Introduction
During a lecture
at Brookwood Baptist Church in Mountain Brook, Alabama, Baptist historian and
theologian Fisher Humphreys noted that, “Despite a somewhat misleading name,
Baptist are somewhat unique in their theology concerning baptism. Unlike most mainline denominations, Baptist
theology in no way regards baptism as a necessary event in the process of
salvation.”[1] Turning to the example of the thief on the
cross in Luke 23, Dr. Humphreys provides biblical evidence of salvation granted
to persons void of baptism and yet nonetheless assured of salvation from the
lips of Jesus himself. Baptism is by no
means a requirement for salvation, but rather an expression of the faith that
is necessary for one to be “born again”.
Yet despite this theology, Baptists take a unique approach to the
practice of baptism, which distinguishes the denomination from most other mainline denominations.
In
Baptist churches, this ordinance is referred to as “Believers’ Baptism”. As the title suggests, faith and belief are
essential to undergoing the ritual act of baptism, and consequently those who
experience the waters of baptism are already assured of salvation. Additionally, the practice of immersion is
the preferred mode for Baptists, and Baptists turn to the authority of
scripture to defend this belief.
Finally, as belief is a requirement, infants and young children are
denied these waters, as an appropriate cognition is essential to belief. In this essay, the two components of belief
and immersion will be analyzed, as well as the Baptist opposition to infant and
child baptism. Turning to biblical,
historical, and even practical grounds, evidence will be provided to support
the Baptist approach to baptism and to affirm the practice of “believers’ baptism.
Believers’
Baptism
In
most mainline denominations baptism is understood as an act of God directed
towards the human participant. While in
many cases baptism may be seen as an initiation rite into the particular
Christian community, there is also granted the opportunity for parents to have
their children baptized in order to express God’s approval towards the
recipient (a point which will shall turn to later), or a communal expression
towards someone at the beginning of life.
On the contrary, Baptists reserve the rites of baptism to those who have
professed faith in Jesus Christ and desire to follow him through the ordinance
he instituted in Matthew 28. As Bill
Leonard writes in his book, Baptist Ways, “Baptists insist that baptism must
follow a profession of faith in Christ.”[2]
To affirm this belief, Baptists turn to the Bible, as well as history and
practice, in an effort to defend this relatively unique approach.
Beginning
with the Great Commission passage of Matthew 28, biblical evidence suggests
that those to whom Jesus sent his followers were professing believers. The initial instruction to “Go therefore and
make disciples of all nations”[3]
precedes the instruction to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the
Holy Spirit. Implied in this instruction
is the conversion and discipleship of the one undergoing the act of
baptism. Baptism is not a requirement
for discipleship, but rather the response of the one who has already professed
faith and committed himself to discipleship.
Referring to this text in his discussion concerning the subjects of
baptism, Alexander Carson writes, “I will risk the credit of my understanding,
on my success in showing that, according
to this commission, believers only are to be baptized.”[4]
This
instruction is applied by the apostle Peter in Acts 10, which again suggest
those receiving baptism have already professed faith in Jesus Christ. To the astonishment of the circumcised
believers, the Holy Spirit to descend upon the group of Gentiles who begin
speaking in tongues. The question is
then asked, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have
received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”[5] Of course the new converts do receive the
waters of baptism and are recognized as new members of the Christian community,
but it is only after they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter is essentially asking who has the right
to refuse baptism to those who have already been converted. Therefore, the biblical evidence suggests
that baptism is a response to faith and belief and, as such, must be reserved
for those who have previously been converted.
Historically,
the record seems to be far more complex, as many Church Fathers including
Augustine and Origen affirm infant baptism and thus deny the requirement of
belief. However, it is not until the
third century that there exists any such evidence of this practice. Additionally, it should be noted that the
third century was a time in which “the state of the church became rapidly
corrupt”[6].
There also exists some support for
believers’ baptism from Justin Martyr.
While his comments have often been used as evidence for infant baptism, Stander and Louw argue that this is a
misinterpretation, and that Justin is actually asserting a theology of believers’
baptism. They write,
In this passage [Justin’s Apology 61,65]
Justin clearly spells out what the Church of his time required from a person
before he was accepted for baptism:
firstly, the person had to believe in the truth of the Christian doctrine;
secondly, he had to undertake to live accordingly; thirdly, the baptismal
candidate had to undergo a period of devotion and fasting in which he had to
request God to forgive all his past sins.[7]
While the historical record in
support of believers’ baptism is minimal, the evidence of scripture is
sufficient to counter what is at most a contested practice amongst the Church
Fathers.
With
the support of scripture and the insufficient counter from history, Baptists
claim strong practical support for the practice of believers’ baptism. To begin, the act of baptism is a sign of the
new covenant in Jesus Christ. As a new
convert, the believer experiences a sacred initiation into the faith community
he or she has taken on. It has, “the
potential of providing a young Christian a wonderful and sacred opportunity to
certify personally and testify publicly of his own identity, now, as a follower
of Christ.”[8]
Baptism therefore provides an experience that is full of meaning and far
surpasses a simple initiation.
Likewise,
believers’ baptism, at least in theory, voids the church of regenerate
membership. If belief and profession are
primary, and baptism is a response to such belief, then those who go through
the waters of baptism are born again and thus willing to take on the call of
Christ. Considering the initiatory
nature of baptism, reserving the practice for believers results in a
congregation of believers. This is not
necessarily the case in all denominations.
For example, if one is baptized as an infant there is no guarantee that
this person will ever take on the role of a follower of Christ. In like manner, if baptism is an event in the
process of catechesis, albeit the final climactic event in most cases, one could
potentially be enrolled by a parent and have no intention of ever maintain Christian
faith. While believers’ baptism in
practice does not necessarily result in a church void of members who fail to
practice the Christian life, making belief as verified by profession a
requirement for the waters attempts to purify the church by making all the
baptized professing believers. Certainly
this is what John Smythe had in mind when he and his colleagues from Amsterdam started
the first Baptist church, one in which, “leaders were committed to the belief
that church membership should be based on a personal confession of faith
followed by believers’ baptism.”[9]
So
it is that the Baptist theology of baptism requires the professed belief of the
one undergoing the ordinance. This was
the belief of the earliest Baptists, and one that Baptists find support for in
both scripture and history. Furthermore,
this criterion has tremendous practical implications, as it conceivably creates
a more meaningful baptism for the initiate and a more faithful congregation.
Immersion
Baptism
If
belief is the necessary requirement for baptism, Baptists have traditionally
preferred the mode of such baptism to be that of immersion. Again, there is tremendous biblical and
historical evidence for such a practice, as well as deep theological reasons
for doing so. While Baptists are not
alone in this practice, they are unique in their disallowance of other
modes. That is to say that all
Christians allow immersion as a mode, but only Baptists disregard all other
modes. Fisher Humphreys writes of this
practice, “Baptists believe that baptism is proper only when it is biblical,
and it is biblical only when believers are immersed.”[10]
To
begin, the root meaning of the Greek, “bapto”, means to dip, submerge, or
immerse. Consequently, a linguistic
argument is to be made from the start.
Furthermore, from a biblical perspective, all New Testament baptisms
seem to have been administered by the mode of immersion. In Acts 8 for example, the record reads,
“Philip and the eunuch, went down into
the water, and Philip baptized him. When
they came up out of the water, the
Spirit of the Lord snatch Philip away…”[11]. Emphasis has been placed upon the descent to
the water and the rising therefrom, implying a full immersion experience for
the newly converted eunuch. A similar
approach can be taken to the interpretation of John’s baptism of Jesus in the
Jordan, where he too “came up out of (from) the water”[12],
as well as the records in Acts and in
Paul’s writings.
In
addition to the grammatical implications, the location of New Testament
baptisms has also been used in support of baptism by immersion. The Jordan River is the only location
mentioned explicitly, in reference to the baptism of Jesus himself. However, other baptisms, such as that of the
eunuch in Acts 8, seem to have occurred near some body of water. Such a location is significant, for if a body
of water is required, immersion must therefore by the mode. That is to say if water could be poured or
sprinkled that would be no need for a river or body of water, but any small
amount would have been sufficient.
Turning
to the history of the Church, immersion also seems to have been the preferred
mode of early Christianity. For example,
Augustine, the renowned Church Father who argued in favor of infant baptism,
reflects on the practices when he writes, “After you professed your belief,
three times did we submerge.”[13]
Likewise, Ambrose makes a similar reflection when he wries, “thus thou wast immersed, that is, thou wast buried.”[14]
In his book, History of Baptism,
Isaac Taylor Hinton places these reflections alongside those of Hermas,
Barnabas, John Chrysostom, and other giants of the faith to argue that
immersion was the preferred mode of baptism for much of the history of the
early Church.
To
prove the same point, though in a fashion almost unheard of in Baptist circles,
Rev. James L. Chapman turns to papal authority to not only affirm the practice
of immersion baptism, but to exclude all other modes. Quoting Pope Gregory I, a sixth century
bishop of Rome, Chapman offers the instruction, “We, since we immerse three times, point out the
sacrament of the three days’ burial.”[15]
Nearly fifty years later Pope Clement would offer, “If any bishop or presbyter
shall baptize by any other than trine
immersion let him be deposed.”[16]
As a final example, the Synod of Celichyth in the ninth century suggests that,
even in the case of infant baptism, immersion is the only acceptable mode. A statement from that synod reads, “Let also
the priests know that when they administer holy baptism they pour not water on
the heads of infants, but always immerse them in the font.”[17]
It
can therefore be argued that the practice of immersion is one that existed
throughout much of the history of the Church.
At the very least, immersion was the preferred mode of baptism and
evidence suggests that certain leaders in the early Church denied all other
modes, even in the case of infants. In
these examples, we see that not only the Church Fathers, but also Popes from
across the centuries supported this method.
So it is that Baptist turn to both scripture and history as evidence for
their preferred mode.
Considering the biblical and historical
evidence for the practice of immersion baptism, Baptist place strong theological
emphasis on the ordinance. As a sign of
the New Covenant, baptism functions as a sign of the washing away of sins, the
public acknowledgement of the regenerate life, and an initiation into the body
of believers. Immersion baptism requires
that one be buried under the waters of baptism, only to be resurrected from
them. This symbolic act recalls the
death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and identifies the one
undergoing baptism with the Christ whom he or she has professed faith in; a faith that is then publicly reemphasized
through the waters of baptism.
According
to Anthony R. Cross, baptism is an occasion to recognize and celebrate the
forgiveness of sins offered by the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ. Turning to the New Testament,
Cross argues that baptism was the “occasion where the forgiveness of sins is
first experienced.”[18]
This certainly seems to be the case in the New Testament, but can be at odds
with Baptist theology. As has been noted
previously, Baptists do not view baptism as a necessary event in the process of
salvation. While it is an important
event, salvation has already been granted to the believer through faith and
therefore sin has already been washed away prior to ones entering into the
baptismal font. Nonetheless, Baptists recognize
the symbolic nature of baptism, and the clear connection to the washing away of
sins. As an ordinance, baptism in the
Baptist church has the luxury of being viewed as a celebratory act rather than
a salvific one. Baptism is therefore the
recognition and celebration of the washing away of sin rather than the process
through which this forgiveness is granted.
Secondly, baptism is the acknowledgment by
the believer of the regenerate life offered in Jesus Christ. Commenting on believers’ baptism, Bruce A.
Ware writes that, “by its very nature the new covenant incorporates exclusively
those who have turned from their sin through faith in Christ’s atoning work on
their behalf.”[19]
Again, baptism is not the event or mode through which regeneration is offered,
but the recognition, celebration, and public profession of the regeneration
which has already been made possible through faith in Jesus Christ. However, considering the public nature of
baptism in the Baptist church, one is essentially affirming the regeneration
that accompanies conversion. So it is
that the regeneration component is publicly acknowledged, and one enters into
the new covenant as an active member, obedient to the God who offers the new
covenant. While regeneration is made
possible by the work of the Holy Spirit, which the believer has already
received, the participant in baptism is affirming this change brought about by
conversion and his or her commitment to the continued road of
sanctification. Through immersion, one
is buried with Christ, as well as raised into the new life. This new life is accompanied by the new
covenant, which awaits the one receiving the waters of baptism on the other side
of the plunge.
Finally,
like all baptisms, immersion baptism welcomes one into the community of
believers. Certainly the belief
component is most relevant to this point, but the mode through which baptism is
administered in the Baptist faith also serves as a unifying expression. Not only are Baptists welcomed into the
present day community of believers through the ritual of baptism, but they also
identify with the biblical and historical individuals who went through the same
waters. Immersion is therefore the
preferred ritual of Christian initiation, as it connects believers with believers
in their own congregation, around the world, and even those who preceded
them. Again, this identification is
already operative at the point of conversion, but baptism serves as the
recognition and celebration thereof.
For
Baptist, the only proper mode of baptism is that immersion. The very language seems to suggest a New
Testament understanding of baptism as being administered through the mode of
immersion. Furthermore, this is a practice that seems to have been operative in
the New Testament, and Baptists argue that is was the only mode operative. Historically, the Church Fathers allude to
the mode of immersion, and certain medieval popes vocalize support for such a
mode and, in some cases, even oppose other modes such as pouring or sprinkling. Finally, there are deep theological benefits
to immersion, as the process recognizes and celebrates forgiveness,
regeneration, and initiation through an act of identification with the death,
burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The biblical and historical support of immersion baptism, as well as the
theological implications of the practice, provide evidence for the Baptist
preference of immersion and shine light upon the vitality of this mode to the
Baptist theology of baptism.
Opposition
to Infant Baptism
While
the act of immersion as the only appropriate mode for baptism according to
Baptist faith, as noted all other denominations recognize immersion as
appropriate. Consequently this doctrine
is not a significantly divisive point.
However, as Baptists cling to the doctrine of believers’ baptism, this
results in the rejection of infant baptism, a point that receives strong
opposition from other Christian groups.
As has been previously discussed, believers’ baptism is a unique Baptist
theology, and the consequence of such a theology is the rejection of infant
baptism. While the discussion of
believers’ baptism implicitly affirms this rejection, there are several
arguments against infant baptism that deserve particular attention. These include: the acknowledgement of baptism as a covenant
yet one that is entered into by a cognizant adult, the rejection of the
circumcision connection with baptism, and the membership dynamic. To these this essay now turns in an effort to
present a counterargument to those who affirm infant baptism and to defend the
Baptist rejection of the practice.
In
defense of infant baptism, Roman Catholic Sinclair B. Ferguson writes, “Baptism
is a sign and seal of the union with Christ and fellowship with the Father
given by the Spirit and received by us through faith.”[20]
Every word of Ferguson’s definition can and should be affirmed by
Baptists. As Baptist theology
recognizes, baptism not only symbolizes the forgiveness of sins, but also the
regenerate life accepted by the believer.
When Ferguson therefore speaks of “union with Christ”, this is
completely inline with the aforementioned theology of Baptists. Additionally, Baptists recognize baptism as a
sort of initiation process in which one enters into the community of
believers. Therefore one enters into
“fellowship with the Father” in entering into fellowship with Christ’s body,
i.e., the Church. Since belief is a
prerequisite to baptism, Baptists would also affirm that this is an act that is
“received through faith”. In response to
this definition, Bruce A. Ware affirms, “Amen and amen!”[21]
With
Ferguson’s definition being completely inline with Baptist theology, Ware
counters by suggesting that this definition can in no way be appropriate as
regards infants. He writes, “By nature,
infants cannot yet have believed and so are neither united with Christ nor
indwelt with the Spirit.”[22]
One must necessarily posses the cognitive ability to believe in order to enter
into the union and fellowship of which Ferguson writes, a qualification that
must disqualify infants. As a counter
argument, proponents of infant baptism present the covenant of circumcision as
a parallel to baptism, a point to which this essay now turns.
Certainly
parallels can be made between the Old Testament covenant of circumcision and
the New Testament covenant of baptism.
Both are covenants offered by God to his people, and each serves as a
sort of initiation into the particular religious sect in which they are
practiced. There is the promise from God
that the covenant of circumcision will extend to the seed of Abraham, meaning
Abraham’s children. This can be seen as
both a literal reference, i.e., the children that Abraham had at the time, and
an extension to the future descendants of Abraham. There can be no argument against infant
circumcision, as the biblical command is that children enter into this covenant
on the eighth day after birth.
Therefore, if the covenants of God are held in unity, and baptism serves
as the New Testament symbol of the Old Testament covenant, the infant baptism
must be recognized as a legitimate practice.
Ferguson summarizes this arguement when he writes, “The children of
believers receive the same promise as their parents and are therefore to be
baptized.”[23]
This
argument is wanting in several ways. To
begin, as a sect of Judaism, many early Christians would have practiced both
circumcision and baptism. The biblical
witness acknowledges the dual practice of circumcision and baptism, and Paul’s
letter to the Galatians illustrates an early belief that both practices were
necessary. Of course Paul denies the
requirement of circumcision, but fails to condemn it. Therefore, the biblical witness illustrates
that both circumcision and baptism were both operative amongst many early
Christians. If these two separate
practices are a symbol of the same covenant, one must wonder why both would
have been necessary.
Ware
argues that the practices of circumcision and baptism, though similar in many
regards, ultimately symbolize two separate covenants. The practice of circumcision was one that
symbolized God’s covenant with Israel, long before the Incarnation of
Christ. Consequently, in the New
Testament it is acceptable to retain the practice, as the descendent of Abraham
compose a large number of early Christians.
However, baptism symbolizes something else entirely. It is a symbol of the covenant that “relates
only to those who have experienced the spiritual reality of belief in Jesus
Christ.”[24] Both
are symbols of covenants between God and his people, but the covenants that
they symbolize are not the same.
Finally,
the issue of membership into the body of believers is a final disqualification
for infant baptism. In the same vein as
entering into a covenant with God, one must be cognitively aware of membership
in God’s church. If the church serves as
a community of believers, one can only enter into this body when one believes. Membership requires faith as a prerequisite,
and also publically affirms one’s commitment to the regenerate life. Baptism is a public event, which is affirmed
by those present. Sticking with the idea
of a covenant, if one enters into a covenant unknowingly, it would seem as if
this covenant would be invalid. A counter
argument might suggest that circumcision would therefore by rendered
illegitimate, and the biblical witness flawed, but it should be remembered that
circumcision was a covenant entered into by God and Abraham. As the covenant extends to Abraham’s descendants,
there is an emphasis placed upon the nation of Israel, not the child. Abraham had his son circumcised as a symbol
of his own covenant with God, and his descendants are evidence of that
covenant.
Synthesis: Benefits of Believers’ Baptism
Considering
the theology presented, the remainder of this essay will focus on three
benefits of believers’ baptism and how the provide an advantage for communities
that adhere to this practice. These
include: the acknowledgement of the
human response to God, the priority of faith to the Christian life, and the
recognition of the believer’s role within the church community. Each of these is affirmed through believers’
baptism, and are theoretically prioritized through the practice of believers’
baptism in ways that are impossible otherwise.
To
begin, the practice of believers’ baptism acknowledges the human response to
God. There is a cognitive requirement
implicit in believers’ baptism, and this cognition allows the one entering into
the covenant of baptism to posses the knowledge of what that covenant
means. If one enters into an agreement
without knowledge of what one is doing, the whole agreement is devalued. While baptism is much more than an agreement,
both proponents and opponents of believers’ baptism recognize the covenantal
nature of the practice. Perhaps God
calls one to baptism, in which case the individual has to make the decision to
respond. On the other hand, those who
lean more heavily towards free-will theology would suggest that the individual
makes the decision to embrace Christianity, in which case the human agency is
all the more emphasized. In either case,
there is a human role in the process.
