UPDATE: 09/01/12
I was mistaken when I said Piper helped translate the ESV. He endorses it and has released a study Bible with notes written by him, but he had nothing to do with the translation of the Biblical texts.
OK. I was supposed to do this once a day from Saturday onward. It's Thursday. This is my second post. I failed. Moving on.
I decided to start out by reading two authorities on this subject. The first, John Piper, who disagrees with the idea of infant baptism and that the mode really does not matter. The second, Donald A Dunkerly, a guy you'e probably never heard of (he was the pastor of Mcllwain Presbyterian Church in Pensacola, FL) who does believe in infant baptism and that the mode does not matter all that much.
Now, allow me to explain something. I hate when people start a conversation off with "John Piper said X". This happens with the other famous ministers, I'm sure, but in my circle of friends, John Piper says X is used far more often than even "The Bible says X" and it makes me want to punch people in the face. John Piper did not write a book of the Bible to my knowledge. So why do I appear to be doing the same thing? Using the work of wise men who have already done a lot of the heavy lifting is not wrong or even a bad idea. But, after you've heard what they have to say about it, you should be able to then say "I heard or read that John Piper had X to say about X subject or passage, and I tested that against the Bible, and the Bible says X". If you can't say that but instead have to say "John Piper says X", you should really be asking yourself why you defaulted to Piper (or your chosen respected guy of choice) instead of saying "The Bible says X". Perhaps you did this because Piper is wrong. Or perhaps you value Piper's word over God's Word. Either way, there's something wrong with it. All that is to say, even though I read them, you probably won't hear their names mentioned very often past this point, unless I am pointing out that one of them said something that doesn't pass the Scripture test.
I'm going to first talk about the mode and definition of baptism. If the mode and definition of baptism are indeed of dunking and being buried and raised again with Christ, then my whole position falls to pieces. We don't dunk babies. I'm pretty sure the authorities would take issue with that.
Dunking Christians immediately point to the Greek word for baptize, baptizo, which is usually translated to immerse. I'll explain the usually in a moment. Immerse means to submerge. Definition #2 of submerge is to be covered or overflown with water. If you've ever taken a shower before, you know that you can be covered or overflown with water without being dunked into a pool of water.
Dunking Christians also point to a verse in Colossians 2 that says that through baptism we were buried with Christ, who were also raised with through our faith. So, dunking is a better picture of our salvation, in which Jesus is buried and then raised again. This, of course, assumes that baptism is supposed to be a sign of our faith, which I see no evidence of. This verse explicitly says that we were buried with Christ through baptism, but our resurrection is through our faith. The baptism picture only points to one part of this process.
Dunking Christians also forget to mention that they use the same word "baptize" to express what happens when we receive the Holy Spirit, but they will also describe this as having Spirit poured out onto you. So which is it? Does baptize mean to dunk the subject, or to have something poured out onto the subject. By your strict definition of that word, it can't be both.
Now you might be saying to yourself that this, at the very least, eliminates sprinkling. Wrong again. If you look at Hebrews 9:10, the author is discussing a process of cleansing that the priest performed before entering the inner room. According to Strong's, the most widely used authority on definitions of Bibilical terms and language including translations, the English word that appears here, washing, is the Greek word baptismo. If you look at Numbers 8:7, which is where the process Hebrews is talking about is recorded, it says "Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves." (ESV) I would like to point out that John Piper makes the argument about the definition of the English word baptize as to dunk, yet a Bible translation he personally approves as being the best translates the word to washing, which, in this context, clearly speaks of a practice of sprinkling.
Many dunkers also point to the fact that the Bible constantly says "went down into the water" or "came up from the water" as proof that dunking was the method performed by the people in the New Testament. To that, I want to point out that it also says that the baptizer as well as the baptizee went down into and came up out of the water. So, why don't we dunk the one who performs the ceremony?
So what does water baptism mean or represent? Honestly, I'm not sure. I know what it doesn't represent. It doesn't represent that I'm a Christian. It's not there. Sorry. It also doesn't represent some sort of picture of the burial and resurrection of Christ at least not exclusively. If that were the case, what the heck did John the Baptist think it meant while he was baptizing people PRE the death and resurrection of Christ? Also, since John's baptism was a baptism of cleansing, and Jews cleanse through sprinkling and pouring, as shown in the Old Testament, it's very likely that John did the same thing, though I don't really have any proof of that, so take that as you wish.
I believe that baptism is simply New Testament circumcision. The Lord's Supper, another ritual we participate in that I have yet to find a command that we do so (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, just that I don't see where anyone in the Bible says I have to do it), replaces Passover. The Lord's Supper takes a bloody practice and turns it into a non-bloody practice. Circumcision was also a bloody practice. Water baptism takes that practice and makes it's non-bloody.
Now, I have a Biblical reason for thinking this way. But I'll touch on that in my next entry. I need to study it more and I do believe that my study of it will alter my thinking from what I stated in my first post just a little.
Thanks for reading and joining me in this struggle over this topic. Again, I appreciate your respectful comments and ideas.
I decided to start out by reading two authorities on this subject. The first, John Piper, who disagrees with the idea of infant baptism and that the mode really does not matter. The second, Donald A Dunkerly, a guy you'e probably never heard of (he was the pastor of Mcllwain Presbyterian Church in Pensacola, FL) who does believe in infant baptism and that the mode does not matter all that much.
Now, allow me to explain something. I hate when people start a conversation off with "John Piper said X". This happens with the other famous ministers, I'm sure, but in my circle of friends, John Piper says X is used far more often than even "The Bible says X" and it makes me want to punch people in the face. John Piper did not write a book of the Bible to my knowledge. So why do I appear to be doing the same thing? Using the work of wise men who have already done a lot of the heavy lifting is not wrong or even a bad idea. But, after you've heard what they have to say about it, you should be able to then say "I heard or read that John Piper had X to say about X subject or passage, and I tested that against the Bible, and the Bible says X". If you can't say that but instead have to say "John Piper says X", you should really be asking yourself why you defaulted to Piper (or your chosen respected guy of choice) instead of saying "The Bible says X". Perhaps you did this because Piper is wrong. Or perhaps you value Piper's word over God's Word. Either way, there's something wrong with it. All that is to say, even though I read them, you probably won't hear their names mentioned very often past this point, unless I am pointing out that one of them said something that doesn't pass the Scripture test.
I'm going to first talk about the mode and definition of baptism. If the mode and definition of baptism are indeed of dunking and being buried and raised again with Christ, then my whole position falls to pieces. We don't dunk babies. I'm pretty sure the authorities would take issue with that.
Dunking Christians immediately point to the Greek word for baptize, baptizo, which is usually translated to immerse. I'll explain the usually in a moment. Immerse means to submerge. Definition #2 of submerge is to be covered or overflown with water. If you've ever taken a shower before, you know that you can be covered or overflown with water without being dunked into a pool of water.
Dunking Christians also point to a verse in Colossians 2 that says that through baptism we were buried with Christ, who were also raised with through our faith. So, dunking is a better picture of our salvation, in which Jesus is buried and then raised again. This, of course, assumes that baptism is supposed to be a sign of our faith, which I see no evidence of. This verse explicitly says that we were buried with Christ through baptism, but our resurrection is through our faith. The baptism picture only points to one part of this process.
Dunking Christians also forget to mention that they use the same word "baptize" to express what happens when we receive the Holy Spirit, but they will also describe this as having Spirit poured out onto you. So which is it? Does baptize mean to dunk the subject, or to have something poured out onto the subject. By your strict definition of that word, it can't be both.
Now you might be saying to yourself that this, at the very least, eliminates sprinkling. Wrong again. If you look at Hebrews 9:10, the author is discussing a process of cleansing that the priest performed before entering the inner room. According to Strong's, the most widely used authority on definitions of Bibilical terms and language including translations, the English word that appears here, washing, is the Greek word baptismo. If you look at Numbers 8:7, which is where the process Hebrews is talking about is recorded, it says "Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves." (ESV) I would like to point out that John Piper makes the argument about the definition of the English word baptize as to dunk, yet a Bible translation he personally approves as being the best translates the word to washing, which, in this context, clearly speaks of a practice of sprinkling.
Many dunkers also point to the fact that the Bible constantly says "went down into the water" or "came up from the water" as proof that dunking was the method performed by the people in the New Testament. To that, I want to point out that it also says that the baptizer as well as the baptizee went down into and came up out of the water. So, why don't we dunk the one who performs the ceremony?
So what does water baptism mean or represent? Honestly, I'm not sure. I know what it doesn't represent. It doesn't represent that I'm a Christian. It's not there. Sorry. It also doesn't represent some sort of picture of the burial and resurrection of Christ at least not exclusively. If that were the case, what the heck did John the Baptist think it meant while he was baptizing people PRE the death and resurrection of Christ? Also, since John's baptism was a baptism of cleansing, and Jews cleanse through sprinkling and pouring, as shown in the Old Testament, it's very likely that John did the same thing, though I don't really have any proof of that, so take that as you wish.
I believe that baptism is simply New Testament circumcision. The Lord's Supper, another ritual we participate in that I have yet to find a command that we do so (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, just that I don't see where anyone in the Bible says I have to do it), replaces Passover. The Lord's Supper takes a bloody practice and turns it into a non-bloody practice. Circumcision was also a bloody practice. Water baptism takes that practice and makes it's non-bloody.
Now, I have a Biblical reason for thinking this way. But I'll touch on that in my next entry. I need to study it more and I do believe that my study of it will alter my thinking from what I stated in my first post just a little.
Thanks for reading and joining me in this struggle over this topic. Again, I appreciate your respectful comments and ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment