
On “Theology Thursday,” we feature short excerpts on various areas of systematic theology, from a wide variety of colorful characters. Some are orthodox, but decidedly outside the Baptist orbit. Others are completely heretical. Regardless of heresy or orthodoxy, we hope these short readings are a stimulus for personal reflection, a challenge to theological complacency, and an impetus for apologetic zeal “to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints,” (Jude 3).
John Smyth on Believer’s Baptism
“[B]aptism is the external sign of the remission of sins, of dying and of being alive, and therefore does not belong to infants.”1
“The Holy Baptism is given unto these in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which hear, believe, and with penitent heart receive the doctrines of the Holy Gospel. For such hath the Lord Jesus commanded to be baptized, and no unspeaking children.”
“The whole dealing in the outward visible baptism of water, setteth before the eyes, witnesseth and signifieth, the Lord Jesus doth inwardly baptize the repentant, faithful man, in the laver of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Ghost, washing the soul from all pollution and sin, by the virtue and merit of his bloodshed; and by the power and working of the Holy Ghost, the true, heavenly, spiritual, living Water, cleanseth the inward evil of the soul, and maketh it heavenly, spiritual, and living, in true righteousness or goodness. Therefore, the baptism of water leadeth us to Christ, to his holy office in glory and majesty; and admonisheth us not to hang only upon the outward, but with holy prayer to mount upward, and to beg of Christ the good thing signified.”2
John Smyth on Infant Baptism
“Now concerning this point of baptizing infants we do profess before the Lord and before all men in sincerity and truth that it seemeth unto us the most unreasonable heresy of all Antichristianity: for considering what baptism is, an infant is no more capable of baptism than is any unreasonable or insensible creature: for baptism is not washing with water: but it is the baptism of the Spirit, the confession of the mouth, and the washing with water …
Now that an infant cannot be baptized with the Spirit is plain, 1 Pet 3:21, where the Apostle saith that the baptism of the Spirit is the question of a good conscience into God, and Heb 10:22, where the baptism which is inward is called the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience: seeing therefore infants neither have any evil conscience, not the question of a good conscience, not the purging of the heart, for all these are proper to actual sinners: hence it followeth that infant’s baptism is folly and nothing.”3
Notes
1 “Short Confession of Faith in XX Short Articles by John Smyth,” Article 14, in Baptist Confessions of Faith, revised ed. William L. Lumpkin, ed. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1969), 101.
2 “The Short Confession,” in Baptist Life and Thought: 1600 – 1980, ed. William H. Brackney (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1983), 36.
3 John Smyth, “The Character of the Beast,” in A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage, ed. H. Leon McBeth (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1990), 20.
There are 44 Comments
Symbolism
More modern Baptist statements of faith and teaching materials seem to ignore the cleansing idea in the symbolism. Not sure what has motivated that, other than maybe an overcorrection vs. more sacramental and "baptismal regeneration" perspectives.
But Smyth connects the symbolism with cleansing ...
1 Peter 3:21
The "good conscience" factor presented in 1 Peter 3:21 is a very important detail indeed.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
Washing
I always thought the "washing" symbolism was very powerful, even though I don't recall seeing it tied to believer's baptism in the usual Baptist tomes. This is one of my favorite passages about the Spirit's work in regeneration:
I think this symbolism in baptism, of being washed of our sins and cleansed from all our unrighteousness, should also be emphasized.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
1 Peter 3:21
This is a hard passage to even translate. I'd be interested in anybody's take on this passage, particularly if you're not a Baptist. I read a Lutheran recently who had a completely different take. There must be non-Baptists who read this blog - what say ye?
FYI - more stuff on baptism from decidedly non-Baptist sources will be forthcoming in the next several weeks for Theology Thursdays.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Good stuff Tyler
Glad to see you writing more!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
original Baptists
If I'm not wrong, I remember reading somewhere that proto-Baptists didn't Baptize by immersion but by a practice of "face-washing" of some sort, which would have obvious links to the symbolism of cleansing. They learned immersion from the Anabaptists (who maybe got it from the Eastern Orthodox, who still preserved the practice b/c they knew Greek
).
