Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Christian Baptism
By
The Rev Robert West
Baptism has often been a subject of controversy within Christendom and it still is even today.
There are three areas of controversy concerning what most Christians think of baptism which
is the initiatory sacrament or symbol into the Christian faith.
These controversies are about the means of baptism - whether by dipping or immersion
only, or by some other way; whether for believers only or also for their infants; and whether
or not the sacrament of baptism effects or is necessary for salvation.
The first area of controversy is about the mode of baptism; the second area of controversy
is concerned with the subjects of baptism; and the third area of disagreement is clearly
the effect, need or consequence of baptism. But first we need to understand what a sacrament
is in the Christian faith.
A sacrament, as we use the word in Christian theology, is really an outward sign or symbol
of an inner or inward spiritual grace and reality.
In baptism water, the outward sign, which washes the body symbolises the Holy Ghost,
the inward power and Person, who cleanses the soul.
Baptism is also an outward seal of what we inwardly experience: to our outward senses
it attests and confirms what we should inwardly own or profess, namely regeneration.
The sacraments are also commands: the Lord commands His people to be baptised to [symbolically]
wash away their sins and Paul instructs us that when we obey the command to eat the bread
and drink the wine in the Lord’s Supper we are communing [spiritually] with the body
and blood of Christ after a heavenly rather than a corporeal fashion.
So the two sacraments or symbols (signs and seals) of the New Covenant are important institutions,
ordinances and markers of the outward profession of the Christian faith, and of the church,
the organised community of that faith, as seen by man.
And they are to continue until the reality Himself returns: the Lord Jesus Christ at
His second coming when He will, in flaming fire, take vengeance on those who know not
God and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Th 1: 8).
However, there are groups of professing Christians who make more of the two gospel sacraments
than these truths warrant. Some say that, for example, baptism is necessary
for salvation and that without baptism we cannot be saved.
Some of them also add that baptism can only be by immersion and others that the children
of professing believers are not eligible for baptism.
In this area I would like to deal, firstly, with the mode of baptism and then with the
subjects of baptism, followed by the necessity or effects of baptism; and in doing so I will
take what is largely deemed to be a mainstream Protestant or Reformation view with regard
to this subject.
Firstly, then, the mode of baptism: how is baptism rightly administered; what exactly
is baptism? Many hold that baptism simply means to immerse
or to dip and that this is backed-up by the teaching of Paul in various of his letters
when he alludes to baptism as a going down into the waters of baptism, much as Christ
went down into the grave (Col 2:12). We are buried with Him in baptism, for example,
in Roms 6:4. This is taken to mean a kind of covering with
the waters of full immersion for otherwise the connection of baptism with burial would
be of no effect. Baptists often say that such an immersion
is the only valid form of baptism because the meaning of the word itself is to immerse
as well as because of the allusions in our baptism, to going down, are surely an allusion
to Christ going down in His death and burial. John Calvin admitted that the early Church
only, or largely, baptised by immersion; and he was not one who practised full immersion
himself. He was a paedo-baptist, not a Baptist.
So that piece of extra-biblical evidence does tend to back-up the view, of Baptists, that
the word baptism means to immerse and that only immersion will do.
Furthermore the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer, 1662, assumes that immersion
is the normal method of baptism, though it does allow sprinkling if the child “…is
weak…”. The Eastern Orthodox still, apparently, baptise
their children by immersion; only they dip them three times rather than once.
So the case for baptism by immersion only is it seems a strong one.
However whilst admitting that baptism in the early Church was often done by immersion and
by immersion only, it would be too far to go to insist that this is the only valid mode
of baptism. We all know that words can have a usual meaning
but can take on another or technical meaning in certain cases and contexts.
This is most certainly the case with the word baptism.
For example with regard to the baptism with the Holy Ghost the subjects are not immersed
in the element, the Holy Ghost; rather the element, the Holy Ghost, is poured out upon
them, indeed falls upon them. Here, from the pages of the New Testament
itself, over which there is no higher authority, we have baptism by pouring or aspersion, and
not by immersion or dipping; and yet it is called by our Lord, and by John the Baptist
and by the apostles, a baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
In the case of the baptism with the Holy Ghost the word baptism never means immersion.
I can surmise, therefore, that in the case of baptism with water, whether one is immersed
or aspersed, dipped into or poured upon, depends on a number of factors: the number of candidates,
the place where they are being baptised, the availability and the amount of water.
It seems hard to believe that the 3,000 who were baptised on the day of Pentecost were
baptised by immersion in water when the 120 disciples had just been baptised by aspersion
with the Holy Ghost; but we cannot be dogmatic, either way, because the Scripture does not
see fit to set forth such details concerning water baptism.
Maybe that fact of silence should lead us to believe that the precise mode of baptism
- whether by dipping or pouring, or indeed sprinkling - is not fundamental to the question
of which mode of baptism is needed. Either will do on purely scriptural grounds,
whatever the normal practice of the early Church as recorded for us outside of the oracles
of God. John Calvin and the early Church may be very
good but they are not higher than scripture.
What now of the subjects of baptism. Should it only be for those who profess faith
in Christ already - known as believer’s baptism; or may it include their children
in what is called infant baptism under the covenant in which God includes not only believing
adults but also their unconscious or yet to be born children, as He did in the Old Testament.
In the early church, from the pages of scripture, we have many clear examples of folk, men and
women, believing first and only then being baptised.
Peter tells the crowd on the day of Pentecost to repent first and then be baptised (Acts
2: 38); Christ commanded us to disciple all nations baptising them in the Trinitarian
Name (Mt 28: 19) - you cannot teach infants, so this must refer to adults must it not?);
and on the day of Pentecost, also, all who gladly received the word were baptised (Acts
2: 41). Unconscious infants could not gladly receive
the word, so they are by implication excluded.
However, paedo-baptists, those who hold to the baptising of untaught, ‘unconscious’
infants - very young children who cannot be discipled before baptism - point out to examples
of scripture where we have household baptisms (Acts 16: 29-32) which must, they say, in
some instances at least, have included very young infants; and they also point out that
in the Old Testament the male children of adult believers, members of the covenant community
in other words, were given the Old Testament rite of passage - circumcision - which was,
in its day, the equivalent of baptism; circumcision then being the outward marker of the Old Covenant,
just as baptism is now the outward marker of the New Covenant.
So, the argument runs, if children - or at least male children - were within the visible
covenant of the Old Testament Congregation, they would also be within the more generous
visible covenant of its New Testament fulfilment. That is the presumption which the Old Testament
background to the New Testament clearly establishes, they say.
But there is no explicit reference in the New Testament to unconscious infants being
baptised; neither is there explicit reference to them being denied baptism.
Peter tells us that the promise of salvation is not only to his adult hearers but to their
children (Acts 2: 39). However, when the Philippian jailer was baptised
with all, of his house it is clear that they all believed at that time before they were
baptised (Acts 16: 34). Because there is not explicit reference, however,
to the children of believers being denied the sign of the covenant and because children
of covenant-members in the Old Covenant were admitted, if they were male, the burden of
proof, it is argued, is on the baptists to show that unconscious infants were never baptised;
and that burden they cannot quite shift. But opinions differ and I am happy, for that
reason, to baptise either believers or their unconscious children if that is the wish of
their parents. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster takes
the same view, which in effect accommodates both baptist and paedo-baptist views.
Now to the last matter: that of the effect of baptism.
This is surely the most important. The Roman Catholic Church believes that baptism
is necessary to salvation and that it effects regeneration, the new birth, without which
no man will see or enter the kingdom of God. But such (Roman Catholic) justification – that
is, being right in the sight of God - can be lost by mortal sin; which sin must be removed
or expiated, almost invariably by auricular confession to a properly ordained Catholic
priest in succession from the holy apostles. Faith, here, is very much in the institutions
and ordinances of the visible Catholic Church in communion with, and subordination to, the
See or Bishop of Rome: the Pope. But there are non-Roman Catholics who believe
in baptismal justification also; and some of them are Baptists, rather than paedo-baptists.
They say that one must believe and be baptised in order to be saved or justified.
In Mark 16: 16 Jesus tells us that ‘…he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved”;
in Acts 22: 16 Paul recounts how he was charged ‘…arise, and be baptised, and wash away
thy sins….’; Peter tells the Pentecostal hearers to ‘…repent and be baptised every
one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2: 38).
All these passages seem to show that baptism is indeed necessary to justification: that
is, in Protestant terms, being deemed right in God’s sight on the grounds of the merit
of Christ only. In other words baptism, as well as faith,
is an instrument of getting to our side the righteousness of Christ which alone saves!
That is a kind of ‘Protestant’ version of the doctrine of baptismal salvation which
is at the heart of Roman Catholicism. The problem is that there is more to it than
this. Article 20 of the (protestant) Church of England
says that we should not so expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another;
and there is a danger of that here. Unlearned or unstable souls, however well-meaning,
can, unwittingly perhaps, twist the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet 3: 16).
We must compare scripture with scripture; and when that is done we get a very different
picture.
Paul tell us that it is the gospel of Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Roms
1: 16) and that Christ did not send him to baptise but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:
17). Here we have the good news that brings us
salvation distinguished from a mere outward rite, baptism, that Paul here affirms plays
no part in it – it is rather explicitly excluded; and it is the former, belief, not
the latter, baptism, which is the power of God to save.
It was the same in the theology of the apostle Paul for circumcision: that was an appointed
rite symbolising Old Testament regeneration but what was important in Paul’s theology
was the spiritual circumcision made without hands, not the physical circumcision made
with hands; which is being in Christ, a new creation.
(Col 2: 11; Phil 3: 3). Neither baptism nor circumcision can save:
it is faith, and faith alone - resulting from the spiritual circumcision made without hands
– that purifies our hearts (Acts 15: 9), making us fit for believers’ baptism if
not already baptised (Acts 10: 47). The thief on the cross was not physically
baptised but he spiritually believed and that was all that was needed.
Jesus said unto him, “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Lk 23: 43).
Abraham is our exemplar in faith, our great example.
He was justified by faith spiritually without works, including physical circumcision.
It was only later that he received the sign of circumcision (Roms 4: 11), which was a
sign of what he already had without it and before it.
If we are justified by works, or rather by faith and works - such as through circumcision,
which is a physical work, something we can easily perform - then we have something of
which to boast (Roms 4: 2). But salvation is by grace through faith, not
of physical works, lest any man should boast (Eph 2: 8, 9).
It is the blood of Christ, His death for us, which cleanses the soul from sin, not the
waters of baptism: their physical waters, like physical circumcision, were only an outward
symbol. It is only without the shedding of blood,
the death of Christ, that there is no remission of sin (Heb 9: 22).
All the saints of the Old Testament were saved - whether with or without baptism or circumcision
for that matter. And it is the same with every New Testament
believer - though some in that transitional phase had both circumcision and baptism, some
had neither, and some had the one or the other. We have already mentioned two examples: the
thief on the cross and Cornelius whose heart was purified by faith and was only then baptised.
But there are other examples which we have alluded to in other contexts.
The Philippian jailer asked what he must do to be saved and was simply told the same message
of faith only, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Act 16:
31). The Ethiopian eunuch was saved only by faith,
as Abraham had been (Roms 3: 28), for he asked what hindered him from being baptised (Acts
8:35, 36). The answer of Acts 8:38 was that there was
no obstacle for he had all that was needed: faith!
Faith is the only requirement for baptism as it is therefore the only requirement for
heaven.
However, what about Mark 16: 16 and Acts 22: 16 which seem to imply that baptism has some
part in bringing us salvation or justification – justification in protestant terms being
where we are deemed right by God for the sake of the righteousness of another, even Jesus
Christ. Well, the answer here is that baptism as the
initiatory rite can be so closely connected to the first exercise of saving faith that
it is co-terminus with salvation even though it does not in itself bring salvation into
effect. What effects salvation in these circumstances
is the faith here expressed, through baptism, and not the baptism which here expresses that
faith for the first time (see Roms 10: 9, 10).
The situation is a little like the scenario we find in the epistle of James compared to
Paul’s letter to the Romans. James discusses the relationship of faith
to works and tells us in James 2: 24, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only.” That seems to gainsay what Paul has said in
Roms 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds
of the law”. Paul seems to say that we are justified by
faith itself and James by both faith and works. Is this not a contradiction?
The answer is that if we have the genuine faith which alone justifies our persons, then
that will sooner or later be expressed in works which are the evidence that the faith,
which alone justifies before God (Jas 2: 22), is never really or for long alone in those
who are justified. Faith is the instrument and the works it begets
are the evidence of its presence.
In certain circumstances, though very rare, the very first expression of saving faith
is by means of and though the waters of baptism. Often, however, our hearts are cleansed by
faith before baptism. But whenever saving faith is first exercised
it is only ever faith, and faith itself – not baptism, even if expressed for the first time
through baptism - in the blood and death of Christ which saves.
Paul sums it up especially well in Eph 2: 8, 9, “For by grace are ye saved through
faith…not of works lest any man should boast.” Baptism, as circumcision - if taken as a justifying
ritual; as an instrument that is to get us to heaven, rather than as a means to express
that faith which is the alone instrument to get us to heaven - is of the law and works; and takes us outside
of the gospel of grace (Gal 5: 2, 4). As Peter tell us, baptism does not save us
by the putting away of the filth of the flesh but merely by the answer of a good conscience towards God.
The Church of England’s Prayer Book article 27 best summarizes the teaching of the Bible
on baptism:
“Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian
men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of regeneration
or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted
into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and our adoption to be the sons of
God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace
increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young children is in any wise
to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
That is such a balanced and undogmatic statement that I feel that it admirably summarizes all that can be said upon the subject.
Notice its emphasis on
the right use of baptism. As
a means to get us
to heaven we turn
it into a condemning work; as a way to express our new-born faith, it is truly operative
in its genuine role as an evidencer of that faith.
© The Revd RMB West, Dip. Th.