Theology Thursday - A Presbyterian on Baptists
Image
On “Theology Thursday,” we feature short excerpts on various areas of systematic theology, from a wide variety of colorful (and drab) characters and institutions. 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).
“The author of Hebrews characterizes all of the ceremonial sprinklings of the Old Testament—the sprinkling of those who were ceremonially unclean with the blood of bulls and the ashes of a heifer (9:13), Moses’ sprinkling of the scroll and all the people with the blood of calves mixed with water and scarlet wool (9:19), and his sprinkling of the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies with blood (9:21)—as ‘baptisms,’ that is, as ‘ceremonial washings,’ (9:10). Moreover, the same writer immediately thereafter and Peter as well speak of Christians as being ‘sprinkled’ with Christ’s blood:
Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in the assurance that faith brings, because we have had our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water (see Ezek 36:25).
Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks of something better than Abel’s does.
1 Peter 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by being set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ’s blood. May grace and peace be yours in full measure! (see Isa 52:15).
Surely the universe of discourse of the Book of Hebrews would warrant the conclusion that the author would have regarded the Christian’s ‘sprinkling’ with Christ’s blood—the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament typical sacrifice—as a spiritual ‘baptism’ as well. And just as surely, ‘it would be strange if the baptism with water which represents the sprinkling of the blood of Christ could not properly and most significantly be performed by sprinkling.’”1,2
“With reference to the alleged pattern of baptism in Romans 6:2-6 and Colossians 2:11-12 as being that of burial and resurrection, a careful analysis of these passages will show that Paul’s basic thesis is the believer’s union with Christ in his crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection as the antidote to antinomianism. Baptism by immersion does not modally reflect our crucifixion with Christ, which is one of the four aspects of our union with Christ which Paul mentions in the Romans passage. Murray is right when he affirms:
It is arbitrary to select one aspect [of our union with Christ, namely, burial] and find in the language used to set it forth the essence of the mode of baptism. Such procedure is indefensible unless it can be carried through consistently. It cannot be carried through consistently here [since baptism by immersion does not and cannot visibly reflect our being hung on the cross with Christ, which is as much an aspect of our union with Christ in the passage as our burial with him] and therefore it is arbitrary and invalid.3
We should no more single out our union with Christ in his burial and resurrection and make these two aspects of our union with him the pattern for the mode of baptism than we should appeal to Galatians 3:27 … and argue on the basis of its statement tthat baptism should be carried out by requiring new Christians to don a white robe, that is, by a ‘baptism by donning.’
The fact is that there is not a single recorded instance of a baptism in the entire New Testament where immersion followed by emersion is the mode of baptism. The Baptist practice of baptism by immersion is simply based on a faulty exegesis of Scripture. The ordinance should not be represented as signifying Christ’s burial and resurrection (aspects of the accomplished phase of his saving work, which the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper memorializes) but rather his baptismal work (the applicational phase of his saving work). I would conclude therefore that ‘dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.”4
Notes
1 Robert Reymond, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 933-934.
2 Quoted from John Murray, Christian Baptism (Philadelphia, PA: P&R, 1962), 24, in Reymond, Systematic, 933.
3 Quoted from Murray, Christian Baptism, 24 in Reymond, Systematic, 934.
4 Reymond, Systematic, 934-935.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 2 views
Baptists are not dependent on Romans 6 and Colossians 2 to define the mode of baptism. We can simply refer to the command in Matthew 28 and the simple meaning of the text. It is, to quote my favorite professor, “Intuitively obvious to the casual observer.”
I’m not surprised, however, that two covenant theologians place more emphasis on the symbolism of the text then on its plain meaning. That kind of goes with the territory.
pvawter:
I’m with you on immersion. We can lay that one aside. I’m zooming in on meaning. What does baptism symbolize? Reymond and Berkhof see baptism as symbolizing regeneration.
- Moses sprinkled the OT saints with the blood of sacrificial offerings as a solemn reminder they were partakers of the Covenant at Sinai (Ex 24).
- This is the probably what the writer of Hebrews was alluding to when he wrote that Christians have been “sprinkled from an evil conscience” and their bodies have been “washed” with pure water (i.e. the regeneration of the Spirit). This ties Christians to the New Covenant - something dispensationalists have always struggled with.
So, we’re together on the mode of baptism - immersion. We’re also probably together on the recipients - all conscious believers in the Gospel (believer’s baptism). I’m saying that I am open to exploring Reformed understandings of it’s meaning.
- Perhaps dispensationalism (with it’s struggle to know how to categorize the New Covenant) has blinded Baptist dispensationalists to the possible implications for the “regeneration meaning” of believer’s baptism?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I fail to see the connection between Moses’ sprinkling and baptism. It is simply irrelevant, imo, unless someone can show me where a NT writer used the word “baptize” in such a context. Peter seems to suggest just the opposite in my view, so I see no reason to explore the symbolism of the ordinance from the perspective of Reymond and Berkhof, who assume sprinkling and infant baptism, which compels them to justify it by appealing to the symbolism of baptism.
Berkhof wrote this about Romans 6 and Colossians 2:
The last two are the only ones that really have any bearing on the matter, and even these are not to the point, for they do not speak directly of any baptism with water at all, but of the spiritual baptism thereby represented. They represent regeneration under the figure of a dying and a rising again.
This is the crux. Many writers see the usual texts Baptists appeal to as referring to “spiritual baptism” or regeneration. I’ve even heard some Baptists admit these passages can be taken that way. It’s not just Reformed - some older dispensationalists (e.g. Chafer and Unger) also took these passages that way. This is the challenge, I believe. Is the point of this passage about the ordinance? Or, is Paul speaking about union with Christ and regeneration by using, as Berkhof called it, “a figure of dying and rising again?”
They may not be correct. But, I think its worth seriously considering. Walking through Romans 6, what is the point? Is it really the ordinance? Or, is regeneration and union with Christ the real issue? If so, what implications does that have for the proper symbolism of the ordinance? Is it a picture of Christ’s death, burial resurrection? Of our regeneration? Or, can we see both and not be labeled compromisers?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Why are we tempted to see the ordinance of baptism in Romans 6 and Colossians 2? Maybe because Paul used the term. Why do they see baptism in Hebrews 9 & 10 in spite of the fact that the author never used the term baptism? Because they have already concluded that sprinkling is baptism.
That being said, in both passages Paul connects baptism to burial, not crucifixion or anything else, so I think Murray’s comments are off base. It is not arbitrary if the NT writer makes the connection for us!
I suppose I see Romans 6 and Colossians 2 as a “crux” because the word “baptism” doesn’t always refer to the ordinance (e.g. Mk 1:8, 10:38). It may be referring to the ordinance in Romans 6. But, many folks don’t think it is. The issue is to decide whether this “baptism” in Romans 6 is actually the ordinance, or a figure for regeneration. After all, for example, Jesus wasn’t talking about the ordinance in Mk 10:38 and Paul wasn’t referring to the ordinance in 1 Cor 12:13 …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I suppose I’ll ask this - where in Scripture do you get support for the idea that the ordinance of baptism represents Christ’s death, burial and resurrection - and a believer’s identification with that?
This is what Baptists teach believer’s baptism pictures, usually from passages such as Rom 6 and Col 2. My point is that I am very sympathetic to seeing believer’s baptism as picturing regeneration (i.e. the “washing” of the Spirit in the New Covenant), and not our identification with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
The crux is what the relevant passages teach about what baptism pictures.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I agree that Romans 6 is speaking baptism; but what kind of baptism? The ordinance? Or, the baptism of the Spirit which imparts regeneration? No matter which way you take it, Romans 6 isn’t usually taken literally. For example:
- No Christian has literally been “buried” with Christ through baptism unto death. This is a figure - but a figure for what?
- We have not literally been raised with Christ from death by the Father, and thus commanded to walk in newness of life
This baptism has been seen as either the ordinance itself or as regeneration. Baptists interpret this passage as teaching what the ordinance symbolizes. We are born again (Figure #1) , and thus we identify with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection - our old self is dead, buried, and has been raised to newness of life in Christ (Figure #2). This is what Berkhof called “a figure of a figure.” The Reformed position sees only a single figure - the baptism of the Spirit in regeneration which raised us to new life.
It seems to me that both positions understand the “baptism” is not literal.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Then there is:
And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’ -Acts 22:16
Ananias was speaking in a figurative way of washing away sins.
Baptism is a picture, a symbol of salvation, but it is not salvation nor a part of salvation. That baptism is a picture or symbol of salvation is shown in 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12.
Notice before Paul (Saul) was baptized, but after he believed, Ananias called him, “Brother Saul” (Acts 22:13), thereby recognizing his salvation.
Notice also that Ananias, in speaking of washing away your sins included, “calling on the name of the Lord.”
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2015/12/baptismal-regeneration-is-b…
David R. Brumbelow
[pvawter]Well, Paul in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 makes a direct connection between burial and baptism, so there’s that. Nothing about washing there. I know it’s popular to see baptism pictured in Titus 3 (washing of regeneration), but Paul doesn’t even mention baptism there. I frankly don’t see any reason to connect baptism to washing in the NT.
The big thing I can think of that suggest associating washing with baptism is that at times, it’s the same word—the same “dipping” that occurs in baptism occurred in a hilltop city (e.g. Jerusalem) where running water per the Roman aquaduct model was impossible. There can be some ambiguity in “baptizo”. Just like the “rantists” need to be careful lest they assume the ordinance whenever they see the word, and to assume the diverse meanings might mean “affuse” or “sprinkle”, we need to remember the same thing. Baptizo can refer to a number of actions that involve immersion—or would have in Israel for the most part.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]While it’s true that the sematic range of baptizo includes washing, and it is even used that way in Mark 7, Luke 11, and Hebrews 9, the contexts of those passages make it abundantly clear that the ordinance is not in view there. When the ordinance is clearly in view, however, the symbolism of washing is curiously absent, with the possible exception of Paul and Ananias in Acts. I just think that there needs to be a much stronger exegetical reason to connect the ordinance of baptism with symbolic washing before it can supercede the burial symbol which is plainly stated by Paul.The big thing I can think of that suggest associating washing with baptism is that at times, it’s the same word—the same “dipping” that occurs in baptism occurred in a hilltop city (e.g. Jerusalem) where running water per the Roman aquaduct model was impossible. There can be some ambiguity in “baptizo”. Just like the “rantists” need to be careful lest they assume the ordinance whenever they see the word, and to assume the diverse meanings might mean “affuse” or “sprinkle”, we need to remember the same thing. Baptizo can refer to a number of actions that involve immersion—or would have in Israel for the most part.
I can’t vouch for Roman Aqueducts, but Biblical and historical evidence indicates that Jerusalem was replete with many public pools, such as the Pool of Bethesda, and others. No support for a non-immersion position with the ready availability of suitable pools of water. There was plenty of water.
G. N. Barkman
Discussion