AndrewK
You wrote:
I haven't read that. There are examples of early Moravian Anabaptists (ca. 1540) who baptized by pouring:
I also know the Swiss Anabaptists (ca. 1520's) baptized by immersion.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
I read it in some of Jim
I read it in some of Jim Renihan's works. Have to find it again. The Renihans have done a lot of original work on the early Baptist.
BAPTISM SYMBOLISM
As a dispensationalist I have difficulty seeing water baptism symbolizing an experiential transaction, i.e., regeneration. More particularly--to see baptism as picturing the "washing" or cleansing of the believer's defilement and pollution of sin. I would argue that water baptism is a symbol of the believer's Spirit baptism which makes him a member of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 1:22-23). If Spirit baptism is understood as the building agent of the ekklesia, i.e., as a judicial, non-experiential placing of the believer into the new dispensational body, then it would seem more fitting that water baptism is a symbol of Spirit baptism. (This could be offset, as do some dispensationalists more recently, by seeing two kinds of Spirit baptism: one judicial and the other experiential. In satire, I could guess this might by accomplished by appealing to a moveable nu, an enclitic mem or a gnomic aorist. But I am not convinced personally.)
Further, this would harmonize water baptism and Spirit baptism as both being initiatory rites into the respective theological divisions of church saints. I.e., the possession of valid water baptism in the final analysis is necessary for admittance into the local church while Spirit baptism initiates one into the body church. But the order is first Spirit baptism to be duly followed by the ecclesial ordinance of water baptism. One must posses the spiritual reality in order for the material symbol to be valid and meaningful. Spirit baptism validates water baptism.
Where does this leave the cleansing and life-giving aspects of the Christian experience in reality and in symbolism? Actually this is quite similar to the preceding discussion. These aspects are experiential in nature and likewise validate their symbolic practice. I would argue that the second Baptist ordinance of the bread and cup celebrates the experiential side of church truth. These symbols draw their pictorial strength from the atonement of Christ, the yielding up of His body and blood in a sacrificial atoning death. Flesh and blood is a common biblical phrase for the physical constitution of human beings (e.g., Matt 16:17). Christ's full and complete humanity was necessary in order for Him to die for human sinners, but His full and complete deity (the inseparable Logos) made that sacrifice infinitely and eternally morally valid and efficacious. The bread and cup are symbolic of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" (John 6:53-54), a teaching picture of "sharing" in the body and blood of Christ's atoning sacrifice by penitent faith (1 Cor 10:16). In short, communion is a symbol of regeneration and ensuing sanctification, a reminder of the "new and living way" into the presence of a holy God through the veil of His flesh (Heb 10:20).
The ordinances of baptism and communion are the property of the local church. Valid baptism is practiced once in the believer's ecclesiastical experience and the bread and cup are to be practiced often in an ongoing "remembrance" of the Savior's provision of full and free salvation.
Rolland McCune
New Covenant?
I suppose I've always had a hard time understanding the practical difference between Spirit baptism and regeneration. Tied up in this issue are several knotty problems for dispensationalists (like me):
All these issues (and others) are intertwined with what you think about spirit baptism and regeneration.
I see spirit baptism as sovereign application of the New Covenant to a believer's heart, mind and soul, placing them into the body of Christ, which is the church. So, with believer's baptism, I have no problem with adding the washing symbolism to the identification with Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.
Dr. McCune wrote:
I've always considered it the complete opposite!
I suppose you could say I see the Lord's Supper as symbolizing and representing the provision of Christ's finished work, and believer's baptism as the experiential application of His finished work by the Spirit.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Tyler, are you quite sure
Tyler, are you quite sure that anabaptists baptized by immersion? I could have sworn that most baptized by pouring. I don't remember if it was McBeth or Armitage where I read it.
Maybe?
Josh:
I don't have my Anabaptist stuff in the house. It's in the garage, and it's pouring outside! It looks like the record is mixed.
