Christian - Baptism

[Baerly]

This is such a legalistic discussion of an expression of the heart that it is almost funny. Funny in an incredibly sad way. Both sides are citing their legal precedents, when they fail to see that this should be a heart affair.

They should'a sprinkled Naamun!

If you dislike all legalist, you must dislike the approach Jesus took also:

http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/Gieseke1.htm

in love Baerly

 

[Baerly]

Netdoc,that was a very good post # 252. You said many good things.

Jesus was still living under he O.T. law,so this was the reason he did not mention the N.T water Baptism to the rich young ruler.

Water Baptism to wash away sin and to receive the Holy Spirit did not begin till (Acts 2:38) (Acts 22:16). There is no doubt his (rich ruler) heart was not ready to take up his cross and follow Jesus,for he loved the riches (Mt.16:24).

in love Baerly

 

[Scuba Pete]

If you dislike all legalist, you must dislike the approach Jesus took also:

No... my dislike of legalism parrallels Jesus'

Matthew 23:13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23"Woe to you, teachers of the la and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. NIV

I would suggest that Jesus would still see justice, mercy and faithfulness as the "more important matters". Too often Christians have exchanged one set of legalisms for another. Baptism is not a "legal requirement" to be met: it is a response of the heart. Baptism will NOT save you if your heart is not right. Too many preach baptism instead of preaching love. If you learn love then baptism is quite natural:

Acts 8:36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" NIV

Very rarely will doctrinal issues keep a person from being baptised. It's almost always has to do with a heart that is not ready. Studying baptism will do little to get their hearts ready. Teaching love is the only way to get there. Let's put the emphasis BACK on love.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Jesus was still living under he O.T. law,so this was the reason he did not mention the N.T water Baptism to the rich young ruler.

Jesus had already been baptised at this point. I am sure that the apostles had followed their master in this. Baptism is not ghe goal. He was obviously not ready for it, so it wasn't mentioned. This is commonly referred to as "Counting the Cost" of being a disciple:

Luke 14:25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. 28 "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29 For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30 saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'
31 "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. NIV

Again, the Rich Young Ruler was not even close to becomimng a disciple. He went away merely sad. Baptising him at this point of time would have resulted not in a disciple, but a confused and wet Rich Young Ruler who was still lost. Baptism, without the cut heart is completely USELESS. This is why I completely disagree with infant baptism. There is no response from the heart involved... no decision of the person being baptised to repent and to follow Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

This is such a legalistic discussion of an expression of the heart that it is almost funny. Funny in an incredibly sad way. Both sides are citing their legal precedents, when they fail to see that this should be a heart affair.

They should'a sprinkled Naamun!

It's interesting you should use the term "legalistic." The position of the Tradition isn't "legalistic" at all. It's not designed to be a gatekeeping device. Quite to the contrary, the Tradition that supports sprinkling opens the sacrament to all people. It is the most afirming and unlegalistic stance in all Christendom. Opening baptism to sprinkling affirms baptism as a matter of the heart, and takes baptism outof the legalistic realm.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's interesting you should use the term "legalistic." The position of the Tradition isn't "legalistic" at all. It's not designed to be a gatekeeping device. Quite to the contrary, the Tradition that supports sprinkling opens the sacrament to all people. It is the most afirming and unlegalistic stance in all Christendom. Opening baptism to sprinkling affirms baptism as a matter of the heart, and takes baptism outof the legalistic realm.

Actually, sprinkling makes it even MORE legalistic, a mere ritual that does not rely on the example of Jesus. It's like an "escape" clause. I am not sure HOW it opens it up to more people.

Baptism isn't for everyone. It's a total response of the heart to do something completely on faith simply because Jesus did it, and the Apostles asked us to do it. It's radical Christianity and only those willing to be disciples should do it. If you don't think that baptism is right for you, THEN IT ISN'T. Sprinkle at will.

However, when you are cut to the heart and all you want to know is "What should I do?", then it's the most logical thing to do. No quibbling with God over whether it should be a sprinkle or the full immersion as practised by our Lord. Just a burning desire to do things the way God wants us to.

 

[sojourner]

Actually, sprinkling makes it even MORE legalistic, a mere ritual that does not rely on the example of Jesus. It's like an "escape" clause. I am not sure HOW it opens it up to more people.

Baptism isn't for everyone. It's a total response of the heart to do something completely on faith simply because Jesus did it, and the Apostles asked us to do it. It's radical Christianity and only those willing to be disciples should do it. If you don't think that baptism is right for you, THEN IT ISN'T. Sprinkle at will.

However, when you are cut to the heart and all you want to know is "What should I do?", then it's the most logical thing to do. No quibbling with God over whether it should be a sprinkle or the full immersion as practised by our Lord. Just a burning desire to do things the way God wants us to.

In what way is a sprinkling baptism more "legalistic?" How is it an "escape clause?" Shall we immerse our infants, our elderly and infirm? What about those who are afraid of the water? Sprinkling opens up the possibility of baptism to all these people.

