The
Meaning of Baptism
with
Special Reference to the Baptist View
Rev.
Angus Stewart
(Slightly
modified from articles first published in the British
Reformed Journal)
(I) Introduction
The Bible is the verbally inspired revelation
of the Triune God of heaven and earth. Thus the meaning of its
words must be carefully ascertained. Whole controversies can
hinge on this. Consider Luther and the Reformation versus the
Roman Church in the sixteenth century. Does the Greek word metanoein
mean to do penance or to change one's mind (with respect to sin
and to God in Christ)? Similarly, does dikaioun mean to declare
just (a solely legal act) or does it also include a making
just (an organic work)?
Here our concern is with the word baptizein,
the Greek word usually translated in the New Testament as
"to baptize." With the rise of the Anabaptists, this
word also became a subject of debate. Its meaning is especially
important since it concerns one of the two sacraments in the
Christian church. One section of the church world boldly
proclaims that they know the meaning of baptizein.
Baptists are adamant that this word always and only means dip or
immerse. Consider the following baptist statements:
"Immersion, or dipping of the person
in water, is necessary to the due administration of the
ordinance" (The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1688
29:4).[1]
"Christian Baptism is the immersion
in water of a believer" (The New Hampshire Baptist
Confession 14 [1833]).[2]
"[Baptizein] in the whole
history of the Greek language has but one [meaning]. It not
only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has any other
meaning." "[Baptizein] ... always signifies
to dip; never expressing anything but mode" (Alexander
Carson).[3]
"To baptize is to immerse" (J.
L. Dagg).[4]
Baptism is "immersion and immersion
only" (A. H. Strong).[5]
Furthermore, baptists delight to quote John
Calvin: "it is evident that the term baptize means to
immerse."[6] In short, the baptist argument is that God
commands baptism. Baptism is immersion. Therefore, God commands
immersion.
If the baptists are right then the whole
Reformed and Presbyterian church world is sinning by baptizing
by sprinkling or pouring, and has been guilty of this sin for
almost five hundred years.[7] This is a very serious charge. If the
baptists are right we must alter our confessions, change our Form
for the Administration of Baptism and begin to practice
immersion in our churches, in obedience to the command of the
Lord God.[8]
Thus, according to baptists, Reformed and
Presbyterian churches not only abuse the sacrament of baptism by
administering it to infants of believers, but even our adult
baptisms are conducted improperly, since our mode of baptism is
contrary to God's command. Reformed and Presbyterian
congregations are doubly condemned, having extremely few members
who are properly baptized.
Therefore, although our main controversy with
baptists concerns the inclusion of infants in God's everlasting
covenant of grace and their right to baptism, we must also
consider the baptist contention regarding the mode of baptism.
The argument of this paper is not, however, merely negative.
Rather it seeks to present a positive understanding of the
meaning of baptism drawn out of the Scriptures and in keeping
with the Reformed confessions. If a baptist asks a Reformed
believer what he thinks baptism (baptizein) means, what
answer ought he give? In other words, this paper asks, What is
the heart or essence of baptism?[9] This has implications
for our understanding of paedobaptism and the gracious character
of God's sovereignly bestowed salvation.
(II) Baptizein Does Not Mean Immerse
Baptists use two English words as synonyms of
baptizein: dip and immerse. However these two words
differ in four respects. First, dipping involves the movement of
one object into and out of a fluid. In immersion, an
object is submerged, but nothing is said of its removal from the
fluid. Thus in Greek literature a person baptized in water is
often one who has drowned.
Second, whereas the action of dipping is
specific (entrance into and removal from a fluid), immersion can
be achieved in many different ways. A man sitting in an empty
bath could be immersed by the water that flows from the tap.
Similarly immersion can be effected by pouring or even by
sprinkling. A stone sitting in a bucket could be immersed by
water from a watering can.
Third, immersion and dipping also differ
regarding the time for which the object is submerged. Dipping
speaks of a very brief period of envelopment in a fluid, whereas
an immersion is a protracted submersion, possibly of hours,
days, weeks or even many years.[10]
Fourth, dipping does not convey to what
extent the object was submerged. A man on a beach may speak of
going into the sea for a dip, though he only went in to his
waist. Immersion suggests a more complete submersion, though
baptists often feel that the word does not convey the thought
strongly enough, so they speak of total immersion.[11]
Thus dipping and immersion differ regarding
(1) the action (immersing and emerging or only
immersing); (2) the means of the action (immersion can be
effected in various ways); (3) their duration; and (4)
the extent to which the object is submerged. To express
accurately the meaning of baptizein according to the
baptists, we may speak of it as a total immersion by dipping.
This ought to be understood as allowing the non-dipping of the
legs, since in their baptism the initiate usually wades into the
water before he is dipped.
Though the baptist understanding of baptizein
in the initiatory sacrament is very specific, they understand
the word with a great latitude of meaning elsewhere. The baptist
use of both dipping and immersion as synonyms of baptizein
is very helpful for baptist apologetics. Thus baptizein,
according to baptists, can refer to an act (dipping) or a state
(immersion).[12] Though dipping is a weak verb (since the object is
only submerged very briefly), immersion is a strong word, since
whatever is submerged in a fluid for some time will probably
partake of its peculiar characteristics. Furthermore, by
figure, baptizein is used with great latitude by
baptists when it comes to answering biblical objections to their
position, as we shall see.
Nevertheless, at the very least, the baptist
has to show that the baptized object is enveloped in the fluid
or that the state resulting from the baptism was through dipping
or immersion. This is his one great problem, and it is
compounded by his definition of baptizein as always
and only to immerse or dip. This claim is exclusive. No
other ways of baptism can be permitted by a baptist. Thus his
theory is easily falsified. One instance of a baptism not by
immersion or dipping is enough to falsify the whole theory,
whether it be found in classic, Judaic, patristic or biblical
usage.
Though the immersionists claim to be the only
ones who faithfully obey the biblical mandate for baptism by
dipping, one is surprised that they often seek to make their
case for immersion primarily from sources other than the Bible.
Thus J. L. Dagg, in seeking to determine the meaning of baptizein,
gives many examples from the classics (from Aristotle to
Aristophanes and Homer to Hippocrates) with a few biblical
references thrown in.[13] These claims are very difficult for most
Christians to verify. Moreover, they are apt to be blinded by
such a display of learning.
The question here is much more simple and
much more easily tested: From the usage of baptizein in
the New Testament, does it appear that it always and only means
to immerse? The answer to this question is "No." That baptizein
means to dip or immerse may be refuted in various ways:
(1) Baptism cannot mean immersion if the
object to be baptized is too large to be immersed. Mark 7:4
speaks of the baptism (baptismos) of couches or beds.
However, the Talmudic tractate, Kelim, and Maimonides, a
Jewish scholar in the twelfth century, speak of the immersion of
beds. Carson points out that "the couches might have been
so constructed, that they might be conveniently taken to pieces,
for the purpose of purification."[14] Thus we cannot certainly
prove that the beds of Mark 7:4 were not immersed.
(2) Baptism cannot mean immersion if there
was not sufficient water for immersion. In Acts 8, we read
of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, by Philip in the
wilderness between Jerusalem and Gaza (v. 26). The eunuch—apparently
surprised—saw some water as he and Philip talked, so they left
the chariot and Philip baptized him. Are we to suppose that
there was enough water to submerge a grown man?
Some have sought to strengthen the case for
non-immersion by pointing out that the passage that the eunuch
was reading (Isa. 53:7-8; cf. Acts 8:32-33) is only a few verses
after a reference to the Messiah sprinkling many nations.[15]
It ought to be pointed out, though, that the Septuagint version,
which the eunuch was probably using, does not so translate the
Hebrew.[16] Although it cannot be proved that Philip did not explain
to the eunuch the proper rendering of this verse, the
non-immersionist case is not necessarily strengthened by this
appeal to Isaiah.
Dagg tries to turn the case around.[17] He says
that few are so stupid as to fail to bring water supplies with
them in a journey across a desert. Why then, he argues, was
there need for water outside the chariot? If baptism was by
sprinkling or pouring, surely the eunuch could have stopped the
chariot and Philip could have used some of the eunuch's
supplies. Against this we must say that since water is precious
to those travelling through a wilderness a sight of water
outside would naturally suggest using it instead of one's own
reserves.[18]
Thus we return to the issue of water in the
desert. Again a conclusive case against immersion cannot be
made. One cannot rule out the possibility that there may have
been a sufficiently large pool in that wilderness to submerge a
man. It is, however, highly unlikely.
(3) Baptism cannot mean immersion if there
were too many people to be immersed. On the day of
Pentecost, three thousand converts were baptized (Acts 2:41).
The five thousand new Christians of Acts 4:4 were also
undoubtedly baptized. Three concerns arise for the baptists
here. First, we note the relative scarcity of water in
Jerusalem. Second, consider the amount of time required to
baptize the multitude.[19] Third, remember the hostility of the
Jewish authorities. Are we to suppose that they permitted the
despised Christians to use Jerusalem's water supplies?
The first issue is easily overcome. The
baptists are quite right: there was enough water to do it.
Regarding the second, they note that there were not merely one
but twelve apostles and point out similar occasions of mass
immersions by baptists. The third factor might make it more
difficult but probably not impossible. We must admit that
immersion cannot absolutely be ruled out. It is much easier,
however, to think of the mass baptism on the inauguration of the
New Testament church as being by sprinkling or pouring. Thus
Moses sprinkled the blood of the (old) covenant on the
Israelites in Exodus 24.
(4) Baptism cannot mean immersion if the
one baptized is in a position unsuitable for immersion. In
both Acts 9 and 22 we read of Saul's conversion and baptism.
Saul, later named Paul, was praying in a house in the street
called Straight, when Ananias came to him and laid his hands on
him. Ananias commanded Paul, "Arise and be baptized"
(Acts 22:16) and Paul "arose and was baptized" (Acts
9:18). Paul had neither eaten nor drank in the last three days
(Acts 9:9) and only after his baptism does he have a meal.
The question is, How can a man standing in a
house be immersed? Most baptist scholars do not address this
question.[20] John Gill makes an attempt, but it is not very
successful. He says that there was probably a bath in the house
since, he reckons, it was the house of a Jew. Next, he tries to
derive some horizontal and not merely vertical motion from the
word "arise."[21] This does not, however, come from the
word itself, but merely from Gill's immersionist
presuppositions. For Gill, since baptizein means immerse,
there must be a bath in the house, and "arise" must
mean "get up and go to it."[22]
(5) Baptism
cannot mean immersion if one party is described as baptized,
while another party is immersed. We have occasions of
this in the only two Old Testament events referred to as
baptisms in the New Testament: I Corinthians 10:1-2 and I Peter
3:20-21.[23] In the former, Moses and the Israelites pass through
the Red Sea on dry land, while Pharaoh and his host are immersed
in the water. In the latter, Noah and seven other souls are
saved in the ark, while the "world of the ungodly" (II
Peter 2:5) is drowned in the waters of the flood. Thus the two
great redemptive events in the Old Testament that concern great
volumes of water are referred to as baptisms. However, contrary
to what would follow from the baptist view of baptizein,
the Bible teaches that in the flood and in the Red Sea the
ungodly who are not baptized are immersed and the church which
is baptized is not immersed!
Baptist attempts
to prove an immersion of the godly are not convincing. Carson
argues that the Israelites did have a sort of immersion, since
the sea was walled on either side of them and the cloud was
above them.[24] Dagg is, perhaps, even bolder. He reckons that the
English translation of I Corinthians 10:2 ought to read,
"And were all immersed unto Moses."[25]
Regarding I
Peter 3:20-21, Carson says that the ark was occasionally dipped
into the flood waters as they rose and swelled.[26] John Gill
reckons that "the ark with those in it, were as it were
covered with and immersed in water," since "the
fountains of the great deep were broken up below, and the
windows of heaven were opened above." Not content with
merely discovering an immersion, Gill exhibits even greater
ingenuity in discovering both a burial and a resurrection in
Noah's baptism. Noah and his family being "shut up" in
the ark "represented a burial;" and the resurrection
of Jesus Christ "was typified by the coming of Noah and his
family out of the ark."[27]
Other baptists
deny that the analogy or "like figure" (v. 21) is
between Christian baptism and a Noahic baptism. They say that I
Peter 3:20 speaks of Noah's salvation not baptism and
verse 21 of our salvation and baptism.[28] Though we reject the
sacramentarianism of the Lutheran scholar, W. H. T. Dau, he does
point out the appropriate point of comparison between Noahic and
Christian baptism:
Water saved
Noah and his family by floating the ark which sheltered
them, and by removing from them the disobedient generation
which had sorely tried their faith, as it had tried God's
patience. In like manner the water of baptism bears up the
ark of the Christian church and saves its believing members,
by separating them from their filthy and doomed fellow-men.[29]
(6) Baptism
cannot mean immersion if a baptism is effected by pouring.
