interested_one
Puritan Board Freshman
Dear Board Members:
I have recently recieved a sermon done by my pastor 1996 concerning infant baptism. I am going to say that I am thoroughly confused on the topic. I understand that it must be important enough, if should cause such a wide divide in the Christian community. I wanted to post the his sermon and get your thoughts on it content. My pastor is a Reformed Baptist and I have been looking at infant baptism, but somehow I cannot seem to piece the thing together. I have been trying to understand the covenant theology and so maybe that is where my trouble is.... I am not sure:
:help:
Why We Do Not Baptize Infants
by Steven J. Cole
Genesis 17 & other Scriptures
Since in our study of Genesis we have come to chapter 17,
which is one of the main Old Testament Scriptures used in the argument
for infant baptism, and since we have people who attend
our church from many denominational backgrounds, and since we
are having a baptism today, I thought it would be helpful to explain
why we do not baptize infants, but rather baptize by immersion
only those making a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
Few subjects arouse more controversy among Christians than
that of baptism. The Quakers do not practice it at all. Lutherans,
Episcopalians, Orthodox Churches, and the Roman Catholic
Church officially hold that baptism is the direct means of regeneration
(the new birth). Since those churches baptize infants, they believe
that those babies are being saved through their baptisms. For
example, in a pamphlet titled, "Why Baptize Children?" Lutheran
theologian John Theodore Mueller writes, "... Holy Baptism is the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, by which
the new birth is wrought" (pp. 10-11, Concordia Publishing
House). Presbyterians baptize infants, but most of them stop short
of saying that baptized babies are saved. They view it as introducing
the children into the covenant community and as serving as the
sign and seal of the new birth, which it is hoped the child will enter
in the future as he grows up in that community.
I'll say at the outset that many of my favorite theologians held
to infant baptism. They were all men whose scholarship and godliness
far exceed my own. I find myself agreeing with much, for example,
that John Calvin writes about the meaning and significance
of baptism (Institutes, IV:XV & XVI). But when he applies it to infants,
I think he is utterly inconsistent with himself and with
Scripture. While I strongly disagree with infant baptism, I think we
must be gracious and agree to disagree with those who hold that
view. But if anyone teaches that the new birth is conveyed through
water baptism, whether with infants or adults, he is teaching serious
heresy on that crucial point of doctrine. The Scripture is clear
2
that the new birth comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John
3:1-16).
First I want to set forth fairly the arguments in favor of infant
baptism; then I want to present why we do not baptize infants and
show what Scripture teaches about the meaning of baptism. It is
Scripture and not church tradition which is our authority on this
important matter.
WHY SOME CHURCHES BAPTIZE INFANTS:
The main argument for infant baptism is the connection between
circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New,
especially as seen in the context of the covenant community. This
is sometimes buttressed with the example of Noah, whose entire
family entered the ark and was thus saved from the flood. First
Peter 3:20-21 connects Noah's flood with baptism. Also, in 1 Corinthians
10:1-2, Paul states that all Israel was baptized into Moses
in the cloud and in the sea. Since this included the children, it is
argued that they are proper subjects of baptism. But the main argument
is the continuity between circumcision in the covenant
community under the old covenant and baptism with us, who are
under the new covenant.
In Genesis 17:7 God makes it clear to Abraham that He is
establishing His covenant both with him and with his descendants
("seed") after him as an everlasting covenant. In verse 12, the Lord
stipulates that every male eight days old must be circumcised. An
uncircumcised male must be cut off from his people because he
has broken God's covenant (17:14). Thus the sign of the covenant
was commanded to be administered to infants. In Abraham's case,
he had already believed in God when the sign was performed; but
in Isaac's case, it was done before he was old enough to believe in
God's promise, with a view to his believing later.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul states (Col. 2:11-12),
"And in Him you were also 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." Thus he con3
nects circumcision with baptism, and so, it is argued, establishes
that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant.
Also, it is argued, the household baptisms recorded in the
New Testament (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16) surely included infants.
In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul refers to the children as "holy" or
"sanctified" in a marriage where one partner is a believer, which is
taken to mean that they are a part of God's covenant people, presumably
through baptism. The church fathers of the second and
third centuries argued for infant baptism as an apostolic tradition.
Since it is primarily a covenant sign and not a sign of faith on the
part of the one receiving it, it is argued that we should baptize our
infants into the community of faith where they will be exposed to
the other means of grace. These are the main arguments for infant
baptism as fairly as I can state them in the time allotted to me.
WHY WE DO NOT BAPTIZE INFANTS:
We do not baptize infants because baptism is a public
confession of faith in obedience to Christ.
The clear teaching of Scripture is that all who believe in Jesus
as Savior and Lord should be baptized in obedience to Him. The
New Testament order is always: The preaching of the gospel; faith
in the gospel; then, baptism. Never once is there an example of baptism
preceding faith as the norm to be followed. And there are no
examples or commands concerning the baptism of the infants or yet
unbelieving children of believing parents. Consider the following
verses from Acts, noting the order of belief first, then baptism:
2:41: ... those who had received his word were baptized; ...
8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the good news
about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were being baptized, men and women alike.
8:36-38: And as they went along the road they came to some
water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me
from being baptized?" [And Philip said, "If you believe with
all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] And he ordered the
chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water,
Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him.
4
While verse 37 [in brackets] lacks strong textual support in the
earliest Greek manuscripts, its insertion in later manuscripts shows
what the church held to be the necessary qualification for baptism.
10:44, 46b, 47, 48a: While Peter was still speaking these words
[the gospel], the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening
to the message.... Then Peter answered, "Surely no one
can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received
the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered
them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
16:30-34: [The Philippian jailer asks Paul and Silas] "Sirs, what
must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord
Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household. And
they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who
were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the
night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized,
he and all his household. And he brought them into his
house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having
believed in God with his whole household.
If any children were baptized that night, the text is clear that
they had believed. There is not a shred of support for infant baptism
here.
18:8: And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the
Lord with his whole household, and many of the Corinthians
when they heard were believing and being baptized.
Thus the abundant testimony of the New Testament is that
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ precedes baptism.
What about the argument that infant baptism is the sign of the
New Covenant, just as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic
Covenant (based on Col. 2:11-12)? While there are some parallels
between the two signs, there are many differences. The sign of circumcision
was administered to the male, physical descendants of
Abraham in obedience to the specific command of God. But the
New Testament is clear that it is not the physical seed of Abraham
who are saved, but the spiritual seed (Rom. 4:16; 9:8; Gal. 3:7).
There simply is no command to administer baptism to the physical
seed of Christians, male or female. If baptism is the fulfillment of
circumcision, then just as circumcision was administered to the
5
physical descendants of Abraham in the age of type, so baptism
ought to be administered to the spiritual descendants of Abraham
in the age of fulfillment, namely, to believers. But Jesus made it
clear that the sign of the New Covenant is the Lord's Supper, not
baptism ("This cup is the new covenant in My blood ..." (1 Cor.
11:25).
Also, note that in Colossians 2 Paul is talking about believer's
baptism. He specifically states that baptism pictures being raised up
from spiritual death through faith in the working of God. The parallel
between baptism and circumcision concerns the picture of
dying to the flesh or old life so that we can live holy lives in Christ.
Paul is taking the spiritual meaning of circumcision and applying it
spiritually to believers, not physically to the baptism of believers'
children.
In 1 Peter 3:20-21, Peter makes it clear that he is not referring
to the physical act of baptism, but to what it symbolizes, namely,
appealing to God for a good conscience, which infants who are
baptized are not doing! In 1 Corinthians 10:1-2, Paul is applying the
experiences of Israel spiritually to the church. Just as not all who
came through the "baptism" of the Red Sea were right with God in
their hearts, as evidenced by their unbelief and immorality, so not
all who profess faith in Christ through baptism are necessarily regenerate.
If the Corinthians think that they can claim that their profession
of faith in baptism made them right with God, but continue
in their ungodly living, they are greatly deceived. The text does not
support infant baptism in any way; it's just not there.
Beyond this, we can argue that infant baptism is potentially
detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes (as it would be most
easy to do if brought up under this teaching) that because he was
baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of
Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important
issue of all, eternal salvation! There is no grace imparted in the
physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized.
To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult,
as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope.
Only personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person
from sin and hell. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a
very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession
6
of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to
saving faith.
THE MEANING OF BAPTISM:
Baptism is a public confession of faith in Christ, done in obedience
to His command, and as such is a picture of what salvation
means. Baptism is important because Christ commanded it as a
part of the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). If we neglect baptism, we're
disobeying our Lord. Since true faith always expresses itself in obedience,
those who have believed in Christ and have been properly
instructed about baptism will obey Christ by being baptized.
1) Baptism is the place where a believer publicly confesses Jesus Christ as
Savior and Lord and identifies with Christ and His church. In talking of
our need to follow Him, Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after
Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
Me.... For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous
and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed
of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy
angels" (Mark 8:34, 38). Going forward or walking the aisle is not
the biblical way to initially confess Christ publicly; that came into
the church through a man of questionable theology and methodology,
namely, Charles Finney. Baptism is the biblical way to confess
faith in Christ.
The word "baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek word,
baptisma, and some related words which have the meaning of dipping
or immersing. Since the immersed object became totally identified
with the substance in which it was placed, the idea of identification
is central to the meaning of baptism. Jesus' baptism by John
publicly identified Him who was sinless with sinners in anticipation
of His death and resurrection as their sin-bearer. For us baptism
symbolizes our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and
resurrection; our identification with Christ's church; and, our
cleansing from sin.
2) Baptism symbolizes total identification with Christ in His death,
burial, and resurrection. This is Paul's point in Romans 6:3-4: "Or do
you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
7
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, so
we too might walk in newness of life."
Technically, we were "baptized into Christ" through the baptism
of the Holy Spirit. This is the work whereby the Holy Spirit
places a person "in Christ" at the moment of salvation. So what
Paul refers to in Romans 6 is not water baptism itself, but what it
pictures, namely, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At the instant we
believed, we became totally identified with Christ. His death became
our death, His burial our burial, His resurrection our resurrection.
Going under the water symbolizes death to our old way of
life; coming up out of the water pictures the beginning of a new
life, lived unto God, in Christ's resurrection power (see also, Col.
2:11-12).
3) Baptism symbolizes our identification with Christ's church. In 1
Corinthians 12:13, Paul states, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized
into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or
free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." The main reference
here, as in Romans 6, is to the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
when He places the believer in Christ at the moment of salvation.
We become members of His body, the church. Water baptism
symbolizes our identification with the church which took place
spiritually at the moment of salvation. In the act of baptism, a person
publicly identifies himself with other Christians. He is saying,
"Now I'm one of them."
In our culture, with religious tolerance, water baptism isn't too
threatening. But in countries where Christians are persecuted, baptism
separates the true believers from the phonies. You open yourself
to persecution by being baptized. But even if we don't risk persecution,
baptism should represent that sort of bold, public identification
with the church.
4) Baptism symbolizes cleansing from sin. This is the point of 1 Peter
3:18-21 plus several other Scriptures. Cleansing is obviously a
main symbol of water. But it is not immersion in water (or sprinkling,
pouring) that cleanses the heart. Peter makes that very clear.
Water can only remove dirt from the flesh. It is the blood of Christ
8
which removes the filth from our hearts, because apart from the
shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22).
Because baptism is done with water, and water symbolizes
cleansing, it is often mentioned in close connection with salvation.
In Titus 3:5, Paul refers to God's saving us "by the washing of regeneration
and renewing by the Holy Spirit." But in the immediately
preceding words he says that God saved us "not on the basis
of deeds which we have done in righteousness." The act of baptism
cannot save anyone.
The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that salvation is
by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9). Both Romans and Galatians
deal extensively with the theme that we are justified (declared
righteous by God) through faith in Jesus Christ, not by any works
of righteousness. Many Scriptures affirm what Jesus stated, "... he
who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal
life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death
into life" (John 5:24). He told the dying thief on the cross, who
called out to Him in faith, that he would be with Him that very day
in Paradise (Luke 23:39-43). Obviously, the man was not baptized.
At the same time, Scripture is clear that genuine saving faith
results in obedience (Eph. 2:10; 2 Thess. 1:8, "obey the gospel").
Thus every true believer who is properly taught and who has opportunity
will be baptized in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.
But baptism is the result of salvation, not the means to it.
Immersion, sprinkling, and pouring are three common modes.
Some who practice immersion do it three times forward (once for
each person of the trinity). I don't believe that the mode of baptism
should be an issue worth dividing over.
But immersion is the meaning of the Greek word; it best represents
the biblical truths symbolized by baptism; and, it was the
method used in the early church. Immersion best represents the
truth of total identification with Christ that baptism symbolizes.
When the believer goes into the water, it pictures death (separation)
to his old way of life. When he comes out of the water, it speaks of
the fact that now he is raised to newness of life in Christ. Immersion
also pictures total cleansing from sin. While it ought to be
done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt.
9
28:19), there is no indication that it requires three separate immersions.
Once under better symbolizes the fact that we are placed
into Christ once and for all by the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
When Cortez landed at Vera Cruz in 1519 to begin his conquest
of Mexico with a force of only 700 men, he purposely set fire
to his fleet of 11 ships. His men on the shore watched their only
means of retreat sinking to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. With
no means of retreat, there was only one direction to move, forward
into the Mexican interior to meet whatever might come their way.
Some of you may have put your trust in Christ, but you're
leaving your ship anchored safely in the harbor in case you decide
to retreat. Baptism should be that act of setting fire to the ship. It's
a graphic reminder that you have left the old life and now are
committed to go ahead with Christ. If you know Christ as your
Savior but you've never been baptized, I urge you to do so as a
confession of your faith in obedience to Christ's command as soon
as possible.
If you've never trusted in Christ as Savior, I hope that you will
not think that because you have been baptized or that if you will
get baptized, it will get you into heaven. Eternal life is the free gift
God offers you based upon Christ's death on your behalf. You can
only receive it by faith in God's promise in Christ.
________________
I am not sure what to think. What a confusing dilemma.
Dylan
[Edited on 4-17-2004 by interested_one]
I have recently recieved a sermon done by my pastor 1996 concerning infant baptism. I am going to say that I am thoroughly confused on the topic. I understand that it must be important enough, if should cause such a wide divide in the Christian community. I wanted to post the his sermon and get your thoughts on it content. My pastor is a Reformed Baptist and I have been looking at infant baptism, but somehow I cannot seem to piece the thing together. I have been trying to understand the covenant theology and so maybe that is where my trouble is.... I am not sure:
:help:
Why We Do Not Baptize Infants
by Steven J. Cole
Genesis 17 & other Scriptures
Since in our study of Genesis we have come to chapter 17,
which is one of the main Old Testament Scriptures used in the argument
for infant baptism, and since we have people who attend
our church from many denominational backgrounds, and since we
are having a baptism today, I thought it would be helpful to explain
why we do not baptize infants, but rather baptize by immersion
only those making a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
Few subjects arouse more controversy among Christians than
that of baptism. The Quakers do not practice it at all. Lutherans,
Episcopalians, Orthodox Churches, and the Roman Catholic
Church officially hold that baptism is the direct means of regeneration
(the new birth). Since those churches baptize infants, they believe
that those babies are being saved through their baptisms. For
example, in a pamphlet titled, "Why Baptize Children?" Lutheran
theologian John Theodore Mueller writes, "... Holy Baptism is the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, by which
the new birth is wrought" (pp. 10-11, Concordia Publishing
House). Presbyterians baptize infants, but most of them stop short
of saying that baptized babies are saved. They view it as introducing
the children into the covenant community and as serving as the
sign and seal of the new birth, which it is hoped the child will enter
in the future as he grows up in that community.
I'll say at the outset that many of my favorite theologians held
to infant baptism. They were all men whose scholarship and godliness
far exceed my own. I find myself agreeing with much, for example,
that John Calvin writes about the meaning and significance
of baptism (Institutes, IV:XV & XVI). But when he applies it to infants,
I think he is utterly inconsistent with himself and with
Scripture. While I strongly disagree with infant baptism, I think we
must be gracious and agree to disagree with those who hold that
view. But if anyone teaches that the new birth is conveyed through
water baptism, whether with infants or adults, he is teaching serious
heresy on that crucial point of doctrine. The Scripture is clear
2
that the new birth comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John
3:1-16).
First I want to set forth fairly the arguments in favor of infant
baptism; then I want to present why we do not baptize infants and
show what Scripture teaches about the meaning of baptism. It is
Scripture and not church tradition which is our authority on this
important matter.
WHY SOME CHURCHES BAPTIZE INFANTS:
The main argument for infant baptism is the connection between
circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New,
especially as seen in the context of the covenant community. This
is sometimes buttressed with the example of Noah, whose entire
family entered the ark and was thus saved from the flood. First
Peter 3:20-21 connects Noah's flood with baptism. Also, in 1 Corinthians
10:1-2, Paul states that all Israel was baptized into Moses
in the cloud and in the sea. Since this included the children, it is
argued that they are proper subjects of baptism. But the main argument
is the continuity between circumcision in the covenant
community under the old covenant and baptism with us, who are
under the new covenant.
In Genesis 17:7 God makes it clear to Abraham that He is
establishing His covenant both with him and with his descendants
("seed") after him as an everlasting covenant. In verse 12, the Lord
stipulates that every male eight days old must be circumcised. An
uncircumcised male must be cut off from his people because he
has broken God's covenant (17:14). Thus the sign of the covenant
was commanded to be administered to infants. In Abraham's case,
he had already believed in God when the sign was performed; but
in Isaac's case, it was done before he was old enough to believe in
God's promise, with a view to his believing later.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul states (Col. 2:11-12),
"And in Him you were also 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." Thus he con3
nects circumcision with baptism, and so, it is argued, establishes
that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant.
Also, it is argued, the household baptisms recorded in the
New Testament (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16) surely included infants.
In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul refers to the children as "holy" or
"sanctified" in a marriage where one partner is a believer, which is
taken to mean that they are a part of God's covenant people, presumably
through baptism. The church fathers of the second and
third centuries argued for infant baptism as an apostolic tradition.
Since it is primarily a covenant sign and not a sign of faith on the
part of the one receiving it, it is argued that we should baptize our
infants into the community of faith where they will be exposed to
the other means of grace. These are the main arguments for infant
baptism as fairly as I can state them in the time allotted to me.
WHY WE DO NOT BAPTIZE INFANTS:
We do not baptize infants because baptism is a public
confession of faith in obedience to Christ.
The clear teaching of Scripture is that all who believe in Jesus
as Savior and Lord should be baptized in obedience to Him. The
New Testament order is always: The preaching of the gospel; faith
in the gospel; then, baptism. Never once is there an example of baptism
preceding faith as the norm to be followed. And there are no
examples or commands concerning the baptism of the infants or yet
unbelieving children of believing parents. Consider the following
verses from Acts, noting the order of belief first, then baptism:
2:41: ... those who had received his word were baptized; ...
8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the good news
about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were being baptized, men and women alike.
8:36-38: And as they went along the road they came to some
water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me
from being baptized?" [And Philip said, "If you believe with
all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] And he ordered the
chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water,
Philip as well as the eunuch; and he baptized him.
4
While verse 37 [in brackets] lacks strong textual support in the
earliest Greek manuscripts, its insertion in later manuscripts shows
what the church held to be the necessary qualification for baptism.
10:44, 46b, 47, 48a: While Peter was still speaking these words
[the gospel], the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening
to the message.... Then Peter answered, "Surely no one
can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received
the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered
them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
16:30-34: [The Philippian jailer asks Paul and Silas] "Sirs, what
must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord
Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household. And
they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who
were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the
night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized,
he and all his household. And he brought them into his
house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having
believed in God with his whole household.
If any children were baptized that night, the text is clear that
they had believed. There is not a shred of support for infant baptism
here.
18:8: And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the
Lord with his whole household, and many of the Corinthians
when they heard were believing and being baptized.
Thus the abundant testimony of the New Testament is that
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ precedes baptism.
What about the argument that infant baptism is the sign of the
New Covenant, just as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic
Covenant (based on Col. 2:11-12)? While there are some parallels
between the two signs, there are many differences. The sign of circumcision
was administered to the male, physical descendants of
Abraham in obedience to the specific command of God. But the
New Testament is clear that it is not the physical seed of Abraham
who are saved, but the spiritual seed (Rom. 4:16; 9:8; Gal. 3:7).
