Verses Considering Baptism (01/25/14)

Mt 3:1, Mk 1:4, Lk 3:3 – John the Baptist came preaching a message and baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.  Mt 3:6-7, Mk 1:5, Lk 3:7 – People from all over Judea, even from Jerusalem, were being baptized by him as they confessed their sins.  Many of the Pharisees and Sadducees were in their number.  His immediate reaction to them?  “You brood of vipers!  Who warned you to flee the coming wrath?”  Mt 3:11-12, Mk 1:8, Lk 3:16-17 – His words to them continued.  “Me?  I baptize with water for repentance, but He who comes after me is greater.  I am not even fit to remove His sandals.  He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, with fire.  See!  His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor completely.  He will gather His wheat, but He will burn up the chaff in eternal fires.”  [Luke applies the message more widely, to all who were coming to John.]  Mt 3:13-17, Mk 1:9-12, Lk 3:21-22 – Jesus came out to John from Galilee, to be baptized by him.  John did not think it fitting.  “Why come to me?  I should be baptized by You!”  But, Jesus replied, “Permit it.  It is fitting that we should thus fulfill all righteousness.”  John acceded.  After being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water.  Behold!  The heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove while Jesus was praying, coming upon Him, and a voice from heaven:  “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased.”  And immediately, the Spirit impelled Him out into the wilderness. [The term ‘went up’ is deemed a key point by some.  anabaino – to go up in a literal or figurative sense.  To move to a higher place, ascend.  To rise.  To ascend in whatever manner.] Lk 3:12-15 – Tax-gatherers and soldiers were amongst those who came to John, asking what they should do.  He told the tax-gatherers simply to be fair in their collections, taking only what was ordered.  He told the soldiers not to abuse their position to take money from people, to level false accusations against anybody.  In short, be content with your wages.  The people were expectant, wondering if perhaps John was the Messiah.  Jn 1:19-28 – Levites were sent to question John.  “Who are you?” they asked, and he said plainly, “I am not the Christ.”  “Are you Elijah, then?”  “No.”  “The Prophet?”  “No.”  “Who, then?  We need an answer.”  “I am a voice in the wilderness, crying out, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord’, just as Isaiah said.”  The Pharisees had sent these Levites, and they continued their questioning.  “If you are not Messiah, not Elijah, not the Prophet, why are you baptizing?”  “I baptize in water.  But among you stands One you don’t know.  He comes after me, and I am unfit to even untie His sandals.”  This happened in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.  Jn 1:29-34 – Jesus came the next day.  John pointed Him out, saying, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!  This is the One I was talking about yesterday.  He ranks higher than I, for He existed before me.  I didn’t recognize Him immediately, but it was to make Him known that I came baptizing.”  He later said, “I beheld the Spirit descending out of heaven as a dove and remaining upon Him.  I didn’t recognize Him at the first, but He who sent me to baptize told me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’  I have seen!  And I bear witness that this is the Son of God.”
Mt 11:11-14, Lk 7:28-30 – Of all who were ever born, none is greater than John the Baptist.  Yet, the least person in the kingdom of heaven is greater.  From the time he started ministering until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.  For all the Law and the Prophets prophesied until John.  If you can understand it, he is Elijah, who was to come.”  The people in general, and the tax-gatherers too, heard God’s justice in this, having been baptized with John’s baptism.  The Pharisees and lawyers, however, rejected God’s purpose for themselves and had not been baptized by John.
Mt 14:1-2, Mk 6:14-16 – Hearing about Jesus, Herod suggested to his servants that Jesus was John the Baptist, back from the dead.  Thus, he thought to explain the miracles Jesus was doing.  He had been asking around, and hearing all the same theories espoused that the disciples reported to Jesus.
Mt 16:13-16, Mk 8:27-29, Lk 9:18-20 – Jesus asked His disciples who people thought He was.  “Some say John the Baptist; others suggest Elijah; and there are those who posit Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”  “Well, who do you say I am?”  Peter answered for them, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Mt 17:12-13 – “I tell you, Elijah has come, and they didn’t recognize him.  They did as they pleased to him, and the Son of Man will also suffer at their hands.”  The disciples understood that He was speaking of John the Baptist.
Mt 21:25-26, Mk 11:30-32, Lk 20:4-7 – Jesus asked the Pharisees about John.  “Was his baptism from heaven or from men?”  They pulled aside to discuss their answer.  “If we admit it was from heaven, He will ask us why we didn’t believe John.  But, if we say it was from men, the crowds will turn on us, for they all think John was a prophet.”  So they answered only, “We don’t know.”
Mt 28:19-20 – Go and make disciples of all nations.  Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Teach them to observe all that I commanded you.  And know this:  I am with you always, even to the end of the age.
Mk 10:37-40 – On that occasion when James and John asked for position in the kingdom, Jesus gave reply.  “You don’t know what you ask!  Are you really able to drink the cup I drink?  Can you be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”  They said they could.  “Oh, you shall!  You shall drink the drink I drink.  You shall be baptized as I am baptized.  Nevertheless, it is not Mine to give position.  Those places are reserved for whom they were prepared.”
Mk 16:16 – He who has believed and been baptized shall be saved.  He who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
Lk 7:20 – Some of John’s disciples came at John’s request, asking, “Are You the Expected One or not?”
Lk 12:49-50 – I have come to cast fire upon the earth.  Would it were already kindled!  But, I must undergo a baptism, and how distressed I am until that is done!
Jn 3:22-28 – Jesus and His disciples came into Judea.  He was spending time with them, and baptizing.  John was also baptizing nearby, in Aenon near Salim, for there was plentiful water there, and many were going to him to be baptized.  Discussions arose between John’s disciples and a Jew, regarding the matter of purification.  His disciples later came to John to report.  “Rabbi, that One you bore witness to beyond the Jordan is here, and He is baptizing.  All are coming to Him.”  John replied, “A man can receive nothing except it has been given him from heaven.  You heard my witness.  I told you I am not the Christ, but the one sent before Him.”
Jn 4:1-2 – Jesus knew the Pharisees had heard how He was making and baptizing more disciples than John.  Now, Jesus was not baptizing them Himself.  His disciples were doing the baptizing.
Jn 10:40-42 – Jesus returned to that place where John first began baptizing, and stayed there.  Many came to Him.  They testified, “John performed no sign, yet everything he said of this man was true.”  And many believed in Him there.
Ac 1:5 – John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit very soon now.
Ac 1:22 – In seeking who should replace Judas, they sought one who had been with them from the beginning, with John’s baptism, through the time Jesus was taken up.  Only such as this would suit to be a witness of His resurrection.
Ac 2:38-41 – “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  You shall also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For, the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off: as many as the Lord God shall call to Himself.”  Much more did he say, urging them to be saved from this perverse generation.  And those who received what he said were baptized; about three thousand just that day.
Ac 8:12-17 – Those in Samaria who believed Philip’s preaching of the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ were being baptized, both men and women.  Even Simon the magi believed and was baptized, after which he continued with Philip.  He was amazed by the signs and miracles he saw happening.  When the apostles back in Jerusalem heard about this, they sent Peter and John who came and prayed that they might receive the Holy Spirit.  For, the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen upon those Philip had baptized.  They had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  The apostles were therefore laying hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
Ac 8:36-38 – As Philip and the eunuch continued down the road they came to some water.  The eunuch observed, “Look!  Water!  What prevents me being baptized?”  Philip replied, “If you sincerely believe, you may.”  The eunuch responded, “I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”  He ordered the chariot stopped, and they went down into the water together, where Philip baptized him.  [Another key verse for some.  Two terms.  katebeesan – to descend, go down.  eis – into, toward, among.  Thayer notes that this may only involve the surface.  Thus, unto rather than into.  It may even stop at being in the vicinity of, toward, near.  I note this is the same basic term used in Ac 8:15 to describe the apostles going to Samaria.]
Ac 9:18 – Immediately, Ananias having prayed, the scales fell from Paul’s eyes and he regained his sight.  He arose and was baptized.
Ac 10:37 – You are personally familiar with what was happening throughout Judea, starting in Galilee after the baptism John was proclaiming.
Ac 10:44-48 – Even while Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on those listening.  Those circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were amazed, for they were witness that the Holy Spirit was being poured out on Gentiles as well as Jews.  They could hear these folks speaking in tongues, exalting God.  So, Peter said, “Surely none would refuse water baptism to these who have received the Holy Spirit!”  And, he ordered them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Ac 11:16-18 – Later, testifying to the other apostles, Peter said, “I recalled how Jesus had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’  Well!  If God gave them the same gift as us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to stand in His way?”  The others acceded that God had indeed granted repentance and life to the Gentiles.
Ac 13:23-25 – From David’s offspring God honored His promise, bringing to Israel a Savior, namely Jesus.  John had preceded Him, with a baptism of repentance preached to all Israel.  Throughout, John kept telling people he was not the Messiah, not even fit to untie Messiah’s sandals.
Ac 16:15 – When she and her household had been baptized, she urged us to stay for a time.
Ac 16:32-34 – Paul and Silas spoke of the Lord to all who were in the jailor’s house.  The jailor, for his part, took them both and washed their wounds.  Immediately, he was baptized together with all his household.  He brought them into his house and set out a meal, rejoicing greatly.  For he had believed God with his whole household.
Ac 18:8 – Crispus, the leader of the synagogue in Corinth, believed in the Lord with all his household.  Many in Corinth heard of this and also believed, being baptized.
Ac 18:24-26 – Apollos of Alexandria came to Ephesus, preaching mightily from the Scriptures.  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord and was fervent in spirit, teaching accurately about Jesus.  But, he was only acquainted with John’s baptism.  Priscilla and Aquila heard him and took him aside to explain the way of God to him more accurately.
Ac 19:1-6 – While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul had come to Ephesus, where he found some disciples and asked if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed.  They said they had not.  In fact, they had not even heard about this Holy Spirit.  He asked, therefore, after the nature of their baptism, and they said they were baptized into John’s baptism.  Paul explained.  “John’s baptism was one of repentance, telling people to believe in the Messiah coming after him.  That Messiah is Jesus.”  Hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them.  They began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
Ac 22:16 – God had said to me, “Why do you delay?  Arise and be baptized.  Wash away your sins, calling on His name.”
Ro 6:3-4 – Don’t you know?  Those who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death!  Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
1Co 1:13-17 – Is Christ divided?  Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in Paul’s name?  Thank God, I baptized no more of you than Crispus and Gaius!  That way, none of you can go about claiming to have been baptized in my name!  True, I baptized the household of Stephanas as well, maybe some others.  But, Christ did not send me to baptize.  He sent me to preach the gospel!  He sent me to preach plainly, not in clever speech, so that the cross of Christ should not be made void.
1Co 10:2 – All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea.
1Co 12:13-14 – We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – Jew and Greek together, slave and free together.  We were all made to drink of one Spirit.  For the body is made up of many members.
1Co 15:28-29 – When all is subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be subjected to Him who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.  Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?  If the dead are not resurrected, what use to be baptized for them?
Gal 3:27-29 – All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is no distinction of Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.  You are all one in Christ Jesus, and if you belong to Christ, you are Abraham’s offspring and heirs to the promise.
Eph 4:4-7 – There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling.  One lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.  He is over all and through all and in all.  But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
Col 2:9-14 – In Him dwells the fullness of Deity in bodily form.  In Him you have been made complete, and He is head over every rule and authority.  In Him you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands:  The removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.  Having been buried with Him in baptism, you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead.  When you were dead in your sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, and cancelled the debt against us: a debt consisting in decrees against us, hostile to us.  He has taken all of that out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
1Pe 3:21 – The antitype of the flood, baptism now saves you.  It’s not the cleansing of dirt from the flesh.  It’s an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

By Term (01/26/14,02/03/14-02/04/14)

Baptizo [907]: To immerse or submerge for religious purpose.  Ablution was typically by immersion.  As such, the term is used in the passive or middle voice to indicate washing oneself, or washing one’s hands.  To immerse in or wash with water as token of purification from sins.  A public declaration of belonging to Christ, thus a testimony to Christ, proclaiming a willingness to even die for Christ if need be.  Such a baptism would be a mockery apart from Christ’s resurrection.  Baptism indicates identification with that one into whose name one is baptized.  Thus, the Israelites signified as being baptized into Moses, identified with him in his work and purpose.  The baptism in the Holy Spirit signifies the ‘effusion of the Holy Spirit’ upon the apostles and other believers.  It was an historical event, signifying spiritual identification with the body of Christ as presented in the Church.  Figuratively used of being plunged into a body of water, such as a flood or the sea, or into affliction and suffering. |from bapto [911]: which see below.  To immerse, submerge, overwhelm.  To make fully wet.  Used only in regard to ceremonial ablution, and particularly of Christian baptism. | to dip repeatedly, immerge, submerge.  To cleanse by such means, wash with water, bathe.  To overwhelm (Isa 21:4 – My mind reals.  Horror overwhelms me.  I longed for the twilight, but it has been made cause for trembling.  So, also in Mt 20:23, when Jesus speaks of the baptism He must undergo.) Specifically used of the Christian rite of baptism, first instituted by John, later received as Christ’s command.  To immerse in water as sign of sin’s removal.  Given to those seeking admission into Messiah’s kingdom.  Used also of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.   [Already covered in the passages above]
Baptisma [908]: baptism as the result of the act of dipping. ‘ma’ the result, ‘is’ the act, ‘os’, the completed act. [see next word.] | Immersion, baptism.  Used technically, of the act of baptism.  Also used figuratively. | Used of overwhelming calamity.  Used of John’s purifying rite of confession and reformation, through which pardon for past sins was obtained, and the receiver was qualified for Messiah’s soon coming kingdom.  Used of Christian baptism, which the apostles viewed as a rite of sacred immersion commanded by Christ.  By it, men confess their sins and profess faith in Christ.  They are thus reborn by the Holy Spirit into new life in fellowship with Christ and the church, partakers of eternal salvation.  [Already covered in the passages above]
Baptismos [909]: washing. This term is used of the rituals common to Judaism.  Baptisma is associated with the Christian act of baptism. |Ablution, whether ceremonial or Christian. | A washing or purification by water.  Heb 6:2 is seen as laying out the difference between these ritual washings of Mosaic law and Christian baptism.  Mk 7:4 – When they come from the market, they don’t eat unless they cleanse themselves.  They also do many other things according to the order they observe:  Things like washing cups, pitchers and copper pots.  Col 2:12 – having been buried with Him in baptism…  Heb 6:1-2 – Move on from the elementary teaching about Christ and press on to maturity.  We shall not again lay out the foundation of repentance from dead works, faith toward God, instructions about washings, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.  Heb 9:8-10 – The Holy Spirit is signifying that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed so long as the outer tabernacle remains, that being a symbol for the present time.  Thus, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the worshiper’s conscience, for they relate only to food, drink, various washings.  They are regulations for the body, imposed until a time of reformation.
Baptistes [910]: A baptizer.  Title given John. |A baptizer.  Epithet for John. | one who administers the rite of baptism.  Surname given to John. [Used only as title for John the Baptist]
Bapto [911]: To immerse.  To dye by dipping.  Derivative embapto [1686]: is used in Mt 26:23, Mk 14:20 – He who dipped his hand with Me is the one who betrays Me. | to overwhelm.  To wholly cover in fluid.  To moisten.  To stain with dye. | To dip or immerse.  To dye.  Lk 16:24 – Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue.  For I am in agony in this flame.  Jn 13:26 – “He is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.”  So, when He had dipped the morsel, He gave it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot.  Rev 19:13 – He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
[01/27/14 - Due to technical issues, this study of baptism is being interrupted, while I get some software issues sorted out.]

Kittel – bapto: to dip in or under, to dye.  Baptizo: To immerse, sink.  To go under, be overwhelmed.  Ideas of bathing or washing are of Hellenist origin, pertaining to sacral washings.  Ideas of going under or perishing come nearer the common usage.  The New Testament uses bapto strictly in its literal sense, and baptizo strictly of cultic practice.  The usage indicates that baptism was perceived as something new and strange.  Cultic washings are found throughout the region: worship Bacchus, Isis, Mithras and Apollo for example.  Baptism by blood is a post-Christian development, perhaps an attempt to rival Christianity.  In Hellenistic practice, baptisms were primarily a matter of cleansing.  This reflects a fairly common view that what makes one unclean before God can be washed away like dirt.  Egyptian practices in particular would tend to associate baptism with eternal life, given the significance of the Nile to their religion.  Contemporary critics noted the minimal value of outward washing.  Philo noted that these washings left the soul utterly soiled by their passions.  Josephus notes John’s baptism being conjoined with active practice of righteousness.  He points out that baptism does not itself cleanse, but sanctifies the life already cleansed.  Turning to practices in Judaism, the Septuagint uses baptizein but rarely, and in reference to dipping.  When this is a matter of purification, lepto is more commonly used, with baptizein reserved for Levitical washings for impurity.  The question arises as to the source of this practice, which would seem to be well established by the time of the New Testament.  Proselyte baptism was certainly being discussed and debated as early as the 1st century AD.  Both baptism and circumcision were required of the proselyte, and the inability of women to comply with the latter may have led to greater emphasis on the former.  In distinction from pagan practices, Jewish baptism was strictly a legalistic matter, with one goal: ritual purity.  The sense of sinking or perishing are apparently absent from the Hebrew understanding of the term.  With John’s baptism, a Messianic awakening is introduced.  It marks, ‘a geometric progression within religious history’.  Attempts to find pagan underpinnings for John’s baptism fail.  The Mandaeans are often pointed to as his source, but investigation reveals the influence runs the other direction.  Their sense of baptism contains too much of the idea of magical power to vivify, and owes much to Nestorian practices.  The Essenes as source?  No.  They were more concerned with ritual, requiring daily baptismal washings, where John’s was a singular event, much more of a piece with Judaic practices of proselyte baptism.  It is a once for all event making great demands on the baptized.  It also made great demands in lumping the Jews together with the Gentiles in terms of their need for cleansing from defilement.  John’s baptism further differs in its ethical, eschatological focus.  In short, John’s baptism must be seen as a new development bearing prophetic power.  It is at this inflection point that usage of the term shifts from middle voice to active, and as we move to Christian baptism, passive voice.  Baptism becomes an expression of repentance as well as of a desire to be free from sin.  The things said by John regarding baptism may suggest some Hellenistic influence, as he introduces the life-giving aspect of the concept.  But, this mustn’t be understood as syncretism.  Coming to Christ, we see that Jesus Himself, though baptized, did not personally baptize.  For Him, as concerns His personal experience, baptism was a dedication as Messiah, as He identified Himself with sinners.  That He refrained from personally baptizing clearly does not express opposition to the practice, only His focus on His own mission of atoning death.  Note, that He describes that death as a baptism.  It is unlikely that He drew this image from later developments like martyrdom or blood-baptism.  It is entirely reasonable to suppose He has set forth a bold image, all but incomprehensible to those present at the time, anticipating things to come.  Baptism as Christian practice goes back to the very foundations of the Church, as we see in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere.  This comes about for greater reason than the disciples of John coming into the group.  It reflects an awareness of baptism as fulfilling the Lord’s intentions.  The idea that baptizing into the name of Father, Son and Spirit reflects some form of mysticism is false.  “In the name of” is a technical term from commerce, where it indicates, “to the account of”.  The point is legal, not mystical.  While rebirth and eternal life are clearly the end goal of baptism, this does not indicate regeneration or vivification as the primary, direct purpose of baptism.  Mark 10:38 and following, covering Jesus’ question to James and John regarding their ability to be baptized with the baptism He would undergo, cannot reasonably be taken to indicate some life-giving power in baptism, nor can 1Peter 3:20.  The overall testimony indicates that new life is the cause of purification, not the result.  The entire significance of baptism rests on the fact that it is “a real action of the holy God in relation to sinful man.”  Superstitious belief in some power in the act itself are dismissed, but so, too, are views of baptism as being purely symbolic.  Scripture is abundantly clear that the symbolic act has no inherent power in itself.  (Heb 9:9 – Those gifts and sacrifices which are offered cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience.  1Jn 5:6 – Jesus is the one who came by water and blood, not just water. Heb 10:22 – Let us draw near with sincere heart, full assurance of faith, hearts sprinkled clean of evil conscience, and bodies washed with pure water. [which ought to be understood as a Hebrew parallelism.])  Baptism is God’s action, even though mediated by men; its entire power is in the atoning death of Christ.  It serves to demark our placement in the second Adam, our removal from under the first Adam.  Paul sets no divide between forensic and mystical aspects of thought.  “Forensic justification leads to pneumatic fellowship with Christ.”  Being declared just, we seek to become just.  New life being from Christ, it cannot but bear an ethical character.  Baptism, then, implies participation in both the death and resurrection of Christ, an accomplished break with sin, and an accomplished attachment to life as a new creation.  Even so, this new situation remains a task for the baptized to pursue.  It needn’t surprise us that Paul’s view of baptism so resembles many of the Hellenistic mystery religions with their dead and reborn gods.  It would even be reasonable to suppose his thinking, or at least his vocabulary was stamped by their influence.  [Consider those other occasions where he borrows from the culture to better explain the Gospel to the culture.]  We must recognize that Paul’s views on baptism do not start from the natural experience, but rather the ‘objective situation in salvation history’.  Amongst the Mystery religions, their gods died and were reborn repeatedly, typically in line with the seasons, and those consecrations associated with the Mystery religions likewise required renewal at some interval.  Christian baptism, though, is a once-for-all matter in keeping with the once-for-all nature of Christ’s death and resurrection.  There is no place given by Paul’s conception of baptism for any sort of instantaneous transformation in baptism, though there is much in his discussion of baptism that indicates a real activity of the Spirit.  Consider 1Co 10:1-13 where Paul is combatting just that sort of superstitious, materialistic view of the sacraments.  As to his seeming acceptance of baptizing the dead (1Co 15:29), this might better be viewed as an ironic comment, noting the influence of Mystery religions on the practice of the church in Corinth.  The connection between baptism and the reception of the Spirit is clearly a thing established from the earliest days of Christian thinking.  In this light, Christian baptism is set forth as completing John’s baptism.  A view of baptism as a real and physical means of grace is pretty well confined to the Catholic church.  And now, the topic of paedobaptism enters, which must be considered in light of all that has been said already.  Scriptural references cannot suffice to either prove or disprove the validity.  It is not plainly stated whether infants or children were baptized with their families, although it would seem likely that children of some age were present.  But, infants form a sub-category even then.  “Infant baptism, however, represents a departure from apostolic Christianity only where it is linked with superstitious views of the sacrament.”  Looking to the period of the early fathers, it’s clear that Hellenistic practices began to influence baptismal practices and the understanding of the rite.  The flood of outside influences came quickly.  Ignatius speaks of Jesus purifying the water by His baptism in the Jordan.  Tertullian writes about the waters of baptism in ways far removed from the purpose of baptism.  Fasting began to be enjoined as precondition to baptism, and a ‘magical transformation’ came to be expected from the act.  The idea of remission of sins is all but lost beneath the view of regeneration by baptism.  Soon, baptism becomes linked with entry into the Church, and ecclesiastical involvement becomes a requirement.  i.e. – Lay Christians are not to baptize.  The once-for-all aspect of baptism, as being a rite only useable once, might argue for one to postpone the act until late in life, even allowing a sound Christian faith.  For, if the appeal in baptism can be made but once, what of that one who relapses subsequent to baptism?  On the other hand, as one could never come too soon to God’s grace, it would seem a duty to baptize infants as soon as possible.  If we take Hebrews 10:26 (If we go on willfully sinning after receiving knowledge of the truth, there is no further sacrifice for sins available) as referring to baptism, then we ought surely to hold baptism in highest regard, and our subsequent behavior ought be a matter of deepest concern.  This consideration has been most heightened when baptism has suffered its most ‘magical’ conceptions.  Baptismos and baptisma are terms found only in the NT, with very rare exception for baptismos.  Baptismoi typically refers to such practices of washings as precede Christian baptism.  Paul even sets out baptism as one of the seven factors of Church unity (Eph 4:5).  This uniqueness of term makes clear that Christian baptism was seen as something new and unique.  Likewise, the nickname given John the Baptist denotes that his practice was something new and unique.  Specifically, his practice of baptizing not himself but others was a shift from Jewish practice, in which the one accompanying was not a baptizer, but an observer.

Related Writings (01/29/14-02/02/14,02/05/14-02/17/14)

[See also sections in Previous Study]

Justin Martyn – First Apology

LXI - Describes a period of prayer and fasting together with other believers prior to baptism.  Baptism is done in the Triune name of God – Father, Son, and Spirit, followed by ‘washing with water’.  The Apostolic teaching on the matter points to the fact that physical birth was not by choice, and physical upbringing induced bad habits by wicked training.  Baptism is, then, a new birth by choice and knowledge, and in the waters of baptism remission of past sins is obtained.  The baptizer then pronounces over him the name of the Father, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit.  The washing of baptism is called illumination, for the Holy Spirit illuminates he who is washed.  LXII – Notice is given of the several imitations of baptism to be found in heathen practices.  These are the result of devils having heard of the prophetic message of baptism, and offering their counterfeits.  So, too, with the common practice of causing men to remove their shoes before entering the shrines – a cheap imitation of the call of Christ, in the burning bush, to Moses that he ought remove his shoes as he was on holy ground.  LXIII – Turning to the Jews, they acknowledge that God spoke to Moses, introducing the very Spirit of prophecy which accuses them, through Isaiah, of not knowing Him.  Jesus echoed this point, saying, “No one knows the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father and those to whom the Son reveals Him.”  The Son is called the Angel of the Apostles because He declares whatever should be known, and was sent to declare the same.  His point is to establish that Jesus truly is the Son of God, and is the same who appears on occasion in the Old Testament Scriptures, as when He spoke to Moses from the bush.  The Jews are mistaken in thinking it was the Father who spoke to Moses.  It was the Son.  They know neither Father nor Son, who assume both are the same.  In telling Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he makes clear that even these men, though dead, continue to exist as men belonging to Christ Himself.  LXIV – The devils likewise imitate the first days of creation, when the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, in setting up Prosperine as daughter of Jupiter, and calling her the maiden of the springs.  Likewise, in calling Minerva, called the daughter of Jupiter born without sexual union.  LXV – The one baptized in Christian baptism is brought afterwards to the assembly, where prayers are offered in common for the whole body, the newly baptized included, and also all others, that all believers may be counted worthy, having learned the truth; also that their works may be found those of good citizens who keep the commandments, and that they may be saved for eternity.  They close with a holy kiss and communion offered by the president of the brethren, which the deacons distribute to the body.  They also take a portion to any who are absent from the assembly.

Calvin’s Institutes – Book 4, Ch 16 [Covering paedobaptism] (01/29/14-02/02/14)

The primary argument against paedobaptism is that it has no foundation in Scripture, being a fabrication of man.  But, is this true?  If not, then to reject it is to insult God Himself.  To start from a point of agreement:  all are clear that the value of any sign is not in the substance of the sign, but in the significance of the promise and spiritual mystery typified by the act.  We cannot, then, discern the true character of baptism by considering the visible ceremony alone.  We must look to the nature and efficacy of baptism.  Here, we see first that it points to that cleansing of sins obtained in the blood of Christ; second, a mortification of the flesh by participating in His death, obtaining to regeneration into newness of life and entry into fellowship with Christ.  A third point may be added: that baptism is a symbol by which we testify to men regarding our faith.  Circumcision is seen as the precursor or predecessor of baptism.  Therefore the degree both of difference and correlation must be observed.  When God instituted the rite of circumcision with Abraham, his words clearly contained the promise of eternal life.  Jesus is seen referring to this point when He says that God is not the God of the dead but of the living (Mt 22:32).  Paul makes reference to this as well, pointing out to the people of Ephesus that they were outside the covenant of promise and without hope, being devoid of circumcision (Eph 2:12).  Since the first entrance into eternal life and access to God lies in the remission of sins, it follows that this corresponds to the promise of cleansing in baptism.  The covenant which follows, requiring Abraham to walk before God in sincerity, is the mark of mortification and regeneration.  Moses makes this point explicit in exhorting the Israelites to be circumcised in heart.  In sum, the spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision is quite similar to those given to us in baptism.  Christ must be understood to be the foundation for both.  It is He who promised to Abraham that in him the nations would be blessed, and it is He who sealed this grace with the sign of circumcision.  We see, then, that these two signs indicate the same promise of forgiveness and life in the same figure of regeneration upon the same foundation of grace in Christ.  The only difference, Calvin concludes, lies in the outward ceremony.  It can therefore be accepted that all which pertains to circumcision pertains also to baptism.  This conclusion is further urged by the apostolic rule of interpretation according to the analogy of faith.  (Ro 12:3 – Through the grace given me I say to you all not to think more highly of yourselves than you ought.  Think soberly, as God has given each of you a measure of faith.  Ro 12:6 – Each of you have distinct gifts in keeping with the grace given you.  If, then, you have the gift of prophecy then prophesy according to the proportion of your faith.)  Circumcision was a badge to the Jews, assurance of their adoption by God, and their first entrance into the Church.  Baptism now serves the same functions.  This alone ought to demonstrate that baptism has been substituted for circumcision and now serves the same office.  Turning to the propriety of infant baptism, we must look beyond the form to the substance.  Here, the previous sign of circumcision was clearly given to infants, and by that act they were made ‘partakers of all the things signified by circumcision’.  Were it not so, God would have been deluding His people with a spiritual placebo to quiet them, which is beyond thinking.  Circumcision is explicitly declared a sealing of the promise of the covenant.  As the covenant remains, ought not the Christian child of today have the same application of promise?  “If they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign?”  Sacrament and word are inseparably united.  Supposing, though, they could be separated which would we account the more valuable?  Surely, the word!  The sign is subservient or subordinate.  If, then, the word of baptism includes infants in its scope, why should they be denied the sign?  The assumption here [for which the evidence does not appear to be given] is that the Lord is indeed pleased to have infants ‘formally admitted’ to His covenant.  [Were that proved, the remainder of the argument would seem sound.] It should be evident that the Abrahamic covenant persists to the Christian, unless one would propose that Christ diminished the Father’s grace.  As such, what went for Jewish children – separated from the heathen to be holy seed – goes for Christian children, children with at least one believing parent, who are called holy, and according to the apostolic testimony different from the impure seed of idolaters.  If the Lord caused His covenant to be sealed by sacrament in infants then, how not now?  Ought not the Christian parent to seal their children in the covenant promises?  The act of circumcision has certainly been abrogated, but not the reason for it as confirmation of covenant membership.  “The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common.”  It is the mode alone that is different.  By circumcision, Jews were assured as to the salvation of their seed.  To take that assurance from the Christian is to make God’s grace more obscure to us than to the Jews, an insult to Christ!  A foundation for the children’s inclusion is laid with Matthew 19:13, where Jesus rebukes His disciples for keeping the children from coming to Him.  Questions regarding how this has anything to do with baptism are anticipated.  Attention must be paid to Christ’s words on this occasion, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.”  He furthermore commends these children to the Father.  The obvious question is, “If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ?”  If the kingdom is theirs, why not the sign of their access to the kingdom’s Church?  The argument that Jesus means those who are like children in their acceptance of God and heaven goes nowhere.  If that were His point, His embracing and blessing of these children (which clearly included infants, given the terminology in that passage), is a meaningless act.  But, He says, “of such is the kingdom”, and that ‘of such’ necessarily includes infants in its number.  To argue from the record of apostolic practice, noting they never explicitly say they baptized children is specious.  Neither do the explicitly say children were excluded.  Nor do they explicitly include women in communion, yet none take this to indicate their exclusion.  With communion, we discern the breadth of its application by reflection on the nature of the ordinance.  Likewise baptism.  As to the value of infant baptism:  For the parent, it is a seal confirming the promise given them, when God says He will be God not only to them, but to their seed for even a thousand generations.  A witness to this promise must bring forth praises from every pious heart.  If we accept the promise as real, why would we deny the sign and seal of the promise?  As to the child, baptism serves to bring them more fully to the attention of other members, who will in turn urge the child to an earnest desire to serve God who adopted the child.  Returning to the prior mark of circumcision, consider God’s message to those who refuse to apply that mark to their children.  Ge 17:14 – The uncircumcised male shall be cut off in soul from his people, for he has broken My covenant.  Next, to the argument that baptism and circumcision are not of a kind.  It is argued that circumcision was a figure of mortification.  Indeed, and so, too, is baptism.  B is substituted for C.  Is there a distinction of covenants?  It would be impossible to assert it so without corrupting Scripture entirely.  Such a view must hold the Abrahamic covenant pertains to no more than temporal life, the promises therein temporary things dwindled to nothing by now.  It would leave the Jews of that period to perish eternally, seeing the promises made were not eternal.  Can it really be supposed the promises to Abraham et al were of a carnal nature?  In any case, if such an argument could be upheld as to circumcision, it would apply equally to baptism, for Paul makes plain in Colossians 2:11-14 that the one is no more spiritual than the other.  We are, he writes, circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, putting of the body of sins by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism.  From this we draw the point that baptism is the completion of that circumcision without hands.  I.e. baptism represents circumcision represents mortification.  This is Paul’s point here:  that baptism is to the Christian what circumcision was to the Jew.  The promises to Israel were indeed regarding eternal life, and received as such.  If God chooses to show His kindness to His own by earthly blessings, what of it?  They but serve to confirm the spiritual.  The promise of Canaan was to make God’s favor towards Abraham manifest, tangible.  So, too, with the other territorial promises to Israel:  They all point back to the primary, spiritual promise.  Coming to the terminology for children, it is noted by the credo-baptists that the children of Abraham were understood to be genealogical progeny of his line, but under the new covenant in Christ, we understand it as a spiritual matter, those of like faith.  On this basis, they would reject the comparison of baptism and circumcision.  Circumcision, it is argued, as applied to physical infants, ‘typified the spiritual children of the new covenant’, regenerated by God’s word.  True enough.  But, take it farther.  Would they hold that no spiritual promise adhered to the physical progeny of Abraham?  Scripture will not allow that view.  We fully understand that all who receive Christ in faith are heirs to this promise, children of Abraham regardless of carnal lineage.  Circumcision was given to the Israelites, in that period when they were the unique people of God, as a physical attestation to the kindness of God which was assurance of eternal life.  Thus Paul, arguing for the inclusion of the Gentiles in this very promise, points to the fact that Abraham’s righteousness in God’s sight preceded his circumcision (Ro 4:9-12), making him father of the uncircumcised as well.  By this line of reasoning, the inclusion of the Gentiles was given without circumcision precisely because baptism had replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant.  If any would point to Romans 9:7 as proof that the physical seed of Abraham is rejected for the spiritual, they are missing the context.  His point is that lineage gains no advantage in regard to the covenant promise now made equally open to the Gentiles.  Yet, Paul clearly sees a due honor to be paid to the believing Israelite, the honor of the firstborn, whereas we are adopted.  Note that Paul further equates the two cases, indicating that as Jews are sanctified by their parents, so, too, the children of Christians.  Appeal is made to Romans 15:8, Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers.  This is a straightforward statement.  Peter echoes the same when he tells those in Jerusalem, “the promise is to you and to your children” (Ac 2:39), speaking elsewhere of them being children of the covenant.  I.e. heirs.  Some deny infant baptism on the basis of a distinction of days, baptism signifying the first day, and circumcision being on the eighth.  From this, they derive the idea of circumcision as mortification.  But, the eighth day, if it has any significance at all, ought better to represent the resurrection, on which our newness of life depends.  That newness requires mortification progressing.  The deferring of circumcision to the eighth day is but God’s mercy towards the infant, the wound being more dangerous prior to that time.  But note!  By baptism we who are already dead are buried (Ro 6:4), so as to be more thoroughly dead – mortification!  Any suggestion that the equating of circumcision and baptism would preclude baptizing women is errant foolishness, for women were clearly included in the significance of circumcision though the rite was necessarily skipped in their case.  A primary argument against infant baptism lies in the idea that they are incapable of understanding the mystery sealed by that act.  They remain sons of Adam until receiving rebirth, according to this view.  But, Christ bids them to be brought to Him, out of death to life, that He may quicken them and make them partners.  If it is argued that the infant who dies a mere son of Adam perishes utterly, this leads to greater error.  Paul is plain-spoken on this.  “In Adam all die.  In Christ all shall be made alive” (1Co 15:22).  We were all “children of wrath, even as the rest” (Eph 2:3).  And David wrote, “I was born in iniquity, conceived in sin” (Ps 51:5).  Clearly, this situation must be addressed ere we can enter God’s kingdom, for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom (1Co 15:50).  It is argued that the child cannot be regenerated who knows not good and evil, but is God’s power to regenerate truly limited by man?  Further, it is held that regeneration must necessarily precede salvation, and regeneration is solely the work of God.  These infants, if they are to enter the kingdom, must be purified, reborn though born sinners.  Note the case of John the Baptist, “sanctified from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1:15).  What could be done for John can be done for others.  To argue this was not to be taken literally, but as indication of early childhood, is clearest nonsense.  Christ was likewise sanctified from earliest infancy, which none could deny.  Thus, He may sanctify His elect at any age.  Being conceived by the Holy Spirit, and filled therewith, He entered into human life as holy, without sin, a necessary factor in His perfect obedience.  Surely, it will be agreed that not one of the elect can possibly be called from this present life prior to sanctification and regeneration.  Much of the opposition is founded on 1Peter 1:23 – “You have been reborn of an imperishable seed, not perishable.  You have been born through the living, abiding word of God.”  But, this does not preclude God from regenerating infants.  “It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of Himself in any way He pleases.”  Next argument:  Faith comes by hearing, which the infant has yet to obtain, and Moses further indicates knowledge of good and evil as a prerequisite for knowing God (Dt 1:39-40 – “Your little ones – those you said would become a prey, and your sons who as yet have no knowledge of good or evil: These shall enter there.  I will give it to them to possess.  But you?  Turn around and go into the wilderness by the Red Sea.” [This having been the message when Israel opted against Joshua & Caleb’s report.])  As to Paul’s point, he is but describing the ‘usual economy’, not setting forth an inviolable rule.  What shall be said of the infant who dies and passes into the kingdom?  Surely, there are some who have done just this, and they are just as surely admitted into His immediate presence.  What can possibly prevent Him from having illuminated their thoughts in advance of death?  It need not be the same sort of faith we experience, the same breadth of knowledge (although nothing really precludes that from being the case).  Next point:  Baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith.  An infant can know neither.  Ergo, to baptize the infant is to render the sacrament empty and vain.  Yet, Scripture clearly sets out circumcision as a sign of repentance, a seal of that righteousness which is by faith, according to Paul (Ro 4:11).  Shall we then call God to account for causing that sign to be performed on infants incapable of either repentance or righteousness?  The two signs being equivalent, what is given for one must be equally a given for the other.  The circumcision was real, even though the spiritual impact would come later, a mortification not understood at the moment of the sign, but aspired to in later life.  Just so, children are baptized for future repentance and faith.  The seed of these future things is planted ‘by the secret operation of the Spirit’.  Again, so strong is the equivalence of circumcision and baptism, that what is rejected for one must be rejected for the other.  But, to reject circumcision of infants, one must reject the very clear and express Word of God.  This being the case, the same acceptability, and even advisability must hold for baptism of infants.  As to those who, being baptized as infants, reach maturity:  If they are indeed the elect of God, they shall be regenerated, and shall come to understand the significance of that earlier baptism, the which will but urge them to a greater zeal throughout their lives.  [I.e. – there is no need to reapply the baptism.]  When Paul teaches that in baptism we are buried with Christ, he is not setting out a prerequisite.  He is declaring the doctrinal significance of baptism.  And note:  He is declaring this to those who are already baptized.  Moses reminded the people often enough as to the significance of their circumcision.  None would suggest this necessarily preceded the act.  Indeed, it would be most improbable.  Granted, in the case of an adult, baptism ought certainly to follow upon faith understanding, but a different rule must apply with children.  They will turn to 1Peter 3:21, baptism as an answer toward God by the resurrection of Christ, as leaving no place for paedobaptism.  But, such a view is arrived at by insisting that the signified must always precede the sign temporally speaking.  Again, the pointer back to circumcision.  Nothing can be required of baptism than to confirm the covenant God has made.  “The other part of the meaning of the sacrament will follow at the time which God Himself has provided.”  They argue that baptism is given for remission of sins.  We agree, and it serves our point, for we are all born sinners in need of that forgiveness from the womb.  God does not preclude the very real hope of mercy, even assures it.  Why, then, would we deny the inferior sign where the superior reality is given?  If infants can receive forgiveness, why not the sign thereof?  They bring forth Ephesians 5:26 where He sanctifies by the washing of water by the word.  Indeed!  This, too, supports the point.  If baptism attests to His cleansing work, and He has indeed cleansed the infant (else the dead infant cannot proceed to heaven), what cause have we to deny the sign?  It is accepted by all that baptism denotes our ingrafting into the body of Christ.  Well, then, we have the word of Paul, that the child of a believing parent is made holy by that parentage (1Co 7:13-14), a thing specifically denied to the child with no believing parent in that same passage.  What is this but to say that child is ingrafted, and if he is ingrafted, again:  Why deny the sign thereof?  Turning to the record we have of apostolic practices, they declare that there is no record of an apostle ever baptizing an infant.  They will argue that repentance and faith are necessary prerequisites for baptism.  Yet, Peter’s advice to Jerusalem required only repentance (Ac 2:37-38), and Philip’s explanation to the eunuch called for only faith.  It may be further argued that these two passages must be considered in conjunction.  Fine.  But, these two passages describe the situation for an adult convert, where it is agreed that repentance and faith must precede the sign.  So, too, the many other passages in Scripture that deal with baptism.  They deal with the adult experience.  It remains clear, though, that infants must be dealt with differently.  Back to circumcision:  An adult convert underwent circumcision in like fashion, subsequent to clear faith and repentance.  An infant in Israel did not.  Carry it forward.  Abraham’s example is to the point.  God did not require him to be circumcised without first explaining the sign’s intent.  He first set out the covenant, and Abraham first demonstrated his faith in God’s promise.  Then, he became partaker in the sacrament.  Yet, in Abraham’s son, the order is reversed.  Sacrament precedes understanding.  “If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations.”  It reduces to this for both the old and new covenant signs:  The adult convert, having been to that point alien to the covenant, ought not receive the sign without preceding faith and repentance.  Children of covenanted family are received as heirs by God upon birth, and may therefore be admitted into baptism.  Consideration turns to John 3:5, wherein Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be born of water and the Spirit.  Some apparently take water to represent baptism in this passage, but Calvin offers that water and Spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit; His work being like water in its cleansing aspect.  He points to John the Baptist’s comment, that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit, and with fire (Mt 3:11).  None suppose this to be two distinct baptisms.  The simple point of John 3:5 is that one must be renewed by the Living Water, and that renewal comes by the Spirit working.  As to those who hold that the unbaptized dead are necessarily condemned, it is clear and utter nonsense.  Who could possibly believe that a young believer, utterly true in his faith, if he should meet a fatal accident while awaiting his baptism is therefore condemned to eternal punishment?  Jesus Himself taught that the one who hears Him and believes has eternal life (Jn 5:24).  He places no further requirements on the believer.  This is not to say baptism is ignorable, but it ought not to be lifted to such heights as to suppose it a salvific necessity.  As to those who would hold baptism to be so necessary to salvation, and yet refuse it to infants, what can be said?  Can they align their actions with Christ who says that the kingdom is ‘of such’ (Mt 19:14)?  Regarding the insistence that word order in the Great Commission, and Mark’s echoing thereof, clearly set baptism after preaching and faith, we might on the very same basis require baptism to precede teaching, which follows after baptism in the Commission.  We might also go back to John 5:24, on this basis, and note that baptism, were it to be equated with water birth, as has been suggested, precedes the regenerating work of the Spirit.  Born of water and Spirit is the order given, not of Spirit and of water.  The purpose of Jesus in the Commission is clearly that preaching and discipling are the primary assignment given, with baptism appended for those who receive the Gospel message.  There is no discussion whatsoever of infants, in this case, because Jesus is discussing those capable of receiving or rejecting the message.  One cannot, therefore, present a case against baptizing of infants from this passage.  It does not touch on the subject at all.  Take the example of a similarly targeted passage.  Paul writes, “If any will not work, neither let him eat” (2Th 3:10).  Infants cannot work.  Shall we, on the basis of this passage, refuse the infant food?  Of course not!  It is clear from the context that it applies to the able bodied, to those capable of working, not to those incapable.  So, with baptism, the passage is clearly directed towards those of age to discern, and has nothing to say with regard to infants.  Neither can the record of Jesus, baptized in His thirtieth year, be made an argument against baptizing of infants.  His clear purpose was to both confirm John’s prior ministry and set His own upon firm foundation.  [One might also note His taking the mark of the covenant in His flesh on His eighth day. Or, that the New Covenant, of which baptism is the seal, had not yet been set forth at all.]  For all that, if the thirtieth year is seen to be so significant, should not these same men require that their ministers, baptismal candidates and the like be of said age?  Yet, even Servetus began prophesying at twenty-one, though he strongly opposed paedobaptism.  Next argument:  We don’t allow infants to partake in Communion, therefore they ought not to partake of Baptism either.  The two are entirely distinct in their signification, though.  Baptism is the entrance or initiation into the Church, the mark of those who are the children of God.  Communion, however, is reserved to those old enough to bear solid food, as it were.  See it from the Gospels.  Jesus never sets any bar of age on baptism.  But, when it came to the Supper, He confined participation to those, “fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power.”  That examination must precede participation (1Co 11:28), something an infant clearly cannot do.  But, the proscriptions applied to communion are not applied to baptism anywhere in Scripture.  Once again, look to that circumcision which parallels baptism for the Old Covenant.  This was clearly intended for infants.  Now, consider the Passover which was superseded by Communion.  The Passover was to be eaten only by those old enough to ask after its meaning (Ex 12:26).  [There follows a paragraph countering sundry weak arguments presented by Servetus, most of which do not, I think, need consideration here.  This, though, seems worth noting.]  When Christ committed the office of teaching to the Apostles, “they were not prohibited from baptizing infants.”  [Thinking back to our elder retreat, I recall the point being brought forth that, if baptism is to be equated with circumcision and therefore applied to infants, there must necessarily be some secondary point demarking the arrival at spiritual maturity in the kingdom.  Calvin appears to set Communion in that place, noting that here, one is clearly required to examine themselves.]  “It is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children.”

Spurgeon: Faith First, Confession Following (02/05/14)

Sermon considers Romans 10:10 – Man believes with the heart unto righteousness, and confesses with the mouth unto salvation.  The order is critical, for to confess what one doesn’t believe is hypocrisy.  So, too, the order is critical in Mark 16:16:  Believe and then be baptized.  Confession is the effect of which belief is the cause.  It follows after belief, and must necessarily do so, confession being compelled by the strength of faith.  In both passages noted, it is the conjoined faith and confession which is said to proceed to salvation.  Surely, a man is already saved prior to confession, and just as surely, the act of baptism has no power to save.  Yet, Scripture joins the two aspects and we must leave them joined.  As to what we confess, it is quite simply that which we believe, the foundation of our faith, which is to say, Jesus Christ.  Confess Him the Son of God appointed as Savior of sinners, in whom alone we have confidence.  Confess Him King of all kings.  Confess His character.  If we must emphasize a particular aspect of His character, it must be that which most thoroughly opposes and attacks the particular age in which we live.  For Paul, this was His resurrection.  In other periods, it has been His deity.  Whatever is most debated and doubted about Him, this must be the point of our repeated witness.  We who would confess Christ must also confess all His words.  Thus, confession incorporates doctrine, our best understanding of ‘the mind and will of Christ’.  Here, faithful witness cannot stop at perceiving sound doctrine, but must also set it in practice, a confession in deeds.  We ought not to lie as ‘secret Christians’, but confess Him openly.  If we do not confess what He has done for us, we rob Him of the name of Deliverer which is His by right.  As to the time for confessing, ought this not to be as soon as one is converted?  Ought it not to be at that very moment when one would unite himself with Christ’s Church?  Where churches have abandoned the practice of having candidates make public declaration of their faith before the body, the body has been weakened, and its members barely have any strength of conviction.  One could question whether that church which would receive a member with no testimony of faith is in truth a church.  Consider Paul’s introduction to the church in Jerusalem, that they were loath to accept him until having heard his own confession of faith.  Why we should so fear telling our fellow believers that we believe is unfathomable, yet is clearly often the case.  How then shall we confess to unbelievers?  We have two ordinances in the Church, which are both confessional in nature.  Baptism is particularly impressive in this regard, a very public identification with Christ who died, and in that resurrection life we shall share with Him.  It is a proclamation, as Paul said, of being dead to sin and alive to righteousness.  Communion is also confession, as we do it in remembrance of Him (Lk 22:19, 1Co 11:24), to display His death until He returns (1Co 11:26).  We also, in participation in the Lord’s Supper, confess Him to be the living bread of heaven (Jn 6:41).  But, we dare not suppose confession a matter only for special occasions.  We are Christians always, and ought therefore to confess Christ always.  “To the Christian, every day is alike holy, every place alike holy, and everything alike holy. He is a sanctified man, and all things that are round about him are sanctified to God’s service, and to his fellow- creatures’ good; and, to that end, he confesses Christ with his mouth at all times.”  We surely must confess when they come asking after Christ, ever ready to give answer, as Peter writes (1Pe 3:15), and also when they object to Christ, even if their objections are only raised to stir up argument.  Fear not to counter their falsity with truth.  Some consider it evidence of a gentle spirit that they will walk away from every controversy, but would they hold in honor a soldier whose gentle spirit led him to hide away from every battle?  No, that soldier would be shot once found out.  How, then, should we account the controversy-averse as any more honorable?  Support the good cause by your words!  Testify of Truth!  To do less, to only confess Christ when it is comfortable and convenient is again hypocrisy.  Why should we confess?  Doubtless you have many ready answers.  It is His natural due, that we would do so, just as our prayers and praises are due Him who created us and cares for us.  If one needs reason, hear the words of Christ Himself.  “Whoever shall be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk 8:38).  Or, consider the warning of Revelation 21:8, where we are told the fearful and unbelieving will go to the second death in the lake of fire.  Who are the fearful, but those who would not confess Christ?  It’s not those who feared that perhaps they weren’t saved after all.  It’s those who were afraid to publicly associate themselves with Christ, afraid of suffering for His sake.   Beyond that, to publicly avow one’s love of Christ brings blessings on oneself, feeds you with happiness, comfort, satisfaction and lasting joy.  More, though, we ought confess because of its possible good to those who hear.  Who knows what our words of confession might achieve in Christ?  Confession tells the world at large that faith remains, like it or not.  Knowing there is still a God in heaven, “the wicked world will not be able to sleep so soundly as it did before.”  Finally, consider the long history of martyrs who confessed Christ even unto death.  Consider their impact.  Consider where the Church would be today apart from their confession.  Final point:  In what spirit should we confess?  Well, we must first do a proper self-examination, as we ought do at the Lord’s table.  That confession which is at odds with the heart is dangerous indeed to the soul.  That unbeliever who nevertheless joins himself with the church has set himself at great peril by his deception.  He has limited the likelihood that the preaching of the Word will avail to his benefit, and may indeed be doing his soul injury by his presence.  But, by no means let such a one confess what he doesn’t truly believe.  For the rest, don’t wait to be pressed into confessing.  Do so freely, willingly and often.  [Here, it seems Spurgeon is primarily thinking of the confession of baptism.]  “There is no sin in being a disciple of the Son of God, and no shame in confessing that I am His.”  Confess Him plainly, not in some incomprehensible, mystical manner.  Confess with a consistent character of life, as well as word.  “Remember that you are always a Christian if you are ever a Christian.”  Confess no borrowed confession, but confess your own and that, without boasting.  Confess as standing firm in the beliefs you have founded on Scripture, even if it leads to accusations of sectarianism.  Far better that than to build idols to Diana of the Ephesians, the god of those who believe nothing and doubt all truth.  But, do not be so sectarian as to be prevented from loving the whole family of God, even where there may be disagreement on certain lesser points of doctrine. 

John Gill – Body of Practical Divinity Book 3 Ch 1 (02/06/14-02/12/14)

Baptism is an ordinance of God, but not of the church, for it is not administered in the church, but rather for admission into the church.  Baptism must precede membership, just as the three thousand converts at Peter’s first sermon were first baptized then added.  He who administers the baptism is sole judge of the applicant’s fitness, and may even reject one whom the church at large thought fit.  The due order is for the petitioner to first apply to the administrator for baptism, satisfying his questions.  Then, being baptized by him, the petitioner can apply to the church for communion therewith, being fully able to give testimony of his conversion and baptism.  This follows Paul’s example.  He was baptized by Ananias outside the church and only later sought to be joined with the disciples.  First point to establish:  Baptism is specific to the gospel dispensation and persists as an ordinance until Christ returns.  This is primarily to counter those who suppose baptism was a thing merely for that period from John’s ministry through that of the apostles, or earlier, to the death of Christ.  [I note a certain parallel between that and modern views of the charismata.  Interesting.]  The Socinians offer a variant view: That only the first believers in a particular nation, along with their children, ought to be baptized, and this will be sufficient.  To be clear, there were certainly ritual washings under the Law, and these were even referred to as baptisms, which pointed to a cleansing of sin by the blood of Christ.  Their only real point of contact with Christian baptism, though, is in the action of immersion.  The author holds that claims by the Jews that their ancestors were baptized into the covenant atop being circumcised, or that proselytes were received in this fashion are mere pretense, and that paedobaptists seize on the false evidence as grounds for their practices.  They may offer this as explanation for the lack of detail regarding baptismal practice in Scripture, supposing John and Jesus merely took up a common practice of the time and ran with it, yet if this were a relatively common practice in the period, surely there ought to be some notice of it, if not in Scripture, than in the Apocrypha or Josephus or Philo.  John, being the first administrator of baptism is called the Baptist.  Had there been a multitude of baptizers prior to John, it would hardly have served to keep him distinct.  [This seems a weak argument.  John was not being distinguished from all Israel.  It suffices for the Gospel narrative to distinguish him from John the Apostle.  Beyond this, even if others were baptizing at the time, it would likely have been on a much smaller scale, and not as a general practice or focal point of ministry.]  John’s examination by the Sanhedrin, as well as the surprised response of the crowds, is brought forward as evidence that baptism was something new.  Their question, “Why do you baptize, then?” suffices to demonstrate that this was indeed something new; something they expected would accompany Messiah, but no sooner.  If baptism were already a common practice, there would be no cause for such a question, nor any difficulty answering Jesus’ later question as to the foundation for John’s baptism.  [Not addressed is the shifted focus of baptism, bringing in the need for repentance even for the chosen people.  This may hinge on the author’s supposition of a belief that baptism was a matter of Jewish inclusion in the covenant as well as proselytes.  I’ve not seen that point suggested before.]  The testimony is clear.  John’s baptism was by order of God, who commissioned John for that very mission.  His baptism was water baptism as he himself testified, and as the details regarding his choice of ministry locations (there was much water) makes plain.  The baptism instituted by Christ is the same baptism as John, and He and His disciples were indeed baptized by John.  Note plainly that John the Apostle testifies clearly that Jesus Himself never baptized anybody (Jn 4:2).  It is also clear from the accounts that Jesus’ disciples and John the Baptist were baptizing contemporary with one another, not with the one as successor to the other.  This is seen as a proof that the two baptisms are the same.  But, we can consider the way the two correlate.  John’s baptism was given to penitent sinners who made confession and demonstrated true repentance.  Ergo, John’s was a baptism of repentance, requiring that as precursor to the act.  We see the Apostles calling for the same profession of repentance before being baptized.  John the Baptist told his applicants to believe on the One Who would come after him, that being Jesus the Christ, and it is into His name that the Apostles baptized, with faith in Christ a prerequisite thereunto.  Both baptisms were administered by immersion, as can be determined by the places chosen for the rite.  John immersed.  (Mt 3:6 – They were being baptized in the Jordan as they confessed their sins.  Mt 3:16 – After being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water.  Jn 3:23 – John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim because the water was abundant there.)  Likewise, we see the apostles immersing, for example in Philip’s baptizing of the eunuch (Ac 8:38-39 – The both went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.  When they came up out of the water, the Spirit took Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more.)  As to formula?  John baptized in the name of God, and it’s not unreasonable to suppose he did so in the name of Father, Son and Spirit, for ‘the doctrine of the Trinity was known to John, as it was to the Jews in common’.  The author points us to Acts 19:5 as evidence that John’s disciples were baptized in the name of Jesus.  [But context!  They were baptized into His name upon hearing that there was something more than John’s baptism of repentance.]  As to the Apostolic formula, though we see it recorded merely as into the name of Jesus, this is but a part set for the whole Triune name.  Of both baptisms it may be said that they did not in themselves procure the pardon of sin any more than the repentance that preceded the act.  That pardon is solely by the blood of Christ, and it is to that blood of Christ that both baptisms lead.  It should be clear from the correlation between John’s baptism prior to the Resurrection and the apostolic practice of baptism after the Resurrection that baptism was not limited to the period of Christ’s earthly ministry.  He Himself commands the practice continued after His death (Mt 28:19).  Water may not be stated explicitly as the means, but it is clearly implied when baptism is administered by men, for only Christ can administer baptism with the Holy Spirit, and He did not impart this authority to His disciples nor any man.  Those gifts are a thing apart from baptism and distinct from it (Ac 2:38).  Clearly, the apostles understood their commission to be water baptism, for that is what they practiced.  From here, the author concludes without further ado that water baptism is indeed designed to persist to the end of the world and the return of Christ.  It is an ordinance every bit as permanent as the Lord’s Supper.  In support of this, the point Jesus appends to His commission, “I am with you always, even to the end of the world” (Mt 28:20).  Considering the author of baptism, it is an ordinance of God and not man.  It is done in the Triune name and on the authority of the Triune God.  As an act of worship, it must find God commanding the act, else it is not worship, but offense.  The practice of paedobaptism is seen to violate this rule, having applied the rite of baptism where it ought not to apply.  Baptism is intended to be the willing act of rational men.  This is exacerbated by the shift to sprinkling, where immersion was specifically designed to display our uniting with the sufferings and resurrection of Christ.  In its proper application, baptism indeed has the authorship of God in all His three persons.  They were together present at the baptism of Christ, and both Father and Spirit gave their sanction to the act of the Son.  Further, the command given us is to baptize in all three names, an expression of the divine authority under which it is performed.  Jesus clearly sanctioned the baptizing activities of His disciples, though He baptized none Himself.  In this regard, the command given to baptize at the end of Matthew’s gospel is a repeat of the command already given.  Who, then, is suited to be baptized?  The candidate must be enlightened by God to recognize their lost condition, the sinfulness of their sins, and that Christ is the only Savior given; looking to Him for salvation.  Only such are fit for this symbolic burial and resurrection in baptism.  Of old, baptism was described as an illumination, and the one being baptized as an enlightened one.  Considering Hebrews 6:4 (In the case of those who have been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift, being made partakers in the Holy Spirit), the Syriac and Ethiopic translations actually render ‘enlightened’ as baptized.  This points to Saul, of whom the scales fell from his eyes (Ac 9:18).  The candidate must be penitent, having understood the great evil of sin, repented of it, and confessed of it.  This aspect of repentance was established by John’s baptism, and this same public confession of sin continued in the practice of baptism by the disciples.  This order of events is seen repeatedly in Acts:  Teach/exhort men as to their condition and then, for those whose hearts are stirred, exhort unto repentance such as gives evidence of its reality  Only then were they baptized.  The candidate must surely have faith in Christ as prerequisite to baptism (Mk 16:16).  So, the eunuch, who confessed his faith as precondition (Ac 8:36).  So, the other examples of Acts.  So, too, the Corinthians heard the preaching of Paul, believed in Christ, and then were baptized.  (Ac 18:8 – Crispus believed the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians, having heard, were believing and being baptized.)  Without faith, it is impossible that any observance of any ordinance or act of worship could be pleasing to Him.  Further, what is not of faith is sin, which would preclude one seeing the proper end and purpose of baptism.  The candidate must be taught, made disciples.  John records the testimony that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (Jn 4:1).  The order is important.  First He made them disciples, then He baptized them, and so He instructed His disciples to do, as we see in the ordering of events in the Great Commission.  The candidate must have received the Spirit of God – of illumination, conviction, sanctification and faith, if he is to be admitted to baptism.  (Ac 10:47 – Who would refuse water baptism to these who have already received the Holy Spirit just as we did?  Gal 3:2 – Did you receive the Spirit by works or by hearing with faith?)  It should be clear from this that baptism is not for the ignorant, impenitent or unbelievers.  Birthright doesn’t enter into it.  Children must be born again, else they cannot see, let alone possess the kingdom of God, just as any other.  Concerning Scriptural backing brought forward as backing the practice:  They present Matthew 19:14 – Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come.”  Yet these are not the words of a precept being declared, but of permission being granted.  Further, the word by which Matthew presents these children does not indicate such as might be newborns.  The term he uses can refer to those of sufficient age to be instructed, covering even up to age 12.  (Mt 18:2 – He called a child to Himself and set him before them.  [paidion [3813]: referring to anything from infant to half-grown.] 2Ti 3:15 – From childhood you have known the sacred writings. [brephos [1025]: an infant or young child.] Mk 5:39 – The child has not died, but is asleep.  Mk 5:42 – She was twelve.  [paidion again, also the term – though plural – in Mt 19:14.]  Luke 18:15 runs parallel to Matthew, here, and uses the term brephos in plural form.  It seems unlikely that there would have been infants involved in that scene.  More likely, it was such as could at least walk to Him.  Mt 12:22 – They brought to Him a demon-possessed man.  Mt 17:16 – I brought him to Your disciples, but they couldn’t cure him.  Mk 9:36 – He took a child and set the child before them, taking him in His arms.  Returning to Matthew 19:14, nothing can be determined as to the parentage of these children.  Were the parents present, or some other ward?  Were the parents baptized believers or not?  We do not know.  Yet, these are the requirements the paedobaptists would set forth:  Believing, baptized parents granting permission for their own child.  Also of note is that these children were not brought to Jesus to be baptized, but to be prayed over, the which He did.  Mark and Luke, in their coverage of this event, speak of the parents seeking that He might touch their children, an action more in keeping with healing.  Further, we have John’s express declaration that Jesus never baptized anybody personally.  So, were they seeking baptism, they would have needed to approach the disciples, not Jesus.  [That last step feels weak, though the overall point regarding context seems sound.]  The fact that the disciples were inclined to prevent these children being brought should actually serve to demonstrate that neither prior Jewish practice, nor John’s practice, nor previous activity of the disciples themselves, had considered such youngsters fit to be disciples, let alone baptized.  Had practice already come to include them, there would be no cause for their forbidding them to come.  That Christ does not take this opportunity to expressly address baptizing infants might also suggest He had no such intent [another weak conclusion to an otherwise strong point.]  The second clause of Matthew 19:14, “of such is the kingdom of heaven”, is clearly to be taken figuratively, comparing the modest and humble nature of children to the prideful and ambitious nature of the typical adult.  So Origen, and even Calvin, presents the meaning.  The Great Commission, likewise, makes no express provision for infants, as it conjoins baptism to the matter of teaching.  Clearly, in that passage (Mt 28:19) the command is not to be taken as indicating we should baptize everybody in every nation.  It is reserved to them who believe.  Syntactically, ‘them’ is given the wrong gender (masculine) to be referring back to ‘all nations’ (neuter).  ‘Disciples’, on the other hand, matches, and should be taken as the referent.  Make disciples, and then baptize them.  Thus we see both teaching and the work of the Spirit of God precede baptism.  If we were to take ‘them’ as referring back to ‘all nations’, and to further suppose infants included in that reference, then we could not suppose infant baptism reserved to believing families, but to be applied as well to the most reprobate heathens.  Disciples of Christ must know Him, of His salvation, and of their need for same.  Infants cannot know this, they cannot have learned of Christ, and if they haven’t learned of Christ, they cannot be His disciples.  They may bring forth Acts 15:10 to support their claim.  (Why put God to the test, placing a yoke on these [Gentile] disciples which our own forebears could not handle?)  [Going back a verse in Paul’s defense here, he is speaking of those of whom God had already born witness, having given them the Holy Spirit as evidenced by His gifts.]  They suppose that Paul’s yoke is merely the matter of circumcision, which indeed the Judaizers would have seen applied to infants.  But, that is not the yoke.  The yoke consists in the whole of the Law, a burden not set upon infants under Jewish practice, but only on adults.  We must remain clear that teaching and baptism are two separate acts, and the one must precede the other.  Be made a disciple first, then be baptized.  So Jerome saw the order.  What value, after all, the sacrament of baptism if the soul has not yet come to faith?  Athanasius also perceives this order of things, explaining in his argument against the Arians that the command of Christ requires us first to teach and then to baptize.  Faith, he says, comes of teaching, and is perfected [completed] by baptism.  Look to the coverage of John’s ministry.  You will find no record of any infant baptized.  Nor is any infant declared as having been baptized by the apostles, either under Christ’s tutelage or after His ascension.  Considering those 3000 baptized at Pentecost, not one infant is accounted in that number.  [Compare to the descriptions of the crowds Jesus fed, where the number is explicitly said not to include women and children…]  Paedobaptists will make reference to those occasions when entire households were baptized as supporting their claim.  But, from the descriptions given in Scripture, it can neither be determined whether there were indeed infants present on those occasions nor, if there were, whether they were indeed baptized.  The burden of proof lies with them, else the texts are of no value in supporting their doctrine.  As to Lydia’s household (Ac 16:14-15), we cannot even say with certainty whether she was maid, married, or widowed, whether she had any children at all, let alone infants.  Further, if she had gone from Thyatira to Philippi on business, is it likely she would have infant children with her?  More likely the household in this instance refers to those servants she brought with her on the trip.  The second case is that of the jailor.  But, here, the entire household is clearly adult for we are told the apostles spoke the word of the Lord to all present, that all present understood and rejoiced at the good news, and that all present expressed faith believing.  This could not have been said of infants.  (Ac 16:32-34 – They spoke the word to him and all who were in his house.  The jailor took them that very hour and washed their wounds, immediately after which he was baptized together with all his household.  They went back to his house and he set out a meal, rejoicing greatly, for he and his whole household had believed in God.)  The third case is that of Stephanas, which some hold to be the jailor of the previous case.  (1Co 16:15 – You know the household of Stephanas.  They were the first fruits of Achaia, and have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints.)  This commitment to service should make plain that they are adult believers.  None of the NT passages regarding baptism indicate infant baptismal practices.  Nor can those OT practices which are types of baptism offer any support.  The idea that infants of believers were made part of God’s covenant down through the ages is false.  They are, to be sure, included in the covenant of works made with Adam, and as such are as guilty of sin under his federal headship as any man.  But, the covenant of grace first preached to Adam and Eve when expelled from Eden?  That message included no promise for their seed.  Had it done so, all mankind must be included, leaving no uniqueness for infants of believers.  The Noahic covenant?  Covered all mankind in its promise that no such flood would again terminate life.  No special consideration for believer’s children here.  Next is the Abrahamic covenant, wherein great stress is set upon it including his seed.  This is presented as the lynch-pin for the paedobaptist argument.  If this was indeed a covenant of grace, and infant children of covenant members were given the right of circumcision, then here is a foundation for baptizing infants.  But, the covenant was of not grace but of works, which, once proven, removes the ground from under infant baptism.  Nothing in Scripture ever refers to this covenant as being of grace.  It is spoken of as the covenant of circumcision (Ac 7:8), which surely stands opposite grace, being a work of the law.  Galatians 5:2-4 makes the point that those who seek justification by the law fall from grace.  Further, we are not now under the Abrahamic covenant, but the new covenant with a new administration, which has abolished the old.  That this covenant required the act of man to keep it, and that great penalty was declared for those who failed to do so, to whit: being cut off from the people, shows this to be a covenant of works.  It was a covenant which could be broken, not least by uncircumcision (Ge 17:14).  But, the covenant of grace cannot be broken.  God will not, and men cannot.  The temporal promises included in that covenant have no place in the covenant of grace.  Further, it encompasses some who could not be construed as belonging to the covenant of grace, such as Ishmael and Esau.  From the other side, we might note those who were clearly under the covenant of grace, but left out of the Abrahamic covenant.  Consider Shem, Melchizedek, and Lot.  That cannot be a covenant of grace which does not include all who under grace.  Paul’s reference to an unbreakable covenant from of old in Galatians 3:17 cannot refer to this covenant, as the time references are off by twenty four years. [Weak.  Need to look at this a bit.]  It must point elsewhere, perhaps even to the time of Abraham’s calling out of Chaldea (Ge 12:3).  To propose that Abraham was the head of those with whom the covenant of grace was established would require there to be two heads, for that covenant is clearly made with Christ, the federal head of the reborn.  Scripture may describe the covenant of grace being declared to particular people on occasion, but this is to be understood as a particular manifestation or application of the covenant blessings on that occasion.  The covenant itself remains with Christ.  Let it be allowed that the Abrahamic covenant was peculiar in applying its temporal aspects to his natural seed, and its spiritual aspects to spiritual seed.  Here, at the same time that circumcision marked the temporal covenant, we also have the covenant of grace made with Abraham, and more particularly with his spiritual seed in Christ.  To suppose the spiritual covenant was made with all Abraham’s physical seed would require Ishmael to be included, Esau to be included, even those who peopled Sodom and Gomorrah.  It would proceed to include the scribes and Pharisees who harassed Jesus.  This is something nobody would suggest.  The clear testimony is to a remnant, ‘according to the election of grace’.  If Abraham’s own seed are not comprehensively considered in the remnant, on what basis would we suppose the seed of believing Gentiles comprehensively included?  If the choice of inclusion belongs to the covenant of grace, [or more properly, to those who made covenant], then mere circumstance of birth cannot mark inclusion, nor the observance of some ritual to mark that occasion.  They only are included who are chosen of God, redeemed by the Lamb, called by grace, sanctified unto perseverance in faith and holiness for eternal glorification.  The natural seed, then, whether Jew or Gentile, must be supernaturally chosen.  Further, even if one could discern an interest in the covenant on their part, this alone would confer no right to the ordinance of the covenant.  Consider those who, like Shem and Lot, were alive at the time the Abrahamic covenant was established, and who clearly had an interest in said covenant.  These were not given the sign of circumcision.  It was not required of them, nor had they a right to take it upon themselves to undergo.  Only where God commands the ordinance is there legal permit to perform the ordinance.  It is possible to have an interest in the covenant but not the necessary prerequisites to observe the ordinance.  In this case, the confession of faith is a required prerequisite for baptism as for the Lord’s Supper.  If covenant interest alone sufficed for admission to the one, it must necessarily suffice for admission to the other.  To this, add the point that the Abrahamic covenant was not made with infants, but with the adult children of Abraham.  It was upon them that the circumcising of their infant sons was enjoined.  Those infants could hardly circumcise themselves.  It was the parents who were set under obligation.  Notice, too, that the circumcision requirement extended beyond Abraham’s physical seed to those foreign to the nation (Ge 17:12 – requiring circumcision of servants, ‘not of your descendants’).  If we had clear direction in the New Testament to baptize infants, there would be no dispute.  [One could make the opposite case, as well.  The fact that there is dispute is expressly because there is no clear direction given.]  In reality, there is no clear declaration that the circumcised infant was thereby admitted into covenant, which is one of the reasons given for infant baptism.  Note, too, that the female child, where circumcision the necessary precursor, would thereby be excluded from covenant entirely.  Yet, they are included.  Note also the delay to the eighth day.  True, this is done in preservation of life, but would one deny the child was in covenant at birth?  [Here, one presumes he is thinking of the physical covenant, the national covenant with Israel.]  For proof of this, we could look to Deuteronomy 29:10-15, describing the activity at Mount Horeb.  Those who entered the national covenant that day were not circumcised as part of their entry into covenant.  Neither circumcision nor baptism serves as a seal on the covenant of grace.  Were it not so, then said covenant went without from Adam to Abraham.  It is a sign but not a seal.  The sealing aspect was not to the child circumcised, but to Abraham who performed that circumcision in obedience to God, and from faith in Him.  And, as Paul notes, faith preceded that act.  Moving to the next point, baptism does not succeed circumcision, for the two do not agree as to the recipients thereof, the use thereof, or the administration thereof.  Baptism is applied to Jew and Gentile alike, to male and female alike, and solely to adults.  Circumcision is not so applied, in fact was used to distinguish the natural seed of Abraham from all others.  Baptism is the answer of good conscience towards God, the representation of Christ’s own suffering, death and resurrection.  Further, baptism was already in practice before circumcision was abolished [as covenant sign] at the death of Christ.  “That which was in force before another is out of date can never with any propriety be said to succeed, or come in the room of that other.”  Add this:  Circumcision gave admission to Passover.  If we have the correspondence of baptism, then baptism must give admission to the Lord’s Supper, but there is no support for any such understanding.  They turn to Acts 2:39 (The promise is unto you and to your children) to support their claim.  They suggest this speaks of the children of the Abrahamic covenant, and to circumcision as its ordinance.  But, the context does not directly speak of that covenant, or any promise given him regarding the right of the infant to circumcision.  The term children in that passage does not speak of infants, but of a posterity.  It is a terminology by which the Jews are often referenced in Scripture.  Further, the context is one of urging unto repentance, not of conferring rights to any ordinance or claim.  That repentance requires an adult person for its expression, who can think to repent.  Consider the message and its hearers.  They had, by their sins, brought blood guilt upon not only themselves but their progeny.  Thus, the word of God comes with comfort in equal measure, always with the provision that they, too, would obey Him and look to Christ.  At the very least, “even as many as the Lord our God shall call”, clearly limits the scope of application to those called by grace, and thereby encouraged to repentance and baptism, again a call to those of age to reason and respond.  They offer passages such as Romans 11:16, with its mention of the lump making the dough holy, and the root the branches.  But these don’t refer to Abraham and his natural seed, rather to the first Jews to believe Christ, as foundation of the church, a pledge of the future conversion of the people.  Likewise, the olive tree does not in this case point us to the Jewish church state, for that was abolished with all its particulars.  The axe has been laid to that root.  Rather, it points to the gospel church state, consisting at first of Jews who believed, and into which the Gentiles were grafted beginning in Antioch.  From this we discern that the passage has no reference to baptism at all.  What of 1Co 7:14, with its talk of the believing wife sanctifying the husband, and the children otherwise unclean?  Does this present us with federal holiness?  Recall some previous points.  Covenant interest does not give right to covenant ordinance unless expressly declared.  Nor is baptism to be taken as a seal of the covenant.  So, then, of what sort of holiness does Paul write?  Most will quickly conclude that Paul cannot be speaking of that internal holiness which qualifies one for the ordinances of the New Testament, neither can he mean such holiness as proceeds from the covenant of grace.  Some therefore conclude that he means some form of reputed holiness.  The Law of God has not by this relation of flesh been put in the heart, the spirit has not been thus renewed and cleansed of impurity.  Yet these things are necessaries for entry into baptism’s ordinance.  Look again at Paul’s point!  Would we really attribute such holiness to heathens such as the husband is declared to be?  But, if we do not assign such real holiness to him, on the same grounds we must reject it for the offspring.  Reversing the point, if this holiness by association sufficed to render the infant a candidate for baptism, then it must likewise render the unbelieving spouse a proper candidate, the which none would propose.  As an alternative understanding of the point, note that Jewish writings often speak of sanctifying the marriage, and this seems the likely referent for Paul’s message, in other words, the believing status of one partner renders the other espoused in God’s sight, legitimizes the marriage.  [But, doesn’t this run counter to a clearer Pauline message regarding believing spouses of unbelievers?  Perhaps not.  That passage only removes the guilt from the believer should the unbeliever decide on divorce.]  Were the marriage not legitimized in God’s sight, the offspring of that marriage must be illegitimate, but Paul hereby says no, both are rendered legal in God’s courts by the presence of one believing partner.  We have the testimony of Jerome, Ambrose and Erasmus, amongst others, as to this view of the text.  Turning to some objections raised against adult baptism:  There is no explicit restriction set upon baptism, that it may solely be applied to adults who have repented and believed.  In response, the descriptives applied to candidates in all occurrences recorded in Scripture are such as could only apply to an adult.  Others complain that Scripture neither offers an example for baptizing the adult children of believers, showing us only those first converted to the faith.  Yet, they note, we raise no sort of controversy in this regard.  To this point, the credobaptist position pays no heed whatsoever to the parentage of the candidate, but solely to the candidate himself.  One could also argue that those first baptized were themselves the offspring of Christians, if not in name, then in reality, as Eusebius observes could be said of any who had set their faith in Christ from Adam onward.  Bear in mind that at the point John and Jesus were ministering, Judaism and Christianity were effectively the same thing, and we could count their parents good Christians, being strong believers in Messiah.  [From here, the argument turns to the fact that Acts only shows us the first generation of the church, not those subsequent, whereby we might see examples of believer’s offspring being baptized.  This, it seems to me, argues just as strongly for the paedobaptist perspective.  Gill attempts to counter that line of thought by noting it as passing strange that with all the thousands baptized in the pages of Scripture, not one mention is made of any having brought their infants along.  That, of course, begs the question as to how we ought to understand ‘and all their household’.]  They object that infants were never cast out of the covenant nor cut off from its seal.  But, as concerns the covenant of grace, it must first be proved that these infants were ever included in it in the first place that they might be cast out, and this cannot be done.  If this refers back to the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of circumcision, then one could answer that the cutting off from that seal came about when circumcision ceased to be an ordinance of God at the death of Christ.  Perhaps they refer to the national covenant with Israel?  Here, they were cut off when God wrote, “Not My People” upon them, as the prophets declared.  They claim we reduce the status of infants under the New Covenant as compared to the Old by denying them baptism, thereby making the Gospel less glorious than the Law.  But, it is in fact the reverse.  The Gospel is shown more glorious in that it is neither a national nor a carnal covenant, but more purely congregational and spiritual.  It consists of rational, spiritual believers in Christ, not incorporating those of no understanding.  It is international in scope, not restricted to a particular nation or race.  It is more richly merciful, no longer requiring the painful rite of circumcision.  The argument is raised that many other accepted practices of the church have no Scriptural example either:  Sabbath being moved to the start of the week, women partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and so on.  As to the Sabbath, we may not have precept, but we have precedent (Ac 20:7 – They gathered to break bread on the first day of the week.  1Co 16:1-2 – I direct you just as I directed the Galatians in regard to this collection:  On the first day of the week, each of you put aside as what you can afford, so that there needn’t be a special collection taken when I come.)  Were such precedents to be found for infant baptism, we would join in the practice thereof.  As to the Lord’s Supper, women having clearly participated in baptism is precedent enough to grant them admission to the other ordinance.  We can also take Paul’s discussion of it as precept, for when he says “Let a man examine himself” (1Co 11:29), the intent is clearly inclusive of both men and women.  Further, that women were closely involved in the earliest establishment of the church is also made clear.  Again, offer equal evidence for infant baptism.  As to apostolic practice, the which is proposed as grounds for the practice, there is no evidence of this apart from something Origen has written.  Even here, the evidence is not from the oldest, Greek manuscripts of his writings but from later Latin translations, “confessedly interpolated, and so corrupted that it is owned one is at a loss to find Origen in Origen.”  Nothing from the first two centuries speaks of the practice, Tertullian being the first to note it, and he in disapproval.  “The antiquity of a custom is no proof of the truth and genuineness of it” (Jer 10:3 – customs are in vain.)  Turning now to the mode of baptism, which ought to be by full immersion.  Nay, this is not the mode but the very thing itself!  Calvin concurs that the term itself means to plunge, and that this was the ancient practice of the churches.  Sprinkling, then, cannot be a mode of baptism.  Would we consider spraying a mode of plunging?  The primary sense of the term is to plunge or dip, with washing as a secondary meaning, describing a consequence of the first.  If the term had not come to us in transliteration but in translation, there would never have arisen any question as to the mode.  It is clear from the choice of locations recorded in Scripture, that immersion was the practice.  Were it not so, a mere basin of water would have sufficed and any location have served.  The phraseology around the baptism of Jesus ought to make plain that He was immersed.  Mark records that He went ‘into Jordan’ (Mk 1:9), and it is from thence that He came up out.  The eunuch baptized by Philip likewise came up out of the water.  These two alone would not make the case, for one could easily go into the water and come back out without ever being submerged.  But, then we are told they were baptized, with no further explanation given of the term.  We ought therefore to take it at its primary meaning.  If these events were by sprinkling, to what purpose going into the river at all?  Considering the end which baptism represents, the burial of Christ and our participation therein, how could aspersion hope to represent such a thing?  Where is the burial in that?  Neither sprinkling nor pouring can be said to have demonstrated this, any more than sprinkling a handful of dirt on the corpse would be said to bury it.  Consider also the figurative types of baptism, such as the flood referred to here in 1 Peter.  Saved by water, God’s ordinance, and thus a pattern given to Noah.  We may see Noah and his family figuratively buried for that period in which they were in the ark.  The figure, then, is of immersion, and it is further noted that only adults were in the ark, showing once more the proper subjects for baptism.  We have Paul’s words, that the Israelites were ‘baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea’ (1Co 10:1-2).  See how Moses directed them into the sea, going before them.  So does baptism have us following Christ as our example.  They came out of Egypt en route to Canaan.  In baptism, we come out of darkness and bondage and begin our Christian pilgrimage.  Then, they were ‘under the cloud’, as we, in baptism, are under the water – immersion.  As they passed through the sea, the cloud was above, such that they were indeed wholly surrounded by water.  When Scripture speaks of the various washings of the Jews, it does not refer to the modes employed, but to the items washed.  There were indeed sprinklings, but these are clearly distinct and distinguished from washings.  The suffering of Christ is called a baptism (Lk 12:50), though of neither water nor Spirit.  Here, too, the allusion is to a thorough immersion.  Elsewhere in Scripture, such an abundance of trial is often described as deep water or flood, so we are shown Christ plunged therein.  Look, too, to the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, in which the abundance of the outpouring is again suggestive of immersion.  Recall that the house was ‘filled’ with the Holy Spirit.  Attempts to broaden the meaning by references in Scripture to Jewish practices of washing fall short, for we have plentiful testimony, not least from Maimonides, that indeed, when Jewish practice called for washing, it was ever by fully dipping the item to be washed, such that, were so much as a finger left above the water, the washing of the body had not been accomplished.  Some suggest the 3000 converts on Pentecost defy the possibility of their having all been baptized by immersion, but this need not be so.  For one thing, nothing requires us to suppose they were all baptized that same day.  And what if they were?  There were twelve apostles present to divide the work, not to mention seventy further disciples who could share the load.  The bulk of the time in baptism lies not in the actual dipping, but in the words spoken.  Thus, sprinkling or dipping would amount to an inconsequential distinction as to the possibility of achieving this number of baptisms.  Sufficient water?  How many pools, public baths, and so on were around Jerusalem?  More than enough.  Was Saul’s baptism an argument for something less than immersion?  Only if we insist his baptism occurred in the house where he was, which is not an understanding necessitated by the text.  If it were, what of it?  The house of a Jew would likely have had the means for washings anyway.  And, were it but a sprinkling, what cause for Saul to first ‘arise’.    He himself later refers to the act has being buried in or by baptism.  The jailor and his household?  Again, nothing requires us to suppose the baptism occurred in his house.  They could as easily have gone to some nearby river upon believing.  It is, after all, noted how he brought the apostles back to his house for a meal after the baptism (Ac 16:33-34).  Finally, the formula:  In the Triune name of God, per the commission of Christ, and itself a proof of the “Trinity of Persons in the unity of the divine essence”.  Where Scripture speaks of having baptized in the name of Jesus, it is but setting the part for the whole.  Finally, to the purpose for which baptism is appointed.  The principal end is to represent the suffering, burial and resurrection of Christ.  The practice of both John and the apostles proclaimed it to be for the remission of sins, not as some meritorious cause thereof, but as leading its partakers to expect this from Christ.  It is for the cleansing from sin, again in symbol, for only the blood of Christ is sufficient to the actual task.  Thus, it directs us to the Lamb of God and His atoning sacrifice.  Peter speaks of baptism as having a salvific use and effect.  This must be understood again as baptism leading the faith of the baptized to Christ.  He also calls it the answer of a good conscience towards God.  One who submits to this as being a true ordinance of God ‘discharges a good conscience’.  There is no reward for keeping the commands of God, yet there is a reward ‘in’ keeping them, which is that joy and peace of knowing one has obeyed out of love for God.  Indeed, obedience in being baptized is evidence of our love for God.  (1Jn 5:3 – This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and don’t find them burdensome.  Jn 14:15 – If you love Me you will keep My commandments.)

