Baptism 1

Well we are Baptists so we have an intuitive feeling that we must be the world experts on baptism and that we must have it right and everyone else must have it less right or maybe even wrong. However, in some ways we hold a lower view of baptism than some other denominations. What I mean by that is some denominations believe that baptism actually saves a person while we believe that it provides a testimony of a salvation experience. While baptism in our view is not an essential of the faith we do believe that it is very important and we make it a requirement for church membership.

We need to know what we believe about baptism if for no other reason than because we differ from most believers down through the ages in some key aspects of our doctrine of baptism. We as a Sunday School Class will be unlikely to all agree on all the aspects I cover and that is OK. I realize that there is a great deal of variation within the Body of Christ in general and even within the Baptist Church in particular with regard to Baptism.

One thing to keep in mind (especially in Scripture study and especially in this study of baptism) is that there is no inherent virtue in being conservative. Liberals may need correction and conservatives may need reformation. From time to time in history liberals have stimulated reformation. To make yourself comfortable you can think of liberals who have turned out to be right as simply better conservatives since often the call is to a higher standard. For example, Rosa Parks just called us to a standard of common courtesy that was entirely Biblical. What has that got to do with baptism? Well we (Baptists) are liberals in the sense that we are calling for practices in baptism that have not been the majority report. The Body of Christ has generally not baptized by immersion and the Body of Christ has generally baptized the infants of believing parents. So we are either reformers or just liberals. If you want to answer the question then you must answer the question from Scripture.

The concept in “Sola Scriptura” is that Scripture is authoritative and that the Body of Christ has been seeking that alignment through tradition since the first century so that creeds and traditions have a significant role in the Church. Scripture may correct tradition but tradition is viewed as otherwise significant in shaping our practice as believers.

Alister McGrath, writing in The Science of God, develops 2 important aspects of tradition in the Church. They are:

1) Considered as a process of transmission, the notion of tradition embraces far more than the mere oral transfer of ideas from one individual to another. The process of inter-generational transmission of the faith has been institutionalized. This process is already evident in the Pastoral Epistles, where the importance of offices and institutions in preserving the integrity of the ‘deposit of faith’ is heavily emphasized.

2) Considered as transmitted reality, tradition includes institutions, practices, systems of symbols, values and beliefs. It is unacceptable to limit the notion of tradition merely to ideas; what is passed on from one generation to another are ways of thinking, existing, seeing, living, belonging, and behaving. It is a deeply socially embedded concept, which embraces matters of doctrine while at the same time transcending them.”

This gives us a needed focus back on the rest of Christ’s Body as we formulate our statement of what we believe is true about our expression of baptism. We must acknowledge that God has been directing the Church through the centuries. This is, in part, what gives tradition value in our lives as Christians. The knowledge that most of the Church throughout most of the Church’s existence has practiced paedobaptism means that Baptists should approach believer’s baptism with great humility. If I formulate a view of baptism that places me in the position of arguing that the baptisms of most of the Church throughout most of history are fatally flawed then I would be arguing that God left the Church in an unacceptable position with regard to baptism for centuries. So, if I differ in mode or subject of baptism then it is likely that I may decide that the prior decision was less desirable or less consistent with the meaning of baptism. My carpenter ancestors knew something very important about passing on information. If we want 100 boards of the same length then my grandfather would use the same standard each time. He would have objected loudly if someone had been working by cutting the first board, then measuring the second from the first, and the third from the second, and so forth until you measured the 100th from the 99th board. You’d have a mess is what you’d have either a gradually decreasing or decreasing mess. You must go back to the standard each time. We can’t use tradition without the standard.

Every tradition of ours must stand or fall before Scripture. I say that knowing that some denominations elevate the authority of church tradition to that of Scripture but also knowing that God’s Word will not be defeated. I need to submit my own view of Baptism to Scripture for correction. I want to approach our study of Baptism first by asking if our point of view is OK. Is believer’s baptism by immersion inconsistent with Scripture? If it is inconsistent then we need to reform our point of view regardless of what the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Church of Christ or any other denomination teaches. All that we can really address right now is our (us, right here, right now) faithfulness to Scripture. If we need to respectfully differ from the majority then so be it. There was a day when our decision on this topic could get us killed by other believers. Thankfully this is not that day.

As I’ve read arguments from other denominations I’ve been reminded first, not to argue, and secondly, that a text without a context is a pretext, and thirdly, never trust an ellipsis (especially from a man arguing a text without a context).

Aspersion, Effusion, Immersion:

Let’s first look at descriptions of baptisms as best we can from Scripture looking for mode of baptism. We’ll look first to see what it the most reasonable understanding for the way in which baptisms were conducted. In other words, were they sprinkled (aspersion), poured (effusion), or dunked (immersion). We can simply approach it by looking at the most reasonable inferences of the most relevant Scriptures.

Matthew 3:5-6
Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Don’t forget that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance but it looked like the baptism we practice. John was baptizing in the river Jordan. So he was not using water in a container. He was outside in a river.

Matthew 3:13-16
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;

So Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan River. As John pointed out, Jesus didn’t have any sins to repent from. However, consider what was happening in His life. For thirty years He had been a son and then a servant for His brothers and mother. We don’t know for certain when it happened but at some point Joseph apparently died. Jesus was the head of household as the oldest son. So in a very real sense as Jesus began His ministry he was turning from (repenting) being a surrogate father and son of Mary to being a Faithful Shepherd and Son of God.

Notice also that Jesus “went up from the water” so he didn’t walk away from the water’s edge but he came out of the water.

Mark 1:4-5
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

So we see again from another Gospel that John was in the wilderness baptizing in a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. So participants were repenting and asking God for forgiveness “in the river Jordan.”

Mark 1:9-11
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

And from the Gospel of Mark we see that Scripture says that Jesus “came up out of the water” rather than walked away from the edge. He was baptized “in the Jordan” and not by it or near it.

John 3:22-24
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized (for John had not yet been put in prison).

Now Jesus and his disciples were baptizing in the Judean countryside and John was baptizing at Aenon near Salim. Aenon probably means spring (there may have been more than one) so John had source of flowing water near a headwater so it would have been clear and cold. This may have been a valley full of springs that then flowed into the Jordan.

Acts 8:35-39
Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

We can learn a few things here because of what they pass over. The eunuch is looking for a quantity of water that is greater than a quart or two. So they went down into the water and not beside it. Then they came up out of the water and not from beside the water.

Acts 10:46-48
For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

So here we have some folks who are obviously believers and then Peter commands that they be baptized in the name of Jesus. So why not do it right there with some water? They must have had some around. Apparently the baptism was not something that Peter could not do immediately.

Certainly our teaching of baptism by immersion seems to fit the model presented in Scripture. We can’t find anything in Scripture that would teach that our mode is inappropriate. In fact it seems completely appropriate with regard to the Scriptures present with one difference. Based on biblical examples, we should be outside in flowing water. Now you can argue that Scripture doesn’t command that but only that you find it as the example set for us. So you can then argue that a pool of water should be OK because Scripture doesn’t forbid the use of a pool. Just remember your argument when you hear it used to justify effusion or aspersion .

What about the Greek word used for baptism?

Here is what Calvin, said about baptism…
“Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.” Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV, xv, 19.

Calvin is making statements here without any reference to Scripture so we can enjoy his confidence as he sits out on a limb. We can see that even someone who rejected immersion (apparently because, within the “diversity of climates”, Calvin lived where it was too cold) would not argue the meaning of the Greek word.

The word Greek word seems to suggest immersion very strongly. For example, synonyms include plunge, drowned, dip, immerse, and wash with some non-Christian literature would also suggest plunge, sink, drench, and overwhelm. It was used for example to indicate the sinking of a ship and in other Greek writings the general meaning of sinking or drowning is common while bathing or washing is rare. Berkhof is a very good author and I’d recommend his systematic theology but in his effort to support a “less than immersion” point of view he mixes a couple of Greek words. Baptizo (βαπτίζω) is the word we are studying and Berkhof mixes in Bapto (βάπτω) in an effort to find some usage that is less than immersion. We should also note that the Greek word rhantizo (ῥαντίζω) exists, was used in the New Testament, and means sprinkle (Hebrews 9:13, 9:19, 9:21, and 10:22). For example, the word is used in the following verse.

Hebrews 9:11-14
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

So the author of Hebrews (who probably was not Paul and I’m saying that so that when I attribute the words to Paul you’ll forgive me) draws the parallel of Jesus blood that sprinkled down with the method of applying the blood of sacrifices in the Old Testament. This is not baptism. This is dealing with the blood of the atonement.

So if we simply look at the New Testament verses and the Greek words the plain interpretation is that Baptism was by immersion based on the practice as described, the Greek words used to describe it, and the Greek words not used to describe it.

Next week we'll study the symbols present in baptism. For me the symbols drive both the mode and subject for baptism.