The risen, but not yet ascended, Christ promised His disciples
that they should "be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many
days hence" (Acts 1:5). He was referring to the day of
Pentecost, as the succeeding narrative makes clear. The baptist
attempt at finding an immersion here is valiant but futile. Some
say that they were immersed by the Spirit who filled the room in
which they were sitting. To this we must point out that it is
not the Spirit but a sound from heaven that filled the
house (Acts 2:2).
Carson attempts
a more sophisticated evasion. He says that the baptism of Acts 2
is "a figurative baptism in which there is no literal
immersion, pouring or sprinkling."[30] "The baptism of the
Spirit is ... explicable on the principle of a reference to
immersion," he affirms. "To be immersed in the Spirit
(sic), represents the subjection of soul, body and spirit to his
influence."[31]
It ought to be
clear to all that Pentecost's baptism of the Spirit was effected
by pouring.[32] This is made clear by the account of Acts 2.
The Spirit is "poured out" (Acts 2:17, 18) and
"shed forth" by the ascended and enthroned Christ, who
"received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost"
(Acts 2:33). That this pouring out of the Spirit is described as
a baptism is easily proved from Scripture.[33]
However, Carson
attempts to refute this position. He makes three fallacious
arguments. First, he begs the question. He states that baptizein
means to immerse, when this is exactly the point under debate.[34]
Second, he resorts to absurd accusations. To those who speak of
the Spirit being poured out as the baptism of Pentecost he
ascribes "the egregious and blasphemous error which teaches
that God is material."[35] Needless to say, he is unable to
prove that this follows from the Reformed position. Third, he
fails to make the proper distinctions. He states that our
argument equates pouring and baptizing.[36] This is not true.
We hold that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was effected by
pouring, but we do not say that baptizein means to pour.
On the
significance of this baptism, Jay Adams writes,
If any
baptism in the Scriptures is important, it is that which
occurred at Pentecost. Joel prophesied it [Joel 2:28-29];
John predicted it [Matt. 3:16]; Christ promised it [Acts
1:4-5]; and Luke proclaimed it [Acts 2]. No other baptism is
given as much space or prominence.[37]
The highly
important baptism of Acts 2 was most definitely not by
immersion.
(7) Baptism
cannot mean immersion if a baptism is effected by
sprinkling. Our last example proved a baptism effected by
pouring; Hebrews 9 speaks of baptisms effected by sprinkling.
Verse 10 of that chapter tells us that the Old Testament economy
consisted of "meats and drinks, and divers washings
[literally, baptisms, baptismos], and carnal
ordinances." That there were a few immersions amongst the
purifications of the Mosaic dispensation, we might grant. That
immersion was the only, or even the most frequent, method of
ceremonial cleansing no one would be foolish enough to assert.
But we are not left to search the Old Testament to see to which
baptisms (baptismos) the Holy Spirit is referring.
The inspired
text goes on to enumerate some of the Mosaic baptisms. In verse
13 we read of the "sprinkling" of "the blood of
bulls and of goats" and of "the ashes of an
heifer" (cf. Num. 19:17-18). Verses 19-20 speak of Moses'
purifying both "the book and all the people" in Exodus
24. With "scarlet wool and hyssop," he
"sprinkled" "the blood of calves and of goats
[which was mixed] with water." Verse 21 adds that later
"he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and the
vessels of the ministry."[38] Not once does the Holy Spirit
refer to a baptism by immersion, but three times He speaks of sprinkling.[39]
Thus when Dagg translates Hebrews 9:10 as "divers immersions,"
we can only wonder at how zealously men will seek to cling to a
pet theory.[40]
One evasion
would be to admit that the baptisms (baptismos) of
Hebrews 9:10 were indeed effected by sprinkling, but to argue
that this is not determinative for the meaning of the verb baptizein.
This argument, however, will not do. Greek nouns with the suffix
"-mos" indicate the abstract name for the
action. If baptizein means to immerse or dip, then Dagg
is correct: Hebrews 9:10 must be translated "divers immersions."
Since the context forbids this, baptizein does not mean
to immerse or dip.[41]
From our
consideration of baptizein in Scripture, it is clear that
it does not always and only mean "to immerse."[42]
Moreover, even if it could be proved that baptism was effected
by immersion in a few places, the baptist view still would not
hold water. Just one example of a baptism not by dipping is
enough to falsify the baptist position; and we have found
several such examples. Therefore, the Word of God does not
forbid but permits baptism by sprinkling or pouring. Reformed
and Presbyterian churches are not disobeying the Scriptures in
their mode of baptism.
(III) Baptist Arguments For
Immersion
One is forced
now to consider why baptists argue that baptizein always
and only means to immerse. The biblical arguments they adduce
for their position can be considered under three heads: places,
prepositions and symbolism.
(1) Concerning places,
baptists point to John's baptizing "in Aenon near to Salim,
because there was much water there" (John 3:23). The
baptists emphasise the last clause-"because there was
much water [hudata polla] there"-but they
should also consider the place, Aenon. Thayer says that Aenon is
derived from a Hebrew word for spring.[43] This helps us to
understand the hudata polla, translated "much
water" by the Authorised Version (KJV). Aenon was
probably named after the many waters or fountains or springs
that arose there. This is the way hudata polla ought to
be translated. Wilbur Christy writes,
Unfortunately
for those who are accustomed to find here proof of
immersion, these springs trickling through marshy meadow
land on their way to the Jordan, as they do to this day,
offer little or no facilities for immersion.[44]
Second, baptists
point out that John also baptized at the River Jordan. Why go to
a river to baptize, they argue, unless you need a large quantity
of water, such as is required for immersion?
First of all, it
ought to be noted that John's location in the wilderness is more
important than his choice of baptismal site. His wilderness
setting is primary, for in this he fulfilled the prophecy of
Isaiah (Isa. 40:3; Mark 1:2-4).
The connection
between the Messiah's forerunner and the prophecy regarding the
wilderness is not arbitrary. John's mission was to prepare the
way for the Christ by calling Israel to repentance. "The
biblical concept of repentance, however, is deeply rooted in the
wilderness tradition," writes William Lane.
Essential to
the prophetic concern with repentance in Hosea, Amos and
Isaiah is the concept of Israel's time in the wilderness as
the period of true sonship to God, a status into which the
Lord is going to lead his people once again in a future
time.[45]
Thus John's
location in the wilderness was essential to his mission. Water
is scarce in the wilderness, and many people came to John (Mark
1:5). People need water for refreshment and for any animals they
may bring with them. Water supplies also vary according to the
season. Furthermore, as James Dale notes, "It is notorious
that both Gentile and Jew [cf. Lev. 14:51-52] attached a
specially purifying value to running water."[46] What
better place to baptize then than at the (lower) River Jordan
(which was included in the wilderness region)? Dale argues that
in working here, John, who came "in the spirit and power of
Elias" (Luke 1:17) was acting in accordance with "his
great prototype, Elijah." Elijah went "into the same
wilderness" and made "his home by the banks of the
same river." Dale adds,
The
Scriptures teach us, that Elias for a long period together
made his home by the brook Cherith, which empties into the
Jordan (precisely the same spot occupied by John); but the
only use which he made of its waters, so far as we are
informed, was for drinking.[47]
(2) Baptists
argue that baptizein means to immerse or dip from prepositions.
First, they appeal to the Greek preposition en (in, on,
at, with, by, among).[48] A. T. Robertson writes, "The simple
narrative in Mt. 3:6 is that 'they were baptized of him in [en]
the river Jordan.'"[49] Robertson here understands en to
indicate the receptive element into which the baptized person is
dipped or plunged, but he cannot prove it.[50] En may refer
merely to the place where John baptized them, as it does
elsewhere.[51] For example, we read in John 1:29 that "John was
baptizing in [en] Bethabara beyond Jordan." Later we
find John "baptizing in [en] Aenon" (John
3:23). Mark 1:4 even records that "John did baptize in [en]
the wilderness." Were people baptized into Bethabara, Aenon
and the wilderness as receptive elements?
Furthermore,
Matthew 3:6 says that the multitudes who confessed their sins
were baptized in the Jordan. It does not say that they were
baptized in the water of the Jordan. Robertson would have
to appeal to other texts which speak of a baptism en udati
(in water), such as Matthew 3:11 and John 1:33. The phrase,
"I indeed have baptized you with water: but he [the coming
Messiah] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," is
found-essentially, not verbatim-in parallel passages in Mark 1:8
and Luke 3:16, as well as in Acts 1:5 and Acts 11:16. In these
four passages the en is omitted; only udati is
used. However, all scholars recognise that this is a dative of
instrument: "I will baptize you with water."[52]
There is,
therefore, no necessity to translate the en in Matthew
3:11 and John 1:33 as "in" and then understand this as
indicating the receptive element for an immersion.[53] It is more
reasonable to interpret these two verses in the light of their
parallel passages, as indicating the substance (water) that John
used in his baptism. Just as Jesus baptized with the Holy
Ghost, according to the biblical parallel, John baptized with
water.[54]
Secondly,
Robertson appeals to the preposition eis (into, to,
towards, for, among), especially where used in combination with ek
(from out of, out from, forth from, from).[55] He quotes Acts
8:38-39:
They went
down both into [eis] the water, both Philip and the
eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out
of [ek] the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away
Philip.
Robertson
reckons that this and his previous argument present a formidable
case, for he wonders "if [any]one could still be in doubt
about the matter."[56] However, his optimism is ill-founded.
First, the text
makes it clear that both Philip and the eunuch went down
into the water, but that only the eunuch was baptized.
Therefore, the eunuch's baptism did not consist of going down
into (eis) the water and coming out of (ek) the
water. Second, since water collects in the lowest places, what
else would one do but go down to it and come up from it? Third,
this presents no evidence for immersion as opposed to sprinkling
or pouring. The latter methods of applying water could just as
well have taken place after Philip and the eunuch went down into
the water. Fourth, Robertson makes no reference to the
difficulty of finding sufficient water in the wilderness for two
men to wade into and one to be dipped.
Probably, the
most plausible argument for immersion from prepositions is based
upon Mark 1:9:
And it came
to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of
Galilee, and was baptized of John in [eis] Jordan.
The baptists
argue that eis, which is stronger than en,
indicates the enveloping element of the baptism. Thus Jesus,
they say, was dipped into the Jordan.[57] If the text had
read eis (into) water and not eis ton Jordanen (into
the Jordan) their case would have been stronger, but still it
requires a solid response.
First, we have
seen that water is used as the instrument of baptism.
Second, the preposition eis with baptizein in the
baptism by John indicates the resultant state. Thus John
baptized "unto [eis] repentance" (Matt. 3:11),
and he preached "the baptism of repentance into [eis]
the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; my
translation). This was the "baptism of John" (Luke
7:29; Acts 19:3). Similarly, eis used with Christian
baptism, as we shall see later, always indicates "the
receiving element (in the New Testament always ideal) into which
the baptized element (verbally) passes." It expresses the
full subjection of those baptized to the controlling influence
of that element.[58] Thus a baptist reading of Mark 1:9 does not fit
with the established New Testament pattern.
The baptist
error lies in reading motion into the verb ebaptisthe
(He
was baptized) and thereby insisting that eis here can
only mean "into." Thus they understand the text to
indicate that Jesus was dipped (a verb of motion) into-and then
taken out of-the Jordan. This conceives of the Jordan not as a
locality, as in the parallel passage (Matt. 3:13)[59] and in the
preceding context (Mark 1:5), but as a receptive element.
However, as Lenski points out, eis the Jordan (v. 9) is
equivalent to en the River Jordan (v. 5). Both are
locative "stating where the baptism took place ... and
nothing more."[60]
The question now
arises, Why does Mark 1:9 use eis and not en as
Mark 1:4 or epi (on, upon, at) as Matthew 3:13? The
answer is not far away. Mark 1:9 uses two verbs with respect to
Jesus: elthen (He came) and ebaptisthe (He was
baptized). It uses one preposition apo (from) to indicate
that He came from Nazareth. However, it uses only one
preposition to indicate both the place to which Jesus
came and where He was baptized.
