Since it was an old post, I dont expect to get much conversation on my comment, so I will put a link to the post here and my comments follow:
I appreciate what you have to say, however, I’m not sure your argument is particularly strong. Your first argument is one of semantics isn’t it? You are saying that immersion was immersion, that it was a cultural practice of the time makes no difference? We have defined a word with its definition, which is helpful, but does not seem to necessitate it on a theological level.
Your second point seems to fail in that the letter to Romans is not a church leader’s handbook on how things should be run. It seems to me that Paul was referencing a common experience between Christians to create an analogy to the Christ event, not mandating submersion as requirement.
Your third point stresses the importance of community, and you have drawn a nice image of entering into community. As community is your point, is immersion the only way in which community can be displayed? In many high churches, where they baptize infants (though infant baptism is not the topic of discussion) through submersion or sprinkling, it is as much of a commitment of the parents to raise their children in the faith as it is a commitment of the congregation to walk alongside that child in his or her faith as well. What a strong show of community, one that is not simply imagery, but a vocal acknowledgment of the responsibility of the community to the individual.
What, may I ask, do you do with the Didache, and its teachings concerning baptism?
I am not trying to be contentious, just trying to encourage discussion as I try to flesh out my thoughts on baptism.
No comments:
Post a Comment