It does something part 3
Jesus makes the connection between baptism and being born again in John chapter three. No where in scripture does God implore one of his covenant members to be born again. Being born again is seen as being baptized, therefore, He does not ask for one who is baptized to be rebaptized. God, as spoken in the writings of the Apostles, sees that through baptism the person has already received grace and over and over again calls them to faithfulness. He does not doubt the grace that was conferred to them in the sacrament but calls them to live out the reality of the sacrament. For instance, some of the members of the Corinthian church had some major problems with sin yet as Paul is dealing with these sins and the errors of their living he states, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6. 9-11).
Notice that Paul warns of apostasy and then gives hope and says that they were these wicked things, and the thing that made all this past tense is that they were “washed”, “sanctified”, and they were “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God”. Paul also doesn’t state that the one who he delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (5. 5) wasn’t also “washed”, “sanctified” and “justified”. At the writing and reading of this letter that person was more than likely sitting in the pews with the other members of the Corinthian congregation. Paul doesn’t say, “Well, I know that this person made a profession of faith, was baptized and was brought into membership with this congregation but that was all symbolic and it didn’t really do anything anyway. So, in effect we are going to do a do-over and if the guy will repent then we can bring him back into fellowship and maybe rebaptism him?.”
Notice too that Paul doesn’t separate the water from the Spirit. (This is much like Jesus in John 3 where He says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”.) Paul is taking the command by Jesus seriously. He was told to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. . . “. Throughout the book of Acts what is the normal occurrence to those who hear the gospel and believe it? They are subsequently baptized. Therefore, it would be consistent that when those in Corinth heard the gospel and believed that Paul baptized them. And so, the washing, sanctifying and justifying that Paul is referencing would be a remembrance of their baptism.
Most people don’t have a problem with what is said thus far when dealing with an adult convert, but the rub comes when we are dealing with one who doesn’t know what is going on. Some view that the person who is to be baptized needs to make a profession of faith and then be baptized (called believers baptism). They are then able to swallow those otherwise hard to chew pieces of scripture where it talks about being a new creature and some of the things mentioned here in my blog. However, scripture doesn’t limit the grace to just those who are able to make a profession.
Those who believe in believers baptism want to limit the grace conferred in baptism to those who know what is going on in the baptism. Which to me smacks of arrogance as if we really know what is going on in baptism when at the moment we barely know who the savior is. Did the early church really know what was going on with baptism when they were baptized. I think they didn’t when they were having such problems with understanding the Jew/Gentile distinction. Even the Apostle Peter didn’t live like he understood the oneness that is created between Jew and Gentile or else why would Paul have thrown such a fit about seating arrangements at the potluck dinner (Gal. 2). Therefore, based on this occurrence and the lack of discernment that Peter displayed should he have been barred from being baptized?
If we are going to limit baptism to only those who know what is going on where do we set the bar? Who knows enough? And does the one who regurgitates the correct answers really know what he/she is saying or are they just saying what they know will get them in? Baptism is the initiatory rite and therefore those who have not been baptized are barred from communion. Every week, or in some places every quarter they have to watch as the plates of bread and wine (and for some grape juice) is passed to them, around them, and passed away from them. They have to watch this happen from the time they can remember to 10, 12, 15 years of age. They also watch as their parents get to participate in communion and they realize by their non-participation that they are not in this. They may go to church, sing the songs, know some bible stories but they see that at this point they are not the same as the others.
The bar for baptism initiation is it too high for one who is mentally handicapped? What of a person who will never surpass the intellect of a 4 year old? Do we allow them to be baptized? They clearly do not understand what is going on and they never will. What about a mentally handicapped person who has no way of communicating anything therefore we really do not know their level of understanding do we allow them to be baptized. We could set the bar at the Westminster's Larger and Shorter Catechisms but does the one who knows this and is baptized ever fall from grace? Has there ever been a person who knew the catechisms and was baptized lived a life that was sinful, never repented of their waywardness and died. Clearly the answer would be yes. There are those who fall away.
My point in all this is to say that if we set up some arbitrary standards that have no consistent connection with the bible than what we have done is made the gospel no gospel at all, but have changed the grace of God for a lie. We have made the gospel, by our practice, Gnosticism. We claim there there is some special wisdom that will be given to you as you strive for it or memorize it. Once you are able to check enough boxes you have what it takes to get baptized. But we, as good Calvinist, keep putting up the mantras of justification by faith, but apparently to some that faith needs to be well communicated and correctly footnoted for the individual to pass those who are barring that baptistry and those who are barring the Table.
It would seem to me that the Baptistry and the Table are meant to keep the children of the promise in and not to keep them out.
