Christian Baptism
they differ as means of grace? What is the original meaning of the word "sacrament"? How did it acquire its present meaning? What is a sacrament? What are the component parts of a sacrament? What is the sign in each one of the sacraments? What is signified in each?
How should we conceive of the relation between the sign and the thing signified? How do Roman Catholics and Protestants differ as to the necessity of the sacraments? In what respect did the Old
Testament sacraments differ from those of the New? Which are the seven sacraments of the Church of Rome?
References for Further Study:
Berkhof, Reformed Dogmatics, II, pp. 224–231; McPherson, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 427–431; Binnie, The Church, pp. 68–71;
Hodge, Outlines of Theology, pp. 588–602; Candlish, The Sacraments, pp. 11–44.
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
A. The Institution of Christian Baptism. Christ instituted baptism after the resurrection, that is, after He had finished His atoning work. He did it with the fulness of His mediatorial authority and made it binding for all following ages. All those who were made disciples were to be baptized as a sign that they had entered a new relationship. The apostles were instructed to baptize "in (into) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This does not mean that they were to baptize the new converts on the authority of the triune God, but rather that they had to baptize them in relation to Him. Baptism was to be expressive of the fact that they had entered into a new relationship to God through faith. While Christ did not intend to prescribe a formula for baptism, in later times, when the Church felt the need of a formula, it could find no better
one than that contained in the words of the institution. It was already in use in the beginning of the second century.
B. The Proper Mode of Baptism. Baptists maintain that dipping or immersion, followed by emersion, is the only proper mode of baptism, since this rite must symbolize the spiritual death and resurrection of the believer. Two questions arise at this point: (1)
What is the essential thing in the symbolism of baptism? and (2) Is immersion the only proper mode of baptism?
1. WHAT IS THE ESSENTIAL THING IN THE SYMBOLISM OF
BAPTISM? According to Baptists the essential thing in baptism is immersion. Baptism in any other form is not baptism at all, for the real baptismal idea is expressed in the going down into and the coming up out of the water. It is admitted that such an immersion also involves a certain purification, but this is regarded as purely accidental. Their opinion is based on Mark 10:38, 39; Luke 12:50;
Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12, but these passages do not prove the point.
Scripture clearly represents the idea of purification as the essential thing in the symbolism of baptism. This was the pertinent thing in all the Old Testament washings, Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 36:25, and also in the baptism of John and Jesus, John 3:25, 26. It is perfectly evident from several passages that baptism symbolizes spiritual cleansing or purification, Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 10:22; 1 Pet.
3:21. This is the point on which all the emphasis is placed.
2. IS IMMERSION THE ONLY PROPER MODE OF BAPTISM? In
opposition to the Baptists, who regard immersion as the only proper mode of baptism, we maintain that the mode is quite immaterial, as long as the fundamental idea of purification finds expression in the rite. Jesus did not prescribe a certain mode of baptism, and the Bible never stresses any particular mode. The word employed by Jesus
does not necessarily mean "to immerse," but may also mean "to purify by washing." It is possible and even probable that some of the cases mentioned in the Bible were cases of baptism by immersion, though this is not absolutely certain in a single case. From the earliest times it was customary to baptize by sprinkling and pouring as well as by immersion. Purification was frequently, if not generally effected by sprinkling during Old Testament times, Num. 8:7; 19:13,
18, 19, 20; Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 9:10, 13. The baptism with the Spirit certainly did not take place by immersion, Matt. 3:11; 1 Cor.
3:11; nor did the baptisms mentioned in Luke 11:37, 38; 12:50; 1 Cor.
10:1, 2. It is not likely that the multitudes that flocked to John the Baptist, nor that the three thousand converts of the day of Pentecost were baptized by immersion. Neither does it seem that this mode was followed in the cases mentioned in Acts 9:18; 10:47; 16:33. 34.
Spiritual renewal is sometimes said to have been effected by sprinkling, Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 10:22.
C. The Lawful Administrators of Baptism. Protestants generally proceed on the assumption that the administration of the Word and that of the sacraments belong together, and that therefore only the minister of the gospel is the lawful administrator of baptism.
Moreover, they hold that it should be administered in the public gathering of believers. Usually they regard a baptism legitimate which is administered by a duly accredited minister and in the name of the triune God. Roman Catholics consider baptism absolutely necessary unto salvation; and because they regard it as cruel to make the salvation of anyone dependent on the accidental presence or absence of a priest, they also permit baptism by others, particularly by midwives, in cases of necessity.
D. The Proper Subjects of Baptism. There are two classes to whom baptism is applied, namely, adults and infants.
1. ADULT BAPTISM. Baptism is intended for believers and their seed. When Jesus gave His disciples the great commission, instructing them to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them in the name of the triune God, He undoubtedly had in mind primarily the baptism of adults, for it was only with these that they could begin in their missionary labours. His instruction also implies, though it does not explicitly state, that in the case of adults baptism had to be preceded by a profession of faith, Mark 16:16. On the day of Pentecost those that received the word of Peter were baptized, Acts
2:41. In the case of the eunuch, Acts 8:37 (not found in some MSS.), and of the jailor at Philippi baptism was preceded by faith. Hence it is entirely proper that the Church should require a profession of faith of all adults seeking baptism. When such a profession is made, this is accepted by the Church at its face value, unless there are good reasons to doubt its veracity. It does not belong to her province to pry into the secrets of the heart and thus to pass on the genuineness of such a profession. The responsibility rests on the person who makes it.
