Baptism
Along with trust, faith, and commitment comes the concept
of Christian baptism and the "new birth." What does it
mean? Does it matter how it comes about? Who is "properly"
baptised, or "born again"? How can we know?
From Cambridge in England, Adam, a believer with a heart's
desire for true fellowship in Christ, writes:
I think there is a
strong case for baptism not being a condition for salvation
(as in the Roman Catholic Church) - neither necessary nor
sufficient. I see it more as an outward sign of committing
one's life to Jesus and making a lifelong commitment to a
particular congregation, not something to be taken lightly
(as, I fear, in many Baptist or evangelical churches) or to
be something automatic (like among the Catholics). I think
our salvation depends more on the deep change in our heart
that comes with/prior to/following the baptism with the
Holy Spirit than on any outward signs, but of course the
only way in which the former can be true is through the
life of the believer. I would therefore not like to be
baptised into any congregation without a strong sense of
commitment.
* * * * *
We cannot agree enough with you, Adam, that true baptism is
the baptism of the inner man - not baptism with water, but
the baptism (immersion) of commitment. That is, commitment
to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (being plunged
into his name!) and consequently, to one another.
Every day this baptism of our human selves being "flooded
out" by the Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace
continues for the saving of our souls. His name becomes our
name. His life becomes our new life, and his spirit springs
from within us, a fountain of living water that never runs
dry.
To wash in natural water has nothing to do with our
salvation. It is the Word (Christ) that washes us as we die
daily to live with him.
Under the old covenant God gave explicit instructions on
natural washings with water and sprinkling of blood. The
Pharisees (long before Jesus' birth), John the Baptist, and
the early Christians baptised with careful washings by
immersion to mark repentance and the new birth.
But under grace we depend no longer on actual water and
blood to save us - no more than we count on earthly bread
and wine to give us inner Gemeinschaft (fellowship) in
Christ. It all comes from the inside out, not from the
outside in! As one of our elders, Peter Walpot, writing at
the Neumühl Bruderhof in Moravia, wrote in 1547:
Taufen heiβt soviel
wie ins Wasser tunken oder tauchen, and getauft zu werden
soviel wie eine Eintunkung oder Wasserbesprengung. Aber
nicht das Werk, sondern der Verstand, Inhalt, und Meinung
des Werkes ist welches giltet. Die Taufe ist eine
Abwaschung, Absagung, und Absterbung sein selbst, und
Begebung Gottes, und gleich als eine Unterschreibung,
Vereinigung, oder Vermählung der Gläubigen mit Christo.
(Baptism means
immersion in water, and to get baptised is to get dunked or
splashed over with water. But it is not the physical act
but the meaning, concept, and purpose of baptism that
counts for anything. To get baptised is to have one's old
self washed away, renounced, and died off. It is to give
ourselves to God, to sign ourselves over, and to become
united or married as believers to Christ.)
It is our firm belief that to get carried away with how,
exactly, to baptise is to miss completely what Jesus and
the apostles had in mind. Once we attach even the slightest
significance to how, when, or through whom the water of
baptism is applied, making it a "means of grace," we would
without a doubt be better off to flee from the water
altogether - like the Quakers - and concentrate only on the
baptism of the inner man. Water baptism, if focused upon
even just for a minute, easily becomes a heresy and a trap
to us - a false god like Moses' brazen serpent in
Hezekiah's time.
But we do, of course, baptise believers with water, once
they are ready to formally commit themselves to Christ and
his church. And we do not take the "christening" of infants
or small children as a baptism at all.
*
* * * *
After a believer wrote, wondering why we do not insist on
one mode or the other, for baptism at Elmendorf, our
brother Peter replied:
I am really glad to
belong to a movement that has long accepted both immersion
and pouring as acceptable ways to baptise. I could not, as
a follower of Christ, ever take part in forbidding
immersion baptism to a believer that requested it. It is
just too absurd. How could we forbid what Christ and the
apostles practised?
On the other hand, I would not care to take part in dipping
young converts through a hole in the ice on a frozen river,
in the name of Christ. Neither could I, as a Christian,
insist that one way of applying the water is valid while
the rest are not.
NO water is "valid." Validity is in the blood, and that was
shed for us two thousand years ago.
NO man is authorised by God to "save us" through proper
baptism. That would make him a mediator, a priest, between
God and man. But we have ONE mediator. That is Christ. And
he is our high priest.
For this reason it does not matter to us exactly how or by
whom we were baptised. The only thing that matters is that
we live in the ongoing, daily, baptism of the Holy Ghost.
"I die daily," Paul said.
If we follow the Spirit of Christ in every situation, the
way we baptise will bring health and peace to his body as a
whole. Then baptism serves the Church, not to divide one
congregation from another, but to bring all that truly
believe into glorious unity already on this earth.
* * * * *
Two writings tell us much about baptism among believers.
The first is from "The Teaching of the Lord to the
Gentiles, through the Twelve Apostles" (the Didache), an
authentic early Christian document from within the first
one hundred years after Christ's resurrection. It is the
oldest known Christian writing outside of the New
Testament, and states:
The procedure for
baptising is as follows. After rehearsing all the
preliminaries, immerse in running water, in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. If no
running water is available, immerse in ordinary water. This
should be cold if possible; otherwise warm. If neither is
practicable, then sprinkle water three times on the head in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Both baptiser and baptised ought to fast before
baptism, as well as any others who can do so. But the
candidate himself should be told to keep a fast for a day
or two beforehand.
The other writing is a letter from Joseph Müller, a Swiss
Anabaptist that moved to Pennsylvania in the 1700s. In
Pennsylvania he met the Brethren led by Alexander Mack at
Germantown. They convinced him that the Swiss baptism by
pouring was not good enough and he needed to be immersed.
So he got immersed, but that did not bring rest to his
soul. He longed for deeper fellowship with Christ in his
heart and joined the Moravian Brother's community at
Bethlehem, north of Philadelphia. From there he travelled
as a Moravian Pilger (missionary) through Europe and
America, living at times in Germany, the Netherlands, and
England. Much criticised by his Brethren family and
in-laws, he wrote in 1749:
If the Saviour
[through the use of the lot] had allowed it, we would
baptise by immersion. But neither in Pennsylvania or in
Germany has he wanted it this way, no doubt because we
Dunkers make too much out of it. . . . God does not like
when we emphasise anything but Christ, his death and
wounds, and his bloody atonement. All other things -
baptism, the Lord's supper, footwashing, going to meeting,
vigils, prayers, fasts, and the alms we give - easily
become idols to us.
"Dear children," John the Apostle wrote, "keep yourselves
from idols!"