Just a place for an amateur internet archeologist, part-time mad scientist, full-time father and husband, pathfinder and theologian by trade (and insanity) to speak his mind in the struggle to be more outgoing.
Adam Baumann Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, Indiana
It has been quite a while since you last heard from me. At lot has happened in the time since mail service was restored. I'll send a nice long update soon, but I just wanted everyone to know things are fine.
We're moving to Iowa. I've been assigned as vicar at Trinity Lutheran Church in Hampton. My start date is August 18, so we're packing the truck on the 6th and heading out on the 7th.
The next year will be very busy. I'll preach at least 25 sermons, teach Bible studies and catechism class, and plenty more. My intention is to regularly update everyone as the year progresses.
When we think about the crown of thorns, we imagine a full circle atop Christ's head. But the sort of crowns the Romans would have been familiar with are the horseshoe shaped laurel wreaths worn by generals on triumph or athletes after competing in the games. The soldiers fashioned for Christ a victory crown made of the very item God cursed the garden with due to Adam's sin.
Been a long time since anything's happened on this blog. Mostly because I've been too busy doing more immediately necessary things. And doing enough writing that I haven't wanted to do much recreational wordsmithing.
But then the teaser trailer for Star Wars Episode IX dropped.
(Don't mind me. I'm okay.)
If you haven't watched it yet, what is wrong with you?!?!
I mean... if you haven't watched it yet, you can watch it here.
Or here:
Hoo, boy! There's almost nothing in this video. Seriously. Other than seeing a new iteration of the TIE Interceptor, and a fun little pip-squeak droid, nothing overly fascinating.
Except for Rey wandering in some desert (Jakku? Tatooine's Jutland Wastes?).
And the Skywalker lightsaber has been repaired.
And an A-Wing (?) approaching a city/starport/base on a somewhat snowy and mountainous looking world.
Lando piloting the Falcon, again.
A Star Destroyer of some class in a battle. Not sure if it is an Imperial-class or the newer Resurgence-class.
Remnants of a Death Star.
And good old Palpatine himself cackling in the background.
Yeah, forget all that for a moment. Because I think I might have figured it out. I have a sneaking suspicion that I know exactly what the tagline and the title mean.
"The saga comes to an end."
Well, everyone in an official position has been stating that this is the end of the "Skywalker arc." And that kind of makes sense, overall. The Legends universe was able to open up the galaxy with many, many, new characters to follow. With the old EU being closed, Disney and Lucasfilm started back at square one. So, no major grievances here from me. (Other than those grievances I've already aired; see previous posts.)
But couple the tagline with the title.
Now, in my opinion, there are a few options that sort of overlap. Let me explain.
1) Rey is a Skywalker.
2) Ben gets redeemed.
3) "Left field."
And following the lead of my idol, Eric Idle, I'll start with the second one.
Will Ben Solo be redeemed? To be honest, I think it may be irrelevant. I know everyone likes a classic "good guys win" story, especially when it includes getting family to stop being jerks. But I don't think it is needed.
Why do I think that? Balance. One "Light Side," one "Dark Side." Or, jumping on the older theory bandwagon: Ben was a double agent the whole time.
Think about it. Has he been good at being a bad guy? Not really. He's been flighty, impulsive, reckless, and at times even stupid. Maybe he turned to the dark side out of fear of Luke, but then realized he was in over his head and started trying to sabotage it all, except it is getting difficult to figure out there one lie beings and the other ends.
As for Rey being a Skywalker, I stand by there being only one way for that to work: Mara. Don't get me wrong, I think she is (likely) deceased as of TFA. I'll even go so far as to say she died before Ben and Luke had their "falling out." However, the origin of Mara would be in play. And then some. Buckle up for this one, we're going to brush left field.
(the following is the theory, ignore similarities)
Mara Jade was not only one of the Emperor's favorite assassins, but she was his illegitimate granddaughter. At the Emperor's death, she was assigned to kill Skywalker. Instead, though, she was redeemed, going on to aid the New Republic both in the reestablishing of the Jedi and in the intelligence departments efforts to weed out Imperials. Around the time Luke's nephew began attending the Academy, Mara disappeared. She had been assisting Sen. Organa-Solo's efforts to combat the rising First Order. Luke never found out what happened to her, and the agitation he felt from her disappearance contributed to his actions toward Ben. What happened to Mara was she went into hiding briefly when her daughter was born. To protect her Mara took her to Jakku, hiding her with an associate, who would end up falling on hard times and "sell" her to Unkar Plutt. Mara would go back into the field, disappearing for the final time in the first attempt to located Luke. No one knows what happened to her. However, there was a ship spotted that appears to be the same type as the one in Rey's memory.
Okay, tin foil hats off now. Outlandish and unlikely? Yep. Buckle up, though, because you ain't seen nothing yet.
What is outlandish is the title: "The Rise Of Skywalker." How so?
Skywalker is not a name, but a title.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I please direct your attention to a document known as "AlienExodus," the outline of which is here and the first two chapters are here. I'll wait while you read it.
Oh, yeah. You sort of see where I'm going with this now, huh? Well, hold on to your hat. Because here's the theory.
The title of "the Sky Walker" is much like that of "the Chosen One." And Palpatine knew this. He also knew that he hadn't, actually, killed his master, who was playing with trying to create life. So Palpatine did what had to be done to keep the galaxy, as well as the universe and the Force, from being destroyed by his master: fulfill the prophecy of the Chosen One.
That meant finding the right candidate. The difficulty with that was in the wording of the prophecy, wording that the Jedi did not know. But he did. The Chosen One was to be a Sky Walker. The title became a renown Jedi family name long before Ruusan, but they nearly died out in the battle. But Palpatine found one: Shmi. The son would have fulfilled the prophecy, if not for Snoke appearing in the Unknown Regions after the rise of the Empire. How did the Emperor learn of this? A young Chiss commander, who had information regarding Snoke's activities.