The very language of covenant implies two parties, one of which is God
and the other human. Therefore it must
be acknowledged that the human agency has a role in both the acceptance of the
initiation of the covenant and the life that follows. To enter into the covenant unwillingly would
deny the human role in not only the baptism itself, but the Christian life
which one enters into following the baptism.
Secondly,
the practice of believers’ baptism prioritizes the role of faith in the
Christian life. As was previously
presented, Baptists have a relatively low view of baptism as it relates to salvation. That is not to deny the significance of
baptism, but to deny the salvific component of the process itself. It is faith that provides salvation, not
baptism. Considering that faith is the
essential component of conversion, baptism is seen as a recognition and
celebration of conversion and what that conversion requires. If one is saved through faith, baptism is
void of meaning without it. On the
contrary, believers’ baptism prioritizes faith in making it the necessary
criteria for baptism. This priority is
quite appropriate, and provides a deeper meaning and understanding of the
Christian practice of baptism.
Finally,
believers’ baptism recognizes the role of the believer within the church
community. As baptism symbolizes the
entrance of the believer into communion with Christ, it also recognizes one’s
entry into the community that follows Christ.
In this regard, it can be seen as the initiation process of the
Church. On one side of the waters, a
believer has made a faithful conversion through faith in Christ, and on the
other, he or she is welcomed into fellowship with other faithful converts. However, if this initiation is conferred
without cognitive belief, there is no requirement upon the neophyte to
participate in the community. On the contrary,
if one enters into the community as a believer, he or she recognizes the
responsibilities to the community that come with the initiation. Put simply, is one recognizes their role in
baptism, then one recognizes their role in the community. While this is not always evident in practice,
it can certainly be assumed that one who is unaware of the very process of
baptism is far less likely to commit themselves to the community on the other
side.
Conclusion
In
this essay the theology of believers’ baptism has been presented. Belief and immersion are the two components
which define believers’ baptism, one being a recognition of the necessity of
faith, and the other being the preferred mode of Baptists. Additionally, Baptists strongly oppose the
baptism of infants as it violates the aforementioned criteria of belief and
therefore denies essential components of baptism. Baptists hold deep theological convictions
concerning baptism, and these convictions are reflected in both the subject and
mode of baptism. Finally, there are
several benefits to such a theology, as believers’ baptism recognizes the role
of the individual as it relates to both God and the community, and the
significance of faith is most highly prioritized through the practice. So it is that the distinct Baptist practice
of believer’s baptism proves to be both theologically sound and practically
beneficial.
[1]
Fisher Humphreys, “Baptists
and Baptism,” Brookwood Baptist Church, Mountain Brook, Alabama, 4 Dec. 2010.
[3]
Mt. 28:19.
[4]
Alexander Carson, Baptism in its Mode and
Subjects (London: Houlston and
Stoneman, 1844), pp.169-170.
[5]
Acts 11:47.
[6]
Isaac Taylor Hinton, History of Baptism
(Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist
Publication Society, 1846), p. 242.
[7]
Hendrik Stander and Johannes Louw, Baptism
in the Early Church (Webster, NY:
Cary Publications, 2005), p.4.
[8]
Bruce A.Ware, Baptism: Three Views, edited by David F. Wright
(Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2009), p. 49.
[9]
Pamela R. and Keith E. Durso, The Story
of Baptists in the United States (Brentwood, TN: Baptist History and Heritage Society, 2006),
p. 13.
[11]
Acts 8:38-39.
[12]
Mk. 1:10; Mt. 3:16.
[13]
Hinton, History of Baptism, p. 157.
[14]
Ibid. p. 157.
[15]
James L. Chapman, Plain Work on Baptism
(Nashville, TN: Nashville Christian
Advocate, 1850), p. 23.
[16]
Ibid. p. 23.
[17]
Ibid. p. 23.
[18]
Anthony R. Cross, Baptism: Historical, Theological, and Pastoral
Perspective, edited by Gordon L. Heath and James D. Dvorak (Eugene,
OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), p.
146.
[20]
Sincalir B. Ferguson, Baptism: Three Views, edited by David F. Wright
(Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2009), p 89.
[22]
Ibid. p. 114.