There simply is no command to administer baptism to the physical
seed of Christians, male or female. If baptism is the fulfillment of
circumcision, then just as circumcision was administered to the
5
physical descendants of Abraham in the age of type, so baptism
ought to be administered to the spiritual descendants of Abraham
in the age of fulfillment, namely, to believers. But Jesus made it
clear that the sign of the New Covenant is the Lord's Supper, not
baptism ("This cup is the new covenant in My blood ..." (1 Cor.
11:25).
Also, note that in Colossians 2 Paul is talking about believer's
baptism. He specifically states that baptism pictures being raised up
from spiritual death through faith in the working of God. The parallel
between baptism and circumcision concerns the picture of
dying to the flesh or old life so that we can live holy lives in Christ.
Paul is taking the spiritual meaning of circumcision and applying it
spiritually to believers, not physically to the baptism of believers'
children.
In 1 Peter 3:20-21, Peter makes it clear that he is not referring
to the physical act of baptism, but to what it symbolizes, namely,
appealing to God for a good conscience, which infants who are
baptized are not doing! In 1 Corinthians 10:1-2, Paul is applying the
experiences of Israel spiritually to the church. Just as not all who
came through the "baptism" of the Red Sea were right with God in
their hearts, as evidenced by their unbelief and immorality, so not
all who profess faith in Christ through baptism are necessarily regenerate.
If the Corinthians think that they can claim that their profession
of faith in baptism made them right with God, but continue
in their ungodly living, they are greatly deceived. The text does not
support infant baptism in any way; it's just not there.
Beyond this, we can argue that infant baptism is potentially
detrimental. If an adult mistakenly assumes (as it would be most
easy to do if brought up under this teaching) that because he was
baptized as an infant, he possesses salvation and is a member of
Christ's church, then he is sadly deceived on the most important
issue of all, eternal salvation! There is no grace imparted in the
physical act of baptism, apart from the faith of the one being baptized.
To count on one's baptism, whether as an infant or an adult,
as the basis for standing before God is to trust in a false hope.
Only personal faith in the crucified and risen Savior saves a person
from sin and hell. And to baptize an infant is to rob the person of a
very meaningful spiritual experience, namely, the public confession
6
of Christ in obedience to His command after one has come to
saving faith.
THE MEANING OF BAPTISM:
Baptism is a public confession of faith in Christ, done in obedience
to His command, and as such is a picture of what salvation
means. Baptism is important because Christ commanded it as a
part of the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples
of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). If we neglect baptism, we're
disobeying our Lord. Since true faith always expresses itself in obedience,
those who have believed in Christ and have been properly
instructed about baptism will obey Christ by being baptized.
1) Baptism is the place where a believer publicly confesses Jesus Christ as
Savior and Lord and identifies with Christ and His church. In talking of
our need to follow Him, Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after
Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
Me.... For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous
and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed
of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy
angels" (Mark 8:34, 38). Going forward or walking the aisle is not
the biblical way to initially confess Christ publicly; that came into
the church through a man of questionable theology and methodology,
namely, Charles Finney. Baptism is the biblical way to confess
faith in Christ.
The word "baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek word,
baptisma, and some related words which have the meaning of dipping
or immersing. Since the immersed object became totally identified
with the substance in which it was placed, the idea of identification
is central to the meaning of baptism. Jesus' baptism by John
publicly identified Him who was sinless with sinners in anticipation
of His death and resurrection as their sin-bearer. For us baptism
symbolizes our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and
resurrection; our identification with Christ's church; and, our
cleansing from sin.
2) Baptism symbolizes total identification with Christ in His death,
burial, and resurrection. This is Paul's point in Romans 6:3-4: "Or do
you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
7
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, so
we too might walk in newness of life."
Technically, we were "baptized into Christ" through the baptism
of the Holy Spirit. This is the work whereby the Holy Spirit
places a person "in Christ" at the moment of salvation. So what
Paul refers to in Romans 6 is not water baptism itself, but what it
pictures, namely, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At the instant we
believed, we became totally identified with Christ. His death became
our death, His burial our burial, His resurrection our resurrection.
Going under the water symbolizes death to our old way of
life; coming up out of the water pictures the beginning of a new
life, lived unto God, in Christ's resurrection power (see also, Col.
2:11-12).
3) Baptism symbolizes our identification with Christ's church. In 1
Corinthians 12:13, Paul states, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized
into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or
free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." The main reference
here, as in Romans 6, is to the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
when He places the believer in Christ at the moment of salvation.
We become members of His body, the church. Water baptism
symbolizes our identification with the church which took place
spiritually at the moment of salvation. In the act of baptism, a person
publicly identifies himself with other Christians. He is saying,
"Now I'm one of them."
In our culture, with religious tolerance, water baptism isn't too
threatening. But in countries where Christians are persecuted, baptism
separates the true believers from the phonies. You open yourself
to persecution by being baptized. But even if we don't risk persecution,
baptism should represent that sort of bold, public identification
with the church.
4) Baptism symbolizes cleansing from sin. This is the point of 1 Peter
3:18-21 plus several other Scriptures. Cleansing is obviously a
main symbol of water. But it is not immersion in water (or sprinkling,
pouring) that cleanses the heart. Peter makes that very clear.
Water can only remove dirt from the flesh. It is the blood of Christ
8
which removes the filth from our hearts, because apart from the
shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22).
Because baptism is done with water, and water symbolizes
cleansing, it is often mentioned in close connection with salvation.
In Titus 3:5, Paul refers to God's saving us "by the washing of regeneration
and renewing by the Holy Spirit." But in the immediately
preceding words he says that God saved us "not on the basis
of deeds which we have done in righteousness." The act of baptism
cannot save anyone.
The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that salvation is
by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9). Both Romans and Galatians
deal extensively with the theme that we are justified (declared
righteous by God) through faith in Jesus Christ, not by any works
of righteousness. Many Scriptures affirm what Jesus stated, "... he
who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal
life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death
into life" (John 5:24). He told the dying thief on the cross, who
called out to Him in faith, that he would be with Him that very day
in Paradise (Luke 23:39-43). Obviously, the man was not baptized.
At the same time, Scripture is clear that genuine saving faith
results in obedience (Eph. 2:10; 2 Thess. 1:8, "obey the gospel").
Thus every true believer who is properly taught and who has opportunity
will be baptized in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ.
But baptism is the result of salvation, not the means to it.
Immersion, sprinkling, and pouring are three common modes.
Some who practice immersion do it three times forward (once for
each person of the trinity). I don't believe that the mode of baptism
should be an issue worth dividing over.
But immersion is the meaning of the Greek word; it best represents
the biblical truths symbolized by baptism; and, it was the
method used in the early church. Immersion best represents the
truth of total identification with Christ that baptism symbolizes.
When the believer goes into the water, it pictures death (separation)
to his old way of life. When he comes out of the water, it speaks of
the fact that now he is raised to newness of life in Christ. Immersion
also pictures total cleansing from sin. While it ought to be
done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt.
9
28:19), there is no indication that it requires three separate immersions.
Once under better symbolizes the fact that we are placed
into Christ once and for all by the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
When Cortez landed at Vera Cruz in 1519 to begin his conquest
of Mexico with a force of only 700 men, he purposely set fire
to his fleet of 11 ships. His men on the shore watched their only
means of retreat sinking to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. With
no means of retreat, there was only one direction to move, forward
into the Mexican interior to meet whatever might come their way.
Some of you may have put your trust in Christ, but you're
leaving your ship anchored safely in the harbor in case you decide
to retreat. Baptism should be that act of setting fire to the ship. It's
a graphic reminder that you have left the old life and now are
committed to go ahead with Christ. If you know Christ as your
Savior but you've never been baptized, I urge you to do so as a
confession of your faith in obedience to Christ's command as soon
as possible.
If you've never trusted in Christ as Savior, I hope that you will
not think that because you have been baptized or that if you will
get baptized, it will get you into heaven. Eternal life is the free gift
God offers you based upon Christ's death on your behalf. You can
only receive it by faith in God's promise in Christ.
________________
I am not sure what to think. What a confusing dilemma.
Dylan
[Edited on 4-17-2004 by interested_one]