How is a sprinkling baptism inherently any less of a burning desire to participate in this sacrament than immersion? Baptism is for everyone who is called to follow Christ. Sprinkling makes that more available than immersion. Why should not the Church (who administers baptism) make the sacrament as widely available as possible to those who desire it?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Why would you baptise your infants, your elderly and the infirm? If their hearts are cut they will find a way. Surely you wouldn't sprinkle them without their permission. Then you have completely bypassed the heart's decision and it is COMPLETELY legalistic.

As I said, baptism is reserved for those who wish to become disciples. It' was never meant for the casual believer.

 

[sojourner]

Why would you baptise your infants, your elderly and the infirm? If their hearts are cut they will find a way. Surely you wouldn't sprinkle them without their permission. Then you have completely bypassed the heart's decision and it is COMPLETELY legalistic.

As I said, baptism is reserved for those who wish to become disciples. It' was never meant for the casual believer.

Why would we baptize the elderly and infirm? Because they ask to be baptized! Why should we deny them based upon either infirmity or age? Sometimes it's just physically either impossible or too dangerous for an individual to be immersed.

speaking of age, why would we not have our children baptized? There is Biblical precedent that is not based upon legalism, but upon the responsibility of the head of the household for those in her/his care. Look at Acts. It lists individuals who were baptized and goes on to state "and his whole house with him." Baptism is for those who wish to be followers. It's also for those whose parents or guardians wish to rear in the Faith. They don't ask us to be baptized, but we believe Christ asks us to care spiritually for them, just as we care for them physically.

This has nothing to do with "casual faith," but with the deep faith of those who wish to be identified (and to have their charges identified) with the Body of Christ.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Why would we baptize the elderly and infirm? Because they ask to be baptized! Why should we deny them based upon either infirmity or age? Sometimes it's just physically either impossible or too dangerous for an individual to be immersed.

I am not the one to judge hearts, but this seems little more than buying fire insurance as you watch them light the match. I am certain God desires sincerity.

speaking of age, why would we not have our children baptized?

Baptism is the choice of the believer. Show me a single forced baptism in the scriptures.

There is Biblical precedent that is not based upon legalism, but upon the responsibility of the head of the household for those in her/his care. Look at Acts. It lists individuals who were baptized and goes on to state "and his whole house with him."

Hmnnn, everyone in my current household is over 17. I think you are making a huge assumption here.

Baptism is for those who wish to be followers. It's also for those whose parents or guardians wish to rear in the Faith. They don't ask us to be baptized, but we believe Christ asks us to care spiritually for them, just as we care for them physically.

Herein lies our basic underlying difference. You see baptism as a legality: a ticket into heaven whereby no one may get in without it. I see baptism as a response of love that issues from a heart that desires to be right with God. Those who are not seperated from God (like children) have no need for this.

This has nothing to do with "casual faith," but with the deep faith of those who wish to be identified (and to have their charges identified) with the Body of Christ.

How "deep" is the faith of the infant being baptised? I say it's non existant.

Being a disciple is not for everyone. Most can't deal with the radical love and putting the needs of others ahead of their own. However, once you realise exactly what "eloi, eloi, lama sabach thani" really meant to Jesus, there is nothing you won't do that he asks you to do. Baptism then becomes a non issue as you gladly take the plunge, trusting in God to do the work.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Let me clarify something...

You can't buy your way into heaven with any work, including baptism.

However, your "works" show just where your heart is. If you are not willing to undergo the humiliation of being plunged beneath the water in baptism, then your heart is simply not ready for it.

 

[lunamoth]

I love ya Netdoc but you and Soj are kind of talking past each other. The baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality...our life in Christ. Babies and the infirm are upheld by their loved ones and community and the community/parents in our baptisms vow to teach and support them in their life in Christ. I am certain that Soj is not thinking of baptism as a ticket into heaven. From reading his and your posts I'd say that you actually have pretty similar views about what it means to be saved. Infant baptism is a sign of grace, that it is not by our works or anything we can say or do that saves us...Christ alone has saved us. Discipleship, sure, one must grow into that and it is also important. But, you are born into a family without effort and one is adopted by Christ the same way.

2c

 

[sojourner]

I am not the one to judge hearts

You're right! And you should have ended the statement right there.

Baptism is the choice of the believer.

In some circles. Most of the Body of Christ believes that parents can make spiritual choices for their children, just as they make physical choices for them.

I think you are making a huge assumption here.

But it's a valid assumption. We have to make all kinds of assumptions, both about what the scriptural writers intended to say, as well as what the original Church intended in baptism.

Herein lies our basic underlying difference. You see baptism as a legality: a ticket into heaven whereby no one may get in without it.

Your hermeneutical cloud is fogging your glasses. I absolutely do not see baptism as a legality. If you had read my copious posts with regard to grace and salvation, you would know that.

I see baptism as a response of love that issues from a heart that desires to be right with God.

So do I. However, I extend the impetus to the hearts of the parents who wish their children to be united with Christ in the sacrament.

How "deep" is the faith of the infant being baptised? I say it's non existant.

Who knows? Perhaps an infant's faith is deeper than that of any of us, being purer and, therefore, closer to God. Just because a person cannot voice what's going on with them spiritually does not mean that spirituality does not exist. Are you negating the spiritual potential of these human beings? Sounds like age discrimination...

Being a disciple is not for everyone. Most can't deal with the radical love and putting the needs of others ahead of their own. However, once you realise exactly what "eloi, eloi, lama sabach thani" really meant to Jesus, there is nothing you won't do that he asks you to do. Baptism then becomes a non issue as you gladly take the plunge, trusting in God to do the work.

That's a nice sermonette, but it runs dangerously close to doctrines of predestination, unconditional election and limited atonement, none of which I espouse.
Christ came to reconcile humanity and to impart grace to all of us.

 

[sojourner]

I love ya Netdoc but you and Soj are kind of talking past each other. The baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality...our life in Christ. Babies and the infirm are upheld by their loved ones and community and the community/parents in our baptisms vow to teach and support them in their life in Christ. I am certain that Soj is not thinking of baptism as a ticket into heaven. From reading his and your posts I'd say that you actually have pretty similar views about what it means to be saved. Infant baptism is a sign of grace, that it is not by our works or anything we can say or do that saves us...Christ alone has saved us. Discipleship, sure, one must grow into that and it is also important. But, you are born into a family without effort and one is adopted by Christ the same way.

2c

What she said...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Infant baptism is a sign of grace, that it is not by our works or anything we can say or do that saves us...Christ alone has saved us. Discipleship, sure, one must grow into that and it is also important. But, you are born into a family without effort and one is adopted by Christ the same way.

Obviously, our definition of Grace is miles apart. Children have no need for repentance and the subsequent baptism.

 

[sojourner]

Obviously, our definition of Grace is miles apart. Children have no need for repentance and the subsequent baptism.

repentance + baptism = grace. That theology appears a little formulaic for matters of the heart.

 

[Scuba Pete]

repentance + baptism = grace. That theology appears a little formulaic for matters of the heart.

Which further evidences the fact that you have no idea about God's Grace and my understanding of it.

 

[sojourner]

Which further evidences the fact that you have no idea about God's Grace and my understanding of it.

:biglaugh: ...the fact that I have no idea about God's grace. :biglaugh: Shall we be beaten up with the Bible next? Read Luna's post. She's right on the money here.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Again, there is a fundamental difference in how you view Grace and from what I perceive to be Biblical Grace. This is demonstrated by both your and Luna's posts. You can laugh at me all you want to, I simply don't care. Quite often people resort to mockery when words fail them.

Most organized religions echange the Grace of God for a codified relationship. They want to make a bunch of rules when God only wants our heart. Their idea of Grace is like some celestial "Food Stamp" program rather than becoming like God. Their concept of discipleship consists of tithing and going to worship once or twice a week rather than a continual devotion to the principles of love.

Like I said earlier, the biggest problem with baptism is not getting the theology right: it's getting the heart right. Once you have been cut to the heart, the right thing to do becomes obvious. If you don't feel that baptism is for you, then it obviously is not the thing to do.

:biglaugh: ...the fact that I have no idea about God's grace. :biglaugh: Shall we be beaten up with the Bible next? Read Luna's post. She's right on the money here.

 

[sojourner]

Again, there is a fundamental difference in how you view Grace and from what I perceive to be Biblical Grace. This is demonstrated by both your and Luna's posts. You can laugh at me all you want to, I simply don't care. Quite often people resort to mockery when words fail them.

Most organized religions echange the Grace of God for a codified relationship. They want to make a bunch of rules when God only wants our heart. Their idea of Grace is like some celestial "Food Stamp" program rather than becoming like God. Their concept of discipleship consists of tithing and going to worship once or twice a week rather than a continual devotion to the principles of love.

Like I said earlier, the biggest problem with baptism is not getting the theology right: it's getting the heart right. Once you have been cut to the heart, the right thing to do becomes obvious. If you don't feel that baptism is for you, then it obviously is not the thing to do.

OK. Here's the problem of the "hermeneutical cloud" we all have around us. What you say in your post here is exactly what Luna and I believe about baptism. However, just because we voice it and practice it in a different way from the way you do, you assume things about us that simply aren't true, such as your assertion that I "have no idea about God's grace" ... which is laughable.

Perhaps some "organized religions" do exhcange grace for a codified relationship. My "organized religion" certainly does not. We view baptism as the result of the Holy Spirit at work in us, transforming us.

I don't think there is a "fundamental difference" in how we view grace. I think there's a difference in our assumptions about the other party...which is what I was laughing at. I frequently enjoy your posts, for the very fact that we generally agree. And I think we really do agree here (except for, possibly, the issue of infant baptism).

Thanks.