QUESTIONS ABOUT CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
QUESTIONS ABOUT CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
Virgil Warren, PhD
Doctrinal Questions
1. What is baptism for (meaning)?
First, in Christian baptism we identify with Jesus Christ. The New Testament means identification when it speaks of (a) being baptized “into Christ,” “into the name of Christ,” and similar expressions (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Galatians 3:27). We identify with the Messiah instead of with Moses (1 Corinthians 10:1-2) or John the Baptist (Acts l9:1-7) or the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:13-15). As a result, we belong to Christ (1 Corinthians 3:22-23; 1:12). Paul means identification when he says that by baptism we are (b) “united with Christ” (1 Corinthians 6:5). Baptism is a pledge of allegiance to him in which we commit ourselves to his purposes, values, and motivations. We make that commitment to the extent of the death that baptism pictures.
Second, on the basis of our identity with Christ, God forgives our sins, grants fellowship with his Spirit, and numbers us among his people. In respect to forgiveness, (a) we are baptized into Christ and in him there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1). (b) Several passages of scripture associate baptism with forgiveness because baptism identifies us with Christ who saves: “. . . repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:38); “. . . be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16; compare Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:20-21).
(c) The New Testament pictures baptism as the last act in the cluster of responses that precede forgiveness. Paul had come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the promised Messiah, because Christ had appeared to him on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:1-l9; 22:5-21; 26:12-23). By fasting for three days, he demonstrated his repentance (Acts 9:9). Then a man named Ananias came and told Paul to get baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16).
(d) Baptism is a visible act that occurs at a specific time. It helps us mark the beginning of our identity with Jesus Christ and the time when God saves us. In many respects salvation is a process, as in developing sufficient trust and repentance to commit ourselves to Christ. Forgiveness happens at a point in time because a person is either forgiven or not.
The gift of the Spirit comes logically after forgiveness. Since sin separates us from God, fellowship with God in the person of the Spirit can come when sin is removed. The Holy Spirit is personal, as we see from the fact that he can be blasphemed (Matthew 12:13), lied to (Acts 5:3), tempted (Acts 5:9), resisted (Acts 7:1), grieved (Ephesians 4:30), and insulted (Hebrews 10:29). He communicates (Romans 8:26), and knows (Acts 15:28), and serves as our Advocate (John 14:16, 26; l6:7). Since he is personal and we are persons, having the Spirit means primarily that we are now in fellowship with him.
The Spirit (a) guides us through the scripture (Hebrews 3:7-11), through circumstance, through other Christians, and through the sheer fact that we know he is the real presence of God with us. He also (b) empowers us through his presence (Ephesians 3:16); that enables us to become more holy (1 Corinthians 6:11), experience freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17), receive comfort (Acts 9:31), bear spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22, 25), and be supplied in every way necessary (Philippians 1:19). The Spirit (c) intercedes for us when we cannot find words to express our thoughts and feelings (Romans 8:26-27). Lastly, God’s Spirit (d) unites us in fellowship, edification, and evangelism (Ephesians 4:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12). These benefits are uniform for all Christians; anything further is up to God’s special decision to provide.
Since the Spirit’s presence is associated with forgiveness, it is not surprising that scripture associates the gift of the Spirit with our obedience in Christian baptism: “Repent and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
Church membership comes from forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit. We join the company of all those who share the presence of Christ and the Spirit through remission of sins. Baptism identifies us with Jesus Christ, who is creating in himself a new united mankind (Ephesians 2:15). The church membership involved here is not that of a local congregation or even particularly the body of those known in the world as Christians—often called the “visible church.” Most specifically it is the “invisible church,” the company of those saved through identification with Jesus Christ. On Pentecost and afterward, those who repented and were baptized the Lord added together to form the growing church (Acts 2:41, 47). Today he continues to number among his people those who commit themselves to Christ in Christian baptism.
So baptism is for this cluster of matters that combine to lead to forgiveness of sin, gift of the Holy Spirit, and union with the body of Christ, the church.
2. Who should be baptized (candidate)?
Baptism is for everyone who believes in Jesus as the Christ, repents of sins, and is willing to commit to Christ as Lord. Obviously, disbelievers do not participate here. But a second group is also not in view: unbelievers. For the most part, this group includes those too young to understand and appreciate the gospel appropriately, meet its expectancies, or need the benefits of salvation as yet. (a) All the examples of baptism in the New Testament involve believers. Mass conversions mention both men and women, but never children (Acts 5:14; 8:12; 17:4, and so on). Several large households were converted (Acts 10:44-48; 11:12-18; 16:13-15, 27-34; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:14, 16; 16:15, 17). We would suppose some infants and young children were included in them, but those baptized are described in ways that are aside from children: they spoke in languages, they believed, they heard the gospel and rejoiced greatly, they gave themselves to ministry. Although young children were probably present, baptism did not apply to them because they do not need what it portrays and they cannot do what it calls for.
(b) The purpose of baptism applies to sinners. Earlier we noted that forgiveness is the first result God gives to those who identify with Christ. Baptism is the covenant sign of the New Covenant. Jeremiah described that future covenant by saying, “I will forgive their iniquity; I will not remember their sin any more” (31:34; compare Hebrews 8:7-13). Christ’s covenant is a salvation covenant because it intends to make people righteous, not just to describe what righteousness is (Hebrews 7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1-2). Infants, of course, have not personally sinned, and sins done in ignorance are not held against a person, so Paul can say in Romans 7:9, “I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died.” Infants are not considered guilty of other people’s sins (Ezekiel l8:l9-20). They have no sin of their own to be forgiven, so baptism does not apply to them.
(c) The requirements that precede baptism have to do with adults. Baptism involves more than the physical act itself. It includes the belief, repentance, confession, trust, and commitment that surround it. Otherwise, baptism would be little more than taking a bath (1 Peter 3:21). Infants and very young girls and boys cannot as yet do these things in the way conversion calls for.
In summary, only believers are baptized. Infants do not receive baptism because there is no example of it, no need for it, and no possibility of it.