In his book on
the baptism of John, James Dale gives biblical examples where a
prepositional phrase with eis (such as eis ton
Jordanen) immediately follows a verb of rest (such as ebaptisthe,
He was baptized), which is preceded by and connected with a verb
of motion (such as elthen, He came). He concludes that in
such cases the prepositional phrase modifies both the verb of
rest and the verb of motion, in a manner consistent with each
verb.[61] Thus Mark 1:9 tells us that Jesus came from
Nazareth of Galilee to the Jordan and was baptized at
the Jordan.[62]
Thus there is a
great deal to be said for Robert L. Reymond's position that
"there is not a single recorded instance of a baptism in
the entire New Testament where immersion followed by emersion is
the mode of baptism."[63] However, it must be stressed that
even if the reader still thinks that the baptism of the
Ethiopian eunuch or Christ's baptism or the baptisms of John at
Aenon were by dipping, the baptist position still falls to the
ground. All the baptisms of the Scriptures must be
immersions for their view to hold and for the pourings or
sprinklings of Reformed and Presbyterian churches to be
unlawful.
(3) Another
argument that baptists adduce for immersion is derived from the symbolism
of Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:3-5. The latter passage
reads,
[3] Know ye
not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ
were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so
we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have
been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall
be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
From this text,
baptists argue that going down under the water (immersion)
portrays our union with Christ in His burial, and that our
emersion signifies His resurrection and our share in it.[64] It is
not surprising that baptists should so use this text. After all,
they say that one of the Christian sacraments essentially
consists of a dipping into and removal from water. In itself
there is nothing at all in immersion in and emersion from water
that has any particular value. Therefore they need to find some
symbolism for their act. What is surprising is that so many
non-immersionists think that this text supports the theory that baptizein
means to dip.[65]
First, we should
note that Paul is not speaking of ritual baptism but of real
baptism, as the context makes clear.
Second, Christ
was not buried at sea in a watery grave. Nor was he buried in the same manner in which people are today,
that is, by being placed in a hole in the earth. He was laid
in a tomb hewn out of a rock (Matt. 27:60). This is enough to
explode the baptist theory. A baptist submerged in water cannot
symbolise Jesus' burial if Christ's body did not physically
descend in His burial. Furthermore, what is the sense of using
pure water? How can this symbolise the element into which a dead
body is buried? Surely a sand solution or dirty water would be
more appropriate.
Third, Romans
6:4-5 does not parallel Christ's physical resurrection with our
physical emersion from water, but with our new spiritual life
(v. 4) and our future physical resurrection on the last day (v.
5).[66]
Fourth, the
passage can have no reference to the mode of baptism
whatsoever since, as John Murray observes:
We have no
more warrant to find a reference to the mode of baptism in [sunetaphen,
we were buried with Him] here in vs. 4 than in [sumphutoi,
planted together with Him] in vs. 5 [sunestaurothe,
crucified with Him], in vs. 6 [or in] [enedusasthe,
clothed with Him] in Gal. 3:27.[67]
John Owen’s
analysis is similar:
There is not
one word nor one expression that mentions any resemblance
between dipping under water and the death and burial of
Christ, nor one word that mentions a resemblance between our
rising out of the water and the resurrection of Christ. Our
being "buried with him by baptism into death"
[Rom. 6:4] is our being "planted together in the
likeness of his death," verse 5. Our being
"planted together in the likeness of his death" is
not our being dipped under water, but "the crucifying
of the old man," verse 6. Our being "raised up
with Christ from the dead" is not our rising from under
the water, but our "walking in newness of life,"
verse 4, by virtue of the resurrection of Christ, I Pet.
iii. 21.[68]
What then is the
apostle saying? He has just shown that justification is by faith
alone and not by the works of man (Rom. 1-5). Someone might
respond: "Let us sin that grace may abound!" (cf.
6:1). The apostle first states (v. 2) and then proves (vv. 3ff.)
that we are dead to sin. He reminds us of our union with Christ.
In Romans 5:12-21, he spoke of our union with Him with regard to
blessings: justification, righteousness, life and grace.
Now he speaks of our union with Christ with respect to His
great redemptive acts. To which event does Paul point to
show believers are dead to sin? Not to His ascension into heaven
or session at God's right hand (as Eph. 2:6), but to His death
and burial, of course (Rom. 6:2ff.).
Since the
Christian's position is not merely negative (dead to sin) but
positive (alive to God), the apostle goes on to speak of our
resurrection with Christ (vv. 4ff.). Thus the apostle refers to
our baptism "into Christ" (v. 3). We are engrafted and
united to Christ by the Spirit. Paul puts this first. Since we
are united to Christ, therefore, we share in His death,
burial and resurrection. In other words, partaking of Christ's
death and resurrection is through baptism into Him. It has
nothing to do with our physical descent into and ascent from
water, nor is it signified thereby.
Robert Harbach's
analysis bears repeating:
The object
of Paul's words is not to show that Christians ought to walk
in newness of life because [they were] figuratively raised
from a watery grave in a symbolic ritual, but because [they
were] spiritually, objectively, historically, unitedly,
corporately and representatively raised ... through the
death [of Christ].[69]
The correct
interpretation of Colossians 2:12 runs along similar lines. In
Colossians 2 the apostle teaches believers about the sole
sufficiency of Christ. Through baptism into Him not only are we
dead to sin, but we are also dead to the world and to the law
(as a means of establishing our own righteousness).[70] Again, mode
has nothing to do with it.[71]
I have sought to
be thorough and fair in my treatment of baptist arguments for
immersion from the Bible. One argument-and it is their main
one-I have not yet touched upon: the use of baptizein in
sources other than the Scriptures. This lies outside the scope
of this brief article.[72] I can only point the interested reader to
the works of James Wilkinson Dale, a nineteenth century,
American Presbyterian.[73] Suffice to say that I am in full accord
with the position advocated in Dale's works: neither in the
Bible, nor in the classics, nor in Jewish nor patristic usage
does baptizein always and only mean to immerse or dip.
Why then do the
baptists so vehemently insist that it does? Jay Adams gives as
his "studied conclusion" that "immersion is
propagated as a biblical mode more by repetition and assertion
than from conviction stemming from careful Bible study."[74]
Buswell points out the perennial attraction of the immersionist
view:
There has
always been a tendency, since the New Testament times, to
regard immersion as more vivid and spectacular, and thus,
somehow more holy than baptism by sprinkling or by pouring.[75]
(IV) The True
Meaning of Baptizein
Now the question
comes to us again, What does baptizein mean? Does it mean
to pour? No, this would not agree with the baptisms of Hebrews
9. Does it then mean to sprinkle?[76] No, this would not fit with
the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost and its
"extension" in Cornelius' house (Acts 10-11).
Furthermore, neither of these modes describe the baptism of the
Israelites into Moses in I Corinthians 10 or Noah's baptism in I
Peter 3, never mind many other instances which we could refer to
in the classics.[77]
Does baptizein,
then, mean to purify? There appears to be some support for this
in Hebrews 9. The "divers baptisms" (v. 10) effect
ceremonial purification or sanctification (vv. 13, 22, 23). The
baptisms of "cups and pots, brazen vessels and
couches" (Mark 7:4) were purifications. So were the
ceremonial cleansings of the Pharisees (Luke 11:38-39).
Furthermore, John 3:22-26 seems to support this contention. John
is baptizing in Aenon (vv. 23-24), when the Holy Spirit records
a question between John's disciples and the Jews "about purifying"
(v. 25). Then they came to John and asked him about Jesus' baptism
(v. 26). "Without a doubt," writes Jay Adams,
"the two words 'purification' and 'baptism' are equated as
naturally as 'bishop' and 'elder' in Paul's letter to
Titus."[78]
However, to
purify does not agree with all the Biblical references to
baptism. Were the children of Israel purified into Moses
(I Cor. 10:2)? Was Christ purified with a purification, by His
penal sufferings on the cross (Mark 10:38; Matt. 20:22; Luke
12:50)? Nor is this definition wide enough to include many
usages in the classics. For example, a man is baptized by an
alcoholic drink, when he consumes too much. Origen, a third
century Christian theologian, even speaks of certain persons who
were baptized "by wickedness."[79] These baptisms are
clearly not purifications.
We need a
definition of baptizein that includes purification but is
broad enough to do justice to all the various baptisms. Dale's
general definition of baptizein is sufficient:
Whatever is
capable of thoroughly changing the character, state or
condition of any object is capable of baptizing that object;
and by such change of character, state or condition does, in
fact, baptize it.[80]
John Murray's
analysis is similar:
[Baptizein],
we must conclude, is one of those words which indicate a
certain effect without itself expressing or prescribing
the particular mode by which this effect is secured.[81]
Thus
baptizein means to change thoroughly the character, state
or condition of an object.[82] Now we must show that this
understanding of baptizein fits the New Testament data.
(1) First, we
shall consider the baptism on the day of Pentecost. Before
Pentecost, the disciples were weak and fearful, but, after they
were baptized by the Holy Spirit, they were fully equipped to
serve as the apostles of the risen Christ. Now they could speak
in various foreign languages—symbolised by the cloven tongues
that sat on each of them (Acts 2:3)—and be used in gathering
Christ's catholic church. The disciples were baptized into the
apostolate. Their condition had been thoroughly changed.
(2) The
Scriptures speak of a baptism into Moses (I Cor. 10:1-2). Here,
we must note the prepositions. The Israelites were baptized by
(en with an instrumental dative) the cloud and the sea into
(eis) Moses. When the Hebrews saw Pharaoh's mighty host
pursuing them they were "sore afraid" (Ex. 14:10; cf.
v. 13) and doubted Moses, accusing him of bringing them out of
Egypt to have them killed in the wilderness (vv. 11-12). Moses
cried out to the people,
Fear ye not,
stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he
will shew to you to day ... The Lord shall fight for you,
and ye shall hold your peace (vv. 13-14).
Then God made
bare His mighty arm and moved the cloud from in front of the
Israelites to between them and the Egyptians. This separated the
two people. It brought darkness upon the Egyptians but it was a
light to the Hebrews by night (vv. 19-20).
Next, Moses
stretched out his rod over the sea which then divided before
him. The Israelites crossed the Red Sea on dry ground, with the
sea as two great walls on either side of them (vv. 21-22, 29).
When God's people had all safely crossed, Moses stretched out
his hand again and the waters returned and immersed the
Egyptians (vv. 26-28, 30). Significantly the narrative ends:
And Israel
saw that great work which the LORD did on the Egyptians: and
the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD,
and his servant Moses (v. 31).
Thus having seen
God's mighty power and love toward them in His use of the cloud
and the sea, they now believed or leaned upon or trusted Moses
(v. 31). As Dale says,
The
Israelites having been wavering, unstable and unreliable in
their relations to Moses, were made (as a result of the
miracles which they had witnessed) to trust, to confide in,
to believe upon him, with a confidence second only to that
cherished toward Jehovah himself, whose minister and
representative they now fully believe him to be.[83]
Thus Paul says they
were baptized into Moses. John Murray expresses it well:
"To be 'baptized into Moses' (I Cor. 10:2) is to be bound
to Moses in the fellowship of that covenant of which Moses was
the mediator."[84] The Israelites were now under Moses'
"controlling influence."[85] Their condition had been
thoroughly changed.
(3) For our
final example, we may consider Christ's baptism by John at the
Jordan. Though John did indeed baptize Jesus, Jesus did not
receive "the baptism of John" (Luke 7:29). After all,
John's baptism was only open to guilty penitents and Jesus was
sinless. John's ritual baptism signified an inner transformation
and was "into the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4; my
translation). Of this baptism, Jesus could not partake. Though
he suffered for us, He did not undergo vicarious
repentance for us. The incongruity was not missed by John:
"I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to
me?" (Matt. 3:14).
What was Jesus'
baptism then? John 1 puts us on the right track. In the Gospel
according to John, John the Baptist is presented primarily as a
witness.[86] Not only his preaching but also his baptism served to
identify and to witness to the Messiah. Thus the Baptist tells
us that he came baptizing with water to manifest to Israel the
Messiah (v. 31).[87] John witnesses to Jesus as the supremely worthy
One (v. 27), the One who was before him (v. 31), the One who
baptizes with the Holy Ghost (v. 33) and the Son of God (v. 34).
Most
significantly, the Baptist witnesses to Him as "the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (v. 29).
"The Lamb of God" is the only title he uses twice (vv.
29, 36) and it is the only one introduced by the exclamation,
"Behold!" (in both vv. 29 and 36). Furthermore, it is
on hearing Jesus spoken of as "the Lamb of God" that
Andrew and another disciple begin to follow Jesus (vv. 35-40).
This title presents Jesus, not as prophet or king, but in His priestly
role. He is the One who would bear the sins of all the elect
throughout the world.
Thus Christ's
role as priest is uppermost in John's baptism in John 1.[88] It was
to this aspect of Christ's work that John's baptism pointed.
Other details need to be supplied to complete the picture,
including the circumstances of Jesus' baptism. John, who
baptized Jesus, was a priest for he was the son of Zechariah, a
priest (Luke 1). Furthermore, Luke 3:23 tells us that Jesus was
about thirty years old-the time when priests were ordained (cf.
Num. 4:3, 35, 47)-when he began his ministry. Significantly,
Luke tells us Jesus' age in the context of His baptism
(Luke 3:21-23). Does it now sound unreasonable to say that
Jesus' baptism by John was his initiation into His priesthood?
There remains
more to be said for this position. We must also consider
something of the significance of Jesus' baptism. First,
unless we hold this view, we must maintain that Jesus resorted
to evasive answers when asked a difficult question. In Matthew
21:23-27 (cf. Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8), Jesus is challenged
by the chief priests, scribes and elders regarding his purging
the temple (Matt. 21:12-14) and teaching in its sacred precincts
(v. 23). At the heart of their accusations was the issue of
authority (vv. 23 [twice], 24, 27). What right did
Jesus have to do these things (v. 23)?
Jesus answered
their questions with a question of His own: "The baptism of
John, whence was it? from heaven, or from man?" (v. 25).
The rulers were in a quandary. The people would be enraged if
they denied John's divine call. And if they affirmed it, they
would condemn themselves, since they did not heed John's
admonitions (vv. 25-27). They opted out: "We cannot
tell" (v. 27).
If Jesus
received from John the "baptism for the remission of
sins," this would not give Him authority to cleanse the
temple. Then Jesus merely answered a hard question with a hard
question. His response, therefore, would have been equally
appropriate on any other occasion when the Jewish religious
leaders sought to corner him, since it did not deal with the
specific issue which the chief priests raised. For their part,
they did not respond by accusing Him of an irrelevant answer.
They realised they were beaten by a response which perfectly
explained Jesus authority to teach in and cleanse the temple.
John had ordained Jesus as a priest, and priests had authority
to do these things.[89]
Second, Jesus'
words to John the Baptist in Matthew 3:15 are very important:
"Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."
Righteousness, as both John and Jesus well knew, is that
which is according to the law of God. Jay Adams asks a
highly pertinent question:
Christ
underwent the law of circumcision (Lev. 12:3 and Luke 2:21);
he was presented in the temple (Luke 2:22-23); he went to
the passover (Ex. 34:23 and Luke 2:42); he observed the
Jewish feasts commanded by the law (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:3,
John 17:10); but what law was he obeying at his baptism?[90]
That law was
that of the ordination of priests.
Furthermore,
since Jesus speaks of "us" in Matthew 3:15, we
must ask, What happened at Jesus' baptism that both John
and Jesus fulfilled all righteousness? Or, to put it
differently, if Jesus' water baptism was a purification for us,
how did John fulfil all righteousness? The only
satisfactory answer to these questions is that John fulfilled
all righteousness in ordaining Jesus to the priesthood.
In this way,
Jesus was possessed of the ceremonial qualifications necessary
for obtaining our righteousness with God. He did this through
His substitutionary life of obedience and death on the cross.
Thus Jesus was not baptized into the forgiveness of His own
sins-a blasphemous position-nor was He baptized vicariously, so
that the water of His baptism washed away our sins symbolically.
Instead, He was ordained our high priest, that He might obtain
the righteousness of God for us by faith in His blood.
As an ordination
to the priesthood, Jesus' baptism was by sprinkling. This is the
manner in which the Old Testament priests were ceremonially
authorized for their functions (cf. Num. 8:6-7). They were most
definitely not immersed.[91]
However, most
important for our current inquiry is that Jesus' baptism by John
fits with our proposed definition of baptism. Jesus' baptism was
a change of state, in which He was ceremonially initiated
into the priesthood.[92]
At the time of
His physical baptism, God also baptized Jesus spiritually and
inwardly by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16-17). Jesus' baptism by
water and His baptism by the Spirit were two aspects of the one
great act of God appointing and equipping Him as the Servant of
Jehovah. The former speaks of Jesus' authorization as Messiah
from a formal and outward point of view, while the latter speaks
of His inner and spiritual qualification for this office.
Jesus received
the Spirit in full measure (John 3:34) to enable Him to fulfil
His Messianic mandate (Luke 4:18-19; Isa. 61:1-2). That the
Spirit descended on Christ "like a dove" (Matt. 3:16)
indicates that He was anointing Him as our gracious high priest
(Heb. 4:15; 2:17).
Only by the
Spirit's strength was Jesus able to withstand the temptations of
Satan, to cast out demons (Matt. 12:28), to proclaim the gospel
of grace and, finally, to go to the cross to die as "the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John
1:29; cf. Heb. 9:14). The Spirit's controlling influence upon
Jesus is indicated in many ways in the four gospel accounts, and
especially in Luke. After returning from His baptism, Jesus
"was led by [en] the Spirit into the
wilderness" (Luke 4:1). After His temptation in the
wilderness, He "returned in the power of the Spirit into
Galilee" and His fame spread "through all the region
round about" (v. 14). Thus in Christ's spiritual baptism,
we have another illustration of our definition of baptizein.
(V) The Meaning of Christian
Baptism
Having
ascertained the meaning of baptizein, it only remains to
explain the meaning or significance of Christian baptism. So far
we have referred to various examples of baptism in the Bible,
arranged below in chronological order:
1. the
baptism of Noah and his family (I Peter 3:20-21)
2. the
baptism of the Israelites into Moses (I Cor. 10:1-2)
3. the
various Old Testament purifications (Heb. 9:10)
4. the
Pharisaic purifications (Mark 7:2ff.)[93]
5. John's
baptism into the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4)
6. John's
water baptism of Jesus, ordaining Him as a priest (Matt.
3:13-15)
7. Jesus'
baptism by the Holy Spirit, equipping Him for His
Messianic mission (Matt. 3:16-17)[94]
8. Jesus'
baptism by penal sufferings on the cross (Mark 10:38)
9. the
apostles' baptism by the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2)
10.
Christian baptism into the name of the Holy Trinity (Matt.
28:19) of families and individuals in Acts and I Corinthians
1[95]
Numbers 1 to 4
(amongst other things) illustrate the meaning of baptizein.
Numbers 5 to 9, while also serving this purpose, are essential
(though in different ways) to the establishment of Christian
baptism (number 10).
In the New
Testament, Christian baptism is intimately connected with many
blessings. From the lists of T. M. Lindsay and G. R.
Beasley-Murray, we may produce the following compilation:[96]
1.
forgiveness of and cleansing from sin (Acts 2:38; 22:16)
2.
bestowal of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:13)
3. union
with Christ (Gal. 3:27), including union with Him in His
death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-11; Col. 2:12)
4.
regeneration (Titus 3:5)
5.
adoption (Gal. 3:26-27)[97]
6.
membership in the spiritual body of Christ (I Cor. 12:13)
7.
membership in the church institute (Acts 2:41)
While neither
scholar intended to be exhaustive in their lists, two glaring
omissions are found in both men's presentations.[98] First, neither
mentioned the essence of these blessings as covenant
blessings. The Westminster Confession of Faith is much to
be preferred at this point. At the very beginning of its
treatment of the spiritual blessings of (real) baptism, the Confession
speaks of baptism as "a sign and seal of the covenant
of grace" (28:1).[99] Jesus Christ is the covenant Christ and
initiation into Him is partaking of all the blessings of God's
covenant with His people.
Beasley-Murray,
coming from a baptist standpoint, links the blessings of baptism
not with the covenant but with (conscious) faith: "In the
New Testament precisely the same gifts of grace are associated
with faith as with baptism."[100] He errs by omission in not
seeing the proper covenantal significance of baptism, but his
statement is profound. All the blessings of salvation are
related to baptism. This necessarily follows from the nature
of baptism as a sign and seal of salvation.
Second, and even
more serious, the lists of both Lindsay and Beasley-Murray fail
to mention union with the Triune God-the very heart of baptism!
This is expressly stated by Christ, as He inaugurates the New
Testament sacrament of baptism in Matthew 28:19:
Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in [into,
eis] the name of the Father, and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost.[101]
Hoeksema's
concise explanation of the phrase "into the name"
bears repeating:
This does
not mean "upon the authority of the name of the Triune
God," but rather "into the fellowship of God
Triune as He has revealed Himself in the name of Jesus
Christ."[102]
The Reformed
have always emphasised the Trinitarian character of baptism.
Leonard Riisen expresses it admirably:
Therefore
when the pastor says, I baptize thee, it is the same as if
he were saying, I declare in God's name that this water in
which I wash you is a symbol of your admission into God's
covenant and His Church; that the Father accepts you as a
son, the Son as a member of His body and a brother, and the
Holy Spirit as a host with whom He is willing to dwell for
ever; and that you worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in
virtue of the terms of your duty to the triune God, with
worship and obedience, and consecrate yourself wholly to the
worship of the Trinity for ever.[103]
As a Trinitarian
sacrament, baptism is intrinsically intertwined with the
covenant.[104] It concerns union and communion with the covenant God:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The implications of this
Trinitarian understanding are manifold. Here we shall consider
just one: its relation to sovereign grace.
In the final
chapter of his book, The Drama of Decision: Baptism in the
New Testament, Oscar Stephenson Brooks engages in a study of
the baptismal teaching of I Peter.[105]
His thesis is that I Peter is
a "baptismal tract," written to congregations with
many new members in need of instruction.[106] Even though baptism is
mentioned only once in I Peter (i.e., 3:20-21), Brooks does
produce some interesting arguments for his position. Though he
is wrong in holding that I Peter is "given completely to a
concern for baptism" and that baptism is "the key to
understanding the entire book," there is something to be
said for his position.[107]
Certainly the
book says a lot about initiation into salvation. Those addressed
in I Peter were regenerated (1:3, 23; 2:2) and (effectually)
called (1:15; 2:9, 21; 3:9; 5:10), through the preaching of the
gospel (1:12, 25). Their "saving response" to the
gospel, R. E. O. White notes,
is ...
described both in terms of belief (i 5, 8, 9, ii 6, 7, v 9,
once "confidence" i 21) and in terms of obedience
(i 1, 22, ii 8, iii 1, iv 17, once love for Christ i 8f).[108]
Brooks proceeds
to outline the book.[109] (1) 1:3-12 is the opening section which
tells us how God saved us. (2) 1:13-2:10 describes the calling
of the Christian. (3) 2:11-3:12 contains instructions as to how
the new Christian should live in the world. (4) 3:13-22 insists
that "a convert must maintain faithfulness and integrity at
all costs."[110] Peter refers to the example of Christ and the
importance of baptism to enforce His point.
The opening
section (1:3-12) is key to our understanding of I Peter. Brooks
rightly points out that it is Trinitarian, dealing with the
Father (vv. 3-5), the Son (vv. 6-9) and the Spirit (vv. 10-12).
Baptism points to our salvation. The most important thing about
that salvation, Peter tells us, is that it is Trinitarian.[111]
Flowing from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, salvation
can be nothing other than by sovereign grace. Thus 1:3-12 tells
us not what we have done but what God has done for us.
It is amazing that Brooks after all his insightful remarks fails
to note this. So enthralled is he with Arminianism that he
misses what stares him in the face.
Furthermore,
Brooks fails to take I Peter 1:2 into consideration. First, here
we have another testimony to the Holy Trinity:
Elect
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you and peace be
multiplied.
Second, Peter
addresses these new converts as "elect according to the
foreknowledge of God." He wishes to tell them at the
beginning of his epistle that their salvation is all of God's
eternal electing grace. This is "the true grace of
God" (5:12) that is signified and sealed in baptism.[112]
Third, I Peter
1:2 portrays the application of Christ's blood to our hearts by
the Holy Spirit as a sprinkling. Since the reality is
described as sprinkling, how can the baptists forbid this mode
in the administration of the sign? It is no wonder that the
Brooks as an Arminian baptist left this verse well alone!
This treatment
of I Peter shows us the proper methodology in understanding the
significance of baptism. We must study what the Scriptures teach
about salvation, and especially about its initial application,
and then understand that our ritual baptism is a sign and seal
of that grace of God.[113] Thus, for example, the "one
baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 is that spiritual baptism
revealed as a work of sovereign grace by the Triune God in
Ephesians 1:3-14 and the rest of the book.[114]
It only remains
to relate the various blessings signified by baptism and then to
show how Christian baptism is brought about by the various
baptisms taught in the Scriptures. Our real and spiritual
baptism is effected by the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:13). He
engrafts us into Christ (Gal. 3:27) and thus we are united with
the Triune God (Matt. 28:19). Our union with Christ consists of
fellowship with Him in His great redemptive events, including
His death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5), and in the
graces He obtained for us. Thus we partake of regeneration
(Titus 3:5), justification (Acts 2:38), adoption (Gal. 3:26-27)
and sanctification (I Cor. 6:11); in short, all the blessings of
the covenant of grace.
Moreover, being
united to Christ our head, we are also joined to His invisible,
spiritual body (I Cor. 12:13). Thus the believer joins himself
to a true church institute (Acts 2:41). In all this, the
believer lives a life of holy fellowship with the Triune God. He
is baptized into Christ's death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5).
He has put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). He will live a sanctified
life, putting sin to death and growing in grace. His ritual
baptism, as a constant reminder of the truth of God's covenant
of grace, serves to encourage him to obey the Lord his God out
of thankfulness.
This everlasting
bond will never be broken. On the last day, God will raise up
all the bodies of His elect children that they may dwell with
Him forever in the new heavens and the new earth. God's covenant
with man will be consummated (Rev. 21:3). These are the
ramifications of the salvation signified and sealed in our
baptism.
All this serves
to confirm our understanding of baptizein. Real baptism
is a radical spiritual transformation from death to life, from
darkness to light, from unrighteousness to righteousness, from
the power of Satan to the kingdom of God, from children of wrath
to children of our Father in heaven. This fits perfectly with
our definition of baptizein as to change thoroughly
the character, state or condition of an object.[115]
Contrariwise, we must ask, How does dipping indicate this
glorious translation? How do immersion and emersion signify the
transforming work of God in saving us?
Now the question
comes, Why does the Bible speak of "one baptism" (Eph.
4:5), when there are many baptisms spoken of in its sacred
pages? First, contrary to many baptists, we must affirm that the
baptism of Ephesians 4 is a spiritual baptism not a
ritual baptism, never mind a dipping![116] This baptism is effected
by the "one Spirit" into "one body" and
"one Lord" and, hence, into the "one [Triune] God
and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you
all" (vv. 4-6). This baptism was purchased by Christ on the
cross and effected in His elect by the Holy Spirit (vv. 7ff.).
Thus, in the context of Ephesians 4, all believers must be
longsuffering and endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit (vv.
1-3), since we all have "one Lord, one faith, one
baptism" (v. 5).
It is clear,
therefore, that not merely is this a spiritual baptism,
but it is also, second, an explicitly Christian baptism.
Thus the ceremonial cleansings ordered in the books of Moses
(cf. Heb. 9:10) and those foisted on the people by the legalist
Pharisees (Mark 7:2ff.) are not included in this one baptism.
The baptism of Noah and his family (I Peter 3:20-21), the
baptism of the Israelites into Moses (I Cor. 10:1-2) and
Johannic baptism (Acts 19:1-5)[117] also are not Christian
baptism. However, like the baptisms taught in the law they have
significance in teaching us something about the meaning of our one
baptism.
The baptisms
which Christ received—His baptism by the Spirit signified by His
water baptism at the Jordan (Matt. 3:13-17) and His baptism by
penal sufferings on the cross (Mark 10:38)—and the baptism into
the apostolate in Acts 2 are not Christian baptism either.
Rather, they "constituted a basis on which Christian
baptism was to rest, and without which it could not exist."[118]
On that historic day at the Jordan, Jesus undertook to fulfil
the duties of our great high priest and was equipped to do so by
the Holy Spirit. On the cross, He drank to the dregs the cup of
God's wrath against us for our transgressions of His law. There
our covenant head was baptized by penal sufferings into death
that we might be baptized into His death and into His
resurrection life.[119] His baptism enabled us to receive the
"one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5.[120]
What then of the
Pentecostal baptism? That too was necessary for our baptism,
because God was pleased by the labours of the apostles to erect
the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church on Christ, the
chief cornerstone. Through this church, God has been pleased to
preserve His truth through the ages that we might be brought
into fellowship with the Triune God in Christ, through our one
Christian baptism.
(VI) The Errors
of Immersionist Baptism
We must now
consider the many weaknesses inherent in the baptist
presentation of Christian baptism. All of these stem from the
mistaken notion that baptizein means always and only to
dip or immerse. We have seen how this forces them into an
unwarranted use of prepositions (en and eis). We
have also seen that the immersionist theory foists an alien
interpretation on Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12, which texts
are then called upon to lend support for their theory of
dipping.
Here we must
clearly state that the Reformed do not reject immersion as a
valid baptism.[121] Westminster Confession 28:2 gives the
classic Reformed view of the requirements for a valid baptism:
The outward
element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the
person is to be baptized into the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel,
lawfully called thereunto.
Thus, according
to the Westminster Confession, three things are needful
for a valid baptism. First, water must be applied to the
baptismal candidate. Second, he must be baptized into the name
of the Triune God. Third, the sacrament must be administered by
a lawfully called minister. Immersions in Trinitarian baptist
churches fulfil these criteria. Therefore, they have a valid
sacrament and we view it as such.
We do, however,
object to their unscriptural view of immersion-only baptism.[122]
When they bind the consciences of the people of God to something
that He has left free, they offend Christian liberty and divide
the body of Christ. They convert a gospel ordinance into a new
legalism.
Their second
error lies in their signification of immersion. Romans 6:3-5 and
Colossians 2:12 do not teach that the believer ought to
go down into water and arise from it in baptism and thus signify
his death and resurrection with Christ. This error compounds the
first. Not only do baptists (wrongly) make the mode of dipping
obligatory, but they also make the mode itself significant, even
the key for understanding baptism.[123]
These errors
have their effect upon the baptist presentation of the sacrament
of baptism and, therefore, on their teaching regarding
salvation. As Jay Adams observes:
The symbol
in the sacrament (which is an important thing) is either
disclosed (a purpose of the sacrament) or destroyed by a
true or false mode of observing the sacrament. Mode and
symbol, and therefore mode and meaning, cannot be
divorced.[124]
(1) First, they
err by misrepresenting the symbolism of the sacrament of
baptism. "Immersion in water and emersion out of it,"
states John Gill, is "a very expressive emblem of Christ,
his death, burial and resurrection from the dead." He
proceeds to mock the notion of "sprinkling a few drops of
water on the face."[125] A. H. Strong gives six instances of the
symbolism of baptism. Cleansing is not included, whereas the
death-burial-resurrection picture not only comes first, but it
is also the basis for several of his other instances.[126] All other
items of baptismal symbolism are "only subsidiary
pictures of the act of baptism," writes W. A. Jarrell:
its main
design being to picture the 'Gospel'—THE DEATH, THE
BURIAL AND THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. The 'gospel'—the
death, the burial and the resurrection of Christ-being
the FOUNDATION and the PROCURING CAUSE of all these other
things pictured in baptism, only the watery burial and
resurrection therefrom can be the picture expression and
profession of the 'gospel.'[127]
We agree with
the baptists that Christ's vicarious death, burial and
resurrection on the third day, according to the Scriptures, is
indeed the gospel (cf. I Cor. 15:3-4). However, we deny that
the rite of baptism was ordained by God to show forth Jesus
Christ's death, burial and resurrection by immersion in and
removal from water. The sacrament of baptism is definitely
not "a parable of Christ's death and resurrection in
the [immersion and emersion] of believers." Herman
Ridderbos is quite right to describe this view as
"fiction" and as having "no support
whatever."[128]
(2) This false
conception largely displaces the true symbolism of the
sacrament of baptism. Sadly, the baptists are so taken up with
the notion that baptism portrays our descending into and
rising from Christ's grave that they take insufficient note of
the sacramental element, the water.[129] Water is spoken of
in the Scriptures in two main senses: as a refreshing drink or
as a cleansing agent.[130] In its internal use, that is,
when a man drinks it, it is symbolic of life. When used externally,
on the skin, it speaks of purification. This latter use is
found time and time again on the sacred pages of the Bible,
and, indeed, the world over. Water is recognised as the
universal solvent.
The
representation of the Spirit by water is not uncommon in the
Old and New Testaments.[131] The problem is that it does not play
the proper role in baptist thinking about baptism. William
Williams states that he knows of no standard baptist
confession that "declares that baptism symbolises the
washing of the Holy Spirit."[132] Baptist works uniformly fail
to do justice to the picture of cleansing in the sacrament of
baptism. This is not surprising, since, in the baptist scheme,
water is forced to signify two things: a burial element
and a cleansing agent.[133]
In fact, the
baptists see two signs in baptism: that of the death,
burial and resurrection of Christ and that of purification. As
is the often the case in such situations, the seven lean kine
eat up the seven fat kine. How different is the intensely
biblical treatment of baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism!
In the two Lord's Days that deal with baptism, we find one
reference to purging, two to cleansing and no less than twelve
to washing.[134] Belgic Confession 34 expresses well the
signification of the baptismal rite:
as water
washeth away the filth of the body, when poured upon it,
and is seen in the body of the baptized, when sprinkled
upon him; so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the
Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from
its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath, unto
children of God.[135]
Had the
baptists gotten hold of the one signification of the
water in the sacrament, they would have been guarded against
the death-burial-resurrection notion. Ridderbos' comment is
correct:
So far as
the water of baptism is concerned, its symbolical
significance, as appears from the whole of the New
Testament, is that it purifies, not that one can sink down
into it and drown, to say nothing of being buried in
the water.[136]
(3) Rather
than focusing attention on the action of the water, the
baptist sacrament makes man the main sign. In effect, the
baptist tells those who witness an immersion, "Watch the
man being dipped. As he goes down into the water, think of
Christ's burial. As he comes up out of it, think of Christ's
resurrection." We are in full accord with the baptists
regarding the necessity of looking to Christ. Hebrews 12:1-2
describes the Christian life as an arduous marathon. Only by
looking to Jesus will we ever complete the course. That is not
the issue.
The problem is
that God has not constituted the sinner as the sign in the
rite of baptism. Whereas baptists berate the Reformed for
disobeying Christ's command to dip, the truth of the matter is
that they have misconstrued the baptismal sign. Westminster
Confession of Faith 27:2 states,
There is
in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental
union, between the sign and the thing signified;
whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the
one are attributed to the other.[137]
Thus we ask,
Where is the sacramental union between the dipped
sinner and the dead, buried and resurrected Christ? Any
semblance of such a thing in Romans 6:3-5 has already been
exploded. If it is true that what God has joined together man
must not put asunder, it is also true that what God has not
joined together, man must not seek to unite. There is no
sacramental union between the dipping sinner and Christ's
death, burial and resurrection, and baptists must not speak as
if there were.[138]
That the
sacramental union is between the water and the cleansing of
the Holy Spirit is affirmed by the Heidelberg Catechism's
Answer 71: "The Scripture calls baptism the washing of
regeneration [Titus 3:5], and the washing away of sins [Acts
22:16]." This is the heart of the sacrament of
baptism. As Louis Berkhof says,
The
sacramental union between the sign and that which is
signified ... is usually called the forma sacramenti
(forma here meaning essence), because it is
exactly the relation between the sign and the thing
signified that constitutes the essence of the sacrament.[139]
We may express
this in other terminology: it is the sacramental union which
constitutes baptism as a means of grace. Thus Belgic
Confession 33 states that the sacraments
are
visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing,
by means whereof God worketh in us by the power of
the Holy Ghost.
The baptist,
in tampering with the sign of baptism, affects the sacramental
union, which is the essence of the sacrament, and, hence,
the sacrament as a means of grace. In short, the
baptist has been led away from looking at the water, which
speaks of the sovereign, heavenly, purifying work of the
Spirit of Christ, into looking at the submerging and emerging
of a sinful man. That it is the farthest thing from the
divine mind to desire us to look at man is evident to all with
even a basic knowledge of the Bible. That God should wish us
to do this at a Christian sacrament, which speaks of His
mighty purifying work, is blasphemous.[140]
(4) The
presentation of man as the object of contemplation at the
sacrament of baptism-though they say it is to make them think
of Christ-has disastrous effects on the sacrament's ability to
witness to God's salvation. That an Arminian, like Oscar
Brooks, voices Arminian views when speaking of baptism does
not surprise us.[141] When, however, he says that his views on
baptism arose from a contemplation of his (ritual) baptism (or
immersionism), we take notice.[142]
More
disturbingly, we find Calvinistic baptists, like Samuel
Waldron, making strange remarks that baptism is, in part, a sign
of our faith.[143] If baptism is a sign of our faith is
it also a seal of our faith as well? As if God's
sacraments point anywhere other than to His salvation!
Again, we are
surprised when we consider the treatment of baptism given by
Dagg, another Calvinistic baptist. Dagg divides his chapter on
baptism into five sections. The fourth, "The Design of
Baptism," concerns itself with the significance of this
sacrament. Dagg's thesis is: "Baptism was designed to be
the ceremony of Christian profession."[144] What about baptism
as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace? or of renewal by
the Holy Spirit? Dagg subsumes all these under the subject of our
profession. Amazing! The best way to account for these
oversights is to say that these Calvinistic men were led
astray by the symbolism of a man's dipping in water, which
symbolism is far removed from the true significance of
biblical baptism.
(5) In the
baptist immersion, water is the receptive element. Instead of en
exclusively indicating instrumentality-baptizing with
water or with the Spirit-they make water the passive,
receptive element.
The water of
baptism symbolises the Holy Spirit. This is obvious to all and
the baptists admit this. Also this is proven by the Bible's
frequent paralleling of "baptizing with [en]
water" with "baptizing with (en) the Holy
Spirit." The baptist misunderstanding of the role of
water in baptism has serious implications for understanding
the role of the Holy Spirit in a baptism by dipping.
The primary
error of the baptist imagery is that it makes the Holy
Spirit passive. They might object that the water (and
hence the Spirit) is also passive in pouring or sprinkling,
but there is an important difference. The issue of the
Spirit's role as active or passive does not concern the human
administrator of the sacrament but the relation between the
baptized sinner and the water. In effusion (pouring) or
aspersion (sprinkling) the sinner is passive, and the water
(the Spirit) is active. In dipping the sinner goes down
(active) into the (passive) water. The symbolism is all wrong!
"The baptist view ... in presenting the Holy Ghost as a
quiescent receptacle," as Dale says, "revolutionises
the gospel scheme and, logically, subverts the cross of
Christ."[145]
The Spirit of
Christ is the omnipotent, immanent agent of the Triune God. He
is "the power of the Highest" (Luke
1:35). He is the one who revealed His might by raising up
Jesus from the dead (Rom. 8:11). He comes in Acts 2:2 with a
sound like "a rushing mighty wind" from heaven.
Nowhere more clearly is His power set forth, however, than in
His saving work upon the fallen sons of Adam. He sovereignly
regenerates dead sinners (John 3:5-8). He works faith in us
(Gal. 5:22). He distributes spiritual gifts (I Cor. 12:4). In
short, He is the great bestower of salvation. This salvation,
the Bible tells us, is entirely "the gift of God"
and not in any way "of works" (Eph. 2:8-9).
In effusion or
aspersion we see this. Through the symbolism of baptism, we
see the heavenly Spirit coming upon the dead sinner and
cleansing him and giving him life. The sinner just stands
there. He did nothing for his own salvation. He was entirely
passive. The sign fits with the reality of salvation.
However, in
dipping, it is not the Spirit who comes down, but the sinner
who goes down into the water. Man enters the Spirit,
symbolised by the waters.[146] The Spirit is passive. The baptismal
sign has been subverted. It does not properly point to the
great work of salvation applied by the Spirit of Christ.
To make
matters worse, one finds throughout baptist literature such
statements as Dagg's: "The significancy [sic] of baptism
requires immersion."[147] Note that Dagg is not merely saying
that the symbolism of baptism permits immersion but
that it requires it. Thus, for him, effusion or
aspersion do not convey the significance of baptism. In
so writing, Dagg is in harmony with the baptist confessions.
"Immersion,
or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to
the due administration of this ordinance" (The
Baptist Confession of Faith of 1688 29:4).[148]
"We
believe that Christian baptism is the immersion in
water ..." (The New Hampshire Baptist Confession
14 [1833]).[149]
"CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—This is the immersion of believers in water
..." (Confession of the Free-Will Baptists
17:1 [1834, 1868]).[150]
(6) The notion
that baptism equals immersion produces another problem.
Baptists effect their baptism by two distinct acts: a going
into and a coming out of water. The water, as we said,
symbolises the Holy Spirit, who unites the sinner with Christ
and, therefore, with the Triune God. The question then arises,
Why take the believer out of the water (the Holy Spirit)? How
can union with the Triune God possibly be signified by a
dipping in and a coming out of water? Moreover, how can
union with God in Christ possibly be signified by a momentary
immersion in and emersion from water? Surely if dipping
into water symbolises union with Christ, the sinner ought to
be kept there! Do we not believe the preservation and
perseverance of the saints? Then, of course, the confessing
Christian would drown. Such are the problems involved when the
significance of the sacrament is changed from its divinely
given original.
(7) From all
this it follows that the baptists ought to reconsider their
understanding of baptism. They often attack non-immersionists
for "disobeying the Lord's command to dip." They
accuse us of "will-worship" and say that we hold to
the "commandments of men."[151] W. A. Jarrell repeatedly
enters into a diatribe against the "incomplete
reformation" of the sixteenth century.[152] He even asks,
How can
anyone say that the substitution and practice [of
effusion] in the incompleteness of the sixteenth century
"Reformation" is not a fulfilment of Da[n]. 7:25
["he shall speak great words against the most High
... and think to change times and laws"]??[153]
However, from
what we have seen, it is the baptists need to return to the
"old paths" of the Word of God. They need
reformation in the area of the sacrament of baptism. Their
theory is false. Though we grant their baptism as valid, we
urge them to drop the rite of dipping. Instead, they ought to
baptize by effusion or aspersion. These are the best modes.
Should a
baptist minister become convinced of this, he should not just
preach the proper understanding of baptism, while continuing
with the faulty sign of dipping. The people will still be so
bewitched by the baptismal pool, the dippings and the dripping
robes that they will maintain their old misunderstanding of
baptism. They will continue to view it as the re-enactment of
Christ's burial and resurrection and be prone to conceive of
man as active and the Spirit as passive.
(8) Thus the
guilt of schism, which they would attach to us, lies wholly on
their side. They have disfigured one of the sacraments.[154] They
have made binding one (poor) mode of baptism to the
abandonment of two excellent modes. Therefore, the sin against
the unity of the church is with the baptists.
In so far as
they insist on a rite that is difficult to administer in
certain circumstances and in certain climates, they also sin
against the catholicity of the church.[155]
Remember that
this sacrament is intimately connected with the church's
attribute of universality in Acts 2:38-39 and her calling in
missions (cf. Matt. 28:19-20). Furthermore, since they lay
down and insist on laws which are not biblical and frame a
baptism which points to an Arminian conception of salvation,
we must conclude that they also sin against the apostolicity
and holiness of the church.
(VII) Conclusion
Many points
could be made by way of conclusion. We shall content ourselves
with enlarging upon just three positive implications.
(1) We have
a glorious doctrine of baptism to believe and to preach.
What a great comfort to have the great work of the Triune God
signified and sealed in such a wonderful sacrament! Reformed
and Presbyterian churches must explain to Christ's sheep the
meaning of Christian baptism, not neglecting to warn against
the faulty baptist notions regarding the mode.
We have the
"one baptism" of Ephesians 4:5 to proclaim. This
baptism is based upon and dependent on the baptism of Christ
on the cross, for which He was equipped, both ceremonially and
really, by His baptism at the Jordan. It comes to us by way of
the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, which is,
through the apostolic baptism on Pentecost, "built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20).
Reformed saints must live in the light of their baptism. They
must continually grow in their understanding of the
significance of their baptism "into the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt.
28:19).
They must not
be allowed to think that just because one group of churches is
called by the name "baptist," that they have any
particular insight into the initiatory sacrament. Their
position is false and does not properly sound forth the glory
of the gospel of grace. Let them not surpass us, in their zeal
for promoting their faulty baptism. We have the true,
God-glorifying view. Let it sound forth clearly and
antithetically.
(2) This paper
has deliberately avoided a discussion of paedobaptism
until now. That would have greatly lengthened it and led it
away from its one subject: the meaning of baptism.
However, the two cannot be separated, and this study has
implications for the subjects of baptism too. If
baptism is, as the baptists say, a sign of our profession
of faith, then it is obvious that babies cannot partake of the
sacrament. If baptism is, however, a sign and seal of what
God does in saving His people through the blood of Jesus,
then infants of believers are worthy subjects of the
sacrament.
Baptism, as we
have seen, is rooted in Old Testament revelation, with its
ceremonial purifications and sprinklings of blood, which
pointed to the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:10ff.). In the Old
Testament, especially, it is clear that children were in God's
covenant and received the sign of circumcision.[156] We have also
seen that baptism is purification by the Spirit of Christ and
that baptism concerns the promise of salvation (Acts 2:38-39).
These things pertain to the essence of baptism. They
tell us what baptism is all about. All these things are
fully consistent with paedobaptism.
Paedobaptism
is particularly good at showing forth the Triune God's
covenantal salvation in the line of generations.[157] God is
a family God, as the Father and the Son in the
Holy Spirit. The Father eternally generates the Son and the
Son is eternally begotten of the Father. God also deals with
His covenant people in generations. He saves His people in
this way since the whole idea of generating is something that
is rooted in His very Godhead.[158]
By rejecting
the sacrament of baptism for their children, baptists deny the
covenantal dealings of God in the generations of His people
and fail to realise the implications of believing in the great
Triune God. Thus baptists-even Reformed baptists (or, more
accurately, Calvinistic baptists)-fall into individualism,
and, hence, have a predisposition toward Arminianism. Such are
the dangers of the antipaedobaptist view.[159]
Second,
paedobaptism is a wonderful declaration that in baptism man is
passive. The Form for the Administration of Baptism
expresses
this well:
Although
our young children do not understand these things, we may
not therefore exclude them from baptism, for as they are without
their knowledge, partakers of the condemnation in
Adam, so are they again received unto grace in Christ …
Children of Christian parents (although they understand
not this mystery) must be baptized by virtue of the
covenant.[160]
As a final
point we note that in the Bible it is clear than infants can
have the real baptism.[161] Why then can they not have the sign of
salvation?[162] Being partakers of the covenant, the church, the
kingdom and the promise, children of believers must not be
forbidden Christian baptism.[163]
(3) Lastly,
this view of baptism expresses perfectly the doctrine of
sovereign grace. Real Christian baptism is the
thorough change of the state and condition of the elect sinner
by the sovereign Spirit of God who graciously applies the
blood of Jesus Christ to his heart. Ritual Christian
baptism is the sign and seal of this almighty purifying work
of the Spirit, who washes us from our sins and consecrates us
to the Triune God in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Endnotes
1Philip Schaff, The
Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3 (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1877), p. 741.
2Ibid.,
vol. 3, p. 747.
3Alexander
Carson, Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
repr. 1981), pp. 19, 55.
4J. L. Dagg,
Manual of Church Order (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, repr.
1990), p. 21.
5Augustus
Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, Three Volumes in One
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, repr. 1979), p. 933.
6Calvin,
however, believed that sprinkling was also a lawful mode of
baptism (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Henry Beveridge
trans., vol. 2 [Great Britain: James Clarke & Co., repr.
1949], p. 524 [4.15.19]).
7Also
Lutherans, Anglicans, Congregationalists and others are not
immersionists.
8The Form
for the Administration of Baptism is found in The Psalter (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1988), pp. 85-89.
9Logically,
the issue of the subjects of baptism is preceded by that of the
meaning of baptism. "What is baptism?" is a more
fundamental question than "Who are to be baptized?"
10Such as a
ship lying at the bottom of the sea, like the Titanic.
11The
baptist insistence on the completeness of the covering by water
is similar to the Jewish error expressed by Peter (John
13:9-10).
12This is
problematic for the baptists since many protest that a verb can
only be active (such as dipping) or transitive (describing a
state such as immersion) but not both active and transitive.
13Dagg, Op.
cit., pp. 23-31.
14Carson,
Op. cit., p. 76.
15"So
shall he sprinkle many nations" (Isa. 52:15).
16Cf. W. A.
Jarrell, Baptizo-Dip-Only (Dallas: All Color Press, repr. 1973),
p. 58.
17Dagg, Op.
cit., p. 36.
18Apparently,
it is an unwritten rule of the desert that all carried water is
for drinking only.
19The
length of time required to immerse the great crowd of converts
would have far exceeded that of Peter's sermon. It would be
strange if God chose to begin the New Testament church with such
an occupation with the sacramental rather than the kerugmatic
(cf. I Cor. 1:17-18).
20E.g.,
Strong, Op. cit.; R. E. O. White, The Biblical Doctrine of
Initiation: A Theology of Baptism and Evangelism (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1960); G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973).
21John
Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (USA: The
Baptist Standard Bearer, 1995), p. 913.
22Neither
in Acts 9 or anywhere else in the New Testament do we read
anything of baptized persons having to dry themselves or change
their clothes, something one might expect if all baptisms were
by immersion.
23Interestingly,
both these baptisms are referred to in the prayers in the Form
for the Administration of Baptism used by the Reformed churches
(The Psalter, pp. 86, 88).
24Carson,
Op. cit., pp. 119-120, 328-331, 366-367.
25Dagg, Op.
cit., p. 29; italics Dagg's.
26Carson,
Op. cit., p. 388.
27Gill, Op.
cit., p. 911.
28Beasley-Murray,
however, opposes this view (Op. cit., pp. 259-260).
29W. H. T.
Dau, "Baptism," in James Orr gen. ed., The
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 1 (USA:
Hendrickson, repr. 1996), p. 396.
30Carson,
Op. cit., p. 366.
31Ibid., p.
104.
32The
Spirit is poured out in Acts 2:17, 18, 33; 10:45. In Acts 1:8,
He is spoken of as coming down on the apostles. He falls upon
believers in Acts 10:44; 11:15. This is in full agreement with
the presentation of the coming of the Spirit in the Old
Testament (Prov. 1:23; Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Eze. 39:29; Joel
2:28-29; Zech. 12:10).
33Matt.
3:11; Luke 3:16; Acts 1:4-5; cf. Acts 8:16; 10:44-48; 11:15-16.
Carson can write that "the pouring out of the Spirit is
[totally] different ... from the baptism of the Spirit,"
only because he is thoroughly blinded by the notion that baptism
always and only means to immerse (Op. cit., p. 109).
34Ibid.,
pp. 104-105.
35Ibid., p.
105.
36Ibid.,
pp. 108-109.
37Jay E.
Adams, The Meaning and Mode of Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P
& R, 1980), p. 22. This is a most helpful little book on the
subject of this article.
38James
Oliver Buswell may well be correct in seeing in the sprinkled
hearts of Hebrews 10:22 "an allusion to the significance of
baptism," in accordance with the usage of sprinkle in
Hebrews 9 (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Two
Volumes in One [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, repr. 1975], part 2,
pp. 249-250).
39It is no
wonder that Westminster Confession of Faith 28:3 refers to
Hebrews 9 first, when dealing with the mode of baptism.
40Dagg, Op.
cit., p. 28; italics Dagg's. Similarly, Carson also states,
"The translation ought to be 'different immersions,' not
'different washings'" (Op. cit., p. 76). Gill likewise
understands the baptisms of Hebrews 9:10 as immersions (Op.
cit., p. 897).
41Thus the
"doctrine of baptisms" of Hebrews 6:2 is not "the
doctrine of dippings or immersions."
42John Owen concludes from
his study of the use of the word baptizein in the Bible:
"No one instance can be given in the Scripture wherein [it]
doth necessarily signify either 'to dip' or 'plunge'" (The
Works of John Owen [Edinburgh: Banner, 1968], vol. 16, p. 266).
43Joseph
Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New
York, Cincinnati, Chicago: American Book Company, rev. 1889), p.
16.
44Christy
believes that John left the Jordan for the "many
springs" of Aenon to avoid "the foul, muddy flood of
the Jordan overflowing all its banks, as it usually did at this
season of the year (Joshua 3:15)." After all, "clean
water" was "the insistent requirement of the law"
(quoted in Adams, Op. cit., p. 13).
45William
L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICOT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 49-50.
46James W.
Dale, Johannic Baptism (USA: Bolchazy-Carducci, P & R and
Loewe Belfort, repr. 1993), p. 332; italics Dale's. Dale gives
many examples to support his position (pp. 332-336).
47Ibid., p.
329. Elijah certainly did not use the water for dipping!
48Thayer,
Op. cit., p. 209.
49A. T.
Robertson, "Baptism," in James Orr gen. ed., The
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 1 (USA:
Hendrickson, repr. 1996), p. 386.
50Robert C.
Harbach is correct. It is only "a superficial reading of
Matthew's account" of Jesus' baptism which would "lead
one to presuppose immersion" (The Biblical Mode of Baptism
[A Pamphlet Issued and Distributed by the Sunday School of the
First Protestant Reformed Church, Grand Rapids], p. 13).
51That the
Jordan is used as a locality is proven by Matthew 3:13, which
speaks of Jesus coming "to [epi, upon, at] Jordan unto
John."
52However,
a baptist grammarian, Daniel B. Wallace, tries to use udati in
both senses. He states that udati in Luke 3:16 "seems to
function in a double-duty capacity-specifying both the place of
baptism and the means of baptism" (Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], p. 155; italics
Wallace's).
53Dale
gives extensive instances of the instrumental use of en in
Classic and Hellenistic Greek and in the Septuagint, Apocrypha
and New Testament (Johannic Baptism, pp. 155-178). Buswell
quotes A. T. Robertson's Greek grammar as saying, "The
instrumental use of en is common" (Op. cit., part 2, p.
253).
54Cf.
Albrecht Oepke, "baptoo, baptizoo, baptismos, baptisma,
baptistes," in Gerhard Kittel ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley
trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p. 539.
55Thayer,
Op. cit., pp. 183, 189.
56Robertson,
"Baptism," pp. 386-387.
57Thus
Strong, with reference to Mark 1:9, affirms that the Jordan
"is the element into which the person passes in the act of
being baptized" (Op. cit., p. 935; cf. Gill, Op.
cit., p.
910). However, Wallace, a contemporary baptist grammarian, is
more cautious. He notes the overlap in the usage of eis and
en
and states that ebaptisthe eis ton Jordanen" ("He was
baptized eis the Jordan") in Mark 1:9 is "less than an
iron-clad argument for baptismal immersion." He also states
that eis approaches the domain of en more than vice versa
(Op. cit., p. 363, n. 18; emphasis Wallace's).
58Dale,
Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism, p. 310.
59Cf. A. T.
Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels For Students of the Life of
Christ (New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London: Harper
& Row, repr. 1952), p. 19.
60R. C. H.
Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark's and St. Luke's Gospels
(Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, 1934), p. 22; cf. pp.
29-30.
61See John
20:19. Also compare Luke 21:37 with Matthew 21:7 and John 9:7
with John 9:11 in the Greek.
62For
further discussion of Mark 1:9, see Dale, Johannic Baptism, pp.
377-406, esp. pp. 388-396.
63Robert L.
Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 935; italics Reymond’s.
See Harbach, Op. cit., p. 23. Harbach also writes that baptist
baptisms are "valid, although not Scriptural" (p. 3).
64Robertson
refers to this as the "obvious and inevitable
interpretation" ("Baptism," p. 387).
Significantly, neither the Three Forms of Unity nor the
Westminster Standards nor any of the historic Reformed, Anglican
or Lutheran creeds know of such symbolism in the sacrament of
baptism (cf. Peter Hall trans. and ed., The Harmony of the
Reformed Confessions [USA: Still Water Revival Books, repr.
1992], pp. 301-315).
65W. A.
Jarrell quotes Philip Schaff (1819-1893) on Romans 6:4-5:
All
commentators of any note [except {Moses} Stuart and
{Charles} Hodge] expressly admit or take it for granted that
in this verse the ancient prevailing mode of baptism by
immersion is implied as giving force to the idea (Op. cit.,
p. 103).
66One
baptist, Oscar Stevenson Brooks, admits,
[Paul]
does not follow the expected analogy [only expected by
baptists!] of Christ's resurrection and the believer's
resurrection from the waters of baptism. If this were the
symbolism in baptism, Paul failed to capitalise on it (The
Drama of Decision: Baptism in the New Testament [USA:
Hendrikson, 1987], p. 119).
Brooks also
admits that Colossians 2:12 does not prove that the believer's
immersion signifies Christ's burial nor that his emersion
signifies His resurrection (p. 125). Yet he still clings to the
standard baptist representation throughout his book!
67John
Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICOT, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, repr. 1964), p. 215, n. 3. Herman Ridderbos also
firmly rejects the baptist eisegesis of this text: "Baptism
is not a grave and a resurrection" (Paul: An Outline of His
Theology, John Richard De Witt trans. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
repr. 1992], p. 404).
68Owen, Works, vol. 16, p.
268.
69Harbach,
Op. cit., p. 22.
70Baptists
tend to refer to Romans 6:3-5 first, rather than Colossians
2:12, probably because they want to avoid awkward questions
arising from the verse preceding the latter (i.e., Col. 2:11),
regarding the parallel between circumcision and baptism, and its
implications for paedobaptism.
71For a
fine exposition of Colossians 2:12, in opposition to the baptist
view, see John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the
Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (London and Glasgow: Richard
Griffin and Co., 1856), pp. 152-157. Eadie, who is not a man
prone to make rash statements, writes, "The Colossians did
not personate death and burial in baptism any more than they
imitated the circumcision of Moses" (p. 154).
72Nevertheless,
as Jay Adams says, "The outcome of the debate hangs
entirely upon the teaching of the Scriptures, and nothing
more" (Op. cit., p. 5, n. 6).
73James W.
Dale, Classic Baptism (USA: Bolchazy-Carducci and P & R,
repr. 1989); Judaic Baptism (USA: Bolchazy-Carducci, P & R
and Loewe Belfort, repr. 1991); and Christic Baptism and
Patristic Baptism, pp. 473-630.
74Adams,
Op. cit., p. 5, n. 6. Similarly, Lenski speaks of the baptists'
"uncritical exegetical traditionalism" (Op. cit., p.
23).
75Buswell,
Op. cit., part 2, p. 243.
76W. A.
Jarrell in his Baptizo-Dip-Only spends most of his time fighting
against the straw-man he has erected. The Reformed do not
understand baptizein to mean either sprinkling or pouring, or
that it indicates mode at all!
77We must
agree with the baptists that if baptizein does indicate a mode
in the Greek classics, immersion is the only mode which would
have any appearance of fitting the facts. After all how can a
ship which has sunk to the bottom of the sea be said to have
been sprinkled or poured? Immersion, however, also fails. For
example Dale, in his Classic Baptism, refers to baptizein being
used by classical authors in instances where the intellect was
baptized by blood boiling up the veins (p. 259) and the soul was
baptized by the body (p. 264). Baptisms are also affected by
anger, grief, misfortunes, calamity, multitude of evils,
diseases, acts of a wizard, taxes, debts (pp. 284-285), drugs,
wine and sleep (p. 317). Also the ancients spoke of a garment
being baptized by solar rays (i.e. dyed by the sun).
78Adams,
Op. cit., p. 14.
79Quoted in
Dale, Johannic Baptism, p. 401.
80Dale,
Classic Baptism, p. 354. W. A. Jarrell was clearly aware of
Dale's thesis regarding the meaning of baptizein, but he does
not engage in any significant interaction with it (Op. cit., pp.
17-18, 44, 55). He refers rather disparagingly to Dale's works
as being "against baptism" (pp. 17, 55), as if to
attack the notion that baptizein means "to immerse" or
"to dip" were to attack the ordinance of God.
81John
Murray, Christian Baptism (Philadelphia: The Committee on
Christian Education, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1952), p.
33; italics mine.
82We should
add that ritual baptisms (both Johannic and Christian) symbolize
the great change wrought by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the
elect. This understanding of baptism agrees with the baptists in
that it sees baptizein as a powerful word. It differs from their
definition in seeing the power of baptizein not as an immersion
but a radical transformation.
83Dale,
Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism, p. 308.
84Murray,
Christian Baptism, p. 32.
85Dale,
Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism, p. 309.
86Cf. John
1:7, 8, 15, 23, 26-27, 29-37; 3:26, 29-36; 5:32-36.
87Cf.
Brooks: "John the Baptist's vital message was: 'I have been
sent from God to baptize with water; my baptism will reveal the
unknown Messiah'" (Op. cit., p. 78).
88As the
Servant of Jehovah, Jesus is, of course, also our prophet and
our king.
89Robertson
refers to Jesus' counter-question to the chief priests as
"pertinent" and says that, "He did not dodge in
His answer." He also states, "Jesus bases His human
authority on John the Baptist, His forerunner who baptized
Him." He does not, however, explain how Jesus' authority
depended on John's baptism and, with his baptist principles, it
is hard to see how he could (A Harmony of the Gospels, p. 160).
90Adams,
Op. cit., p. 17; italics mine.
91The water
of Jesus' baptism, like the water of Mosaic baptism (I Cor.
10:1-2), but unlike the water of Christian baptism, does not
signify the forgiveness of sins. Water was the element with
which He was consecrated to His high office.
92For more
on Jesus' water baptism by John as His initiation into the
priesthood, see Dale, Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism,
pp. 27-31; Adams, Op. cit., pp. 16-20.
93These
were not divinely prescribed.
94As we
have seen, numbers 6 and 7 are intimately related since Jesus'
real baptism by the Spirit was signified by His ritual water
baptism.
95The
Scriptures also speak (hypothetically) of a baptism into the
name of Paul (I Cor. 1:13, 15).
96T. M.
Lindsay, "Baptism," in James Orr gen. ed., The
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 1 (USA:
Hendrickson, repr. 1996), 393; Beasley-Murray, Op. cit., pp.
263-264. I have rearranged and omitted some of their material.
97Calvin
stresses the relationship between baptism and adoption. He
writes at the very beginning of his treatment of baptism:
"Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to
the fellowship of the Church, that being engrafted into Christ
we may be accounted children of God" (Op. cit., vol. 2, p.
513 [4.15.1]; italics mine). See also the Second Helvetic
Confession 20 (Schaff, Op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 889-890).
98Beasley-Murray
issues a disclaimer: he is not attempting "to give
exhaustive references" (Op. cit., p. 263).
99The
baptist confessions make no reference to the covenant in their
treatment of baptism.
100Beasley-Murray,
Op. cit., p. 272. Herman Ridderbos makes a similar association
between the Spirit and baptism: "given the connection
between the Spirit and baptism, what applies to the Spirit can
be easily transferred to baptism" (Op. cit., p. 400).
101Belgic
Confession 9 even uses this text as one of its proofs for the
doctrine of the Trinity. It also appeals to the Father's
speaking and the Spirit's descending at our Lord's baptism at
the Jordan.
102Hoeksema,
Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: RFPA, 1966), p. 674. For a
defence of this understanding of the phrase "into the
name," see Dale, Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism,
pp. 403-469.
103Heinrich
Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, G. T. Thompson trans. (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1978), p. 615. See also the Form for the Administration
of Baptism (The Psalter, p. 85).
104The
Trinitarian and covenantal nature of baptism under girds the
Form for the Administration of Baptism (The Psalter, pp. 85-89).
105Brooks,
Op. cit., pp. 135-159.
106Cf.
Ibid., pp. x, 149. Brooks is not alone in holding that baptism
plays a very significant role in I Peter (cf. White, Op.
cit.,
pp. 228-231; Beasley-Murray, Op. cit., pp. 251-258).
107Brooks,
Op. cit., pp. 157, 143.
108White,
Op. cit., pp. 228-229.
109Brooks,
Op. cit., pp. 144-157.
110Ibid.,
p. 153. Brooks' analysis of I Peter as a "baptismal
tract" breaks down in his rather brief treatment of
4:1-5:14 (p. 157).
111Cf.
Christ's institution of baptism in Matthew 28:19.
112Peter
goes on to treat election alongside reprobation in I Peter
2:8-9. The elect church is formed into the covenant people of
God (vv. 5, 9-10) and founded on the elect Christ (vv. 4, 6),
the chief cornerstone (vv. 4-8).
113Baptism
presents our initiation, whereas the Holy Supper is a sign and
seal of our continuation in God's salvation (cf. Westminster
Larger Catechism, Q. & A. 177; Heppe, Op. cit., p. 627). In
the words of Turretin, our "nativity is adumbrated by
baptism," but our "nutrition by the Supper" (Institutes of Elenctic
Theology, George Musgrave Giger trans.,
vol. 3 [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1997], p. 378; italics
mine).
114Brooks
(an Arminian) unwittingly quotes Romans 1:16 in connection with
the baptism of Romans 6:3-5 (Op. cit., p. 111). Baptism is thus
a sign and seal of "the gospel of Christ" as "the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."
115The
translators of our Authorised Version (KJV) did well to render
baptizein as "to baptize."
116E.g., V.
C. Mayes believes in "one immersion" (see the
"Foreword" to W. A. Jarrell, Op. cit., pp. vi-vii).
For a defence of the position that the "one baptism"
of Ephesians 4:5 is spiritual baptism, see Dale, Christic
Baptism and Patristic Baptism, pp. 344-351.
117John's
baptism was preparatory for the coming of the Messiah and ended
with his (John's) death.
118Dale,
Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism, p. 94.
119Thus in
our spiritual baptism we partake of the baptism of Christ on the
cross, for we share in His sufferings (cf. Westminster
Confession of Faith 26:1). Similarly, James and John drank of
the cup of Christ's sufferings, though not of course as a
propitiation for their own sins or for the sins of others (Mark
10:39).
120As John
Henry Heidegger observes, "The [early Church] Fathers
rather aptly declared that our baptism derived its power and
efficacy from contact with the Christ baptized by John"
(quoted in Heppe, Op. cit., p. 617).
121Cf.
Westminster Confession of Faith 28:3; Form for the
Administration of Baptism (The Psalter, p. 85).
122Cf.
Westminster Confession of Faith 28:3:
Dipping
of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism
is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon
the person.
123Baptist
immersionism is not alone in adding something to the simple
biblical ordinance of baptism and then making that addition
significant. Some advocate trine (i.e. triple) immersion and see
in the three dippings a pointer to the three days and nights
Christ was in the grave. The ancient church, especially in the
West, increasingly practised anointing with oil or the laying on
of hands by the bishop after baptism and saw in this the
conferral of the Holy Spirit.
124Adams,
Op. cit., p. vi; italics mine. After all, church ceremonies, if
given theological significance, will surely have doctrinal
ramifications.
125Gill,
Op. cit., p. 899. For other references to the death-resurrection
symbolism, see pp. 905, 911, 914.
126Strong,
Op. cit., pp. 940-942. See also pp. 942-945.
127Jarrell,
Op. cit., p. 99, n. 1; emphasis Jarrell's.
128Ridderbos,
Op. cit., pp. 404, 402.
129There
are three sacramental elements: water in baptism and bread and
wine in the Lord's Supper (Westminster Confession of Faith 28:2;
29:3, 5-7; French Confession of Faith 38 [Schaff, Op.
cit., vol.
3, p. 381]; Second Helvetic Confession 19 [Ibid., vol. 3, p.
887]; Heppe, Op. cit., pp. 593-594).
130Scripture
also has several references to water at the creation and at the
flood (cf. Leonhard Goppelt, "hudoor," in Gerhard
Kittel ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley trans. and ed., Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 8 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1964], pp. 314-333).
131E.g.,
Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28; John 3:5; I Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:5.
132William
G. Williams, Baptism: A Discussion of the Words, "Buried
with Christ in Baptism" (Cincinnati: Jennings & Pye and
New York: Eaton & Mains, 1901), pp. 75-76.
133For
example, W. A. Jarrell speaks of a "watery burial and
resurrection" (Op. cit., p. 99, n. 1; italics mine).
134Heidelberg
Catechism, Lord's Days 28-29.
135Cf.
Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 69, 73; Westminster Larger
Catechism, Q. & A. 165; Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. &
A. 94. The Form for the Administration of Baptism also brings out
the cleansing symbolism (The Psalter, pp. 85-89).
136Ridderbos,
Op. cit., p. 402; italics mine.
137Cf.
Belgic Confession 35: "the sacraments are connected with
the thing signified."
138One
wonders if the baptist weakness regarding the sacramental union
was in any way responsible for the omission of most of the
material in the Westminster Confession's chapter "Of the
Sacraments" (27) by the Baptist Confession of Faith (28).
Samuel E. Waldron, however, does not suggest this (A Modern
Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith [Great
Britain: Evangelical Press, 1989], pp. 337-338).
139Louis
Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev.
1996), p. 618; italics mine. Cf. Turretin, Op. cit., vol. 3, p.
348; Heppe, Op. cit., pp. 597, 638.
140Calvin's
statement may be taken as axiomatic: "it is certain that
all ceremonies are corrupt and noxious which do not direct men
to Christ" (Op. cit., vol. 2, p. 424 [4.10.15]).
141Thus
Brooks writes,
Believers, accepting the presentation of the gospel with its
emphasis on Christ's death, gladly entered the baptismal
waters to dramatise their faith response to the
salvation event in Christ and to indelibly associate
themselves with their Lord (Op. cit., p. 120;
italics mine).
142Ibid.,
pp. ix, 161. See also the back cover.
143Waldron
writes, "Baptism symbolises a saving response to the
gospel." "Baptism symbolises compliance with
the demands of the gospel." "Baptism is a symbol of both
the blessings of the gospel and the saving response to
the gospel. It symbolises repentance and
forgiveness" (Op. cit., pp. 347, 350; italics mine).
144Dagg, Op.
cit., p. 70.
145Dale, Johannic
Baptism, p. 178.
146Interestingly,
while the baptist puts the sinner in the Spirit, the Bible puts
the Spirit in the elect sinner: "I will put my Spirit
within you" (Eze. 36:27; cf. Harbach, Op. cit., p.
16).
147Dagg, Op.
cit., p. 38; italics mine.
148Schaff, Op.
cit., vol. 3, p. 741; italics mine.
149Ibid.,
vol. 3, p. 747; italics mine.
150Ibid.,
vol. 3, p. 755; italics mine.
151E.g.,
Gill, Op. cit., pp. 899, 909. Jarrell puts it very
pointedly: "Dear Christian minister, Christian scholar,
Christian, WILL YOU OBEY GOD IN IMMERSION, OR WILL YOU OBEY MEN
BY EFFUSION?" (Op. cit., p. 43; emphasis Jarrell's).
152Ibid.,
pp. 72-85, 98.
153Ibid.,
p. 77; italics Jarrell's.
154Remember
that the proper administration of the sacraments is one of the
three marks of a true church (cf. Belgic Confession 29).
155This
charge is made by many, including Charles Hodge (Systematic
Theology, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1986], p.
538).
156For an
excellent, brief treatment of the significance of Old Testament
circumcision for New Testament infants, see J. Barton Payne, The
Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1962), pp. 391-394.
157This is
taught repeatedly in the Scriptures (Gen. 3:15; 17:9, 12; Ex.
20:5-6; Ps. 78:4-6; 90:1; 105:8ff.; Isa. 59:21; Acts 2:38-39; II
Tim. 1:5).
158This
view is violently opposed to the anabaptist notion of the Schleitheim
Confession of 1527, which speaks of infant baptism as
"the highest and chief abomination of the pope" (John
H. Leith ed., Creeds of the Churches [New York: Anchor
Books, 1963], p. 284). Thus we confess with Belgic Confession
34: "we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who ...
condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe
ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the
covenant."
159John
Murray points out that the facile individualism of
antipaedobaptism is part of its fatal attraction: "To think
organically of the Scripture revelation is much more difficult
than to think atomistically" (Christian Baptism, p.
2). Similarly, Brian Chapell writes, “What is foreign to our
thought today is the biblical principle of representative
headship. Our lack of familiarity with this principle is one of
the reasons why our individualistic culture struggles to accept
the covenant family principles and practices of Scripture”
(“A Pastoral Overview of Infant Baptism” in The Case for
Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Greg Strawbridge
[Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003], p. 20).
160The
Psalter, pp. 86, 87.
161Cf. Ps.
22:10; 139:13; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 21:16; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 1:15;
Eph. 6:1-3.
162Cf. Acts
10:47. Second Helvetic Confession 20 argues similarly (Schaff,
Op. cit., vol. 3, p. 891).
163Cf. Heidelberg
Catechism, Q. & A. 74.
|