Notice that Paul warns of apostasy and then gives hope and says that they were these wicked things, and the thing that made all this past tense is that they were “washed”, “sanctified”, and they were “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God”. Paul also doesn’t state that the one who he delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (5. 5) wasn’t also “washed”, “sanctified” and “justified”. At the writing and reading of this letter that person was more than likely sitting in the pews with the other members of the Corinthian congregation. Paul doesn’t say, “Well, I know that this person made a profession of faith, was baptized and was brought into membership with this congregation but that was all symbolic and it didn’t really do anything anyway. So, in effect we are going to do a do-over and if the guy will repent then we can bring him back into fellowship and maybe rebaptism him?.”
Notice too that Paul doesn’t separate the water from the Spirit. (This is much like Jesus in John 3 where He says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”.) Paul is taking the command by Jesus seriously. He was told to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. . . “. Throughout the book of Acts what is the normal occurrence to those who hear the gospel and believe it? They are subsequently baptized. Therefore, it would be consistent that when those in Corinth heard the gospel and believed that Paul baptized them. And so, the washing, sanctifying and justifying that Paul is referencing would be a remembrance of their baptism.
Most people don’t have a problem with what is said thus far when dealing with an adult convert, but the rub comes when we are dealing with one who doesn’t know what is going on. Some view that the person who is to be baptized needs to make a profession of faith and then be baptized (called believers baptism). They are then able to swallow those otherwise hard to chew pieces of scripture where it talks about being a new creature and some of the things mentioned here in my blog. However, scripture doesn’t limit the grace to just those who are able to make a profession.
Those who believe in believers baptism want to limit the grace conferred in baptism to those who know what is going on in the baptism. Which to me smacks of arrogance as if we really know what is going on in baptism when at the moment we barely know who the savior is. Did the early church really know what was going on with baptism when they were baptized. I think they didn’t when they were having such problems with understanding the Jew/Gentile distinction. Even the Apostle Peter didn’t live like he understood the oneness that is created between Jew and Gentile or else why would Paul have thrown such a fit about seating arrangements at the potluck dinner (Gal. 2). Therefore, based on this occurrence and the lack of discernment that Peter displayed should he have been barred from being baptized?
If we are going to limit baptism to only those who know what is going on where do we set the bar? Who knows enough? And does the one who regurgitates the correct answers really know what he/she is saying or are they just saying what they know will get them in? Baptism is the initiatory rite and therefore those who have not been baptized are barred from communion. Every week, or in some places every quarter they have to watch as the plates of bread and wine (and for some grape juice) is passed to them, around them, and passed away from them. They have to watch this happen from the time they can remember to 10, 12, 15 years of age. They also watch as their parents get to participate in communion and they realize by their non-participation that they are not in this. They may go to church, sing the songs, know some bible stories but they see that at this point they are not the same as the others.
The bar for baptism initiation is it too high for one who is mentally handicapped? What of a person who will never surpass the intellect of a 4 year old? Do we allow them to be baptized? They clearly do not understand what is going on and they never will. What about a mentally handicapped person who has no way of communicating anything therefore we really do not know their level of understanding do we allow them to be baptized. We could set the bar at the Westminster's Larger and Shorter Catechisms but does the one who knows this and is baptized ever fall from grace? Has there ever been a person who knew the catechisms and was baptized lived a life that was sinful, never repented of their waywardness and died. Clearly the answer would be yes. There are those who fall away.
My point in all this is to say that if we set up some arbitrary standards that have no consistent connection with the bible than what we have done is made the gospel no gospel at all, but have changed the grace of God for a lie. We have made the gospel, by our practice, Gnosticism. We claim there there is some special wisdom that will be given to you as you strive for it or memorize it. Once you are able to check enough boxes you have what it takes to get baptized. But we, as good Calvinist, keep putting up the mantras of justification by faith, but apparently to some that faith needs to be well communicated and correctly footnoted for the individual to pass those who are barring that baptistry and those who are barring the Table.
It would seem to me that the Baptistry and the Table are meant to keep the children of the promise in and not to keep them out.
posted by T A Lucas | 1/06/2006
2 Comments:
Jesus makes the connection between baptism and being born again in John chapter three. No where in scripture does God implore one of his covenant members to be born again.
I hate to publicly play devil's advocate (or advocate against the devil) on an issue where my views are not fully formed, but doesn't God (in Jesus) implore one of his covenant members to be born again in the very chapter being cited. Was not Nicodemus a covenant member? Was he not told by Jesus, "Nicodemus, you must be born again," when he came to Jesus with questions?
jfc your question is answered within the first couple sentences of the post. The born again is refering to baptism and therefore Nicodemus isn't considered a covenant member in that sense.
Post a Comment
<< Home