“Baptism: Uncomfortable Waters
As I stated last week today’s message is on baptism. The reason I am addressing baptism is because we are going to have a baptism celebration next Sunday, July 29. Right after the church service everyone in this congregation is invited over to Brian and Lisa Nosker’s home between Foxburg and Emlenton. And there in the Allegheny River we will be holding a baptism ceremony, as well a fellowship lunch.
This baptism celebration will sort of be a first for our church. I say this because we have never before had a baptism by immersion or as some fondly call it a good dunking. I’m excited about it and I hope you’ll come out for this celebration. Currently we have at least 4 people who will be stepping into the waters of baptism. And if anyone else is led by the Holy Spirit to be baptized please talk to me by Wednesday or Thursday.
Virtually all Christian, and many non-Christian, churches practice the ceremony of baptism. They do so for several reasons, the first and greatest reason is because Jesus in His final commission, found in Matthew 28:19, commanded us to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Another reason we baptize is because Jesus was baptized (Jn 3:16) and in 1 Peter 2:21 we are called to follow in His footsteps. Also we find that in John 4:1-2 that the Lord Jesus approved of His disciples baptism. Baptism was also given an important place in the early church. As a matter of fact the early church never imagined a believer remaining unbaptized. And finally a last reason we baptize people in the church is that in Hebrews 6:1-3 baptism is termed as a foundational truth or doctrine which is no less optional or less significant than such doctrines as repentance, resurrection and judgment. We need to do this, to be baptized.
It’s almost universally agreed that baptism in some way is connected with the beginning of the Christian’s life, with one’s initiation into the universal, invisible church (1 Cor 12:13) as well as the local, visible church. Yet even with all this said there are considerable disagreements regarding baptism.
Three basic questions about baptism have been debated for centuries among good and faithful Christians. The first question is: What is the meaning of baptism? What does it actually accomplish? The second is: Who are the proper subjects of baptism? Is it restricted to those who are capable of exercising conscious faith in Jesus Christ, or may it also be administered to children and even infants? The third question regarding baptism is: How are we to baptism? Is it sprinkling, the pouring water or is it total immersion? This is then the what, who and how of baptism.
Knowing that these questions have been haggled over for centuries the chances that we are going to solve them this morning are slim to none. However I believe it’s important that we address this issue because we are all called to be baptized.
What I am going to do is address the four views of baptism and see how they answer the three questions: what, who, and how. The views I will be addressing are: the Church of Rome or Catholic, the Lutheran, the Presbyterian or Reformed and the Baptist view of baptism.
Let mean start out with the view held by the Church of Rome. They view baptism as a means of saving grace. Rome believes that the act of baptism in water actually conveys or passes on grace to the person baptized. What this means is that when a person is baptized it brings about a transformation in their life, that transformation is spiritual death to spiritual life. So for the Church of Rome faith has no part in ones salvation, so we could say that to the Church of Rome, or to Catholics to be baptized is to be saved.
This is why it’s so important that a Catholic priest baptizes infants. If the infant is baptized near birth their entrance into heaven is unhindered, however if they are not baptized they can in no way gain entrance to heaven. Instead they go to limbo, which is a place of natural happiness, but it is short of heaven because God is not there.
Listen to page 1213 from the Catechism of the Roman Church: “Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door to which gives access to the other sacraments. Through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the church and made sharers in her mission: ‘Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”
In answering our earlier proposed question what is the meaning of baptism, for the Church of Rome, it is how one gains salvation, new life in Christ. Who then are the proper subjects? It can be infants, children or adults. Yet the best time to be baptized is just after birth in case of sudden death, this way the infant will not miss heaven. And the how or mode of baptism for the Church of Rome it is sprinkling of water upon the person.
Can there be an objection to this view of baptism? Yes. Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” The Bible explicitly states that we are saved by faith and not by any work of man or ceremony performed by man. The New Testament passages stress that salvation is only through faith apart from works. Yes, baptism is often linked closely to conversion in the New Testament, but it is never required for conversion to Christ. As well there are no examples of infants being believers in the New Testament and to my understanding there is no clear example of infant baptism, which I’ll address later.
So the Church of Rome is off base when it comes to their understanding of baptism. They mainly see it as the removal of sin and means to salvation, Jesus Christ and God’s heaven.
The second view of baptism is the Lutheran view. They are similar to the Catholic position, yet have one major difference. They too see baptism as a means of imparting saving grace upon a person, however they believe that for the baptism to take effect, saving faith must be exercised, baptism plus faith = salvation.
When asked about the necessity of baptism they say, and I quote from “Life With God: A Survey of Biblical Doctrine as Confessed in the Evangelical Lutheran Church”:
“Baptism is not a matter of choice, a mere option which God makes available. Baptism is necessary because the Lord instituted it and commanded it. But baptism is not the only means of grace and it is therefore possible to be saved without being baptized. He who believes … the gospel will be saved. It is the absence of faith, not baptism, which results in damnation (they site Mk 16:16).” This sounds good so far, but it continues. “The rejection of baptism, however, is deliberate disobedience of God, with which faith cannot co-exist. Those who reject baptism reject what baptism offers, namely forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.” This last statement, to me, is contradictory to the first part. They say that one who rejects baptism rejects the forgiveness of sin, life and salvation. Therefore it seems to me that they are saying that one must be baptized to be saved.
So when we ask our proposed question “What does baptism do for a person” the Lutheran church says and I quote from their same book: “Baptism works forgiveness of sin, delivers from death and the devil and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.” The problem with this is that there is only one verse of Scripture that they base this on and that is Mark 16:16. This text reads as follows: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”
There are a couple of problems using this verse only. First notice that the first part of the verse addresses belief, baptism and salvation, however the second part of the verse speaks only of disbelief and condemnation, it speaks nothing of baptism, only disbelief. The key then is belief equals being saved and disbelief equals condemnation or not being saved. Baptism appears as a by-product of salvation in this verse not as a means of being saved.
A second problem with this text is that according to most contemporary scholars, and to the oldest, best and most reliable manuscripts and versions of the Bible verse 9-20 should not even be in the Bible. It’s felt that this ending Mark 16:9-20 was added by the early church in the middle of the 2nd century. This being the case it is completely untrustworthy to build a doctrine on this single verse because it is unreliable in its authenticity. And this is what the Lutheran church has done.
As to the who or the subjects of baptism the Lutheran church includes infants, youth and adults. Being that, for them, baptism saves with faith they desire to have a person baptized as soon as possible. The problem I have here is how can an infant have faith when they do not have the cognitive skills to understand and believe in Jesus Christ?
The Lutherans deal with this issue in two ways: 1. Some suggest that infants who are baptized may possess an unconscious faith. Faith, they say, does not necessarily require reasoning power and self-consciousness. Yet the Bible states the following about faith: Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” From this verse I believe that an infant does not have the capacity to have an assurance of things hoped for and they are also unable to have any convictions because this demands reasoning power.
The other way they address this is they hold that it is the faith of the parents involved when an infant is baptized. But this flies in the face of Scripture in that it is the faith of the one who confesses Christ that is saved. I cannot, as much as I would love to, instill my faith into my kids and have them saved.
In regards to the how of baptism the Lutheran church does not overly concern themselves with this. They are comfortable with all three ways of sprinkling, pouring and immersion.
The third view of baptism is the Presbyterian or Reformed view. This view is closely tied to the concept of the covenant and it regards baptism as a sign and seal of God’s grace. The Westminster Confession states it best as it reads:
“Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his in-grafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.”
So what does this mean? For those who hold to this view it means that baptism is an act of faith by which one is brought into the covenant community, that is the visible church and this allows them to receive its benefits. In the case of adults these benefits are absolute and immediate, while the salvation of infants is conditional upon future continuance in the vows made for them. Baptism is also a sign and God’s seal put upon the person, as God’s own. It is a sign like circumcision was a sign and a seal of God’s people, the Jews, in the Old Testament.
In regards to the subjects or the who of baptism it is the believing adults but also, as the Westminster Confession maintains, it is “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized.” The argument they use to support infant baptism depends primarily on the following three points.
First infants were circumcised in the old covenant. In the Old Testament, circumcision was viewed as the outward sign of entrance into the covenant community God’s people the Jews. Circumcision was administered to all Jewish males when they were eight days old and to all male Jewish slaves and servants living with the families.
Second they hold that baptism is parallel to circumcision. They say that in the New Testament, the outward sign of entrance into the covenant community, the church, is baptism. Therefore baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision. Therefore it follows that baptism should be administered to all the infant children of believing parents and to deny these children of baptism would be to deprive them of a privilege and benefit that is rightfully theirs. That is, the sign of belonging to the community of God’s people, the “covenant community,” the church. They maintain the parallel between circumcision and baptism is seen in Col. 2:11-12 where it states: “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”
And the last supportive argument up held for infant baptism is what’s called the household baptisms. This is the claim that says the practice of baptizing infants can be found in the household baptisms found in the New Testament.
Let me respond to these three supporting points that are held up for infant baptism. First it is certainly true that circumcision and baptism are in many ways similar, but we cannot forget that what they symbolize is different in some very important ways. The old covenant had a physical, external means of entering into the covenant community, the Jewish nation. One became a Jew by being born of Jewish parents.
Therefore all Jewish males, not the females, were circumcised. Now this circumcision was not restricted to just the people who had a true inward spiritual life. It was also given to all who lived among the people of Israel, including their slaves and servants. So it’s important for us to realize that the presence or absence of inward spiritual life made no difference whatsoever in the question of whether one was circumcised.
They circumcised every male living among the people of Israel even though the Scriptures say that true circumcision is something inward and spiritual. Romans 2:29 states “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, … from God.” Moreover, Paul in the New Testament explicitly states that, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom 9:6). So even though the Jews in the Old Testament had a realization of the inward spiritual reality that circumcision was intended to represent, they made no attempt to restrict circumcision only to those whose hearts were actually circumcised spiritually and who had a genuine saving faith. Remember this was under the old covenant.
Now under the new covenant the situation is very different. The New Testament doesn’t talk about a covenant community made up of believers and their unbelieving children and their servants who happen to be living among them. In the New Testament church, which is the covenant community, the only question that matters is whether one has saving faith and has been spiritually incorporated into the body of Christ, the true church. This church is the only covenant community discussed in the New Testament.
But how does one become a member of the church? The means of entrance into the church is voluntary, spiritual and internal. One becomes a member of the true church by being born again and by having a saving faith, not by physical birth. Just because your parents went to this church and you grew up in this church, it doesn’t mean that you are a member of the true church. This does not come about by an external act like circumcision or baptism, but by internal faith in one’s heart. It is certainly true that baptism is the sign of entrance into the church, but this means that it should only be given to those who give evidence of membership in the church, only to those who profess faith in Christ. Can an infant do profess Christ no, they do not possess this ability therefore I believe they should not be baptized.
When we look at the claim that the household baptisms support infant baptism we find that this is a rather weak and inconclusive argument. First let me say that the term household doesn’t mean that they included infants. This is reading something into the Scriptures that is not there.
As well in all but one of these household baptisms there are indications of saving faith on the part of the baptized. For example, it is true that the family of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33, but it is also true that Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house” Acts 16:32. If the Word of the Lord was spoken to all in the house, there is an assumption that all were old enough to understand the word and believe it. Moreover, after the family had been baptized, we read that the Philippian jailer “rejoiced with all his household that had believed in God” Acts 16:34. So here we not only have a household baptism but a household reception of the Word of God and a household rejoicing in faith in God. These facts tell us that the entire household had individually come to faith in God and then were baptized.
Regarding the household of Stephanas in 1 Cor 1:16 they were not only baptized, but in 1 Cor. 16:15 it states they also “devoted themselves to the service of the saints.” Household service of the saints is an indication of household faith, which cannot be accomplish by an infant. The only instance where the baptism of a household has no evidence of faith being involved is in Acts 16:14-15 where it states “A woman named Lydia, … was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged them” and the text continues on. Now this text simply doesn’t contain anything about infants being in the household of Lydia. And it certainly shouldn’t be used to support infant baptism.
I personally think that one cannot promote infant baptism using the assumption that these households must have had infants in them. I too have a household and all believe, yet none are infants.
Personally, I hold the fourth view called believer’s baptism. But what does this believer’s baptism mean? The meaning of believer’s baptism is simply that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. It is a public testimony of a believer’s new life in Christ Jesus and it is their way of identifying themselves with Jesus Christ. It is an outward symbol of an inward reality.
As it’s name suggests believer’s baptism is only for those who have trusted in or believed in Jesus Christ as their Savior. This includes adults, youth and children who have the capacity to place their trust in Christ for their salvation. But why do I hold this position?
First being that baptism is an initiation rite into the believing community, the church of Christ; I feel it is extremely important that baptism should only be done to believers and not possible future believers like infants.
Second the Scriptural order is always believe and be baptized. For example Matt. 28:19 states “go and make disciples of all nations, baptize them, and then teaching them.” It also wasn’t until after the Philippian jailer and his household believed that they were baptized. And in Acts 10:43 there was belief in Christ, then the remission of sins and then baptism.
Third if you search the New Testament you’ll find the only examples of baptism are adult believers. I also think the fact that no infants are ever mentioned being baptized lends support to believer’s baptism and that we should not baptize infants.
Fourth Christ was totally immersed, as were all in the other baptisms in the New Testament. This is our example.
I also believe that immersion best pictures the death and resurrection of Christ. When a person is lowered into the water it symbolizes them being laid in the grave with Christ and then when they are brought out of the waters of baptism it symbolizes Christ coming out of the grave into new life by the power of God.
Another practical concern I have about infant baptism is that if a person was baptized as an infant and they presume they are saved by that work, they see and feel no urgency to come to a personal faith in Christ. And over a period of years, this tendency is likely to result in more and more unconverted members in the covenant community, the church. These are members who are not truly members of Christ church. This would make the church a less-pure church, and one that would be fighting the tendencies toward liberal worldly doctrine and other kinds of disbelief that are brought in by non-believers. I believe this is now happening in many of the mainline denominations that are accepting or thinking of accepting homosexuals and leaning on liberalism. Think about this. Which denominations are promoting these liberal issues, it is the ones who perform infant baptism.
I’ve run out of and over time. Let me end this way.
What does baptism it mean? First we must realize that the Bible clearly indicates that salvation is through faith alone, one’s baptism has nothing to do with their eternal salvation. Second baptism is an important step in one’s Christian life. What then is it? It is the initial rite into Christ’s universal church and a membership rite of the local church. It is a outward symbol of an inward change.
Who is to baptized? Since it is an initiation rite into the church of Christ, only those who are in Christ, who are born-again should be baptized.
And how should baptism be performed? I believe as our example is Christ and because all those baptism in the Scripture are by immersion one who is in Christ should be immersed. But let me also say whether you are sprinkled, poured on or immersed it really doesn’t matter. What matter is that you have decided to follow Jesus and you want to tell the world about your Savior by living for Him and Him alone. And the first real step is to baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you desire to be baptized next Sunday please let me know. I would love to celebrate with you in the waters of baptism.
And please remember as I close baptism is not a major doctrine, it is not something to split churches or friendship over. It is something that many wonderful brothers and sister in Christ have differed over and its nothing that we will solve this morning. The main issues in Christ church are we are saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone. Let us love and encourage one another as we live out the life of Christ on this earth at this particular time in history.
Let’s pray.
