On the Sacraments, Baptism (Christianity from the Inside 5.0)
This essay has sat on my hard drive for two weeks; it may not be done, but since I can't type well till my finger heals, here goes. I think I have almost an entirely evangelical audience (save romy, if she ever heads this way) so this may not seem very relevant. It is simply an issue I was working through for myself attending an Episcopal church and looking at church history.
On the Sacraments: Baptism
Salvation by faith alone, sola fide, is the absolute cornerstone of evangelical theology as I know it. Certainly that phrase as it's understood now has roots in the Reformation's reaction to medieval theology. Yet it's tough not to read Paul's arguments in Galatians, Romans, and elsewhere, and not see that he believes that what truly saves a person, what justifies a sinning soul before God, is faith. There are passages in the ot which seem to say the same thing (and Paul quotes them). In Paul's reading, sure Abraham was obedient to God, but before he was circumcised, he believed, and from the moment he believed he was right with God. I don't know if there is other discussion of this in rabbinic literature Paul had read or not, though I'd like to know. But for him, faith may lead to an action, whether circumcision, sacrifice, and other ritual in the ot, or active love, the new vision given to us by Christ. (And the point seems obvious in the gospels and Paul, sacrifice and circumcision without faith would be useless). For when Paul analyzes religious behavior, he finds faith behind anything genuine. First comes the faith, then the action.
And James doesn't really contradict this, intense as he is (remember it was men who hung out with James that Paul ran into conflict with over keeping the Jewish law). James, in his epistle anyway, simply focuses on the acts which proceed from genuine faith rather than the faith itself. James' concern is to define authentic faith, and I appreciate his argument also.
Jesus' statements are more complex. He demands belief in himself on more than one occasion; he also declares that we will all be judged based on deeds we perform in the body, good or bad; he offers parables where behavior does result in salvation or damnation; and above all he talks about a group, 'those who have ears to hear,' 'my sheep who hear my voice,' 'those in the kingdom,' as though what really defines the saved is that they will be known by Christ in a unique way and have been given the capacity to know him.
These are all very profound issues (this is known as soteriology, the doctrine of salvation) but right now I want to focus on a little known fact among many evangelicals: for centuries, most of its history really, the church has taught that baptism saves the soul. In fact, adults were not generally baptized until the anabaptist ('again baptized') movements of the 16th century; children were baptized with certainty during the second century, perhaps even in the first, though exactly what doctrine attended this before Augustine I don't know. The Roman church still teaches that baptism saves the soul (as I heard it at one baptism, apart from the will or behavior of the person later in life) and as far as I know, so does the church I attend, the Episcopal church, which is of course a branch of the Anglican. So does the Orthodox Church. According to the link I posted at the beginning of this post, even Billy Graham, king of the altar call, believes something along this line. My parish priest says that baptism washes away sins and makes the individual a member of the body of Christ. Is this not the same as salvation? This is called baptismal regeneration; the faith of those who present the child to be baptized stands for the faith of the infant, or the power of the sacrament itself conveys a saving grace. Of course for children or infants, confirmation comes later, when the child can understand the basic tenets of the faith and is expected to grow and place a more personal faith in Christ (and is this always a one-time event, or does our faith sometimes not come in pieces over time as in my case?). But what if I am baptized and never set foot in church again, never think of God, become a Miami speed-boat drug smuggling pimp wife-beater?
According to some who batptize children (I'm not saying all) I'm still in the kingdom, covered by the grace of Jesus. I may be low in the ranks, but I am still wheat and not tares, a sheep and not a goat.
This is a remarkable doctrine.
And I truthfully have no full answer to it. I see nothing in Jesus' words or in the letters of the nt (and again, I in my ignorance view those letters as part revelation, part opinion) to imply that this could be so. Some groups, reformed Presbyterians for example, baptize children and simply say that 'God means business.' Somehow God has taken notice of this child and will attempt to bring it to himself at a later time, though I don't fully understand their view. Nor do I want to descend into intellectual darkness and wrestle with predestination, free will, faith as a work; I can't believe how dense those issues quickly become. The real question is whether baptism can confer saving grace on an unknowing and passive soul, and whether that grace is temporary (through childhood for example) or life-long.
