Heb 6:1 Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit.
In this post I would like to look at the doctrine of baptisms. This passage has caused some people to wonder because in Ephesians 4:5, Paul stresses unity in the body of Christ by writing "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Thus some are inclined to place all of these foundational doctrines in a Jewish context and translate baptisms as washings (which is one meaning of the word). Fatal to this theory though is the fact that the first two foundational doctrines are Christian and clearly not Jewish – repentance and faith. Actually the following doctrines, especially the resurrection and eternal judgment, can hardly be construed as specifically Jewish either. Thus these must be Christian doctrines.
How do we reconcile this with Ephesians 4:5 then? In that passage there is pronounced to be only one baptism. There is also said to be only one faith, because we all have the same object of faith – Christ, yet we see that there is both a fruit and a gift of faith (1 Cor. 12:9, Gal. 5:22). The gift is not common to all as is clear from the context of 1 Corinthians, one receives the word of wisdom by the Spirit, another receives faith. This faith cannot be the same faith mentioned in Ephesians because that is common to all believers. Thus in Ephesians, Paul is highlighting unity in what we all receive from Christ – we have one Lord to obey, we have faith in Him, and we identify ourselves with Him in Baptism. We are one in His body, not by virtue of what we are but what He is. God is our Father, not my Father exclusively, but all His children are my siblings if He is my Father. The one baptism is thus not to be exclusively understood, because John the Baptist specifically noted two baptisms – the second one having perhaps a subset (Mark 1:8). The Apostles received both of these baptisms – at least as far as we know, since some of them were John's disciples prior to becoming Christ's disciples, also they baptized others, which would be odd if they were not baptized themselves, especially after the example set by Christ in being baptized Himself. It would be hard to argue that they were not water baptized. Therefore I believe that the passage in Hebrews is referring to two distinct baptisms which the apostles experienced and which we also as Christians should understand and experience, since they are foundational.
- Water Baptism
The first baptism is baptism in water. According to Philip the evangelist belief in Christ with all the heart was the prerequisite requirement for this baptism (Acts 8:37). This is implied also in those who responded to Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-41), since they were baptized in the Name of Jesus which implies belief in the Name. The jailer in Philippi and all his house first heard the word and believed and then were baptized (Acts 16:30-34). It should be noted that while some argue immersion would have been impossible in these circumstances, the jailer bathed (as opposed to merely washed) their wounds, so immersion was clearly possible here. Lydia was baptized with her family and some would claim this for infant baptism since believing is not mentioned in this passage (Acts 16:14-15). However, how far do they want to take this? If Lydia was married, was her husband baptized on the basis of her faith apart from her own? I don't know of anyone who argues for that. If she was widowed and thus the head of the family, then quite likely any children present there were old enough to have faith themselves.
While paedobaptists can argue that infant baptism dates back along time in the Church, yet believer's baptism was certainly numerically superior in the first three centuries as converts from heathenism all renounced idolatry and other evils and stated their faith in Christ prior to their baptism (as seen in Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem). To guard against laying too much stress on testimony of the early Church fathers, it should also be noted that since Justin Martyr (d. c. 165 a.d.) notes that even in his day there were some amillenialists in the Church as well as millenialists, so clearly some in the Church quickly departed from apostolic teaching, whichever eschatological system you want to argue for, and if they departed so quickly in eschatology, can we be certain they were not somewhat aberrant in baptism as well? The Didache (c. 120 a.d.) also allowed for pouring instead of immersion, but only in the case of lack of any other way (Didache 7:3-4). Whether the writer had the authority to alter the Sacrament of Christ is another matter altogether. If it was given by Christ then only Christ could alter it.
Some might think that differences in method and custom are allowable, or merely minor, and it might seem so. Yet Moses when he disobeyed God by striking the rock to procure water a second time rather than speaking to it was kept out of the promised land (Num. 20:8-12). Interestingly, even though Moses moved in disobedience water still came out of the rock, showing that God can still use, if He desires, a wrong method. That does not negate the fact that there will be consequences, perhaps serious ones. Moses being stopped short of the end of his journey seems a little severe for the offense, but he destroyed the type that God was setting forth, Christ the Rock was struck only once, and after that as we speak to Him the water of life flows forth.
Water Baptism is among other things a symbolic act. It shows our union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:1-11). This is why immersion is important. While baptism is symbolic, it is not merely a symbol. When we realize that by joining with Christ in His death we also join in His life and resurrection, we see that we have power over sin. There is a power in water baptism to overcome our old sin nature and its sins, and to walk as new creatures. Baptism is not the means of regeneration, because in at least one instance – Cornelius – it followed the receiving of the Holy Spirit, which was taken as evidence of conversion so that baptism could not be forbidden him even though he was a Gentile (Acts 10:44-48). Since Jesus said that the world cannot receive the Comforter, Cornelius must have been born again prior to his baptism (John 14:17). This is not negate the importance of baptism which Christ included in the great commission and to which He Himself submitted though He had no sin to confess. Baptism should not be delayed and be undertaken at the very beginning of our spiritual walk, even as the Israelites crossed the Red Sea almost immediately on partaking the Passover and having the blood applied to their homes (1 Cor. 10:1-2). The New Testament pattern is clearly for believer's baptism following as soon as possible after faith in Christ is ascertained.
- Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism in the Holy Spirit is not a mere side doctrine of the Christian life. It is foundational. John the Baptist's ministry was to prepare the way and testify to the coming Christ. His testimony to Christ was twofold – that he was the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29), and also that He would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). Often our focus in churches is on the first and very important ministry of Christ as the Lamb of God, which of the evangelists only John mentions, and we totally neglect the second aspect of Christ's ministry which was noted by all four evangelists. Might I suggest that this baptism is somewhat important if it was mentioned by all four evangelists.
That Christ considered it important is equally clear from the fact that He commanded His disciples to wait in Jerusalem, until they had received it (Acts 1:4-8). It was this baptism that gave them power to bear witness to Him. Christianity is a life that began as a plan in the mind of God, is begun in us by the power of the Spirit working in our hearts and is completed in the power of the Spirit enabling us to do the works which God foreordained for us to do (John 1:12-13, Gal. 3:3, Phil. 1:6, Eph. 2:10, Rom. 11:36). The great problem in the Church today is man – man's ideas, methods, and leadership instead of God's. Human bodies function best when all parts receive their needed instruction from the head, Christ is and always will be Head of His body and it will prosper to the degree it is willing to listen to Him. When God's power was on Peter in such a way that men were healed when his shadow fell on them, he didn't sell tickets to where he was going to be walking, and he didn't write a book on shadow healing technique. In this way he was very different to us today, we focus more on technique than relationship with Christ and character. Technique has its place, but separated from relationship and character it is mere showmanship. Paul certainly didn't have pulpit personality (2 Cor. 10:10), yet he did far more to change his and succeeding generations than a million flamboyant preachers with feel good messages and platitudes ever could. Technique is dangerous because it can give apparent results with little cost. It costs to get a hold of God in prayer. It costs to really see yourself and see others as they are before God and then declare it, but the results will be everlasting. The Church today barely holds its own against the tide of sin, the early Church changed their world. Even as the glow of the apostolic Church was beginning to fade Justin Martyr could still write of the numberless deliverances from evil spirits worked by the Christians. As the power continued to fade, sacramental ceremonies began to replace the inward life of the Spirit. There is good reason to believe that confirmation originated in the laying on of hands to impart the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, after the actual impartation of the baptism became rare. In the same way extreme unction was originally given in line with James 5:14-15, but as the power of healing began to leave only the hollow form remained.
For more information on the baptism of the Holy Spirit and its evidence – speaking in tongues please see my series here.
Before moving on to the next foundational doctrine I should mention something about the baptism of fire. Fire accompanied the first Pentecost of the church and there is no reason to think it is gone now. Personally I had an experience where I felt the power of God come upon me and I felt hot as though I was burning up, it was at an evening church service. Later that night as I still felt warm I continued to pray as I was lying in bed and in the dark I saw a tongue of fire, it was about 8 inches high, and looked like a wavering blue gas burner flash in front of me twice. Not only do we need the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, but we also need God's fire to continually burn in our hearts. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment