If I may weigh in on the baptism question:
I think immersion fits with Jewish (and other religions) custom, the descriptions of John's baptism, and the image of our union with Christ in His death and resurrection. However, I think a good case can be made for sprinkling as well both from the OT and from certain phrases in the NT when discussing our salvation.
Believer's baptism fits with the idea of conversion, and of the early practice of the Church as described in the NT. However, almost everyone would have been a convert at first, and thus believers prior to baptism. I think a good case can be made for infant baptism based on the covenant, and based on baptism being something of a sign of the new covenant. In this sense it can be seen in the light of circumcision in the OT. A common reformed position I think.
My conclusion is that when in doubt, the meaning of baptism is more important than the method or timing. If done in faith, I do not see how it matters whether one is immersed or sprinkled. If done by parents of faith within the community of faith, I think it can be a sign of a faith to come when performed on infants. In other words, I think if it mattered a great deal the NT would be more clear about the method and timing.
When believer's baptism was stressed by those who became "Baptists" sprinkling was not unknown among them. The insistence on "believer's baptism" is understandable when many in the Church are believed to be unconverted, but I often think this is but a sign of radical puritanism, as in "we must have a visible Church composed only of believers." I think this flies in the face of Jesus' parables in Matthew 13. If we accept that the Kingdom of God is the power and presence of God that creates the Church as the body of Christ, and the Church is one way the Kingdom of God continues to spread throughout the world then the visible Church must often be a mixed group.
A side note: those who insist on believer's baptism often practice "children's baptism" and it is difficult to believe that many of these children are not in a similar situation as that experienced by infants - marked with the sign of the covenant by believing parents within a community of faith. Too often, too, the insistence on rebaptizing in the Baptist Church tends to make baptism a way of joining "our church" rather than as a sign of faith in Christ. Evangelicalism in general, when practicing alter calls, makes "walking the aisle" the visible sign of conversion thus emptying baptism of its meaning. This simply reinforces the idea that baptism is the way to "join our church."
Sorry for the long post and rant.
I think immersion fits with Jewish (and other religions) custom, the descriptions of John's baptism, and the image of our union with Christ in His death and resurrection. However, I think a good case can be made for sprinkling as well both from the OT and from certain phrases in the NT when discussing our salvation.
Believer's baptism fits with the idea of conversion, and of the early practice of the Church as described in the NT. However, almost everyone would have been a convert at first, and thus believers prior to baptism. I think a good case can be made for infant baptism based on the covenant, and based on baptism being something of a sign of the new covenant. In this sense it can be seen in the light of circumcision in the OT. A common reformed position I think.
My conclusion is that when in doubt, the meaning of baptism is more important than the method or timing. If done in faith, I do not see how it matters whether one is immersed or sprinkled. If done by parents of faith within the community of faith, I think it can be a sign of a faith to come when performed on infants. In other words, I think if it mattered a great deal the NT would be more clear about the method and timing.
When believer's baptism was stressed by those who became "Baptists" sprinkling was not unknown among them. The insistence on "believer's baptism" is understandable when many in the Church are believed to be unconverted, but I often think this is but a sign of radical puritanism, as in "we must have a visible Church composed only of believers." I think this flies in the face of Jesus' parables in Matthew 13. If we accept that the Kingdom of God is the power and presence of God that creates the Church as the body of Christ, and the Church is one way the Kingdom of God continues to spread throughout the world then the visible Church must often be a mixed group.
A side note: those who insist on believer's baptism often practice "children's baptism" and it is difficult to believe that many of these children are not in a similar situation as that experienced by infants - marked with the sign of the covenant by believing parents within a community of faith. Too often, too, the insistence on rebaptizing in the Baptist Church tends to make baptism a way of joining "our church" rather than as a sign of faith in Christ. Evangelicalism in general, when practicing alter calls, makes "walking the aisle" the visible sign of conversion thus emptying baptism of its meaning. This simply reinforces the idea that baptism is the way to "join our church."
Sorry for the long post and rant.
Upvote
0
