The churches of Christ are credobaptists; they believe that baptism should be practiced only on/by believers, rather than infants who cannot express a profession of faith. And they believe in baptism by immersion only, not by pouring or dipping or sprinkling. And finally, they believe that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.
Again, I am not telling anyone they can’t practice this. But again, we find that this is often presented as the only faithful reading of scripture. I want to take a moment to spell out the arguments why other understandings of baptism can be had from a faithful reading of scripture.
Credobaptists will often say that there is no instance in scripture of baptism apart from a profession of faith. But by the same argument, there is also no instance in scripture of a child being raised in the church unbaptized until an arbitrary age of accountability. Scriptural silence on this issue supports neither side. The same applies to modes of baptism, immersion vs. pouring, with no distinction made in scripture. Baptism does come from a word meaning “to immerse,” but a supper generally doesn’t mean a tiny cracker either, so we’re clearly already comfortable with a degree of linguistic drift in our sacramental language.
We can argue from other sources, of course. The earliest manual of church practice we have is called the Didache, from the first century AD. That manual is directed at adult converts, so it doesn’t address children being raised in the Church, baptized or not. But it does expressly discuss modes of baptism, with flowing water being most preferred, still water being next, and pouring being third. Interestingly, it seems to describe immersing or pouring three times, once in each name of the Trinity. I haven’t seen that done in the churches of Christ, for sure.
As far as infant baptism vs. credobaptism, it’s worth noting that we have tons of early church writings outside scripture, and none of them object to infant baptism. If it was a new thing post-Apostles, nobody seemed to notice. Silence here may actually tell us something, if we care to listen.
Once again, we find this churches of Christ posture of absolute certainty in things that are scripturally ambiguous. Other groups came to different conclusions, and they did so through valid, reasonable processes. It’s possible to disagree and still show respect, and treat those who disagree as brothers and fellow workers for the Kingdom. I have never seen this practiced in the churches of Christ.
Finally, the necessity of baptism. Great effort has been put forth defending the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation, and I have no intention to re-litigate that debate. Instead, I would borrow this analogy: if you want to become a professional tennis player, do you then ask, “Am I required to try to win every game?” There is no right answer, because the question itself displays an incorrect attitude towards the entire endeavor.
There are at least half a dozen resurrection stories in the Bible, stories of people who were dead, and whose death was reversed so that they became alive again. But that's not the story of Jesus. Jesus' death was not reversed; death itself was undone. Jesus went through death, and came out the other side into a new way of being human, more alive than any of us have ever been. Jesus invites us to join him, to die with him, rise with him, and live with him as part of his new creation. How can anyone then ask "must I be baptized?" Hallelujah, we get to be baptized!
We are called to be disciples, formed through the Spirit to be like Christ. The disciple does not ask, “What is the least I can do and still get by?” The disciple asks, “What more can I do?” The disciple gives up everything he has, even his very life, and follows Christ. If you try to turn discipleship into a series of rules, even rules about baptism, you will inevitably fail. Hear-believe-repent-confess-be-baptized? Yeah, all those things are there, and if you choose to read the New Testament as an exercise in extracting a list of rules, you could do worse. But there’s a reason that list of rules isn’t spelled out, and that we instead have to extract it one tiny bit at a time: the focus on rules is fundamentally missing the point.
Much more on that later.
No comments:
Post a Comment