Becoming un-Baptist Part 3: Baptism Continued

Becoming un-Baptist Part 3: Baptism Continued

In my previous posts on becoming un-Baptist, I wrote about how my ecclesiology shifted, and then how my theology of baptism shifted.  In this post I provide a sketch of how my understanding of the practice of baptism shifted.

Valid Baptism

On my journey out of a baptistic understanding of baptism, I reflected on the practice of baptism as well as the theology of baptism.  I was asking questions about what made a valid baptism, who ought to be baptized, and when they ought to be baptized.  What I found in Scripture ended up having more correspondence to the practices of the Early Church than I had expected.

The question of what made a valid baptism came up for me when I was considering doing missionary work (theological education overseas) through the International Missions Board (the Southern Baptist missionary agency).  Technically, I would have had to have my baptism regularized, which means that I would have to be (re)baptized because I was not baptized in a church that was Southern Baptist and also did not affirm the “perseverance of the saints.”  I was adamant that my baptism was valid; I was baptized by immersion in water, by a believing Christian, after a confession of personal faith, and in the name of the Trinity.[1]

As I dug into this, I found that often times Baptists would leave out any statement about the person doing the baptism.  Even when Grudem wrote about baptism in his Systematic Theology, he did not state that a baptism needed to be administered by a believer for it to be valid.  Instead he states, “Scripture simply does not specify any restriction on who can perform the baptism ceremony.”[2]  The problem I found here is that this does not comport with the way I had been taught to reason from the Bible.

I had been taught that since there was no (overt) example of an infant ever being baptized in Scripture, then the practice is unbiblical.  Using that same logic, I found that every example of Christian baptism in the Bible had an already baptized person performing the baptism.  This means that, logically, it takes a baptized person to baptize biblically (i.e. validly) another person.  If I had left it at this point, I may very well have remained a Baptist.  However, I connected the dots:

1.      Biblical baptism requires a baptized person to baptize.

2.      Only someone who is baptized after coming to faith has a valid baptism (from a Baptist perspective).

3.      For at least 1,400 years of Church History (likely longer), only converts would be baptized after a profession of faith (the practice was to baptize infants and at times delaying baptism until the deathbed).

These points led to a problem.  Unless one can trace a line of baptized converts baptizing other converts (which cannot be done),[3] then there is no one, at the present, who can validly baptize another person.[4]  This lack of a succession of "biblically" baptized people means that Baptist churches are unchurched (along with every other denomination of Christians).  However, if infant baptism is valid, then there are valid baptisms at the present, but this would also mean that I (and all other Baptists) was wrong about who can be properly baptized.  This left me with either affirming infant baptism is true and right, or affirming that no one at the present is validly baptized.

Mode of Baptism

Growing up, I remember my dad (a Baptist pastor) had baptized people on a couple of occasions by means other than full immersion because of the particular needs of that moment.  This is in contrast with many Baptists who would hold such baptisms to be invalid because the baptized were not fully immersed in the water.  My position was cemented when I took a trip to Greece with The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  We stopped at the place in ancient Philippi where Paul (probably) baptized Lydia.  There as I listened to a lecture on baptism and how it always meant full immersion I was looking at the creek where Paul did his baptizing.  It was nearly full to its banks and maybe would come up to my knees in the deepest location.  And what should there be but an icon showing Lydia kneeling in the water as Paul scooped water and poured it on her head.  One of these views comported with reality.  The other did not comport with reality.[5]

I still agree with my dad.  The meaning and symbolism of baptism is best captured through immersion.  However, immersion is not necessary for a baptism (done in the name of Trinity with water) to be valid.

Household Baptisms

The Apostles did things which no clear thinking Baptist would do.  They baptized entire households.  And following the text of Scripture, these households were not entirely composed of believers!  This practice of household baptisms did not appear to be an outlier but is a fairly common theme in the New Testament (at least when speaking about who was baptized).

With household baptisms recorded in the Bible, it is not possible to prove that infants or toddlers were present in the households who were baptized.  It is probable, but not demonstrable.  At the same time, it appears that not everyone in the household necessarily believed prior to their baptism. 