I of course can't say with any certainty, and I very much hope those who hold such a view are right. God acts along a different set of rules and is not limited as we are. But my opinion, and I am unwilling here to speculate on the destination of children who die ('let the little children come to me') is that baptismal grace is not life-long. If sin is remitted at baptism I cannot see how it could override later rejection of Jesus and the kind of life he asks us to live. If I choose behavior which is destructive to others and unbelief, if I elevate the self over God as I understand him, how could my baptism bring me into the kingdom? It reminds me of the infamous unpardonable sin in Mark 3. Sure those accusing Jesus were circumcised Jews, perhaps genuinely attempting to keep the law; but when they said that the divine power in Jesus was really Beelzebub, Jesus told them straight: you are in danger of a sin which will not be forgiven in this life or the next.
And while Jesus was baptized by John, and quite possibly part of John's group, while Jesus told his own disciples to baptize in the name of the trinity (and I have no reason yet to doubt the authenticity of these verses) whenever he speaks in the gospels, he talks about himself and his unique role in history; he pushes an impossible ethic and points to himself as the only means to achieve it. He stresses belief in himself and loving action to other people and sacrifices which must be made for his kingdom. I am no 'proof texter.' I'm looking for significant themes in the gospel record, and the simple fact is Jesus stresses personal responsibility, often in light of ominous consequences, every time he opens his mouth.
In the ot, I am reminded of the story of the sons of Eli in I Samuel 2:27-36. The sons of Eli were priests in Israel, descended from the original select families, or as God says regarding this in Samuel ‘Did I not plainly reveal myself to your ancestor’s house when they were in Egypt in the house of Pharaoh? I chose your ancestor from all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer sacrifice on my altar, to burn incense, and to bear the ephod before me. I gave to your ancestor’s house all the fire offerings made by the Israelites.'"
In other words, these guys were definitely circumcised. And members of a select blood line.
But they were doing some very evil things: having sex with the girls who worked at the temple, and actually eating some of the meat brought to be sacrificed before the ritual was completed. Cutting steaks out of the offerings. This would be similar to taking money out of the plate at church for personal use when you were the head pastor, and then seducing girls from the college (high school?) group, or acolytes from the service. I get scared even writing something like that, and am sickened to know that sometimes it happens.
And what does the author of Samuel tell us God says to Eli, the father of these cats, in the tale? Read on: 'Why are you scorning my sacrifice and my offering that I commanded for my dwelling place? You have honored your sons more than you have me in that you have made yourselves fat from the best parts of all the offerings of my people Israel.’
"Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, says, ‘I really did say that your house and your ancestor’s house would serve me forever.’ But now the Lord says, ‘May it never be! For I will honor those who honor me, but those who despise me will be cursed!'" Or in another translation, 'Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be lightly esteemed.'
The two sons themselves are struck dead the same day. The point is clear even that far back in Israel's history. You are circumcised, members of a chosen people? Good. God will judge you as an individual regardless.
So while it is possible that baptism provides a special and unique life-long grace, I wouldn't rest my eternity on it. I hope to be born of water and spirit. I need to find Jesus and throw my pain and sin and rage on him, believe he is who he said he was, and let him worry about the rest. While of course I hope all those who have ever been baptized will be given Christ's grace, God is never shown to work that way anywhere in the ot or the nt; if I'm wrong, show me and I'll note it here. God of course can do what he wants to.
Is this a reason to bash those who hold a high view of the grace present in baptism? Absolutely not. And since almost all of those I know read this are evangelicals, this post may not be very relevant. But I needed to sort it out for myself. I would be curious what my priest would say in response; perhaps I'll let him read it. I'm sure the other side has an intelligent position also.
The other Sacrament, or Ordinance or Rite, I want to discuss is the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, Communion. Next time.
Peace to all,
t
On the Sacraments: Baptism
Salvation by faith alone, sola fide, is the absolute cornerstone of evangelical theology as I know it. Certainly that phrase as it's understood now has roots in the Reformation's reaction to medieval theology. Yet it's tough not to read Paul's arguments in Galatians, Romans, and elsewhere, and not see that he believes that what truly saves a person, what justifies a sinning soul before God, is faith. There are passages in the ot which seem to say the same thing (and Paul quotes them). In Paul's reading, sure Abraham was obedient to God, but before he was circumcised, he believed, and from the moment he believed he was right with God. I don't know if there is other discussion of this in rabbinic literature Paul had read or not, though I'd like to know. But for him, faith may lead to an action, whether circumcision, sacrifice, and other ritual in the ot, or active love, the new vision given to us by Christ. (And the point seems obvious in the gospels and Paul, sacrifice and circumcision without faith would be useless). For when Paul analyzes religious behavior, he finds faith behind anything genuine. First comes the faith, then the action.
And James doesn't really contradict this, intense as he is (remember it was men who hung out with James that Paul ran into conflict with over keeping the Jewish law). James, in his epistle anyway, simply focuses on the acts which proceed from genuine faith rather than the faith itself. James' concern is to define authentic faith, and I appreciate his argument also.
Jesus' statements are more complex. He demands belief in himself on more than one occasion; he also declares that we will all be judged based on deeds we perform in the body, good or bad; he offers parables where behavior does result in salvation or damnation; and above all he talks about a group, 'those who have ears to hear,' 'my sheep who hear my voice,' 'those in the kingdom,' as though what really defines the saved is that they will be known by Christ in a unique way and have been given the capacity to know him.
These are all very profound issues (this is known as soteriology, the doctrine of salvation) but right now I want to focus on a little known fact among many evangelicals: for centuries, most of its history really, the church has taught that baptism saves the soul. In fact, adults were not generally baptized until the anabaptist ('again baptized') movements of the 16th century; children were baptized with certainty during the second century, perhaps even in the first, though exactly what doctrine attended this before Augustine I don't know. The Roman church still teaches that baptism saves the soul (as I heard it at one baptism, apart from the will or behavior of the person later in life) and as far as I know, so does the church I attend, the Episcopal church, which is of course a branch of the Anglican. So does the Orthodox Church. According to the link I posted at the beginning of this post, even Billy Graham, king of the altar call, believes something along this line. My parish priest says that baptism washes away sins and makes the individual a member of the body of Christ. Is this not the same as salvation? This is called baptismal regeneration; the faith of those who present the child to be baptized stands for the faith of the infant, or the power of the sacrament itself conveys a saving grace. Of course for children or infants, confirmation comes later, when the child can understand the basic tenets of the faith and is expected to grow and place a more personal faith in Christ (and is this always a one-time event, or does our faith sometimes not come in pieces over time as in my case?). But what if I am baptized and never set foot in church again, never think of God, become a Miami speed-boat drug smuggling pimp wife-beater?
According to some who batptize children (I'm not saying all) I'm still in the kingdom, covered by the grace of Jesus. I may be low in the ranks, but I am still wheat and not tares, a sheep and not a goat.
This is a remarkable doctrine.
And I truthfully have no full answer to it. I see nothing in Jesus' words or in the letters of the nt (and again, I in my ignorance view those letters as part revelation, part opinion) to imply that this could be so. Some groups, reformed Presbyterians for example, baptize children and simply say that 'God means business.' Somehow God has taken notice of this child and will attempt to bring it to himself at a later time, though I don't fully understand their view. Nor do I want to descend into intellectual darkness and wrestle with predestination, free will, faith as a work; I can't believe how dense those issues quickly become. The real question is whether baptism can confer saving grace on an unknowing and passive soul, and whether that grace is temporary (through childhood for example) or life-long.
I of course can't say with any certainty, and I very much hope those who hold such a view are right. God acts along a different set of rules and is not limited as we are. But my opinion, and I am unwilling here to speculate on the destination of children who die ('let the little children come to me') is that baptismal grace is not life-long. If sin is remitted at baptism I cannot see how it could override later rejection of Jesus and the kind of life he asks us to live. If I choose behavior which is destructive to others and unbelief, if I elevate the self over God as I understand him, how could my baptism bring me into the kingdom? It reminds me of the infamous unpardonable sin in Mark 3. Sure those accusing Jesus were circumcised Jews, perhaps genuinely attempting to keep the law; but when they said that the divine power in Jesus was really Beelzebub, Jesus told them straight: you are in danger of a sin which will not be forgiven in this life or the next.
And while Jesus was baptized by John, and quite possibly part of John's group, while Jesus told his own disciples to baptize in the name of the trinity (and I have no reason yet to doubt the authenticity of these verses) whenever he speaks in the gospels, he talks about himself and his unique role in history; he pushes an impossible ethic and points to himself as the only means to achieve it. He stresses belief in himself and loving action to other people and sacrifices which must be made for his kingdom. I am no 'proof texter.' I'm looking for significant themes in the gospel record, and the simple fact is Jesus stresses personal responsibility, often in light of ominous consequences, every time he opens his mouth.
In the ot, I am reminded of the story of the sons of Eli in I Samuel 2:27-36. The sons of Eli were priests in Israel, descended from the original select families, or as God says regarding this in Samuel ‘Did I not plainly reveal myself to your ancestor’s house when they were in Egypt in the house of Pharaoh? I chose your ancestor from all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer sacrifice on my altar, to burn incense, and to bear the ephod before me. I gave to your ancestor’s house all the fire offerings made by the Israelites.'"
In other words, these guys were definitely circumcised. And members of a select blood line.
But they were doing some very evil things: having sex with the girls who worked at the temple, and actually eating some of the meat brought to be sacrificed before the ritual was completed. Cutting steaks out of the offerings. This would be similar to taking money out of the plate at church for personal use when you were the head pastor, and then seducing girls from the college (high school?) group, or acolytes from the service. I get scared even writing something like that, and am sickened to know that sometimes it happens.
And what does the author of Samuel tell us God says to Eli, the father of these cats, in the tale? Read on: 'Why are you scorning my sacrifice and my offering that I commanded for my dwelling place? You have honored your sons more than you have me in that you have made yourselves fat from the best parts of all the offerings of my people Israel.’
"Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, says, ‘I really did say that your house and your ancestor’s house would serve me forever.’ But now the Lord says, ‘May it never be! For I will honor those who honor me, but those who despise me will be cursed!'" Or in another translation, 'Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be lightly esteemed.'
The two sons themselves are struck dead the same day. The point is clear even that far back in Israel's history. You are circumcised, members of a chosen people? Good. God will judge you as an individual regardless.
So while it is possible that baptism provides a special and unique life-long grace, I wouldn't rest my eternity on it. I hope to be born of water and spirit. I need to find Jesus and throw my pain and sin and rage on him, believe he is who he said he was, and let him worry about the rest. While of course I hope all those who have ever been baptized will be given Christ's grace, God is never shown to work that way anywhere in the ot or the nt; if I'm wrong, show me and I'll note it here. God of course can do what he wants to.
Is this a reason to bash those who hold a high view of the grace present in baptism? Absolutely not. And since almost all of those I know read this are evangelicals, this post may not be very relevant. But I needed to sort it out for myself. I would be curious what my priest would say in response; perhaps I'll let him read it. I'm sure the other side has an intelligent position also.
The other Sacrament, or Ordinance or Rite, I want to discuss is the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, Communion. Next time.
Peace to all,
t
Comments
The idea that the church has had a long history of teaching that baptism saves souls doesn't surprise me. People look for clear and unambiguous ways to define whether someone is *in/out*, *us/them*, *black/white*, *saved/not saved*. The problem is that faith by definition can not be nailed down to absolute proof (beyond a reasonable doubt? a shadow of a doubt? whatever threshold you want to put on it) because that is directly contradictory to what it is.
The other question that caught my attention - whether grace can be given through baptism alone - deserves some more thinkin' before I yap about it.
So, in the inimitable words of your governor..."I'll be back."
you know, he is my governor.
I think part of this must have been anxiety about the children: what happens if my four year old dies, as regularly happened until the last 70 or so years. But it certainly also came from the institutional power of the church: 'we as a group hold the ability to confer grace via the practices Jesus gave us' (and some others).
I do not think those in such denominations (orthodox, roman, anglican etc.) are de facto not believers by any means. If I come to communion expecting grace from Christ's body, that is faith and I think saving faith. But what role, if any, does baptism play in conferring a saving grace? I don't know.
Thanks, K, again, for reading.
t
The thing that really got me thinking was the idea of grace being bestowed upon someone as the recipient of Christian baptism. There would have to be something almost "supernatural" about it, if the thought were true.
My first thought when I read it was -- no, that wouldn't work, because (a) we are saved by faith through grace and then after that (b) baptism is the act, the testimony, of declaring this salvation outwardly. Nope, cart can't come before the horse.
Then I got to thinking... I don't know a lot about the idea of blessing. Scripture refers to blessings being given and curses being put on people / nations / etc.
Intercessory prayer is another example. Prayer for grace, peace, healing -- or prayer against the work of the devil / evil. I also have long pondered whether the very relationship of marriage invokes a blessing - not one that is eternal, but blessed to begin with - in a way unlike other relationships.
I don't know... I'm kind of rambling. What do you think?
I too was always concerned about what happens to little children who die. Especially once I had little children. I guess that is why many Protestants do the whole baby dedication thing. A conscious or subconscious public proclamation that the child presenter's faith covers that child until they reach the point of understanding and accepting Jesus or not as Savior. There is no denying Jesus made it clear, faith in Him alone does the job. I think some of the other issues you mentioned like child baptism are almost more for us as parents. I don't know. thanks for sharing this. As always I enjoy your posts. Peace brother.
thanks for posting guys. I'm still nine-fingered, so this will be brief.
But K, sacramental theology, the idea that the church can dispense grace through select rituals (e.g. baptism, communion) is very old; in fact it's ancient. And there are a few verses: what you bind will be bound in heaven...etc. The model you describe is the evangelical model (salvation by faith alone, baptism as an 'outward sign of an inward faith') but even Luther, whose understanding of faith based salvation began the German reformation, held to some sacramental theology. He hated the anabaptists (and I mean hated, insulted, cursed--this of course was the polemic style of the time) because he felt they limited the free, unearned (including by way of placing faith, though Luther believed God had to act on our will to save us) grace God provides in baptism, including baptism of infants.
Fact is, the church has never been fully consistent. Baptisms used to occur on Easter Eve, and even now liturgical churches like to choose a feast day to baptize (and there are many of these). But you'd think if baptism saves the soul of the child, the priest would be standing right next to the ob/gyn at delivery; heck, why not baptize through the abdominal wall?
The issues get sticky when we talk about children's salvation, and I have no answer except the way Jesus reacted to children while he was on earth; what we have recorded is unequicovally positive. Is there an 'age of accountability' where special childhood grace wears off? Perhaps. But these questions pale for me when I consider other problems: those mentally challenged or mentally ill, those with brain damage, those born with partial brains, the zygote which drops from the uterine wall. Am I going to see all these beings in the next life who were never even born?
And I still am struggling over those from other faiths; what about Native Americans who worshipped White Buffalo Calf Woman and the wakan tanka, who smoked the sacred pipe around the sacred fire? Too many Christians can simply rip out the phrase: 'they're going to burn in heathen hell, brother' or some such thing. This sounds like the way some dismiss the poor or those from another culture. As if all Hindus are somehow inferior, less than we are, because they grew up Hindu and we 'chose' Christ. How God sees all this I don't know.
So yeah, I still have more questions than answers. But I really do feel that for the thinking adult, faith, or some positive response to God however we describe it, is essential to salvation, water or no.
t
thank you for such a thoughtful response. I'm still nine-fingered, so I can't say all I'd like.
But a couple things: there are verses like that, 'and he was saved, all all his household.' My take on that is that it's not god, referring to the book of life, saying that. It's an enthusiastic human using a figure of speech. But I'm no nt critic and I don't know greek.
Second, what is nazarene 'holiness order' if I may ask? I think of pentecostal holiness, my grandmother's roots, but I don't think this is the same (the old holiness taught that true Christians were without sin). I'm just curious.
Okay, and the third thing (though I said two): I consider myself low on the faith meter much of the time. Sometimes my faith in Christ seems crystal clear; many times it is occluded, almost violently, certainly persistently, by doubts (which I now discuss here). I will say, though, that I did accept HIM just as you say. I was overpowered, really, by the personality of Jesus after I spent years plodding through the gospels. I didn't hold a high view of scripture then (right or wrong, I still don't), I wasn't even sure about the eternal soul (still not sure on that either) but I figured whatever I didn't know, Jesus of Nazareth did.
I guess I'm saying thank you. I consider your comment a high compliment, though I didn't 'do' anything to earn it.
I've met so many Christians who are 'verse' Christians. Maybe that's okay. But many in the church seem to have not read even one whole gospel; their faith and theology are based largely on prooftexts others have told them. And to me, the gospels are where Jesus is revealed. (That's probably why I read them so infrequently, to my discredit).
Thanks again, Amanda. Sincerely.
t