Yesterday I listened to Rush Limbaugh while out running errands. I’ve listened to him for almost as long as he’s been around nationally, in varying amounts depending on my life situation at the time. (Teaching elementary school didn’t allow for much Rush!) Yesterday I heard something that was just absolutely priceless. I would say it was one of the most profound things I’ve heard on there in all these years.
Carl, who identified himself as an Independent, called in and wanted to know, “Why can’t we just all get along?” Discussion ensued and then Rush asked Carl a question: “As an Independent, what do you stand for?” Kind of a simple question, but it was met with total silence, then fumbling nothing.
So Rush asked him, “What are your core principles?” Again, longer silence and then stumbling to apparently even understand the question.
So Rush assured him it wasn’t a trick question. He just wanted to know, “What do you stand for?” Super long silence.
Poor Carl apparently had no idea what Rush was talking about.
The silence was so LOUD and LONG. He apparently had no idea how to even process the questions, let alone answer them. I suspect that Carl is not alone in his inability to express his most basic core beliefs whether the person is an American or, God help us (literally), a confessing Christian.
Okay, so what does this have to do with baptism?
I’ve been following the discussion between Wayne Grudem and John Piper regarding baptism and church membership. The three relevant posts are:
- Grudem’s Change of Mind Regarding Differences on Baptism within a Local Church (Wayback Machine)
- Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership (Wayback Machine)
- Wayne Grudem’s Response to Piper
They are very interesting and friendly. You need not be apprehensive about reading a theology war because this is not it. Instead, two friends discuss some very relevant and thought-provoking spiritual truths.
Some might think this is just dry theology and it doesn’t have anything to do with following Christ in our day to day lives. Well, not for me. I’ve been Baptist pretty much my whole life, but the baptism thing is a tricky one for me. Those of you who have read here for a bit know that we actually switched churches when we found out we were expecting Caroline. We were attending a Christian Reformed church that baptizes infants and when push came to shove we decided to move to a Baptist church, primarily because of the baptism issue. (As an aside, I’ve never been totally comfortable with that choice either.)
But it is also relevant to us in another way, and this was the situation that has made me forever since uncomfortable with being a believer’s baptism by immersion person. We know an older couple who were both baptized as infants. They have spent their entire lives serving Christ in churches that baptize infants. To make a long story short, they started visiting some other churches because they were becoming increasingly concerned about some things happening in their own church (of which they are founding members and have been there for decades). They found a Baptist church they really liked. But in order to become members of that church they would have to be baptized by immersion as their sprinkling/pouring was not considered valid. No dunky, no membership.
I have to admit that as a Baptist I found it next to impossible to defend that position. I mean, I can defend it as a Baptist and give all the reasons why a person should be baptized in the mode of believer’s baptism. But as Sallie who knows these people and knows that they have followed Christ most of their lives, I could not justify telling them that they were not able to fully function as members of a church body of Christ unless they were immersed.
So what does this have to do with Rush and Carl, the Independent? The mode of baptism for me, at this point in my life and as best I understand the Bible, is not a core belief for me. In some Baptist circles that would be almost heresy to admit. Seriously. Some Baptists would sincerely doubt my salvation that I could even entertain such thoughts. I think the mode of baptism used to be a core belief for me, but I cannot imagine telling some of the great Reformed folks I know that they could not join my church unless they were immersed when they are fully convinced in their own mind before God that their baptism is valid.
And so I found this discussion between Gruden and Piper to be interesting.
I hope you will, too.
Ideas For A New Parent Survival Basket
I found it interesting too, and especially appreciated the fact that it was a friendly, considerate discussion. What a blessing for people of God to be able to disagree amicably!
I have to say that I go back and forth in thinking of who I more agree with. Probably Piper, although I understand where Grudem is coming from. I would agree with you, that baptism is not a core belief for me, either. I was baptized as an infant, but also as a college student in order to join a baptist church. We have not baptized our babies, but look forward to the day that they trust Christ and follow in believer’s baptism.
Good links!
Heretic! Heretic! 🙂
I hear ya. I had to be baptized a second time myself to be accepted as a member in a Baptist church. This was simply because I had been baptized a Methodist; the fact that I had been immersed previously didn’t help me any. I have always regretted that decision.
Well, as someone who became a Christian in a Wesleyan church but did much of my early theological training in a Presbyterian church… I believe God looks at the heart. It’s not how we get wet, it is why we do. 🙂
As for me, I was baptized in the Wesleyan church so that meant I was not only dunked all the way under, it had to be done in a RIVER. Yes, add another piece to that particular theological puzzle. That church liked to baptize in rivers. Indoor baptizing was not for them.
Sigh, and we wonder why people who are not Christians look at us funny.
I’ve been following it too since John Piper is one of my favorite people ever.
Here’s an interesting one for you. I grew up Quaker. Spent 25 years in the Quaker church. Quakers do not do baptism by water. Why? Because they believe that you are Baptized by the spirit when you accept Christ. The Quakers do not believe in symbols. You will never find a cross in a Quaker church, a Christmas tree, those types of things. Quakers do not take communion or baptize. They believe in those things, but not in the symbol—they think you are in communion with God and baptized by the spirit.