In Acts 18:8 there is an example of an entire household believing and being baptized:

“Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”

This demonstrates that Luke can speak of an entire household believing and being baptized.  So, when he does not mention it, we can either read into the silence that the household believed and Luke just failed to mention it, or we can read the silence as intentional (but authorial intent is so passé these days). 

There are two instances in which the text states the household was baptized, but does not state that the entire household believed.  There is the example of Lydia in Acts 16:14–15.[6]  The text does not say anything about her household believing, only that they were baptized with her.  A more explicit example is found in Acts 16 with the baptism of the Philippian jailer.  Paul and Silas used a singular imperative “believe” when they said “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31).  There is no apostolic command for his household to believe only for the jailer.  We read that the jailer “was baptized at once, he and all his family” (Acts 16:33).  Then the singular faith of the jailer is again revealed in 16:34, where we are told that the jailer “rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.”  Luke was quite capable of saying “that they had believed in God.”  However, Luke did not record that they believed, only that the jailer believed, yet he and his household were baptized.  It does not appear that personal faith is necessary for each person baptized in a household.[7] 

I cannot prove that there were infants/toddlers in these households that were baptized.  However, slaves were baptized as part of the household (for Lydia to have a household, she would have had to have slaves).  This leads to the question of how would a slave (who had not made a profession of faith) would receive baptism as part of the household and an infant would not?  Slaves were considered part of the household in both Roman and Hebrew society (In fact, according to Torah, the slaves of a priest could eat the food that the laity were forbidden to eat because it was reserved for the priests[8]).  Slaves were culturally considered part of the household, but the children were considered a significantly more important part of the household.  It does not make sense that a slave (as part of the household) would receive baptism and an infant would not receive baptism (as part of the household).

Evangelism Separated from Baptism

Baptism was not always immediate.  Paul appears to have made this very clear in 1^st Corinthians 1:14–18:

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)  For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.  For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

If baptism was something that was consistently practiced upon belief, then we would expect Paul to have baptized a lot of people.  Paul was in Corinth for a year and a half,[9] but he only baptized 3 (households).  Yet he has the audacity to refer to himself as the father of the Corinthian Christians,[10] when he (if we were to follow the expectation of immediate baptism upon belief) left Corinth with only three baptized households constituting the church in Corinth.  Further, Paul understands his call to proclaim the Gospel (even for one and a half years in the same place) to be a separate thing from the call to baptize.  This runs into a significant problem in that if baptism was supposed to immediately follow a profession of faith, then Paul should have been a baptizing machine because it would have been a necessary fruit of preaching the Gospel.

That Paul did not view Gospel proclamation as requiring him to be involved in baptisms is an important point.  I am certain that someone could explain it away (with varying degrees of success).  I think that it is best understood as the basis for the practice of the catechumenate (the period of learning about the faith before one was baptized and became and Christian) in the early Church.  The only individual who was immediately baptized that we do not know for certain had been spiritually formed by Judaism is the Philippian jailer.  Every other convert immediately baptized upon their belief, for lack of a better term, had a biblical worldview.[11]  There is no clear example of a rank polytheist converting and being immediately baptized in the entirety of the Biblical text (the Philippian jailer being a possibility, but not clearly stated as such).

These conclusions about the practice of baptism along with my theological conclusions (see my previous post here) led me to the point where I uncomfortably accepted the premise and validity of infant baptism.  This moved me from the periphery of baptistic circles to a camp outside in a land unknown to me.  In many ways, I had left my father’s house and set out for a land that I had not seen in a direction that I did not know.

---

[1] This experience was part of the catalyst for me to think carefully through the topic of baptism.

[2] Pages 983-984.  This was the standard Systematic text used at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  The Baptist Faith and Message (as revised in 2000) likewise is silent on who can be the baptizer:

[3] A movement known as the Landmarkist movement who argued that Baptists were the true Church and were always a distinct entity from the Roman Catholic Church.  Here is a chart of their interpretation of Church History.

[4] Some Baptists, such as John Smyth (the first Baptist), argued that the local congregation has the full authority and autonomy to carry out the biblical commands as they saw fit.  In my estimation, such a practice removes that body of people from anything that could be considered a historical or ontological connection to the Church which Christ founded.

[5] The Greek word baptizo often means full immersion.  This does not necessitate that the Christian practice of baptism slavishly followed the technical meaning of a word they utilized for a distinctly religious action.  Thus is should not surprise anyone when the early Christian manual on Church practices, the Didache, provides both immersion and affusion as valid means of baptism (Didache 7).

[6] One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.  And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us (Acts 16:14-15).

[7] The baptism of households ought to be examined in light of Cicero’s De Domu 109 and De Officiis 1.54-55 to see how Roman culture understood how religion and the family unit worked.  Likewise, one could consult the Old Testament.  There is little doubt that a biblically faithful Jew would have the entire household following the prescriptions of Torah because that is what they were commanded to do (Regarding children there is Deuteronomy 4:10 and 11:19; regarding slaves there is Exodus 12:44 and importantly Leviticus 22:10–11).

[8] Leviticus 22:10-13: “A lay person shall not eat of a holy thing; no foreign guest of the priest or hired servant shall eat of a holy thing, but if a priest buys a slave as his property for money, the slave may eat of it, and anyone born in his house may eat of his food. If a priest's daughter marries a layman, she shall not eat of the contribution of the holy things. But if a priest's daughter is widowed or divorced and has no child and returns to her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's food; yet no lay person shall eat of it.”

[9] Acts 18:11, “And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.”

[10] 1^st Corinthians 4:15, “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”

[11] Lists of those baptized in Acts:

Acts 2, practicing Jews; Acts 8, Samaritans; Acts 8 Ethiopian Eunuch; Acts 9, Saul; Acts 10, Cornelius the Centurion; Acts 19, the disciples who had not heard of the Holy Spirit;

On Becoming un-Baptist Part 2: Baptism

On Becoming un-Baptist Part 2: Baptism

I my previous post, I offered a quick sketch of how I conceptually left Baptist polity behind.  I was okay with bishops and councils because I could find such in the texts of the New Testament.  Yet I remained a Baptist because I affirmed believer’s baptism.  At least, until the day when that crumbled as well.  Believe what you will about how a body of Christians should lead and govern themselves, as long as you hold firmly to believer’s baptism (and are not a Pentecostal) you will remain in baptistic circles.

At the end of my Ph.D. at a Baptist seminary I found my understanding of baptism shifting.  What initially gave me some pause was the fact that there was not a controversy about infant baptism in the early Church.  Anytime something new arose in the early Church, there was a controversy and someone was writing against whatever the new thing may be (Gnosticism, modalism, etc…)

The only early Christian to write against infant baptism was Tertullian (early 200’s).[1]  The problem is that Tertullian did not argue for believer’s baptism, but a baptism after one had proven themself to be a steadfast Christian for many years.  He was against infant baptism (which he did not treat as a recently arrived practice) because he thought that there was no forgiveness for sin after baptism.  Therefore one should only be baptized after proving capable of living a Christian life without sin.

Needless to say, Tertullian was a lone voice on this point of baptism.  His contemporary Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, wrote, “You are to baptize the little ones first.  All those who are able to speak for themselves should speak.  With regards to those who cannot speak for themselves their parents or someone who belongs to their family should speak.”[2]  Here is a clear example of infant baptism being practiced and having a pattern for practice around the year 200.  Fast forward to the year 253 when Cyprian of Carthage, writing on behalf of a council, affirmed that infants could be baptized before they were eight days old.[3]

These points amongst many others were in the back of my mind, but did not, in and of themselves, alter my beliefs.  I was still operating under the principle that the Bible and not tradition ought to determine my beliefs.[4]  The problem was the Bible.  I had texts that did not quite fit my theology of baptism.  My theology was telling me that I had to understand any passage, in which “baptism” is said to do something, as a non-physical/spiritual baptism. Since baptism is an act of Christian obedience, any passage that states otherwise must be using the term “baptism” as a metaphor.  But I started to develop the sneaking suspicion that my interpretation could be amiss.

As I reflected more and more, I came to the realization that spiritualizing baptism into a metaphor was not necessitated by the context of the passage but by my theological predispositions.  I did not have a truly good reason to say that 1^st Peter 3:20–21 was talking about a non-physical baptism: “they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.  Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  The lack of a good reason for my interpretation was troubling to me.  In fact, this practice ran counter to what I had been (rightly in my opinion) taught to do when I interpreted Scripture.

When I began to read the “baptism” as referring to baptism, my theology of baptism began to change.  I remember articulating in one Ph.D. seminar that I understood baptism to have replaced circumcision as the mark of the covenant.  This was based upon my reading of Colossians chapter 2.[5] I still held that faith was how one entered into the new covenant community. 

Once I started down this path, I encountered the idea that baptism is the moment when one is joined to Christ: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).[6]  Likewise baptism is the means by which we enter into the Church: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free” (1 Corinthians 12:13).  This means that baptism is not an act that we do solely out of obedience to God, but rather it is something that God does to us.

At this point, suddenly 1^st Peter 3:21 made sense to me: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  If baptism unites a person to Christ and to His body (the Church), then it is not wrong to say that baptism saves.[7]  Once I reached this point, I had clearly moved into the pale thin land on the periphery of Baptist life.  I was moving into uncharted theological territory with great uncertainty.

---

[1] There is an entire website devoted to Tertullian with functional links to excellent resources. For the text of his work On Baptism in an English translation click here.

[2] On the Apostolic Tradition 21.4.

[3] Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 58.

For another view on the same subject see: Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright, Believer’s Baptism.  I have read this book. While disagree with the conclusions and many points used to arrive at those conclusions, I think it is the best representation and defense of believer’s baptism in publication.

[4] At the present, I would argue that the Bible still ought to determine my beliefs.  Where I have changed, is that I now hold that the Bible is only rightly interpreted when read through Tradition.  Practically speaking, everyone interprets the Bible through a tradition. 

[5] Colossians 2:11-13  ¹“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.”  All quotations taken from the ESV.

[6] See also Romans 6:3-5: ^“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

[7] Admittedly, this does start to shift one’s paradigm (from a baptist’s perspective) of how salvation works.

The Russia Investigation (and why it is really important)

The Russia Investigation (and why it is really important)

The following is a post about Politics.  You have been warned.

For some (CNN) the Russia investigation is all about how to get rid of Donald Trump.  Meh.  They are missing out on the real impetus for investigating Russia.  Donald Trump is just a cover for the State Department and the CIA to figure out how The Russians interfered in our elections so affordably and without assassinating anyone. The Russians have achieved a feat that American ingenuity has failed to achieve for over 60 years!  A bloodless and affordable means of interfering in a sovereign nations internal affairs.

Let’s face it, America has been the preeminent meddler in other nations’ internal affairs and elections.  There was poor Diem the leader of South Vietnam who was killed in 1963 with the help of the CIA.  There is also the Shah of Iran, who was put into power by the U.S.A.  In all seriousness, the list goes on and on.  Who even knows or has kept track of our meddling in the continent of Africa!  Or, the Middle East… because meddling in elections is best done after subjugating a country and occupying it with several thousand soldiers.

I still chuckle a little when I hear “serious people” complain about Russia meddling in our elections.  This is not because I do not take such actions seriously, but because when former directors of the CIA lodge complaints: all I hear is the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, the U.S.A. needs to work on securing our elections from foreign involvement.  At the same time, it would be nice if we returned the favor to the world.

On Becoming un-Baptist Part 1: Ecclesiology

On Becoming un-Baptist Part 1: Ecclesiology

I am the son of a Baptist pastor.  My parents even have a picture of me as a baby at my dad’s graduation from Seminary with his M.Div.  My dad pastored in various baptistic denominations through my youth and young adult life.  These were the circles I grew up in and the doctrines within which I was raised.

Like most others, I viewed the context of my upbringing as the standard from which others deviated.  I did not consider ecclesiology (the study of the Church) in any real sense until I was in my master’s degree.  There I encountered other points of view with a semblance of seriousness.  At the same time I sought to form a robust defense of my position against those who held contrary opinions. (It is a very useful exercise to take the best argument from an opposing view and fairly critique it upon its merits.) 

I was decidedly not attempting to leave my tradition during my studies.  However, I was rarely content to just accept an answer without support.  Upon reflection, I was probably an annoying student who asked odd ball questions because I was thinking odd ball thoughts.  I was always trying to think outside of the boxes to see if things actually made sense from every perspective I could consider.

This mode of operation was applied to my thinking about what I believed about the Church.  I remained a firm Congregationalist until a moment I still vividly remember, when my professor said that Titus 1:5 meant that Titus was to have the churches in Crete hold elections to determine their elders.  The problem is that this is not at all what was written in Titus 1:5

“For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you might set right the things that are lacking and appoint elders in each city, just as I commanded you.”[1]

The word “appoint” in the Greek means “to appoint” (among other meanings which would not fit the context).  “Appoint” does not mean “elect” (there is another Greek word which means “to elect”).  All this Greek knowledge left me thinking that the Apostle Paul[2] actually wanted Titus to travel around to all the churches on Crete and to select the men who were to be elders.  No congregational voting; just appointment by Titus.

At this point, I realized that I had tacitly accepted the idea of a monarchial bishop in the time of the Apostles, appointed by an Apostle.  Therefore, in principal though not in practice, I became okay with bishops.  Besides, the cool Baptist churches with multiple campuses already had a lead pastor functioning as a quasi-bishop.  The argument that each church in a town was somehow a separate entity functioning independently and solely under the authority of God’s word, could no longer pass the test.  Especially when I looked at Acts 15 and found that the Council of Jerusalem wrote commands to all the churches in “Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia” (15:36).  The churches in these places are not treated as one individual entity, but they are all given the same (apparently binding) command from the council.

Therefore, it made sense to me when I read the Church Fathers speaking about bishops. It made sense that they would write about bishops because I had already seen the Apostle telling people to act as a bishop (Titus and Timothy being prime examples).  When they had councils, it made sense that they would hold a council and issue a decisive ruling for the faithful.  I did not cease to be a Baptist at this point because I was still firmly convinced of believer’s baptism (the idea that only those who believe in Christ ought to/ could receive baptism).  Therefore I became a Baptist with serious questions about polity.

---

[1] My own translation.

[2] I generally affirm Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.  If such were to be incontrovertibly proven otherwise, my world would not be too greatly rocked though.

Solus Christus Christ Alone: and the Ambiguous Doctrinal Statement

Solus Christus Christ Alone:

and the Ambiguous Doctrinal Statement

            A while back, I was perusing through the job openings in my field.  As a practice, I check the qualifications and then the statement of faith of the institution to check my qualifications.  Generally, for one reason or another, I opt out of applying because I cannot affirm something in the statement of faith/doctrine.  

I came across one such statement that gave me a bit of a pause.  In fact, I am quite confused as to what exactly was intended by it.  Without naming the institution, I will simply quote the line below:

“WE BELIEVE that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone; that salvation involves the redemption of the whole person and is offered freely to all who exercise faith in Jesus Christ.”

The first part before the semi–colon is the problem for me.  After the semi–colon, there is enough ambiguity for a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, or an Orthodox to affirm it.  However, “WE BELIEVE that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone” is a problem.  It Coiuld mean several things:

1.      The Father and the Holy Spirit are not involved in the work of salvation. (I highly doubt this was the intended meaning.)

2.      The community of saints has nothing to do with salvation.  Therefore Church (or church) is optional and unnecessary.  (It is possible that his was intended, but doubtful.)

3.      There is not salvation apart from Christ.  (I sincerely hope this is what they meant.)

4.      Salvation comes through the merits of Christ and not the merits of any other individual.  (This is also probable even though it falls into the same difficulty that merit theology has.  See my earlier post here for a further discussion of merit.)

5.      Or this could be a poorly adapted use of the 20^th Century addition of Solo Christo (to all my fellow Latin nerds, the ablative case would be used to express the ablative of agent unless an active verb is used then we would use the nominative Solus Christus) Christ Alone to the earlier Solae (Solas) of the Protestant Reformation (Scripture Alone, Faith Alone, Grace Alone).  However, this application lacks the explanation that a priesthood in Apostolic Succession is not necessary for the validity of Sacraments.

The only of the above points I could affirm in good conscience would be point number three.  Point one is heresy.  Point two is an absurdity.  Point four relies upon an unhelpful and unbiblical manner of thinking.  Point five is again an absurdity (even most Baptists would argue that only a baptized person can baptize another person.  This requires a certain form of succession).

This leads to the moral of the post.  If you are going to require employees to affirm something make certain it not ambiguous and replete with unintended interpretations.