You see, Palpatine had been working on essence transfer as his master perfected parthenogenesis. But his master had stolen his work just as Palpatine stole his. That threatened Palpatine's plans enough to make it worth while to abandon or postpone his efforts. Or at the very least make a contingency plan. As Vader did what had to be done, namely, kill his master, the Emperor ordered his granddaughter to kill Skywalker, knowing that he would partner with her to provide the means to defeat Snoke. But, thank the Force, Anakin had not one but two children, and Leia's son was equally powerful in the Force.
An so, from beyond the grave, Palpatine, through the memory and myth of his former servant Vader, influenced Ben Solo to be not only the intended Dark Side user, but the perfect inside man within Snoke's efforts. And with the death of Snoke, it seemed things were set right.
Only now there are only two Force users, and there is no balance, so perhaps Palpatine's plan can work out. If not for those who believe in the Legend of Skywalker, striving against the Dark Side.
Bazinga, nerf herders! How's that for "left field?"
Yeah, that's okay.
At this point I'm just playing around with whatever scraps I'm finding, hoping to pick up grenades along the way. Nothing here is a serious "I'm pretty sure I've got it all figured out." Especially since Ian McDiarmid said he's not in the movie. Oh, well. Being wrong won't bother me. It hasn't yet regarding any predictions I attempted. But it would be hilarious if any of this is right. If I'd bank on any of it, it's my prediction regarding the title.
But, until December, or the full length trailer drops more land mines on everyone's head canon, all we've got is spitballs and hypotheticals.
On March 11, 2019, Fox News posted an opinion article titled "Church as we know it is over. Here's what's next." (If you are curious what was in the article, you can read it here.)
(pardon me while I beat my head against the desk for a moment, until I forget about the dumb for a while)
Now, at the top, he does rightly call out churches that focus on attempting to increase attendance numbers, as if that is the goal of the Church. But he then claims that this also means that the "traditional" church model, namely that there is a physical building where worship takes place is like the dinosaurs: dead.
No, Dave. The Church does not die. She thrives. But, then again, you wouldn't know. You're not a pastor.
What you are is a has-been sports announcer who now works for a Bible-denying heretic at a place of business that looks more like Facebook and Instagram than the countryside of Galilee, or Rome, or Wittenburg. It doesn't even look like what Billy Graham was doing.
Some churches and "churches" will try to implement the sort of stupidity. Now, I'm not saying it is bad to have the ability to navigate modern social media and use it as the tool which it can become. No. I'm saying that thinking foolishly that you can replace church with a Facebook chat session.
Yes. That is what he suggested. He just probably has no idea that's what he suggested. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that.
Why do I say that? Because if he knew what "church" was he wouldn't have made such a suggestion.
The word we now know as Church comes from the Greek word ἐκκλησία. Quite literally meaning "assembly" or "communion," though whenever it is used in the New Testament it does clearly mean the Church. And the Church only exists as a group. As Jesus says in Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
That is one of the primary marks of the Church: fellowship. And not just being "together" in some vague way, but legitimately being in the same space worshiping together, reading the words of Scripture, partaking in the Sacraments, and praying. If you are not together, physically, you are not the Church. You cannot have baptism and communion without being physically together.
Yes, having the ability to watch a service, or listen to the audio, when it is physically impossible to physically attend service, can be beneficial, especially for some members, such as the elderly. But this cannot replace worship. And to claim that, not only will it, but it is beneficial for the church in such an age of post-modernistic fluff, is foolish. I'd even go so far as to say treasonous. To not only think this might happen, but to wish for it, to look forward to it, to think it will be the next step in the progressing of the Church from archaic to modern is disgusting.
According to Dave "If the Church is going to make an impact in the modern world, we need to take the swim lanes out and let people explore our church and our content in their own time and in their own way. We need to understand that digital channels do not compete with physical attendance, they partner with it. And if the marketplace is an indicator, doing digital engagement well will lead to increased physical attendance."
What it should say is "If the Church is going to make an impact in the modern world, we need to quit trying to be what the world wants and be the Church. We need to understand that digital channels do not replace with physical attendance, but they can support it. And if the marketplace is an indicator, living in such a disconnected and digital engagement means we need to be promoting the value of physical and routinely attending a confessional and Scriptural community."
Yeah, I know that isn't what he said. But it is what he should have said. Not "oh, look, let's abandon our heritage and identity as the Church as we try to emotionally manipulate people into attending through callous and secular methods based on psychology and advertising."
If he was really a pastor, he would call out his boss Andy Stanley, the leader of North Point Ministries in Atlanta. Stanley is a known and intentional heretic who has gone on record stating that the Old Testament is of no use to Christians. This would make Stanley a Marcionite.
Marcion and his followers rejected the "Hebrew Bible" (which we call the Old Testament), since they saw the Hebrew God was vengeful. According to them the one true God sent Jesus to be the savior, and Paul was the chief apostle. If that sounds familiar to another religious mantra... I'll let you figure that out yourself. Because gnosticism never goes out of style, unfortunately.
So, Dave, like I said. Dead wrong.
The church is not about being "popular" and neglecting to mention Christ in nearly everything we say and do. The Church has always been about preaching Christ crucified and risen for sinners, which includes me and you. Everything a pastor says should be about or connect back to that central most fact of Christianity.
Maybe you should go back to talking about sports. At least there if you are wrong it is only your opinion, and not heresy.
Adam Baumann
Concordia Theological Seminary
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Winter Quarter, 2018-2019
29 Sept. 2018 - 1 Feb. 2019
Apparently mail service to and from northeast Indian are really slow.
Actually, that is true. It seems that the USPS isn't very efficient this side of the Mississippi. Then again, nothing is.
So it has been too long since I have written anything here. And I'm not ashamed to admit I realized that because of a message in email that a comment noted that some images are not working. I fix them when I find them, when I can. But the pictures are just extra, the real meat of this blog is the stuff I write.
Which I haven't done a lot of in the last four months. But, in my defense, this has been a busy four months. And I realize that a weekly or biweekly posting is untenable at this juncture. Maybe once a month. Or if my posts are much shorter, which is doable too. The reason is pretty simple: one quarter ended and my family journeyed back home for the Thanksgiving holiday, then back to the Seminary where both Homiletics and Hebrew dominated my time. Among other classes, like some very challenging Gospels exegetical papers. And not because the text was difficult, but the professor is a stickler for quality and a self-described tough grader.
The "big deal" this quarter is Homiletics, which includes writing three sermons. One was video recorded, one will be just a manuscript, and one will be delivered in class. That one is also the first sermon I will give in church, on 17 March at my field work church. Which, honestly, will be less nerve-wracking than speaking it in class. Yeah, I'm weird like that.
On top of all that the first years were assigned to lead chapel services. I was assigned 15 January, a simple service of Prayer and Preaching, which meant I didn't have to worry about chanting. But it was during Symposia week, so the chapel was packed. If you want, you can watch it here. You'll have to search a little bit to find the right day. Maybe you'll even see me look up from where I'm sitting, hoping to see my family, only to see President Matthew Harrison.
Yep. Not nervous at all. No idea what you're talking about. (Afterward I did get to speak with Harrison, and he said I did a good job.)
Otherwise, things keep plugging away. I'll try to not disappear for so long again.
And the disciples of John told him all these things, and John summoned to himself two of his disciples he sent them to the Lord saying “Are you the one who is coming or are we to look for a different one?” When the men had come to Him they said “John the Baptist sent us to you saying ‘Are you the one who is coming or are we to look for a different one?’” In that hour He had healed many with diseases and torments and evil spirits, and many blind He granted the ability to see. And He answered them saying “Go yourselves, tell John the things you saw and heard, the blind regain sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead roused, the poor have the good news preached for them, and blessed is the one who shall not offended by me.” When the messengers of John had gone He began to speak to the crowds concerning John “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What, then, did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft robes? Behold, the ones in fine clothing and exist in luxury in the palaces. What, then, did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, indeed, I say to you, and greater than a prophet. This is the one about whom it has been written 'Behold I send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' I say to you, no one born of women is greater than John. But the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."Luke 7:18-28
The third week of Advent is traditionally focused on joy. Hence the rosy colored vestments. But John really isn't the typical "rainbows and sunshine" preacher. Especially right now.
The last prophet, sent to prepare the hearts that had strayed from God, was in prison. And not like prisons today, or even prisons back in the 1800s. Like, a prison that makes the Bastille look like a Sandals resort.
So is it understandable that John asks is Jesus is really the Messiah? This is the guy who, while still in the womb, was jumping in excitement knowing that he was in the same room as the Savior. And he had no fear speaking truth to power. So why ask this now? Why not when Christ was at the river, being baptized?
But John's question is understandable. He knows that the end, for him, is soon, and he wants to know that he hasn't been wrong.
Paul had somewhat similar circumstances. He was in prison, multiple times. Yet, as he wrote to the church in Philippi, he expressed that, no matter what, he was content. This is because of his assurance and hope in Christ. Not that John did not have hope, but it wasn't as clear before Christ's death and resurrection. That and Paul wasn't quite under the same threat of death (at that time).
Which, in many ways, is for our benefit and joy. We can look back and be certain that Christ has died for us. And for that, we celebrate and wait for His return.
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, at the time of the high priest Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came upon John son of Zachariah in the wilderness. And he went into the whole surrounding region of the Jordan announcing a baptism of repentance for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins. Just as it is written in the book of The Words of Isaiah the Prophet "A voice crying in the wilderness 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths.' Every valley will be filled and every mountain and hill made low, and the crooked will become straight and the rough roads be smooth and all flesh will see the salvation of God." He began saying to the crowds that were coming out to be baptized by him “You brood of vipers who warned you all to flee from the future wrath? Therefore produce fruit worthy of repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves: we have Abraham for a father. For I tell you that God is able from these stones to raise children of Abraham. And even now the axe is already laid at the root of the tree thus every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” And asking him the crowds said: “What shall we do?” And he answered them saying “The one who has two tunics shall share he who has not, and the one who has shall do likewise.” And tax collectors came to him as well to be baptized and said to him “Teacher, what must we do?” And he said to them “Collect no more than you are ordered to.” And some soldiers were questioning him saying “What shall we do?” and he said to them “Do not take money by force or by false charges but be satisfied with your salary.” [As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people. But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by him for Herodias, his brother's wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, added this to them all, that he locked up John in prison.] Luke 3:1-14 (15-20, ESV)
It is always interesting having a Gospel text that isn't about Christ. Except, that, it is.
The last and greatest prophet, John, had a mission from God: prepare the way of the Lord. The Jews probably thought that the phraseology literally meant that a road had to be made ready for the messiah to arrive and reclaim the throne of David.
But that was not the duty of the prophet. The prophet's job had always been to call the people back to God, and His statutes. And so John prepared. He taught the people that they needed to be contrite. Which is true, but not because it would bring about the Messiah. The Messiah was coming regardless.
That does not mean John rightly teaching the Law was wrong. The Law is to be taught to sinners who are secure in their sin. That's why he calls them "kids of snakes" and says that Abraham isn't their father. He doesn't mean anything genealogical. Because being children of Abraham has nothing to do with genetics, bloodline, familiar relations, or ethnicity. A child of Abraham is a believer in the promise. Even the stones, the "dumb rock" Gentiles, could (and would) be raised up by God to be the true Israel.
When those who had been shown their sin by the Law asked John what they must do, we best not that they do not ask "what must we do to earn salvation." No, they want to know what they should do to stop breaking God's law. "Be generous. Don't steal. Don't resort to violence to get what you want."
With all of this fire and feistiness, John was not the expected messiah, by a long shot. And he said so. He knew the Messiah, having met Him while still in the womb. John was merely teaching the Law and doing simple washings, much as the priests had done stop-gap sacrifices. But the Christ, He baptizes through water and His Word, by which we receive the Holy Spirit that is the Fire of God.
And so John stands there on the banks of the Jordan river, the last great herald of the King before His return. John represents the true exodus from slavery and wilderness, pointing to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world by His death and resurrection.
(Since my Greek Readings class only translated the 1-14, I elected to use the ESV for the remainder.)
And when He [Jesus] said these things He went on ahead going up into Jerusalem. And as it happened when He approached near Bethpage and Bethany toward the mountain called “Olive Orchard” He send two disciples saying "Go into the opposite village near there as you are entering you will find a colt tied upon which no one has ever sat, and after untying it and bring it. And if anyone were to ask you 'Why are you untying it,' you will answer that it's Lord has need of it." The ones who were sent went away and found it just as He told them. While they were untying the colt its owners said to them "Why are you untying the colt?" They said "It's Lord has need of it." And they brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks upon the colt, and placed Jesus on it. As He was traveling they began spreading out their cloaks on the road. Now already as He drew near the descent of the Mountain of Olives the whole crowd of disciples began to rejoice praising God with a great voice for all the miracles which they saw, saying "Blessed is He, the king, who comes in the name of the Lord, peace in heaven and glory in the highest." And some of the Pharisees, because of the crowd, said to Him "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." And He answered "I say to you, that if these should be silent the stones will cry out." Luke 19:28-40
"You have been weighed... You have been measured... And you absolutely... Have been found wanting." This line, from the movie "A Knight's Tale," is based on Daniel 5:27, and it is quite the fitting echo for the Gospel lesson for the first Sunday of the Church year.
But the reading is from the last Sunday of Christ's life before his death on the Cross. Here the Church awaits the birth of the Messiah, yet we are celebrating His triumphant ride to His execution. Does this make any sense? It does.
In the tenth chapter of Ezekiel, the prophet sees the Glory of God leave the temple, but declares that the Lord will return from the east. And so from the mountains east of Zion comes riding, humble and with peace in His wake, the King. A great crowd parades Him onward, shouting praises and accolades. It is a majestic and exciting thing to see. The Messiah come to Jerusalem.
But not all are pleased with the sight. The false teachers, the Pharisees, who worship the traditions and law, call Jesus to task, asking that He scold and silence His followers. They are upset that the "rabble" is seeking a changed world.
But unfortunately for them, the world has already been changed. And even if Christ had any inclination to have the crowd be quiet, all of creation, from the very dirt that humanity was first molded from, would should the praises of God. And thus the Pharisees have no excuse to deny the Christ His throne. And yet, we know they try. But their reward has already been determined. They were found to be lacking in that all important detail: faith in the Messiah. A faith that even the stones, the Gentiles raised up as true children of Abraham, had been given that faith.
The Friday after this triumphant entry ends with Christ dying on the Cross. But on the next Sunday, He rises again, the firstborn from the dead. Much like is anticipated birth, which was heralded throughout all time, this marks a new, restored, world.
And so we make ready, not only for the upcoming holiday season commemorating His birth, nor even for His conquering yet meek march into the city, but for His victorious and final return.
(Please note, that with the new year comes a few changes. Unlike the previous year, I am not posting the entire pericope for any given Sunday. I mostly only post the Gospel lesson, which I will be translating myself, instead of using the ESV. This isn't because translations like the ESV, NIV, KJV, etc, are bad, but because I have a class were we are translating the Gospel lesson for each week. Also, the previous year was the One-Year Series. Since I am translating the Three-Year, I will be using those lessons. Any deviation from this will be noted.)
"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress. No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD. Isaiah 65:17-25
Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, His praise in the assembly of the godly! Let Israel be glad in his Maker; let the children of Zion rejoice in their King! Let them praise His name with dancing, making melody to Him with tambourine and lyre! For the LORD takes pleasure in His people; He adorns the humble with salvation. Let the godly exult in glory; let them sing for joy on their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands, to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples, to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron, to execute on them the judgment written! This is honor for all His godly ones. Praise the LORD! Psalm 149
Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11
"Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the Bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. As the Bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the Bridegroom! Come out to meet Him.' Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' But the wise answered, saying, 'Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.' And while they were going to buy, the Bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with Him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.' But He answered, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.' Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour." Matthew 25:1-13
One of the greatest corny films of all time features naval aviators. There are quite a number of "mistakes" the Hollywood flyboys make, but the most glaring one is a failure to keep their situational awareness. They don't "check six," look behind themselves. They rarely look to the sides. They hardly even look away from the gunsight directly in front.
Situational awareness is the ability to know what is going on around yourself. Applicable for drivers, people walking down the street, football quarterbacks, and the Church.
We are implored by the great Missionary to be fully aware regarding the day that the Lord returns. Things will not be "business as usual" at that point, and there will be signs, as we've seen in previous readings. But being ready is a bit more particular regarding the arrival of the Lord.
The Lord Himself likens the situation to young maidens waiting for the Bridegroom to arrive for the wedding. All of them brought lamps, so as to aid in being situationally aware should the wedding party arrive late into the night. This is good.
But not all of them were properly prepared. Five of them did not bring enough oil. It would be light a fighter pilot launching for patrol with almost empty tanks. All the situational awareness in the world is wasted at that point.
The other five, though, knew that it was best to be prepared, and brought extra oil. That way, when the inevitable happened and they fell asleep, they were able to go out and meet the Bridegroom when He arrived. The fact that their lamps had gone out was only a momentary inconvenience. But they were ready.
We are called to be like the five ready maidens. Not just ready, but ready and waiting. This is more than just "situational awareness." This is being semper paratus - "Always Ready."
This is summed up for us in 2 Timothy 4:2 - "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching."
No matter what happens, no matter where we are, we are to be ready to both proclaim our Lord's victorious return, and wait expectantly for it. Because we know it will be soon.
Ah, a favorite target of the radical reformed protestant: infant baptism.
(Following clear passages of Scripture is sooooo cool!)
Much like with the words of institution ("this is my body... this is my blood..."), members of churches that aren't labeled Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Anglican tend to like attacking clear Biblical teachings. (There are some in those groups that attack as well, but official stance precludes such stupidity.)
(And I'm looking at you, ELCA, when I say that.)
A while back I read an article posted about how Christians should give up Lent for Lent. Overall, its clear the author didn't get why people do give up something in the first place. But I'm focusing on how they used the historic practice of infant baptism as a reason why people should reject giving up something for Lent.
(And, no, I'm not going to provide the link. Mostly because the article was dumb.)
I'll admit, I don't give up stuff for Lent. Mostly because I don't have the willpower and stamina to see it through, and I probably won't give up something substantial anyway. Besides, it's not something "necessary," unlike how Christ died for our sins, which is the point of Lent.
What does that have to do with infant baptism? Nothing. At all.
Except for the undeniable fact that through baptism we are joined to Christ's death, and that this baptism is for all people of all races and all ages - including infants.
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that baptism is an outward sign of one's faith. Or a symbol. Or an act of obedience. Or that there are different versions. Or that you, the deadman, can choose it.
(Warning! This blog post, and this blog in general, is dangerous to the followers of the heterodox teachings of Arminius and Calvin.)
What Scripture does teach, with clear and understandable words, is that baptism saves you, regardless of your age, gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, job, tax bracket, hair style, language, music preference, or shoe size. An infant being brought to baptism in the Triune name of God receives the exact same baptism received by the people at Pentecost, by the Ethiopian eunuch, and by Cornelius.
If you are one of those who find yourself antagonistic to this historic and undeniably biblical practice and currently find yourself feeling a bit more like an irate Dr. Bruce Banner, I'm not sorry.
And why should I be? Why should I be sorry for proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ? Why should I be sorry for reading Scripture and believing it means exactly what it says? Why should I be sorry for wanting to provide my children with the same saving faith I was raised in? Why should I be sorry for not rejecting my Lord's command but following it to the letter?
It's the antagonists to this time-honored and biblical practice that should be sorry***.
Don't believe me? That's fine. I'll stop using my words, and simply use the words of God. Here are some passages about baptism. (And, in reality, opponents of this using the line "you have your passages that support you're belief and we have ours" are dumb. Because we Lutherans have all the passages supporting us. This is just the quick list for those who do not have the time for a full-bore exegetical study.)
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:3-8
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."Mark 16:16
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Acts 2:38-39
In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. Colossians 2:11-13
There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Ephesians 5:25-27
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Acts 22:16
On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. Acts 19:5-6
The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. Revelation 22:17
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Ezekiel 36:25-27
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:1-4
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:27-29
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 1 John 5:7-9
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4
To be honest, this list alone should be enough, without any explanation, context, or defense. And yet, there are "Christians" who make it necessary to stand up for the biblical and historic practices of the Church Catholic.
(And before anyone gets their big kid skivvies in a twist, I did not say "Roman Catholic Church." The RCC is a specific denomination within the Church Catholic. The word "catholic" means "universal." Its a descriptor for how the Church transcends human labels and organizations. Call it the "True Church" or "Unified Church" if you'd rather.)
I don't get why people are so opposed to the practice of baptizing infants. (Okay, so that's a lie, I do get it, hence why I'm writing about it.) Especially groups like the Anabaptists and the Baptists. For crying out loud, guys, the term "baptism" is in your groups' names. How is it you don't get it?
(On the left we have the "believer's baptism." On the right we have the traditional practice of baptism, including infant baptism.)
I'm assuming the people who oppose it "don't get it" instead of "reject it" under the assumption found in Walther's XX thesis, which basically says "don't assume heresy when ignorance is an option." Basically, I'm calling y'all just dumb enough to not see what's obvious.
And in this sort of apologetic duel, that's being mighty generous. (Especially since a fair number of those who don't "get it" are, in fact, flat out rejecting it because it doesn't fit in their narrow, twisted, egotistical view of what the Bible means.)
Enough munching on appetizers, how about the main course? Where to start, though? Remaining consistently with my standard operating procedure, I'll start with as a foundation and standard the words of my Lord, so as to not inadvertently call Him a moron.
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."Mark 16:16
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."Matthew 28:19-20
*mic drop
Seriously, what more do we need?
How about some context? Both Mark 16 and Matthew 28 are describing the last commands of Jesus to the disciples before His ascension. Jesus commands us to baptize "all nation." The implication here is "everyone," meaning from the littlest babies to cantankerous old dudes.
I've heard it argued that the word order is important. "Think about it. In Mark it clearly says 'believes and is baptized.' You've gotta believe first, then be baptized."
Sure. If word order mattered then in the same way it does now.
It didn't in the original Greek. And even more damning, notice that in Matthew it says to baptize before teaching the newly baptized believer to observe all Jesus taught. Which totally blows out of the water the notion that you have to choose to be baptized after coming to faith.
Don't get mad at me. Those are the words of Jesus Christ blowing holes in the notion of the believer's "baptism."
So word order doesn't matter (unless context supports it), since both verses describe the exact same event in history. Jesus was instructing His disciples on how to grow the church. The Mark text explains what baptism does, while Matthew prescribes what to do as part of evangelism.
And it should be noted that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the earliest of manuscripts. The earliest we see this section referenced is in the writings of Justin Martyr in the mid second century. That doesn't mean it wasn't written by Mark, or that it shouldn't be in the Bible, or that it isn't Scripture. What that presents is an interesting conundrum for the proponent of the believer's "baptism." Justin Martyr notes it in a work dating from around the AD 160. Assuming Mark was first written no later than AD 70, that's 100 years without a Scriptural reference telling the Church that people are supposed to believe before they are baptized.
(I think I need a second mic to drop.)
Let's move on, then, to the next in line, chronologically. And the one that most synergists prefer.
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Acts 2:38-39
Isn't it great to see an oaf become eloquent?
A few verses later Luke notes that around 3000 are added to the faith. He specifically says "souls." Not "men," not "people," not "adults." Souls. A word that is feminine, and in the plural form in this usage. No age denoted, nor any other qualifier. So, using an argument from silence, how do we know that there weren't children included in that initial 3000 addition?
And, yes, St. Peter says "repent and be baptized" in response to the question of "what should we do." Which makes sense. He's speaking to adults, specifically the heads of households who would have brought their families with them to Jerusalem to celebrate one of the major holy days. And who are the heads of households back in the day? Men. So we could argue that only 3000 men were baptized. Only later verses make it clear that when the head of the household was baptized, the whole house (women, children, servants) was with him. And Luke would have noted it, just as it is noted at the mass feeding. "5000 men, not counting women and children."
It makes sense to say "repent and be baptized" to an adult, who has been brought to contrition by the preaching of the Law. That's SOP. Peter just noted how everyone's gonna die and go to hell, and they killed Jesus, the Messiah. Their reaction makes sense.
Don't miss the last sentence, though. "For the promise is for you and for your children..." The Greek word there for children is τεκνον ("teknon" plural form). Its the generic word for "kids," from newborn to teenager; basically anyone who isn't an adult. This promise, which either means baptism, the forgiveness of sins, or the gift of the Holy Spirit, (or, more accurately, both) is for everyone.
If the promise St. Peter notes is baptisms, why is anyone opposing infant baptism?
If the promise St. Peter notes is the forgiveness of sins, then we're assuming children are sinless, which contradicts clear passages of Scripture that make it painfully obvious that all have sinned, due to being tainted by Original Sin.
If the promise St. Peter notes is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for faith in Christ, then why bother teaching children about Jesus at all?
I'm gonna stick in Acts for a moment, before tackling the words of Peter himself. But, first, a note of caution to any who are not of an exegetical background. The book of Acts is not a prescriptive book. That is, Acts was not written to give us instructions on how to do, but rather an account of what was done. It is descriptive. "This happened, and then this happened, and then..." Much like the books of history in the Old Testament, Acts tells us the history of the faithful.
The next two passages are in Acts and therefore descriptive. After that, all the rest on the list are prescriptive.
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Acts 22:16
On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. Acts 19:5-6
In chapter 22, Paul is recounting his own conversion, citing the words of Ananias. According to this, the early Believers thought that baptism washed away sins. It wasn't seen as some symbol of dedication, but as an action that accomplished something.
In chapter 19, St. Paul baptized a group who had not yet been baptized. Now, if you read just a few verses earlier, you'll see that they were baptized in the manner of John. Which Paul basically says is nothing but a confession and absolution. It doesn't count as an actual baptism - a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that St. Paul and the rest of the early Church did not use immersion in baptism?
I bet they didn't, since Luke does not note the seeking of a large enough water supply to dunk 3000 people. Nor does it say anything about the size of the water supply available to Philip. Just that there was water. And if they were on a desert road, I'm willing to bet it was an oasis or a well, which means it was extremely valuable, and neither man would have dared to contaminate it by standing waist deep in the water.
Before we get to the descriptive texts, I'm going to do a "drive-by" word study on the term "baptism." Because usually after a statement like the previous paragraph, the proponent of the believer's "baptism" will say something like "the word 'baptism' means washing by immersion in Greek." Perhaps in ancient Greek, like what Leonidas spoke. But in Koine Greek the verb βαπτιζω ("baptizo") does not imply immersion. Especially in the context of Jewish ritual washing. Now, consider, the ritual washing required flowing water. Water doesn't flow if it is sitting in a bowl or basin for something to be dipped in. Water must be poured over. The word baptism in Koine Greek is the same as the word "wash" in English today. I wash my hands, I wash my car, I wash my clothes. Same verb, very different methods.
(Baptism VBS style?)
Now, on to St. Peter.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21
Sounds like Pete was remembering his "Psalms by David" album growing up. "Appeal to God for a good conscience" sounds like an echo of "create in me a clean heart."
Most of us who use this as a proof text simply focus on the phrase "now saves you." And it is true that it's the operative part of the sentence. Remember, Peter's comparing the action of baptism to the account of Noah and the flood. We are saved from death through water. Its not a ritual washing, like what the Jews would do, which only cleans the outside of a person, "white washing" the tomb they are, but a "renewal of a right spirit within." This only matters in connection to the resurrection of Christ.
But St. Peter isn't the heavyweight writer of the New Testament, that would be St. Paul. A man who was without parallel in the early Church leadership. This guy was a leading official in the Jewish religion. He had entire books of the Bible memorized. That's why he was so well equipped for ministry, and for writing. All that symbolism, all that history. All for us to understand.
In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. Colossians 2:11-13
Paul knew his symbolisms well. He knew that circumcision was a mark of God's salvation, both as an outward (if momentarily painful and embarrassing) sign and as a marking of a covenant with God. And like a good teacher, he started with what his students already were familiar with and built from there.
Circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with the people of Israel, marking them as set apart to be a sojourning holy nation among the pagans. Likewise, baptism sets us apart as the people of God, a priesthood of all believers sojourning among the nations. However, circumcision was only a mere sign. It was a type and shadow of a greater thing to come. That thing was death. Specifically the death of Christ, which paid for our sins. St. Paul notes that via the waters and the Word of baptism we are connected to the atoning sacrifice. And not just that, but the resurrection as well. That what baptism does.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Paul also connected the act of baptism with the ritual washings that Jews, or even Gentiles, would have known. Remember the washing of the disciple's feet? That sort of thing is what St. Paul was using as imagery. Read through what Jesus says to Peter when our favorite oaf objects to his Lord stooping to wash his muddy feet. See the parallel with baptism? This verse is what baptism does. It washes, sanctifies (makes us holy), and justifies (makes us righteous) through the name of our Triune God.
Is there any question that baptism saves? Sanctified and justified are the operative words, and while they go together, they are different. Sanctification is being made holy, while justification is being made right according to the law. You can't have one without the other. Think of it this way: Sanctification makes us right with God, justification with our neighbor. There is more to it than that, but thats the soundbite version.
But this is extremely straight forward. We were baptized into Christ.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:27-29
"Aha! See, 'there is no male and female.' That means-"
I'm not tackling the can-o'-worms that is women's ordination. Some other day.
But the naysayers would love to use Galatians as a "gotcha." And at face value that makes sense. Paul listed a bunch of stuff that we are not. His list makes it seem like there isn't a requirement for what it takes to be a Christian.
Oh, wait, don't the opponents of infant baptism say that there are requirements a believer must achieve before being baptized? Like being able to make a public profession of their faith during the "altar call?"
(Running out of mics here.)
The Galatians text is the "proof" that baptism is a means of grace, a Sacrament. We are, through baptism, connected to Christ's death and resurrection. And what does it take to be baptized?
Only men? Nope, women get baptized too.
Gotta be Jewish first? Nope, Gentiles welcome too.
Only free men? Tell that to Onesimus.
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22
Oh, look, a "bazinga" text. "With our hearts sprinkled clean..." Yep, that's right, it says sprinkled.
(Well, too bad, you can't have any.)
No, not that kind of sprinkles. The word in Greek is from ραντιζω (rhantizo), which means to sprinkle, to cleanse by sprinkling, hence to purify, cleanse [definitions are from Blue Letter Bible website, though my Nestle-Aland lexicon agrees].
This word is used to describe the sprinkling of blood from a sacrifice on the altar. So the author to the Hebrews used that term, insufficient as the shadow was, to describe baptism. Not pour, not dunk, sprinkle. Does that mean one is preferred? Not really. Though sprinkling does require the least amount of water. Efficiency for the win.
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4
Okay, back to St. Paul (unless you hold to the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews). Paul's not even trying to be sneaky here. He's straight up saying that the parting of the Red Sea was baptism. And incredibly, there's a reference to the Lord's Supper in this passage too. Hmm, sacraments go hand-in-hand. Who would have thought?
Regardless of what symbol is being used, it should be clear what they are all connected to: Christ. Without Christ, there is no baptism. All theology is christology, after all.
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7
How 'bout I drop the other shoe first, just for variety. We are not saved by works.
Psst! Infant baptism naysayers... the "believer's baptism" would be a work.
And here's another convoluted discussion that, while very worthwhile, there is not time for at the moment. Especially since works are not "pointless," nor are they "necessary." This, along with passages from James and Ephesians, leads to some contention (<- understatement), especially regarding a minor squabble during the 1500s in Germany.
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that He has borne concerning His Son. 1 John 5:7-9
It's not just mere water, this baptism, as some who oppose it claim. They even go so far as to claim infant baptism is a "work of man" not in the Bible. If we are honest, the argument is which teaching is Biblical and which is an invention of man. Often this is where people appeal to various early Church teachers. Though, if we're honest, not a single Church Father prior to the Councils was opposed to infant baptism. And the few who seem to be were not orthodox. The only reason their position is noted is because they were heretics being written against, not a majority position.
But the vast majority of teachings against infant baptism originate from the time period between the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. "Testimony of men," indeed. Everything in the Scriptures has pointed to baptism connecting to Christ's death. So what is to be believed? The Scriptures, or a testimony of men?
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:1-4
This is more of "what baptism does" than "who is to be baptized." But it is something to be contended with. If we believe that the Bible is to be taken "at its word," then isn't the phrase "baptized into His death" literal?
Most who oppose infant baptism do so by making baptism nothing more than a "symbol of obedience." They claim it hasn't any "special power" or is even necessary for salvation.
And, yet, clearly St. Paul thinks that the act of baptism directly connects a believer to the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Logically, it would follow, that without baptism, we cannot be raised from the dead.
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Ezekiel 36:25-27
God, speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, is making it clear that He uses water to cleans people from their sin. The Children of Israel experienced this when they crossed the Red Sea and the Jordan River. Notice, the word used is "sprinkle." Not "dunk," not "immerse." Does that prove that sprinkling is the only way? No. But it is interesting.
The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. Revelation 22:17
Revelation is full of symbol and metaphor, but most of the verbiage used has some connection back to something previously said. When else have we heard of the "water of life?"
Back in John chapter 4, when Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. The Messiah is described as the "water of life." If baptism is what we believe it is (a means of grace for the forgiveness of sins), then we are literally receiving Christ through it.
There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6
There are some who think that there are "different baptisms." And, in a way, there is. There is a true baptism, and a false baptism. Many who claim to be theologians will say that if a believer hasn't had a "baptism of the spirit" or if they were baptized by a Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox/(anything not Non-demon) has not had a "proper baptism."
St. Paul would disagree.
So long as the baptism performed is the same baptism taught by Christ to the Apostles, then it is a baptism. If the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are spoken, it is a true baptism. Anything else is not a gift of God, but an attempted work of self-righteousness.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Ephesians 5:25-27
The operative words when baptism is "by the washing of water and the word." You have to have both. Not because the water is anything special, other than it was the material Christ chose. But you must have both.
Without the water, it is not a baptism.
Without the words of Christ, it is not a baptism.
You cannot be baptized only in the name of Christ, or in the name of the "mother, daughter, and the spirit," or some other nonsense.
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."John 3:3-8
And last, but never least, is the most well known word on baptism. Straight from the Savior's mouth. Nicodemus is right to question how someone can be born again. It is physically impossible. And since it is physically impossible, the God of the Universe established an alternative method.
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Taken at face value, it is clear that Jesus is saying that without baptism it is impossible for anyone to be in Heaven. You must be baptized, it is a requirement.
"But what about the thief on the cross," you may ask. Again, notice "born of water and the Spirit." What is the "water?" Mere dihydrogen monoxide (or, more scientifically, H2O)? Or is it the Living Water? Both? Because the thief on the cross received a direct promise from the Word of God Himself that he would be in paradise that very day.
And that is probably why some in Lutheran circles consider the "thief on the cross" argument to be a red herring. Not because it isn't a worthwhile discussion, but because it questions the majesty of God. How? Simply, the person who is saying that the thief on the cross is proof that infant baptism is not where faith starts is saying, ultimately, that God cannot do something.
Let that sink in. People who deny infant baptism are placing limits on God. We used to call that heresy.
Does that mean that God cannot save someone without baptism? Not at all. Because God is all-powerful. If He wills it, it is. And none of us are in position to question His will. However, we are bound by what has been revealed. He has told us that the manner of conversion is through baptism. Why they do we say "oh, that's not how it works, we can do it this way instead."
Baptism has always been understood as grace. Why would you deny anyone grace? Think of it like a seat belt in a car. If you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, why wouldn't you wear it? And if you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, and you are wearing one, why are you saying children should not wear one? Not just "they don't need to wear one," but "it is unethical for a child to wear one."
Let the truth behind the metaphor sink in a moment.
...
For those of you who are opposed to infant baptism, yes, I'm unapologetically calling you heretics and unchristian. Why? Because you are unilaterally declaring by authority you do not possess that some are to be barred from a gift of grace promised by God. And this declaration has no basis in Scripture, reason, or even common sense.
In the words of Lutheran Satire, the position of the anabaptists, arminians, and others who deny children the gift of God are "incredibly stupid."
I'll leave you with the words of Jesus on the matter, as encouragement for those who believe in the promise of God, and as a rebuke for those who deny the words of the Savior. (Please note, it was commonly thought of in the ancient world to consider the sea to be the gateway to hell.)
People were also bringing babies to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”Luke 18:15-17
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."Matthew 18:5-6
---
(FYI: I started work on this post early Lent, 2018. My first exegetical paper at Seminary was on the baptism of Christ, and got me digging into the language and grammar of baptism in Scripture. At some point, I'll put together a, hopefully, coherent post with those thoughts. Until then, I'll merely post this, as is. Most of the work was done prior to the move to seminary, so, pardon the dust.)
When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, "Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." So Aaron said to them, "Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD." And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. And the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them. They have made for themselves a golden calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you." But Moses implored the LORD his God and said, "O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, 'With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.'" And the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people. Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets that were written on both sides; on the front and on the back they were written. The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, "There is a noise of war in the camp." But he said, "It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear." And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses' anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. He took the calf that they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder and scattered it on the water and made the people of Israel drink it. Exodus 32:1-20
"Man who is born of a woman is few of days and full of trouble. He comes out like a flower and withers; he flees like a shadow and continues not. And do you open your eyes on such a one and bring me into judgment with you? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one. Since his days are determined, and the number of his months is with you, and you have appointed his limits that he cannot pass, look away from him and leave him alone, that he may enjoy, like a hired hand, his day." Job 14:1-6
To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the LORD? There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. You would shame the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge. Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad. Psalm 14
A Prayer of one afflicted, when he is faint and pours out his complaint before the LORD. Hear my prayer, O LORD; let my cry come to you! Do not hide your face from me in the day of my distress! Incline your ear to me; answer me speedily in the day when I call! For my days pass away like smoke, and my bones burn like a furnace. My heart is struck down like grass and has withered; I forget to eat my bread. Because of my loud groaning my bones cling to my flesh. I am like a desert owl of the wilderness, like an owl of the waste places; I lie awake; I am like a lonely sparrow on the housetop. All the day my enemies taunt me; those who deride me use my name for a curse. For I eat ashes like bread and mingle tears with my drink, because of your indignation and anger; for you have taken me up and thrown me down. My days are like an evening shadow; I wither away like grass. But you, O LORD, are enthroned forever; you are remembered throughout all generations. You will arise and have pity on Zion; it is the time to favor her; the appointed time has come. Psalm 102:1-13
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."Matthew 24:15-28
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." And He said to the disciples, "The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, 'Look, there!' or 'Look, here!' Do not go out or follow them. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in His day. But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot– they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all– so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed."Luke 17:20-30
If there is one thing that people cannot escape, it is time. Whether it be the simple, steady, march of life from birth to death, an approaching deadline, or when the show ends. But what is to be done with that time?
The people of Israel foolishly, and intentionally, wasted their time chasing after false gods of their own creation. They looked elsewhere, and were caught unprepared when the Son of God appeared. What little they were looking for was the restoration of a kingdom long dead and a covenant long defunct. And what's worse is that the covenant they wanted restored was not the covenant God promised to them.
The disciples asked Christ about this kingdom coming, but were not expecting to get the right answer.
St. Paul tells us that we are to wait for this kingdom of God, watchful for the arrival of the Lord. Not that we would miss it, since His arrival will be such that no one will be surprised or think it is some kind of secret. But we do not know when He will return.
Christ makes that clear when He answers the disciples. It must have been frustrating for them to want to know and be told "no." No big and epic take-over, no secret rapture, no thousand year earthly throne. Just silence regarding the actual day, and hints of all the trouble we should watch for.
He does, however, make it clear that there are "hints" that the day is near. Wars, famine, tribulation, these are birth pains for the end. As things become more "terrible" we who believe should be working hard to bring the Gospel to the nations. But, then, like in the time of Noah those who are condemned will be taken, leaving the faithful to inherit the restored Creation.
But we are running on borrowed time and the Gospel must be proclaimed.
