Vedestä vai Hengestä? : Uuras Saarnivaaran kasteteologia

Of water or the Spirit? Uuras Saarnivaara s theology of baptism The aim of the study was to investigate PhD and ThD Uuras Saarnivaara s views on baptism as well as their possible changes and the reasons for them. Dr Saarnivaara said himself that he searched for the truth about the relationship between baptism and faith for decades, and had faltered in his views. The method of this research is systematic analysis. A close study of the source material shows that Dr Saarnivaara s views on baptism have most likely changed several times. Therefore, special attention was paid to the time periods defined by when his literary works were published. This resulted in revealing the different perspectives he had on baptism. The fact that Dr Saarnivaara worked on two continents Europe and North America added a challenge to the research process. At the beginning of the research, I described Dr Saarnivaara s phases of life and mapped out his vast literary production as well as presented his theological basis. Saarnivaara s theological view on the means of grace and their interrelation in the church was influenced by the Laestadian movement, which caused him to adopt the view that the Holy Spirit does not dwell in the means of grace, but in the believers. Thus the real presence of Christ in the means of grace is denied. God s word is divided into Biblical revelation and proclamation by believers through the means of grace. Also, the sacraments are overshadowed by the preached word. Because grace is received through the word of the gospel preached publicly or privately by a believer, the preacher s status gains importance at the expense of the actual means of grace. Saarnivaara was intrigued by the content of baptism from the time he was a student until the end of his life. As a young theologian, he would adopt the opinions of his teachers as well as the view of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, which at the time was dominated by the pietistic movement and the teachings of J. T. Beck. After Saarnivaara had converted to the Laestadian movement, moved to the United States and started his Luther research, he adopted a view on baptism which was to a great extent in accordance with Luther and the Lutheran Symbolical Books. Saarnivaara considered his former views on baptism unbiblical and publicly apologised for them. In the 1950s, after starting his ministry within the Finnish neopietistic movements, Saarnivaara adopted a Laestadian-neopietistic doctrine of baptism. During his Beckian-pietistic era, Saarnivaara based his baptism theology on the event of the disciples of Jesus being baptised by John the Baptist, the revival of Samaria in the Book of Acts and the conversion of Cornelius and his family, all cases where the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the baptism were two separate events in time. In order to defend the theological unity of the Bible, Saarnivaara had to interpret Jesus teachings on baptism in the Gospels and the teachings of the Apostles in the New Testament letters from a viewpoint based on the three events mentioned above. During his Beckian-pietistic era, the abovementioned basic hermeneutic choice caused Saarnivaara to separate baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit in his salvation theology. Simultaneously, the faith of a small child is denied, and rebirth is divided into two parts, the objective and the subjective, the latter being moved from the moment of baptism to a possible spiritual break-through at an age when the person possesses a more mature understanding. During his Laestadian-Lutheran era, Saarnivaara s theology of baptism was biblically consistent and the same for all people regardless of the person s age. Small children receive faith in baptism through the presence of Christ. The task of other people s faith is limited to the act of bringing the child to the baptism so that the child may receive his/her own faith from Christ and be born again as a child of God. The doctrine of baptism during Saarnivaara s Laestadian-neopietistic era represents in many aspects the emphases he presented during his first era, although they were now partly more radical. Baptism offers grace; it is not a means of grace. Justification, rebirth and salvation would take place later on when a person had reached an age with a more mature understanding through the word of God. A small child cannot be born again in baptism because being born again requires personal faith, which is received through hearing and understanding the law and the gospel. Saarnivaara s views on baptism during his first and third era are, unlike during his second era, quite controversial. The question of the salvation of a small child goes unanswered, or it is even denied. The central question during both eras is the demand of conversion and personal faith at a mature age. The background for this demand is in Saarnivaara s anthropology, which accentuates man s relationship to God as an intellectual and mental matter requiring understanding, and which needs no material instruments. The two first theological eras regarding Saarnivaara s doctrine of baptism lasted around ten years. The third era lasted over 40 years until his death.

Tutkimukseni tehtävänä on ollut selvittää FT ja TT Uuras Saarnivaaran kasteteologia ja ne syyt, jotka johtivat hänen kastekäsityksensä muuttumiseen useampaan kertaan. Lähteinä tutkimuksessa on ollut koko Saarnivaaran noin 60 teosta käsittävä kirjallinen tuotanto ja hänen lukuisat lehtiartikkelinsa. Saarnivaara (1908 1998) toimi pitkän elämänsä aikana tutkijana, opettajana eri pappisseminaareissa ja julistajana sekä Suomessa että USA:ssa. Hän oli eräs viime vuosisadan merkittävimmistä hengellisistä vaikuttajista sekä Suomen hengellisissä liikkeissä että USA:n suomalaisten siirtolaisten parissa. Tutkimuksen alkupuolella kuvataan Saarnivaaran elämänvaiheet ja tarkastellaan hänen kastekäsityksensä teologista taustaa: hänen tieto-oppiaan, raamattunäkemystään ja antropologiaansa. Sen jälkeen käsitellään Saarnivaaran näkemystä niin sanotuista armonvälineistä ja niiden keskinäisestä suhteesta. Saarnivaaran armonväline- ja pelastusteologia värittyy lestadiolaisuuden mukaan, jossa sakramentit jäävät Jumalan saarnatun sanan varjoon. Luterilaisuuden korostama reaalipreesenssi eli Kristuksen todellinen läsnäolo armonvälineissä on Saarnivaaralle ongelma. Kristus ei asu hänen mukaansa missään staattisessa armonvälineessä . Kolmiyhteisen Jumalan asuminen maan päällä rajoittuu uskoviin ihmisiin. Pyhä Henki voi välittyä toisiin ihmisiin vain uskovista heidän sanansaarnansa kautta. Tämän jälkeen tutkimuksessa keskitytään analysoimaan Saarnivaaran käsitystä kasteesta ja sen sisällöstä. Kasteen sakramentin ymmärtäminen oli Saarnivaaralle elämänpituinen ongelma. Nuorena teologina hän myötäili tuolloin kirkossamme laajemminkin vallalla olevaa pietiläläis-beckiläistä näkemystä. Käännyttyään vanhoillislestadiolaiseksi ja aloitettuaan Yhdysvalloissa Luther-tutkimuksensa Saarnivaara omaksui pitkälle Lutherin kastekäsityksen, tosin lestadiolaisittain väritettynä, ja pyysi edellisen kautensa näkemystä epäraamatullisena julkisesti anteeksi. Palattuaan 1950-luvulla Suomeen ensin Kansan Raamattuseuran ja Sisälähetyssäätiön ja myöhemmin 1967 Kansanlähetyksen palvelukseen Saarnivaara omaksui uuspietistisen kastekäsityksen. Tämä merkitsi osittain palaamista ensimmäisen kauden käsitykseen ja pitkälle reformoidun kastekäsityksen omaksumista, jossa lapsikaste myönnetään, mutta sen hengellinen sisältö kielletään. Tällöin keskeisimmäksi asiaksi nousee ymmärtävässä iässä tapahtuvan kääntymyskokemuksen sakramentalisoiminen ja uskoon tulemisen vaatimus. Saarnivaaran teologia näyttäisi johdonmukaisesti vievän siihen, että sanan ymmärtävään kuulemiseen kykenemätön lapsi on pelastuksen ja taivasten valtakunnan ulkopuolella.