Introduction
The use and practice of baptism in the church is a very important issue for many reasons, not the least of these is because the Lord commanded that it be done. The extent and execution of the practice of baptism, however, is widespread and various. In the time of Pentecost, there seems to have been practiced only one type of Christian baptism. However, when the church was still young, around the second and third centuries, different beliefs and practices began to emerge. Today, there are dozens of different beliefs and forms of baptism from the sprinkling of infants, to the submerging of babies, to the submerging of professing believers. The mode of baptism is being practiced different ways. More importantly, there are widespread ideas on the results of baptism. Does baptism save a soul doomed to hell? Does baptism merely cover the sins of a child until adulthood when the child may accept his parent’s faith for himself? Does baptism merely symbolize a person’s salvation? How important is it for a believer to be baptized? The beliefs on baptism are as widespread as its execution.
This issue has immense importance in the church. If salvation comes through baptism alone, as some believe, then it is essential that it be practiced and understood correctly. If salvation comes from baptism and other “sacraments”, then it is just as important to practice correctly. If, however, baptism is merely symbolic and offers no avenue of saving grace, then it has been misunderstood and abused for almost eighteen hundred years. Furthermore, if baptism is merely symbolic, how important is it to become baptized? Why is it still practiced today?
This paper will look historically and modernly at the teaching of baptismal regeneration and its use in the church, then try to point out the validity of its major proponents. We will look at the various strengths of different views on baptism, and conclude that the symbolic use of baptism is the one most closely taught and practiced in Scripture.
Baptism in the Scriptures
In the Bible, baptism is tied to following the message of Christianity. There is no debate among scholars today that baptism is important and not an optional act for an obedient Christian. It is commanded by God. The debate is then, how is baptism practiced in the Scriptures?
From the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry, baptism is seen in the Scripture. It is a valid argument to look at the Scriptures, both the narratives and the commandments on baptism, to come away with an idea of how baptism should be practiced.
Scriptural Support for Baptism as Symbolic
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. There is little question that Christian baptism originated in the practice of John the Baptist. Baptism in Jewish practice was a rite that identified the one being baptized with the teaching of the one performing the baptism. Therefore, when Jesus was baptized he was identifying Himself with the teaching of John the Baptist. John’s message was twofold. John preached repentance and the coming of the Messiah. By being baptized by John, Jesus not only validated John’s teaching, but identified Himself to the public as the Messiah, the One who “is coming that is mightier than I (John), and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals” (John 1:27). As the Spirit descends on Jesus during His baptism, Jesus begins His ministry. After taking this information into consideration, could one come away thinking that Jesus needed to be baptized by John for salvation? Did Jesus even need to repent? Of course not, Jesus simply was baptized by John to identify Himself with John’s teaching, to identify Himself as the Messiah and to begin His ministry. It is clear that the origin of Christian baptism is far away from anything that remotely resembles baptismal regeneration.
It is also clear in the use and teaching of the NT that baptism takes place after conversion, in fact in most scriptural accounts on the teaching of salvation, baptism is not even mentioned. In their book Across the Spectrum, Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy point out, “Though Jesus did not personally baptize people (John 4:2), His message was essentially the same as John’s “The kingdom of God has come near,” He taught so people must “repent and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15). What made a person a participant in the kingdom of God was his or her willingness to repent, believe, and obey the gospel. This is why Jesus’ disciples baptized only people who were old enough to be made disciples.” Again, plain biblical teaching does not allow for baptism to take place prior to belief. Baptism is not even an essential part of the salvation process.
Boyd and Eddy go on to overwhelmingly prove, from Scripture, that baptism is only after full conversion to Christianity:
Baptism is an act of discipleship that can be entered into only by people old enough to be disciples. This is why every example of baptism in the New Testament involves a person old enough to decide to follow Christ. Never do we read about infants being baptized.
For example, it was only after the Samaritans “believed Philip” as he preached the good news that “they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). It was only after the Ethiopian eunuch embraced the good news about Jesus that he was baptized (Acts 8:35-38). The apostle Paul was baptized after he encountered Jesus and obeyed the heavenly vision (Acts 9:18). Peter commanded Cornelius and his household to be baptized only after he saw evidence of their faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 10:44-48). It was only after God opened Lydia’s heart and she believed that she and her household were baptized (Acts 16:14-15). And it was only after the disciples of John the Baptist accepted Paul’s teaching about Jesus that they were baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” and received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:5-6). Without exception, baptism follows faith and constitutes the first act of discipleship made by a responsible person who has decided to follow Jesus.
From here, one can look at many other instances of baptism in the NT and see how baptism developed into a rite that allowed one’s entrance into the body of believers. In Acts 8:35-39, we see the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch:
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.”
It is profitable to make a few observations about how Philip practiced baptism. First, as stated above, the eunuch was baptized after he believed. After the eunuch inquired whether or not he could be baptized, Philip replied, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” Not only is it clear that belief preempted Philip’s requirements for baptism, but confident belief preempted his requirements, belief with all your heart. Secondly, we see that baptism was immediately followed after conversion. Many people and churches throughout history emphasized the immediacy of baptism after conversion. Thirdly, we see that this conversion was not for membership into a local church, but merely done out of a desire to be obedient. All of these factors can be seen in other NT accounts of baptism including the Apostle Paul’s baptism in Acts nine.
Looking at only the biblical narratives, one may come to the conclusion that the Baptist, or believer’s baptism, view of baptism is most accurate, however, there are some difficulties.
Scriptural Support for Baptismal Regeneration
It is understandable that various views of baptism develop. There is not one explicit passage in the Bible teaching the correct view of baptism. There are various narrative passages along with commandments on baptism, from where we can get implications on how to carry out baptism, but then there are references to the cleansing of baptism, which can be interpreted as baptismal regeneration. For instance, Paul writes in Romans 6, “Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The catholic or reformed theologian would argue that the sacrament of baptism is seen as regenerative in this verse. However, we must remember that the word baptism (Greek, baptizo) means immerse. Strong’s exhaustive Concordance defines baptize as “to make whelmed, i.e., fully wet” or “to cover fully with a fluid.” Greek lexicons define baptizo as “dip, immerse, plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm.” Baptism is transliterated from baptizo (to immerse) therefore when one reads Romans six we should read it as such. When Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ leading to eternal life, we should understand that it means being immersed into the life and death of Christ. An understanding of the Greek helps with the implications of many problem passages. Acts 2:38 is sighted by reformed theologian Richard L. Pratt Jr. as scriptural support of baptismal regeneration. There we read, “Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” It is understood by Pratt that baptism leads to the forgiveness of sin. However, when one takes notice that the word repent is used before the verb be baptized, and remembers that baptism can be interpreted as identifying oneself with the teachings of Christianity, one can easily come away thinking that it is through repentance and faith in Christ, not baptism, that we receive eternal life.
One of the strongest scriptural supports for baptismal regeneration is found in 1 Peter 3:17-22. Here we read:
“It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”
This is a difficult passage for those who do not subscribe to believer’s baptism. It is one that points to validity of baptismal regeneration. The writers of the Expositors Bible Commentary offer this response (note that the context of 1 Peter 3:17-21 is about the flood of Noah)
Although the parallel between the OT deliverance of Noah's family and NT salvation through Christ is not precise in every detail, Peter says that the water of the Flood-judgment portrays the water of baptism: "And this water symbolizes baptism." Baptism is an antitype (Gr. antitypos) or counterpart of the type (typos, cf. TDNT, 8:246-59). Baptism is the "copy," the "representation, or even the "Fulfilment" (BAG, p. 75) of the OT deliverance from judgment. How does baptism "save"? Peter says it does not concern an external washing from filth but relates to the conscience. In the proclamation of the gospel, salvation from sin and its punishment is announced through Jesus' death and resurrection. The announcement of the penalty for sin stirs the conscience and the spirit brings conviction (John 16:8-11; Acts 2:37 f.; 13:37-41).
"The pledge of a good conscience toward God" renders a difficult expression in Greek. The thought appears to be as follows: The conviction of sin by the Spirit in the mind calls for a response of faith or commitment to Christ and his work. This is concretely and "contractually" done in the act of baptism. Saving faith ("saving" because of its object—Christ) is expressed in baptism (cf. Acts 2:38-39). Salvation comes to men because Christ has risen from the dead.
This is, admittedly, not a strong refute of baptismal regeneration. There are various arguments attempting to refute the tie between baptism and regeneration in the teaching of Peter in this passage but many of them fall short, as they attempt to do expositional acrobatics around this passage. The strongest explanation of this passage that does not lead toward baptismal regeneration, is the consideration that the passage is teaching that what saves a person is what is represented by baptism, that is the resurrection of Jesus as referenced in verse 21, “It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This is also seen in the commentary referenced above. The saving object (Christ) is expressed and represented in baptism.
Roger M. Raymer offers another explanation. He says the context of the passage is persecution and being blessed under trials. This is seen in verses 13 and 14. Therefore, Raymer says that professing Christ through baptism would save them from a guilty conscience. He writes, “[Peter] exhorted them to have the courage to commit themselves to a course of action by taking a public stand for Christ through baptism. The act of public baptism would “save” them from the temptation to sacrifice their good conscience in order to avoid persecution…To make the source of salvation perfectly clear Peter added, ‘by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’” This is the closest that one can get to understand this passage as not teaching baptismal regeneration.
It is reasonable to assume that in Peter’s thinking baptism in some way is tied to salvation. An interpretation of this nature is understandable from the superficial reading of the text. However, we know that no text stands alone and all of Scripture must be taken into account. The passages in the previous section show us that, without a doubt, salvation is from faith alone before baptism. These passages need to be taken into consideration. One has to stop and ask if there is a more logical explanation for Peter’s statement in 1 Peter 3:21. Because of the rest of Scripture, including Peter’s own words of Acts 10:47, it is next to impossible to be fair to Scripture and keep the view of Peter teaching baptismal regeneration.
Historical Development of Baptismal Regeneration
There is some debate among scholars about when baptism was first believed to carry saving grace. However, when this was accepted, the baptizing of infants closely followed. Around the second half of the third century, baptism became a ceremonial rite that established membership in to the church, both the local church and the universal church. Baptism was done after interviewing a candidate on the acceptance of the Apostles Creed. There was also a great deal of ceremony and preparation. Everett Ferguson gives an account of the ceremony of baptism from the writings of Tertullian around 200 AD.
After a period of instruction that could last three years, the candidate was examined and prepared for the baptism to occur on the night before Easter Sunday. The Holy Spirit was petitioned to come upon the baptismal waters; the candidates disrobed, renounced Satan and all his works, and was anointed with the oil of exorcism to banish all evil spirits. Standing in the water, the candidate confessed faith in each person of the Trinity and was immersed three times, once after each confession. Then the candidate was anointed, reclothed, and anointed again with the laying on of hands (symbolizing the reception of the Holy Spirit). The congregation gave the kiss of peace, and the baptismal eucharist followed.
It is easy to see the natural transition from the over-performed ceremony of baptism to the belief that this rite bestowed salvation. Tertullian’s are the earliest of the church father’s writings we have today that point to baptismal regeneration. In one of his writings, he discusses that Abraham’s generation was saved by bare faith, however, in the current age; faith is “amplified” by baptism to salvation, “Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added with the sacrament, viz., and the sealing act of baptism.”
After it was believed and preached by church fathers, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was passed on to many great church leaders of the ancient church. Augustine for instance was a master of theology and still taught that baptism bestows salvation. In fact, many times in his writing Augustine calls the baptistery the “laver of regeneration.” Augustine does not deny that faith in Christ leads to salvation, but simply teaches that baptism does the same. In City of God he writes, “For whichever unbaptized persons die, confessing Christ, this confession is as effective for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, ‘Whoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.’”
The official Catholic Church taught baptismal regeneration exclusively. Until the reformation age, anyone who denied baptismal regeneration was accepted into the church. That did not mean that nobody tried to preach a more pure doctrine. In the 12th century alone, a few evangelical preachers sprang up teaching against baptismal regeneration. Of note was a pair of evangelical preachers in the south of France named Peter de Bruys and his successor Henry of Lausanne. Both men were widely popular, charismatic preachers who viciously opposed the sacramental teaching of the Catholic Church. Five of their teachings they were condemned for. The abbot of Cluny called the teachings “five poisonous bushes.” They were, “(1) The baptism of persons before they have reached the years of discretion is invalid. Believers’ baptism was based upon Mark 16:16, and children, growing up, were rebaptized. (2) Church edifices and consecrated altars are useless. (3) Crosses should be broken up and burnt. (4) The mass is nothing in the world. (5) Prayers, alms, and other good works are unavailing for the dead.” Peter de Bruys and Henry of Lausanne were condemned to death. Peter was burned at the stake in 1126 and Henry was put into prison until he died in 1148.
Baptismal regeneration was one of the issues discussed at the Council of Trent along with other sacraments. Under the influence of Thomas Aquinas, the council affirmed the use of baptism as well as six other sacraments as a means of obtaining salvation. On baptism, they declared, “if anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.” This was, in part, a response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the new founded reformation.
After the reformation, baptismal regeneration was still widely held by Protestants and Catholics alike. The centuries of belief in infant baptism had its sway on the post-reformation preachers. Many people did not want to break from this doctrine. Around the 15th century baptismal regeneration evolved from a belief that the Spirit was on the baptismal waters and sealed salvation, to a belief that in God’s grace, He has allowed men who would later choose to accept or reject Him to be saved by baptism in infancy. This also is an example of the evolution to universal salvation continued in the second Vatican council which states that Jews and Muslims can be saved out of a desire to know God. Luther continued the practice of infant baptism, and many other reformist movements did as well.
