Theology Thursday - John Smyth on Baptism
Image
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.
- 109 views
Intensification - the difference between the Old Covenant and the New.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Intensification - the difference between the Old Covenant and the New.
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 | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
[TylerR]
- In eternity, on a completely new earth in a completely new creation, both people groups (represented by the names of the 12 tribes on the city gates, and the 12 apostles on the foundation stones) will dwell with the Lord and the Lamb forever. They’ll be distinct groups, but the distinction between Israel and the Church will be basically meaningless at that point. Sort of like, say, one Christian being from India and another from Seattle. Good to know, but ultimately meaningless.
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 | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
It’s a good point, but I don’t have a lot of time right now. I’ll depart with this:
- There is good evidence to read Jn 14:17 as a present-tense, not the future ἔσται as the UBS-5/TR/BYZ have it. This is a textual issue. The UBS-4 only gave the future a “C” for probability. It could well be present-tense (“is in you”)
- See Dr. McCune’s discussion on the Spirit indwelling in the OT (Systematic, 2:269-289). His discussion confirms what I had suspected and been leaning towards for a while. It was definitive for me.
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 works in State government.
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 works in State government.
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 | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
[TylerR]Regarding two groups or more, yes, you’re right. Forgive me, for I have sinned (er … mis-spoke)!
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 | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
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 works in State government.
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 works in State government.
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.
Bro. Overmiller:
I have a few more minutes, so I shall pick up the fight once again.
- Regarding the preposition in Jn 14:17 (“in you”), there is a case to be made for not seeing this as expressing spatial location. I believe it is expressing association and relationship. For example, this is precisely the way many grammars (e.g. Richard Young) understand the phrase “in Christ” to be functioning. We’re not physically inside Christ; the preposition in those instances expresses relationship and union. Along those lines, you could simply translate this as saying the Spirit will be “among you.” I don;t have any exegetical commentaries handy, but this is certainly a valid category for the preposition. It certainly is the case with “in Christ.”
- If this is the case, then Jesus isn’t talking about physical indwelling at all, but union with Christ as the benefits of His finished work are applied in the New Covenant by the Spirit. I’ll take a look at some exegetical commentaries when I get home.
What say ye?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
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 works in State government.
[TylerR]so I shall pick up the fight once again.
Fight? Hopefully I haven’t conveyed anything of a fighting nature through my questions. A wholesome, thoughtful conversation? Yes. A fight? Hopefully not.
- I agree with you wholeheartedly that “we’re not physically in Christ.” No disagreement there. But spiritually in Christ makes most sense to me. So maybe you call that spatial (albeit in a spiritual way), but not in a physical sense. So in this sense, being spiritually in Christ definitely “expresses relationship and union.”
- “Among you” seems to be the idea of with here, more than in. An OT and Theology professor of mine taught an OT “with-dwelling” among the people of God and an NT “in-dwelling” within the people of God. I echo this perspective here. (BTW, he also recognized John 3 as indicating that regeneration was as much an OT truth as a NT one.)
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
I was being sarcastic. No worries, I promise!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]I was being sarcastic. No worries, I promise!
Good :)
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
Featured Resource
Discussion