Theology Thursday - John Smyth on Baptism

It’s definitely something to ponder. I haven’t taken a good look at it. A few random thoughts:

• Jesus’ purpose is to explain that the Spirit will replace Him as their Comforter, Helper and Advocate.
• The entire emphasis seems to be on union and relationship. He is leaving, but Jesus will ask the Father, who will send another Comforter, who will be with them forever.
• This Comforter is theirs alone; He is only with the Father’s children. The world knows nothing about Him.
• If we can agree that the basic sense of the passage is union, not indwelling, then I think the basic objection to OT indwelling falls apart for Jn 14:17. The passage isn’t about indwelling at all. It’s about union and relationship, the replacement of one Comforter for another. In fact, Jesus and the Father will come fully in the Person of the Spirit (cf. Jn 14:18, 14:23) to commune with the saints.
• In brief, I see the promise of the Spirit in Jn 14:17 as a promise of God’s corporate union with His elect people, in the Persons of the Father, Son and Spirit.
• Haven’t done too much study on this aspect of the passage, but off the cuff, I’m comfy with that for now.

Regarding Spirit baptism, I pulled Chafer’s systematic down from its shelf, and will be reading about his explanation of Spirit baptism over the next few days. Maybe I’ll finally “get it,” after all these years.

Chafer starts his discussion by declaring that Satan is behind the confusion over Spirit baptism. Chafer was certainly not a man to tap-dance. “Go big or go home,” and all that. Look forward to reading what he had to say.

Dan,

Here is the problem I see:

• the subject nominative is the immersion
• the subject is performing the action of the verb “saving”
• the direct object is the recipients (“you”). The TR/BYZ reads “us.”
• the verb is a present tense form (“is saving”), so you have to decide how, precisely, baptism “is saving” people who are already Christians.

This is one of the passages Lutherans, for example, cite when they point to baptism as a means of grace. They do it, in part, because of the verse says that baptism is saving Christians. Baptists usually do something else with the verb to get around it:

• they make it a present of existing results (“has saved”).
• they make it a descriptive present (“is saving”), but hasten to toss in an “already/not yet” aspect to our salvation (which isn’t necessarily incorrect).
• they then have to explain how, exactly, baptism does anything. Baptists aren’t sacrementalists!

There are good answers to all these questions. Hiebert’s commentary, for example, is really good on this passage. But, it occurred to me as I read what Smyth wrote - why couldn’t this be speaking of regeneration? I know it isn’t the “normal” interpretation, but why couldn’t it be? Chafer and Unger thought it was. I’m not necessarily sold, but it is intriguing. This would solve the difficulty of explaining how baptism saves you!

What was fascinating to me was that John Smyth, a man whom proponents of the “English Separatist” view of Baptist origins call “the first Baptist,” viewed 1 Pet 3:21 as referring to regeneration, and he viewed baptism as symbolic of regeneration, not Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. Interesting …

You’re right about that explanation of baptism. It does make sense. I’m just saying Peter could be talking about regeneration by the Spirit, instead. Is there any exegetical reason why this isn’t likely?

Regarding the Lutheran reference, I was at a used bookstore today and was browsing through Luther’s Short Catechism, specifically the section on baptism. Very, very different. Very interesting!

Why do you assume it’s the ordinance, though? All Peter is saying in the first clause is that baptism does not correspond to the analogy with Noah in a physical way.

• The correspondence is not in the sense of an external act with external effects.
• Instead, the correspondence is in the sense of the fact that baptism is an appeal of a good conscience towards God. How do you issue an appeal which consists of a good conscience concerning God? You have to born again and regenerated.

If that is the case, then why do we have to see Peter as referring to the ordinance of baptism, rather than the metaphor of spiritual regeneration?

For we too were once foolish, disobedient, misled, enslaved to various passions and desires, spending our lives in evil and envy, hateful and hating one another. But “when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior. And so, since we have been justified by his grace, we become heirs with the confident expectation of eternal life.” (Titus 3:3-7).

It seems to me that the “ordinance of baptism” view goes one step further back from the text, like this:

1. Only a regenerated person could issue an appeal consisting of a good conscience concerning God
2. Peter says this baptism (whatever it is) actually saves Christians. Baptism is the subject, the verb is active, the direct object are Christians. Therefore, whatever this baptism is, in and of itself … it saves Christians.
3. The analogy had to do with Noah and his family being saved from the world by water
4. Christians are saved from this evil world by the washing of regeneration
5. But, nevertheless, Peter must be referring to an ordinance which pictures the very thing I don’t think the text is actually saying

It seems easier to see 1 Peter 3:21 as referring to regeneration. Like Smythe did.

Dan, the ordinance doesn’t seem to correspond as well to the analogy to Noah as regeneration does:

• Noah and his family were saved from the wicked world of their day through (δι᾽) water. Water was the agency, the vehicle, through which they were saved.
• What is the agency which saves today, that Peter is drawing an analogy to for his readers? It’s a baptism that “is saving you.” That baptism is not like an external rite, where it washes filth from the body. In this respect, Peter may simply be saying he’s leaving the physical realm here (not physical water like Noah and his family encountered). Whatever this baptism which “saves you” is, it’s not an external rite at all.
• The conjunction ἀλλὰ draws the sharp contrast. This baptism does not correspond to the Noah analogy in an external, physical way - it corresponds in an inward way. How is it an inward correspondence? It corresponds because it is an appeal of a good conscience towards God. The Spirit saves, washes away our sins, and is poured out upon God’s children. By the agency of the Spirit, God draws His own to Himself and washes them clean. Now, with this new and good moral consciousness, man makes a penitent appeal to God for grace and mercy.

Here is the question:

• What kind of baptism is analogous to the floodwaters which saved Noah and his family from this wicked world?
• What kind of baptism actively saves sinners?
• What kind of baptism is not an external rite?
• What kind of baptism corresponds to the Noah analogy, in that it is an appeal of a good conscience towards God?

It seems to me both our solutions can answer these questions, but I think regeneration answers them better. Your weakness is the saving efficacy of the baptism, and the weak correspondence with the Noah analogy. Mine is the appeal of the good conscience. John Smythe saw this as regeneration, too:

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

Regardless, it’s a tough passage!

First, I have to try and understand myself. I translated 1 Pet 3:21 and made my own comments on it with the understanding he was referring to the ordinance. Let me try to be clear:

• I think he was arguing against the idea of baptismal regeneration with the phrase “not the removal of filth from the body.”
• That is, Peter says the correspondence to Noah has nothing to do with an outward act which results in an inward transformation.
• Instead, the correspondence is to the washing of regeneration which saves Christians, which results in an appeal of a good conscience towards God.
• It is also interesting to note that the baptism is because of (δι) the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It could be expressing the cause of the baptism, or the agency.

So, Peter could be saying two things about this correspondence with Noah:

• Option #1: It isn’t about the aspect of baptism which removes dirt. It’s about the aspect of baptism which springs from an appeal of a good conscience towards God. It’s about the ordinance, which pictures Christ’s resurrection and our identification with that.
• Option #2: It isn’t about some mystical idea that the ordinance of baptism, as an external rite, actually saves you by removing your sin. Instead, the correspondence is inward; that the baptism that saves you corresponds because it is an inward appeal of a good conscience towards God. This baptism is wrought by the Spirit, and it happens because of Christ’s resurrection (i.e. His finished work can now be applied by the Spirit).

Nobody agrees about anything in this passage:

• Nobody agrees what the antecedent for “which” is
• Nobody agrees what the word I translated “appeal” is
• Nobody agrees what this “good conscience is (implied genitive subject, object, or something else)
• Nobody agrees what the antecedent of Jesus’ resurrection is (the baptism mentioned, or the appeal of a good conscience)

I have little time, but I’ll make a few comments. I have to translate 1 Pet 3:20 before I say too much more (although you haven’t really addressed your own position’s weaknesses yet!):

• Noah and his family were saved through (or by) water. The verb in 1 Pet 3:20 is passive. The action was done to them, and it resulted in their deliverance from the wicked world they lived in. I think that’s important - it was passive. Doen to them. It saved them.
• This corresponds to the baptism “which is now saving you.” The baptism is the subject performing the “saving.” The Christian are the direct object, receiving the action of the verb. So far, the analogy is still good. The baptism in the Noah analogy was the agency through which Noah and family were saved. The baptism (whatever it is) is also the agency through which Christians are saved. Got it.
• The next mention is about the washing of filthy bodies. You assume Peter is referring to water baptism. I agree. But, Peter says it does not correspond in a physical way. He says, “It doesn’t correspond like the act of washing a filthy body. It corresponds a different way.”
• The conjunction expresses sharp contrast. The correspondence is not physical. It is not in the outward, physical deliverance which Noah and family experienced. No, the contrast emphasizes this is an inward salvation and deliverance.
• It corresponds because this immersion, which is the agency of salvation, is an appeal of a good conscience towards God.
• This baptism is possible because of, by or through (dia) the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Again, the questions a valid position needs to answer are these:

• What kind of baptism is active, and is the agency by which God saves Christians, just as Noah and his family were saved through the agency of water?
• What kind of baptism saves, yet is not an external action done by the Christian?
• What kind of baptism actively saves sinners, and yet corresponds to the Noah analogy in a non-physical way, as emphasized by the contrasting conjunction “alla?”
• What kind of baptism saves sinners, is not an outward act which produces an external effect, and yet is “an appeal of a good conscience to God?”
• What kind of baptism can actively save sinners, is not a physical rite with external effects,and is possible because of Jesus’ resurrection?

Again, the regeneration view seems to answer these questions better. I have to spend time translating and working on 1 Pet 3:20, and I’ll probably come back with more; or, more likely, post something about this on my own blog.

For what it’s worth, my Greek professor disagreed with me. It makes me nervous when he disagrees with me … !