3. How is baptism done (form)?
Baptism submerges us in water and raises us up again. In so doing, we re-enact the burial and resurrection of Jesus. The use of water in this submersion pictures cleansing (Acts 22:16; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22)—cleansing from sin made possible by the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, which he carried to the point of death in obedience to the Father.
Three considerations show that baptism is an act of immersion rather than sprinkling or pouring, as is often supposed. First is the meaning of the Greek word baptizō. The term meant to dip, immerse, overwhelm, and the like. It was never translated into another language by words meaning sprinkle or pour. In fact, there are some texts where the word contrasts with these other actions (Leviticus 4:6-7; 9:9; Numbers 19:18 in the Greek translation, the LXX). One interesting text appears in an early second-century writing called The Didache. After commanding the reader to baptize (baptizō) in cold, running water in the name of the trinity, the document continues, “If you have neither [running or still water], pour (χέω) water on the head three times. . . .” The unknown author wαs giving directions on what to do in cases when what the Lord commanded could not be done. So pouring stands parallel to baptizing. Besides, the natural direct object of baptize (βαπτίζω) is the solid, the person baptized; pouring (χέω) and sprinkling (ῤαντίζω) have the liquid, water, as their direct object. People pour and sprinkle water; they immerse people
New Testament examples of baptism provide a second kind of evidence. Here we are dealing with descriptions of how they did the rite. In some cases, the text makes clear that the candidate was in the water, which is unnecessary for sprinkling or pouring (Mark 1:9-11). The one performing the baptism was also in the water with the candidate (Acts 8:36-39). The reason John the Baptist baptized at Aenon near Salem was that a good supply of water was there (John 3:23). There was an implied change of location in the baptism of the Philippian jailer’s household, something not expected if a small amount of water was involved (Acts 16:32-34).
The meaning of baptism confirms immersion as its form of action. In Romans 6:4-5 Paul makes baptism a likeness of Christ’s death and resurrection, and says that baptism buries us with him. The word for “likeness” here seems to go beyond similarity in meaning to similarity in form (compare Romans 1:23; Philippians 2:7; Revelation 9:7). It is especially appropriate that, in identifying with Christ, we should re-enact the distinctive act of his ministry. It buries our old self and its way of living and resurrects us to a new way of life that is not based on physical and material values. By symbolically re-enacting Jesus’ act, we commit ourselves to that same extent of obedience to the Father.
4. Who is supposed to do the baptizing (administrator)?
In the examples of baptism, we see an indifference to who did the baptizing. (a) Jesus and Paul usually did not perform the baptisms themselves (John 4:1-2; 1 Corinthians 1:13-17). (b) Paul did not immediately appoint leadership when he founded churches (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5); so there would not have been any official “clergy” to baptize converts meantime. (c) Extensive “lay” missions sprang up when the early Jewish persecution scattered Christians everywhere (Acts 8:4). We have little reason to think there were official “clergy” in each group of fleeing Christians who proclaimed their faith. (d) Paul made disciples quite soon after his own conversion and before a time when we suppose he would have been officially “ordained.” We may note that there are no examples of self-administered baptism.
In the teaching material of the New Testament, no direct point is ever made about who should baptize. The question must be settled by inference from basic issues. Salvation deals with reconciling people to God and to each other; so we say that salvation is interpersonal. Evangelism, the church, and baptism are also interpersonal because they come from something interpersonal. Interpersonal purposes are not accomplished by legal means. If baptism is an interpersonal act, baptism is the candidate’s obedience to Christ rather than something someone else administers to him. The benefits of identity with Christ are given directly by God to the believer rather than given indirectly through the administrator of the baptism—through the church by the “clergy.” The interpersonal character of salvation does not make official action necessary.
In summary, the New Testament does not specify, the nature of salvation does not require, and the examples of baptism do not illustrate clerical baptism.
5. What must be said at baptism to make it valid (formula)?
We often use the statement in the Great Commission, not as a pronouncement, but as a description: “. . . baptism into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Another description is “baptism in the name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). Scripture preserves no record, however, of a prescribed statement used at baptisms. The concern is not so much what is said, but what is understood and believed by the one being baptized.
6. How does baptism in water relate to baptism in the Holy Spirit (occasion)?
To answer this question, we must know what “baptism in the Spirit” and related expressions mean. Two views exist with variants within them. First (1), baptism in the Spirit applies to all individuals that are baptized into Christ. It (a) equates with the terminology “gift of the Spirit.” Baptism in the Spirit equals what is often called the “indwelling gift of the Spirit.” Since we have elsewhere concluded that the gift of the Spirit is one benefit of identity with Christ, we say here that God baptizes in the Spirit when people get themselves baptized into Christ. Baptism in the Spirit may be regarded as part of the total baptism event. The baptism terminology originated with John the Baptist’s declaration to his audiences that the Lamb of God would baptize in the Spirit in succession to his own baptism in water (Matthew 3:11; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 2:4; 11:16). Another term for it is “outpouring of the Spirit” (Acts 2:17, 33 < Joel 2:28-32; 10:45)
A variant of the individual experience of the Spirit (b) considers the term a reference to a divine act aside from salvation that includes supernatural manifestation. Usually this sign is speaking in languages. 1 Corinthians 12:13 indicates that everyone is baptized in the Holy Spirit (at least as Paul used the expression there). But no doctrinal statement declares that all believers experience supernatural manifestation, and the conversion accounts in the Book of Acts do not uniformly involve miracle (Mark 16:11-15, 25-34). “Baptism in the Spirit” cannot be shown, then, to include miracle. The concern in salvation is not supernatural experiences anyway, but personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. So we answer that baptism in the Spirit in this sense does not correlate particularly with the occasion of Christian baptism.
Another variation defines baptism in the Spirit as (c) a reference to what the Spirit does in “regenerating” people so they can believe and grow in Christ. Unsaved people are regarded as depraved, or spiritually dead; they have biologically inherited from Adam a “fallen nature” that resulted from Adam’s sin. Unless God supernaturally corrects the defect, a person cannot believe or grow spiritually. Sometimes baptism is associated with this spiritual operation. However, we do not make that connection or hold to the doctrine called “baptismal regeneration.” We doubt, for one thing, that it can be shown that Adam had a lower capacity for spiritual matters after he sinned than before; even if he did, we do not see reason to believe it was passed on genetically to his descendants. Not being convinced that persons are depraved in spiritual capacity, we naturally do not suppose under any terminology that any supernatural correction of the defect occurs at baptism or elsewhere.
A final variant of the individual application of the Spirit’s work has been associated with (d) a second definite work of grace that rids believers of “the last vestiges of inbred sin.” This doctrine of “entire sanctification” claims that the Spirit enables believers to live a perfect life of love. The grounds for the idea rest on an unnecessary reading of 1 John 3:9; so we do not offer it as something to anticipate in the Spirit’s work. Besides, it builds a second story on the doctrine of natural depravity, which we do not espouse either.
The second general view is that (2) “baptism in the Spirit” indicates the original descent of the Spirit on the church representatively at Pentecost for Jews (Acts 1:5; 2:1-4) as well as by extension on the household of Cornelius representatively for Gentiles (Acts 10:44-48). The primary outpouring marked the Messianic movement of Jesus with divine approval; the secondary outpouring marked God’s approval on Gentiles as recipients of the same gospel message. Under this view of the term “baptism in the Spirit,” it refers to something that happened once and for all time at the beginning of the church, and so it is not a recurring event with individuals in any sense at their baptism or at any other time. It happened to some as representatives of the whole body of Christ.
In summary, as a matter of standard procedure, immersion is God’s appointed act for expressing personal identification with Jesus Christ. In consequence of our identity with him, God forgives our sin, grants us fellowship with him in the person of the Spirit, and numbers us among his children.
Practical Questions
1. What about people that have been immersed for other reasons?
We stated earlier that in baptism we identify ourselves with Christ. Forgiveness of sins, gift of the Spirit, and church membership come from God on the basis of that union with him and commitment to him. Baptism, then, logically precedes the benefits God gives, even though for practical purposes we may view it all as happening simultaneously (chronologically). For this reason, scripture can say in abbreviated manner that baptism is into (Christ in whom there is) remission of sins (Acts 2:38), or it can even say that baptism (unites us with Christ who) saves us (1 Peter 3:21).
Some Christians fear that associating baptism with salvation creates the impression that we are saving ourselves by something we do. The problem here is that they attach undo significance to their own actions, which can result in pride. They fear also that baptism becomes a work in the sense of a legal transaction: if people follow the procedure, they receive salvation. The problem of being superficial and external comes into the situation. Instead of associating baptism with salvation, people with these concerns reinterpret baptism as what brings us into the visible church or as an outward sign of a previous inward grace (salvation), as an act by which we witness our salvation to others, or as an act that forgiveness, etc., goes on “at the same time of.”
Our opinion has been that when people obey God gives the benefits of obedience. Adult believers have obeyed Christ’s command. He is the one who gives the benefits; the candidate’s understanding does not determine the benefits. This last point we do not mean in an extreme sense. Obviously, if there was no awareness of what was going on and no recognition of Christ as Savior, blindly going through a ritual would not be effective. But these believers are doing the same things we are. They are coming to God through Christ. They baptize in his name, not in someone else’s. They believe, repent, confess, and trust Christ. They understand that forgiveness of sins is integral to that process. The main difference lies in where during the total process they see forgiveness occurring. Besides, an interpersonal process has less naturally a precise point when the desired effect occurs.
Although baptism is an interpersonal act, an illustration from legal procedure may communicate what we are saying. In buying a home, I may not be sure when I actually take possession of the property. Is it when I sign the papers? when the deed is recorded? when I pay the previous owner? I don’t necessarily need to know precisely when. I know that the purpose of this process is to gain possession of the house, and I make sure to do everything that is expected. So I own the home. If such is true in legal procedure, how much more it would seem to be so when we deal with a personal God who knows our hearts and can foresee what else we are intending to do.
2. What do we do with requests to be baptized for reasons other than the ones described above?
The primary conviction here is that God determines the benefits of his appointed acts. That is not done by the candidate or the administrator. When we obey him, he grants what he has promised. Our understanding does not determine the exact meaning of our responses. If people are willing to affirm the wording scripture uses about the significance of this act, we can go ahead and help them obey the Lord. Of course, studying the Bible together should accompany the baptism in any case. Perhaps in that endeavor there can be clarification about the meaning God intends baptism to have.
3. How old does a person have to be to be baptized?
Determining the age for baptism amounts to deciding how early baptism can legitimately occur. Everyone agrees that we may do it when we are old enough; so the question is not how late, but how soon. Since we have no explanation, commandment, precedent, or even example we must settle the issue from basic doctrine and awareness of human development with perhaps some input from cultural considerations. In a sense, where there is no commandment there is no disobedience, but we are still faced with concern for expediency, propriety, and effectiveness.
How we ask a question can affect what kind of answer we can gain. In this instance, we complicate the problem by the way we ask the question: we are asking a point-in-time or question (point) about a degree matter (process). Whether people are old enough supposes a point in time when they become old enough, but (a) growing up is a degree matter. We know from experience that we are dealing with a degree question, so we should not expect to find a point-in-time solution.
(b) Baptism unto Christ for remission of sin deals with standard procedure. The age for baptism poses no problem unless the youngster dies unbaptized after what we might suppose is his the age of accountability. Since most children past this age grow to maturity, mortality during the uncertain years is exceptional, and we must treat it under the principles that apply to special cases like those discussed below in question #5.
Being old enough to sin does not necessarily mean needing salvation from the guilt of sin because (c) God can choose not to count sin against us—impute sin to us. Being in error does not require being held in error. God knows that baptism has been delayed, not out of a desire to disobey, but out of a desire to obey properly. Withholding questionable obedience is not disobedience; there is an important difference in motive. The Father knows that the heart of the young believer is right, and he realizes that his own revelation has left this question open.
What seems natural to the timing of baptism for younger people are matters like the following. The young person understands what obedience to God means, what sin and guilt are, what forgiveness is, what following Christ entails, and what loving him means.
(d) Baptism in water is a positive command. Unlike belief, repentance, confession, commitment, or trust, baptism did not have to become part of what salvation calls for. God could have selected some other act for commitment to Christ. The significance of baptism is something God has assigned to it; otherwise, it would not mean what it does. All the more, then, it is clear that God can save without it should conditions warrant and standard procedure not apply. And we can trust him to treat us fairly in unrevealed matters.
In Perelandra (p. 118) C. S. Lewis nicely describes a positive commandment: it is a commandment we do simply out of love. Such a motive and meaning contrast with doing it out of fear, duty, or inherent necessity. These other motives would be the case if we did not understand the interpersonal character of Christian process and therefore the interpersonal character of acts done within it. Moral commandments derive from the nature of the purpose and nature of things that reflect that purpose. So, obedience to moral commandments is additionally because we do them to bring about the more satisfying life that they produce.
(e) Christian baptism is an interpersonal act. Since an interpersonal process can operate by degrees, we can buy time for young people to “become.” Because this model can accommodate opposites, a person can be old enough for baptism, need forgiveness, and yet die “unlost” without receiving baptism, even though it is unto remission of sins. We are dealing with a personal God who loves before he condemns (John 3:16), who knows the intents of the heart, and who seeks our welfare through growth especially in the case of an inherently unnecessary act.
Since salvation deals with reconciling estranged persons, interpersonal principles establish and continue fellowship between God and people. As a part of that process, baptism has an interpersonal character rather than a legal one. It is not a church act as if the church administered it and dispensed the graces that accompany it. It is also not a church act because it is not primarily for bringing people into the church. The fact that baptism is not a legal act affects our present question because law provides only for the options indicated within the law. Alternatives do not exist because the law does not mention them. There is no basis for bringing them into the picture. A legal way of looking at salvation would require the conclusion that without baptism a young person could not be saved. An interpersonal way of looking at it has people wanting to do it when it becomes developmentally natural for them to do so and has God understanding why they may not have done it as yet even though they believe.
Baptism as an interpersonal act also affects the present question because legal matters have an either-or format: either people have sinned or not; either they are guilty or not; either they are old enough or not; either they will go to heaven or not. A problem like a candidate’s age cannot be solved because the real situation does not follow an either-or format. The difficulty arises from mixing a degree matter (human development) with an either-or question without adjustments (point in time when). The following pattern of thought summarizes the predicament:
If we are old enough to sin,
we are old enough to need salvation from sin.
If we need salvation from sin,
we are lost because baptism deals with remission of sins.
An interpersonal construction, however, can handle this matter because it adds possibilities from the person of God and takes matters of degree into consideration.
From principles above, we notice some factors that can move baptism later. (1) Baptism does not have to be hurried for fear of lostness if some calamity were to strike. On a more positive note, (2) the more maturity there is, the more meaningful the baptism will be for us because we will notice more aspects of the event. (3) Not pushing young people into baptism helps avoid their later concern about its validity. If they are quite young, the memory of it will fade more easily, so they tend later to doubt how well they understood what they were doing and what their motivations were. So parents and ministers ought not feel pressured to baptize them too soon and should minimize peer influences young people may be responding to. Above all things, parents must resist any temptation to suppose their children are precocious, an inclination that may be little more than a desire to feel superior to norm.
Some factors can move baptism earlier. A young person reared in a dedicated Christian environment has a better sense of matters like baptism and will want to be involved accordingly. By fostering growth afterwards, a strong Christian home can reinforce an early commitment. Church and family can help their youth make up in growth what may have been underdeveloped in birth.
The comments above only establish guidelines. No specific time exists because children differ in maturity rates, because growth is a process, and because growth occurs by degrees. It is helpful to note, however, that many cultures have a “right of passage” that happens about the time of puberty. Bar mitzvah among the Jews occurs at thirteen (compare Luke 2:41-51? Romans 7:9?). Christian communions that practice infant baptism put confirmation at about this same time, a time when young people make personal commitment to Christ. We often hear the expressions “age of accountability,” “age of responsibility,” “age of reason,” and even a phrase from antiquity “puberty of the soul.”
That stage of growth seems natural because people not only need to know right from wrong; they need to understand the consequences of their actions. People’s sexual awareness also awakens about this time. Commitment to Christ brings all aspects of our personhood, including sexuality, under his lordship. At this period in life also comes the socialization stage, when young people become more adept at looking at situations from the perspective of others. In their mental development, children can start thinking abstractly, so, increasingly they can operate according to principles rather than just in terms of concrete operations. Finally, at about junior high age young people begin dropping out of Sunday school, youth meetings, and the like. That behavior indicates that they have reached a time when they are making decisions about spiritual matters.
Taken together, the above considerations predict that baptism sooner than, say, nine or ten years old is not as natural. It would be better to aim at ten to thirteen as the minimum age for obedience in Christian baptism.
4. What happens if a minor wants to be baptized, but the parents forbid it?
The problem can be considered in light of much that helps answer the previous question. Baptism can be delayed until such time as the young person comes of legal age. For one thing, baptizing minors comes under matters of opinion. For another, we must recognize the principle that minors should honor their parents. Teenagers and those in junior high school may be using baptism as another occasion to assert independence, and we would not want to be party to anything detrimental to family relations. Sometimes the parents may understand more than a church worker does; they may really be doubting more the maturity of this desire to be baptized than they are objecting to their child’s obeying the Lord. A respectful discussion with the parents may clarify some misconceptions that lie behind their objections. They may suppose, for example, that their young persons are being baptized into the church, that unhealthy manipulation is being exerted on them, or that the church is interfering with their responsibility in raising their child. When patience allays these fears, they may consent. Mutual respect and time may solve the problem in a natural manner. An interpersonal understanding of salvation and baptism’s place in it can solve difficulties that can arise.
5. What should we do if someone decides to accept Christ in circumstances that make immersion difficult, if not impossible?
Over the years the church has taken two approaches to this problem. One has been to substitute something besides immersion that can be done in that situation. That is really where pouring and sprinkling came from originally. Instances of that were called “clinical baptisms.” The greater ease of sprinkling especially, combined later with infant baptism to become the normal “mode” of baptism in the state churches a few hundred years into the church era.
The second approach has been to consider special circumstances as beyond the scope of what New Testament practice and teaching addresses, and so to do nothing if baptism itself cannot be done. Dynamic factors like faith, repentance, commitment, prayer have to suffice when formal acts cannot be performed. This judgment reflects similar incidents in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus awarded salvation to the thief on the cross even though the condemned man could not do what the Old Testament law might have required for his cleansing (Luke 23:39-43).
Besides, the Mosaic Law made no provisions for the forgiveness of a capital crime, and the man on the cross—as an insurrectionist—beside Jesus may have been involved in murder like Barrabas was (Matthew 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:18-25; Acts 3:14-15). So they might partake of the Passover, King Hezekiah prayed for pilgrims from the Northern Kingdom who had not purified themselves “according to the purification of the sanctuary,” and the Lord “hearkened to Hezekiah and healed the people” (2 Chronicles 30:15-20). Without condemnation David and his soldiers illegally ate the showbread from the tabernacle when they were famished (1 Samuel 21:6; Luke 6:1-5, etc.). Particularly with ritual observances established by positive commandments, God has given precedence to personal considerations: he “desires mercy more than sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 12:7). He did not originally give commandment through Moses out of a desire to get sacrifices offered to him (Jeremiah 7:22-23). Special circumstances caused Sabbath regulations to be suspended (Luke 14:5; Matthew 12:5-6) even when it was necessary only for an animal’s welfare (Luke 13:15-16). Jesus stated the principle in saying that the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27; Exodus 23:12). In like manner, we take it, baptism was made for people, not people for baptism. Risking life and health misses the point: baptism does not have that kind of necessity—inherent necessity. As the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), so also, we believe he is Lord of baptism.
6. Does a person have to be baptized to observe the Lord’s Supper?
The question brings up another issue that scripture does not handle for us. It seems natural that observing communion would correlate with observing baptism. If the Lord’s Supper means what the Lord intended, participants would have something of the same understanding and commitment that makes baptism effective and enables it to be taken in a worthy manner. If they have that awareness, we might think that they could go ahead and be baptized. The thinking would be that whatever would keep them from being baptized would seem to disqualify them from observing the emblems.
But communion is a recurring observance more and so has more the character of worship than salvation or renewed salvation each time we observe it. Worship can occur aside from the salvation or baptism issues. We might understand the younger-age issue as lying among special cases akin to those who cannot be baptized or for those whose parents, perhaps, might forbid baptism but not communion. Not interfering with parents who bring their young six-year-olds with them to the communion table can be reimagined into occasions that teach them the meaning of Christ’s life, ministry, and death. That possibility might have arisen all the more in house churches where communion was observed as part of a love feast. Their intent of heart will have to dictate in such cases. We hesitate to consider such parental behavior as profaning something sacred on the analogy of Old Testament tabernacle exclusions. It seems appropriate to consider the observance of communion as part of worship that takes place in the gathered community.
We wonder in passing what circumstance could involve unworthy persons called “rocks in your love feasts” (Jude 12). Does Jude imply the ones who observed the Lord’s supper during their love feasts were not first vetted? Was their participation left to their own consequences. On the night of institution, Judas might still have been present when Jesus circulated the cup and loaf. After all, communion is not like baptism where another person is involved in accomplishing the event, another person who has to decide about administering the ordinance. Besides, communion is a recurrent observant that can more easily characterize it as an act of worship like singing and praying. So the theoretical correlations we drew between communion and baptism can be qualified by considerations such as these, especially on matters where revelation does not guide us.
7. What connection is there between baptism and church membership?
The conditions for church membership equal the conditions for salvation. We identify with Christ in Christian baptism; and on the basis of that identity, God not only forgives sin and gives his Spirit, but he adds us to his church (Acts 2:41). In short, we could then say that we are baptized into the one body, even though we do not think of baptism as first of all for bringing us into the church. A person is not saved from sin at one time and baptized into the church at another. It is not our understanding that people are saved when they offer a “sinner’s prayer,” for example. We believe that baptism was intended to serve, so to speak, as the sinner’s prayer: “. . . baptism . . . is the appeal for a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21). Everyone that is saved is also a member of the “body” visible and invisible. People sometimes connect local church membership with being baptism at that church or by ministers of that church. But the connection between baptism and membership is at the universal-church level. Considering candidates automatically as members of that local church is merely by custom. Furthermore, everyone in the universal church has a right to participate in any local expression of the church. The concept of local church membership is not evident in New Testament church practice; so it is well not to establish a second event for “joining the church” universal or local. See comments next in this essay about the practice of local church membership.
8. What attitude do we take toward adult believers who were sprinkled or even immersed as infants?
Immersionists do well to acknowledge a difference between baptism and other acts like believing, trusting, repenting, and committing ourselves to Christ. Baptism is a “positive” commandment, not one based on the nature of the case. It is not “inherently” necessary, but “necessary” because God commands it instead of some other act. In the Old Testament period there was salvation, but baptism had not been instituted; so salvation is possible without it. Faith, repentance, and commitment, however, arise from the very kind of thing salvation is. We see no inconsistency, then, in God’s saving those who sincerely misunderstand his will on this issue as long as the interpersonal factors are present. That is one reason we do not have to consider affusionists unsaved even though we believe immersion is God’s intention. It’s just that we have no right to speak for him that he will, in fact, honor this substitute; scripture does not directly address this question, and we do not know the heart of the person involved. One thing we can say: God is not trying to see how many people he can keep out of heaven.
Another thing we can say: if we expect God to play fair with us, we must play fair with him. We cannot expect him to accept substitute obedience unless we demonstrate sincerity by giving due effort to determine his intentions.
Local church membership is what raises the thorniest issue in relating to those baptized as infants. Since we have understood scripture as teaching believers’ immersion, we have a dilemma between honoring the authority of scripture as we understand it and honoring the faith of believers that we love in Christ. They are as committed to him as we are; they are also as convinced that infant baptism is scriptural as we are convinced that it is not. If we extend to them membership in our congregation because all those in the universal church have a right to membership in any local expression of it (“open membership”), then we seem to be denying that baptism is believers’ immersion. If we debar them from membership because scripture means believers’ immersion (closed membership), we imply that they are not saved. But we are not in a position to pronounce on the status of someone else’s servant. The problem is especially acute because it arises from our understanding of God’s will, not from God himself or from God’s will itself. Neither we nor they can proceed as if that distinction does not exist, but God has not expressed his will on the matter. Besides, the New Testament affords no example of formal local church membership, much less a precedent for it. Extending the “right hand of fellowship” (Galatians 2:9) was in regard to Christian fellowship, not local church membership.
Some observations appear to reduce the difficulty. Local church membership exists only for procedural purposes. Historically, it has safeguarded against outsiders taking over a congregation through the voting process. The main consideration is voting privileges in election of officers and in making other corporate decisions. Immersed believers from other congregations also do not participate in such matters “here.” Immersed believers under a certain age even within this congregation do not vote either. Strictly speaking, we make no more definite affirmation about the salvation of immersed believers in our own congregation than we do about unimmersed believers outside it. We try to affirm biblical truths in principle without making pronouncements on the status of specific persons. There is a distinction as well between qualifications for membership and qualifications for leadership. In addition to all these matters of custom, we do not automatically assume a democratic voting process in “the election of officers.”
While these observations help, they do not solve. Immersed believers from other congregations, for example, could become members of this congregation while paedobaptists could not. Immersed members not “of age” cannot vote; so membership is not simply for voting privileges. If we have no right to invite or debar because the supper is the Lord’s, how do we have a right to invite or debar because the church is the Lord’s? We participate together in worship, education, and fellowship, but feel inconsistent doing so in membership. The privilege of worship is different from the privilege of membership, we often say; but how is it different in a way that justifies one and forbids the other? The answer probably lies most in our concern for salvation itself as distinguished from those activities that grow out of it.
Certain possibilities have suggested themselves for addressing this dilemma. We could explore the possibility of non-membership. The difficulty in this whole matter comes from the concept of local membership itself. Open membership and closed membership may both imply something we feel uncomfortable affirming. Since it is procedural rather than biblical, maybe membership ought to be dispensed with. Choosing teachers, leaders, and workers would be done directly by the eldership and confirmed by the people. The congregation could continue to teach and practice believers’ immersion only.
Another option has been to adopt an interdenominational system among evangelicals and simply acknowledge that non-denominationalism may not always be possible. To avoid continual conflict over this and related issues, people can group themselves at the basic level. Provision can be made for regularly gathering the whole Christian community to maintain identity, reaffirm each other, and keep the lines of communication open.
Finally, we can remember that what we cannot solve in theory we can often solve interpersonally. The problem can be dealt with through proper attitudes, mutual respect, love, and caring. We can encourage these believers to participate fully in fellowship, study, and worship including communion. At the same time, we can study the matter together from scripture without putting pressure on each other to change practice before changing conviction.
9. How can people baptized at birth be baptized now without saying that they have been lost all that time in between?
The question may seem academic since the people can go ahead now and be baptized. But there are other people still in that circumstance; the problem is hardly academic in their minds. The fruit of the Christian life was present all those years; having the results without the status may raise questions about the Christian experience.
Some examples from the New Testament seem to oppose the thought that obeying now means being lost before. Evidently saved Jews could come to John’s baptism without denying their salvation before that time; otherwise, all Jews prior to John’s ministry were not sons of God. Disciples of John could be baptized in the name of Jesus without implying that the day before they heard the gospel they would have been lost if they had died (Acts 19:1-7). There is nothing improper about saved people being baptized into forgiveness of sins. Their obedience now amounts to a condition for continuing the status they have enjoyed all along. In these cases, we sometimes hear people say that candidates are completing their obedience or reaffirming their faith in Christ.
As with other matters in life, we make decisions from the information we have. When additional insight comes, we alter our decisions accordingly. Formerly we believed and acted in keeping with what we understood about baptism. Perhaps new insight calls for new action.
10. What do we say about departed loved ones who were baptized as infants, and so on?
We can always count on God to do the right thing as well as the loving thing. He appears to evaluate people by the light that they have (Romans 2:12-16). In the city of Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla became acquainted with an Alexandrian Jew named Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). In some way he had been preaching Jesus while knowing only the baptism of John. Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and “taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly.” Though he evidently did not understand some things correctly, he was not treated as an unbeliever outside the circle of the saved. The couple approached him as a man whose thinking needed adjusting by information he did not have yet. In the candidate and manner of baptism, we are dealing with believers close to us. Their distance from us hardly compares with that of a Muslim or Hindu or orthodox Jew. The matter calls for teaching more perfectly, not all-out evangelizing. God, who knows hearts, can deal with all people in their special circumstances.
11. Should we regard as valid the baptisms called “trine” immersion” and “Jesus-only” baptisms?
Trine baptism and Jesus-only baptism bring the trinity issue into the baptism act. Trine baptism performs the act three times instead of once. Threefold baptism attempts to incorporate into its form the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons. “Jesus-only” baptism is done in the name of Jesus. The conviction is that God is at least ultimately a single being; baptism then should be a single act. The featured contrast here is with trine baptism.
Our own practice has been to immerse once without conceiving of that act as a comment on the trinity question one way or the other. It appears to us that under a three-person view of trinity the more important truth anyway is the unity rather than the distinctness of Father, Son, and Spirit. The Great Commission does say, “baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”; it does not say “into the name of the Father and the name of the son and the name of the Holy Spirit.” Nor does it say, “into the names of the . . . .” That difficult doctrine does not have to be brought into the baptism act. New Testament examples of baptism do not indicate a threefold act, and no grammatical observation establishes the idea of multiple actions as baptism. The decision on that matter derives from reasonings about theological questions not expressly noted in the biblical teaching about baptism or in the examples of it.
Since we practice single-action baptism, the issue as far as we are concerned reduces itself to the trinitarian question. We prefer not to make the precise understanding of the trinity a matter of fellowship much less initial understanding required for salvation. Such an approach assumes, of course, a willingness to affirm the biblical statements and events that bear on the question. During time there must be enough distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit, for example, for the Son to pray to the Father, for the Father to send the Spirit, and for the Spirit to be “another” Advocate from the Son who prayed for his coming (John l4:16). There must be a legitimate way of understanding the statement that before the world the Word was “with” God. The Son can be legitimately pictured after time as on the right hand of God (Hebrews 12:2, etc.). We may not be able to conceive of the exact nature of the Father-Son-Spirit relationship because we may not know of anything comparable to it, the twoness-in-oneness of marriage being our closest comparison to the threeness-in-oneness of deity. Consequently, we can accept Jesus-only baptism because the issue does not necessarily affect the process of salvation or the experience of Christian living it leads to.
12. Is re-baptism sometimes done?
Requests for re-baptism are prompted by several reasons. For sake of consistency, we would not regard “re-baptism” as the best term for cases where someone comes who was “baptized” as an infant. We discuss that situation in questions #7 and #8 above. Since we believe in believers’ immersion, adults who have been sprinkled as babies do not represent cases of baptism. The matter of form in baptism is covered above in question #3 in part one.
Some requests may be withdrawn if satisfactory explanation can be given for not needing to be baptized again. These include asking to be baptized into this local congregation or being baptized again because the person comes from another Christian movement. Our acceptance of them as they are will probably be refreshing enough that they will not insist. People seek re-baptism because they have discovered a new dimension to it. They should probably anticipate learning even more about it later, but they are not re-baptized each time they do. Baptism does not connect so much with doctrinal understanding as it does with a Person.
We suggest as well that when people obey God, he gives the benefits he promises; we do not, by our understanding, determine the precise significance of the act; God’s intentions for the act transcend out understanding of it. Everyone realizes in general that it identifies us with the Messiah and that salvation is the central purpose of that identification. The ramifications of salvation will increasingly dawn on us over time, but that does not make our status with God suspect along the way. Since relationship with Christ is interpersonal, people will grow in their awareness of what the relationship means and what baptism into that relationship means. Several instances of baptism in the New Testament were apparently performed with people who had only a preliminary introduction to the Christian faith. The validity of baptism does not therefore depend on advanced theological awareness and understanding.
Such decisions about re-baptism may best be left up to the individuals. It is their response to Christ; we only assist them in it. They may feel that they were too young at the time of their baptism, were not sufficiently informed, were pressured by parents or church workers, or did it because other kids were getting baptized. We have already recommended the thought that what was lacking in birth can be made up in growth. If that notion does not seem satisfactory, it is better to assist them than frustrate them. Nevertheless, the instances of baptism in the New Testament were performed with people who had only a preliminary introduction to the Christian faith. Relationships with other persons is something everyone has a fairly good grasp of already.
Another such problem arises when people stray away from God for many years and later in life come to renewed appreciation for his presence in their lives. Scripture does not give us any clear precedents here. According to Acts 8, Simon Magus was baptized in Samaria and soon tried to buy “the gift of God” with money. Peter told him he was “in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity” and that Simon should pray for himself so the thought of his heart would perhaps be forgiven (18-24). The episode is unclear because Peter may not have meant by his description that he was in a lost condition at that later moment. At any rate, he did not command him to be baptized again, but to pray. That pattern could apply to situations like the one we are discussing. If so, it would call for rededicating a person’s life rather than re-baptism. We may note as well that Paul did not command the Corinthians to re-baptize the one in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 who had received church discipline, even though for a time he was treated as an outsider. Either re-baptism or prayer is evidently acceptable: where there is no commandment there is no disobedience.
13. Should people be re-baptized who came from “quasi-Christian” groups?
We have to handle each case separately because too many variables exist for stating a uniform answer. Often the reason such people begin fellowshiping with a new congregation is that they have discovered something in the previous group that they were not aware of when they entered it. They may never have believed the distinctive doctrines of that previous group, particularly any views likely to affect the legitimacy of their commitment to Christ Since baptism is the candidates’ obedience, we do well to let them make that decision. They know better than anyone else what was in their mind when they accepted Christ under the witness of that group. They may choose to “play it safe” and get themselves baptized. Such a procedure stems from a sincere heart and is likely to avoid the only real concern here: that baptism never become a shallow experience done lightly for little reason.
A lesser situation comes up more frequently. People may have been baptized with a different understanding of its full meaning. Do they need to be baptized again with better understanding? That question could be left up to them, but the need for re-baptism is not evident. People who are baptized under the Great Commission statement have the basic idea. They know from Acts 2 that forgiveness, for example, is involved in the process even if they are not clear on how the baptism act connects to the benefits Peter expresses (2:38ff.).
l4. Do we go ahead and baptize someone that intends to join another religious group differing doctrinally from “us”?
Baptism does not identify anyone with a particular group of people, whether a congregation or a denomination. It unites the person with Christ. Its primary focus is vertical toward Jesus rather than horizontal toward other people. We should express our concerns and give reasons for them, but we do not “refuse water” in helping them obey Christ just because of something subsequent we consider inadvisable. Each step of growth has to be handled in its proper time. Baptism is not the time for trying to decide more advanced doctrinal questions that even seasoned believers discuss.
15. If anyone can perform baptism, aren’t there going to be abuses?
As a safeguard against abuse, some groups have adopted the practice of having ordained clergy perform baptisms. They may have done so for practical rather than doctrinal reasons. The concern to avoid frivolousness and misuse is appropriate, but requiring clerical administration demonstrates overkill and can foster as unhealthy a view of baptism as the extreme it seeks to avoid.
A general principle applies here: those qualified to evangelize are qualified to baptize. The same seriousness that prompts Christians to share their faith safeguards against abuse in baptizing their converts.
16. Are private baptisms acceptable?
Accounts of conversion in the Book of Acts show no concern for baptizing converts during public church services on the first day of the week. In fact, there doesn’t even appear to be a clear example of it. The Ethiopian eunuch was virtually alone except for the chariot driver and perhaps an entourage (Acts 8:36-38). As soon as the apostle Peter saw that God intended to accept Gentiles into the church, he commanded the household of Cornelius to be baptized right then in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:44-48). The Philippian jailer was baptized the same hour of the night in which he heard the gospel (Acts 16:29-33). Baptism so closely accompanied conversion that it was done at that time rather than at a meeting of the congregation.
Since baptism is an interpersonal act between sinner and Savior, it is associated with coming to Christ rather than with coming to his church. We are not so much baptized into the church as baptized into Christ. The obedience is not a church act that calls for observation by others to validate it; it is a personal act that can occur wherever and whenever anyone wants to call on the name of the Lord. Baptism does not accomplish a legal transaction but expresses personal identification. It is not a work, but an act of commitment. It does not deal with something that happens on Sunday, during a church service, or in a church building. Spiritual activities are not tied to certain times or specific places; the church is not a temple in Jerusalem or anywhere else where we need to go to find God’s presence.
17. Why has baptism been so controversial?
Two things have contributed to this situation. First, (1) baptism is something we do. Other doctrines like the millennium do not appreciably affect how we live and worship here and now. But baptism is an action we cannot suspend judgment on indefinitely. Besides, it connects in one way or other with salvation, so it stands near the center of Christian concerns.
When we do baptism, we automatically comment on several doctrinal issues. The candidate for baptism touches on the concept of original guilt, which teaches that every human being stands legally guilty of Adam’s sin. Original sin labels the related idea that because of Adam's disobedience he received a fallen nature that was passed on biologically to his descendants. One or both ideas have supplied a major reason for infant baptism, often considered to be for the forgiveness of original guilt as well as for regenerating the fallen nature we have inherited. Another major contributor to the practice of infant baptism has been the doctrine of the church. Making the church comparable to the kingdom of Israel transfers national characteristics onto operations in the kingdom of heaven. Since national citizenship applies to individuals at birth, baptism moved forward to infancy and functioned like circumcision, which identified people with national Israel. Such a move changes the New Covenant from a believers’ covenant to a birthright covenant.
Recasting the church into the character of a theocracy also has an impact on the administrator of baptism. Since the church is no longer a purely spiritual, or interpersonal, entity, the grace of God in salvation is viewed as flowing through the church by way of the authority structure called the clergy. The grace of salvation flows indirectly through the clerical administrator, rather than directly from God to the candidate. The church dispenses grace instead of simply witnesses to it.
The significance of baptism is shaped by a people’s understanding of faith and works. If faith is doing something inward (rather than actively putting trust in the person of Jesus), then salvation by faith eliminates “water baptism” from preceding forgiveness of sins. If works means doing something (rather than accomplishing something), then baptism is a work and can have no connection with salvation.
Differences over the concept of the trinity have affected both the formula for baptism and the form of baptism. Some want to speak of baptism in the name of Jesus rather than in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. In the opposite direction, others want to emphasize the distinctness of members in the godhead by making baptism a threefold act—trine baptism. Some of these doctrines are harder to make matters of opinion than others are, and so controversy can surface every time baptism takes place.
(2) The second major reason baptism has been so controversial is that the church has passed through two thousand years of influences from several sources. In the early years of the church, the biggest internal threat came from pressure by “Judaizers” to identify the church with national Israel. As long as the leadership of the apostles was present, the pressure was resisted and corrected. When that leadership passed on, however, the problem arose again and finally ended up in the union of church and state in the Roman empire. Accompanying that development was the attempt to conceive of the gospel’s operations in a legal rather than interpersonal fashion. That tendency spawned a political understanding of the church and its ministry, and led to concerns like apostolic succession for administrators and the practice of infant baptism for the children of the church’s “citizens.” The legal operations that accompany political processes make it possible for a descendant to receive the guilt of Adam’s sin. This doctrine of “original guilt” further encouraged infant baptism because at birth there is already the need for forgiveness of inherited guilt. In some quarters we still see this attempt to mix church and state and so to confuse spirit and law.
(3) A third major influence on Christian baptism came from Greek philosophy that made spirit good and matter is evil. Indirectly, that idea lies behind the belief that every person is born with a fallen nature because of Adam’s sin. The defect passes on biologically and needs to be removed supernaturally before faith can occur. Removing “natural depravity” came to be associated with baptism—a view called “baptismal regeneration.” So infant baptism was encouraged even more in an effort to correct the problem early. This notion of “dualism” in pagan philosophy ended up affecting both the candidate and meaning of Christian baptism.
With so much history bearing down on us, it is no wonder that baptism still raises questions. For the sake of brotherhood, we can overlook from our side some issues like trine vs. single-action baptism, the administrator question, and whether someone was baptized unto, rather than on account of, remission of sins. Believers on the other side may not be able to be so inclusive on these points. We have difficulty being so broadminded on other questions like infant baptism and the use of sprinkling and pouring for baptism. Believers on the other side of these last two issues, however, can be broadminded where we cannot. And so, the controversy continues.
Frequently in answering the practical questions above, we have suggested that the final decision should rest with the candidates because baptism is their obedience, not ours. They know themselves and their circumstances better than we do, and it is their peace of mind before God that occupies first place. On unrevealed matters, the solution to quandaries comes from mutual respect and careful Bible study, that is to say, from interpersonal factors. If everyone deals with the matter in this fashion, perhaps over time consensus will grow on aspects of this controversial subject.
christir.org