Baptism Statement
FBC Baptismal Statement
Baptism has been a hotly disputed issue among Christians for ages. There have been disputes about the method of baptism: Whether to dip, sprinkle, or pour. Other disputes have centered on the purpose of baptism: is it for salvation or to symbolize salvation? Then, who should be baptized? It is important for any believer approaching baptism to settle some of these questions in his or her own mind. Otherwise the experience of baptism will be lacking in meaning. What follows is an attempt to help you find your own understanding of baptism.
I. The Purpose of Baptism:
II. The Method of Baptism:
III. Is Baptism Necessary at all?
IV. Should Infants be Baptized?
I. The Purpose of Baptism:
Most important to our understanding of baptism is its purpose. Broadly speaking, the purpose is either to save or to symbolize. The question is, which? Our answer should be based upon the scriptures. We might begin our search for an answer by noting that the simplest statements about salvation don’t mention baptism. (John 3:16, John 5:24, Romans 3:21-24, Romans 3:28, Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 2:38, I Corinthians 1:14-17)
If baptism was essential to salvation, would Paul have treated it as such? Moreover, people were saved in the New Testament apart from baptism. Obviously, the thief on the cross (Luke 23:29-43) died. Also, the gentile audience to whom Peter spoke the gospel in Acts 10:44-48 received the Holy Spirit (and this is the assurance of salvation, Romans 8:9-11) before being baptized. Thus, we must conclude that baptism does not save. However, you may have questions, about certain passages that seem to teach the necessity of baptism for salvation. Some of these are discussed in the following. The first is the use of the Greek word, “kai.” Most commonly this word is rendered into English as “and.” It is so rendered in, “Repent and be baptized.” However, “kai” can also be translated as “also.” This use of “also” can be applied to Acts 2:38.
The second point of grammar is the use of the Greek word, “eis.” Translated one way, it is rendered “for” as in “be baptized . . . for the forgiveness of our sins . . .” However, it can also be translated “because of.” The sentence “they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah” in Matthew 12:41 and Luke 11:32 is forceful evidence for a casual use of the preposition. What led to their repentance? Of course, it was Jonah’s preaching. “They repented because of the preaching of Jonah.” Matthew 3:11 furnishes further evidence: “I baptized you in water for repentance.” Did John baptize that they might repent, or because of repentance? Certainly the latter. It is doctrinally inconsistent with the balance of the New Testament if we take “eis” in its causal sense in Acts 2:38. Thus, we may translate it in the following manner: “Repent! Also, each of you be baptized because of the forgiveness of your sins.” Such a grammatically acceptable treatment of the verse relieves all tension with the rest of the New Testament.
I Peter 3:21 also appears to say that baptism is essential to salvation. However, the correct interpretation becomes clearer upon a careful consideration of what is actually said, as well as understanding the analogy being made to the Noahic Flood. We could translate verse 21 like this: “And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you, not (by) the removal of the (moral) filth of the flesh (that is, your old nature), but (as) an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The words in parentheses are implied by the text.
Peter is saying that baptism relates to our salvation to the degree that it outwardly symbolizes an inward repentance. It is the inward faith, not the outward symbol which saves. And isn’t that what the rest of the New Testament teaches as we have seen? Insofar as the correspondence between the Flood and baptism is concerned, both events speak of spiritually saved people passing from an old and dying world in to a new sphere of existence. For Noah, the passage was made through waters of judgment in a literal ark. For the Christian, passage is made in Christ, our ark of safety, while the baptismal waters remind us of the judgment of God on our old natures which must be “buried with Him through baptism (of the Holy Spirit) into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”
Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on His name. The grammar of this verse points to the calling on the name of the Lord as the means by which sin is washed away. There is not a cause-effect relationship between baptism and the putting away of sin.
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
You may have a note in your Bible about verses 9-29 of Mark 16. If you do, you should note that it says that the oldest manuscripts of Mark do not contain these verses. Apparently these verses were added later by someone other than Mark. Such being the case, it would be wrong to base our doctrine of baptism upon them.
If baptism does not save, then it must symbolize. But, symbolize what? First, it symbolizes the identification of the disciple with the message of Christianity and the person of Christ. We see this in the following phrases “. . . the baptism which John proclaimed" (Acts 10:37),
“. . .John had proclaimed . . . a baptism . . . ” (Acts 13:24),
“being acquainted only with the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). Inspection of the usage of the word ‘baptism’ in these phrases shows that it stood for the message which John preached, the significance of such usage is that it shows us that the ritual symbolized the message of the baptizer. The ordinance was identified with the message. So, to submit to the ordinance was to identify with the message. Similarly, we see in Matthew 28:19 that baptism identified a person as a disciple. I Corinthians 10:12 shows this use of the word baptize.
It is being used figuratively to say that the forefathers were identified with Moses through the experience of the Exodus. Second, baptism symbolized formal admission into the Church. Acts 2:41 offers support for this view.
II. The Method of Baptism:
How should we baptize? Dr. Charles Ryrie in his book, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, p. 152, advances these arguments for baptism by immersion: Immerse is the primary meaning of the Greek word “baptizo.”
The normal understanding of the prepositions “into” and “out of” (the water) would indicate that immersion was practiced.
The baptism practiced on a proselyte to Judaism was a total immersion (though self-performed), and this would indicate that Christian baptism followed the same customary mode (though performed by another on the one being baptized).
Immersion best pictures the significance of baptism which is death to the old life and resurrection to the new (Romans 6:1-4).
Immersion was the universal practice of the early church and every instance in the New Testament either demands or permits it (3,000 people could have been baptized in the various pools around Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost).
The Greek language has words for pour and sprinkle but these are never used of baptism.
One seems driven to the conclusion that immersion is the biblical mode. Immersion seems to have been the mode of baptism practiced in the early church. The first exception to immersion was pouring, not sprinkling, and it was allowed in cases that could not be immersed, such as people with illnesses. Indeed, pouring was called “clinical baptism.” This view accurately states our beliefs on the mode of baptism.
III. Is Baptism Necessary at all?
If, as we have said, salvation is by faith, then is baptism necessary at all? Not for salvation, but for another reason: it serves Christ’s purpose. Baptism was the will of Christ for every believer. (Matthew 28:19)
IV. Should Infants be Baptized?
Historically, the practice of infant baptism began in the mid-third century in North Africa. Two theological developments aided its acceptance in the ensuing centuries:
1. The idea that baptism had replaced circumcision as a covenant sign; and since circumcision was practiced on infants, so should baptism.
2. The idea that baptism assured the salvation of infants.
Regarding the former idea, we should notice that this is an argument from silence. Nowhere does the Bible teach that baptism has replaced circumcision and is to be practiced in the same way on infants. It is theological, not a biblical argument, and must, therefore, be rigorously evaluated.
Colossians 2:11-12
In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature (the flesh), not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ.
Circumcision and baptism are both pictures of the work of Christ in the believer. Circumcision pictured how Christ would remove the flesh. Baptism pictures our identification with His death and resurrection. Therefore, circumcision finds its fulfillment in the work of Christ. Moreover, how did one become a member of Israel? By physical birth. How does one become a Christian? By a second birth. Of necessity, that places it after salvation.
Regarding the latter idea, one has to first believe that babies are under condemnation before believing they need salvation. However, there are evidences in the Bible that God does not condemn individuals who are too young to differentiate between right and wrong. Therefore, we reject infant baptism on the grounds that it does not save and is not scriptural. It is concluded that baptism is reserved for those who choose to symbolically identify themselves with Christ and His Church.