M&S (02/13/14-02/17/14)

A Christian sacrament.  At root, the term is used for dying processes, or whelming.  The verbal form is typically followed by en, an instrumental dative denoting the means, sometimes by eis, indicating the design or purpose (for, unto).  In the latter case, it is expressive of the covenant of which baptism is the seal.  The reading of this term as necessarily referring to immersion is not supported by the term itself, but is rather an inferred meaning, a gloss applied.  Given its roots, the term itself speaks of nothing further than a thorough saturation.  Considering standard usage in classical Greek, there is no instance of baptisma to be found, and even baptismos is found but once, and that at a late date.  However, the verbal form is found often enough.  It is used of washing by dipping into water or some other fluid.  It is used of sinking an object, or plunging it, submerging it, but also of being in water up to the navel.  It is used of the sense of drowning, or overwhelming, of oppressing, as similar to being covered by water.  It indicates a complete drenching, but not necessarily by immersion, such as waves breaking over one who doesn’t go down.  The term is found four times in the Septuagint, the first occasion being that of Naaman washing seven times in the Jordan (2Ki 5:14).  Then, Isaiah uses the term of being overwhelmed by sins (Isa 21:4-6).  The other two references are from the Apocrypha.  So, then:  To plunge, to bathe, to overwhelm; but never to dip another in the fluid.  Turning to the New Testament, there are several uses, loosely categorized as: bare use of the term - perhaps with the object being baptized, together with the element of baptism, together with the end purpose of baptism, or joined to the basis upon which baptism is done.  The last two categories are uses unique to the New Testament, arising from the added significance baptism takes on as a rite.  The NT does use baptism to refer to things other than the rite, such as washing utensils or furniture (Mk 7:4, Mk 7:8), washings of persons (ceremonial washings – Mk 7:3, Lk 11:38).  These uses are seen as countervailing arguments to the idea of immersion-only.  The term is used of afflictions, particularly as Jesus looks to what he was about to undergo.  Here, the sense is clearly that of being overwhelmed, and no argument can be made regarding immersion on this basis.  It is used of Spirit baptism.  When it is said Jesus will baptize with the Spirit and with fire, it is not clear whether Spirit and fire are to be taken as equal or as two separate baptisms.  In the latter view, fire indicates the destruction of His enemies.  As to the Spirit, the meaning is clearly figurative, pointing us to the purification and sanctification the Spirit brings.  Some take this to indicate that He is the element in which we are made to live.  Others take it to indicate His being poured out upon us (nearer to sprinkling than immersion.)  Finally, the term is used to speak of those with Moses (1Co 10:2) being baptized in the cloud and the sea.  Here, the conjoined word is eis not en, so we must understand it as baptism for Moses, not in or by him.  In other words, they were bound to obedience to Moses, and accepted into that covenant God made through Moses.  Peter [in this passage] compares the deliverance of Noah in the Flood to the deliverance of Christians in baptism.  Lest we come to lean too heavily upon the outward sign when he tells us baptism saves, he appends the point that it is not the outward washing, but the inward answer of conscience of which he speaks.  Paul offers the passage of Israel through the Red Sea as another type for baptism (1Co 10:1-2).  The transitional nature of baptism is in view.  Prior to baptism (before the Sea), we are in bondage to sin (Pharaoh), but after are under the guidance of God (Moses).  Like Israel in the wilderness, we remain surrounded by all manner of danger and temptation, but we are on our way.  Paul also brings out a comparison with circumcision (Col 2:11), noting that in baptism, they were circumcised without hands.  The point of the comparison is entry into the covenant and the church as its community.  One could also draw a spiritual resemblance, in the putting off of the body of sins of the flesh.  In Matthew 20:22, Jesus speaks of His upcoming death as a baptism.  Most often, this is taken as referring to be overwhelmed by sorrows and affliction.  However, in a singular fashion, Jesus speaks of this baptism without giving any referent expression of the mode.  So, we might do well to seek a deeper meaning, attaching the Lord’s death to baptism, the which we find Paul insisting upon.  Baptism is described by many words, baptism itself being the primary.  It is also spoken of as the water (Ac 10:47).  [I would have thought this was but discussing the means, as baptism is directly spoken of.]  [A point to be born in mind from that passage is the reason for the discussion.  These folks had already received that which baptism serves to sign and seal, wherefore it would be unreasonable to withhold the sign.]  The washing of water spoken of in Ephesians 5:26 is also to be understood as baptism, with an allusion made to the bridal bath.  In fact, we ought see the bridal bath as another type for baptism.  As the bride would bathe before being presented to her bridegroom, so the church, betrothed to Christ, is washed before presenting.  Some take the added clause, ‘by the Word’, to indicating baptism as insufficient in and of itself, a thought similar to Peter’s.  Given the imagery of the bridal bath, we might also follow that line of thought, making the word an allusion to words of betrothal.  In spite of early practice including formulaic words in the baptismal process, it is more likely that Paul is indicating the preached Word of God more generally.  In Titus 3:5, we encounter the washing of regeneration, again typically associated with baptism.  The general thrust of that passage, indicating our being drawn out of disobedience into this new state, are a prime reason for baptism being viewed as the means for entry into membership in the church.  Note the parallels to 1Co 6:11 – But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  One could look as well to Paul’s own baptism (Ac 22:16), wherein Ananias speaks in similar terms.  There is some question as to whether the enlightening of Hebrews 6:4 is to be understood of baptism.  Many of the early fathers interpret it thus, and the term itself (phootisthentas) is used by them to refer to baptism.  Some argue this is merely evidence of the early church’s over-estimation of the significance of baptism [i.e. raising it to sacramental level with power in and of itself].  One issue for us is that the terminology is only used in the aforementioned verse and Hebrews 10:32.  Attempts to explain its meaning by pointing to early practice, where candidates for baptism were catechized prior to baptism, are insufficient, for the text of Hebrews makes no such reference.  We might recall that illumination was associated with initiation into various mystery religions, and baptism is surely an initiation rite of Christianity, and Paul more than once refers to mysteries of the Christian religion.  A Greek reader would make these associations quickly with former practice.  It seems likely that Paul points higher, indicating Christ Himself as the Mystery of God.  The baptismal references in John 3:5 and Matthew 3:11 are briefly considered.  Galatians 3:27, with its reference to being baptized into Christ, must be understood in its context, which is comparing the Christian church to the Jewish.  The whole of that chapter seeks to demonstrate that Christ is the true fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham, therefore precedes the Law, and as such, the Law served as tutor until His coming.  1Co 12:13 is seen in similar light, noting the removal of divisions in the on Spirit of Christ.  Finally, there are the references to being buried in baptism (Ro 6:4, Col 2:12).  This indicates our death to sin and resurrection to righteousness.  There is question whether the Jewish practice of proselyte baptism preceded Christianity, although ablutions of a more generalized application are certainly known.  It seems unlikely that proselyte baptism began much earlier than the 2nd century, certain references in the Gemara notwithstanding.  John’s baptism came as a first assault on the idea that outward ceremony was sufficient, and thus he required repentance.  We must remember that John saw the coming of the kingdom from an Old Testament perspective, expecting a Messiah come in power as did his contemporaries.  In other words, John was preparing for a political theocracy, not a spiritual one.  Thus his doubts in later times (Mt 11:2).  This also explains the reason for apostolic rebaptism of those who knew only John’s baptism (Ac 19).  The Gospels seem at variance as to whether John and Jesus knew each other prior to Jesus being baptized.  As to that baptism, one interpretation of the reason it was necessary was that this introduced the two, fitting John more fully to be the forerunner, and to announce that which was revealed to him by said baptism.  John’s baptism was preparatory for all cases apart from Jesus.  For Jesus, it was ‘a direct and immediate consecration’.  Did Jesus baptize His first disciples?  It is a debated point in spite of John 4:1-2.  What is clear is the connection between making disciples and baptizing them.  “The authority and obligation of baptism as a universal ordinance of the Christian Church is derived from the commission of Christ.”  What is the purpose?  Several views exist.  Some hold it to be a direct instrument of grace by which God gives regenerating grace.  This view is held by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and some parts of the Episcopal and Lutheran denominations.  The Socinian view holds it to be no more than an initiatory ceremony for church membership.  Baptists hold it to be a token of regeneration already received.  Congregationalists have typically held it to be a symbol of purification.  A final view holds it to be indeed a rite of initiation into the visible church, and a seal of grace, though not an instrument thereof.  This is the Reformed position.  The Augsburg Confession declares it a means of grace to be applied to children so as to dedicate them to God and they be received into His favor.  On this ground, they condemn the Anabaptists for refusing infant baptism, and suggesting that infants can be saved apart from baptism.  It proceeds to stating that baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, marking the engrafting into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, and so on.  Mode is deemed not critical.  Again, the call for infants to be baptized, but here followed with “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto [baptism] as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it.”  The act of baptism is seen as truly conferring the Holy Spirit.  It is held to be a sacrament [as opposed to an ordinance?] to be administered but once to a person, being a sign of the new birth of regeneration.  It marks the introduction of the adult believer into the covenant of grace and to the Church.  It is a pledge to that one on God’s behalf, and indicates a taking on one’s self the obligations of faith and obedience.  For the infant, it is a reception into said covenant and church, giving that child title to all the grace of the covenant.  It supposes the child shall, at the age of reason, receive its fullness by prayer.  By Constantine’s time, the view had arisen that baptism ought to be delayed as long as possible.  This was based on the misunderstanding that baptism had some magic power to remove all preexistent sins.  This also led to the idea that an infant which died without baptism was necessarily lost.  One would think the examples of Christ Himself and of His apostles, particularly given His express command, would make clear that baptism was and remains obligatory.  The Quakers argue it was in place only during the period of Jewish prejudice, saying that Ephesians 4:5 (One Lord, one faith, one baptism) must be speaking about baptism of the Spirit.  However, the argument is weak, and easily shown incorrect, particularly the case of Peter baptizing Gentile converts with water who had already received the Spirit.  Mode:  In general, application of water in the name of Father, Son and Spirit.  Baptists insist that full immersion is necessary for a valid baptism.  [Arguments already covered elsewhere.]  More general practice allows for pouring or sprinkling as alternatives.  Some require a triple dip representative of the Triune God.  Arguments against required immersion:  Contrary to Baptist explanations, baptien does not always indicate immersion.  It indicates drenching, purification, which may include modes of both sprinkling and immersion.  If immersion best presents an image of burial and rebirth, pouring might as easily be said to best present the ‘descending influence of the Spirit’, and sprinkling is a term also used in describing acts of purification.  Insistence from location is also problematic.  John’s baptizing in the Jordan cannot explicitly be said to have required immersion in every case.  If immersion were the intended meaning, the preposition eis ought better to have been used than en.  Likewise, Jesus coming up out of the water.  The term used is apo, which simply means from, not necessarily out of.  On to the topic of proper candidates for baptism.  The general practice has been to baptize both adult believers and infants.  Lutherans in particular, together with Catholics, see baptism as admitting children into the church.  Reformed practice sees children of believers as having a covenant interest and therefore entitled to the sign of the covenant.  Methodists see infants as redeemed by Christ and therefore entitled.  All must accept that by Tertullian’s day, the practice was known.  Four fathers are discussed in connection with this issue.  First, Origen (~200AD), who indicates the practice was common, and had been received from the apostles themselves.  Then Tertullian (about the same period), in his text, ‘On Baptism’, writes in opposition to the practice, seeing baptism as too important for being applied to infants, and setting too great a responsibility upon the sponsors.  This, however, reflects the superstitious view that baptism only addresses sins prior, and that sins thereafter (baptism being a once-and-done matter) are therefore more dangerous to the soul.  On this basis, he proceeds to advise delaying baptism until later in life, when the passions and lusts of youth have calmed.  That he does not speak of infant baptism as being a recent innovation is telling in itself.  It is an argument he raises often in opposing other matters.  Irenaeus (~150 AD) makes the comment, “He came to save all by himself; all, I say, who, by him, are born again unto God, infants, and little children, and youth.”  This coming in the context of discussing the Great Commission, it would be difficult to suppose Iranaeus was including infants in the matter of discipling and teaching, leaving only baptism.  Finally, Justin Martyr (~140 AD) in ‘Apology’ speaks of those who had been ‘made disciples to Christ from their infancy’, at that point in their sixties and seventies, and so, apparently baptized by the apostles.  He also writes of baptism being “Christ’s circumcision.”  The combination of these two thoughts would seem conclusive in associating infant baptism with apostolic practice.  Again, there is nothing in the writing of this period to suggest it was an innovation, and any such innovation was met with great and vociferous resistance.  Until the arrival of the Anabaptists in the 16th century, there was not a single note of controversy on this matter.  In this instance, the silence is deafening.  While it is true that, given those first subjects of baptism were adult converts, Scripture never offers any express example of infant baptism, it is equally true that it never explicitly excludes infants from baptism.  “If Christ received them, and would have us ‘receive’ them, how can we keep them out of the visible church?”  Indeed, one would expect, were infants to be excluded, that there would be explicit instruction to that end.  Looking back to Abraham’s covenant, with its sign of circumcision, this cannot be viewed as a political or national covenant in whole.  God’s blessing on that occasion included justification, imputation of faith and righteousness.  Abraham’s fathering many nations was not referred to physical progeny but spiritual.  The promise of Canaan points to the future, eternal inheritance.  And God’s promise to be God to his seed points us to the justification of all believers.  Circumcision, the sign and seal of this covenant, was a constant testimony to God’s covenant grace.  Baptism follows in the same vein, sign and seal to the same covenant of grace in its new, perfect form in Christ.  “Otherwise the new covenant has no initiatory rite or sacrament.”  Baptism’s equating with circumcision in this fashion is fully established in the NT [Passages considered already, and including the present.]  Christ is both willing and able to save whom He wills, without regard to age, sex, nationality or any other circumstance.  “A Christ able and willing to save none but adults would be no such Christ as the Gospel presents.”  Paul notes that righteousness and life are fully as comprehensive as the impact of sin and doubt (Ro 5:12).  If, then, we see children as subject to sin from birth, which we must, then it ought necessarily to follow that they are subject to that righteousness and life which is found in Christ as well.  Being found under the federal head of Adam, they are necessarily to be found under the federal headship of Christ.  To claim that the Commission restricts our activities to adults is to make claim with no basis.  Consider Ps 150:6 – Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!  This must surely include infants.  Indeed, “From the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou hast established strength” (Ps 8:2, quoted by Jesus in Mt 21:16).  This lies at the root of Iranaeus’ teaching that Jesus, by living every stage of human life, sanctified every stage of human life.  The Baptist position requires that the ordinance of baptism be reserved unto those who have made profession of faith in Christ.  They point to the Commission as fixing this order.  They look to the recorded instances of baptism in Scripture, and find that repentance preceded John’s, and that Jesus commands teaching alongside baptism.  Likewise, on Pentecost, they first received the word and then were baptized.  So, too, the people in Samaria, the eunuch, Saul, Cornelius, and Lydia.  As to the households of Cornelius and Lydia, they assert there is no definite presence of infants implied there.  They further insist that Scripture must explicitly declare infants to be included in the ordinance of baptism in order for them to be included.  Finally, given that the profession of faith must be a personal matter of free choice and conviction, and baptism being a confession of faith, they would hold that to be impossible for infants.  While it is most typically the case that baptism is performed by ministers, it is not essential that this be so.  It is not necessarily the case that the church accepts lay baptism as proper.  Rather, it is the case that baptism, having once been performed even by improper means is still valid as a baptism and ought not to be redone.  As to this issue of rebaptizing, it became an issue in the 3rd century, the question being whether baptisms performed by heretics were valid.  Alternately, did a heretic who recanted and returned to the Church require rebaptism?  While there was some movement back and forth on the issue, it was mostly settled by Augustine, arriving at the conclusion that baptism was valid regardless of who performed it, so long as it was rightly done.  The Donatists continued to hold that heretics needed to be rebaptized.  Pursuant to the Catholic/Protestant divide, both have accepted the baptisms of the other as valid.  The purpose of godparents, in those churches that have such, is to act as guarantors of the infants baptized, taking upon themselves the responsibility to instruct them and form their conduct such that the baptism does not prove hollow.  The bulk of Protestant practice dispenses with godparents, deeming the parents themselves sufficient as guarantors of their own infants.  In the early church, adult candidates for baptism were also sponsored, in which case the sponsor takes upon himself responsibility for instructing the candidate both before and after baptism.  This was, for some churches, the duty of the deaconate.  Early practice appears to have favored a threefold immersion, one per name of the Trinity.  Other practices included anointing with oil, and giving milk and honey to the baptizee.  Rites of exorcism and adjuration were added, along with the sign of the cross, lit candles, and salt.  The one baptized would wear white until the following Sunday.  The catechumen would be required to renounce the devil, profess faith in accordance with (repetition of) some form of the creed, and pronouncement of commitment to pursue a Christian life.  In some corners, particular dates were deemed optimal for baptism, the Easter season being chief among them.  Early practice would perform the baptism wherever proved convenient, but by Justin Martyr’s time, baptisteries were being built near churches, and this became the exclusive place for baptism.  A bishop’s permission was required to perform a baptism within a private home, and such a baptism precluded one from joining the priesthood.  [Discussion of Catholic order of baptism ensues.  Not interested.]  Protestant practice varies as to mode, and with few exceptions, there is no detailed formula or ritual associated.  There follows a list of authors writing on the topic of baptism, divided paedo & credo, primarily from 19th century, some earlier.

Table Talk (02/12/14)

“A heart cut out from the world to love and trust the Lord is the kind of cutting that makes one truly circumcised, not a mere mark in the flesh with a knife.  And this heart circumcision, Paul said to the astonishment of first-century Jews, is possible without physical circumcision.”  “Circumcision per se is not bad.  For Paul it was indifferent to one’s place in the kingdom – that is, until the Judaizers insisted that circumcision is required for salvation.  To so insist was to go too far and to confuse the blamelessness we should display as a fruit of faith with the righteousness that God demands for justification.  But only those with a circumcised heart are righteous in God’s sight, and that means trusting in nothing but God through faith in Christ alone.”  Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Verses Reviewed and Considered (02/22/14-03/02/14)

Working Through the Issues (02/17/14-02/21/14)

Clearly, this topic is huge, and the points of debate manifold.  I echo somewhat my wife’s observation on this point.  Why didn’t God just make it clear what He wanted baptism to entail?  But, as He did not it is left to us to wrestle with the subject as best we may.  We shan’t be the first to do so, clearly, nor is it at all likely we shall be the last.  Before I take to reviewing the data I have collected, I have set out four primary heads for consideration.  I am saving the infant versus believer question for last in as much as it appears to me to depend somewhat on how one resolves the other questions surrounding baptism.  But, before I proceed with exploration, I shall need to sift through what I have gathered up on the topic, and attempt to shake it into some sort of order.

[02/21/14]  The sheer magnitude of this topic is stunning.  I am now nearly a month in, and a week into trying to sift down to what I have found important or interesting, and trying to organize how I might pursue the matter from here.  Still I wonder whether I shall arrive at any certain understanding when all is said and done.  Even if certainty eludes me, though, I feel sure the effort shall have been worth it.  So, then, beginning tomorrow, I believe my first effort must go towards considering those verses which speak to the topic as best I may, without yet looking to those comments which have been made upon each in the course of debating the nature of baptism.

Verses Reviewed and Considered (02/22/14-03/02/14)

The first and lengthiest references we have to the matter of baptism are the Synoptic accounts of John the Baptist (Mk 1:4-11, Mt 3:1-17, Lk 3:1-22).  Mark begins his Gospel with the account of John’s ministry, albeit with notice affixed that it is really Jesus who is the focal point.  Jesus is introduced as the Son of God, and then he turns immediately to the prophetic notice of the forerunner and shows us that forerunner in John the Baptist.  Matthew has spent more time introducing us to Jesus and His upbringing before turning to John.  Luke is similarly concerned to give us more about the birth of both Jesus and John before bringing us to consideration of his ministry.

All three accounts make reference to the combined message of Malachi and Isaiah which pointed to John as the forerunner of Messiah.  This serves dual purpose.  It emphasizes the fore-ordained nature of John’s ministry, and simultaneously makes it clear that he is not the point but the pointer.  He is shown to be a man clearly in the prophetic tradition.  He has been in the wilderness (Mk 1:4).  He dresses simply and eats an ascetic diet (Mt 3:4).  He comes having heard the word of God (Lk 3:2).  Interestingly, both Matthew and Mark simply introduce John as John the Baptist, or John the baptizer.  Only Luke, the Greek who should have least interest in genealogies, gives note of him as the son of his father, Zacharias.  Of course, Luke has already informed us of the incredible scene of Zacharias and his encounter with angels announcing the birth of John.  He has also shown us that earliest of encounters between John and Jesus when both were yet in the womb.

The coverage of John is varied in detail and purpose.  Mark give but the briefest of notices.  His only discussion of John’s ministry concerns the fact that he preached about the one coming after him (Mk 1:7).  What we hear of his message is, “The One who comes is mightier than I, and I am unfit to so much as untie His sandals.  I baptized you with water.  He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mk 1:7-8).   Now, some things to notice in this coverage:  First, John is introduced immediately as ‘the Baptist’.  Second, his comment is apparently directed to his own followers.  “I baptized you with water” – past tense; yet, he is pointing them forward to that greater One who will baptize.  This seems a potentially key point.  But, let us consider the other accounts before jumping into it.

Luke gives us a simpler statement regarding John’s general message.  He came “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3).  Both Luke and Matthew give us a sense of the reaction his ministry was producing.  He was clearly generating wide-spread interest (Mt 3:5-6 – People from Jerusalem and all around Judea and the regions near the Jordan were coming to him and being baptized by him in the Jordan, as they confessed their sins).  Some points to note here.  First, there is no term directly indicating people, ergo no means to determine the makeup of these crowds.  Was it solely the menfolk?  Were women being baptized as well?  It seems at least marginally noteworthy that no mention is made in this regard.  Contrast with accounts of the mass feedings, where we have note that the numbers did not directly include the women and children also in attendance.  Given that Luke in particular seems to take pains to notice those women involved in the unfolding Gospel story one might well expect that he, at least, would have made note of there being women in this scene if they were there to be found.

Second:  Matthew gives us the specific point that those coming to John were being baptized ‘in the Jordan River’, en too Iordanee.  Much will be made regarding this statement, so we must needs consider particularly that introductory preposition, en.  Strong gives a primary meaning of ‘fixed’ position, or a relation of rest.  It can also serve to indicate instrumentality.  Now, regarding that relation of rest, he sets its meaning is being between those of eis, with its sense of toward or into, and ek, indicating from or out of.  So:  eis – into, en – in, ek – out of.  Let me note here that Mark’s quoting of John saying, “I baptized you with water” does not actually have a term to represent the ‘with’, although the second clause regarding Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit does, and there, the term is en.  Matthew, covering that same statement (Mt 3:11), provides en for both cases.  This could easily lead one to accept that in all these cases en is being used in that sense of indicating instrumentality.  It is simply that in English, to suggest somebody was being baptized with the Jordan River would sound strange.  Hardly conclusive, but it’s a point worth noticing.

Both Matthew and Luke, giving us more of John’s message, make it clear that he is not accepting the status quo in matters of faith.  Words of repentance alone will not suffice, actions must follow.  One must ‘bear fruits in keeping with repentance’ (Lk 3:8), and the time is growing short for such activities.  The wrath to come lies ahead, the axe is laid at the root of the tree, the Judge will be sifting His wheat, and what is not fit fruit will be burned as waste (Mt 3:7-12, Lk 3:7-9).  Matthew notes that amongst those coming for baptism were Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 3:7), although John’s reaction makes it questionable whether they came in true repentance or only to observe outward ritual.

This is a theme Luke develops more fully, although not in respect to the Pharisees and Sadducees.  Rather, he shows us examples of the common folk, the rejects of society (tax-collectors and soldiers, the most despised representatives of Roman occupation), demonstrating a real desire to repent (Lk 3:10-14).  The point is clear.  Outward appearance is not going to suffice.  Ritual observance is not going to suffice.  The act of baptism is not going to suffice.  There must be ‘fruit in keeping with repentance’.  The sap of life must change.

Okay.  Before I move forward to the baptism of Jesus, let me move backward to that simple declaration we have from Mark’s account.  “I baptized you with water.  He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”  Matthew offers the same statement slightly expanded.  “I baptize you with water for repentance.  He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Mt 3:11).  Mark gives us an Aorist Indicative, where Matthew has a Present Indicative.  Wheeler explains the distinction as being between an ‘external viewpoint’ in the Aorist, and an ‘internal viewpoint’ for the Present.  The internal viewpoint considers the action (baptize) “with respect to its particular elements, nature, and progress without regard to the beginning or end.”  The external viewpoint considers “an occurrence as a whole or in summary, including beginning and end-point, without reference to its internal makeup or progress.”  Well, that clears it right up, doesn’t it?

One thing to note is that unlike English, Greek does not alter the tense for indirect discourse (quotation), rather altering mood.  So, contrary to my initial thought, the difference is not to be set down to how the two evangelists are covering the quote.  Now, it would hardly be unlikely that John had found it necessary to say this often.  In fact, one could almost suppose it to be a pretty standard part of his baptismal message.  That would be in keeping with the larger message we see him delivering.  “This is not enough!  This is not the endpoint.  It is but the preparatory first step.  One is coming!  You need to prepare, and this is a great start, a first mark of obedience, but it’s got to be real.  You’re going to need more.”  If we look outward to the grand scope of the Gospel of grace, we might well hear John as saying, “You must bear the fruit of repentance and you can’t do it.  You’ve washed, but the dirt will be on you again in minutes.  But, take hope!  One is coming!  He will not just wash you in water as I do.  He will wash you in the very Spirit of God.”  Flash forward to that scene of Jesus and His disciples at the Last Supper.  “I have washed you and you are clean.  Done.  Once was all you needed.  It is only your feet that need cleaning henceforth.”

This also takes us into the whole message of Hebrews.  The system to this point had been such that everything needed constant repetition.  The sacrifices made could not achieve the result required, so they had to be applied repeatedly.  The baptism of John (and proselyte baptism if that was indeed a practice at the time) might wash away the sins of the past, but had no power to address the future.  Comes the Christ and Lo!  His singular sacrifice achieved what centuries of sacrificial offerings could not.  Likewise, the singular baptism He applies achieves what no amount of bathing could ever hope to do.  It is a once-for-all baptism.  However (and I am doubtless jumping well ahead of myself here), it is not the outward ritual of baptism – neither John’s baptism nor Christian baptism – that achieves this once-for-all benefit.  It is Christ and Christ alone.

This much both Mark and Matthew share in presenting this message.  John has baptized or is baptizing with water for repentance.  We have then the instrument and the purpose.  We have also the tacit admission that it’s not enough.  You need something more, something mightier, and He who is mightier is coming, and He will indeed provide that mightier baptism.  The overarching point, something all four evangelists make clear in their own ways, is that John, as famous as he was, was not the point and he knew it.  “I must decrease.  I am not the Messiah.  Behold!  Over there!  There is the Lamb of God who actually takes away the sins of the world.”    

So, then:  Forward to the baptism of Jesus.  By way of transition, Luke notes that, “the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he might be the Christ” (Lk 3:15).  Luke uses this to introduce the quote of John comparing his baptism to that which Messiah would bring about, and there are those who take the matter of baptism as key to understanding the state of expectation.  Baptism was apparently expected as something that would come about in conjunction with Messiah, and it is thus that we elsewhere read about the Pharisees questioning John’s authority to baptize.  For our present purposes, though, I think it suffices to be reminded of that past versus future comparison.  I think it also worth noting at this point, though it’s somewhat out of sequence, that John makes the explicit declaration that Jesus did not in fact baptize anybody, as concerns water baptism.  As His reality in being the eternal Son of God has a significance far and away beyond the physical reality of His being, so, it would seem, His baptism has a significance far and away beyond the physical reality of water baptism.

So, then, Jesus comes to be baptized by John.  Again, no particularly detailed explanation of the process is given, although we do get some details of the scene.  We learn, for example, that in conjunction with baptism, Jesus was praying (Lk 3:21).  We learn that this occurred at the Jordan.  Mark indicates that it was in, eis, the Jordan.  Matthew presents more of a travelogue, noting that Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan, apo and epi, serving to demark the progression (Mt 3:13).  Both Matthew (Mt 3:16) and Mark (Mk 1:10) indicate that Jesus immediately left the water, and then the Spirit descended upon Him and the Father blessed Him.  Matthew says He anebee apo, went up from the water.  The ano part of anabaino gives us the up aspect, with the overall sense being moving to a higher place, ascending.  Apo, repeated from the introductory travelogue, gives us the starting point.  Mark has that same anabaino, although in different syntax, but follows it with ek, out of.  Much is made in particular of Mark’s wording, as indicating immersion by its use of into and out of.  I would have to say that those terms do not seem sufficient to prove immersion, one descends to the river even if it is only to step foot in it, or dip one’s toe.

It falls to Matthew to tell us of John’s misgivings about the propriety of him baptizing Messiah, which would indicate he already had the sense of Who had come to him.  Jesus, in answering John’s concern, says simply, “Permit it at this time.  In this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt 3:15).  If we see John’s ministry as a necessary step in God’s plan, and certainly we ought to do so, then it would seem that what Jesus is indicating here is that the baptism of John, and more, the repentance it represented, was a necessary step, a matter of obedience to the ordinance of God.  For Him, then, to fully satisfy the requirements of the Law and righteousness required taking this step, even though there was nothing of which He needed to repent.  Had He not done so, we might say, then there would have been the need to do so.  The real necessity for this action, though, might be seen in the response.  It is in response to this obedience in being baptized that we find the testimony of God Himself coming forth (Mk 1:11, Mt 3:16-17, Lk 3:22).  Mark informs us that Jesus did not begin ministering in Galilee until after John had been taken by Herod (Mk 1:14).

Here, it becomes necessary to consider John’s account of these early events.  It is striking that John, in introducing the Baptist into his narrative, is the only one not to append that label to his name.  He is much more direct.  “John bore witness of Him” (Jn 1:15), and we must assume his audience sufficiently knowledgeable to know it was the Baptist of whom he spoke.  Of course, John never speaks of himself by name in his Gospel, so there is no need for him to distinguish this John from himself by such means.  This, I think, should be kept in mind when we consider the significance of that appellation when used in the other Gospels.  Much is made of this by some in the whole baptism discussion.  He was called the Baptist!  This is significant!  It set him apart from every other son of Israel who went by the name of John, and it shows us that his baptism was something entirely unique.  Thus the reasoning goes, and the assumptions built on that framework proceed to surmising that herein lies proof that proselyte baptism was not a known practice at the time, that his baptizing work was an utter system shock to Israel, and thus the questioning Pharisees.

But, for the purpose of the Gospel narrative, it was hardly necessary to distinguish John the Baptist from all other Johns in all Israel.  There is but one other John (perhaps two, if we count John Mark) from which he needed distinguishing, and that would be the apostle.  It is rather like the two we have by name of James, of which one is always demarked the son of Zebedee and the other spoken of as James the lesser.  We could add the third James, brother of Jesus.  But, of interest is that “James the lesser.”  Again, it was not some need to distinguish him from every other James in Israel, only from those involved in the narrative.  We may offer suggestions as to why this particular appellative was applied, whether it spoke to his significance or his stature, but that is all we can do.

So, what is the witness of John?  The priests and Levites come out asking who he is (Jn 1:19).  He immediately disclaims being Messiah, and they offer up other possibilities from their understanding of Scripture.  Perhaps Elijah?  Or the Prophet?  But, he (in his own estimation) is none of these things, merely the announcer of Messiah.  Jesus will later make clear that he is indeed the fulfillment of those things said of Elijah’s return, but he is correct in saying he is not Elijah.  It may very well be that those coming with their questions, had he replied that he was fulfilling that role, would have taken it to mystical extremes unfitted to the reality of what was happening.  So, he denies the connection, and this leads those questioners to ask by what authority, or to what purpose, he is baptizing (Jn 1:20-25).

The reply John gives indicates a somewhat combative note, which we might hear in the other Gospels when he asks who warned them to flee the coming wrath.  Here, he simply speaks to their ignorance.  “Yes”, he says, “I am baptizing.   With water.  But, there is One in your midst whom you don’t even know or recognize, and He’s the one that matters” (Jn 1:26-27).  This, we are told, took place at “Bethany beyond the Jordan” (Jn 1:28), where John was baptizing.  We needn’t take this as suggesting he had moved away from the Jordan.  Rather, it is likely that this is again a case of distinguishing one from another where the name was not unique.  It was not Bethany near Jerusalem (which would come to have significance in later events).  It was Bethany beyond the Jordan.  Those coming from Jerusalem to question him had to make a bit of a trek, then.  But, next day comes Jesus, and John immediately announces Him as being the One.

Notice:  John does not give us the testimony to Jesus being baptized, but moves directly to the aftermath, given to us in the voice of the Baptist.  “I did not recognize Him, but I came baptizing for the very purpose of making Him known to Israel, and I have seen the Spirit descending upon Him out of heaven, and the Spirit remained upon Him.  This very thing was given to me as the sign to watch for by Him who sent me.  I have now seen it, and I tell you that this man is the Son of God, the Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29-36). 

Much is made of the apparent discrepancies in this accounting.  If John had recognized Jesus while yet in the womb (Lk 1:41), how can he now be saying he had no idea Jesus was the one?  But, then, there is no evidence to be found that the two men ever encountered one another between that first, prenatal encounter and Jesus coming to be baptized.  Much is made, as well, of John apparently being aware of who Jesus was when He came to be baptized, and no that basis thinking it inappropriate, and John’s account saying he didn’t recognize Jesus until the deed had been done, and the Spirit descended.  The specific term in view there is eedein.  That term, depending on usage, can take the sense of knowing, or simply of seeing.  The form before us typically speaks to seeing, perception, perhaps to pay attention.  We might, then, understand John to be saying that, although he knew who Jesus was, and knew Him to be Messiah, it was this confirming sign at His baptism that made the thing certain to him.  Now, it was time to testify, because now, God Himself had testified.

I will also comment on John the Apostle setting it forth clearly, yet again, that John’s baptism was, while utterly necessary, yet inferior to that which comes by Jesus alone.  Note John’s explanation here.  “In order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water” (Jn 1:31).  For the record, in this case, it is en water.  We are being told the medium applied, not the method of application.  We might ask just what it was John understood in what he was saying.  Did he baptize as a way of making Jesus come manifest Himself?  Did he suppose his efforts would move the eschatological clock forward in some fashion?  Or, was it more simply that as he baptized, the message he preached was of Messiah’s arrival.  He knew Messiah was coming, and coming soon.  He knew he was the forerunner of Messiah, and if he had been sent to forerun, then surely that one he was sent to announce was not far behind.  Surely, if he had been given this vision of the Spirit descending upon Messiah, he was confident that this was a thing expected in his lifetime.

John’s Gospel gives us some further information regarding the transitional period when John and Jesus were both actively ministering (Jn 3:22-4:2).  This clearly comes earlier in the ministry of Jesus, given that John has not yet been imprisoned, and John sets the activity in Judea.  This should resolve the appearance of conflict we find when comparing John’s account to Mark 1:14.  That passage says that Jesus came into Galilee after John had been taken into custody.  Here, the activity is in Judea.  The apparent conflict, then, is easily resolved by understanding that there was an early period of ministry in Judea prior to the Galilean phase.  John the Baptist was ministering in “Aenon near Salim,” at this time, “because there was much water.”  Meanwhile, Jesus and His disciples were active somewhere nearby, although the exact location is not given.  What is said is that, “He was spending time with them and baptizing.”  But John clarifies that point at the end of this portion, noting that “Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were”.

That point is interesting in itself, and I shall make a few observations on it shortly.  But, there are a couple of other matters that want addressing here.  First, we might ask why it is that John spends so much more time dealing with the interactions between the followers of John and the followers of Jesus.  That is easily explained by the situation John faced in the church at the time he was writing, a situation quite evident from his epistles.  Gnosticism was seeking to alter the church, and we also know that the disciples of John the Baptist continued on without him, apparently having missed the point of his ministry and raising him up as a claimant to the messianic title himself.  John the Apostle was having none of that, nor would the Baptist have done so were he around to address the matter.  It is thus that John in particular takes pains to have the Baptist himself explain the point.  We see that again in John 3:28.  “You yourselves heard me say, ‘I am not the Christ’.  I have been sent before Him.”  That is a large part of this whole passage, is giving John the opportunity to make clear that he himself was a disciple of Christ, a servant of the Son of God.  Here, we have the famous, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn 3:30).

What is perhaps more immediately pertinent to the subject of baptism, though, is this odd aside that John throws in.  “There arose a discussion between John’s disciples and a Jew, concerning purification” (Jn 3:25).  Immediately following, we have those disciples coming to John to make him aware of the competition he has in Jesus.  So, it might be that John only gives us this discussion to explain where the disciples heard news of Jesus’ activity.  But, it seems to me more than that is at play.  It may be that the fact that Jesus was now baptizing as well as John led to greater curiosity on the part of the Jews.  This man is baptizing one and all.  Your man is baptizing one and all.  Is this just an updated purification ritual?  What was wrong with the old washings?  Why are you disturbing traditions?  One can easily enough imagine the nature of the questions. 

Given the debate as to whether proselyte baptism was a current practice at the time, one might be inclined to find this discussion to be evidence in favor of that being the case.  I suspect that would be reading into the passage, though.  It would more naturally consist in asking why Jews would find it necessary to undergo baptism, if they were already observing the various rituals regarding purification.  If they are washing after market, washing their hands before eating, washing the dishes and so on, are they not already maintaining their purification?  What need, then, for this new business?

In light of that discussion, and its being the instigation for John’s subsequent discourse, I find his opening remark the more telling.  “A man can receive nothing, unless it has been given him from heaven” (Jn 3:27).  This is read as addressing the contrast between John and Jesus, and that may very well be the intent.  But, it also seems an answer to the purification question.  All that ritual, and even the new rite of baptism, is powerless to impart change.  If there is to be purification, whether through the washings of Judaic practice, or through the baptismal practices of John or through those of Jesus and His disciples, it is not coming from the ritual.  It comes from heaven or it comes not at all.  That, I should think, strikes a strong note in the question of ordinance or sacrament.

The sum of John’s discussion, though, comes in the opening verses of chapter 4.  Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard He was gaining a greater following than John, and so departs Judea for Galilee (Jn 4:1-3).  But, John makes this clear:  Jesus did not personally baptize.  His disciples did the baptizing.  Some argue the point in spite of John’s seemingly clear and succinct statement.  They insist that John only means to indicate the general practice as the crowds were coming to Jesus, but that He most likely did indeed personally baptize the Twelve.  I find no cause to uphold that supposition.  Indeed, if I think forward to Paul’s comments to the Corinthians, noting that he had not personally baptized much of anybody there, I see all the more reason for Jesus to have refrained from doing so.  Can you imagine the pride that would have welled up!  If He had only baptized, say, the first four, the Zebedees along with Peter and Andrew, how much more would there have been striving for position amongst those men?  How much more the temptation to lord it over their less favored fellow disciples?

Let it be supposed He baptized the Twelve.  One must then wonder all the more at the fall of Judas, and question the value and efficacy of this baptism Jesus gives.  Even were that to be somehow resolved, we do well to consider what would have been made of this fact as the Church was being established.  Was there, then, some special power in the Apostles?  Would baptism be seen more as a rite of succession than a marker of entry into the kingdom?  But, that aspect seems clearly to have been applied to the laying on of hands, and the baptism of Jesus is taken to be something other than water baptism.  We’ve seen that clearly established.  “I baptize with water.  He baptizes with the Spirit.”  That latter baptism is a greater baptism, and no longer a matter merely of ritual.  Where the Spirit is imparted by the Son, it can hardly be supposed that failure would remain an option.  I think it is sufficiently clear by the end of Judas that he received no such baptism.

The passage which might be brought in support of Jesus having baptized His disciples would seem to be John’s coverage of that scene at the Last Supper.  Jesus has set Himself to the task of washing the feet of the disciples, and Peter objects at the impropriety of it (rather like John balked at baptizing Jesus).  But, Jesus responds, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me” (Jn 13:8).  Peter, in typical fashion, over-reacts and seeks a full bathing, but Jesus straightens him out.  “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet and he shall be completely clean.  And you are clean, but not all of you are” (Jn 13:10-11).  That last, it is made clear, excludes Judas the betrayer, further evidence, in my mind, that he was never baptized.  The question, then, is whether the rest were.  Is this what Jesus is alluding to with talk of being clean already?  I think we might better understand it as that washing which is with the water of the Word.  Nor ought we to understand that as being a case of hearing only.  It is effectual hearing, that hearing which James insists must lead to doing.

OK.  We must return briefly to that notice of where John was at the time and why.  He was at Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23), and he was there, “because there was much water there.”  The ISBE indicates this as being on the western side of the Jordan, whereas John’s earlier ministry was to the east.  It remains south of the Samaritan regions (which should be clear from that passage).  Eusebius sets it some 8 Roman miles south of Scythopolis, which some suggest puts it at the springs near Umm el-`Amdan.  Curiously, the maps from the ISBE seem to contradict the article, showing Salim very much in Samaria, with Scythopolis to the north, in a small corner of the Decapolis that interposes between Samaria and Galilee.  That would, however, set the scene well outside of Judea, at least so far as John’s activities are concerned.  If Salim is about 10 miles south of Scythopolis, by that map, it is around 20 miles north of the Judean border, nearer 30 from Jericho.  M&S notes an alternate site suggesting that Salim was just east of Nablus, which accords well with Genesis 33:18.  It is noted that there are indeed abundant springs at that location, and it is suggested that the distance of this second location from the Jordan would better explain John’s deciding to baptize there rather than simply moving down to the river.

At any rate, the reason is given as being abundant water.  Those favoring an immersion-only view, take this to be further evidence of immersion as the means.  That would seem to me to over interpret the passage.  It would not seem unreasonable to suppose the point was access more than depth.  M&S notes the open plains bordering the stream and its springs, which would accommodate the crowds quite nicely, where a more urban setting, or something, say, like Jacob’s well, would not.  Does the setting require us to perceive immersion?  I don’t know that one could make the call at all based on so scant a description.  I do think, though, of the nature of springs as tending to inject shockingly cold water into the system.  I think, for example, of the springs feeding the area of Zilker Park, down in Austin, Texas, where the water will remain at temperatures in the mid-fifties when the weather has been in the nineties for months.  It is beyond exhilarating.  I cannot imagine John standing in such a place hours on end baptizing folks.  His legs would have gone numb long since.

Of course, nothing demands that every spring-fed stream is so cold as all that, nor that his ministry was taking place right there at the spring, rather than downstream a bit where the sun had opportunity to warm the waters a bit.  I would note here, as well, that bit from the Didache demonstrating a clear preference for cold, natural running water.  Was that a reflection of these earliest scenes, or merely a preference over against cistern water, i.e. use living water to represent the Living Water?

Later, John tells us, Jesus returned to Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John had first begun baptizing (and where He Himself was baptized), and the crowds were coming to Him there.  Those crowds, apparently, were largely composed of John’s followers.  One might further suppose these were the followers who had been paying greater attention to his message than those who troubled John the Apostle later.  Their comments are telling.  “John performed no sign, yet everything he said of this man was true” (Jn 10:40-42).  Again, the apostle’s purpose is clearly that of establishing that John the Baptist was not the Messiah.  Those he quotes here, he says, believed in Christ on that occasion.  I.e. like John himself, and like Peter and Andrew, they had moved from being John’s disciples to being disciples of Christ, and that was done in accord with the prompting of John the Baptist himself. 

As concerns coverage of baptism in the Gospels, it is noteworthy in my view just how little is said on the topic apart from what is said in discussing John the Baptist.  The brief notice John gives us concerning that period where both ministries were active is effectively the sole testimony we have to the disciples of Christ baptizing in the course of His earthly ministry.  Everywhere else, baptism has to do with John the Baptist.  On that point, consider the nature of the questioning he underwent from the Pharisees.  They did not ask him what he was doing, only on what authority.  They apparently had some concept of baptism already.  This wasn’t the issue.  The issue, if I understand the background material correctly, is that they associated this baptism with the arrival of Messiah himself, not with some forerunner.  If you are not the heavenly representative, John, what authority can you claim for doing what you’re doing?

Now, as regards the general response of the Pharisees – remember that there were indeed Pharisees and Sadducees to be found amongst those who responded to John’s message – there is something said in Luke’s account which has struck me as one of the saddest assessments ever made in Scripture.  Jesus is explaining the relationship of John to the Scriptures and to the further developments of the kingdom.  None to date was ever greater than John (Lk 7:28-30).  He is the culmination of the whole body of Scripture to that point, for all the Law and the Prophets prophesied until John, and he is in reality the Elijah who was to come.  That bits fulfilled, if you would but recognize the truth of it.  Thus is John summed up by the One he announced.  But, note that it is also said that the least person in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John.  He is the epitome of the Old Covenant, but every last member of the New Covenant community is inherently superior.

All of this is well and good.  But, the sad part comes in Luke’s summation of John.  The general populace, he notes, had responded to John’s message with obedience and repentance.  Even tax-gatherers were heeding the call of Christ’s messenger.  But, not this: The Pharisees and lawyers, in refusing John’s baptism, rejected God’s purpose for themselves (Lk 7:30).  Can you imagine a worse epitaph?  Here lies one who rejected God’s purpose for his life.  It is also of note that by this assessment the Pharisaic movement is not a mistake in the development of God’s economy.  They started out on the right course, and with right motive.  But, what had become of that movement, given the corruption of fallen man, had brought it to a place of actively rejecting the very purpose for which it had been formed.

Again, though, I have strayed from my own purpose in this exploration.  Let’s look at that later point in the final week when Jesus and the Pharisees are confronting one another in the courts of the temple.  They have tried their cleverness on Him.  Now, He has one question of His own for them to answer.  Was John’s baptism from God or man? (Mt 21:25-26, Mk 11:30-32, Lk 20:4-7).  Was this a mere invention of some crazy Galilean, or was it something done by God’s design?  This had the effect of revealing the true motivation of the leadership of the Pharisees.  They considered not what God was or was not authorizing.  They considered the opinion of the masses, how they largely accepted that John was a prophet.  They also considered their own prestige, in fact considered this even more weighty than either God’s word or public opinion of John.  What will they think of us?  If we claim John is no prophet, they will think us fools.  If we claim this was a God-ordained ministry, then Jesus will be asking why we refused to obey what God had ordained, and again they will think us fools, and impious fools at that!  So, they pled ignorance.  What a sorry state of affairs when admitting to have no clue about one’s own area of expertise is the face-saving response!

But, note once again:  They did not need to consider what baptism was.  They did not require an explanation of the term.  Against this must be balanced the fact of the question being asked.  If baptism were a normal process of Judaism at the time, the question would make no sense.  If John was only doing what was standard practice already, there is no question about his ministry other than that one of authorization to be ministering at all.  Now, the question does not require us to reach the conclusion that baptism was something utterly and entirely new.  If it was a rite wholly unknown to Judaism at the time one would indeed expect some larger questions, perhaps not at this point in the narrative, but certainly earlier, when they were confronting John directly.  The nature of their questioning, though, connected with Jesus’ question for them here, would indicate that the way John was applying this rite, or the fact that he was requiring Jew and Gentile both to be baptized, was something new.  Perhaps it was the call to repentance itself that was novel in their eyes.  What cause had a son of the Chosen People to repent?  They were circumcised sons of Abraham.  They were Pharisees, for crying out loud!  The very paragons of virtue:  ask anybody!  That they should be said to have need to repent was something that would no doubt lead to questions in their minds.  “We don’t know.”  And so, they were found to have that much more thoroughly rejected God’s purpose for themselves.

We also find at least one occasion when baptismal terminology is used in its figurative sense in the Gospels, perhaps two; but I could easily suppose that both reflect the same primary occasion.  Luke gives us the words of Jesus concerning His mission.  “I have come to cast fire upon the earth, and would that it were already kindled!  But, I must undergo a baptism, and I am in extremis until that is done” (Lk 12:49-50).  This, if not the same occasion, is undoubtedly the same baptism He refers to when James and John come asking for positions of privilege in His kingdom (Mk 10:37-40).  “Are you really able to drink the cup I must drink?  Do you really think you can be baptized with the same baptism with which I am baptized?”  Indeed, He says, they shall experience these things.

If falls to us to seek to understand what exactly He was pointing to with this baptism.  It is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit had long since descended upon Him and remained.  It is not directly the means of death by crucifixion, for so far as we know, neither James nor John was crucified.  In fact, so far as we know, John died of natural causes, though not for lack of trying.  To what degree the attempts on his life are true accounts and to what degree fable is unclear.  But, certainly his period of exile on Patmos is real enough.  James was put to death more swiftly, but was most assuredly put to death, and that for his faith.  Is it, then, merely the fact of death to which Jesus refers?  That is certainly an image that Paul picks up on, the way that we, in baptism, associate with the death of Christ.  We preach Christ, and Him crucified, until He comes!  But, if it is only the fact of death to which He points, then all men are baptized into His baptism, which would make the whole thing rather pointless.

The cup, we could easily suppose from an abundance of Scriptural support, represents God’s wrath poured out.  But, could it be that the baptism points in a different direction?  Certainly, we understand that the word takes on the sense of being whelmed, overrun, as it were, as though drowning in the flood of events.  Given that sense, it tends towards very negative connotations, for who looks forward to drowning, even in a figurative sense?  But, we just as assuredly do not look upon the rite of baptism as a thing to be feared or avoided.  Even John’s baptism was not a whelming of sorrow, but of hope.  Herein, I would like to think we may have a new key to try in the lock.  “I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished” (Lk 12:50)!  But after?  After it is accomplished, what glory is set before Him!

I do not believe I can find grounds for supposing this figurative use of baptism was devoid of negative consequences.  If it were all about blessing, there would hardly be cause to ask James and John if they thought themselves capable of withstanding it.  But, for the glory set before Him He endured the cross, endured that baptism, because though it overwhelmed and wholly covered Him over, it did not endure.  It was not a tomb but a tunnel.  Like Moses and Israel in the Red Sea (that analogy Paul brings forth), He was surrounded on all sides.  But, there was an entrance and there was an exit.  Most importantly, there was an exit, and through that exit lay glory.  So it would be for James and for John, for Peter and for Andrew.  So it is for us.  We enter the grave of baptism, but only so as to emerge into newness of life.

So far as the Gospel accounts are concerned, there remains the Great Commission for our consideration, and much indeed is made of that Commission as regards the nature and the proper application of baptism.  Mark covers this briefly.  “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.  He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16).  Insofar as there is an order of events being given here, it is clear that preaching precedes belief and baptism.  “How shall they call on Him if they have not believed, and how shall they believe in Him if they have not heard?  How, then, shall they hear without a preacher?” (Ro 10:14).  That this is the general economy of the Gospel, if not the absolute law of the Gospel is clear.

But, as concerns the order of belief and baptism, can a clear order be discerned from this passage?  I think one could easily construe a proper order from simple logic, and from the inferences of that passage from Romans.  But, from Mark?  It strikes me that what we have in that verse is a bit of parallelism.  The two are offered as presentations of the same thought.  Note that in the countervailing thought, baptism’s absence is not mentioned, only the absence of belief.  One could take it as further proof that baptism cannot be deemed appropriate where it has not followed after belief.  But, one could also make the case that baptism has no salvific role.  Indeed, unless Jesus was lying to the thief on the cross, it is necessary for us to accept that baptism is no requirement for salvation.  “Today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43).  That seems an unmistakable declaration of that one’s salvation, and we can be certain nobody took that thief off the cross and baptized him before putting him back up.

Add to this that the whole tail end of Mark’s Gospel is considered by some to be rather suspect material.  Its provenance is questionable.  If we are going to take these verses as laying out requirements of Christian practice, must we not give equal weight to what follows?  We are told, after all, that these are the evidences of faith, signs that will accompany those who believe.  But, do we require proof of having performed exorcisms as prerequisite for church membership?  Do we even accept that speaking in tongues is a thing at all?  Few if any are going to demand that converts handle poisonous snakes, or insist they have a sip of this cup of poison to prove their confession.  It would seem that one ought to give each portion of this commission equal weight and authority.

But, let us look at the more accepted form of the commission, as we have it in Matthew 28:18-20.  “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”  Notice the initial point, the therefore upon which the rest depends.  Jesus has been given full authority over creation.  He is Authority.  Therefore make disciples.

As it happens I was listening to this month’s message from R.C. Sproulthis Monday, and he was discussing this matter of being a disciple in the context of Jesus calling the first four disciples.  There is the well-recognized aspect of this business of discipleship which has the disciple wholly committed to his teacher, following him in his daily activities and committing to memory everything he has to say.  But, there is also the aspect of becoming a servant to that master, a slave willingly submitted and committed to his service.  That latter aspect, I think, must be heard in the great commission.

It’s not enough to get the faith commitment.  It’s not enough to get the acceptance of the truth of the Gospel.  Note the follow-on aspect of this effort:  “Teaching them to observe all that I commanded.”  Show them what they are to do, and train them to be obedient in doing it.  Make them proper slaves of their Master.  Oh!  How we rankle to hear such a description.  Just like the Jews who heard Jesus first hand, our immediate reaction is to proudly declare that we are slave to no man.  And, may it ever be true that we are slave to no man.  But, at the same time may we gladly, joyously bind ourselves to the King of kings to be His servants.  And may we, having done so, never lose sight of the reality of our commitment, that we have declared ourselves – just like the Apostles before us – bondservants of Christ.  It is not for us to advise Him as to how He ought to do the work of His kingdom.  It is not for us to tell Him how it’s going to be with us.  It is for us to hear and to obey.  It is for us to make every endeavor to clearly understand His directions, even to anticipate them, and to pursue what He commands with all alacrity.

It is also not for us to innovate.  This is a key concern in this whole issue of baptism.  It was an issue in any number of regards as the early Church sought to ensure that the worship and service of the Church was in full accord with the Master of the disciples.  It ought still to be our deep and abiding concern today.  Are we doing as He commands, or are we doing as we please and requesting that He bless our self-determination?

So, then:  If we are to teach others to obey all His commandments, we must surely seek to know them with accuracy ourselves; and not only to know them, but to actively obey and pursue them.  And here is the foremost instruction set before us.  Go and make disciples.  Let’s take a few moments to consider the details here.  Go:  This verb is given to us as an Aorist Passive Participle.  Zhodiates says that the Aorist Participle indicates a simple action, a one-shot, if you will.  The Passive Voice, of course, typically indicates that the subject receives the action of the verb.  But, it is noted that this may represent an intransitive.  One could offer the translation as, “Be going.”  Wheeler says the Aorist Participle is an antecedent to the main verb.  I.e. You can’t teach if you haven’t first gone to those who need teaching.  Alternately stated:  They aren’t going to come to you.  You go to them.  The Deponent Passive, by Wheeler’s explanation, would appear to map to Zhodiates’ intransitive:  A passive form with active meaning.

Moving to the matter of teaching, making disciples, we have an Aorist Active Imperative.  So, concerned with the whole process, not so much with the time (although it will follow after the going).  It is active.  You are to do the teaching.  It is imperative.  You are commanded to this.  It’s not optional.  It’s not something you might choose to do.  As to the baptizing and the teaching to observe, both of these are Present Active Participles.  These, then, are repeated, continuous actions, a constant practice; and being active, they are again things we are to do.

Some definitions are also worth our taking time to consider.  Teaching, in the first case of making disciples, is the term matheteuo [3100].  Given its usage here, it has that sense of making them disciples or followers, with all that discipleship implies (so much more than merely students).  It brings to bear that whole idea of bringing them to follow His instruction, the which we have spelled out in verse 20.  Baptizing, I think we have covered sufficiently as to definition.  But ,we also have that amplification of teaching, this time didaskoo [1321], to be a teacher – typically one who teaches through didactic discourse.  To teach requires us to speak (else how will they hear?)  But, it is speaking with a particular goal, which is that those who hear will (a) embrace that doctrine we speak forth, (b) remember that doctrine, and (c) put that doctrine into practice.  And, what is it we are to teach?  Teach them to observe, teereoo [5083], take care of and attend to, guard as of utmost value, panta [3956] hosa [3745], every last thing commanded, entelloo [1781], ordered to be done, enjoined upon them.

Now, note: The fundamental command here is “Make disciples.”  That is the imperative.  “Go” is a necessary antecedent action and, we might note, one predicated on the practice of the Master.  He did not wait for disciples to come begging entry into His school.  He went.  He broke utterly with rabbinic tradition and personally recruited those He would disciple.  Tradition required the disciple to prove himself worthy of entering the school of the rabbi.  Jesus went out and selected His students.  “Come.  Follow Me.”  We must likewise go out and recruit, not wait for a dying public to come seek us out.  It won’t happen.

To our present purpose, though, both the baptizing of verse 19 and the teaching of verse 20 are set before us as verbal adjectives.  They explain to us what that process of making disciples is going to look like.  Baptism will be a part of it.  So, too, will instruction.  Now, much is made of the order of events described here, insisting that making disciples is a necessary precedent for baptizing.  It has been noted by others that, based on that same logic, teaching must come after baptism.  However, if these two activities are but descriptions of what disciple making looks like, then I believe we have no commanded order presented here, only two activities that combine to demonstrate what discipling entails.  There is the training with an eye towards instilling obedience, and there is baptism which, on one level at least, would serve as a first evidence of obedience.  If there is an order implied here, therefore, it is not based upon word order but upon how baptism is understood in the first place.  If indeed it is a confession, a public declaration of affiliation with Christ, then logically, it must come subsequent to the determination to so affiliate, and that determination cannot have been made in any useful fashion without first understanding what such affiliation would entail.  In a word, teaching of some sort would necessarily precede baptism.  But, I dare say teaching does not stop with baptism.  Discipling does not find baptism as its end-goal.  It is more nearly a starting point, a first stop. The life of those who are working out their own salvation in fear and trembling, though, is just beginning with that first act of obedience.  To be baptized does neither require nor imply a full and detailed grasp of every last aspect of the Christian faith.  It ought reasonably to follow on sufficient understanding as to have made an informed choice of obedience.  It must, to have any real meaning, presuppose sufficient knowledge of Christian doctrine to know, for example, what one has put his faith in, what one has agreed to obey.  If it is a covenantal matter, then how much more necessary the understanding of the covenant’s terms! 

Moving into the book of Acts, we find a great deal more said about baptism than in any other section.  It begins with some final words from Jesus wherein He indicates that while John baptized with water, the Apostles would shortly be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Ac 1:5).  In light of the purpose for this study, it seems worthwhile to consider the end of that message. “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Ac 1:8a).  That upon is epi [1909], over or upon, superimposition.  So, then, it’s primary sense is being upon the surface of a place or thing.  It can have a sense nearer to that of en, with its expression of motion towards a thing, but retaining the idea of that rest which follows after the motion.  In a more figurative sense, it can point us to the grounds for some action or condition, the basis.  Or, it can indicate that upon which the thing rests.  You get the idea.  It has a pretty wide range of meaning, as one might expect.

I will note that epi is used on at least one occasion in more direct reference to baptism, indicating being baptized epi the name of Jesus.  The idea there, according to Thayer, is that having been thus baptized, one’s hope and confidence rests (epi) upon His power and authority.  Here, we see that almost in reverse, as His power and authority, in the Holy Spirit comes to rest upon the Apostles.  The whole of this becomes interesting to me in that the two matters of baptism and the Holy Spirit coming to rest are set as parallels, as I read things.  The one thing is the other.  To be baptized with the Spirit is to have Him come upon you (and per other Scriptural references) to make His abode with you, occupying your temple.  Can this be taken to indicate anything as to the mode of baptism, and in particular water baptism?  Is the coming of the Holy Spirit a whelming equivalent to immersion?  Or, ought we to take that epi as indicating more of a surface thing?  Well, if He is coming to take up His abode in us, I would tend to day we can read neither into the matter.  If He is within, He can hardly be thought to have overwhelmed.  It is nearer to the saturation aspect of bapto that many refer to.  But, neither is He upon if He is within.  Further, while we have the connecting terminology of baptism, it is not clear to me that we need to expect an exact correlation between the sign of water baptism and the greater reality of being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

One thing that is clearly to be noted in this, as well as in other coverage of baptism in this earliest period of the church, is that the two events are very much distinct.  That has been hinted at since John the Baptist was introduced.  This water baptism, while clearly important, is not the impartation of the Holy Spirit.  It is not the transference of either power or authority.  Whatever may be said of it, the imparting of the Spirit remains separate from water baptism.

It is also interesting that Jesus points back to John’s baptism, but makes no mention of the baptismal practices of His own disciples.  Did they not likewise baptize with water only?  For the Spirit had not yet been given.  It seems clear that He placed significance on that baptism of repentance which John had introduced, and the disciples appear to have picked up on that.  When they turn to the matter of replacing Judas, one of the criteria they set upon the candidates for that replacement is that they had been with the group “from the beginning, with John’s baptism” (Ac 1:22).  The primary point they are setting out is that an Apostle must have been present for the entirety of Jesus’ earthly ministry, must have received the full course of training from baptism to resurrection.  But, they are not pointing back to the day Jesus was baptized, precisely, or if it is, it is not made explicitly clear.  It is as reasonable to suppose they are saying the one who would be an Apostle ought properly to have been baptized by John, even as Jesus was.  But, perhaps I read into the matter.

It remains the case, though, that throughout the book of Acts, water baptism and Spirit baptism remain two very distinct matters.  Early church practice appears to have maintained this idea, and associated Spirit baptism with the laying on of hands.  I am not sure, at this remove, that theirs was a correct interpretation.  I would be far more inclined to say that the true baptism of the Spirit comes by Christ’s hand alone.  Perhaps further material from Scripture will clarify that point.

Next, we come upon the first several baptismal events in the Church.  We begin with Peter’s inaugural sermon, in particular the closing words of that part of the message Luke gives us (Ac 2:38-41).  “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  You shall also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  For, the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off: as many as the Lord God shall call to Himself.”  Luke tells us that Peter said much more than he records, although he does not say whether that followed or preceded the part he includes.  The result, though, was that “those who received what he said were baptized.”

Now, there are a few points from this passage that various parties pick up on.  First, there is the order indicated by Peter’s words.  “Repent, and be baptized.”  Of course, Peter is preaching, and as he is preaching, he is necessarily speaking to those capable of understanding his words.  Indeed, we may recall the interposition of the Spirit’s power on this occasion, such that each member of that crowd heard things said in their own language.  Did that extend to cover Peter’s message?  It would seem reasonable to suppose so.  After all, this was the critical bit.  The prelude had been just that: prelude.

What, then, should we make of this order?  If Christian baptism, as Peter and the others understood it, remained a matter of repentance, then yes, one would certainly suppose that the reality of repentance must needs precede the sign.  Of course, it must also follow the sign.  It’s not as though the need for repentance ceases at the water’s edge.  One may also question the composition of that crowd listening to Peter.  Were there children present?  That much seems likely enough.  It is a festal period in Jerusalem, and the male population, at least, is coming from far and wide. Thus, we have representatives in from North Africa and elsewhere as Peter holds forth.  Were there infants to be included in that number?  We cannot say, for Scripture does not say.  Neither can we reasonably make any case built upon the absence of mention.  What we can say is that when Luke covered the feeding of the multitude, he explicitly states the number as being the count of men (Lk 9:14).  Here, he uses a far more general term: souls.  We can draw no conclusion as to sex or age based on that.

Where we may find some winnowing of the crowd is in verse 41.  “Those who had received his word were baptized.”  These are the three thousand.  They heard.  They understood.  They received.  Apodechomai [588].  They welcomed and approved what was said, the implication being that they fully intended to act upon those words, and their baptism proved it.  The reasonable assumption is that they also acted upon the call to repent.  So, then, they have that first step or two.  They have acknowledged their sin and their need for a Savior, and they have set their faith in Him.  As a first act of faith, they have been baptized.  Do they, then, have a full grasp of faith and all that faith entails?  Have they been taught the full scope of what a disciple must know?  Hardly.  But, they have enrolled!  And note the follow on.  “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostle’s teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Ac 2:42).  Discipling had begun, and their commitment to the process was clear.

Switch scenes to Samaria (Ac 8:12-17).  Philip has been at work there.  Again, those who believed were being baptized, and in this case we are explicitly told that both men and women were thus baptized.  No mention of children.  And note also the matter of Peter and John coming up later.  These had been baptized, but Peter and John came up to pray that they might receive the Holy Spirit because they had not as yet done so.  So, Peter and John were laying hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit (v17).  And therein we find the basis for early church practice.  The practice continues to this day in ordination, although in many cases, it is seen as more a matter of Apostolic succession than of imparting the Holy Spirit.

Continuing to follow Philip, we find him accompanying the Ethiopian eunuch returning to the court of Candace (Ac 8:36-38).  Philip has been explaining from the Scriptures (just as Jesus had done with those two on the Emmaus road), demonstrating how this all led up to the Christ.  The power of his message reached the eunuch, and coming upon ‘some water’, he sought baptism.  There is a verse of questionable provenance here, indicating Philip’s declaration that baptism was possible so long as belief was full.  More to the point, we have the description of those two going down into the water: katebeesan eis, descending into or towards the water.  Thayer’s makes note that katabeesan does not require us to understand entrance into the waters, but may involve only the surface, unto, or near.  For what it may be worth, the same term is used to speak of Peter and John coming down to Samaria (Ac 8:15).  That would certainly seem to necessitate entrance.  Can the same be said on this occasion?  Well, coming to verse 39, we read that they then came up out of the water, anebeesan ek.  The first indicates motion to a higher place, which one would certainly expect, since water invariably moves to the lowest point.  Ek, as we have seen, has the primary sense of ‘out from’, but may reduce to simply ‘from’.  It seems most reasonable, at this juncture, to accept that these two did indeed enter into the water, and not merely kneel down at the edge, cup some water in hand, and pour it over the eunuch’s head.  Both went down, both came up.  Both, we may presume, went in.  What we cannot say with any degree of conviction is that either man went under.

Coming to Paul’s baptism, it is not clear at all that to what degree faith and belief enter into the matter.  He has certainly been faced with an undeniably superior power, and has acknowledged that one as Lord.  He has heard this one claim to be Jesus, whom he knows to have been crucified.  He doubtless knows somewhat of the subsequent controversy around the empty tomb.  But, we do not know his state of mind when he encounters Ananias (Ac 9:10-20).  What we can learn from this passage is why Paul would come to associate baptism with death and resurrection.  Consider that peculiar experience of his, being ‘three days without sight’ during which he neither ate nor drank.  Now, that last bit is presumably voluntary, and signifies a real seeking of the Lord God.  Whether his thinking had yet allowed that Jesus was indeed the Lord God is uncertain, but we do know this:  Having been baptized upon the restoration of his sight, and having in the process been filled with the Holy Spirit, it was only a few days before he was preaching Christ as God’s Son.

Do we have sufficient evidence here to insist that Paul had faith prior to baptism?  So long as we conclude that Ananias, alongside explaining that he was sent by Jesus, and that part of his mission was to see Paul filled with the Holy Spirit, also explained the significance of baptism.  A couple of things to notice about this:  The concept of the Holy Spirit is introduced without any note of explanation, which would suggest Paul had some understanding, at least, of the Spirit.  That’s perfectly reasonable.  The Old Testament Scriptures have sufficient mention of the Spirit of God, and he is a Pharisee, so he would be convinced of the reality of these spirit-beings like angels and spirits.  Further, baptism is not explained to him, at least in the brief that Luke gives us regarding this encounter.  Of course, he doesn’t give us the details of that baptism either.  Did it take place there in Ananias’ house, or did they head to the local baths, or the river, or what?  What formula did Ananias use?  What, if any, explanation preceded the act?  All that aside, if we assume some basic knowledge of baptism’s significance, I think we can be assured that Paul has indeed come to faith if he is accepting this act of being baptized.  A Pharisee of the Pharisees, and a persecutor of the sect of the Christians, it’s hardly likely he would undergo their signature rite if he had not come to believe their doctrines, at least in basic form.

Next, we come to Peter’s baptism of Cornelius and his household, as the Gospel of Christ is opened to the Gentiles (Ac 10:31-48).  He has called Peter to explain God to himself and to his family, and Peter has come, albeit only after some strong prodding by God Himself.  In explaining Christ, Peter starts back with John’s baptism as being the start of things.  It all started there in Galilee after John began proclaiming the need for baptism (v37).  Coming to verse 44, we are told that the Spirit fell upon those who were listening to Peter, and they began speaking with tongues as they exalted God.  This leads Peter to ask who could refuse water baptism where the Holy Spirit has already so clearly baptized already (verse 47).

So, once again we see a separation between Spirit baptism and water baptism, albeit a very short separation in this case.  The Spirit fell, epipiptoo to fall upon, press upon, lie upon, take possession of.  And He fell upon those who were listening, akouoo, hearing, attending to, considering and understanding.  We could take that to simply mean hearing the noise of his words, but the context rather precludes so simple an understanding of intent.  It is clear from the introduction of Cornelius and his family that they were actively seeking to come to knowledge of God, and God was just as clearly pleased to see them find that knowledge of Himself.  They were not passively overhearing some conversation between Peter and his companions.  They had called him here for this specific purpose, and they were attending carefully to his words.  They were ready to believe ere he came, and by God’s grace, they believed indeed.  The Spirit sealed it by His presence.  This is only fitting, as it would be impossible for them to have believed had God not been at work.  But, that is a point for a different text.  Be that as it may, Peter recognizes the handiwork of God, and is hardly going to refuse the sign where the reality has so clearly already taken hold.

Something else we can observe from this case is that we have no evidence of Cornelius and family seeking after baptism.  They are seeking after God, yes, and they are clearly aware of John’s baptism.  But, we see no declaration that they were seeking baptism themselves.  Rather, Peter, seeing God at work, effectively volunteers their baptism.  It has to be said that on this occasion it seems entirely unlikely that any sort of preparatory exposition was offered.  No.  The Spirit moved.  Peter responded.  Baptism followed.  “He ordered them to be baptized.”  He commanded it.  Now, who needed that command?  Ah!  How I wish my syntactical skills were better.

Consider the word order here:  He commanded and them in the name of the Lord to be baptized.  If memory serves, the relocation of ‘and’ to second position just makes the conjunctive nature of the thing clear.  But, “in the name of Jesus Christ”:  Is that a qualifier on how they are to be baptized, or is it a qualifier on how he commanded?  It seems standard practice to associate that with baptism, and my talents are insufficient to do other than accept that as correct.

What does seem reasonably clear here is that those who were baptized had heard with understanding, and having understood, had believed.  Let’s go back nearer the start of this event.  “Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends” (Ac 10:23).  This sounds to me more an adult gathering than a family event.  Peter, we are told, “found many people assembled” (Ac 10:27).  We further have Cornelius’ statement that, “We are all here present before God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord” (Ac 10:33).  This, it seems clear enough, is not a passage that could support infant baptism.  It would be hard even to infer the presence of children in this case.  It seems to me that Cornelius would view the matter as too serious a thing.

The narrative continues with Peter’s deposition before his fellow Apostles back in Jerusalem.  The only point of significance for us at present, I think, is this from Acts 11:16-17.  “I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’  If God therefore gave to them the same gift as to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”  Two points here:  First, note carefully Peter’s inclusion of the clause, ‘after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ’.  This does not require us to suppose that the Holy Spirit had not been active prior to belief.  It might also serve as a caution to those who suppose signs and wonders alone sufficient to prove faith.  Peter, it seems, required both.  They believed, and afterwards, there were the gifts in evidence.  Clearly, then, God acknowledged their faith, and accepted their worship.  On these grounds, he proceeded to baptism, and did so in the view that his commanding of their baptism was God’s own command.  It would seem, then, that in Peter’s thinking at least there was a proper order by which things ought to be done:  Faith first, evidence second, obedience to seal.

Returning briefly to Paul’s conversion and the question of faith, we have his own later testimony as answer.  “God had said to me, ‘Why do you delay?  Arise and be baptized.  Wash away your sins, calling on His name’” (Ac 22:16).  If, then, Ananias had not explained the matter, it would seem God Himself had done so.  He had also, apparently, made clear that the connection between baptism, repentance, and remission of sins remained.  One could hardly hope to wash away sins to which one had never admitted.  Perhaps, where there are sins one is unaware of, yes, these God might see fit to remove without troubling us further.  But, Paul’s sins were painfully clear to him, and always would be.  “I am the chief of sinners!”  He, of all people, would know the need for repentance.  And it is made clear enough from this that the basic Jewish understanding of the business of baptism recognized it as a purifying rite, whether or not it was any sort of standard practice at the time.

Next, we come to the case of Lydia (Ac 16:14-15).  The first thing to be noticed is just how little we are told about her conversion.  She is from Thyatira, whereas the action takes place in Philippi.  How far a distance is that?  Looks to be about 200 miles.  It would also require traveling by ship part way to keep the journey so short.  At bare minimum, one would have to cross the Bosporus.  But, then one has options.  Take to ship, or follow the Thracian coast.  We might also ask just what Luke means by her being from that city.  Is he indicating her origins only, or is he indicating that she is only in Philippi temporarily?  The answer to this question would certainly shape how we understand her household.

Let’s consider Thyatira briefly.  Fausset indicates that it lay between Pergamum and Sardis, and there was indeed a ‘guild of dyers’ in that place.  Churches in all three of these cities were addressed by Jesus in the Revelation.  Some suggest Lydia may have been the one who brought the seed of the Gospel there.  Again referring to Fausset, Philippi was the ‘parent city’ of Thyatira.  Dyed goods were imported to Philippi for dispersal elsewhere.  The two points combined suggest that Lydia was unlikely to be a permanent resident in Philippi, although business may have brought her there often enough to justify setting up a second household there.

Next, observe that she is a saleswoman, a merchant.  She is, then, a guild member in Thyatira.  She is presumably in Philippi on business.  She is also, we are told, a worshiper of God, a god-fearer.  The question that is before us concerns whether her household consisted in family members or slaves?  Did she even have family as we might measure it?  Is there a husband?  Are there children?  We don’t know.  Even if we accept the probability of her being married and with children, which is by no means certain, would the children be with her on a business trip?  And, even if we accept this much, would their number include those young enough to be accounted infants?  All of this must be accepted if we are to take “she and her household” as any sort of evidence for infant baptism.  That is an awful lot of supposition, though, to try and establish any sort of doctrine on the basis of this passage.

What of the question of immersion?  Well, they met by the riverside, where the women were gathered in prayer.  That is an intriguing detail in itself.  There was a place of prayer established, but it seems, at least on this occasion (Ac 16:13), to have been a place for the women of the city (presumably the faithful women of the city) to gather.  Yet, there is Paul, together with his companions.  What are they doing there?  Would this violate any sort of local taboos?  Would they care?  If this was primarily a gathering of God-fearing Gentiles, would they have picked up the Jewish sensibilities as to keeping men and women separate in the synagogue?  Apparently not, for they do not seem to register any shock at these men coming to talk to them.  Perhaps, being Gentiles, they are actually rather pleased and relieved to have this personal tutelage.  To our point, though, water is clearly very nearby, and it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that they returned to the river to take care of the baptism.  Does that require us to understand immersion?  No.  In fact, I could envision a bit of moral squeamishness preventing Paul from entering the waters with this woman.  But, nothing definitive, it seems to me, can be said one way or the other.

Let’s try the jailor and his household (Ac 16:25-34).  Here, it seems far more likely that family is involved.  It is the local jailor, or a local jailor, of whom we are talking, a man of some responsibility in this Roman city.  He has also, apparently, been caught out sleeping on the job, and knows full well how terrible a punishment awaits.  It is thus that his immediate reaction is to take his own life (verse 27).  He comes to Paul and Silas, ‘trembling with fear’.  Why?  It might be the earthquake.  But, I tend to think it has more to do with concerns over Roman retribution.  He’s been told all the prisoners just sat there with the cells opened, but has he checked for himself?  At any rate, he is talked out of suicide, and turns to the question of how he might save himself.  Again, it’s not clear that he’s thinking in terms of eternity.  More likely, he’s thinking in very temporal terms.  But, Paul’s answer will pull him into eternity wherever he’s starting from.  “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved – you and your household” (Ac 16:31).

While not explicitly stated as being the case, it seems abundantly clear that they proceed to the jailor's house, where all his household give ear to Paul’s words.  Then, we find him (the jailor) taking them (Paul and Silas) to wash their wounds (verse 33).  It is night, and apparently fairly late at night, for Luke makes a point of saying that he took them, ‘that hour of the night’.  But, if he took them, presumably, he took them somewhere besides his house.  Again, we must assume they have already gone from jail to house, for his household listened to Paul.  It’s hardly to be supposed they came to the jail to hear.  So, they went elsewhere to wash.  What does this tell us?  Well, it tells us there was no bath in the home, which would be pretty typical.  Being a Roman city, it is to be supposed there were public baths.  I’m not clear exactly how those operated, but it wouldn’t be that surprising to find they were accessible at all hours.  Why not?  So, they go wash, and then the come back to his house and eat.  Now, wherever they went to wash, he and ‘all his’ were baptized.

Again, we have two issues to consider.  First, did this involve immersion?  I don’t see why it wouldn’t.  Certainly, if they have gone to a public bathhouse, nothing prevents it.  On the other hand, would such a public bathhouse have accepted men, women and children all in the same chambers?  I don’t know.  Would servants have been permitted in with the masters?  Again, I don’t know.  I have not the understanding of protocols that may have been in place.  Of course, it is apparently late at night when they go, so it may not have mattered anyway.

Second, who is included in ‘all his’, and how so?  Let us be clear that there is no direct mention of household here.  It is simply all his.  That, as I understand it, is pretty typical for Greek.  The object is assumed known to the reader, so why waste ink on it?  So, here’s a question to consider.  They went – wherever it is they went – with the intentions of cleaning up the wounds Paul and Silas had suffered.  Who would have been involved with that?  Is that something one brings the wife and kids for?  I think not.  More likely, if there was anybody involved besides the jailor himself, it would be a household servant.  Which leads to another question:  How likely was it that a jailor had any household servants?  It’s not exactly a prestige position.

This may require us to read that ‘all his’ with a bit more sense of the culture.  Here, I must work by what I have read of the times, and that would seem to indicate that the decisions of the head of household were most generally held to apply to the whole household.  That would include wife and kids, to be sure, but would also encompass any slaves.  This would be particularly true when it came to religious decisions.  Consider that Rome was entirely pantheistic.  Somebody had to decide which god or gods the family would claim.  It may be that the wife had her own associations with other gods or goddesses on the side, but the official family position was determined by the head of the house, in this case the jailor.  With such an understanding in place, when we read Luke’s words here (and remember, he is very much native to this culture), his saying that he and his were baptized may mean simply that the jailor was baptized, and his decision was seen as applying to ‘all his’.  Here, some of our translations have tried to sort the Greek a bit for us, and almost all of them go at least so far as to supply the object of ‘all his’.  Some make the matter of baptizing plural – “they were baptized”.  But, the Greek has it in the singular.

If I might offer it in barbarously strict order, “was baptized he and the his all”.  Note that ‘he’ is intensive, indicating subject, where ‘his’ is genitive, i.e. indication of a relationship of possession, as that form of the pronoun in English would imply.  So, then, he was baptized.  That much is clear.  The full significance of, ‘and all his’ is much murkier, but it seems likely to indicate inclusion by inference rather than any literal participation in water baptism then and there.  It’s possible, but the scene does not appear to make it likely.

To move a step further, even were it to be accepted that this jailor traipsed through the city streets at night with family in tow as he brought these two convicts (!) to the public baths, we do not have anything by which to require that this includes children of any age, let alone infants.  We are given no details of the makeup of this man’s household.  Perhaps, that detail is left out for the very simple reason that Luke did not find it germane.  Bearing in mind Luke’s penchant for noting the involvement of women in the unfolding of the Gospel, one might expect him to make particular mention of the jailor’s wife having come along if indeed she (a) existed, and (b) had done so.

Later, having come to Corinth, we hear that Crispus who headed the synagogue in that city, believed, together with all his household (and this time, household is actually specified).  Now, here we’ve got to be careful.  Luke does not speak directly to Crispus being baptized, but says that many Corinthians believed and were being baptized (Ac 18:8).  We can fold in Paul’s recounting of the occasion in his later letter to Corinth.  “I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, oh, and the household of Stephanas” (1Co 1:14-16).  I’ll deal with that more in depth later, but for the moment, note that he does not speak of the household of Crispus or Gaius, only of Stephanas.  The most we can say here, then, is that Crispus was indeed baptized, and that by Paul directly.  We can also say, based on Paul’s testimony, that he wasn’t the one baptizing those others.

Proceeding along, we are introduced to Apollos (Ac 18:24-19:6).  This one, we are told was an Alexandrian Jew who had come to belief in Jesus, yet had only experienced John’s baptism.  Priscilla and Aquila, we are told, gave him a more thorough understanding of Christ and the Gospel, and he then went to Achaia to preach.  Of note:  Nothing is said about him being rebaptized.  It seems that Luke has much the same purpose in mind as did the Apostle John: to make clear that John the Baptist was not Messiah, but the forerunner of Messiah; that his baptism was not the goal but only the preparation.  Yet, Apollos, so far as we can discern, was not baptized into Christ, nor do we see a laying on of hands; only training, and a letter of recommendation.

However, with Apollos off to Corinth, we find Paul arriving in Ephesus, and he ‘found some disciples’.  Yet, they had been baptized with John’s baptism only.  In this case, they remained unaware of the baptism which imparted the Holy Spirit, not even clear on the fact that there was a Holy Spirit (Ac 19:2).  Presumably, then, these are Gentile disciples?  Paul explains to them that John’s baptism had to do with repentance and preparation for the coming of Jesus.  Having heard this, they (a) were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (v5), and (b) had hands laid upon them by Paul, at which point the Holy Spirit came on them (v6), made evident by their breaking into tongues and prophecy.

Notice that we have therefore three distinct rites in view.  First, there is that baptism of repentance which was John’s baptism.  Second, there is baptism in the name of Jesus, which is apparently a thing distinct from John’s, although Paul says nothing as to its particular significance.  Then, third, there is the laying on of hands by which it seems the Holy Spirit is imparted.  Now, over against that last, we must recall that there were those upon whom the Spirit had come without any Apostolic impartation.  Peter had taken this as evidence of God accepting those whom the Apostles would not have been inclined to accept.  But, let this much be settled:  there are three items, and at least in the case of John’s baptism, it seems there was cause for rebaptism.

What of the Apostles?  Several of these men had been disciples of John until Jesus called them.  Presumably, they had been baptized into John’s baptism.  Jesus, at least according to John, did not personally baptize anybody, although His disciples did baptize others.  Well, then, were the Apostles re-baptized in the name of Christ?  And if so, by whom?  Some suggest that John did not include the Apostles themselves when he said Christ did not personally baptize.  That seems a rather forced argument.  It would be easier to suggest that John was only describing the events at that particular location, leaving open the possibility that Jesus had baptized on other occasions.  But, even that requires an inferential reading of what seems a pretty plain statement of fact.

I am inclined to suppose that Jesus accepted John’s baptism as valid, and why wouldn’t He?  John was His forerunner.  He ministered in preparation for Christ, and his baptism was not a baptism in John’s name, but in God’s.  Notice the answer that was given to Paul when he asked, “Into what were you baptized?”  They answered, “Into John’s baptism” (Ac 19:3).  Not into his name, into his baptism of repentance.

Here, too, is a strange thing.  They were disciples, but it is not entirely clear that they were disciples of Christ.  One would think, were this not the case, that Luke would have made clear that they were disciples of John that Paul would bring to Christ.  But, it seems that at this stage the need for such distinctions was not recognized.  A disciple of John was, by the nature of his teaching, a disciple of Christ, albeit one who perhaps didn’t realize it yet.  So, Paul reminds them of John’s purpose:  To point to Christ, and they, being reminded, opt to be baptized into the name of Christ.

Why?  Given the example of Apollos, it does not appear that the church held it to be a necessary action.  At least there is the possibility in that part of the account that John’s baptism was taken as perfectly legitimate in terms of fulfilling the baptism Jesus commanded.  He, however, may have been more clearly a disciple of Christ already, given his teaching in the synagogue, where he presented Jesus accurately.  These?  If they were unaware of the Holy Spirit, and needed to have it explained to them that John pointed to Jesus, it would seem they were, if you will, secondhand disciples, converts made by John’s disciples.  If that is the case, it would necessarily be such of John’s disciples as missed the point, and thought him the one to follow.  In such a case, I can see where they might choose to be baptized in a fashion they would perceive as being more legitimate.  I note that nothing is said of this baptism being demanded of them.  It had more to do with their desire.

A footnote is given about this event, where Luke notes that “there were in all about twelve men” (Ac 19:7).  This is interesting.  Is Luke merely noting the count because he happened to be there, and his knowledge of such details serves to confirm the legitimacy of his report?  Presumably, he is well enough known to Theophilus that he would need offer no such evidence.  Did he, perhaps, see a certain fitness in the parallel of this number to that of the Apostles?  Or, perhaps he set some significance in that number.  It’s unclear, and interesting though it is, I do not think it really weighs on the topic at hand.

Having followed baptism through the book of Acts, we have, primarily, Paul’s comments on the matter remaining for consideration.  Most well-known amongst these would probably be his declaration in Romans 6:3-4.  “Don’t you know?  Those who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death!  Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

I noted earlier how his own experience might have contributed to this understanding.  He had been left blind for three days.  During that time, whether by personal choice or by divine command we are not told, he was undergoing a complete fast; no food, no drink.  Surely, such an experience could leave one feeling as though dead and buried.  At the very least, a scholar such as Paul would surely have thought back to Jonah, with his three days spent in the belly of the great fish.  Here, too, was one unable to see, having no food or drink.  Here, too, was one praying fervently to God for deliverance and forgiveness.  Here, too, was one as good as dead.  But, prayers were answered!  The fish spat Jonah out.  The scales were taken from Paul’s eyes.  Having been dead and buried, in this figurative sense, each arose to a newness of life.  For Jonah, there was a renewed commitment to pursuing God’s mission whether he happened to agree with it or not.  For Paul, the change was even more momentous; from being a persecutor of the Church to being its chief theologian and evangelist.

Given that trip into the desert for training which followed close upon his baptism, he must have felt the kinship to Christ’s life that much more clearly.  But, it is on the matter of baptism that I wish to remain focused, to the degree I can remain focused.  Buried with Him in death to be raised again with Him in life:  That is the significance Paul gives to baptism.  And it is certainly a significance the Church has retained through the ages.  Reading further in Romans, we know Paul makes this an argument for sanctification.  Dead men feel no temptation.  Dead men do not sin.  Be thus dead to sin and alive to Christ!  Yet, he also shares in our failings in this regard, and fully understands the battle that rages within each one of us as we seek to comply.

Much of Paul’s discussion of baptism concerns itself with the essential unity and inclusion to be found in that rite.  “We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.  Jew and Greek, slave and free:  We are together, having been made to drink of one Spirit” (1Co 12:13-14).  “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves in Christ.  There is no distinction of Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.  You are all one in Christ, therefore Abraham’s offspring and heirs to the promise” (Gal 3:27-29).  There is one body, one Spirit, and you were called in one hope of your calling.  One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all – over all, through all, and in all.  Yet, each of us is given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (Eph 4:4-7).

How marvelous that Paul, even as he emphasizes this unity, expresses the manifold nature of the body.  We have many limbs, many different gifts.  It is unity, not uniformity.  It is that unity which expresses in harmony, not unison.  But, here we see the developing idea that baptism in some way marks out the body of believers.  It is not itself the unifying force, but it is the emblem of that unifying aspect of faith.  We are all marked out as being in Christ, children of Abraham, and heirs to the promise.  One suspects it is on this head, primarily, that the Church comes to view baptism as the prerequisite for membership.

We could add this:  “All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea” (1Co 10:2).  It was, to be sure, impossible that any man, woman or child (or even animal) transferred from the slavery of Egypt to the Exodus community en route to the Promised Land except they were there with Moses when God split the sea, and the cloud of His glory accompanied them across to freedom.  From death to life:  Again that motif finds its connection to baptism, and one suspects it is exactly for that reason that Paul draws the parallel.  To make of this an argument for full immersion would seem to stretch the point of the passage well beyond its breaking point. 

If anything, it would seem Paul’s message in that passage points up the limitations of ritual.  Look, he says:  All of these folks experienced that foreshadow of baptism.  All of them tasted the spiritual food, being fed by Christ Himself, and make no mistake about that!  And yet…  God was not pleased with most of them, and they died in the wilderness (1Co 10:5-12), which serves as an example from which we should learn.  Don’t think that having been baptized and shouted, “Praise the Lord!” you are now free to go back to immorality.  They tried that, and twenty three thousand were slain in a day for their actions.  Again, all of this stuff happened as an example, recorded for our benefit.  So, watch out, especially if you think you are standing strong, lest you fall.  And, the message continues.  Purity is demanded.  Baptism was not the once-for-all guarantee.  It is as real as the heart change it represents, as real as the death to sin it signifies.  In short, this passage has nothing to say to the mode of baptism, but much to say as concerns our understanding of its significance and power.

Rounding out coverage of baptism in the letter to Corinth, we have Paul’s decrying of those who were setting out distinctions based on who had baptized them (1Co 1:13-17).  This gets back to the overarching message of the unity which baptism proclaims.  Those who baptized did not do so in their own names, but in the name of the Triune God of heaven.  Paul lists off the few whom he did personally baptize, but only by way of giving thanks that the numbers were too few to see another faction established based on that fact.  He ends his point with this:  “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel plainly, not with clever oratory, in order that the cross of Christ should not be made void.”

That alone is worth another week of consideration.  But, no.  Keep to the purpose.  If he was not sent to baptize, did he then break his instruction in baptizing the few he did baptize?  I think not.  It was not intended to declare an exclusion as to declare proper priorities.  Preaching was the priority.  Why?  Because preaching is the primary means to promoting faith, and faith is the necessary precursor for baptism.  Baptism without faith means nothing and serves no purpose except, perhaps, to convince the reprobate of his safety, which is worse than leaving him ignorant, I should think.  One wonders if maybe that’s what Paul is thinking of when he talks about making the cross of Christ void.  Baptism without understanding, being buried together with Him in death figuratively, when the spiritual reality is nowhere to be seen?  Surely, a thing of this nature renders the power of the cross void, for it leaves the celebrant convinced of a salvation that he does not possess.

I think of those who, having been baptized as infants into the Roman Catholic church, suppose this sufficient unto salvation.  We need not confine that to the Catholics, but it is, perhaps, more prevalent there.  I suppose it could simply be my Protestant prejudices that make it seem so.  The point, though, is one to be taken to heart for all who count themselves children of God.  There is no rite by which we may suppose ourselves assured of heaven.  There is either the reality of Christ’s inward work or there is nothing.  Baptism has no power in itself.  Confirmation has no power in itself.  Communion has no power in itself.  Certainly, regular church attendance, or even filling the pulpit has no power in itself.  It is all in Christ, and all by His power working within, else it is all empty show, every bit as deadly as the practices of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

As to Paul’s comment regarding the baptizing of the dead (1Co 15:28-29), I just don’t know what to say.  Is he promoting the practice, or even condoning it?  It’s not at all clear to me.  His primary point has to do with the rule of the resurrected Christ.  If He does not reign, why bother baptizing the dead, for they will not be raised.  Why face danger for the name of Christ?  What would be the point?  We may as well join the gladiators with their credo of, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1Co 15:32).  Now, there is certainly an eye upon resurrection here, which topic Paul picks up in verse 35.  That discussion goes on at length, but primarily as regards the eternal, imperishable nature into which we are resurrected.  “If the dead are not resurrected...”.  They have perished, and they remain perished, and baptism, with its promise of that newness of life, that eternality of life, which is in Christ is clearly meaningless.  We have been fools, if this is so.  But, of course, it is not!

Finally, as concerns Paul’s comments on baptism, we have a critical passage from Colossians.  “In Him you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col 2:11-12).  OK.  Hereupon is built the argument that baptism is the direct replacement for circumcision under the New Covenant, serving the same purpose and applicable in the same regard.  But, is Paul establishing this correlation?

Let’s start with that to which Paul alludes.  “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live” (Dt 30:6).  That’s the Gospel in the midst of the Law!  Through Jeremiah, God later calls upon His people to , “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of your heart, lest My wrath go forth like fire and burn with none to quench it because of your evil deeds” (Jer 4:4).  Well, then!  Does He do it or do we do it?  Well, Paul leads us to this:  “Circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Ro 2:29).

This should lead us to a pretty clear understanding, I should think.  So far as circumcision is concerned, Paul is clearly intent on demonstrating that the physical ritual is not and never was the point.  In fact, as both he and Moses make clear, the physical act can never be enough, any more than the physical, carnal man can ever hope to satisfy the demand of the Law that we love God with all our heart and soul.  We cannot live through the Law because we cannot meet the demands of the Law.  Outward circumcision was Law.  The inward circumcision comes by Christ, the work of God Himself, done without hands.  We can no more remove the foreskin of our heart than we can love God wholeheartedly, however much we desire to do so.  Paul couldn’t do it!  John couldn’t do it!

But, Christ, in whom dwells the fullness of Deity in bodily form, has made you complete (Col 2:9-10).  He has done it.  He has fulfilled the Law, and He has circumcised your heart, a thing you could never do.  There is the fulfillment of circumcision.  Now, there’s this matter of baptism.  You have been buried with Him in baptism, and you were [already] raised up with Him through faith (Col 2:12).  Both of these are passive acts.  Both are presented as Aorists.  But, the key is the Indicative aspect of being raised up.  And note well that the term is ‘raised up together with’.  Sun.  That close union, apart from which there will be no raising up so ever.  Note where this progresses.  “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him” (v13).  Nothing is said here of repairing that uncircumcised state, nor would we expect it.  For the record makes it exceedingly clear that physical circumcision was not made a requirement.  Why?  Was it because baptism took its place?  Not according to the records we have of that debate.  It was because that would be setting a burden on the Gentiles that ‘neither we nor our forefathers were able to bear’.  Nothing is said about a superseding sign of the covenant.  Nothing at all.

You were dead and uncircumcised.  You were, however, circumcised in the heart, where it matters, by Christ Himself.  Was that an act that transpired in the baptismal waters?  No.  Those waters were the burial of your dead body, that you might be reborn in newness of life.  That was the end of the perishable body seed (going back to the Corinthian discussion) in order that the imperishable body might take root and grow.  Notice that once again.  You have been resurrected.  Yet, we know well enough that, barring Christ’s return, this body shall yet return to dust.  This body isn’t the point.  The eternal reality has already been firmly established.  We may choose to take that Indicative state of resurrection as one of those now / not yet tensions.  We may choose to set it in the prophetic-indicative, if you will allow me the term.  It has not yet transpired yet it is so absolutely certain of transpiring as to be spoken of as something that already happened.  God has said it, therefore it is, even if that ‘is’ is future from our perspective.  It would be well to recall that God dwells outside of time, in an eternal present.  The point is that this is a certainty, not a probability.

Back to baptism:  Is there anything in this that requires us to accept baptism as the replacement for circumcision?  I would say not.  I would say the rite of circumcision was fulfilled in Christ, as Paul seems to indicate in verse 11.  If, then, He has fulfilled that ceremonial aspect of Law, by what reason would we reinstate it, even if a more benign form such as baptism?  It seem so me that on this point the whole of Calvin’s argument for infant baptism stands or falls.  If baptism is not the replacement for circumcision, then the whole reason for including infants under its auspices fails.

The last mention we have of baptism is that comment of Peter’s which launched me off on this journey.  Baptism is the antitype of the flood, and now saves you (1Pe 3:21).  It is not the outward cleansing, it’s the inward appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  That term, ‘appeal’, as I saw, is capable of wide interpretation.  Are we begging God for a good conscience?  Are we attempting to get Him to acknowledge our good conscience?  I think, in light of all that I’ve been observing this last month or so, it would be best to understand it as expressing that we have set our faith in the resurrection of Christ.  There!  In Him lies my appeal.  In Him I have my salvation, Lord God.  It was by Your arrangement, and it is by Your power.  There alone lies my hope of life, and it is because of this that I obey His command to be baptized.  The act itself does nothing, only signified that which You have caused to transpire within me, for which I am profusely thankful, and because of which, I undertake to obey this, your simplest command.

 Before I proceed to immediate considerations of the several questions surrounding baptism, I will take a moment to look at a few comments which various articles have made regarding the passages I have been reviewing; give them a chance to counter my current readings.  Moving forward from this point, I am mindful that I must be careful to preserve the sense of the texts I have read.  That does not require me to suppose that I have already succeeded in accurately parsing them all.  There’s a reason we have commentaries, and there’s a reason I tend to read the ones I do.  God has blessed us with a rich heritage of great Christian minds, and I would be a fool to dismiss them out of hand where they arrive at differing conclusions.

Verses Commented Upon (03/03/14-03/04/14)

Under this head I have gathered together such comments upon related Scripture as particularly caught my attention.  Reviewing the notes gathered here, and considering what I have just finished writing of my own accord, it is clear that some of these points have already registered with me as being more accurate than others.  Interestingly, I only find one case where I have drawn out comments from multiple perspectives on the same passage, and that passage is Matthew 19:13-14.  This is the point wherein children are brought to Jesus, the disciples seek to prevent this distraction, but Jesus bids them allow it, saying, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Calvin, defending his paedo-baptist position, declares that ‘of such’ necessarily includes infants.  From this point, he builds, asking on what basis we would refuse the sign of the kingdom to those whom the King has included?  This, of course, requires we accept two prerequisite points, the first being that ‘of such’ does indeed include infants.  The second matter to establish is that baptism is indeed the sign or seal of kingdom membership.  I should have to say that any declaration of infants being included in that passage is a matter that would require far better proof than simply saying so.  Gill is pretty clear that there is no necessity to understand this as being the case.  In his arguments, he notes the term used by Jesus when He says, “allow the children to come” is paidion, and that usage of this term elsewhere in Scripture makes it undeniably clear that the term can refer to those upward of twelve years old.  In particular, we have the passage from Mark 5:39-42, where Jesus brought the paidion back to life, saying, “the child [paidion] has not died, but is asleep.”  This child, Mark informs us outright, was twelve.  From this, it would seem at the very least we can say it is not necessary to suppose infants included.

Gill brings forth other passages, using both the paidion term, and brephos, showing that both of these are used to describe not only infants, but those clearly old enough to think and understand.  As further argument for the particular issues of Matthew 19:13-14, he notes a few further points.  First, and perhaps foremost, the parents were not bringing these children to be baptized, but only to be prayed over, and this is what Jesus did.  Second – a rather weak argument, admittedly – we do not know conclusively that these children, whatever their ages, were brought by their parents, and even supposing they were, whether those parents were themselves baptized believers.  This being a prerequisite which the paedo-baptists bring forth, based on 1Corinthians 7:14, which we shall consider further on, as a requirement.  It’s not all babies who are candidates for baptism, but those of at least one believing, presumably baptized parent.  Where is the proof of this in the present text?  It is no more there than the proof of infants.

Third, Gill notes the reaction of the disciples which precipitated this comment from Jesus.  Their natural reaction was to prevent the children from disrupting their Master’s ministry.  This is, to be sure, largely a simple cultural reaction, demonstrating more than anything the particular perspectives on children then prevailing.  But, it does also demonstrate that nothing to this point had given them cause to suppose a change.  Thus, we may conclude that John’s baptism of repentance had not included infants, and nothing in the baptismal practices of Christ’s camp had done so.  Finally, the point is made that Jesus was not laying down a dictum here, certainly not as regards fitness for baptism.  He is granting permission for these children to be brought to Him for the purposes originally intended, that being that He might pray for them.

The sum of this, for me at least, is that Calvin’s argument is weak, at least so far as insisting the presence of infants in this scene.  As to the strength of his arguments more generally, that shall remain for a later portion of this study.

Concerning passages from the Gospels, two other comments are on my list here, both from Mr. Gill.  The first considers the passage of John 4:1-2, with its note that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was ‘making and baptizing’ more disciples than John.  Mr. Gill makes much of the order presented here, which is, I would note, a common thread in the defense of credo-baptism.  Order of words is brought out over and over again.  I would also note that in some cases, that same argument winds up working against the credo-baptist position.  But, here, the point is made that disciples are first spoken of as made, then as baptized.

I would have to say that in this passage it seems abundantly clear that we are discussing adults, and I believe that the entire paedo-baptist camp would absolutely concur that for an adult coming to faith, this is the necessary order.  Indeed, as concerns adults coming to faith, I do not believe there is the least note of controversy in this regard.  Herein lies the problem for the credo-baptists:  All the cases brought forward, by their own argument, involve only adults.  The paedo-baptist would therefore argue that, yes, this is how it is with adults, but for infants a different order must surely apply.  I am, however, going to largely hold off my explorations of the credo/paedo debate to the end, although I have already been addressing it in part as I go.  That is inevitable, I suppose, given that it is this particular argument that I had in view when I began (although it was Peter’s cryptic comment that provided the opportunity.)

OK.  The other passage from the Gospels is the Great Commission.  Here, the point Mr. Gill brings forward is one I believe I addressed already:  The text reads, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them…” (Mt 28:19).  ‘Them’ is given in the masculine gender, whereas ‘nations’ is neuter.  ‘Disciples’ is in the masculine, and this ought to make clear that it is to ‘disciples’ that ‘them’ refers.  This is important in that the paedo-baptist argument tends to want this passage to indicate a greater degree of inclusion, again inferring infants in the ‘all’.  Here, I shall have to say, is my greatest negative against the paedo-baptist position, which is that in all cases, it is necessary to infer the presence of infants into scenes which do not necessarily include them, and in many cases seem far more likely not to do so.

Into the book of Acts.  Much of what I’m seeing for notes here I have already incorporated in my own analysis.  Looking at the 3000 baptized at Pentecost, Luke makes no mention of women or children being present, although he makes particular note that his numbers included only men when covering the feeding of the five thousand.  Fair enough, Mr. Gill.  However, he does provide a qualifier:  Souls.  It may also be said that the earlier account of the feeding of five thousand may have come from such sources as made Luke feel it necessary to explain the accounting.  Hey, Theophilus, it’s just the way they do things.  They counted the men, but not women and children.  Just makes things that much more impressive, doesn’t it?  But, for this matter of belief and baptism, maybe he didn’t see the need to expound the matter.  The miracle in view is not so much the numbers converted (although that is far and away more important overall), but the sudden rhetorical courage Peter has found.  The miracle is the message.  The response is gravy.  But, given that it is the expansion of the church, and through it the kingdom, that Luke has in view, numbers matter to demonstrate the efficacy of the God of the message.  That efficacy is sufficiently demonstrated by 3000, without any need to note that number may or may not have been men only.

As far as Peter’s message, much is made of his use of the Scriptures to say, “The promise is for you and your children.”  Well, let’s complete that quote.  “For you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself” (Ac 2:39).  The issue that Mr. Gill locks onto is the mention of children, that being a primary bone of contention.  Here, he notes, the term is not being used to refer to one’s progeny but to one’s posterity.  It is not a reference to age, but to lineage.  I would add, as concerns this statement that the final clause argues against assuming any automatic inclusion of children.  I would take it as a qualifier that necessarily applies to every category included in Peter’s statement.  The promise is for you, if God has called you to Himself.  It is for your children (however you choose to read that), if God has called them to Himself.  It is for those however far off they may be, if God has called them to Himself.  In other words, it is boundless, this promise, except for one, singular and inviolate boundary:  God calling.

There is no more a generational guarantee of salvation than there is a generational curse of damnation.  There is a large contingent in the Church today that is determined to uphold this idea of generational curses, but (as I have often noted in my studies), God Himself long ago denounced any such conception of His justice.  It is not justice, and He will not have it.  No!  Each man, woman and child stands or falls by his or her own choices.  The righteous son of the most evil of parents, being righteous, will be saved.  The reprobate offspring of the most godly parents remains lost.

Reversing that point so as to apply it to baptism, it would seem to be equally applicable.  Whatever may be said of baptizing infants, and taking their lineage as basis for doing so, it certainly cannot be said to ensure outcome.  Infant baptism cannot be supposed to guarantee acceptance into heaven should, God forbid, the infant die before reaching the age of reason.  If that infant has entrance, it is on other grounds entirely.  I have to say that the same holds true for the Old Covenant mark of circumcision.  This was never a guarantee of the child being faithful to God, any more than it ever guaranteed an adult being faithful.  There is, after all, none found righteous, but more on that in its place.

Concerning the households of Lydia (Ac 16:14-15), and the jailor (Ac 16:32-34), where the argument on one side insists that of course there were infants, the other side finds that exceedingly questionable.  Here, as I have considered the larger picture of those two occasions, I would have to set myself firmly in the latter camp.  A travelling saleswoman in that time and region seems an unlikely one to have infants in tow.  A jailor escorting two escaped convicts to the public baths in the middle of the night would not seem to be one inclined to have wife and kids along for the journey.  He was already in fear for his life before.  What sort of man would he be who set his family in jeopardy as well?

Rounding out comments on baptismal coverage in the book of Acts, Gill addresses the standard argument that the baptisms in this book only cover those of the first converts and it is on this basis that we do not find discussion of infants.  I.e. what Scripture has to say directly on the topic of baptism applies only to adult baptism and leaves infant baptism unaddressed.  Mr. Gill counters this by noting it as passing strange that amongst all the thousands baptized in the course of the New Testament record, not one mention is made of any of those folks having brought their infants along.  I noted at the time that the validity of his point hinged rather heavily on how we understand the various ‘and all their household’ references.  Having viewed those passages, as I have already noted, it seems unnecessary and even illogical to read infants into those scenes.

Finally, as concerns the book of Acts, there is a point made by McClintock & Strong, as the authors seek to establish that ‘water’ is sometimes used to speak of baptism.  They point us to Acts 10:47, where Peter is considering those Gentiles who were demonstrably in receipt of the Holy Spirit, and says, “Surely no man can refuse the water for these to be baptized!”  The author sets this forth as evidence of water being a term for baptism, but it seems to me Peter is either defining the means, or simply distinguishing that form of baptism from the Spirit baptism which had already transpired.  Now, there will be those who have difficulty with the idea of a second baptism of the Spirit, particularly given the weight assigned to that baptism in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles.  But, the evidence from Acts alone would seem pretty solid in establishing two distinct events:  Water baptism and the pouring out of the Spirit, call that by whatever term you may.

I am not, on this occasion, concerned with defining or defending the charismatic gifts, and their validity in the church of today.  Suffice it to say at this juncture that there was an apparent distinction between the two in that time and place, and Peter’s words need not be seen as saying anything more than that God having done His part, the Church could hardly refuse to do hers.  May I just add that, if it can be shown that God has done His part in demarking infants as being in His kingdom, then this makes a strong argument in favor of baptizing them in water – a stronger argument, I should think, than most others that are brought forward.  There remains, though, the hurdle of the if.

We come, then, to some more tangential or allusionary references to baptism, starting with that point from 1Corinthians 7:14, regarding how a believing wife sanctifies husband and children.  Zooming out a little, we see that Paul is addressing the matter of celibacy and sex.  He, by his wording, makes a concession to the weakness of the flesh, accepting marriage as a guard against the sin of lust, and instructing that within the marriage relationship, celibacy must be a mutually agreed upon matter, and even then but for a season, “lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (1Co 7:6).  From this concession of marriage, he turns to the matter of those already married, and here, he makes abundantly clear that he is not rendering his own opinions, but setting forth God’s verdict (1Co 7:10).  Divorce is out, and if it is unavoidable, remarriage is to be avoided.  He then switches over, offering his opinion rather than God’s edict:  If your spouse is an unbeliever and agrees to remain, don’t seek divorce.

This is the lead-in for verse 14.  The unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing.  And then comes the clause of contention.  “For otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.”  He proceeds from here to allow that, should the unbelieving spouse depart, let them go, until then holding to the hope that they might be redeemed (1Co 7:15-16).

So, then, the overarching thrust of Paul’s thought here is clearly on the matter of marriage and sex.  The mention of children is but an aside, although one we must pay heed to, given that all Scripture is God-breathed.  What, though, does he mean about the children being either clean or holy?  Also, on what basis is he making that distinction?  Clearly there is some parallelism of thought in the passage.  We have the unbelieving spouse sanctified by the believing one; then we have the child made holy by the believing parent.

On the one hand, this passage is held up as, if not a basis for allowing infant baptism, then a boundary condition.  If the child has at least one believing parent, then baptism is to be allowed.  I have to say, given the parallel aspect regarding the other spouse, it would seem baptism ought to be extended to that unbelieving spouse as well on these grounds.  After all, he has been sanctified by the believing partner, right?  Of course, this will be rejected on the basis that the one concerns those not yet at the age of reason, and the other those already well into the age of moral responsibility.

I am given to wonder if perhaps Paul is simply stating that divorce itself would render the children unclean.  After all, he is primarily concerned with the subject of divorce.  Should this unequal yoking be in itself grounds for divorce?  It’s a difficult question, really.  Consider the example from the post-exilic period.  On that occasion it was certainly deemed right that all those foreign wives be put away.  Was that establishing a rule for all time, or a matter only for that particular setting?  That Paul would even offer the possibility of remaining together suggests the latter.  More to the point, perhaps, he sees divorce with the eyes of Christ rather than with the Pharisaic training of his youth.  Divorce is not to be an easy answer, but a last, unavoidable resort.

So, we have the instruction that, even in this unequally yoked case, if there is to be a divorce, let it not be by your determination, oh, believer.  But, if you are abandoned, you are not bound. 

So, is it the fact of a believing parent that has in some sense sanctified the children, or is it simply the persistence of the marriage?  What would have been the societal standing of a child of divorce in that culture?  In Jewish culture?  And which of these would tend to have shaped the questions originally posed, as well as Paul’s response.  As to the questions posed, one could reasonably presume it was local culture that drove the concerns.  This is what society would tell us, but what does God say?  Paul, in answering, might be falling back on his own social training, but I am inclined to think not.  We have seen him elsewhere prepare his message for the culture he is addressing.  Surely, in correcting a church he considers his own responsibility, he will have taken at least as great care to deal with them in their own situation, in terms suited to their own estate.

John Gill addresses this passage and wonders if we are supposed to observe a case of ‘federal holiness’ here.  Recall that this is a key point in the credo-baptist understanding of what is meant in Acts when baptism and belief is assessed to ‘all his’.  From a societal stance, the religious choice of the head would naturally be seen as applied to the whole in this federal sense.  If it was a federal matter there, ought it not to be so here?  He has a few points to make in this regard.  The first concerns matters of covenant, because it is on covenantal grounds that paedo-baptists build their argument.  I think I shall hold those arguments for later.  The bigger question he raises is this:  What sort of holiness is Paul discussing?  Is it such holiness as God requires?  Is it such holiness as indicates faith which might be sealed or witnessed to in baptism?  Can it be?

He proceeds to offer another possible understanding of Paul’s point, in this case supposing a more Jewish perspective in the answer given.  He notes that the idea of sanctifying the marriage is a common enough theme in Jewish writing.  In this view, what Paul is discussing is the legitimacy of the marriage in God’s sight.  That one partner believes is sufficient to render the marriage valid from His perspective, and this in turn would make the children legitimate as well.  So, then, it is primarily a matter of legal standing in God’s court that Paul presents, not their state of salvation.

I admit that when I first looked at this, it felt like the following verses, with their acceptance of the divorced state when initiated by the unbelieving spouse would surely contradict such an understanding.  If, after all, it was the wedded state that legitimized the child, wouldn’t the divorce mark them just as illegitimate regardless who caused the divorce?  But, it need not be so.  The marriage was legitimized by the believing partner, and as children of a legitimate marriage, the children are legitimate.  The point which follows, absolving the believing spouse should the unbelieving spouse abandon the marriage, must surely also absolve the children.

It is interesting that Paul has specified in no uncertain terms that he is giving his own opinion here and not holy writ.  Does this give us permission to consider these instructions as somehow less binding?  I think not.  God saw fit to include Paul’s determinations in Scripture, and I think we can take that as sufficient endorsement.  What we might suppose, as Mr. Gill has done, is that this indicates he is drawing more upon his own experience and understanding in the answer he gives.  That would offer some support to the supposition that he is advising based on Jewish sensibilities.

McClintock and Strong turn our attention to Ephesians 5:26 as another passage with bearing on baptism, or at least allusion to baptism.  This comes in the famous passage regarding the relationship of husbands and wives in the Lord, wherein the husband is instructed to love his wife, “just as Christ also loved the church” (Eph 5:25).  Proceeding, Paul notes that Christ ‘cleansed her by the washing of the water with the word’.  Here we have en [1722]: instrumentality, in, at, by.  Good to know, because my mind generally wants to supply this as ‘by the word’, or ‘of the word’.  I am apparently not alone in that, for the article notes that same translation and how it leads some to assess that baptism is insufficient in itself.

Concerning baptism, their article notes an allusion to the bridal bath, and suggests that this bath ought itself to be seen as a type for baptism.  It is noted that the bride bathed as preparation for being presented to her bridegroom.  The matter of by or with the word, if it is taken as an accompanying act rather than a mode, would then equate with the words of betrothal.  That, I have to say, seems a bit of a stretch.  If my understanding of marriage practices in that culture is correct, betrothal would have taken place well before this time of presentation.  Betrothal roughly equates to our idea of engagement, but with much stronger bonds – strong enough to require divorce to break the bonds.  It might take place years before the marriage is consummated, for the bridegroom must first prepare a house for his bride, show himself capable of supporting her. 

But, it cannot be denied that Scripture makes much of the type/antitype relationship of human marriage and our relationship to Christ.  It is not, then, unreasonable to see a degree of correlation between bridal bath and Christian baptism, whatever might be made of the word aspect.  Certainly, I would concur with the view that baptism in and of itself is no means of salvation, nor really a power to accomplish anything.  That is a matter I shall need to contemplate more thoroughly in its place.  However, if we accept this bath as a type for which baptism is the antitype, it certainly suggests baptism’s place as a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in the family of God.

Here, we might turn back to Peter’s association of the type of the Flood with the antitype of baptism.  It is not the bathing, the purification of the flesh that is in view, he says, but rather the appeal, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, to God for a good conscience (1Pe 3:21).  It is not, then, the outward form, the ritual, that matters.  It is the inward faith which that outward form expresses, and apart from which the outward form is no more than a particularly ineffectual bath.

Considering this passage, John Gill notes that the ark contained only adults, and offers that this is yet another argument as to who constitutes a proper candidate for baptism.  I am inclined to discount that point somewhat, at least as concerns Peter’s brief mention of baptism.  He is certainly not concerned with detailing who is fit to be baptized.  He is addressing those already baptized and seeking to instill confidence in them as they face the flood of societal rejection.  That flood, friends, condemns them, but it shall be made to serve your salvation.  The ark lifted Noah and family above the waves and carried them through.  The ark of the Church shall lift you and your family above the tides of public opinion and carry you through.  McClintock & Strong take special note of how Peter makes certain we shall not lean too much on the outward sign.  He tells us baptism saves, it is true, but immediately appends this disclaimer that it is inward conscience he has in view not outward washing.

As concerns Paul’s mention of how all Israel was baptized in the Exodus, McClintock and Strong note that the word in play is eis, not en, indicating that he writes of a baptism for Moses rather than in or by him.  The point is that they were bound to obedience to Moses as their part in being accepted into the Mosaic covenant.  Given that the establishing of the Mosaic covenant lay yet ahead at that point, it would seem an odd way to perceive things, but perhaps it is right.  It seems to me that their acceptance to that covenant and agreement to be bound by it was something done far more explicitly there at Mount Sinai.

McClintock & Strong also takes note of Colossians 2:11, seeing in it a comparison or connection between circumcision and baptism.  They see the comparison as indicating the equivalent function of entry point into covenant.  Circumcision was the entry into the Abrahamic covenant of Old, and baptism serves as the entry into the covenant in the Church community.  Based on my reading of that passage I have to reject this point, for it seems to me that Paul is clearly demonstrating that circumcision was fulfilled in Christ, and that being the case, there is no cause to seek out a replacement, is there?  He has accomplished that circumcision of the heart of which Moses himself wrote, and that ought surely to put an end to it.  We have the reality of entrance, what need for a sign?  This gets back to the point or purpose of baptism, which I will again defer to its proper place, although it is clear to me that my answers are forming up.

This same article takes us to Titus 3:5, considered together with 1Corinthians 6:11.  We are considering the washing of regeneration, which is to be observed as a type for, or allusion to baptism as well.  The section from Titus is addressing how we were taken out of our old ways and brought into this new state (out of death into newness of life), and it is in that context that Paul says this was done ‘by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit’.  We are pointed back to that passage from 1Corinthians which speaks of us having been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  On the basis of these ideas, there is again the sense that baptism is to be seen as the means for entry into church membership.  Perhaps.  I am not quite ready as yet to concede the point.

Miscellany (03/05/14)

Under this head I am collecting together some items that seemed worthy of consideration and have bearing on the way one understands baptism, but do not conveniently fit themselves into the larger topics which follow.  One immediate observation I can make is that the points gathered here serve to demonstrate just how difficult it is to arrive at a firm conviction on almost any aspect of baptism.  There is a reason that two thousand years of church history have not sufficed to resolve any of the disagreements about this.  There just isn’t a great deal said in Scripture, or even elsewhere, really.  And, what is said is generally inconclusive.

We can begin with the simple matter of definitions.  What does the term baptism mean?  The term in English is but a transliteration of the Greek, so it doesn’t really offer us much insight in itself.  As to the Greek, we will find those who ascertain that when a singular baptism is indicated, it is the rite of baptism that is in view, but when the term is pluralized as baptisms, it refers to washings such as were common to Jewish practice.  This lies at the heart of the Lutheran perspective on baptism, I think, that the singular baptism is something wholly unique and with an entirely different significance.

From McClintock and Strong, we get the definition of baptism as ‘to be overwhelmed’.  This is in regard to its figurative usage, but the figurative usage serves to illustrate the literal.  If its figurative sense involves being not merely whelmed, but overwhelmed – engulfed as it were – by something, what must the literal meaning indicate?  And yet, we have the question of mode.  Is immersion required to have a legitimate baptism, or are other modes like pouring or sprinkling acceptable?  This is a hot topic of debate.  It is interesting that the same folks pointing out this figurative sense of the term to us are in the camp that would accept alternate modes.

Thayer seems to jump out of the lexicographer’s role in defining our term, moving straight into some fairly specific theological interpretations of the event.  He tells us that to baptize is to immerse in water as a sign of sin’s removal.  That necessitates accepting that the term’s original (pre-rite) sense is one of fully submerging the thing baptized.  As we shall see, not all are agreed on this.  Others would hold that the term only requires us to understand a thorough saturation.  I would say that, apart from some sort of wicking action, it’s difficult for me to see how you achieve the one without the other.  Perhaps you could envision pouring sufficient water over a person as to fully saturate them, but would that not have effectively produced immersion?  Or does the concept of immersion require us to understand a plunging motion, a going under as opposed to a pouring over?

Thayer continues by indicating that baptism is given to those seeking admission into Messiah’s kingdom.  At that point, it seems to me, we have moved far beyond defining terms and into declaring certain dogmatic points regarding the purpose.  Is it given to those seeking, or is it a proof of those already granted admission?  Is it a seal or a testimony?  Again, this is a question that one finds answered differently by men of good faith.  To state a specific significance for the act is to take a position and declare a denominational understanding, but it is not defining terms any more.

Another point that is much debated concerns the development of baptismal practice.  Fausset, for example, declares that proselyte baptism was established practice by the time John came on the scene, whereas the ISBE, presenting the Lutheran view of baptism says we ought not see any connection to that practice.  Other articles suggest we have no firm evidence that the practice had even developed at that point.  The jury is out. 

Now, considering that Lutheran view, it would probably push their statement too far to say they reject the idea that proselyte baptism was a known practice.  They are firm, though, on the thought that Christian baptism does not look back to that practice for its roots.  Three arguments are raised against any such supposition.  The historical argument:  Jewish Messianic expectations were expecting baptism as a lead up to His arrival, and saw it as something that would supersede Levitical purification practices (washings).  This, it is argued, is at the root of the Pharisees coming out to question John.  If you are not Messiah, how dare you be performing this sign of Messiah? 

The second line of argument is observational.  What we read about John’s baptismal practices makes clear that this was a startling development.  This was not something the locals were used to seeing.  The ISBE article takes this as evidence that what John was doing wasn’t an update of proselyte baptism.  But, I would have to say that his inclusion of Jews, and even the Pharisees (those paragons of virtue) in needing to be baptized was already a startling development, and would be so whether proselyte baptism was existing practice or not.  This, I think, is the weakest of their arguments against that perspective.

The third line of argument is philosophical in nature.  To quote:  “A shadow does not develop into a substance.”  To set that more technically, they are saying type cannot become its own antitype.  But, there is a certain poetic power to the phrasing they have chosen, and we see the clear validity of the statement.  Shadows do not suddenly take on mass and form.  They shall always be shadows and nothing more.  But, here, we think of the physical shadow, and say, ‘of course, it is as you say’.  Does that physical shadow, though, translate to the metaphysical?  I would have to investigate far more thoroughly than I am willing to do at present to arrive at a conclusive answer.  I am willing, for this time, to accept the validity of the statement.  I cannot arrive at any example from Scripture that would counter the point.

I would, however, say this:  the antitype may indeed be built upon the foundation of type.  It would be odd, after all, were the fulfillment to be utterly unrecognizable as being connected to that which it fulfilled.  The type/antitype arrangement that Peter brings out makes the point.  There is the need for that connective tissue of the water, and even the overwhelming volumes of water, as well as the note of rescue.  If baptism fulfills the type of some part of Mosaic practice, and it is not to be observed in proselyte baptism, with its washing away of the old, Gentile life in preparation for a new, Jewish life, where should we look?  Do we look back to other Jewish purification practices?  Do we stop at the ‘washings’ for which the authors supply the plural of baptism?  Were those washings likewise overwhelming in nature?  Some were.  Other aspects of purification seem to have been satisfied with sprinkling.  What bearing does this have on our own baptismal practices?

This is the reason that the whole question has any significance at all.  It requires us to determine to our satisfaction what types are being fulfilled by baptism before we can settle on the proper mode and means, let alone the proper candidates.  If one wishes to point back to the more general purification processes of Mosaic practice, then it would seem to lay open a wider array of modes for application.  If one stops at proselyte baptism, it is more likely to suggest immersion as the required mode.  But, as we shall see, establishing that mode as required, over against greatly to be preferred, is more difficult.

Let’s move forward a bit.  John Gill holds that the baptism Christ instituted is the same baptism as John’s.  I have to say I am not so clear that this is the case.  If the baptisms were the same, why then do we find some of those baptized into John’s baptism being baptized into Christ?  On the other hand, if they are not equivalent, then why are others, like Apollos, apparently not re-baptized?   This starts to lead into a larger question, which shall be addressed in due course.  It is a question in two parts, I suppose, the first being what constitutes a valid baptism, and the second being whether it is ever legitimate to re-baptize.  OK, three parts:  If it is legitimate, under what conditions ought it to be either required or allowed?

Continuing to look at John’s baptism compared to Christian baptism, McClintock & Strong note that John’s baptism came as a ‘first assault’ on the idea that outward ceremony was sufficient.  That was certainly a needful reminder or admonishment at the time.  Pharisaic practices had, by and large, become purely matters of external observance with no concern for inward realities.  This was something that Jesus would demonstrate with painful clarity on many occasions.  It is equally necessary that we be reminded of this in our own time and place.  Indeed, it is necessary that we bear this point in mind as we reach our conclusions about baptism itself.  For, it remains as true of baptism as it was of Jewish purification practices that outward ceremony is never sufficient.  The same must be said of communion, of church attendance and membership, of studying the Bible, and even of ordination.

John Gill offers a similar point, applying to both baptisms.  They did not in and of themselves procure the pardon of sin.  For that matter, the repentance which necessarily preceded baptism, if baptism had any validity at all, did not do so.  Take Peter’s words.  It is not the outward washing away of dirt.  It is the inward reliance upon Christ’s forgiveness obtained in God’s grace.  It is, then, a testimony to what has been received, not a purchase order.

In the brief notices we have of early church practice with regard to baptism, it is striking to me just how much more they invested in the act.  We certainly rejoice to see believers choose to be baptized, and make it an event of sorts.  We hope that our baptisms will be seen by both our fellow believers and by unbelievers, becoming a first public witness to our faith.  Indeed, in our current church, baptism always includes an oral review of one’s arriving at faith.  We have some preparatory interviews of the candidate so as to discern the validity of their faith as best we may, but that’s about it.  And some churches don’t even do that much.  You come on a Sunday when we happen to be baptizing and profess desire?  Good enough!  Come on in.  But, that is a particularly light view of the subject.

Let’s contrast that with what we read from Justin Martyr as he describes standard church practice in the earliest centuries of the Church.  Now, this is covering only the event itself, not such preparations as may have been done, in matters of catechesis and so on.  The baptismal candidate, he says, is brought before the assembly after being baptized, and at that point prayers are offered for the whole Church body, including the newly baptized individual as well as the wider community of faith, “that all may be counted worthy, having learned the truth.”  The prayer continues to the effect that they may be found those whose works are in keeping with citizenship in the kingdom, being obedient to the commandments.  And, ultimately, the prayer expresses the confident hope of being saved for eternity.  This prayer is followed by ‘a holy kiss’, and by taking communion together.   And note this:  The deacons take from that communion and distribute it to those present, of course.  But, they also take a portion to any who may be absent from the meeting.

The overall picture I see painted here is one of much greater care and concern for the ordinances or rites of the Church, as well as for the body.  Whether or not this bringing of communion to those absented from service was a common practice for all communion observances or only for those connected to baptism I cannot say with certainty.  I suspect, though, that it was common practice, and I suspect as well that communion was more regularly observed than it is for most of us.  I know there are churches in which communion is a weekly observance, but for the majority, it is monthly and, though taken solemnly and, one hopes, with appropriate introspection and repentance, you’re either there or you miss it.  This is something we might do well to reconsider.

The last topic I want to pursue in this section is something Fausset brought out regarding baptism as it applied to Jesus.  He notes that the consecration of the high priest under Mosaic Law required not only baptism for purification, but also anointing and sacrifice.  We could take this as yet another statement of, “baptism alone is not enough”, but that’s not where he’s heading.  The point he brings out is that Jesus underwent all three.  He was baptized by John, “in order to fulfill all righteousness.”  He was anointed by the Holy Spirit descending visibly upon Him (and remaining).  He was the atoning Sacrifice.  All of this was done preparatory to Him entering into the Holy of Holies and taking up His eternal office of High Priest.

Some have looked at the question of Jesus being baptized and, I think, stopped short of seeing the full power and purpose of that act.  No, He was not baptized for repentance, though that was the purpose of John’s baptism.  He had naught to repent of, so such a baptism would have been hollow outward show, a thing He clearly despised and rejected.  I would argue that He did not undergo John’s baptism, even though John administered the baptism.  He certainly wasn’t being baptized into John, or making Himself a disciple of John.  That act of baptism was a singular event, completely apart from John’s ministry.  It was more than an anointing of Jesus for His own ministry, which is what some see in the act.  That anointing came subsequent to baptism, when the Spirit descended and the Father pronounced blessing upon Him.  But, the baptism came first.  It came, I would concur with Fausset, as the required first prerequisite for duty as High Priest.  The anointing provided the second prerequisite.  His crucifixion three years hence would provide the third and final prerequisite, and His resurrection and ascension demonstrate first His acceptance into the office of High Priest, and then His entrance into the Holy of Holies.  There, Hebrews tells us, He proceeded to purify the antitypes of the earthly temple, rendering all holy as He is holy.

Now, this does nothing towards explaining baptism’s role for us, or why Jesus made it part of His permanent ordinance for the faithful.  But, it is a powerful picture of His own preparation and His permanent role as our Priest as well as our King.  He has been accepted as our High Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek, and is even now bearing our prayers, our petitions, and even our unfelt needs before the God of heaven, that it may be well with us.  Praise God, and Praise the Christ of God!

Sacrament vs. Ordinance (03/06/14-03/08/14)

The first matter we must resolve, it seems to me, is what baptism is in the first place.  Is it a sacrament, or is it an ordinance?  Before we can answer that, we ought to have some proper definition of terms.  What is a sacrament? One dictionary offers the idea that it is a ‘visible sign of an inward grace’.  It may be ‘regarded as possessing a sacred character or mysterious significance’.  It may be taken to be a symbolic sign.  Webster’s defines it as a Christian rite seen as ordained by Christ, and held to be ‘a means of divine grace’, or to be ‘a sign of a spiritual reality’.  By comparison, they define ordinance as a legal decree, a prescribed usage, a standard practice.

Let’s try a source more immediately theological in nature.  McClintock & Strong note the sourcing of the term.  It was a military oath of enlistment.  It is taken, then, as a religious ordinance obligating the Christian to obedience unto God, the oath and the obligation being equally sacred.  An ordinance, per this same source, is an institution established by lawful authority, in the case of religion, that authority must be God.  Looking to the Dictionary of Christianity in America, the primary distinction is made much more clear, at least as the terms tend to be distinguished technically.  Sacraments, per the Catholic church, are, ‘efficacious means of grace’.  Protestants, in many cases, still refer to baptism and communion as sacraments, but in general do not assign them such efficacy (Lutherans being, I believe, an exception).  Baptists shift to the use of the term ordinance on the basis that these rites are done because they were ordained and instituted by Jesus, not because they are a means of grace.

As applied specifically to baptism, Protestant perspectives range from seeing baptism as conferring regeneration – although this is rather a minority view – to being but an act of obedience to Christ thereby signifying faith.  In between lie a range of understandings: a promise of salvation, a seal on the promise, a seal on a conditional covenant, the condition being faith.  The Reformed tradition holds it out as a seal both of a conditional covenant requiring faith and an absolute covenant for God’s elect.

This points up the need to define this matter early.  How we view baptism must be informed by Scripture, as best it may be.  But, how we view it will also have bearing on how we understand many other aspects of baptism.  Calvin builds his whole case for infant baptism upon the understanding of baptism as the mark of covenant, the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision.  Baptists, on the other hand insist it is the obedient act of one whose faith is already established as real – the outward act of one inwardly changed; and therefore reject the idea of an infant being suited to undertake baptism.  How can it be an act of obedience if the candidate has no say in the act, and no faculty for comprehending faith?

So, then:  Instrument of grace, seal of grace, symbol of purification, or token of grace received?  These are views McClintock and Strong set forth as representing Lutheran, Reformed, Congregational and Baptist perspectives respectively.  They then proceed to declare it a sign and seal of grace, the mark of being engrafted into Christ and thus participating in regeneration, remission of sins and all that grace provides.  This is, of course, but a statement of the Reformed position.

Let’s start with this, though:  Is there any Scriptural cause to suppose the act of baptism was given as an instrument of grace?  That is to say, does Scripture support the idea of baptism having any sort of salvific power in and of itself?  Considering the regularity with which Jesus stood opposed to outward ritual, knowing our propensity for raising ritual to idolatry, I would be hard pressed to find support for such a view.  A review of the full record of Scripture shows what seems inevitably to happen whenever we become convinced that any earthly object or action contains such power.  The Israelite response to the temple stands as an example.  We have the temple in Jerusalem, therefore God will surely preserve us no matter how vile our actions.  Or, the snake emblem that Moses raised up in the wilderness at God’s command:  Here was a one-time act of obedience, and what became of it?  They began to worship the metal snake rather than the God Who had called them to obey Him for their rescue.

For many, I would say even the Christian symbol of the cross is treated so poorly.  It is worn like an amulet, as though wearing this symbol will somehow excuse sins committed while wearing it, or maybe protect one from harm.  Church attendance often devolves to little more than empty show.  The list of religious exercises we reduce to meaninglessness is nearly infinite.  Given such propensities, and given God’s clear knowledge of this being the case, is it reasonable to suppose that He intended to institute baptism as a salvific exercise?  I think not.

Was it, then, a covenant mark?  This supposes an equating of baptism and circumcision, a case Calvin certainly attempts to build.  There are two places we might look for answers.  The first lies in that passage from Colossians wherein Paul speaks of circumcision and baptism in near proximity.  I have considered that passage, and find it seems more clearly to point to Christ as fulfilling the purpose of circumcision, a thing Moses himself points to as he lays out the requirements of Law (Dt 30:6).

The second place we must look is at the point of institution.  For circumcision, this takes us to Genesis 17:1-14, where God makes covenant with Abraham.  Here is the promise that Abraham shall be the father of many nations.  Here is the promise of Canaan as an everlasting possession for the people of God, and here, more critically, is the promise, “I will be their God.”  This is generally perceived as being a covenant of grace apart from works, the Abrahamic Covenant being the sole covenant still in force, if I understand my covenant theology correctly (a debatable point).  The distinction is seen in those covenants which are conditional representing Law, and those without conditions as representing Gospel.  Here, at least at the outset, there do not appear any conditions.  God simply says it shall be thus and so.  But, then we have this matter of circumcision appended.  You shall keep (v10) by circumcising every male.  And this point is stressed.  “An uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people.  He has broken My covenant” (Ge 17:14).  That certainly sounds conditional to me.

This last, it seems to me, presents a problem in the equating of circumcision and baptism, perhaps several problems.  The primary issue lies in the direct association God makes between circumcision and keeping covenant.  Fail at one and you’ve failed at the other.  Is any such equating of baptism and covenant made in Scripture?  We do have Mark 16:16, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.”  But, that goes on to say, “He who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”  There is no clause in the second half to suggest that failure to be baptized abrogates belief.  There is also, as I have noted, the fact that this passage is of doubtful provenance, and there are certainly other matters in what Jesus says here that none would suggest as required covenantal marks, even though they are proclaimed as signs accompanying those who believe.

We also have the more concrete example from the scene of the Crucifixion.  That thief who repented is told by Jesus, “Today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43).  Clearly, this one was not baptized, was he?  I suppose one could argue he may have been baptized by John at some prior point we are not told about, but he hardly seems to fit the model of one who has heeded John’s call to repentance.  In general, I think we can say that baptism, at least in Protestant circles, is not held to have salvific power.  Even Calvin, though he supports a covenantal view of baptism, declares this to be the case, saying it ought not be lifted to such heights as to suppose it a salvific necessity.  Spurgeon agrees:  The act of, baptism has no power to save. 

McClintock & Strong note that in the early church, there was a period where the significance of baptism was overblown.  The rite was held to be truly sacramental, having power in and of itself.  Historically, we see that this overly mystical view of baptism led some to delay baptism until late in life.  This was done on the understanding that baptism, having true power to forgive sins, only had this power of sins committed prior to baptism, and baptism being a once-for-all thing, those sins which came subsequent to baptism had no possible redress.  Some would argue that the practice of baptizing infants also arose from this mystical perspective on baptism.  If it truly has power to save, best we get the babies baptized early, lest something happen to them before they are old enough to decide for themselves.

Let me go back, though, to the question of circumcision equating to baptism.  Consider well what God is saying there in Genesis 17:10.  Let me quote it directly from the NASB.  “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.”  It proceeds.  “You shall be circumcised […] the sign of the covenant between Me and you.”  And then, “every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised.”  Now, we might ask, who is keeping the covenant by that circumcision of children?  Is it the children or is it the father?  Or, when the servant is required to be circumcised, is the servant professing faith by doing what he has no choice but to do?  Or is the master of that servant obedient to the covenant?

Let me take it a step further.  Is Abraham undertaking this covenant as federal head?  He is, after all, being declared the father of many nations.  Adam we know was the federal representative of mankind, and Christ, the second Adam, is clearly declared as the federal head of mankind reborn.  Do we have grounds to hold Abraham in similar regard?  It seems that Paul makes a potential case for that understanding, making him the federal head of all those who are saved by faith.  And, it is clearly noted that he was declared righteous well before circumcision came into play.

So, then, what do we make of that matter of the uncircumcised child being cut off from covenant?  One of the articles I read suggested that the Abrahamic covenant was actually of a dualistic nature, part of it being a covenant of grace and part of works.  By this theory, the promise of Canaan represents the works covenant and it is to this that circumcision is applied.  But, as concerns the eternal matters of salvation, it is a covenant of grace and circumcision has no bearing on it.

Others note that Ishmael was just as circumcised as Isaac.  Ditto Jacob and Esau.  And yet, one was heir to the promise and the other not so.  Whatever may be said of circumcision, it is clearly not salvific.  It is no guarantee of covenant right.  If it were, we would have no question of Jews coming to Christ, would we?  Their marking at birth would have assured their salvation, and we would have no cause for concern.  The Pharisees and Sadducees, however invalid their practices, would still have entered heaven.  Yet, Jesus makes it pretty clear this isn’t going to be the case.

However we are to understand circumcision as a covenantal sign, this much is clear:  God specifically declares it to be so, and specifically declares that those without the sign are cut off from the covenant promises.  Nothing like this is said of baptism.  It is neither proclaimed as a necessary seal of the covenant nor is it declared that apart from baptism all covenant promises are null and void.  Indeed, as already shown, the case of the thief on the cross makes such an understanding impossible.

John Gill, addressing this matter, holds that neither of these acts was ever a seal on the covenant of grace.  In support of this, he notes that if circumcision was the seal of the covenant of grace, then everybody from Adam to Abraham went without.  And yet, it is clear that there were those during that period who were in receipt of grace.  Further, any sealing aspect of circumcision was not to the child but to father Abraham, who obeyed.  As to baptism (and circumcision as well, so far as the covenant of grace is concerned), it is not a seal, but a sign.

Over against this, I find Fausset declaring the Christian understanding of baptism to be that it is indeed, ‘the seal of gospel doctrine and spiritual renewal’.  Further on, he says that in the early church, baptism was both sacrament and seal, set upon inward faith with outward confession.  He notes a certain parallel to circumcision, whereby both mark out the people of God.  Again, I find this somewhat overstates the case for baptism.

Kittel cautions us against either over or underestimating the act of baptism.  The view that it has power in itself is to be dismissed.  But, then, so too is the view that it is merely a symbolic act.  What does this leave, I wonder?  M&S declares it a Christian sacrament.  However, one must take care how that term is being applied.  Is it sacrament with power in itself, or sacrament as in Holy Ordinance?  Another point from their article suggests the answer.  “Grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto [baptism] as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it.”  From their perspective, the act of baptism truly confers the Holy Spirit, and is thus a sacrament to be administered once and only once:  The sign of new birth and regeneration.  This thought is echoed by Josephus according to Kittel.  He reportedly says that baptism does not itself cleanse, but sanctifies the life already cleansed.  I have to say it seems odd that Josephus would be saying such a thing, unless he is describing either proselyte baptism, or perhaps John’s baptism.  But, even in the latter case, it seems an odd point for him to make.

Baptists hold this to be not a sacrament but an ordinance.  It is not held to be redemptive in any way, although it remains an obligatory, “public and formal avowal of fealty to God”, as the ISBE sets forth.  Presenting the Reformed perspective, the same article presents the case that it is held to be a sacrament indeed, a confirming seal set upon spiritual benefits received.  Here, it is held that, where baptism is done with true faith on the parts of both baptizer and candidate, these spiritual benefits are of a very real nature.  Even so, they would hold the sacrament is a sign of the spiritual benefit, not the benefit itself.

It is interesting given the differing perspectives that both camps concur on this point:  Baptism is the entrance into the Church.  Calvin makes it the mark of the children of God.  The ISBE says that from the Reformed perspective baptism signifies entrance into the Christian church.  Lutherans hold it to be a rite and ordinance, appointed by Christ Himself, and designed to serve as the means for admission into discipleship.  Baptists, though they hold the act to be symbolic of a change that has already transpired and not the means of salvation (conversion having clearly preceded baptism), yet require baptism as a prerequisite for membership in the Church.

Now, Fausset raises a point about the matter of baptism; that Christ alone can bring about any correspondence of inward state to outward sign.  I dare say all would concur in this.  However, the question remains whether that correspondence ought be a prerequisite for the act, or whether it is something we ought to leave for God in Christ to deal with when He chooses?  If, as the paedo-baptist position necessarily holds, God can bring about that correlation at a later date, when the child has arrived at the age of reason, is it not just as reasonable to say that He can bring about the necessary salvific state in that child completely apart from baptism?  After all, we are effectively agreed that baptism is not in itself a salvific act.  If not, then why apply an act of obedience to Christ’s orders to one who is not himself obeying?

One thing is abundantly clear:  Baptism, for those who practice infant baptism, does no more guarantee that child’s faith at later age than did circumcision guarantee the child would grow up to be a faithful keeper of God’s covenant.  It is not, after all, a question of having the mark in one’s flesh, or the certificate of baptism on file somewhere.  It is about the effectual calling of God.  If He has not called, then none of this matters.  Here, even the Reformed church agrees.  “Where there is no faith there can be no regeneration.”  Why, then, baptize an infant in whom, if there is faith, we cannot possibly have knowledge of it, for that infant has no means to communicate his faith to us.  Roman Catholic practice would certainly hold that the very act of baptism has sealed faith, but that is patent nonsense.  I’m sorry, but it is abundantly clear that any number of folks who were baptized as children have proven utterly reprobate in their adulthood.  It could be argued that they have been helped along in that sorrowful path by the belief that their salvation was secured in that one act done not by them but to them.

Here, Lutheran practice is very near to that of the Catholic church.  Their position is given as this:  Baptism is not merely a symbol of regeneration, nor simply a pledge to be regenerate.  It effects regeneration.  “It is not just a potential for change, it is the change.”  This is seen as transpiring due to the sanctifying gifts of the Spirit involved in baptism.  Again, though, were this the case, we ought never to see a child brought up in the church departing from faith.  But, we do.  That would seem a rather difficult problem for this perspective to overcome.

Continuing in this effort to get a baseline understanding of what baptism is, we can say with confidence that it is a symbolic act.  In that regard, the author of the Baptist portion of the ISBE article on baptism writes the following.  “The point of a symbol is the form in which it is cast.  To change the form radically is to destroy the symbolism.”  This is said by way of insisting that immersion is the only legitimate mode for baptism.  But, it seems to me the point of a symbol is not its own form, but that to which it is intended to point.  The point of the symbol is to serve as signpost, indicating the reality it symbolizes.  Does this alter the author’s point in the second sentence?  If the symbol is a signpost, does altering its form destroy its symbolism, its capacity for pointing us to the intended reality?

That is a more difficult question than it might appear.  We must first arrive back at the intended symbolism.  What was to be symbolized in this act?  John’s baptism, we are told directly, was a baptism for repentance, a preparation for the coming king.  It was, then, an admission of our being mired in the filth of sin, and needing to clean up.  If those who point to the bridal bath as the model upon which baptism is based are correct, it would indeed seem to be a full bath taken in preparation, and one might suppose far more than merely a bath.  There would be a whole suite of preparatory activities undertaken together with that bath.  But, it is also possible that those who see the parallel to this bridal bath see it based on the assumption of a bath in the first place.

It may be said with reasonable confidence that the intended symbolism is purification.  It can be said that the baptismal act was instituted in a Jewish setting, although it is certainly possible that certain Hellenistic ideas informed the form of that act.  But, it was not so Hellenized as to cause immediate rejection by the Pharisees or others.  So, we might look back to Jewish purification practices to see what all might be construed as pointing to purification.  There, we find practices of sprinkling for some conditions.  My point is simply this:  While it is possible that certain alterations in the symbol would cause it to fail of pointing to its intended reality, it is also possible that other symbols could be arrived at which point to that same reality.  There are, for example, many parables by which the kingdom is described.

Now, by Paul’s words, we have the symbolic representation of death and rebirth in baptism.  That, I would think, is much harder to find symbolized in modes other than immersion.  I might even be inclined to say that this serves as the clearest indication of mode that we have in Scripture.  But, need that be taken as indicating an exclusive mode apart from which there can be no other?  If John’s baptism came as a first assault upon untoward reliance on outward form, it seems rather counter-productive to place quite so much emphasis on outward form.  If we had explicit requirements of form set in place by Christ that would alter the equation.  But, the form He sets out explicitly is that of the formula, the assignee, if you will.  Baptize them in the name of Father, Son and Spirit.  Perhaps mode was already implied in the term baptize, but if that were so patently obvious, it would seem this debate ought long ago to have settled.

Concerning that formula Kittel notes that the phrase, ‘in the name of’, is a commercial, legal terminology indicating, ‘to the account of’.  It is not some mystical phrase of power, as some seem to assume.  When we pray ‘in the name of’ Jesus, we are not achieving some guarantee of result.  The only way we can properly pray in His name does not consist in appending His name to our request as authorizing the same, but rather by praying in full accord with His purposes, praying on His account or, we might say, as His proxy.  A proxy is only as valid as his representation of the authorizing entity’s interests.  We are ambassadors of Christ, and an ambassador’s authority does not in any way grant permission to authorize what Christ Himself does not authorize.

As concerns baptism, we ought to note that this legal aspect of the phraseology points to the contractual nature of the act.  It does, then, suggest the covenantal nature of the rite.  This, interestingly, is not the point Kittel is attempting to bring forth at the point of describing the legal nature of the term  His point is that, while rebirth and eternal life are the clear end goals of baptism, they are not the primary and direct purpose of baptism.  By this, he is saying that regeneration and vivification are not to be had in the act itself.  I am actually more interested in the legal implications of invoking this legal language.  We are to baptize to the account of the Triune God of heaven.  What ought we to make of that?  Is this our part in signing the contract?  Is it a covenant seal?  If so, then the association with circumcision is perhaps more believable.  If so, then the deep concern for form is more fitting, although if it were so, one would expect the author of the covenant to have been clearer as to the proper form.

I am mindful of the association between being a disciple to such a Teacher and being a bondservant to Him.  This was brought out in one or the other of the articles I read.  The student entering into such a school, maybe even more the case with the Greek teachers, was not merely sitting at the desk taking notes.  He was setting himself to serve the teacher, see to his needs, look after his laundry, fix his meals, hail him a taxi whatever was needed.  The Apostles are constantly holding themselves out as bondservants of Christ, slaves in the King’s house.  We might prefer indentured servants, but with the term of service ratcheted up to infinity.  The point towards which I am aiming is that the legal language of baptism might also be seen as transferring us to the account of the Triune God.  By the act of baptism we declare ourselves His property, to be utilized as He will.  That would certainly seem a fitting commitment for the Christian to make, although I would have to say it is not a matter I have ever observed being made explicit in baptism.

On the other hand, the view of baptism as key to entrance into the church is widespread, if not universal.  For Baptists, we see this clearly in the requirement that baptism must precede membership.  Gill brings this out, pointing to those three thousand converts at Peter’s sermon.  They believed.  They were baptized.  Then they were welcomed into the fold.  Calvin and the Reformers are largely in agreement with this, and hold it forth as one more reason why children ought to be baptized.  They have a covenant interest in the church, why ought they be refused the sign of the covenant?  But, that requires us to understand baptism as covenantal seal, which remains to be resolved.

It is interesting that Gill, in setting forth this requirement for membership, states that baptism is an ordinance of God but not of the church.  He says this on the following basis:  that it is not administered in the church, but for admission into it.  Alongside this we would have to hold, as the ISBE sets out the Reformed perspective, that baptism is ever and always an act of the church.  That statement is made in contrast to baptism being an act of the individual believer.  In other words, while all believers are qualified to baptize others, they do so always as representing the Church, and ought to be cognizant of that point.  There have been periods where this was less in view, and periods where it was so fully in view that baptism was deemed to require official church representation in the form of pastor or bishop.  In our own day, the Western church by and large leaves baptism to the pastorate.  But, would it hold that as required?  Would a baptism performed by some other member of the church be seen as valid?  That’s an interesting question.  I’m not sure of the answer, even in the policy of our own church.

As great as the arguments are as to the details of baptism, it seems there is wide agreement on the fact that the sign is not the point.  We can go back to Augustine’s comment, brought out by the author if the ISBE’s presentation of Lutheran baptismal views.  “Remove the word and what is water but water?  The word is added to the element and it becomes a sacrament.”  Surely that is obvious.  A bath is not a baptism.  That would seem to be at least a part of what Peter has been saying in his comment on baptism.  It’s not the act of washing away dirt.  It’s not the outward sign.  It’s the inward reality.  Calvin more or less drives towards this same conclusion, saying that the value of any sign is not in the substance, but in the significance of the promise and spiritual mystery being typified by the act.  In other words, it is the antitype that matters, not the type.  Gill takes it one step further, asking what possible value the sacrament of baptism (to be understood in the sense of ordinance) has if the foul has not faith?  And all will agree that only Christ can bring about that congruence of inward estate and outward sign that alone renders the whole efficacious.

Have we, then, arrived at anything we could suggest as indicating a basic understanding of what baptism is or is not?  Well, it is assuredly a sign, a type, even if it has fulfilled certain antitypes.  It is not an act with intrinsic power in itself.  I.e. it is not a sacrament in that fullest sense, but rather an ordinance, albeit an ordinance of a sacramental nature.  It is an act whose undertaking has certain legal implications, although I am not as yet prepared to say it is a covenantal seal.  It is assuredly a signpost pointing to a spiritual reality, or it is intended to be so.  It is an act symbolic of purification, presumably a purification already received by the inward work of Christ.  It is generally accepted as being a requirement for membership in the body of Christ, for surely we cannot be of the body if we are not in the name, to the account.  That shall, I think, suffice as a starting point.

Relationship of Sign and Spirit (03/10/14)

I turn now to the question of how water baptism and Spirit baptism relate.  I suspect that prior to the rise of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements this was less a matter of concern or disagreement.  Fausset does seem rather more inclined to emphasize a distinction between the two events, which may simply reflect his Dispensationalist perspective.  He holds forth at one point that the rite of baptism (water) is a visible representation of the inward baptism (Spirit).  At another, though, he seems to say something quite different, indicating that we need not only that first sealing in baptism (water), but a further anointing of the Holy Spirit which is generally imparted by the laying on of hands.  Over against this we might set John Gill, with his statement that only Christ can administer baptism with the Holy Spirit.  He proceeds to say that Jesus did not impart this authority to His disciples nor to any other man.

I don’t know that I could fully agree with either of these gentlemen.  That there is a distinction between water baptism and Spirit baptism seems clear enough.  The examples from the book of Acts ought to suffice to make that point.  We have Peter, after all, noting that these have been received the Spirit, surely they ought to be baptized in water as well.  Unless one supposes that receiving the Spirit and Spirit baptism are two distinct matters, does that not settle it? 

I do not wish to spend any time at present in debating the Charismatic perspective on what Spirit baptism entails.  It is sufficient for my current interests to note that it is a separate matter.  And I will hold that indeed receiving the Spirit and Spirit baptism are one and the same thing.  So, then, we have these two baptisms depicted in Scripture.  The one is clearly a rite performed by men and involving water.  The other, at least in those earliest events establishing the Church within and without Israel, is clearly a matter of God’s own activity done by His own choosing.

Fausset associated this with the laying on of hands, and I think one would find a certain agreement with that in the Pentecostal church.  But, for this, I do not really see the evidence as convincing.  He points back to the blessing pronounced on Joseph’s sons.  Well, certainly there was a laying of hands there, but was this an impartation of the Spirit?  I don’t see that it was intended as such.  It was a passing of patriarchal blessing.  Do we find support for this in Apostolic practice?  Perhaps.  We do have the example of Peter and John up in Samaria, where folks had been baptized but had not yet received the Holy Spirit.  These two, the record states, began laying their hands on the believers, “and they were receiving the Holy Spirit” (Ac 8:17).  This leads into the business with Simon the magi seeking to buy the authority to bestow the Spirit by laying on of hands (Ac 8:18).  The narrative nature of the passage does not in any way give us cause to suppose that Simon mistook the apparent authority of the Apostles in this.

We also find this activity involved with Paul’s conversion.  Ananias lays hands on him in conjunction with announcing that he was sent in order that Paul’s sight might be restored and he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Ac 9:17).  Paul later reminds Timothy of the spiritual gift bestowed upon him through laying on of hands ‘by the presbytery’ (1Ti 4:14).  Elsewhere he speaks of ‘the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands’ (2Ti 1:5).  So, yes, there would seem to be a connection established, at least so far as concerns the Apostles.  This would seem to counter Gill’s assertion that Christ never gave this authority to any man.

I suppose we could say that He never gave that authority, only delegated it.  But, that would be true of all authority, for all authority is His (Mt 28:18).  But, then, it is by His authority that we are sent to make disciples and to baptize and to teach.  Does this also cover the impartation of the Holy Spirit?  It would seem the Apostles understood this to be the case, although it is just as clear that God can and will impart the Spirit as He chooses with or without the Apostles.

Here is the challenge, I think.  We understand that the inward work of the Spirit must precede faith; that we cannot come to faith believing apart from God doing a regenerative work in us first.  Our sinfulness is too entire to allow of the possibility.  Thus, the Spirit must come, and the Spirit being necessary and necessarily by God’s own choosing, He must come without any intervening rite of man.  So, then:  To suppose that Spirit baptism requires the laying on of hands presents a problem.  But, what is this act of laying on of hands if not the imparting of the Spirit?  It is certainly a thing done at ordination, a passing on of authority to preach.  We are also inclined to lay hands on those being sent out for specific mission, or merely departing to some new location.  Here, we do so as imparting a blessing, much in keeping with the patriarchal blessing on Joseph’s sons.  But, it is not specifically an imparting of the Spirit.

Looking at those examples in Acts, we must ask whether this is intended to be normative, or whether this was something unique to that particular moment in Church history?  Perhaps it is an amalgam of the two.  Given the Apostolic involvement, I would certainly accept that there was a unique authority given them which is not continued in their absence.  There is an Apostolic authority which has not and indeed cannot be passed down through the ages.  And yet, there is something they sought to pass on.  It’s clearly there between Paul and Timothy.  “I imparted by laying on hands.”  Is it authority?  If so, to what degree?  Paul speaks specifically of gifts given, a gift of prophecy in one case, presumably the gifts of preaching and teaching in the other.  These are certainly to be numbered amongst the Spiritual gifts.

Let me assume, if only for the sake of this current exploration, that the gifts of the Spirit continue to be active.  How are they given?  Is it up to some unbroken chain of human activities connecting all the way back to the Apostles?  If it were, would this not make these things the gifts of the Apostles?  After all, the one who gives the gift is the giver.  No.  Whatever role the laying on of hands might play in this, it is not that of authorizing the gift.  It cannot be.  That authority is surely reserved to Christ alone.  But, then, so is salvation.  And yet, we are called to preach and to disciple, and to otherwise serve as the means of grace.  We do, but it is His to establish the value of our actions.  If we preach but He is not present in the preaching, our words are in vain.  If we evangelize, but He is not with us, we are but a wind.

So, too, it must be said, with the practice of the charismata.  Paul makes that plain enough.  We may have all manner of signs and wonders we can do and yet have nothing of God in us.  Oh!  We may pray to beat the band, worship with a beauty surpassing the finest operatic performances, and yet do nothing to honor God.  It remains all Him, and if there is anything of value in our meager works it shall be solely because He has chosen to inhabit our efforts.

Now:  Back to this distinction of baptisms.  Water versus Spirit:  It does seem that the record of the book of Acts indicates two distinct events.  Jesus and John the Baptist made a distinction between them.  Peter’s observations indicate a distinction, and at least in that early record of the Church, the order is not set.  Either might follow the other. 

What of current practice?  It would generally be held that water baptism, particularly adult water baptism, which one presumes would be credo-baptism regardless of where one stands with regard to baptizing infants, seals or confesses the already-accomplished inward work of the Spirit.  This is the understanding for the bulk of the Protestant Church.  The Spirit worked within you and you came to faith.  Now, having come to faith, you wish to obey, and as an act of obedience you have come to baptism.  You are here proclaiming your death to sin, your rebirth into the life of righteousness, and your devotion (in that most sacramental sense) to Christ.

Ought we to take the example of those who were baptized into John’s baptism and later received the Holy Spirit as proof of a necessary second baptism?  Do we have examples of those who were baptized in Christian baptism who only received Spirit baptism at some later date?  Let us set aside for the moment those baptized during the course of Christ’s earthly ministry.  For the Spirit had not yet been sent at that time.  Subsequently, as the Church spreads out, do we see this?  I don’t recall seeing an example of that being the case.  Where we see it is with those who had only progressed so far as John’s baptism.  Now, these are yet Christians, from what we read.  But, it is not specifically the Spirit baptism as opposed to water baptism that is held forth as missing, necessarily.  It is the fullness of Christian faith.  I noted, in going through the passages, that Apollos is not directly said to have been re-baptized upon learning that there was more.  Nor is it said that he was subsequently baptized in the Holy Spirit, or even that anybody laid hands on him.  It is only said that Priscilla and Aquila ‘took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately’ (Ac 18:26).

The following example of those who were re-baptized says that they were not even aware of the Holy Spirit whatsoever; that they had been baptized into John’s baptism.  What follows?  They were baptized in the name of Jesus, Paul laid hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them (Ac 19:1-6).  Two baptisms or one?  One baptism plus some other rite?  At first blush, it would seem perhaps the latter case:  baptism plus.  But, here it must be said once again that we are quite probably observing something reserved to the Apostles.

Let this much be said:  It is quite clear that the Apostles set much stock in the Holy Spirit, and deemed His clear and obvious indwelling of the believer a matter of absolute importance.  We may quibble as to the relationship of Spirit and water in baptism.  We may disagree as to what are and are not gifts and evidences of the Spirit.  But, we dare not minimize our need for His indwelling presence if we are to grow in Christ.  If Christ is the Vine and we are the branches, then we do well to recognize that the Holy Spirit is the life-giving sap that fills Vine and branch.  As to a dual baptism, I am not sufficiently convinced as to suggest this ought to be our understanding, at least as defines present-day practice.  I will confess that much of this is simple unwillingness on my part to accept the idea, not least because it seems too near to heresy.  As to the laying on of hands, I would have to say that, while we would certainly hope and pray that the Holy Spirit is saturating such activities with His presence, it remains the impartation of blessing rather than authority.

Relationship of Circumcision & Baptism (03/11/14-03/12/14)

We are now coming up against one of the major questions regarding baptism:  How it relates to circumcision.  This question devolves to a question of covenant.  The Church, at least the Protestant Church, is largely agreed upon the distinction between covenants of works and covenants of grace.  In simplified form, we distinguish these by the presence of if/then dependencies in the statement of the covenant.  Where there is an ‘if you do then I will’ aspect, it is a covenant of works.  If it is simply, “I will”, then we have a covenant of grace.  So far, so good.

Looking at the Old Testament, all would similarly agree that the great majority of covenants contained therein are covenants of works.  The original arrangement with Adam was a covenant of works.  If you don’t eat from this tree then I will grant you to live here.  If you do eat, you die.  Conditional.  Likewise, the Mosaic covenant.  If you keep all this law, you live.  If you fail of it in any way, you die.  There are other cases which are clearly covenants of grace, in particular the covenant God establishes subsequent to the Fall.  The seed will crush the serpent’s head.  There is no if, only then.  But, coming to the Abrahamic covenant, we run into difficulties.  All agree that it persists, for therein lies the seed of promise, and further, we have plenty of New Testament references back to Abraham’s covenant.  We are all sons of Abraham by faith.  This is a fundamental understanding of the Gospel message.  But, here’s the problem:  There’s an if.

I’ve looked at this already, but it needs revisiting here.  As God sets forth the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17, we hit this:  “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you:  Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Ge 17:10).  Furthermore, “an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (Ge 17:15).  That would seem pretty clearly to impose conditions.

Should we, perhaps, look farther back?  When Abraham (then Abram) was first called, we have a portion of this promise already established.  “Go from your country, and I will make you a great nation.  I will bless you and make your name great so that you shall be a blessing.  I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Ge 12:1-4).  Conditional?  Well, yes.  If he had not gone forth, one supposes the whole deal was off.  There is a promise which follows shortly thereafter:  “To your descendants I will give this land” (Ge 12:7).  No immediate conditions attach unless we deem this attached to the preceding obedience of having departed.  But, God makes no reference to that dependency, so we ought not to suppose its presence.  That promise is reiterated after Lot’s departure.  “All the land you see in every direction, I will give to you and your descendants forever.  I will make your descendants more numerous than the dust of the earth” (Ge 13:14-17).

More critical to this discussion, we have the clear establishing of covenant in Genesis 15.  Here is the laying out of the severed animals, the walk through the blood, the taking upon Himself of that covenantal witness, “So may it be done to Me if I fail of this covenant.”  And it is at the forefront of the scene that Abram, the other party to the covenant is not made to take upon himself the same binding terms.  God takes all condition upon Himself.  For Abraham, there is but the, “I will”; a then with no if.  What is the then, then?  There is a promise of descendants (Ge 15:12), albeit descendants enslaved for several centuries.  However, there is a promise attached to this:  That they shall come out, and come out rich.  Further, those who enslaved his descendants shall be judged.  There will be justice in the long term if not in the short.  There shall be peace for Abraham (Ge 15:15).  And they shall be restored to the land of Canaan, the land of promise.  “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land’” (Ge 15:18).

All of this comes as predecessor to the covenant of Genesis 17.  Clearly, this last in particular is wholly unconditional, fully of grace.  So, then, coming into that later chapter, are we seeing a new covenant or a reiterating of the one already established?  God says, “I will establish My covenant between Me and you” (Ge 17:2).  Surely, that must bear weight with us.  What is this covenant?  “You shall be the father of a multitude of nations…  Kings shall come forth from you.  And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants forever:  Canaan as an eternal possession, and I will be their God” (Ge 17:7-8).  Thus far, no conditions, and what is contained in the promise would seem clearly to restate and build upon what has come before.  It is expanded, but it is not entirely new.  It is after all this that we arrive at the matter of circumcision.  And, as we have noted, the topic is introduced with the words, “This is My covenant which you shall keep” (Ge 17:10).

This is, as I have said, very problematic.  So much of what has already been established in that covenant is so clearly a matter of grace and not works, and suddenly we have this introduction of a work, and apparently a very necessary work.  No circumcision, no covenant.  But, if there is a condition, how is this a covenant of grace?  And, if it is a covenant of grace why is there a condition?  I would love to play some semantic games and say, God says, “you shall keep”, ergo, there is no real condition, only a certainty.  If God has said you will, you surely will!  I rather doubt, though, that usage would permit such an understanding.

Calvin looks at this and sees the clear promise of eternal life, finding both Jesus and Paul supporting his findings.  Jesus proclaims, “God says, ’I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’  He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Mt 22:32).  Paul, discussing this matter of circumcision with the Ephesians, notes, “you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise with no hope and without God in this world” (Eph 2:12).  There does, then, appear to be a clear association here between the covenant of promise (grace), and the mark of circumcision.  But, this does more to suggest we misunderstand the nature of the covenant of grace than to resolve the tension between an unconditional covenant and a required act of obedience.

Understand that this is a critical matter to resolve.  Much of the debate around baptism hinges on this matter of circumcision.  Calvin, and with him, the Reformed tradition more generally, observes this congruence of covenants.  Here is the old covenant of grace and here the new.  It is, in effect, the same covenant, with the same lack of conditions, set forth by the same God to the same purpose.  Building upon this, they set out circumcision as the sign or seal upon the old covenant, the mark of inclusion in its terms.  Then, baptism is set out as serving the same purpose for the new covenant.  Ergo, he reasons, what holds for one ought hold for the other.

John Gill, arguing a Baptist, believer’s baptismal position, concedes the logic.  If, indeed, the Abrahamic covenant is a covenant of grace, and infant children of covenant members were clearly given the right of circumcision, then a foundation is laid for baptizing infants.  But, he concludes, it was not a covenant of grace but a covenant of works.  There were conditions, circumcision in particular.  He sees in this matter of circumcision that an act of man was required in order to keep covenant, and the penalty for not doing so was great.  Ergo:  covenant of works.

=Yet, as McClintock & Strong’s points out, there is a clear declaration of justification here, an imputation of faith and righteousness, as the New Testament affirms.  Ergo, it cannot be a covenant of works.  Some try to split the difference, suggesting there is a combined covenant in play, including both conditional and unconditional elements.  In that view, the promise of the land and such were conditional, and it is to this and this alone that circumcision applies.  As concerns justification and salvation and so on, it is fully of grace.  Calvin would disagree.  Concerning the territorial promises, he notes that these all serve to point back to the fundamental spiritual promise.  I would have to note as well that the territorial promises retain the flavor of eternality, which would certainly seem to support Calvin’s view.  All in all, I have to say the idea of a dual-mode covenant is wholly unsatisfying.  But, that leaves us to resolve this apparent condition on an unconditional covenant of grace.

Let me go back to Gill’s point, that failure to circumcise carried great penalty.  “An uncircumcised male shall be cut off from his people, for he has broken My covenant” (Ge 17:14).  Let’s fold that back to the matter of circumcision on the eighth day.  What child would be deemed fit for self-determination at so tender an age?  If father failed to circumcise child, would God truly visit the penalty for this failure upon the child?  That understanding certainly flourished in Jewish thought.  But, it is an understanding that God took great pains to dispel.  “What do you mean by using this proverb, ‘The fathers eat sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge’?  As I live, you are surely not going to use this proverb anymore.  All souls are Mine, father and son alike.  The soul who sins will die, but the man who is righteous will surely live” (Eze 18:2-9).  The message continues.  One generation’s righteousness is no guarantee of salvation to the next, or is one generation’s sins cause to condemn the next.

Looking at infant circumcision in that light, it would be a case of God contradicting Himself to count that infant as cut off from covenant for the father’s failure to comply, would it not?  So, then, it would seem more reasonable to observe that statement as applying to a male of age to have corrected any such oversight by his own volition.  In that light, we might view the act as being a signing on to the covenant, agreeing to be included in its terms, rather than a required ordinance apart from which the covenant is voided.  This kind of comes back to what Pastor Dana was offering for explanation Sunday:  That it is in that same relationship that James gives us between faith and works.  It is impossible that faith could exist without producing works.  It is impossible that a beneficiary of the covenant of grace would fail to take upon himself the sign of inclusion in that covenant.  Taking that a step further, the refusal to circumcise is not a breach of covenant, but an evidence that the covenant never applied in the first place.  I can see, given this previous exploration, the validity of this perspective.  However, that returns us to the point of accepting a much higher degree of correlation between circumcision and baptism.  And, if that degree of correlation is indeed so high, then is Calvin not more correct (and Gill’s admission as well), in supporting infant baptism as a reasonable right and possession of the child of adult members of the covenant community?

Considering the two rites, Calvin declares that they point to the same promise of forgiveness and life in the same figure of regeneration upon the same foundation of grace in Christ.  In other words, he says, the only difference is the form of the outward ceremony.  Gill, on the other hand, points to the distinctions in outward form as indication that they cannot be the same thing.  Here, I think it must be accepted that Calvin has the better argument, when he proceeds to saying that the thing signified is clearly more important than the symbol used.  I.e. Gill is arguing for form over substance.  That becomes an issue in a number of ways, but at present, we are concerned with this matter of covenant.

So, did the Abrahamic covenant point to the promise of forgiveness and life?  Certainly, life is in the covenant.  “I will make you exceedingly fruitful” (Ge 17:6); “an everlasting covenant to you and your descendants” (Ge 17:7).  I’m not so clear that forgiveness is contained here.  Perhaps it is implied, but I don’t see it immediately.  Is it the same symbolic regeneration?  Well, for a childless man in his nineties, certainly the idea of rearing up many descendants is going to imply some sort of regeneration, so let’s allow that point.  Is it upon the same foundation of grace in Christ?  Here, I think we must concur, although there is, of course, no blatant declaration of His involvement.  He is Life, so if there is life involved, it must surely be in Him.  Is it grace?  Oh, absolutely!  A review of Abraham’s adventures between leaving home and now makes his imperfections clear.  I guess that serves to demonstrate the forgiveness as well.  Yes, you kept giving your wife away instead of trusting Me, but we’ll set that aside.  Yes, I said to leave home alone, and you brought an entourage, but we’ll put that behind us as well.  So, then, I think we shall find Calvin is correct in this much, the covenant of grace as we see it in the Abrahamic covenant is much the same as that which we see in Christ.

Yet, were there no distinctions between the two, there would be no cause for a new covenant.  If it were merely a replacing of one ritual sealing of covenant with another, then the whole thing would seem a bit silly.  Besides, as Gill points out, one does not institute the superseding sing without having retired the sign that was superseded, and yet we have baptism and circumcision happening side by side, at least for a season.

So, then, Gill’s argument:  The two acts reach a different group of recipients, the one clearly reserved to males only, the other available to all.  The use of the rite, he says, is also to be distinguished, but I’m not entirely clear where he was going with that.  The use?  The mark of circumcision was used to indicate inclusion in the covenant, membership in Israel.  The use of baptism, at least in common practice, is to proclaim inclusion in the covenant and membership in the church.  This is different how?  What of the administration?  Well, yes, one required a sharp blade and the other water.  But, I don’t see a great deal to be gained from this line of argumentation.  The covenant terms have widened, ergo the range of application has widened because that was largely the point.  It’s not just Israel now, it’s all.  It’s not a federal decision of the patriarchy; it’s the decision of each individual.

Now, the reality is that this was ever the case, it just got lost.  This is not much different from the way in which the purpose and scope of Mosaic Law became truncated over time, and Jesus found it necessary to seemingly expand the scope by returning to that original purpose.  Likewise, the promise to Abraham was always to the nations and never to Israel alone.  Likewise, the mark of circumcision was never a guarantee of true inclusion.  If an atheist takes upon himself the mark of circumcision for reasons of health and sanitation, does this act thereby proclaim him a Jew?  I think not.  Does taking a bath suddenly make one a Christian?  Clearly not.

Calvin points to the particular similarity that circumcision was the mark of entrance into the Jewish state, and baptism is the mark of entrance into the Christian state.  This, he holds, is sufficient to establish that the two acts serve the same official function.  But, as I say, neither can be held to have guaranteed entrance.  Even if we accept that the act was done with the intent of marking entrance, it is still no guarantee.  The child circumcised on the eighth day cannot be assumed to abide in the covenant life of Israel.  A child baptized in the first year of life is not thereby guaranteed to live a life of faith in Christ.  These acts may serve to give the parents some sort of assurance, but it has every potential for being a false assurance.

In simple fact, the natural seed, as Gill says, whether Jew or Gentile, must be supernaturally chosen.  It was true of Israel.  It is true of the Church.  Here, indeed, we might hold that the two covenants are much the same.  In as much as both are covenants of grace, it must necessarily hold that the membership of the covenant is entirely in God’s hands to determine.  The outward sign is utterly empty except God sovereignly chooses to imbue the symbol with its spiritual reality.

As to this matter of women being excluded from circumcision by force of nature, we have seen Gill argue that this demonstrates the incongruence of the two rites.  Others apparently argued that the same foundation ought properly to exclude women from baptism.  Calvin says nuts to that.  It is sufficiently obvious that women were included in the terms of the older covenant, and only skipped the physical rite due to physical impossibility.  Likewise the matter of Gentile inclusion.  Here, he argues that the very reason Gentiles were granted to enter the covenant without circumcision is because baptism had taken its place.

He turns his attention to Romans 9:7, which some hold forth as evidence that the physical seed of Abraham was rejected.  That, of course, is not the point.  It is not a matter of rejecting his physical progeny, but rather that the line of inheritance covers a wider ground.  The promises are equally open to the Gentiles, because the line of inheritance was not physical in nature, but spiritual.  It is not that the physical progeny are rejected from the New Covenant, but that lineage alone is insufficient to guaranty inclusion.  This, it should be noted, was ever the case, as Paul proceeds to make clear.  “Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’” (Ro 9:13).  Were not both of these men circumcised the eighth day?  Yes, they were.  Were not both therefore included in the Abrahamic covenant?  Clearly not.  The sign is insufficient to ensure the reality.

Is there, then, a distinction of covenants?  Calvin asserts this to be an impossible view to arrive at without having completely corrupted Scripture to get there.  It would require us to hold that the Abrahamic covenant was a temporal matter only, with no eternal consequence.  Gill tries to finesse this by observing a dual aspect to the Abrahamic covenant, containing both temporal promises made to the ‘natural seed’, and spiritual promises to the spiritual seed.  Ergo, he holds, circumcision applied only to the temporal stuff.  To support this point, he points again to Esau, and to Ishmael, and even to the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah; saying that if the spiritual covenant was made with all of Abraham’s descendants, these must be counted as included in its terms, which clearly, they are not.  Take it a step further.  The Pharisees, even as they rejected the Christ, were yet children of this covenant.

This, I think, is a specious argument.  It assumes too much power to the sign.  Again we must assert that outward ritual is never assurance of inward reality, and on that basis I think that whole line of reasoning fails.  Again, I would give the point to Calvin.  The Abrahamic covenant was neither temporal in nature nor conditional in application.  At the same time, I would grant Gill this point as being supported both by Scripture and experience:  If the choice of inclusion belongs to the covenant of grace, then mere circumstance of birth cannot mark inclusion, nor the observance of some ritual to mark that occasion.  The same, it must be noted, applies equally to baptism.

Proceeding in his efforts to distinguish the two covenants, Gill notes that circumcision gave admission to Passover.  Seeing Communion as our Passover, he argues we would therefore need to accept that baptism grants admission to Communion.  He holds that there is no support for such an understanding.  And yet, it seems to me we largely consider this to be the case, do we not?  We construe baptism as a necessary act of obedience indicative of faith, a work which real faith would never disregard.  We hold that membership in the local body requires this necessary act of obedience.  We hold that those who are not of the faith are not to partake of Communion.  We may or may not hold that Communion ought properly to be reserved to the members of the local church, but would surely insist it is reserved to the members of the universal Church.  That would actually seem to argue a much greater correlation between the two covenants.

Indeed, so far as covenants are concerned, I think we must arrive at the conclusion that the New Covenant, in having superseded the Abrahamic Covenant is clearly of a piece with that older covenant, although superior in every way.  Just as Christ came not to annul the Law contained in the Mosaic Covenant, but to fulfill it, so His New Covenant comes to fulfill and also to expand the Abrahamic Covenant.  The terms are broader, the promises nearer and also grander.  This, however, does not require us to see so tightly coupled a correspondence between circumcision and baptism.  The covenants, however similar, are necessarily distinct.

Calvin turns his attention to Colossians 2:11-14, a passage I have considered at length already.  Here, he says, Paul clearly indicates that baptism is neither more nor less spiritual than circumcision.  Well and good.  It seems to me, though, that this passage is leaned on rather heavily in seeking to equate the two rites.  See?  Paul is declaring the congruence of the two.  But, I don’t believe he is doing anything of the kind.  Indeed, in pointing to that circumcision made without hands, he points us to Christ having fulfilled the outward ritual by achieving its spiritual intent; an intent which, I have noted, is proclaimed at the very heart of the Mosaic Law.

If, then, the rite of circumcision has already obtained its antitype, is there cause for us to seek a replacement for that rite?  Not as such.  We would no more seek to institute a new system of sacrifices, when Christ is clearly our once-for-all sacrifice in fulfillment of the sacrificial types.  If in Christ we are circumcised of heart, achieved without hands, wherefore the need to seek some sort of outward circumcision?  And, if we have no need for such outward circumcision, on what basis would we hold baptism forth as its replacement?

It brings us right back to the question of what baptism is and why.  We might add a new question, which I seem to be better at doing than answering old ones.  Inasmuch as baptism is a type, has it, too, already been fulfilled, and if so, on what basis do we continue its practice?  Well, the latter half is easy enough.  Christ commanded it, therefore we do it.  The former half is also, I think, simply addressed.  If the type is, as Paul states, our burial in death and resurrection into life, then no, we have not seen the complete antitype.  It is absolutely assured, but experience demands we recognize that our death to sin has not been complete.  Our resurrection life, while we enjoy a foretaste, is not fully realized, nor shall it be this side of Christ’s return.  The type, then, continues.

But, the type continues with this understanding:  That the type has no power in itself, no inherent value.  Unless it is infilled by the living Word of God, it is just an empty act, of no more meaning than a shower.  While I am at risk of taking this entirely out of context, let me point to Galatians 5:6, as I near the end of this section.  “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.”  Paul says this in the midst of arguing that those Gentiles who take upon themselves the mark of circumcision are obliging themselves to the demands of Mosaic Law, and therefore severed from Christ.  Clearly, we must read intent into the act.  Circumcision itself is not a binding act.  Circumcision as a ritual undertaking, with the intent of entering covenant, is another thing entirely.

Here, I am turning to some points made in a recent Table Talkdevotional (dated 2/12/14).  “Circumcision per se is not bad.  For Paul it was indifferent to one’s place in the kingdom – that is, until the Judaizers insisted that circumcision is required for salvation.  To so insist was to go too far and to confuse the blamelessness we should display as a fruit of faith with the righteousness that God demands for justification.  But only those with a circumcised heart are righteous in God’s sight, and that means trusting in nothing but God through faith in Christ alone.”  It is the last sentence which grabs me.  Only those circumcised in heart, trusting in nothing but God through faith in Christ alone.  Circumcision fulfilled in Christ.  That’s the sum of it.  But, it requires this much of us:  trust in God, faith in Christ.  Admittedly, this too is by God’s grace or else it does not exist at all.  But, the point I see is this:  The work is entirely internal (and the work is entirely God’s).

At a different point in that devotional, we read this.  “A heart cut out from the world to love and trust the Lord is the kind of cutting that makes one truly circumcised, not a mere mark in the flesh with a knife.  And this heart circumcision, Paul said to the astonishment of first-century Jews, is possible without physical circumcision.”  The sum of this is that the work is Christ’s.  Here, I would heartily concur that there is a definite correlation between circumcision and baptism.  Indeed, I would see that same concurrence applying to Communion, to corporate worship, to prayer, and even to time spent in the Word.  The outward act, as right as it may be, is never the point, and never has power in itself.  The means of grace are not the grace.

Now, Calvin has made much of this covenantal correlation between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Christian Covenant as laying the groundwork for seeing a strong correlation between circumcision and baptism.  This correlation is critical to his perspective in supporting infant baptism.  If it was good to circumcise an eight-day old child of covenant parents then, why not infant baptism for children of covenant parents now?  One might, though, just as well ask why?  Why do it?  Does the sign ensure membership?  No.  Does absence of the sign necessitate exclusion from the terms of the covenant?  No.  One might be able to hold that view for circumcision, although even there, I would argue that the necessary aspect of the act is reserved to those of age to decide for themselves.  But, as concerns baptism, we have the clear example of the thief on the cross, which must obviate any sense of necessity to the observance of this rite.

As corollary to the point, I would bring out one final argument from Gill, one which I think serves better than most.  In effect, he says that covenant interest does not give right to covenant ordinance unless such right is expressly declared.  That can be said of circumcision, which was required of the infant.  It cannot be said of baptism.  He proceeds from here to say that baptism is not the seal of the covenant, as circumcision was a seal of the Abrahamic covenant.  This is a pretty technical distinction, but I would have to agree at least as concerns baptism.  I’m not sure I would accept that circumcision was any more of a seal set upon the Abrahamic covenant.  It seems to me that covenant was sealed rather completely when God strode between the severed animals.  That, after all, was a clearly recognizable rite of covenantal agreement.  That circumcision was symbolic of covenant membership is clearly the case, but a seal upon it?  Not so necessary an understanding.

Likewise, baptism is not a seal by which we agree to abide by the covenant, or enter into the terms of the covenant.  It is an act of obedience to the sovereign Lord of the covenant, but it is undertaken by those already sealed thereunto.

So, then:  Conclusions on this head.  If there is a correlation of circumcision and baptism, it is to be found in the lack of efficacy therein.  Circumcision’s type has been fulfilled in Christ.  Baptism’s type awaits fulfillment.  Circumcision was commanded done to children.  Baptism’s institution has no such command.  But, truly, neither has power to save, nor can either be taken as a marker of guaranteed salvation.

Is there, then, anything in circumcision’s practice that we ought to carry forward, particularly as applies to our progeny?  I would find no fault with dedicating infants, to the ceremonial admonishing of both parents and fellow church members to attend unto that child’s upbringing.  This is surely a good thing, and one we ought to undertake whether through ceremonial observance or otherwise.  In fairness, it ought require no ceremony from us to take our children’s upbringing so seriously.  We have plenty of Scriptural backing on that account.

We might also accept that there ought to be plentiful visual reminders to our children that they belong to God – or at least, that it is our earnest hope and desire that this be the case.  But, we must also be ever mindful that any such reminders are no guarantee.  Our best efforts to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord are no guarantee.  Just as our salvation depended entirely upon His gracious call, so, too does theirs.  And, may our prayers ever be that He will indeed call, knowing that if He calls, they will assuredly answer!

Immersion vs. Other (03/13/14)

This piece of the discussion hinges upon two matters.  The first matter is one of language.  We will find much debate as to the meanings of specific terms related to baptism.  The debate is made more necessary by the fact that we do not actually have a term translating baptism, but rather a transliteration which conveys no meaning beyond what we already think baptism to be.  Another linguistic issue is found in the distinction between eis and en, which plays into the understanding one has regarding some of the baptismal scenes.  I believe I have covered that particular aspect of the matter sufficiently in covering the verses themselves.

The second line of argument concerns the symbolism, and it is here that I shall start.  Given Paul’s descriptions of baptism, it should be agreed that the primary symbolism of this act lies in its representation of the suffering, burial and resurrection of Christ.  As it is a baptism for remission of sins, it also has the symbolic aspect of cleansing.  Be it noted, as Gill reminds us, that the cleansing aspect  is indeed symbolic and not actual, the true cleansing requiring the blood of Christ which alone is sufficient.  In sum, then, baptism serves to direct us to the Lamb of God, to His atoning sacrifice.  It directs us, as well, to the reality of His resurrection, and His eternal place upon the throne.  We must see both.  We must recognize our death in His.  But, if we do not arrive at the life He imparts, then we are left in utmost despair.

Those who would accept modes other than immersion as being perfectly acceptable even as standard practice seek a different symbolism by which to justify the change.  Affusion, for example, is suggested as better symbolizing the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in baptism.  I have two issues with this.  First, it is a justification more than an explanation.  Second, as I have explored previously, the Scriptural record would seem to clearly separate the bestowal of the Spirit and baptism as two distinct events, the former being more clearly associated with the laying on of hands, although even that association seems tenuous.  Even as the author of this part of the ISBE article presents his ‘it could be argued’ defense of symbolism, he is forced to admit that immersion presents a more vivid image of what is symbolized.  In other words, the intended symbolism is conceded, and this attempted defense of affusion is something of an embarrassed attempt at making up for the loss.

Calvin, in the course of defending infant baptism, makes this observation: that Paul’s teaching that baptism presents us as buried with Christ comes by way of declaring the doctrinal significance of baptism.  Now, his point is that Paul is declaring this to those who were presumably already baptized, in much the same way that Moses spoke often upon the significance of circumcision when addressing a people long since circumcised.  I.e. he is attempting to establish another point of connection by which to admit the baptism of children.  But, for this purpose, I am far more interested in the initial declaration.  This is the doctrinal significance:  that we are buried with Christ and therefore resurrected in Christ.  With that in mind, I turn to Gill’s observation:  Neither sprinkling nor pouring can be said to have demonstrated this, any more than sprinkling a handful of dirt on the corpse would be said to bury it.  While that is a particularly apt bit of wording, I suppose I must note that a symbolic handful of dirt on the casket is hardly an uncommon scene of burial.  Be it acknowledged that the burial is hardly completed in that act, yet it is as good as done at that moment, and few if any will be waiting around to be sure the job gets finished.  The symbol is, in this case, a sufficient surety that the act itself will be complete.

This accords with baptism in many ways.  Baptism is, as it were, a first handful of dirt on our death to sin.  We proclaim ourselves dead to sin, but we all know, as Paul knew, that the battle to mortify our flesh continues on.  We know this even as we proclaim, just as that priest tossing a handful of dirt on the casket knows he has not completed the burial.  But, in both cases, the finish is certain, as certain as Christ’s word from the Cross, “It is finished!”  This, I should think, would go much farther towards presenting aspersion or affusion as an acceptable symbol than invoking a reference to the impartation of the Spirit.

Moving on to semantics, one finds the Baptists insisting that the historical record of Scripture clearly indicates that baptism involved going into the water and coming up out of the water; the terms in question being interpreted as requiring an immersion in between.  They will also set out Paul’s description of baptism as burial in Romans 6:4 as clinching the matter.  But, as we have just seen, at least in modern practice, it would not be impossible to symbolize burial by means other than immersion.  Had I the means, it would be interesting to discover whether such practices were also extent in that time.  Given the propensity for tombs and something nearer to embalming, I suppose it is not terribly likely.

So, on this line of argument, we have first the distinction between eis and en, and then, also, matters of the particular terms for going down and coming up.  Eis bears the meaning of into, where en is more indicative of a state of rest, and may often indicate instrumentality – the means.  It is the latter term that we see in descriptions of John’s baptism.  Then, we have apo and epi, with their sense of upward or downward motion, and the suggestion that these indicate immersion.  Overall, I find it difficult to reach so firm a conclusion based on these particles.  The range of meaning is too wide.

I may speak of going down to the river, and have no intention of so much as setting foot in its waters.  Perhaps I only intend to walk upon the shoreline, or stand on the dock.  I may speak of coming up for a visit, when you are in reality either south of me or situated at a lower elevation.  And none would gainsay me the use of the terms up or down on those occasions.  The same might as easily be said of the descriptions given to baptism.  Of course Jesus went down to the water.  He would hardly go up to reach the shore.  Likewise, one would hardly expect to walk downhill from river’s edge.  The same applies to the case of the eunuch.  There is only one direction to go in order to reach water, and only one direction to go in returning.  I cannot find immersion required by the terms surrounding the act.

As to the term baptism itself, there is actually something of a family of terms in view, and this again causes no end of wrangling over meaning.  Reformed expositors will note that baptizo and its related words are used not only to describe the rite of baptism, but also other ritual washings and even such purifying activities as pouring water on one’s hands prior to taking a meal.  From this latter they arrive at the conclusion that the terms clearly do not require an invariable immersion.  The Baptist position, of course, holds that indeed the terminology does indicate immersion, with possible exceptions where an alternate understanding is made clear.

So, then, we find Gill arguing that the primary sense of the term involves plunging or dipping (i.e. an immersive activity), and that washing is but a secondary meaning, describing a result of the primary.  Over against this, the Reformed argument says that actually, baptein would be the more proper term for such dipping, and baptizein (again citing the matter of washing hands) has wider application.  But, then we have McClintock & Strong saying that even baptein has this wider sense.  Oh dear.

Here, let me return to Gill, for he presents an interesting point in this regard.  He looks to the record of Jewish practice at the time, particularly bringing forth the testimony of Maimonides on this matter, and notes that it was generally held that all such washings demanded that the item washed was full dipped.  If ‘so much as a finger’ is left above the water, then the body has not been washed.  But, then, is Jewish practice of the time sufficient to establish Christian practice?  Is baptism to have taken the place of other extent purification rituals?  If so, then, the M&S note that sprinkling was also a common activity in purification rituals would seem apt.  Gill’s argument that we ought to take baptism as signifying its primary meaning unless alternate explanation is given is well taken.  However, it would also seem clear that we do not have sufficient certainty as to that primary meaning, or what common speech of the time would have tended to indicate.

Let it be accepted that many religions of the time had their baptismal rituals; necessary cleansings and purifications for entry into the deeper mysteries.  Perhaps we can find something in the description of those practices that would indicate the common understanding of the term in this application.  That would still, I should think, leave the larger question of whether these practices informed Christian practice unanswered.  It would not be unreasonable, certainly, to suppose that John, and Jesus after him, picked up on what was already known practice and simply altered or expanded its application.  It would seem reasonable, were it otherwise, that some further explanation of what it was they were doing might be expected to appear in the record.

A third line of argument is built upon setting.  Gill, for example, looks at the locations John chose for baptizing.  There is, of course, the Jordan itself, and then there is that second location at Aenon near Salim, chosen, according to John 3:23, because it had abundant water.  This, it is suggested, indicates immersion.  Why else the abundant water?  Well, I could easily suppose it had as much to do with extensive shoreline for the crowds to spread out.  Was John the only one administering his baptism, or did his disciples help?  If the latter, then one would want more room to operate.  There were many coming to be baptized and only so many hours in the day, after all.

Gill also finds the water involved in the eunuch’s baptism as conclusive evidence for immersion, but I do not find that compelling.  Others look, for example, at the case of Cornelius or of the jailor and find no cause to suppose any sufficient body of water to allow for immersion, let alone demand it.  In the case of the jailor, it appears they may well have gone off to the public baths which would certainly allow for immersion.  As to Cornelius, we don’t know where the baptism took place, but it was unlikely to have been in his house.  So, again, the evidence is wholly inconclusive in either direction.

Finally, we arrive at historical arguments for and against.  When the ISBE presents the Baptist perspective, it states that discussions of pouring or sprinkling as a means of baptism was a late development, and was not widely accepted prior to the Council of Trent.  That council came in the mid fourteenth century.  Yet ,we have clear evidence in the Didache that baptism by pouring water on the head was acceptable where immersion was not possible.  I.e. immersion was the recommended mode, but affusion was valid where necessitated by circumcstance.

Let me present the quote.  “Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water). But if thou hast neither, pour water thrice upon the head in (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”  There are actually a number of interesting points to be found here, and it must be said that Baptist practice follows very few.

I would note, relative to the credo-baptist argument, the first clause presented. “Having first taught all these things”, would seem pretty clearly to indicate order.  I suppose one could argue that the author was simply not addressing the case of infants, but given the intended purpose of the document one would think he would do so if indeed it were part of common practice in the church.

But, concerning mode:  There is an express preference for ‘living water’, free-running, natural water.  There is a further preference for cold rather than warm.  If I may critique our own practices (and of course, I may), I would note we have our baptismal baths built into the church, and we do our best to make sure they are comfortably warm.  Isn’t that interesting?  Now, admittedly the Didache is not Scripture, is not binding.  But, as an expression of what is generally accepted as being Apostolic practice at or near the start of the Church, one would think it might carry a bit of weight with those seeking to establish what that Apostolic practice was.

It seems sufficiently clear from this that while immersion is clearly and distinctly to be preferred, allowance is made for affusion where immersion is not possible.  At the very least, as even the Baptist apologist in the ISBE article allows, an exception was established for ‘certain extreme cases’.  Ought we not, as emissaries of a merciful and gracious God, do likewise?  Ought we not be far more concerned with the inner realities than outward formalities?  Further, if we are going to be sticklers for immersion as the only valid mode, ought we not be just as firm in demanding outdoors baptism in free-running cold water?  Wherefore this comfort and privacy that we afford the practice?  Baptism is fundamentally a public confession of faith and of our sharing in the suffering and death of our Savior.  Ought it not then be done publicly, and with at least a modicum of discomfort?

One final note on this topic, more by way of amusement than significance.  The Reformed apologist for the ISBE article points to a rather ironic bit of history.  At the point when the Anabaptists of Munster began requiring adult re-baptism (somewhere in the 16th century), they re-baptized by affusion rather than immersion.  Similarly, the earliest practices of the Mennonites and Baptists were of affusion rather than immersion.  Returning to that note from the Baptists that discussions about affusion were a late development, it would seem that if this is the case, it was primarily because there was little concern for mode until the Baptists became sticklers for one mode only, and that came contrary to their own prior practice.  This is not to say they are necessarily wrong to do so.  After all, past practice is no guarantee of correctness.

If I reach any conclusion in this section, it must be this:  We ought surely to be far more concerned with the validity of the thing symbolized than with the outward forms of observance.  If the baptismal candidate is truly regenerate, and truly seeking to obey the command of Christ to be baptized, perhaps we ought better to leave the mode as a matter of conscience.  We may be right in requiring baptism follow upon real conversion, but to insist that it is only valid where immersion has been the mode seems to me to smack of Pharisaic error.

Validity and Rebaptism (03/14/14)

Are there conditions which ought to require a person to be baptized again?  This has been a question in certain periods.  The main present-day cause for consideration would be those who cross the divide between Protestant and Catholic.  A Catholic who has become Protestant:  Is their baptism valid, or must it be redone?  Likewise, a Protestant who has become a Catholic:  Is their baptism to be accepted?  We could break it down further, and question whether one baptized into this denomination ought to be accepted by that denomination as properly baptized.

In this regard, one’s perspective on paedobaptism versus credobaptism will necessarily play a large role.  If one holds that infant baptism is wholly invalid, then one is unlikely to accept as valid any baptism done as an infant.  That would tend to answer the question in many cases.  But, traditionally, apart from the issue of believer-baptism, the Church has accepted as valid baptism by other denominations.

What is intriguing is that in earlier history, the concern was not with other denominations but with heretical movements.  Of course, some would argue that is a distinction with no difference.  But this was a big problem early on.  If somebody had been a follower of, say, Marcion, and had been baptized by representatives of that group, should their baptism be taken as valid should they return to the church proper?  It seems the general response was that yes, they should.  This is honestly somewhat shocking to me.  Per M&S, this was something that really became an issue in the 3rd century, and in part, asked the question concerning heretics who recanted.  Now, in that case, it may be assumed the heretic had been baptized in the Church, left the Church, and now returned.  Did they need a re-sealing, as it were?  In general, the answer comes up, as I said, in the negative.  Nope.  They were baptized once, and that shall do.  Some would put a rider on that to the effect that, so long as both candidate and baptizer did so in good and true faith, the baptism holds.  But, that would, I should have thought, ruled out baptism by heretics.  How could they baptize in good and true faith who do not hold to good and true faith?

Now, much is made of the once-for-all nature of baptism.  It being a reflection of the once-for-all death and resurrection of our Lord Christ, it is fitting, certainly, that the act symbolizing His sacrifice on our behalf ought likewise be a singular event.  Historically, this probably served to plant the seeds of that overly mystical view of baptism as only serving to cover sins previously committed.  Therefore, some argued, it should be kept for late in life that it might cover more.  But, this perspective clearly overstates the power of baptism, which is entirely powerless in itself.

Kittel really stresses this once-for-all aspect of the matter.  He speaks of it in this regard, concluding that as such, it makes great demands on the baptized.  This, I would note, is said regarding John’s baptism.  But, the same point carries forward.  He makes the connection with Christ’s sacrificial death, but then adds the caveat that Paul would certainly reject any idea that baptism had some power to produce instant transformation, although he would conclude that there is a very real activity of the Spirit in baptism.  That veers back into a previous discussion, but leave that aside.  He points us off towards this matter of delaying baptism given that it can only be applied once.  What, after all, shall be done should we relapse subsequent to baptism?  At the same time, the singular nature of the sign has been held forth as a prime argument for infant baptism.  Best they should have the benefit of this at the earliest possible moment!

But, this again seems to require us to understand a benefit far and away beyond what the rite will bear.  It assumes a ‘real act of the Spirit’ necessarily attends on the observance of outward ritual.  But, that seems to me a very dangerous assumption, and one which Scripture will not bear out.  Let us accept the correlation of baptism and circumcision, and one must surely recognize that the outward act of circumcision in no wise guaranteed membership in true Israel.  Let us look at our own history, and we can all, I suspect, come up with names of those who were duly baptized but who do not, so far as we can measure, follow Christ.  “They went out from us but they were not of us” (1Jn 2:19), would seem to apply.

McClintock & Strong arrive at the conclusion that baptism, even if done improperly, remains valid and ought not to be redone.  That would seem to stretch things a bit thin.  Bearing in mind the command to be baptized in the name of the Triune Godhead, i.e. transferred to His account, it would seem that surely baptism which had any other purpose ought to be reconsidered.  Here, we might look to the example from later in the book of Acts.  We have first Apollos and then those others who had known only John’s baptism (Ac 19).  The latter group was rebaptized.  Concerning Apollos, we cannot say.  In the case of John’s baptism, we are considering a baptism that was validated by Christ, even if it was not sufficient.  Surely, if we suppose He baptized His first disciples, He was re-baptizing those baptized by John.  Surely, amongst the many who came to Him and were baptized by His own disciples there were any number of people who had experienced John’s baptism.  Admittedly, this line of argumentation requires supposition.  We have no explicit statement to that effect.  We do, though, have the explicit rebaptism of that group in Ephesus.  There is precedent of some sort.

The record of Acts might lead us to leave the decision as a matter of conscience.  It is, after all, an outward rite, not the spiritual reality.  If the believer feels he has satisfied the demand of baptism, shall we bind his conscience and insist he is wrong?  That might seem an easy enough question, and for the cases we are looking at in Acts it probably was.  They had been baptized as adults, of their own free will, and they were of age to decide for themselves whether that baptism was valid.  For that particular group, it seems they felt the need to be re-baptized, and Paul had no problem with it.  For Apollos, it is not said that he was re-baptized, although perhaps he was.  What if he was not?  Clearly he was preaching Christ and doing so correctly and to good effect.  He had been disciple by Aquila and Priscilla when they recognized certain deficiencies in his understanding, and he went forth with their blessing.  Did they demand a rebaptism first?  Not that we see.  If they had, how would this differ from the Judaizers and their insistence on circumcision for the Gentiles?

This matter of rebaptism must become a consideration for us as we consider those coming into a church with credobaptist views who were baptized as infants.  Is their baptism valid?  Must they be rebaptized?  Indeed, ought they to be rebaptized?  That is not so easy a question.  Our church actually would insist they must be, seeing baptism as an act of obedience, a necessary act of obedience flowing from real faith in Christ.  If that is one’s understanding of baptism, then such a perspective makes sense.  The infant was obeying nobody in being baptized.  The infant had no say in the matter, and it expressed nothing of will or faith in that infant.  Ergo, it is not a valid baptism, and there is no real question of rebaptizing.  There has been no baptizing.  So the argument might run.

However, for that one who was baptized as a child and has subsequently come to faith, is it not entirely possible that they, in good conscience, perceive themselves as good and duly baptized?  If they consider themselves baptized into the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ought they to even permit the thought of being rebaptized?  If it is indeed a once-for-all act representative of the once-for-all sacrifice of the Christ in whom they have trusted, would it not be an insult to that very Christ to undertake a second pass?  And what would it say of the representative of Christ that he would insist upon such a violation of conscience as a necessary prerequisite for being welcomed into full fellowship with the local body? 

I say this as an elder in a church that would do just that.  It seems a problematic stance to me.  I understand the perspective.  If baptism is to be undertaken as an act of obedient faith, and it has instead been undertaken when there could be neither faith nor obedience, how does this satisfy the command of Christ?  Yet, at the same time it strikes me that this insistence on form and sequence comes nearer to the practices of the Pharisees than to the practices of our Savior.  Surely, we ought to at least examine ourselves in this regard, and seek the Lord as to whether we are right to maintain this particular denominational distinctive.

I am not suggesting that we ought to make it our practice to baptize children (which gets ahead of myself just a bit), but that is a different question than accepting the validity of that one who has been thus baptized and whose faith has been otherwise demonstrated as real and vibrant.  Return to circumcision as the purported forebear of baptism.  If it be accepted as such (which is by no means a given), do we find any precedent for some later re-enactment by which to prove the man truly part of the covenant?  I’m not certain how far back we might date bar-mitzvah practices, but that would certainly serve as a positive answer.  Yes, at this point the man (or woman via bat-mitzvah) is held to be responsible to the Mosaic covenant.  Of course, that is not the Abrahamic covenant, so perhaps we should see that not as sealing the earlier sign, but as marking a different covenant.

By and large, I am very much disinclined to pursue re-baptism unless it be a baptism that was into some other god.  There, I think it would be right to insist on an act of obedience in both recanting the former association and demonstrating obedient faith in the newly established one.  A baptism that was clearly done in God’s name, whether we happen to agree with the manner and the mode?  That seems far less stable ground for requiring a new baptism.

Finally, I would address the case of one who wishes to be re-baptized for reasons having nothing to do with changing allegiances.  I recall the case of a couple in my acquaintance who were joining a trip to Israel.  The pastor leading that trip planned to do some baptisms in the Jordon – whether of new believers or not I am not certain.  But, this couple decided the symbolism of being baptized in that particular setting justified redoing their baptisms.  I advised against it on that occasion, not that I was heard on the matter.  It struck me as taking the whole spiritual reality of baptism entirely too lightly.  If, indeed, there is any real symbolic value (is that an oxymoron?) to the act of baptism, then doing it again just for the thrill seems to me to utterly devalue the real power of the act.  If baptism is truly once-for-all in nature, then it should surely argue against any such view.  This decision did not exalt baptism nor the God to whom baptism points.  It exalted a river.  That, it would seem to me, is clearly wrong-headed.

As to the matter of requiring rebaptism of those coming to us from paedo-baptist backgrounds, I think the matter is much more difficult.  Admittedly, we do not demand rebaptism.  We simply withhold membership until such is undertaken.  So, I suppose we can say we don’t force a violation of conscience.  We just make it a greater burden.  It becomes a question of what validates the baptism.  Is it faith preceding which renders the baptism real and true?  For all that, is the proper indoctrination prior to baptism any guarantee that the candidate is truly of sound faith and being baptized properly, as we would measure propriety?  Can we really say that our interview of the candidate absolutely ensures this to be the case?  I think we must answer in the negative.  We cannot see the heart, only that which the heart chooses to reveal.  It might be rather unlikely that one would choose to undergo baptism on false pretenses, but I don’t believe we could rule it out, and I’m not at all certain we could root it out, were it the case.  Time would tell.  Again, I go back to John’s comment regarding those who were claiming his backing but had nothing of real faith in them:  Never of us, whatever the appearances.

This is, after all, the great dilemma which leads folks to reject the reality of a permanent salvation.  We have all known those who were absolute paragons of virtue, clearly men of God, and yet something happened, and they went off the rails.  I recall a dear brother of mine, head of men’s ministry, a powerful man of prayer, just an all-around solid example of what it meant to follow Christ.  Here was a guy you would want as your mentor.  And then one day he was gone, and his wife was still there.  He’d gone chasing after some skirt, had the audacity to come back on one occasion with her in tow while his wife was still in attendance.  Kids left.  Wife left.  Just tossed it all and never, so far as I know, looked back.  What shall we say to this?  Many looked and saw in his example that of course you could lose your salvation.  Look at him!  We all know he was a man of God, and now he’s a son of the devil.  If it could happen to him…  But, the reality, according to John, according to God, is that, “He was never of us.”

Fold that back to baptism.  The act of baptism, however obediently done so far as we can discern it, is no guarantee.  It is no more an assurance of faith than is participation in communion.  It’s easy enough to chew a cracker and sip some grape juice.  Peer pressure alone would suffice to lead many a non-believer to partake.  Perhaps they are there to keep the spouse happy.  Perhaps they’ve been faking faith all along to that same end.  One must maintain appearances, and by and large, we can maintain the façade for the hour or two we’re at church without much difficulty.  Even in Charismatic circles it’s simple enough to fake the signs and wonders.  Everybody’s being slain in the Spirit?  I can fall down, too.  Everybody’s praying in tongues?  I can spout some gibberish.  If that’s all it takes to satisfy them that I’m legit, this is going to be easy!  Pray a bit and smile while you sing, and that will really seal the deal.  But, who knows what I’m like when I’m home?  Not the ones next to me in the pew.  Not the elders or the pastor.  God knows.

I come back to that point that it is the Holy Spirit who alone validates baptism, who alone renders the outward sign harmonious with an inward reality.  Many would argue that this truth alone is sufficient to make clear that the order of sign and reality is not critical, only the congruence.  I suppose it comes back again to the original question of what baptism is.  If it is but an act of obedience undertaken in faith, then yes, it must necessarily follow upon faith.  It has no inherent power, nor even any symbolic power.  It’s just me obeying.  But, if it’s more than that, if there’s really an activity of God going on in that symbolic act, and if it is God alone who can render real what I undertake in type?  Then surely He is able to do things in whatever sequence He chooses, and who am I to gainsay Him the right?

Conclusions?  The only real conclusion I draw at this point is that rebaptism is a matter we must take very seriously.  If it is to correct a baptism undertaken to a false god, then we can argue it is no rebaptism at all, but only the first real baptism.  Therefore, it is surely not only permitted but necessitated.  If it is because we disagree with some aspect of the rite as previously performed, I think we need to reconsider.  And, if it is simply because we want some spiritual thrill because this new mode or setting or whatever it may be seems more attractive?  No.

Paedo vs. Credo (03/15/14-03/18/14)

We arrive at the thorniest of the questions concerning baptism, and looking at the notes I have here, two things become evident.  First, I have already touched on many of the points.  Second, it’s going to take a while yet to finish this study.  But, let me start with this comment from John Gill.  It is not a direct quote, but runs as follows.  “If we had clear direction in the New Testament to baptize infants, there would be no dispute.”  As I noticed when I read that in his writing, that is an argument that applies equally well to pretty much the whole topic of baptism.  It holds for those who support infant baptism.   If there were clear direction to the contrary, there would be no dispute.  It holds in the question of immersion versus other modes.  If there were clear declarations as to the one and only mode for baptizing, or clear directions indicating that the mode was not terribly important, there would be no dispute.  The problem is that in all these things, Scripture is either terribly vague; or written for an audience assumed to have the requisite background and knowledge to know intuitively what is not stated explicitly.

I bring this point forward simply to temper whatever may follow.  I have, I think, reached certain conclusions.  Are they the final answer?  How could I be so bold as to suggest any such thing!  I can only conclude as my conscience leads in these matters.  I cannot proclaim that I have, after lo, these many centuries, finally resolved the question for all time.  How foolish would I be to think so?  If I had so high an opinion of myself I should cease and desist now, and probably ought to have done so having reviewed the pertinent passages of Scripture.  Here are my answers, and now, away with you lot!  But, it cannot and should not be that way.  God has granted that we have a wealth of theological history which can be brought to bear.  That history, particularly on questions of baptism, is by no means harmonious in its conclusions.  But, agree or disagree, these past thinkers provide us with matters that deserve our consideration.

Critical to this question is the absence or presence of any Scriptural support for order of events.  The credo-baptist position holds that there is indeed such evidence, that teaching clearly precedes baptism.  The paedo-baptist position necessarily insists that this is at the very least not always the case.  The Lutheran apologist from the ISBE article takes it a step further.  “What the imperative [make disciples] states as the end is to be attained by what the participle [baptizing] names as the means to the end.”  At the same time, he proceeds to state that there is no defined order to these events, the sole requirement being that both are achieved.  So, then, they look to the Great Commission and find both baptizing and teaching as supporting means for the purpose of making disciples.  And, as somebody else noted, if we are going to play on word order alone, then teaching follows baptism, which runs counter to credo-baptist practice.

The presenter of the Reformed position holds forth that we have no evidence for there being lengthy instruction prior to baptism; no signs of there having been creeds to memorize, for instance.  Yet, this very same article looks to 1Peter, and says look!  There must have been some sort of formal interrogation preceding baptism, so as to confirm the candidate acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God.  Does this not in itself presuppose prior instruction?  It seems to me that even Calvin accedes to the order of events a credo-baptist would hold clear, indicating that in the Commission, Jesus clearly sets out preaching and discipling as the primary assignment, with baptism appended for those who receive the Gospel message.  That, it seems to me, is exactly right.  But, then, Calvin goes on to establish that this order is for adult believers only, and there must necessarily exist a distinct economy as applies to the children born to believers.

One might well ask (because the waters aren’t muddied enough yet) what to do with children whose parents became believers at some point between birth and their arrival at the age of reason?  Do we fold these in under Paul’s teaching in 1Corinthians 7:14?  Are they children of a believing parent, and ought they to be baptized on that account?  What if they were born to parents out of wedlock at the time?  Do we still count them holy and legitimate so long as the wedding took place at some subsequent point?  Does it matter if that happened before or after the parents came to faith?

Fausset appears to be straddling the fence on this matter.  On the one hand we have this from him.  “The teaching and acceptance of the truth stands first, the sealing of belief in it by baptism comes next.”  That seems pretty clear.  One cannot seal a truth that has not yet been established.  Faith and knowledge come first, the mark of faith comes later.  But, then, he brings forward that very passage of 1Corinthians 7:14, together with the various household baptisms of Acts, and stirs in Jesus blessing the children in Matthew 19:13-15.  From these, he arrives at support of baptizing children, for Jesus Himself says, “The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I believe I have already covered all of these passages sufficiently.  The household baptism in Acts, as I have seen them, cannot be said with any great confidence to have included children, and in most cases are such as would make the presence of children unlikely.  The blessing of the children does not enter into matters of baptism at all, but of prayer, and there is sufficient cause to think Jesus is not using their example due to age, but rather due to their greater openness to faith and instruction.

As to the passage regarding children being sanctified by at least one believing parent, our Baptist apologist tosses this out as irrelevant, given that Paul is not looking at the matter of baptism at all, but rather at the sanctifying value of marriage.  It is also, as I noted elsewhere, entirely probable that Paul’s consideration of those children has more to do with legitimacy than with holiness per se.  Be that as it may, even if those children are somehow demarked as sanctified by dint of parentage, this does not necessarily qualify those children for baptism.  That thread of argumentation is insufficient.

Concerning the household baptisms, the Reformed argument sets forth the federal nature of household organization, as it would have been generally understood at the time.  Particularly in matters of religion, the decision of the head of household was assumed to apply to all within the house.  That would subsume wife, children, and even household servants.  On these grounds, the paedo-baptist would hold that all those thereby included would be baptized, and that if it were the case that children were excluded, this would be such a departure from expected norms as to have been explicitly noted.  But, I could as easily accept that, if the head’s decisions were assumed to apply, so too would his acts.  In other words, his baptism could be taken as applying to the whole.  In some cases, at least, the texts support such an understanding.

Another passage which comes up repeatedly in this matter is that of Colossians 2:12, wherein some find Paul establishing a connection between circumcision and baptism.  This is, from what I observe, an absolutely critical point for the paedo-baptist position.  Much of their argument is built upon comparison to the clearly stated Old Testament practice of circumcision.  There, children of covenant parents were to be circumcised.  Ergo, here, children of covenant parents should be baptized.  Of course, as the credo-baptist will quickly note, there, the act was clearly commanded, here it is not.

My own review of that passage leads me to conclude that Paul is making no such connection.  Rather, he shows circumcision fulfilled in Christ, who has circumcised the heart.  That, as I have probably noted multiple times now, comes in fulfillment of Mosaic prophesy contained in that passage where he commands Israel to love God with all their heart, soul and strength.  He will circumcise your hearts, says Moses.  He has circumcised your hearts, says Paul.  If we were to conclude anything about circumcision and its relationship to the New Covenant believer, it would seem to be that circumcision has more to do with the Mosaic than with the Abrahamic Covenant, and ought therefore to be recognized as fulfilled, no longer binding.  That it is no longer binding is absolutely clear.  That much is settled.  Whether this is due to fulfillment of Law or due to being replaced by a later equivalent is the question.  And, even if one accepts baptism as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision, does this require us to maintain so absolute a correspondence of types?

Now, the Reformed theologian will point us to Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:38-39.  Much is made of his use of the phrase, “the promise is to you and to your children.”  This, it is noted, echoes an Old Testament promise, and that promise, according to Calvin, always speaks of those children as being children of the covenant, and therefore heirs to the covenant promises.  That’s fine.  Let it even be granted.  Does that require us to understand ‘your children’ as being automatic candidates for baptism?

It seems to me that if we wish to observe Paul establishing some connection between circumcision and baptism, we would be far better served to consider Romans.  In particular, we might look at Romans 4, where he lays out the case of Abraham, the father of that covenant marked by circumcision.  Note that, first and foremost, Paul is making the case that faith preceded the mark.  Second, as concerns that mark, he is discussing not Abraham’s circumcising of his children, but Abraham’s circumcising of himself.  This, he notes, came after faith.  Abraham had already been declared righteous by God.  Let us consider, in particular, this conclusion of Paul’s.  “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Ro 4:13).  But, circumcision is of the Law, is it not?  Yes, it is set out in conjunction with the grace covenant of Abraham, yet it is Law.

Furthermore, and again, this is something I believe I have already covered, the act of circumcision as an act of obedience cannot have applied to that 8-day old child being circumcised.  As an act of obedience, and a seal upon righteousness, it could only apply to the parent.  Did it seal that child to the covenant?  Admittedly, the wording of Genesis 17 makes it clear that the lack of circumcision was sufficient to mark that child as removed from covenant.  But, let me note two things on that matter, perhaps three.  First, the refusal to circumcise, at least as concerns the 8th day, is the parent’s refusal not the child’s.  It is a parental rejection of covenant which removed the child from being heir to the promise.  Second, the uncircumcised child, having arrived at an age to arrange his own affairs, is perfectly capable of correcting this exclusion and making himself a child of the covenant.  Third, such an understanding is far more in keeping with God’s revelation of Himself.  It is personal moral responsibility, not hereditary moral responsibility.  This is something Israel had wrong, and it’s something that large portions of Christianity today are getting wrong.  We may inherit propensities from our parents, and we have certainly inherited original sin.  But, we are in no position to repent of our parents mistakes, nor are we under any obligation to do so.  We can only repent for ourselves, and it is this repentance which is our moral responsibility.

[03/16/14] Baptist and Reformed alike recognize that paedo-baptism entered church practice in large part due to a superstitious misunderstanding of baptism.  For a time, it was held that baptism had real, salvific power in and of itself, and that one who died apart from baptism would die unsaved, regardless of all else.  The Baptists see this same issue being at root in the departure from immersion-only baptism, but be that as it may.  Both appear to agree that so far as infant baptism is concerned, it was this concern for dying without baptism that led to the practice.  The Reformers, says the apologist for their position in the ISBE, rejected this as purest superstition.  The mechanism or rite of baptism has no power in itself.  And yet, they retained the practice they observe riding into the church on the back of superstition.  This is rather surprising, I must say, and leaves me to wonder if perhaps I misread their position.

This same apologist, considering the credo-baptist perspective, complains thusly:  Here we have a child raised in faith within a Christian family all his life to date.  He has now arrived at the age of discretion, and you would say he still lacks something?  Can you really insist that this one, clearly true to the faith, is incomplete until having made an independent decision to be baptized?  What, then, do you say to John the Baptists, who was clearly filled with the Spirit while yet in the womb?  I would say, first, that the fact that this singular child was filled with the Spirit hardly requires us to suppose all children thus filled.  I would say, second, that one can hardly make a hard and fast rule of either situation, for God is clearly able to save outside the confines of His stated typical methods.  Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, requiring preachers be sent.  But, God is not thereby constrained from saving those to whom no preacher has gone.  He is not, in short, so small a God as can be bound by the failings of man.

The apologist points to those several other passages we have already considered repeatedly, and drives to this conclusion:  Faith being as necessary to salvation as to baptism, what one says of faith in regard to baptism must necessarily apply to salvation as well.  Ergo, he reasons, if you would deny baptism to the child younger than the age of reason, you must likewise reject all possibility of salvation to such a one.  This argument seems to me to be utterly bogus.  First, salvific faith being solely by grace, and solely by the irresistible call of God, it is very clearly in God’s power to impart salvific faith at whatsoever age He chooses.  Second, baptism having no power to save in itself, but being rather an act of obedience undertaken by one already saved by faith, it would be unnecessary to His purpose of saving such a one as He chooses to take to Himself before the age of discretion.  But, I return to the primary point.  Salvation is a wholly a matter of God’s will.  Baptism is a choice of man’s will.  There is a very clear distinction.  Baptism, apart from that faith which God has imparted would be an empty gesture, it is true.  But, baptism being an undertaking of willing obedience, would it not be just as empty a gesture if undertaken apart from the willing choice?

This, however, is not the foundation upon which the paedo-baptist chooses to build.  It is thrown out in critique of the credo-baptist position, but their actual case is built upon a different statement.  They look to forensics.  Here is the covenant of grace, and there, in baptism, is to be found the seal of said covenant.  The child of believing parents, having been born into the church, has legal, forensic interest in the covenant, and therefore ought rightly to be granted the seal.  As I have noted elsewhere, the credo-baptist counters that the logic here is incorrect, that covenant interest does not automatically give right to participate in the rites thereof.   It is noted that even the paedo-baptist would concur that mere birth into a Christian family does not suffice to qualify one for communion.  How is this different?  Both are acts of the will, and symbolic of faith already established.  Whereby do we make baptism a necessary mark of the covenant apart from proven faith?

The Lutheran apologist suggests we have the question backwards; that we ought not ask whether infants are rightly baptized, but rather why they ought not to be.  He proceeds to suggest that the burden of proof lies with those who would refuse.  On what basis this burden is set thus is not said.  One must suppose it is because he happens to believe as he does that he would set for the opposing view a higher hurdle.

Taking the standard paedo-baptist position that baptism supersedes circumcision, he points to that practice.  Look!  They gave their children the sign of covenant under the Old Covenant.  Shall we, then, declare the New Covenant inferior in this regard?  The Baptist counters that in fact, we demonstrate the New Covenant greatly superior in that we hold the sign of that covenant in much higher regard, refusing to apply it willy-nilly on the mere basis of human lineage.

To reject infant baptism, he argues, requires a defective understanding both of original sin and of baptism efficacy.  But, how so?  Do I reject the reality of original sin by refusing baptism to one who has not clearly come to saving faith in Christ and who is clearly aware of it?  Am I denying that God can, and quite probably does, save apart from baptism?  By no means!  God is able to save to the uttermost, and to do so quite apart from any human institution, however divinely inspired.  It seems to me that it is our Lutheran brother who has an errant esteem for the efficacy of baptism.  Baptism, as is otherwise pretty widely understood, has no salvific efficacy.  It is not an act of saving grace, and certainly not an act of saving works.  It is an act of obedient faith, a mark set upon the work already done by God.  It is a testimony to the Lord’s mercy received; a public testimony to being of His household.

If we must find an Old Testament equivalent for baptism, it seems to me we would do better to consider the sign set for that household servant who, having arrived at the day when his term of service is complete, determines he would prefer to remain a servant of the household in perpetuity.  Provision was made.  Take this mark upon yourself, that it may be known that I have not enslaved you beyond your due years and against your will, but that you have chosen to thus set yourself as my servant for life.  We, it is true, are legally adopted as children of heaven’s King.  But, together with the Apostles, we would rightly set ourselves forth as bondservants of the Most High God.  This we do, and this we proclaim is our eternal situation.  We see this play out in the marking of the faithful in the Revelation, I think.  Perhaps I shall find this confirmed as the current sermon series proceeds.

Returning to circumcision, I feel like I have covered this quite a bit already, but it is so central to the argument that it must be considered at length.  Calvin builds almost his entire case on this equating of circumcision and baptism.  By circumcision, he says, Jews were assured as to the salvation of their seed.  I must say that if this was so, it was a false assurance.  It is abundantly clear that even though all their children were circumcised, it was the smallest part of that number who were found faithful.  It is swiftly pointed out that Ishmael was just as circumcised as Isaac, that Esau was no less circumcised than Jacob.  Continue the path.  Ahab?  Manasseh?  Were these kings any less circumcised than Uriah and Hezekiah?  Yet, would any dare to suggest that all of these men are equally assignees of the covenant of grace?

So, too, those who were baptized as children in our day:  The lion’s share of these children, (particularly where said baptism is given more weight than it is due) depart the church and never look back.  It is no guarantee.  It may be the seal of covenant, but unless the Holy Spirit has ratified that covenant with faith imparted, the seal is meaningless.  It’s of no more value than a canceled stamp on an envelope.  That stamp will no longer deliver a letter, and a baptism apart from faith will never deliver a soul.

“If they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign?” asks Calvin.  But, this presupposes that mere birth into a Christian family is already assurance of salvation, which is to slip into the very error that plagued Israel.  He notes that sacrament and word are inseparably united, and the sacrament is necessarily of lesser value than the word.  We would agree.  But, we would also refrain from undertaking the sacrament where that sacrament would be, to the best of our knowledge, an empty gesture.  The sign, as Calvin suggests, is subservient to the Word.  Why, then, would he advise giving the sign where the Word has given no evidence of going before?

Ought not the Christian parent to seal their children in the covenant promises, he asks?  What Christian parent is capable of doing so?  We can cause them to undergo the ritual, yes, but can we ratify a covenant which we ourselves have never ratified?  The whole point of the covenant of grace is that it has been ratified quite apart from us.  Just like Abram watching God walk between the carcasses and taking upon Himself the demands of the covenant while Abram was left to do naught but receive its promises, so are we found before the New Covenant.  Unless God called, we had no part.  God having called, we have no possibility of failing to have a part.  Whom He called He saved.  Done.  There is no clause there suggesting that it is restricted to those who chose to answer.  We might well add the clause in thusly:  Whom He called answered.

So, then:  Would Calvin really have me suppose it in my power to do for my child what I could not do for myself?  I think not.  Christian parents certainly ought to do all that is in their power to raise their children in the knowledge of Christ, in the admonition of His truth, and in the wonder of His grace.  But, can any parent guarantee the lessons will take?  We could come far nearer to guaranteeing they don’t, by never imparting the lessons.  But, even there, our ability is exceedingly limited, and God is able to impart the lessons we neglect.

Calvin also brings forward the example of John the Baptist, and of Jesus Himself, as having been sanctified in the womb.  This is quite literally said of John (Lk 1:15).  He proceeds to state much of what I have just stated.  God’s power to regenerate is not, cannot be limited by man.  We have no argument here.  Regeneration, we further agree, must precede salvation.  So far so good.  God may sanctify His elect at any age.  Again, we concur.  Not one of the elect can possibly be called from this life prior to his sanctification and regeneration.  Yes!  Absolutely!  Still with you, John.  He proceeds to a point I have used myself.  When Paul says that faith comes by hearing, he is describing the ‘usual economy’, not setting out an inviolable rule.  Again, we agree.  But, how does any of this lead me to baptize an infant unless it has clearly been shown that a similar, in the womb sanctification and regeneration has already transpired?  Both John and Jesus had evidence of this.  Neither, I would note, were baptized prior to coming of age.  In the case of Jesus, it was a much later age than what we (or they) would construe as the age of discretion.  John?  Do you know, we cannot even say with certainty that he was ever baptized.  Who would have rendered the service for him?

To maintain a paedo-baptist perspective, it is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that order of events is non-critical in this regard.  In other words, if faith and knowledge must precede baptism, there can be no grounds for baptizing an infant.  If, on the other hand, faith and act must concur, but there is no concern for which comes first, then the way is opened.  Calvin, seeking to establish exactly this point, turns us again to circumcision.  Look!  He says.  God Himself appoints this to be done to the child and declares that it is a seal of that righteousness which is by faith (Ro 4:11).  If you have a problem with the seal preceding faith take it up with God.  Here, the perspective is developed a bit further.  Yes, for Abraham faith clearly came first, and only after demonstrated faith did he partake of the sacrament.  But, Calvin says, the order is reversed for his son, with sacrament preceding understanding.

However, It was not only Isaac who was circumcised.  Ishmael, too, was given the sign of circumcision, as were all the servants in Abraham’s house (Ge 17:23-27).  In fact, it says, this was done the very same day Abraham himself was circumcised.  Was Ishmael thereby made partaker to the covenant?  No.  He was not the son of promise.  Again I must ask who exactly the sign was for, father or son?  I am more and more come to the conclusion that, although the terminology speaks of the son being cut off, it is the father whose faith and participation in the covenant is in view.  If, Abraham, you take Me at My word, you must surely trust Me with your progeny.  To refuse the mark of the covenant on your child would not preclude them from ever joining themselves to that covenant, but it would clearly declare that you yourself refuse to sign on.

Calvin turns to the agreed upon purposes of baptism; being remission of sins and cleansing by the Word.  These, he says, support baptizing infants for they are as much in need of both as any adult.  Agreed.  However, his conclusion would seem to take things one step too far.  If, he concludes, baptism attests to a cleansing work God must surely have done else the redeemed infant cannot proceed to heaven, then on what basis should we refuse that infant the sign of this completed work?  But, it must be countered, on what basis shall you say God has done that work?  Who are you, o man, to determine which infant is of the elect and which not?  Shall you really presume upon mere parentage to make the point?  So, too, did the Pharisees.  Even the death of the infant would not suffice to mark him or her as elect, only as dead.  In plain point of fact, we cannot know the eternal status of that infant, whether fashioned for glory or for perdition.  To baptize, then, would seem presumptuous indeed.

Over against this perspective, the Baptist, being credo-baptist in belief, would insist that the order is indeed critical.  Spurgeon, for example, notes that to confess what one doesn’t believe is hypocrisy.  Gill goes a bit farther.  Without faith, he notes, it is impossible that any observance of any ordinance or any other act of worship could be pleasing to God.  More, whatever is not of faith is sin, and this would necessarily preclude one seeing the proper end and purpose of baptism.  All of our worship, he notes, must needs find God commanding the act if it is to be other than an offense to God.  One thinks of the strange fire that led to the death of Aaron’s sons.  In his view, the paedo-baptist has violated the rule of God as the only fit determiner of cultic practice, for baptism, such as we see it implemented in Scripture, is consistently seen to be the willing act of rational men.  That order shines in the record of Acts.  Men are first taught their condition, then, where hearts have been stirred to clear repentance, the repentant one is baptized.

Here, I would note, we find Justin Martyr in agreement.  He declares that baptism is a new birth by choice and knowledge.  Of course, he also indicates that remission of past sins is obtained in the waters of baptism, which I think both overstates and understates the case simultaneously.  It overstates the case in that, as Peter says here in 1Peter 3:21, it is not the washing, but the appeal to God for good conscience.  It is not the symbolic act, but the faith that led to the act.  It understates the case in limiting remission of sins to sins past.  The finished work of Christ, though accomplished within time, is applied outside of time and suffices not only for sins past, but for sins future, as well, if it suffices whatsoever.  By this I mean to indicate that the wholly, universally sufficient efficacy of His finished work is applied not to one and all, but solely to those whom He has determined shall receive its benefit.  “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion” (Ex 33:19). But, as to baptism being an action undertaken by the free-will choice of the candidate, I would concur.  And, such free-will choice requires knowledge aforethought.  The candidate, as Gill indicates, must be enlightened by God so as to recognize their lost condition and the true sinfulness of their sins, as well as knowing Christ their only Savior.  Only then is the candidate fit for the symbolic burial and resurrection of baptism.

There is a point made regarding the relationship of circumcision and the Passover.  We are, I think, more generally agreed that Communion supersedes Passover, although I could be wrong about that.  On the one hand, it is argued that admission of the infant into one would give him access to the other.  This, I believe, is based primarily on the perspective that baptism serves as the gate of the church, the necessary mark for admission into membership.  Communion being reserved for believers, and the Church being the community of believers, membership in the Church is presumed to suffice as prerequisite for participation in Communion.  Of course, some of us practice a more open Communion which does not require membership in the local body.  But, I suspect we would still expect participants to have been baptized.  Not that anybody’s checking.

Calvin counters this line of reasoning by noting that while circumcision was, in his view, clearly intended for infants, Passover was restricted to those old enough to ask after its meaning.  His immediate evidence for this is found in Exodus 12:26, which speaks of the child asking just that question.  This alone would not serve, though, to exclude younger children from being included in the meal, except they should be excluded from baptism on very similar grounds.  I.e. if one insists there were no infants at this meal simply because they are not mentioned, then surely the same must be said of baptism.

But, let it be supposed he is correct in this regard, that the Passover meal was reserved for those old enough to at least have curiosity and the words to express that curiosity.  This would grant that second rite that was brought up as a necessary confirmation of baptism where infants were given that sign.  This is something that came up at our last elder retreat.  If baptism corresponds to circumcision as the seal of the covenant, there must follow something more that serves as ratification.  For, clearly, circumcision alone did not reliably demark those included from those excluded.  Did participation in the Passover meal?

This was the thought that came to me as I read Calvin’s point.  However, I think this must be rejected as well.  For, while it is true that those who first ate the Passover meal were spared the plague of the first-born, and it can be assumed that all who partook were also to be counted amongst those who departed Egypt thereafter, we can hardly begin to say that all who were in that number were to be found amongst the redeemed.  Indeed, apart from Joshua and Caleb, who we may suppose to have been in that number, who else can be named who entered the Promised Land?  There is no one.  Neither rite, nor any rite, can suffice to reliably mark out the redeemed in Christ.  It is not the outward sign, after all, that matters, but the inward work of the Spirit of the Living God.

Thus, Gill insists that children are every bit as much in need of rebirth as their elders if they are to possess the kingdom of God.  There is no exception to this requirement (Jn 3:3).  The infant, he says, cannot know, cannot have learned of Christ and therefore cannot possibly be His disciples, and on this basis we must exclude them from the seal of the covenant.  I think that takes the argument too far.  The infant certainly can know of Christ, as we see evidenced in John the Baptist.  It is entirely within the realm of God’s power to bring that infant to faith even in the womb.  What is night unto impossible is our ability to assess.  The same, it must be said, is equally true of our ability to assess the adult believer, and even to assess our own true estate, for the heart is deceitfully wicked (Jer 17:9).  This, however, changes with the adult:  We can at least assess the fruits of this one’s life to some degree, and we can hear their testimony of faith.  We have, then, at least some grounds upon which to suppose a man of faith, and this cannot be said of the infant.  We can, and really should, walk alongside that man who would be baptized for a season so as to better assess his spiritual condition.

Now, returning to Calvin’s example of Passover, this would seem to support the credo-baptist position anyway.  He has been arguing that the one with covenant interest ought not be denied the sign of that covenant, as concerns baptism.  Yet, is not Passover just as much a sign of the covenant?  Why, then, would it be acceptable to deny participation there?  Why not, on that basis, grant the infant access to Communion?  The simple fact of the matter is, as Gill points out, that ‘interest in the covenant’ does not in itself confer the right to the ordinance of that covenant.  One may not have the prerequisites.  In the case of Communion / Passover, one may argue that age of reason is one such prerequisite.  One may argue, as well, that this prerequisite has no application for baptism / circumcision.  But, on what basis?  We have a relatively clear case for saying confession of faith must needs precede participating in Communion.  The case may not be as clear for baptism, but the evidence we have certainly suggests that the case is the same.

I would have to say that of all the arguments presented in support of infant baptism, it is the appeals to church history that are strongest.  The appeal to circumcision builds too much upon a proposition which in itself must be inferred.  It would seem to come dangerously near to an eisegetical approach to the issue.  The appeal to direct Scriptural evidence is necessarily inferential for both sides of the issue, else, as has been said, there would be no issue.  But, the appeal to church history, as it draws us nearer the cultural understanding of the church at its founding, has somewhat more potential to provide insight into how baptism was understood and practiced by the Apostles and their immediate successors.

That said, those appeals are still somewhat removed from events, the earliest, if I’m not mistaken, coming somewhere around 140 AD, so a good century post-resurrection.  Further, the witnesses we are provided are not without their own difficulties in many cases.  The question must be asked whether, where the author is found suspect on some, or even many fronts, he ought to be trusted on any.  On that point I would offer the observation that all of these men are recognized as part of the Church record, and that one will not find any man, not even the Apostles, who was perfect in his theology.  This in no way discredits those writings of the Apostles which are contained in Scripture, these being divinely inspired and orchestrated as the revelation of God Himself.  But, one can hardly suppose those few texts encapsulate the sum of everything and anything the Apostles ever said or taught.  Further, it would defeat the entire purpose of the Incarnation were any other than Christ found to have attained to such perfect understanding and practice.

I’ll turn first to Justin Martyr, whom I have already considered very briefly, writing early in the second century.  McClintock & Strong note that in his text, ‘Apology’, he writes of those who had been ‘made disciples to Christ from their infancy’.  These are apparently spoken of as being in their sixties or seventies at the time, which would, according to that article, suggest they were baptized by the apostles.  He also, it is noted, describes baptism as being “Christ’s circumcision”, which would suggest that this linkage was perhaps more widely recognized by the Apostles.  But, I must note, it is only a suggestion.  The article concludes from this that infant baptism was practiced by the Apostles.  Looking at these bare statements, and not having read Martyr’s work directly, that would seem to once again be drawing the desired conclusion from insufficient evidence.  He says they were made disciples from their infancy.  What is to be understood?  It need not mean more than that their parents undertook to raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord all their lives, and this worked.  It says nothing to the question of when they were baptized, only that they were discipled.  Discipling is a lifelong endeavor whenever it may be started.  That they had the advantage of being started so early is marvelous.  It does not, however, serve to prove that they were baptized as infants.

Further, as I noted previously, Justin Martyr does show a certain propensity for holding to the overly mystical perspective of baptism as having real and inherent power to remit sins.  Holding it forth as “Christ’s circumcision” would have to point to that reality that Christ has circumcised our hearts, a cutting without hands, as Paul describes the matter in Colossians.  But, as I have noted, that passage would seem to make Christ the fulfillment of circumcision, as He is the fulfillment of that covenant of which circumcision was the sign.  If He has so marked our covenant membership, what cause for a lesser, outward sign as sealing what is already sealed?

We are also presented with Origen’s testimony to the fact that infant baptism was common practice in his day (~200 AD), and that this practice had been received from the Apostles themselves.  I am certainly in no position to gainsay his testimony.  I will note that others have pointed to the fact that this testimony exists only in later translated copies of his writings, and that of these translations it has been said that they are so poorly done as to make it questionable whether what results is Origen’s writing at all.  Again, I have no basis upon which to measure the merits of this argument, but I have no more cause to doubt that assessment than I have to doubt the apparent testimony of Origen.  I might, on that basis, be inclined to set this with those passages, such as the end of Mark’s gospel, which are of dubious validity.  They are sufficiently valued as to be granted audience in the Christian community, but not necessarily so valued as to be deemed reliable for establishing doctrine.

The final argument from history that I found at least a bit compelling is that presented from Tertullian.  Now, this is admittedly something of an argument from silence, but it might be said to be a particularly telling silence.  The point brought out is that whereas Tertullian is wont to make many arguments against what can be seen as recent innovation, or altering of Church practice from that which was received, he makes no such comment in regard to infant baptism.  In fact, as M&S notes, nothing from the writings of this period offers any such comment.  Further, any such innovation was, in that period, likely to be met with ‘great and vociferous resistance’.

That is a point worth considering.  As we survey the several councils of the Church, and the vehemence with which such points of doctrine were fought, it would seem that any question as to the appropriate application of baptism would have undergone such wrestling.  Given the general understanding of baptism as the gate of the church, it would seem that much more likely that any question as to the appropriateness of granting infants entrance through that gate would have been subject of debate as heated as any other.  It may be (for my grip on the history is limited) that the understanding of baptism as marking entrance into the Church was a later development and therefore left the matter somewhat less a concern.  But, we have evidence of other points of baptism being debated, such as the matter of rebaptism for heretics returned to faith.  So, it was not held lightly, this matter of baptism and its application.

All that being said:  I would have to say that even if we found the practice to have been adopted early on in Church history, and frankly, even if it could be proven to have been a thing adopted by the Apostles or their immediate successors; that is not the same as establishing Scriptural authority for the practice.  I am mindful that even some of those immediate successors were inclined towards practices that would seem to be at least a little innovative in their own right, and practices which we would by and large reject today – at least in Protestant practice.

Let me now consider some further points from M&S.  The authors present baptism as the introduction of the adult believer into the covenant of grace and to the Church.  They further say that for the infant, it is a reception into this covenant and Church, giving the child title to all the grace of the covenant.  This seems to me to overstate the case for baptism just a bit.  It may symbolize such covenant membership, and it may be taken as a requirement for membership.  But, it does not in itself achieve either.  Indeed, I would hold that baptism is the public testimony to having already been introduced into the covenant of grace, and where one is partaker of that covenant, one is assuredly a member of the Church, even if he is not yet a member of the local body of the visible church.

A prerequisite for membership does not automatically confer membership when satisfied any more than a prerequisite for some college course automatically confers a passing grade in that latter course.  Consider:  The child baptized by such church as may entertain such practices is not thereby declared a member in full, is he?  Does that infant take on voting rights, having been baptized?  I should hope not!  Would that infant be admitted to the Lord’s Table for Communion on the basis of being a child of the covenant?  No.  Would any look upon that child, having been baptized, as having been guaranteed a place in heaven?  We certainly hope (in the human sense) that such would be the case, but any assurance we might draw from this act would be a false assurance.  His place in heaven shall be assured by the inward work of the Holy Spirit, just as it has been in our case, else his place is not assured at all.  So, for those who see circumcision in baptism, stands the case with circumcision.  Neither circumcision nor its absence bears on the case of salvation, for salvation is of God alone, and our works can, at best, sully the pure water of the Word.

There are, thankfully, points upon which we can agree.  What is clear, the article notes, is that there is a definite connection between making disciples and baptizing them.  “The authority and obligation of baptism as a universal ordinance of the Christian Church is derived from the commission of Christ.”  Absolutely!  None would say otherwise, I dare say.   The authors further indicate their understanding that Christ is both willing and able to save whom He wills, without regard to age, sex, nationality or any other circumstance.  Amen, brother!  And, under the head of ‘any other circumstance’ must be included baptism or any other such ceremonial act.  It is, after all, a work, and as such, cannot bear upon salvation, which is by faith alone.  We have established the precedent in the thief on the cross, and need not suppose the infant taken early from this life is somehow less able to be saved.  Christ is willing and able to save whom He wills.  Leave it at that.  That there is a defined, standard economy in the Church, a typical means of grace, does not in any way preclude God from taking extraordinary measures where He sees fit to do so.

Let me return to this point.  Whether or not we take baptism to be a sign of the covenant, a sealing of the covenant, or an act of obedience to the command given by the Lord of the covenant, it remains a work.  It is a work we undertake to do.  A work, if it is to have any value whatsoever (and here, I am necessarily thinking in terms of sanctification rather than salvation), must surely be a matter of personal conviction and choice.  This is very near the base of the credo-baptist perspective.  If it is a profession of faith, faith must be there to profess.  If it is an act of obedience, it must be undertaken in the desire to obey, not as a thing imposed from without.

If, as we are all agreed, baptism is a thing connected with discipling; and if God is, as we would also agree, able to save without regard to any circumstance other than His own good will; then it would seem a matter of presumption to make more of baptism than one ought, or to apply it where the concomitant work of discipling has not been done.

Let me, as a final thought under this head, consider a recent article from Table Talk(3/14/14), which speaks to the Reformed perspective on baptism.  This comes in the midst of considering Romans 4, as Paul makes the case for Abraham being saved by faith rather than works of obedience as exemplified by circumcision.  “Still,” the author writes, “circumcision had value for Abraham.  Abraham’s circumcision was a sign and seal ‘of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised’ (Ro 4:11).  Circumcision signified the reality that Abraham had been cut out from the world and its reliance on false gods and incorporated into the kingdom of the one true God by faith alone ,but circumcision itself was not the reality.”  Thus far, we are in agreement.

Proceeding to the closing thoughts from this devotional:  “Under the new covenant, baptism signifies and seals our separation from the world unto the Lord.”  I will certainly accept the signifying part.  I am not so certain as to the sealing.  “Like circumcision, baptism is not faith or justification, but it points beyond itself to justification for those who believe.”  OK.  I can accept that.  “Moreover, like circumcision, the value of baptism is not tied to the moment it is administered.  The most important thing about baptism is that we possess the reality it signifies, not whether we receive it before or after coming to saving faith.”  Here, I start to have an issue, and it may simply be my own positions hardening up as I have gone through this exercise.  But, while I would agree the most important thing is possessing the reality, I would argue that it is a necessary precursor to undergoing the sign.  The act of baptism having no inherent power itself can only have value to the degree that the reality to which it points is real.  If it signifies a transference from the family of man to the family of Christ, then surely that transference ought to have been achieved, or the sign points to fantasy – at least potentially does so.  I’ll paraphrase Augustine’s point.  Without the reality of having been saved, baptism is but a bath.  The water is just water and the symbolism is utterly lost.

Concluding Summary (03/19/14)

I am not going to review what I have written already at this point for the simple reason that I need to draw things to a close.  However, it would be rather shameful to spend so much time and energy in seeking understanding only to leave off without settling what is now understood.  So, I shall attempt to briefly (ha!) state where I have landed on each of the several sub-topics I have been considering.

Is baptism a sacrament or an ordinance?  If by sacrament one means a rite invested with real and inherent power, I should have to say ordinance.  But, being an ordinance explicitly commanded by Christ, it can certainly be construed a sacrament in that regard.  I would also have to say that I believe baptism does have a sort of power, though not inherent to itself.  Rather, the power lies in that to which it points, being our Redeemer, in the Holy Spirit through whose work our inward, spiritual condition is brought to conform with this outward confession, and through the liberating aspect of being a first public confession.  It does indeed draw tighter the bonds of love for Christ, as well as strengthening our sense of utter dependency upon Him for life and salvation.

Having noted the Holy Spirit working in baptism, at least where baptism is a real sign of a real inward work, I turn to the relationship of sign and Spirit.  As to the Spirit’s work in establishing the valid grounds for baptism in each individual, I find no cause for doubt that this is the case.  Apart from His inward work, there can be no faith by which to seek that forgiveness given us in Christ.  Apart from His continuing work, there can be no sanctification, no newness of life such as we proclaim is ours in baptism. 

There remains, however, the question of a second baptism, as some would call it.  The question is perhaps two-fold; the first being whether there is such a thing at all, and the second being whether that second act is a requirement for salvation.  On the first point, I would have to say that what I see happening throughout the book of Acts would seem to indicate that there are two distinct events, more properly three.  There is the imparting of faith by which to believe and accept that which is given in Christ, and this is clearly the work of the Holy Spirit in us: God working that we might both will and work.  There is the rite of water baptism by which we publicly confess to that faith and work, that we are God’s.  Then, there is a separate activity, at least according to the record of Acts, involving some form of infilling by the Holy Spirit, or an imparting of gifts for the service of the Church.  That this activity is distinct from water baptism is clear, and that the order of these two events is arbitrary is likewise clear.  Given occasions where this imparting followed after water baptism, and water baptism clearly confirming a previous coming to faith in the examples given; it is necessary to see three activities.

Does this constitute a second baptism?  No, although it seems to bear certain similarities.  If water baptism is our public confession to belonging to God, one might suggest that this imparting of gifts from the Holy Spirit is God’s public confession to owning us.  But, as water baptism does not itself establish our belonging, neither does that imparting of gifts (in particular those gifts known as the charismata) become a requirement to establish us as His.  I.e. The gifts He gives need not be restricted exclusively to those charismata, nor is there a necessity that He give them in so public a fashion as was done for specific cases in the Scriptural record.

Let me move to the next topic.  How does baptism relate to circumcision?  While there are certain points of correlation one could observe, I do not find these sufficiently compelling as to require that I hold baptism to be the NT replacement for OT circumcision.  Neither do I find that we necessarily understand circumcision aright in the first place, if we suppose the mark given to that infant child was in any way intended to guarantee his covenant membership.  That seems to me to invest far too much in the physical act, and attempts to make of baptism a similar seal likewise invest too much in the physical act.

Further, given the combination of Mosaic prophecy and the fulfillment of that prophecy to which Paul points in Colossians, I would conclude that circumcision has its fulfillment in Christ who has circumcised our hearts.  If there remains a necessary seal upon the covenant, it is that inward circumcision apart from hands, not the outward work of baptism.  And here, I use the term work as contrasting with grace.  Baptism does not itself confer covenant membership.  Neither can it be taken as a necessary seal upon that membership without which salvation is not to be had.  Any attempt to make it so necessary makes it once more a meritorious work and makes salvation other than by grace.

If the type of circumcision has its antitype in Christ, which is clearly the case, then there is no cause for a new type.  If there is beyond this a need for a new seal upon the new covenant, we can expect it to be of a new type.  The sum of this is that I cannot find baptism to be the equivalent of circumcision, whatever it may share with that earlier rite.  True, a covenant is sealed by a cutting, but that cutting has been done by Christ in our hearts – an act of pure grace which we could by no means achieve in our own power.  Baptism is in our own power, as circumcision is in our own power.  It cannot, then, seal the covenant of grace.  It can only serve as an evidence of our desire to obey the Lord of the Covenant.

Turning to the mode, I cannot make a solid Scriptural case for insisting on immersion as the sole and exclusive legitimate mode for baptism.  It seems clearly established and near enough to universally agreed that immersion is and should be the preferred mode, and ought to be employed wherever it is at all possible.  I would note that this conclusion is reached more firmly based upon what records we have of the practices of the early church than it is upon the bare evidence of Scripture.  Scripture assumes an understanding of baptismal terminology that we are left to reconstruct.  But, records such as the Didache give us sufficient detail as to how the practice of the Church had been established as regards mode.  Based on that text, I would further venture that we ought to return to a preference for public baptism in real bodies of water over semi-private baptism in temperature controlled in-house baths.

Considering rebaptism, my primary concern lies in the matter of baptism as the gate of the church, the necessary prerequisite of membership.  My concern is not that baptism is held in this regard.  Some degree of evidence for one’s desire for and earnest pursuit of obedience to Christ ought to be found prior to welcoming into a level of fellowship such as membership in the local body entails.  The Church is rightly concerned that the visible church and the invisible church be as nearly aligned as can be achieved.  While we are necessarily imperfect in our judgment, we take to heart the instruction to know the tree by its fruits.  Confession of faith in Christ is one thing, but in the end, it is merely words.  As baptism serves to confirm the reality of faith, it is a reasonable requirement to be set upon those who would enter into the covenantal relationship of church membership.

Where I find myself in difficulty is in defining what shall be counted a legitimate baptism in this regard.  The Church has had cause over its history to consider this matter for many different reasons.  Is a Catholic baptism to be accepted by Protestants, and vice versa?  Is a true believer (so far as we can measure it) who has been baptized by a heretic still to be construed as baptized?  Is that heretic, if he returns to the fold, in need of rebaptism, or is that baptism he had before going astray still valid?  In every case, the Church appears to have arrived at the conclusion that yes, that baptism is valid where the faith of the one baptized is valid.  Some would set a requirement that the faith of the one baptizing was likewise valid, but that would seem to me to invest too much in the baptizer.

This conclusion is primarily arrived at on the basis of the once-for-all aspect of baptism.  Baptism being reflective of the once-for-all sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, it is deemed a once-for-all rite.  Ergo, it is reasoned, if baptism has been done at all it has been done.  If the spiritual reality is in evidence, the ritual validity may be assumed.

I would alter this conclusion somewhat, based on what I see in the book of Acts, as regards those who knew only John’s baptism.  There, it appears to have been left as a matter of conscience whether rebaptism was necessary.  Many undertook to be baptized into Christ, but it is not clear that Apollos felt such need, nor is there evidence of the Apostles insisting on such an act.  This gives me pause, as I consider the paedo vs. credo question.   Clearly, one baptized subsequent to faith would be perfectly welcome to enter into fellowship with a church practicing paedo-baptism.  But, going in the other direction we find barricades erected.  We will admit that you belong to Christ, but you cannot belong to us.  That strikes me as very problematic.

It is problematic to me in that it would seem to set a matter of conscience in position to become a stumbling block.  Arguably, it is setting two matters of conscience in potential conflict.  If the one baptized as a child yet clearly possessed of very real faith in Christ construes his baptism as legitimate, sufficient, and of once-for-all nature; and if this one also construes covenanted membership in the local body to be his duty to Christ, what are we doing for him by telling him the one precludes the other?  If we accept that his faith is real and he really does belong to Christ, on what basis can we deny him fellowship?

I understand that fellowship requires a certain agreement on doctrine, and certainly there are other fellowships such a one could join where this barrier would not exist.  I might even accede requiring an acceptance of the credo-baptist doctrinal position for those who would be members of a church holding to such doctrine.  That much makes sense to me.  But, to require rebaptism?  If we would accept, say, baptism by a Charismatic pastor as valid in our distinctly non-Charismatic congregation; if we would accept a Catholic baptism, if performed on a believing adult; whereby do we draw the line here and insist that this one violate conscience in order to obey conscience?

So, then, I am sufficiently turned towards the paedo vs. credo issue.  I may as well conclude.  I am convinced, based on my understanding of those Scriptures that speak to baptism, and based on my assessment of the arguments presented for these two positions, that baptism is intended as a confession of faith, a work of obedience, if you will, non-meritorious in nature, but none the less required by the clear command of Christ.  As an act of obedience, it cannot precede faith.  I recognize that this stands in some ways contradictory to the concerns I have expressed regarding rebaptism.  I am, however, willing to concede the possibility (I don’t call it probability) that Christ so worked in that one who comes to us from a paedo-baptist upbringing that real faith was indeed present at so tender an age, that the baptism, though done at the parents’ bidding was yet in accord with the will of the child.

Can I step so far as to say that the credo-baptist position defines the normative economy of Christian practice, while leaving room for God to act otherwise where He so desires?  Well, again we have that example, however extraordinary, of the thief on the cross, who was granted to be in Paradise entirely apart from baptism.  Our sense of God’s essence requires us to suppose that if there is such a thing as an elect infant taken untimely (as we measure it) from this life, he has been saved, and that almost assuredly apart from baptism or even the opportunity for baptism.  Can I then insist that the one who was baptized at tender age and has come to faith subsequently (or at least become aware of his faith subsequently) must reject his baptism as invalid?  Perhaps, if I am going to insist he accept the doctrine of credo-baptism as the correct doctrine, I have come near to doing just that.  But, if that man can in good conscience deem his earlier baptism as valid in light of accepting the credo-baptist position, I think I would have to accept that validity.

Is this the end of the discussion?  Somehow I rather doubt it.  It is as far as I am going to take it at this time, and until such time as God sets it upon my heart and mind to pursue the matter further. I am amazed that something so clearly important to God has been left so vague in Scripture, allowing for so much controversy and question.  But, it’s God’s work and He can surely do it as He sees fit.  I can but wrestle with what He has revealed and seek as best I may to discern His will and preference.  I hope I have done that with integrity in this study.