Then, after 25 years in the Quaker church, my husband and I joined a Baptist church. A hip-hop, evangelical, loud Baptist church. I had to be “dunked” to become a member.
Let me tell you, it was very hard for me. Why? Not because I didn’t believe in Baptism. I did. But I also believed my 25 years of teaching was true, and that I had indeed been baptized by the spirit. A bathtub of lukewarm water and a preacher in galoshes was a WEAK substitute for being baptized by the spirit when I received Christ. It was “jumping the hoop” so to speak.
I ended up doing it, because it was the only way to become a member, and it was something that was (at the time) important to my husband and my church, so I jumped the hoop.
Did I feel different? No. Truthfully, my baptism in the Holy Spirit at age 13 when I accepted Christ was much more powerful and significant.
I know there are alot of staunch positions on Baptism and how we do it. In the end, I think the issue of if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior is more important.
One’s the million dollar question, and the other is like the ten-thousand dollar question.
This is a no brainer for me. Jesus was dunked under water. The Bible says we must be baptized. Thus, believers should be baptized by immersion.
I was sprinkled in a Methodist church as a teenager but when I really gave my life to Christ in my early 20’s in a Baptist church, I was baptized again-under water. That is the biblical way to do it.
I think the older couple you know should be baptized in water. It doesn’t negate the years they’ve spent already following the Lord, but now they have the opportunity to have it done right. Why be stubborn about it? Just do it and get it over with.
Sprinkling some water over a persons head is not baptism. Maybe I’m a simpleton but it seems crystal clear to me. I never even knew there was a fuss about different ways to baptize until recently. It’s pretty ridiculous!
I am in no way wanting to attack anybody by this comment–so I hope that comes across!!–but I just don’t understand why it would be such an issue for people who love the Lord to be immersed-baptised if that was requested of them?? If baptism is all about a public statement of following Christ, why is that so hard to submit to just because you’ve been a Godly Christian all your life?? Sorry! I just find that a bit mind-boggling…and that’s not even getting into the baptism debate!! 🙂
Jenny C. – That is a minority Baptist view that you had to be rebaptized by immersion. I know there are some Baptist churches like that, but all that I’ve been a part of will accept an immersion baptism done in faith at any other church.
Lindsey – Thanks for another perspective. I think the discussion between Piper and Grudem (and the related comments) are interesting because they demonstrate the challenge that some people feel in making immersion ALMOST the same as being saved. This isn’t true of all immersion-ists (is that a word?), but there is something that bothers me about requiring people to do something that they do not feel convicted by the Holy Spirit to do. As you said – jumping through a hoop to be “acceptable” to other Christians. That is what I find hard to defend as a Baptist.
Brenda – Ok, the river thing was new to me! One of my dear friends is a Nazarene (branch of Wesleyan) and I don’t remember this. I’ll have to ask her about that!
anon – I am leaving your comment, but this may be the last time. I don’t allow anon. comments here so please use your name if you are going to continue to come around (even though you said you weren’t any longer). You are welcome to come here and participate, but please use a less combative tone in your comments. People are free to disagree here, but if it isn’t done nicely, it gets deleted.
aussietiger – The reason it is an issue for them is because they don’t view baptism as a public profession of faith in the way a Baptist would. It is a covenant sign and as such it is viewed differently. I have to go eat breakfast, but maybe some of our Reformed friends here would like to jump in and explain it! 🙂
Thanks for a good discussion so far!
It is so refreshing to see a friendly discussion on the matter of baptism. This is one of the great matters of dissention among the Church. I so desire to see unity among the followers of Jesus Christ. We are all part of the body of the Church. As long as we get bogged down in the technicalities of our interpretations of scripture, Satan will rejoice, because we are ineffective as ambassadors of Christ. We need to focus more on our covenants with God than with men.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs when someone accepts Christ, and water baptism is merely a public profession of Christ. My family does a submersion baptism as a representation of dying to the sinful self (going under water) and being resurrected (rising out of the water). I have not found anywhere in scripture that instructs to submerge, but it helped me to understand what I was professing.
Can someone point me to scripture that tells people they must be baptised to be a member of the Church? Christ warns us in Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
I do have pics up of my daughter’s baptism on koinoniacommunity for those of you willing to subject yourselves to such images. 😉
Baptism is a picture of dying to sin and the old life and rising to new life in Christ-. Just as Christ died and rose again so baptism by immerssion is a picture of what took place. It is a biblical ordinance- the only other one next to Lord’s Supper that is commanded in scripture as an act of obedience. It shows what has already happened in a believers life and is an open procolamtion (and great tool for witness as well) of saving faith. Therefore I have no problem with baptism being a requirement for membership in a baptist church. I do take issue with insisting someone is baptised again- unless that person realises that they were not truly saved when they were ‘baptised’- as can so often be the case, especially with young people. Becuase of the above, I do not see how baby sprinkling fits in- a baby cannot seek forgiveness for their sins and so, although it is a sign of parental commitment, it is not a picture of what has taken place in that childs life.
I will go read the discussion- but I do think that the stance that certain churches takes has way to much influence on out own beliefs- which should be rooted adn grounded inscripture.
I grew up Presbyterian, and was baptized as an infant. That being said, I would never join a church that would require me to be re-baptized. As if the first one didn’t “stick”.
My husband was baptized when he accepted Christ as a boy. We have briefly discussed it, but haven’t made any decisions about what we would do with our children. I really hope we are able to baptize them as infants as well, but I will submit to my husband’s eventual decision.
aussietiger: I have always understood it that baptism is a sign of the covenant between God and His people, much like circumcision was to the Jews. In the Old Testament, Jewish children were included in the covenant under their fathers. In the New Testament, baptism replaced circumcision as the “sign”. I found a pretty good article explaining it here.
Good discussion.
I am finding that the hows and whens of baptism are becoming less and less of a core belief for me, as long as the whys are correct. I am currently a dip and dunk gal, but am very persuaded by covenant theology.
If I were asked to be rebaptized just to become a “legal” member of a church, I would have to really think about it. If I said no, would I then be kicked out of church? Would I become less of a member because I might not have voting privileges? This is new for me, but I think baptism is not to be symbolic of your theology, but of your regeneration. So, if you were to go from Methodist to Baptist, I don’t think rebaptism is appropriate. We are in danger of adding to God’s Word when we begin adding stipulations.
btw, I really enjoyed your comment Lindsey (#4)… Very interesting and now I have something else to add to my “to think about” pile!
Also, I hope that if I were to be asked by Rush what my core beliefs were, that I wouldn’t freeze!
I feel it is necessary to reiterate how careful we need to be when discussing the essentials and non-essentials for Salvation. However, I do believe that each of us can learn from listening to other Christians’ viewpoints – even when it is completely different to our own. This can sometimes change our own view, or even make our own opinion more sure.
I consider believers’ baptism by immersion to be biblical, and find it difficult to view baptism of a baby as ‘believers’ baptism’. As a result, I don’t see how anyone can use infant baptism as a ‘replacement’ for believers’ baptism.
If someone, and I say this in love and with no other motive, wants to join a church but they are not happy with that church’s theology of believers’ baptism, why are they joining it? Why would anyone want to join a church with whom they disagreed over any important piece of doctrine?
These are just my thoughts, and I hope I have made no enemies here! I just leave you with one final thought – why does believers’ baptism have to be one of the conditions of membership in so many churches? I certainly believe it should be taught, but often wonder if the Lord feels it should be the reason for Christians joining or not joining a particular church.
Grace- I don’t know how it is where you are but in many churches here membership of a church is needed to take the Lord’s Supper- and a public, obedient profession of faith is needed for membership. Can you see how the two tie in? If an individual is not willing to obey the commands of scripture then what kind of church member will they make? I think that that may be more the issue- the demonstration of obedience and willingness to submit.
I think I would agree with Susanna’s last point. When I first discovered reformed theology, I received most of my information from presbyterian sources, and the covenant sign view of baptism was the one I held to almost by default.
Since we started attending a reformed baptist church, I felt it right to really investigate the topic fairly, and I am now convinced of the baptist position. I am quite content to accept as brothers and sisters those who have been baptized differently, and I wouldn’t dare to question the salvation of a solid presbyterian by virtue of their mode of baptism.
But church membership is a different issue. As it happens, I was sprinkled in an Anglican church at 17, and then dunked a few years ago in our old church by my own choice, but if I hadn’t been and a church we wanted to be full members of required me to be baptized by immersion, even though I may not be convinced of the need for it, I would consider it a matter of fitting submission to authority.
I’m reminded of Screwtape, actually, suggesting that if each Christian took seriously the idea of submitting to one another, the church would be a ‘positive hotbed of charity and humility’ 🙂
I think the point in this topic that people are missing is that infant baptism is NOT believer’s baptism. We’re not saying that baptism is a public profession of faith, but rather a sign of the covenant between God and His people. So you can’t apply the logic of believer’s baptism to refute infant baptism.
I just pulled this out of the archives.
Interestingly enough, we have been discussing this very thing this month. I had forgotten about this post.
As a follow-up 18 years later, we went back to that CRC church and had Caroline baptized when she was two. I wrote about that somewhere on here.
Now we are members of a different Baptist church and struggling with the very idea discussed above regarding whether Caroline should be required to be immersed to become a member. She will have to be if she desires to become a member because that is our church’s stance. But I’ve been thinking about it more from a Biblical and theological perspective and what it means for a Christian to deny their baptism as an infant in order to be baptized again to fulfill someone else’s doctrine. I read a number of discussions about this among Reformed and Presbyterian folks on a few message boards. It was interesting to see their perspective of it.
So 18 years later, we’re still dealing with this. When I wrote this week about the fact that we’ve struggled with church stuff, I meant it. We never fit in anywhere.