2. INFANT BAPTISM. While there is general agreement as to the legitimacy of the baptism of adult believers, there is no such unanimity respecting the lawfulness of baptizing their children. The Baptists deny that these are entitled to baptism. In connection with the baptism of infants several points deserve consideration. a. The Scriptural Basis for Infant Baptism. There is no explicit command in Scripture to baptize children; nor is there a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized. But this does not necessarily make infant baptism un-Biblical. The Scriptural basis for it is found in the following:
1) The covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect, and of this spiritual covenant circumcision was a sign and seal. The spiritual nature of the covenant is proved by the interpretation of its promises in the New Testament, Rom. 4:16–18; 2 Cor. 6:16–18; Gal. 3:8, 9, 14, 16;
Heb. 8:10; 11:9, 10, 13, and by the spiritual significance ascribed to circumcision Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25, 26; Acts 15:1; Rom.
2:26–29; 4:11; Phil. 3:2; Gal. 3:8.
2) This covenant is still in force and is essentially the same as the "new covenant" of the present dispensation. Paul argues in Rom.
4:13–18 and Gal. 3:15–18 that the covenant was not changed nor abrogated by the giving of the law, that Christ and those who are of Christ constitute the seed to which the promise applies, and that therefore New Testament believers are heirs according to promise.
And the writer of Hebrews speaks of the covenant as immutable, Heb. 6:13–18.
3) Children shared in the blessings of the covenant, and therefore received circumcision as its sign and seal. Infants were present whenever the covenant was renewed, Deut. 29:10–13; Josh. 8:35; 2
Chron. 20:13, and were reckoned as part of the congregation of Israel, 2 Chron. 20:13; Joel 2:16. And in view of the rich promises in the Old Testament, Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:34; Joel 2:28, it is inconceivable that they would be excluded in the New Testament.
4) In the New Testament baptism is substituted as the sign and seal of entrance into the covenant of grace. Circumcision was done away,
Acts 15:1, 2; 21:21; Gal. 2:3–5; 5:2–6; 6:12, 13, 15, and if baptism did not take its place, then there is no initiatory rite at present. But Christ clearly instituted it as such, Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15, 16. It agrees with circumcision in spiritual meaning as denoting the
removal of sin, Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5. Moreover, it is linked up with the promise in Acts 2:39. Finally, Col. 2:11, 12 clearly proceeds on the assumption that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. The exclusion of New Testament children would require an unequivocal statement to that effect, but quite the contrary is found, Acts 2:39; Matt. 19:14; 1 Cor. 7:14.
5) There are reasons to believe that even in the apostolic age children were sometimes baptized along with their parents. The language of the New Testament is perfectly consistent with a continuation of the former state of things, Matt. 19:14; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14. Whole households were repeatedly baptized, and this is represented as something perfectly normal. It is but natural to assume that there were children in some of these households. We know that in the second century children were baptized.
6) It is true that there is no explicit command to baptize children, nor any clear example of infant baptism in the New Testament; but neither is there any explicit warrant for the practice of the Baptists.
We are not taught, either by word or example, that persons born and reared in Christian families may not be baptized until they have come to years of discretion and have professed their faith in Christ. b. The Ground for Infant Baptism. The question is raised on what ground children of believers are baptized. A twofold answer has been given to this question in Reformed circles. Some have said that they are baptized on the basis of a presumptive regeneration. They who take this position do not pretend to know that the infants offered for baptism are regenerated, but proceed on the assumption that they are, and baptize them on the strength of that assumption. They regard these children as regenerated until they give evidence of an unregenerated heart. Others have taken the position that children
are baptized on the ground of the all-comprehensive promise of God in the covenant, which also includes the promise of regeneration.
This would seem to be the only tenable position. The covenant and the covenant promise afford the only certain and objective ground for the baptism of infants. Children of believers are baptized, because they are in the covenant, irrespective of the question, whether they are already regenerated or not. c. Infant Baptism as a Means of Grace. If the sacraments serve only to strengthen the grace of God that is present in the heart, then the question naturally arises, how must we conceive of the operation of baptism as a means of grace in the case of infants. Here the doctrine of presumptive regeneration affords an answer. If children are supposed to be regenerated, when they are baptized, then it may be assumed that the beginnings of grace present in the heart are strengthened in some mystical way. But it is not necessary to assume that the operation of baptism as a means of grace is limited to the very moment of its administration. It may be instrumental in strengthening faith later on, when the significance of baptism is clearly understood.
Questions for Review:
When did Christ institute baptism? What is the meaning of the words, "in (into) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"? Were the words of Christ intended as a formula? What do Baptists regard as the essential thing in the symbolism of baptism? What is the essential thing in it? Did Christ prescribe a certain mode of baptism? Can the necessity of immersion be proved from Scripture? Who are the proper administrators of baptism?
What position does Rome take on this point and why? What is the condition of adult baptism? How can infant baptism be proved from Scripture? What different views are there as to the ground of infant