Today, a large number of Protestant denominations practice infant baptism. There are a large number of writings that defend baptismal regeneration from both reformed and Lutheran theologians. The theology of baptismal regeneration in the Lutheran tradition changed to a non-universal salvation. G. W. Bromiley explains, “Where infant baptism is practiced, it is right and necessary that those who grow to maturity should make their own confession of faith. But they do so with a clear witness that it is not this that saves them, but the work of God already done for them before they believed. The possibility arises, of course, that they will not make this confession or do so formally. But this cannot be avoided by a different mode of administration. It is a problem of preaching and teaching. And even if they do not believe or do so normally, their prior baptism as a sign of the work of God is a constant witness to call or finally to condemn them.” In this definition of the Lutheran view, we see baptism evolving to a practice that condemns the baptized unbeliever.
In the reformed tradition, baptism is a sacrament that not only gives grace to the infant, but also blesses those involved. Pratt explains, “Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place through a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith.” It is interesting to note the evolution of the theology from what it was under catholic theology.
Even though the reformed theologians do not accept the revelation given to the papacy, they do, however, accept the sacramental belief not at all based on Scripture. Pratt continues, “Spiritual realities occur in conjunction with baptism, but the Scriptures do not explain in detail how baptism and divine grace are connected. Thus, Reformed theology speaks of a connection as a ‘sacramental [i.e., mysterious] union.’” In Reformed tradition, the word sacrament (as first adopted by Catholics in the Council of Trent), is a transliteration of the Vulgate word mystery.
During the reformation movement, some more extreme reformers gained in popularity and were dubbed “Anabaptists.” The Anabaptists were a movement that developed in Zurich. They are known for many things, among them they are seen as the first major reformist movement that saw baptism as symbolic. They began to baptize believers that were already baptized as infants. This shocking practice was seen as a second dispersion of saving grace. Believer’s baptism was a view never widespread until their origin in the 16th century.
The Baptist movement has its roots tied in with the Anabaptists . They continue the tradition that baptism is a “believer’s privilege,” and developed the terminology and practice of baptism being one of only two “ordinances,” the other being the Lord’s Supper. Today, believer’s baptism is practiced by around 25 percent of Christendom.
Conclusion
Baptismal regeneration, despite its 1800 year long populous view, has no scriptural warrant. The proponents of the view use non-scriptural means to justify their belief. The Catholics have always accepted that Scripture is not the only revelation from God; instead every decree of the church was and is God’s Word. This belief set the ancient church system up for false interpretations to become doctrine. The indoctrination of baptismal regeneration set up a near two millennia popular tradition that is not easily rejected unless one desires to be seen as a radical. It is not the biblical view of symbolic baptism that is radical as much as it is the view of infant baptism that is radically contrary to Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture that lends itself to the baptizing of infants to salvation. The early church made a grave mistake of veering away from Scripture narrative and towards a personal eisegetical interpretation.
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is a rejection of soli fide, the belief that faith alone saves. Justification by faith is taught over and over in the Scriptures. The words of Jesus are rejected when one accepts baptismal regeneration. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Instead of a believer accepting unto himself or herself Jesus to have access to the Father, baptismal regeneration declares that the Father steers around Jesus to the baptismal waters that “bestow salvific grace” to a person that has not yet made the decision to sin, let alone to accept or reject Christ.
Furthermore, baptismal regeneration belittles the centrality of Calvary. The central theme of the entire Bible is the redemption and salvation of mankind. The cross is the climax of all Scripture. The gospel ends at the cross and the epistles have their foundation in the cross. The cross is the means by which we are saved and brought into God’s family. Baptismal regeneration replaces the cross with the baptistery. It can be argued that the devil has successfully used the “sacraments” as a means of accomplishing his goal of keeping as many people as possible from becoming right with God. If any man or woman trusts in anything besides Christ’s death on the cross for forgiveness of sin, then that soul is eternally condemned. Soli fide!
Bibliography
Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity Vol 1. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1984.
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005)
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Publishing Group 2009)
Armstrong, John, general editor. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishers, 2007
Gaebelein, Frank, general editor, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976
Walvoord, John, Zuck, Roy, editors, The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2000
Mead, Frank, Handbook of Denominations. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989
Boyd, Gregory, Eddy, Paul, Across the Spectrum. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2002
Strong, James, New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Ontario: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990
Bettenson, Henry, Maunder, Chris, editors, Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford: oxford University Press, 1999
Schaff, Philip, Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 3.Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2005,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.vi.iii.xiii.html (accessed May 2010)
Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church vol 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2005, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.xii.iv.html (accessed May 2010)
Ferguson, Everett, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity vol. 1. Garland,1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment