I am currently looking through Romans 6, specifically verses 3-4 right now, and am puzzled that so many people take it to be referring to water-baptism. More to the point though, Im wondering if anyone knows of any good reformed resources on this passage, which advocate a spiritual-baptism position?

A friend of mine suggests that Douglas Moo's work may be the best, along with Schreiner's; does that sound accurate? Secondly, this friend, in reading Schreiner, is convinced that "baptizo", in the way it is used in this passage (the Greek tense), is never used of spiritual baptism by Paul (or anyone else?); is that accurate? If that is true, does the Greek tense distinguish it's usage, and therefore render it distinct from Paul's Greek tense in references to spiritual baptism?

Any help or links would be much appreciated!

__________________
Thomas Karrer
*Currently dissolving membership at First Baptist Church, and searching- with no success thus far- for a new church family*
Moses Lake, WA


"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him" (Psalm 2:12).

Water baptism is often used as imagery for spiritual baptism. Why can't this passage be referring to the former as a picture of the latter?

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 07:41:17 EST-----

No, the word baptism is not linguistically different when used in a spiritual sense. For instance, John the Baptist uses the same word in both contexts here:

N.b. The word is different only because of 1st/3rd person and tense reasons (tense as in past-present-future).

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

See D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones Romans 6: The New Man published I think by Banner of Truth or Zondervan for a detailed presentation of the non-water baptism spiritual baptism position.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the son to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -

- Me too!

I attached the following to the end of this post:

John Murray, "Christian Baptism," Westminster Theological Journal Volume 13 (Westminster Theological Seminary, 1950; 2003), 105-136.

The whole document is very good, especially the part toward the very end under B. The Burial and Resurrection of Christ

It is true, as said before, that just because Paul may be referring to Spirit baptism does not necessarily mean that there is no application to water baptism, HOWEVER, the same is equally true of the opposite--that it does not necessarily mean that there CAN be an application to water baptism.

Since it is proven exegetically that he is referring to Spirit baptism, the burden of proof is to show that there is somehow some reference, symbol, application, or anything whatsoever related to water baptism. With that burden of proof on the Baptists' side, this article by John Murray shows that there is no evidence and no proof at all for any application to water baptism to be made from this passage.

The article does deal a lot with other aspects of baptism and the etymology and Bible usage of the word, but the end of the article is where you will find more dealing specifically with Romans 6 and Colossians 2.

Attached Files

Christian Baptism - John Murray - WTJ.doc (131.5 KB, 5 views)

__________________
Nathan Riese
Under Care, PCA
Trinity Presbyterian Church, Aledo, Illinois
Current student at MBBC
Future student of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
www.gpts.edu

Try to follow the logic of the following syllogism:

1. Water baptism symbolizes Spirit baptism
2. Because of Spirit baptism, we have been united with Christ
3. Christ died to sin.
4. Therefore, because of Spirit baptism, we have also died to sin
5. Christ was resurrected to life
6. Therefore, in Spirit baptism, we are resurrected to life
7. Therefore, water baptism symbolizes death, burial, and resurrection

It is a logical fallacy due to its unsoundness.

All Wisconsiners enjoy milk.
I enjoy milk.
Therefore, I am a Wisconsiner.

There is no necessity that water baptism symbolizes death burial and resurrection because of the fact that Spirit baptism results in spiritual death, burial, and resurrection.

Hold on a moment - you guys are assuming that only a Baptist can understand this to be a reference to water baptism. I think it is a reference to water baptism, but not to the physical appearance of baptism (i.e. looking like burial).

it is a typical requirement of Baptist doctrine to take this interpretation, but not required of those who take non-immersionist viewpoints. So, I was speaking in general terms, but I do recognize that many presbyterians and other aspersionists and affusionists can have a water baptism type of reference in their interpretation of this passage. I am just saying that it is typical of Baptist theology, but not typical of affusionist/aspersionists.

Thanks for clarifying. I think this is a reference to water baptism and I am paedo, but I don't think the burial and resurrection mentioned are a reference to what baptism looks like, but rather what it is connected with.

Thank you for your insights. I will be looking into the Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Murray resources. Many paedo-baptists have/do in fact view it as a reference to water-baptism; which has only complicated things for me. But, as in all things, I certainly want to allow the Scripture to speak for itself, without allowing my love for Calvin's theology to dwarf all other views!

Nathan,

I grew up outside of Aledo, IL. PM me.

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

I guess I'm still curious to know what the significance is of Paul's using the 3rd aorist passive indicative form, without modification by the presence of a dative noun, in this text, to refer to baptism? Schreiner, I'm told, believes that because it is normative for Paul to use this when referring to water-baptism, as opposed to spiritual baptism, it clearly proves water-baptism is in view.

The problem with the form of "stylistic argument" advocated by Schreiner is that confuses a normative pattern of writing with an exclusive pattern of writing. A writter's normal practice is not necessarily his inevitable practice, which is why we may not conclude that it is his invariable practice, unless the writer tells us so.

Absent such firsthand information as to the writer's grammatical practice, if arguments in the immediate context suggest that water baptism is not in view, those explicit contextual arguments will trump such implicit grammatical ones.