued that a forensic metaphor more in keeping with the doctrine of justification by faith would be a better fit within the context of Romans. If the stain of original sin was forensic or fiduciary--instead of genetic, biological, or physical, our lost inheritance would be our "rights" and "citizenship" in the kingdom of God. As such, we would be totally deprived of kingdom citizenship, kingdom resources, kingdom communications, a relationship with the King, and, therefore, doomed to be locked out of the Kingdom of God. For example, if my spouse and I lost or were stripped of our citizenship in the USA before we had any children, then our future children would have inherited this state of non-citizenship. They would be aliens like their parents. If, however, my wife and I had retained our citizenship and, therefore, our rights and privileges, our children would have inherited these rights and privileges as a matter of their birth. They would be citizens because they were born to parents who were citizens. What we inherited from Adam and Eve is our citizenship of estrangement from the tree of life and from our fellowship with God. Because of the results of Adam's and Eve's sins, we are all aliens and foreigners to God's kingdom. 2. Total Depravity Refers to Our Inability to Gain Spiritual Citizenship The reason for the rejection of infant baptism is the belief that having original sin does not result in a total genetic depravity, but instead it results in a total forensic depravity. Despite humanity's sin-damaged and flawed nature, adults can comprehend God's handiwork in nature, to know God's moral laws intuitively, and to respond to God's grace by reading about and/or hearing the Gospel without as well as with divine intervention. Consequently, infant baptism and "Habitual Grace" is not needed since habitual grace is a solution for the genetic stain of sin and our inability to respond rightly to any knowledge about God internally (i.e. moral philosophy and theology) or externally (i.e. natural law and Scriptures or revealed law). 3. The Solution for This Position Children and infants are to be taught and instructed in the ways of the Lord by their parents until they are developmentally old enough to internalize God's external handiwork in nature (see natural law) and revealed law in Scripture and to comprehend cognitively God's moral laws intuitively as a culpable moral agent (see moral theology or philosophy). Until then external motivations (rewards and punishments) must be placed upon them by their parents and society. This was the puritan, John Milton's position. Note: Those who hold this fourth position do not deny the limitation and insufficiency of humanity's moral state or the degeneration of human conscience. They support the concept that God must reveal God's self and reveal God's gift of salvation to humanity. This is not primarily because humanity is so sinful or because of total depravity, but primarily because God is so Holy and Infinite and Transcendent. God had to teach and reveal God's will and mind to the Angels and to Adam and Eve even before the Fall of humanity, and the Fall of Satan and 1/3 of the angels primarily because God is the infinite creator. In contrast, angels and humans are finite creatures. Whether God's self-revelation is through (1) "Actual or Prevenient" grace, (2) direct illumination or inspiration by the Holy Spirit speaking to the inner conscience of each individual, or (3) some other "theological solution," those who hold this fourth position believe that the means of God's self-revelation is a matter of non-essentials. What they do deny is that God has not provided a way or the means for individuals to understand and reject God's salvific gift and/or presence. A plain reading of Romans 1 and 2 and Psalms 19 supports this. The "How" (God's instrumental means) and the "Why" may be in dispute (i.e. whether the reasons for God's self-disclosure and gifts of grace were (1) God's Holiness and Transcendence, (2) Humanity's Unholiness and Sinfulness, (3) God's Self-motivating Love, or (4) a combination of the above). However, the "What" that is God's gift to us of God's multiple self-revelations is not in dispute. D. The Fifth or Eclectic Blending of Positions Two through Four: Why Infant Baptism is Null and Void 1. Total Genetic Depravity Does Not Necessitate Creating a Third Category of Grace The first reason (from position two above) for the rejection of infant baptism and habitual grace is that even if original sin is genetically or physically inherited and is totally debilitating in its effect upon our ability to comprehend spiritual and moral truths, there are other supernatural or divine means for overcoming this total depravation: Actual and Prevenient Grace. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit illuminating children's hearts and minds via the vehicle of Actual or Prevenient Grace, all individuals (including children) can comprehend the Gospel when they reach the age of accountability. Until that time, external motivations (e.g., rewards and punishments; praise and censure) must be supplied by their parents, their religious community, and their society. Consequently, Habitual Grace is not needed. (See position two above.) 2. Children Are Covered by Sanctification of Their Parents The second reason on why habituating Grace is not needed (again from positions two and three above) is that infants and children are covered by the sanctification of their parents (1 Cor. 7:12-14). They are covered until they can mentally and spiritually accept or reject the gift of citizenship and adoption afforded by Christ. At the same time, God is also supplying them with God's internal vehicle of motivation--Actual or Prevenient Grace as position two argues. 3. Naturalization as a Gift of Grace If, as position four above claims, we are aliens and foreigners to the kingdom of God and enemies under the wrath of God, how can humanity regain its citizenship? Naturalization under our own ability is beyond our reach-perfect obedience. As the Bible states that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God (e.g., Romans 3:9 and 23). Bribing a holy God to buy our way into heaven by doing good deeds or by making monetary and material sacrifices is impossible. The only way to become a citizen of the Kingdom is by an unmerited act of Grace (whether without the use of or in conjunction with actual and prevenient grace) by the King of Heaven. By God's gift of mercy and love, God has granted us the gift of restoration of our relationship with God and of our citizenship in the kingdom of God. For those who are saved, God has restored all the rights and privileges that accompany that citizenship: kingdom relationship, communication, resources, etc. This third solution is the unmerited gift of spiritual naturalization or kingdom citizenship. 4. Adoption as a Gift of Grace A fourth solution involves the adoption metaphor and the use of the slogan justification, righteous, or salvation by faith. This latter solution of divine adoption as sons and daughters of God also encompasses the naturalization metaphor because, as adopted sons and daughters, we are also granted the citizenship status of our adopted parent (John 1:12-13; Romans 8:14-17; and Galatians 4:4-5). But why would the Holy want to ransom and adopt the unholy? The mystery of the Gospel is that Christ paid the price for our citizenship and for our adoption. We are not just legal aliens, but children of God. We have, therefore, been granted citizenship and have the rights of inheritance as sons and daughters of God. Consequently, the original premise of infant baptism and the need for habitual grace is made null and void for all four of the reasons above. V. A Mature Christian Position--A Matter of an Informed Conscience (Facilitator's Note: Have the class read the following first: Romans 14:1-10; 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:22-33.) While we believe that immersion represents the fullest metaphor or symbol for the new life and that our position on immersion is historically and theologically the most probable, we do not, however, insist that adults coming from other traditions submit to a "re-baptism." Remember, baptism is not a means to enter salvation, but one of the first public acts of obedience and confession of their already granted state as a child of God-already granted state of being a disciple or student follower of Christ. We believe that the real issue is the state of a person's "conscience" and the level of truth to which that individual has had access-not his or her state of salvation. (See the text just read above from Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.) We believe that--in regards to the form or means of baptism--we should take the same stance that Paul took in his letters to the Romans and to the Corinthians regarding eating and drinking and in observing various religious holidays. In Romans 14:1-4, Paul says, "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. . .. To his own master, he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." (See also Romans 14:5-10 and 1 Cor. 8-9 and 10:22-33.) The physical form of baptism is, therefore, not an essential matter of the faith but a secondary or "disputable" issue. The primary issue is whether a person has physically been (in his or her mind) baptized period, that is, whether a person--after he or she has undertaken an informed study of baptism and after he or she has immersed themselves in prayer as an adult regarding baptisms--makes an informed decision based on Scripture that they have or have not been baptized. If the conscience of an adult (who has done the proper due diligence in his or her study of the Bible) from another tradition leads that person to consider the baptism of his youth or infancy as representing something less than a "baptism" (i.e., a consecration or a dedication or a "non-event"), the church or congregation will then perform a 'first' baptism. If the conscience of an adult (who has done the proper due diligence in his or her study of the Bible) from another tradition leads that person to consider the baptism of her youth or infancy as representing a bona fide "baptism," then we will accept that baptism as valid. Consequently, we do not "re-baptize" an individual. If the individual has not done his or her due diligence, then no action should be undertaken regarding the need for baptism until a proper study of baptism has been undertaken. That individual, however, should still be given the right hand of fellowship based on their "Christian Experience" or a "Transfer of Membership" as was the Early Church tradition. We should urge those individuals to take proper ownership of and responsibility for the basic doctrines of his or her faith to which that individual has promised God to faithfully profess, teach, live, and propagate. We should urge those persons to undertake a course in Baptism and/or a detailed examination of Scriptures with prayer. The Anabaptist Label A final note should be made. We should be offended when others (e.g., Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians) charge us as being "Ana-Baptist," i.e., those who baptize others a second time or are re-baptizers. We are 'Baptist' like all the other Christian churches and denominations. We do not re-baptize persons. We should lovingly and gently explain our position and let the offending person or church know that we consider such language prejudicial, biased, unenlightened, and unchristian. VI. Re-Dedication After a Period of Apostasy (or Back Sliding). We do not believe that a person needs to be re-baptized any more than a person needs to be remarried after committing adultery or re-ordained after a moral failure. A rededication of oneself is in order, but not rebaptism, remarriage, or re-ordination. Of course, if one has been divorced or defrocked, he or she would have to undergo a new marriage ceremony (because of the legal requirements of the state) and/or a recommissioning service.1 In other words, whether a person needs to be baptized after a period of apostasy can be answered with a resounding no! Disciples hold that this decision is also ultimately a matter of personal conviction between the individual and his or her God and between the individual's minister and his or her God. The resulting conviction may be negatively or positively affected by the individual's own level or depth of knowledge or ignorance on this subject. He or she may not know what the theological implications are of the position they have taken; however, this does not take away from the basic fact that in the end this is still a matter of conscience. (See section "V" above) Nevertheless, when one considers all the evidence presented above, rebaptizing a person after a period of apostasy would seem to be rule out. Why? The twelve and the 120 did not undergo a rebaptism after the death and resurrection of Christ. A review of the New Testament evidence gives us no indication that they needed to be rebaptized after they fell away in disbelief on Good Friday. Theologically, re-baptizing a person after a moral failing or apostasy would mean that a person is rejecting the doctrine of "righteousness by faith" (Romans 3-5 and Galatians 2-3) and/or denying the clear words of Scripture (John 10:28). We are justified and saved not by what we do or how we feel, but because of our trust in the Living Word and our acceptance of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins and to cleanse us for all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Endnotes 1 Ministers by definition are not "re-ordained." Their ordination remains valid in most churches, but they are decommissioned and are prohibited from acting in the capacity of a spiritual shepherd over a flock. Hence the term defrocked. Metaphorically, the church has removed the vestments of the pastoral office from him/her -the sign and symbol of his/her privilege, authority, and service to act as a pastor. i E.g., reading the whole Bible and keeping a journal and then reviewing the same for common themes; reading the whole Bible several times through and keeping a notebook arranged by topics and/or themes; using a Bible concordance or index and cross-references to look up the references for a topic or theme; or using a reference resource like a Bible dictionary, handbook, commentary or a topical resource. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ BAPTISM Page 23 of 23 Copywritten (c) 1988, 2006 and 2012 by Floyd Knight. All rights reserved. Copywritten (c) 1988 and 2013 by Floyd Knight. All Rights Reserved. No part of this book covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means--graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems--without the written permission of the author.