The concern for the Anabaptists, from what I can see and remember, is the issue of believer's baptism, not necessarily the mode. I could be terribly wrong.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
A few questions for Tyler
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
Bro. Overmiller
A few things:
So, yes - I have always had trouble with the distinction between regeneration and Spirit baptism many dispensationalists make. I think it fundamentally stems from what you think about the New Covenant. In brief, here is my view (which is heretical to many dispensationalists, which makes me wonder if I even am one anymore):
Sorry to go on like this, but I think your understanding of the New Covenant undergirds what you think about these issues. Open to correction and instruction. Must dash . . . Ciao!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Same or More Intense?
Do you view Spirit indwelling and Spirit baptism as the same thing, synonyms for one another? Or do you view Spirit baptism as an intensification of Spirit dwelling?
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
Bro. Overmiller
Intensification - the difference between the Old Covenant and the New.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
With and In
Thanks for bearing with me in grasping your perspective. So you would say that the WITH of John 14:17 is an internal presence of the Spirit for OT believers, and the IN of John 14:17 is an intensification of the Spirit in a way unknown to the OT believers. And if this is the case, I guess I would have difficulty accepting such an interpretation, in part, because it seems quite distant from the meaning or semantic range of the words used in this verse. For with to equal in and in to equal more intense). Albeit, the New Covenant discussion is much broader than the words of this verse alone, but it is one detail that I wrestle with.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
Two groups or more?
In addition to Israel and the Church, there will also be saints from Adam to Abraham or Adam to Moses (pre-Israel) and those saints from the Tribulation through the end of the Millennium (post-Church).
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
Bro. Overmiller
It's a good point, but I don't have a lot of time right now. I'll depart with this:
I changed my position on the New Covenant, and the corresponding implications for spirit baptism and spirit indwelling, after preaching through the Book of Hebrews.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Bro. Overmiller
Regarding two groups or more, yes, you're right. Forgive me, for I have sinned (er . . . mis-spoke)!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
UBS-5/TR/BYZ or UBS-4
I would favor the UBS-5/TR/BYZ over the favorability rankings of UBS-4. I am a TR/BYZ/MT guy.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
No worries
No worries, that's just my desire to be technically correct. I do find, though, that our theological discussions often focus on Israel and the Church so heavily that we fail to include these other obvious groups (pre-law, post-church, etc.). I've done (and probably still do) the same thing inadvertently at times!
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
Washing
Looking through the Anabaptist confessions last night, I am astounded at how much they emphasized the washing symbolism. Is it a dispensationalist thing to be leery of this symbolism in baptism?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
More
Actually, now that I re-read Smyth's words, he doesn't seem to make any connection to Christ's death, burial and resurrection. It's all about the symbolism of washing and regeneration to him. Very interesting.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Enjoying the conversation
Carry on, y'all. The only thing I might add is that I'd guess that in the past century, many dispensational cessationist Baptists have been leery of getting too far into discussions of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" because of the obvious connections with charismatic theology. But if a prophet, John the Baptist, repeats what the OT prophets noted about this.....I guess I'd better repent of this.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Prepositions
Bro. Overmiller:
I have a few more minutes, so I shall pick up the fight once again.
What say ye?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
1 Pet 3:21
It is also clear that Smyth viewed 1 Pet 3:21 as speaking of Spirit baptism, which fits with his conception of the ordinance as a symbol of regeneration.
As I think on it now, I realize I never considered that 1 Pet 3:21 could be referring to Spirit baptism (i.e. regeneration). It's an interesting thought. I've spent a good part of the last few evenings translating 1 Pet 3:21, and if you see the "baptism" as Spirit baptism, this would solve the issue of how to classify the present tense-form of the verb "is saving." It could then easily be a durative present ("has saved") at that point. No tap-dancing necessary.
Thoughts?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Definitely not physically in Christ
Fight? Hopefully I haven't conveyed anything of a fighting nature through my questions. A wholesome, thoughtful conversation? Yes. A fight? Hopefully not.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
Bro. Overmiller
I was being sarcastic. No worries, I promise!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?
Good :)
Good
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com
Pages