From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:
(Note: You must click below to read the full post. As it appears on the main page it is incomplete.)
AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION: SUMMARY OF THE FOLLOWING WORK
This work comprises two books, each of them containing a different and independent topic. The first is a treatise of the holy baptism and of that which pertains to it. The second is a historical account of the holy martyrs who suffered on account of baptism, or, generally, for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
These two topics have been briefly, yet not less clearly, treated, throughout, in every century, from [the?] days of Christ up to our present time; and this order has been followed: through every century first an account is given, through faithful and authentic authors, of the subject of holy baptism, and the proper administration of the same during that time; to which we have each time added our own comments, explanations, refutations of objections, etc., then every century is again taken up, and an account given of the holy martyrs who suffered during that time. So that each century treating of holy baptism is followed by a century treating of the holy martyrs; and thus from beginning to end.
This, then, is a summary and the order of the following work; which we shall directly explain more fully, and give our reason for doing so.
Comments:
On the centrality of the doctrine of believer’s baptism to Anabaptist identity & thought
Very shortly after this, vanBraght opines that it is unfortunate that “Anabaptism” has been thus named, for the true gospel which the Anabaptists represent (or hope to) is so much more than the doctrine of “believer’s baptism” (i.e., baptism of adults upon confession of faith). ...
In my own mind, “Anabaptist” functions primarily to refer to a living tradition within Christianity characterized by (a) nonviolence, (b) anti-imperialism/separation of church and state, (c) a community-based hermeneutic (i.e., we properly do biblical theology in community, not as an individual scholar in an academic university setting), etc. And I think of Anabaptism (within the scope of my personal experience) as a subset of “evangelical” or “orthodox” (even “catholic”—always with small “e”, “o”, and “c”) Christianity.
While the issue of believer’s baptism is an important one—it is deeply connected to Anabaptist views of discipleship as an individual’s choice and not something inherited by one’s parentage or national culture—I do not think of it as ultimately defining “Anabaptism”, despite the label’s etymological meaning. (Actually, etymologically speaking, most “Anabaptists” aren’t, because a tradition which does not practice the baptism of infants does not practice re-baptism for adults.)
In these opening paragraphs vanBraght assumes that one’s views and practices with respect to baptism are what defines someone as part of the “true church”, such that they deserve to be counted among martyrs (“witnesses”) who suffer for the sake of Christ and His gospel. vanBraght virtually equates suffering “on account of baptism” with suffering “for the testimony of Jesus Christ”.
Essentials and Nonessentials: A Vital Question Regarding Sacraments
It is oft quoted in ecumenical evangelical circles, “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity”. The vital question here is: Is baptism an essential or a nonessential? And regardless of the answer to the first, how can we treat one another with Christian charity when we disagree over baptism? ...
I feel uncertain of my answer to the first question. On the one hand, I don’t want to diminish the sacraments by taking the following position: “The so-called sacraments (ordinances) are merely ritual actions which Christians perform in order to teach central spiritual truths, or to conjure up religious feelings. Nothing is actually accomplished, spiritually, when one is baptized or participates in the Lord’s Supper, or participates in any other sacraments.”
I believe that participating in the sacraments has real, meaningful spiritual effects—aside from any religious feelings which may or may not accompany the act. When the gospel is preached, the Spirit moves, illuminating the scriptures, communicating to our minds, convicting our hearts. When we confess our sins to one another and pray for each other in order that the relationships within the community and the relationships between sinners and a holy, loving God that have been torn by our sins might be healed, and pronounce God’s forgiveness and absolution of our sins, we truly undergo repentance, our sins are truly removed from us, and relationships are truly made right. When we worship together in a group of two or three or more, God’s Spirit is truly present among us, that we may worship in spirit and truth. When we take the body and blood of Christ together, God’s Spirit works to reconcile us to one another, and to Him, in the Body of Jesus. When we wash one another’s feet, we humble ourselves and love each other, and become a little more like our Lord who did the same for His disciples—the act thus effects spiritual transformation. When we love and mutually submit to one another in marriage, we come to know the love of Christ for His Church, and again we become a little more like Him.
Baptism too involves the working of the Spirit and spiritual effects, spiritual transformations. It is associated with the baptism of the Spirit, our being incorporated in the Body of Christ, our being empowered with gifts for service, our being reborn from above in newness of life.
On the other hand, God works as God wills. I don’t want to say that because someone has not been baptized outwardly that they have not received the Holy Spirit.
Now consider: baptism is unique among sacraments (correct me if I’m leaving something out) in that it is something that, as an outward ritual, only happens once in the life of the believer. All the other sacraments I can think of we do repetitively, and over time. Perhaps with baptism more than any other sacramental rite, the punctiliar nature of the outer rite may hide the imperfect or continuous nature of the sacrament itself. (I am speaking in grammatical terms.) In many traditions, whether they practice believer’s baptism or confirmation, there is a period of time during which one prepares to undergo baptism—through catechesis for example. And this is all a part of the one sacramental rite. The water rite is just one moment of a longer process. Who am I to suppose that God must enter the life of the believer and “save” them at one particular moment, or that it is the same moment for every believer? Perhaps it is in the midst of catechesis, perhaps before the formal process has begun, perhaps at the moment of water baptism, perhaps—for some Christians who have a profound conversion experience some time after their baptism or confirmation, perhaps this happens after their water baptism.
Can I get away with saying, then, that while baptism is a true sacrament with true spiritual ramifications, the brief water rite is only one moment of that sacramental process? Questions of how (dipping, pouring, sprinkling) & when (at infancy or adulthood, at the moment of an altar conversion or after a process of catechesis) the water rite itself is conducted might then be nonessentials in which orthodoxy may allow much liberty. While the sacramental process—personal decision, education, becoming part of a community—is essential and indispensible. (And perhaps even Anabaptists and “born-again Christians” might allow that “personal decisions” are not always punctiliar, datable events.) Even Christian Quakers who do not practice a water rite at all may be properly thought of as undergoing the sacrament of spiritual baptism.
Hmm. I feel that was a breakthrough for me in articulating what I think about the sacraments. Cool!
Comments, Please?
------
"He Himself is our Peace." (Eph 2)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment