GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2001

Panel onDoctrine Report

Baptism

1. The words(baptô and baptizô)

It has often been contended that the word baptism necessarily means "immersion". Alexander Carson inhis Baptism: Its Modes and Subjects has stated that while baptô   has two meanings (i.e. to dip and to dye) "baptizô in the whole history of the Greek language has but one. It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has any other meaning." ^{Baptism: Its Modes and Subjects, first published Philadelphia 1845, re-published Kregel 1981, p 19} Itis significant here that Carson seems to regard dipping as equivalent to immersing. In fact we frequently dip without immersing and, as we shall see,we find dipping without immersing in the New Testament. AH Strong is more emphatic, "This is immersion and immersion only."^{Systematic Theology, Philadelphia 1909, Vol III, p 993.} Baptist scholars writing duringthe second half of the twentieth century have been more careful in theirarguments for 'immersion only'. So, for example, in his major work, Baptismin the New Testament , Beasley-Murray makes only two brief referencesto immersion as the proper mode for baptism (one of which is a footnote).^{Baptismin the New Testament , Paternoster 1962, pp 133, 263n.Seealsohis Baptism Today and Tomorrow , Macmillan 1966, pp 24, 170n.}   In both cases the argument is based on Paul's theology, not on an exegesis of Greek words, nor on the practice of the early church as we haveit in the Book of Acts. Much more recently Grudem in his Systematic Theology   commenting on baptizô has stated, "The sense 'immerse'is appropriate and  probably required for the word in several  New Testament passages" ( italics added).^{Systematic Theology, IVP 1994, pp 967-969.} We would not disagree. Our contention is thatthe senses 'dip', 'wash' or 'sprinkle' are also appropriate and are   required for the word in several New Testament passages. Whether thesense 'immerse' is required in the particular examples given by Grudem^{baptised   by John; Acts 8.36ff, the Ethiopian baptised  by Philip; John 3.23,John baptising at Aenon; pp 967f.} is amatter for debate. Grudem's main argument, as with Beasley-Murray, is basedon Pauline theology. The crucial point here is that we have two significantBaptist scholars who no longer insist that baptizô must be understoodin the sense of 'immersion' .Bearing in mind, however, that arguments forimmersion based on the use ofbaptizô still persist at a morepopular level it will be helpful to explore the matter further.

The Old Testament (SEPTUAGINT)

baptô (occurring some seventeentimes)

There are three examples of baptô where it probably carries the idea of immersion.

1. Leviticus 11.32. Articles made unclean are to be "put in water" (Heb. bô). No doubt this would involved the immersion of the articles in water. 
2. Job 9.31. The "plunge"ofa man into a lime pit so that even his clothes detest him again suggestsimmersion (Heb. tâbal).
3. Psalm 68.23 translates a Hebrewword (mâchats) meaning "to smite through" but is used in the sense of "to plunge" (NIV).

All the remaining examples of       baptô  translate the Hebrew tâbal asdoes baptizô (in 2 Kings 5.14, above) and all carry the senseof "to dip" or "to be moist with",e.g. Lev 14.6 and 51 where a live birdis dipped in the blood of the one bird which has been killed over fresh water.It is difficult to see how one bird could be immersed in the blood of anotherbird.

baptizô (only two examples in the Septuagint)

1. Isaiah 21.4 where baptizô (Heb. bâ'ath, 'to tremble') is used in a figurative sense.NIVtranslates "fear makes me tremble".
2. 2 Kings 5.14, the washingof Naaman in the Jordan (Heb. tâbal). It is worth noting herethat Elisha's instructions to Naaman were, "Go wash yourself seven timesin the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed"(v 10).This reads very much like a ritual washing in the Jordan. Naaman's servant repeated the prophet's words, "Wash and be cleansed" (v 13). The NIV translates v 14: "So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seventimes…"

1. The New Testament

baptô (occurring only inLuke 16.24; John 13.26 x 2; Revelation 19.13)

In all four instances the word carries the sense of "to dip". For example, Lk 16.24: "send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue."

baptizô (occurs someseventyfive to eighty times)

Our purpose here is simply topoint out that the word baptizô is used in the New Testament without the sense of being "immersed". Two examples will suffice.

1. Luke 11.38: "the Pharisees, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised". This was a ritual washing of hands prior to a meal. It is quite unreasonable to suggest that the Pharisees were looking for a ritual immersion prior to a meal.
2. Much the same can besaid for Mark 7.4: "When (the Pharisees) come from the market-place theydo not eat unless they wash." A ritual immersion prior to every meal?!   

1. Some practical difficulties                    

   Acts 2.41: The baptism ofabout three thousand on the day of Pentecost. While there is nothing here to prove or disprove baptism by immersion the practicalities of baptising three thousand people by immersion in Jerusalem do raise interesting questions.     

   Acts 8.38: "Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptised him." The "going downinto the water" does not constitute the baptism. They both went down, andPhilip was not a candidate for baptism. The baptism may or may not have beena baptism by immersion. We simply do not know. We do know that they were ona desert road and that most desert streams would not be deep.

1. Pauline theology (Romans 6.3-5)

     "…all of us who werebaptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death. We were thereforeburied with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ wasraised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a newlife. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainlyalso be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old selfwas crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, thatwe should no longer be slaves to sin –because anyone who has died hasbeen freed from sin."      

It is always important to understandthe main thrust of a Bible passage before using some of its component partsto support a thesis. Paul is dealing in this passage with a rather insidious argument which, if allowed to go by default, would have seriously damaged and ultimately destroyed the Gospel of God's grace. The argument was as follows: the grace of God is sufficient to coverall our sin; the more sin, the more grace; sin is a good thing because it promotes grace; let us, therefore,continue in sin. Paul's response is robust :we have been united to Christin his death, burial and resurrection; everyone united to Christ is, 'byvirtue of the efficacy of Christ's death and the power of his resurrection', ^{Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980,p 27.} freed from the dominion of sin andlives a new life which is wholly incompatible with a life of sin.

It is important to grasp that Paul's answer to the antinomianism being propounded is not water baptism but union with Christ. Paul is building on the foundation he has already established in the previous chapter (5.12-23). As we were 'in Adam', so we are 'in Christ' summarisesthe teaching there. It is because the believer is in Christ and Christ isin the believer that antinomianism is an impossibility. What then is thesignificance of the word 'baptism' in this context, and does it tell us anythingabout the mode of baptism? There are several possibilities.

Our baptism by the Spirit intoChrist^{Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, pp 26-30;J Brown, Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to theRomans, Grand Rapids 1981.}

     It is possible to understandthe reference to baptism in Romans 6 in the light of 1 Cor 12.13: "we wereall baptised by one Spirit into one body". In which case Paul is saying inthe Romans passage that we were baptised (by the Spirit) into Christ, intohis death, burial and resurrection. The advantage of this approach is thatwe are able to take the passage at face value. It really is baptism that effectsour union with Christ, i.e. the baptism by the Spirit. We really are buriedwith him through baptism, i.e. baptism by the Spirit. According to this approachit will be obvious (a) that baptism is not symbolic, and (b) that the Romans'passage has no bearing on the mode of water baptism.            

1. Our baptism with water effecting our union with Christ

1. Our baptism with water as a symbolic representation of our union with Christ

There are, however, difficulties in the 'symbolic representation' approach when accompanied by the conclusion that only baptism by immersion accords with the New Testament practice and, therefore, that baptism by immersion is required by the symbolic representation in Romans 6. It is difficult, for example, to apply the symbolism, as Romans 6 requires, to every aspect of our union with Christ. Paul is quite clear here. It is through baptism (which represents our union with Christ) that we have died with him, have been buried with him, have been raised with him. Macleod comments that while "going down into the water is an adequate symbol of the Lord's death…it is not an adequate symbol of burial (or more precisely, of entombment, because Jesus was not buried, he was entombed)…" ^{A Faith to Live By, Christian Focus 1998, p 214.}

More importantly it is possible to hold, as many do, the 'symbolic representation' view without concluding that baptism byimmersion is to be insisted upon as the only or the most appropriate mode of baptism. While baptism by immersion may provide an appropriate backcloth to Paul's teaching in Romans 6 it must also be pointed out that there are other more common backcloths which require baptism by pouring and sprinkling.      

(a) Baptism is presented as a washing. See for example the words of Ananias to Saul (Acts 22.16): "Get up, be baptised and wash your sins way." As the Church of Scotland Report states, "The connexion between this washing and the death of Christ is seen in passages such as1 Cor 6.11, 'but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God;" and Eph.5.25f,'Christ also loved the Church and gave himself up for it, that He might sanctifyand cleanse it by the washing of water by the Word, that He might presentit to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle…but thatit should be holy and without blemish.' In these passages Christ's work isdescribed as a cleansing of the Church and of believers, in language reminiscentof the Old Testament ideas of covenant and sacrifice… In Heb 10.22the language is undoubtedly taken from the priest's cleansing: 'Let us drawnear with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.' (The washing and theconfession of faith again recall Baptism.) According to this Epistle, Christcleanses us through His blood and enables us to draw near to God; and thisonce-for-all cleansing which Christ accomplished on the Cross is appliedto us in the once-for-all-cleansing in Baptism… It is possible thereis a direct reference to Baptism in Revelation 1.5, if the reading 'washedus from our sins' be preferred to the alternative 'loosed us'; but in anycase baptismal allusions can be seen throughout the book in the referencesto the faithful who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, andwear white garments (as baptismal candidates did in the early Church)."^{The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism , The Saint Andrew Press 1958,pp22-23. We may add to the list of referencesTitus 3.5f.}

(b) Baptism is represented as a pouring and a sprinkling. John the Baptist contrasted his own water baptism with Jesus'Spirit baptism: "I baptise you with water…He will baptise you withthe Holy Spirit" (Matt 3.11). Jesus confirmed this (Acts 1.5). He then speaksof this baptism in terms of a power coming upon them (Acts 1.8). Peter speaksof the same baptism twice in terms of a pouring out (2.18,33), and Luke writesabout the Holy Spirit having been "poured out" and as having "come upon"(10.44;11.15). Moreover, as J Murray points out, the Old Testament anticipation of the gift (baptism) of the Spirit "is expressed in terms of pouring out, shedding forth and sprinkling – never immersion".^{ChristianBaptism , Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p 21.}

• Isaiah 32.15: "till the Spiritis poured upon us from on high"
• Joel 2.28: "I will pourout my Spirit on all people"
• Ezekiel 36.25-27: "I will sprinkle clean water on you… I will put my Spirit in you."

1. Our baptism with wateras a SIGN of our union with Christ

CEB Cranfield observes, "all that Paul wishes to convey (in Romans 6.3-5) is the simple fact that the persons concerned have received Christian baptism. But at the same time the expression which he uses implies…that baptism has to do with a decisive personal relationship between the individual believer and Christ (and) that the relationship to Christ with which baptism has to do includes, in particular, a relationshipto his death". ^{The Epistle tothe Romans Vol I, T & T Clark 1975, p 301.}   Commenting on the meaning of Paul's claim Cranfield further comments: "Notthat it actually relates the person concerned to Christ's death, since thisrelationship is already an objective reality before baptism takes place…but that it points to and is a pledge of, that death which the person has already died – in God's sight…"^{The Epistle to the Romans   Vol I, T & T Clark 1975, p 303.} If Cranfield and others are correctit will again be obvious that the Romans passage has no bearing on the modeof baptism.

It is the view of this Panel that sprinkling, pouring or immersion are all appropriate modes of baptism, that each of these modes reflects some aspect of the Christian faith signified by baptism, and that each of these modes represents the full Christian experience, including union with Christ, the application of the blood of Christ, the washing away of sin, and the gift of the Spirit. We identify with Macleod's plea: "I respect immersion, but I am asking that there should be a place for our mode too. There is no stress in the New Testament on the mode of baptism, any morethan there is any stress in the case of the Lord's Supper on the fact thatthe bread used was unleavened bread."^{A Faith to Live By , Christian Focus 1998, p 214.}

An important element in all this is that baptism take place in the company of the local congregation to which thecandidate for baptism will be committed. It is more important that a personbe baptised in the presence of that congregation by sprinkling or pouringthan that he be baptised by immersion in the presence of a representativegroup of church members or even a group of personal friends. Baptism afterall represents not only my incorporation into Christ, it represents my belongingto both the universal Church and to the local congregation in which I live,and move and have my being. To magnify the mode of baptism and minimise thesignificance of baptism at this point, or at any point, is to misrepresentthe New Testament approach and, therefore, to mislead. 

1. Introduction

2. Institution of Baptism

3. Origins of Water Baptism

4. The Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence

5. The Baptism of Children: New Testament Evidence

6. The Baptism of Children: Extra Biblical Evidence

7. The Proper Subjects of Baptism

8. The Mode of Baptism

9. The Way Forward