What does baptism have to do with following Jesus...?
This past weekend saw a number of people baptized. Let's have some discussion around this whole baptism thing. For someone not associated to the church in any way, how would the baptism service be seen? What do you guys think about baptism? Why have you been baptized? Why havent you been baptized yet? How would you respond to someone who says, "I was baptized as a baby, so I dont need to be baptized at Bethany." How about someone who says, "I was baptized when I was a teenager, but I didnt really mean it then. Does that mean I need to be baptized again?"
Lets talk! Feel free to comment on all or one of these questions.
6 comments:
I think that if you were baptized as a baby, and then followed through with confirmation or public declaration of faith, then there is no need for another baptism. We do come from the Anabaptist movement, and they did believe that you had to be baptized as an adult in order to follow through with scripture. I like the anabaptists and I like the idea of adult baptism, but I do not discount the validity of the other denomination's practice.
If people feel they need to be baptized again because they didn't mean it the first time, I suggest having a bit of a gut-check / theology-check. As important as feelings are, we need to be careful that they don't rule our lives or determine our eternal destiny. If God is faithful when we remain faithless, we should not seek to be born again again or baptized again as soon as we feel we are better Christians.
That being said, if you were never a Christian in the first place - that is, you didn't trust in Jesus as your Savior, you never believed you were a sinner, etc., then I think that a public declaration of faith and/or baptism is necessary....
Thanks for your thoughts Bill. Have you been following the dialogue on here long?
There are many people who havent been baptized, and arent really interested in taking the plunge. What would you say to them?
In the New Testament, baptism was something that immediately followed belief. When someone repented and became a Christian, it was directly follwed by baptism. People who had been a Christian for two minutes were being baptized, so why is it today that we encourage someone to think about baptism, dwell on it, not to do it until they are ready, to make sure they are right with God, etc? I can understand that going infront of a lot strangers after immediately converting can be very daunting, but baptism doesn't have to be that way. Look at the Ethiopian in Acts. It was just him and Phillip. No audience, no ceremony. I think that the modern North American church has very much skewed what Baptism originally was.
Anonymous, I totally hear what you are saying and I agree.
I am not sure where contemporary approaches to baptism originated, but they certainly dont seem to be based on what we see in the Bible.
One thing I would challenge in your comments. The Ethiopian was "an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, the queen of the Ethiopians." From that discription, I am pretty sure that he would have been travelling with a large entourage. That would have given many witnesses to his public declaration of his newfound faith in Jesus.
Obviously we dont know for certain whether he was alone or travelling in large company, the text is silent on the matter. Because of the silence, we cant say one way or another what the context was.
When we look at what baptism is -- a public declaration of inward transformation. It only makes sense to be done in public... my preference would be as public as possible (even more public than the baptistry at the front of the church...)
In any case, my contention with your comments is fairly small. I agree with almost all of what you said. Thanks for your comments!
Why don't these people want to be baptized if they haven't? We've added the whole testimony part I guess, and that makes people nervous. In the olden days (2000 years ago), it sounds like the whole dunking in the water was the testimony. Maybe we need to teach people that the symbol speaks volumes.
Are there people out there who do not want to be baptized at all? I haven't thought about that. I think they should. I like the symbol. Jesus seems to like it to. And that's just alright with me...
Bill, I agree, I think the symbol of baptism is a beautiful thing.
More thoughts:
When John the baptist was out in the wilderness sporting the camel hair tunic and picking locust legs from between his teeth, his message was to "repent and be baptized."
When pagans converted to Judaism, they would "repent and be baptized." It was a once-for-all ceremonial washing that invovled immersion. So John's general message for ALL to repent and be baptized was a levelling statement. It would have been offensive for Jews because it was a direct challenge to their belief about salvation.
Most Jews believed that if they were born into a Jewish family and did not reject God's law, they would be saved; John told them instead that they had to come to God the same way that non-Jews did. The message was that everyone had to come to God on the same terms.
Baptism as a symbol was understood in that culture, now, the act itself has lost its symbolic resonance. Do we need the verbal testimony to make up for the lost meaning of the symbol?
Post a Comment