“What shall we do?”

A Pastoral Response to

Questions Regarding Christian Baptism

Chauncey A. Lattimer, Jr.

Questions regarding the relationship of baptism to salvation have come up more than once in recent months, not in the “ivory towers” of academic discussion, but in the trenches of everyday ministry. The interest has been twofold: (1) the possibility of salvation for those who have never been baptized, and (2) the proper mode of baptism. In each case, the impetus for the question has been the loving concern for a friend or relative. There has been a sincere desire to know what the Bible taught. Furthermore, these questions were not raised in an attempt to be argumentative, though the questions did quite naturally approach the topic from what might really be an improper question, “What is essential for salvation?”

Therefore, this paper is provided, not as a final answer, but as a guide for further study and discussion. The purpose is to explain, as accurately as possible, the biblical teaching regarding Christian baptism. It is offered unashamedly from a belief in what my dear friend and mentor, Dr. Robert Lowery, has referred to as “the trustworthiness of Scripture.” It is offered from the belief that the Bible is the only “God-breathed,” authoritative source for authentic Christianity. The paper is not developed from the perspective that historical interpretation and tradition are unimportant, but that they should always be understood as secondary and accountable to the Word of God.

Though there are many complex discussions as to why a person should be baptized, it would be tempting to end the paper quickly by citing the simple (though certainly not simplistic) approach to the question as it has been cogently proffered by J.I. Packer. He begins with a statement of fact that most would accept, then counters artistically with a thought provoking question:

The apostles baptized believers and their dependents, but insisted that what saves is faith—“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:14ff.; cf. verses 29–33)… But if you can believe and be saved without baptism, why does the church require baptism? Why not give it up, as Quakers and the Salvation Army have done? ^[1]

Sometimes one has to make sure that the foundation is established before doing any building. Packer accomplishes this by answering the fundamental question, “Who is Jesus?” His answer: Jesus is “Our Master, calling us to serve God by shouldering a cross and following him; our Guide and Friend, who leads and upholds us here and takes us finally to share glory with him hereafter. Lord and lover too, he claims our first loyalty, and if we love him we shall keep his commandments—as indeed he said (John 14:15).” ^[2]

The next step builds upon this foundation rather naturally. If this is who we believe Jesus to be, the answer to the question of why we should not give up baptism (as others have done and continue to do) comes with the recognition that baptism is among the commands of Jesus. If for no other reason, Christians are baptized “to please Him.” Directing our attention to what is commonly referred to as the Great Commission, and utilizing basic logic, Packer writes:

He sent his followers to disciple all nations, baptizing them in the triune name (Matthew 28:19). So a church that did not require baptism, and an unbaptized Christian who did not ask for it would be something of a contradiction in terms. The root reason for the practice of baptizing is to please Jesus Christ our Lord. ^[3]

There are many passages that have been utilized to initiate discussions as to what is meant by baptism. In terms of how one is to be baptized, one not discussed often enough is Luke’s account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. It is interesting that it is not the evangelist Philip, but the Ethiopian who raises the question, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" (Acts 8: 36). Why he made this statement is not told; in fact, we are given little detail beyond that Philip “told him the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Luke simply notes, in a somewhat abrupt manner, that the eunuch responded to Philip by asking for baptism. One significant detail is included by Luke. In his description of how Philip baptized the eunuch, Luke includes the statement that “both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him… [and] they came up out of the water” [emphasis is mine.] What would be the need to go down into and come up out of the water unless there was to be a dipping, plunging under, or immersing?

Another passage often quoted is found in Acts 2. On the day of Pentecost, after Peter had preached to the multitudes a sermon consisting of (1) an explanation of what had taken place before their eyes (vv. 14-21), (2) a declaration of the apostolic message (vv. 22-36), and (3) a call to repentance with a promise of blessing (vv. 37-41), the people responded with the anguished cry, “What shall we do?” Peter’s response is probably one of the most widely known, yet highly debated answers involving baptism: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2: 38-39). It seems rather obvious that Luke shared Paul's view of the indissoluble connection between conversion, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (cf. Ro 8:9; 1Co 6:11).

So what do we mean when we use the phrase “to baptize”? Virtually all Christian churches practice some form of the rite – though the mode and reason for baptism vary greatly. Part of the contemporary confusion as to the mode or meaning of the phrase “to baptize” might be due to what appears to be an intentional vagueness, as well as the descriptive nature of most dictionary definitions. For example, the 11^th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary first defines baptism in a very general manner as “a Christian sacrament marked by ritual use of water and admitting the recipient to the Christian community” and secondarily in a descriptive manner as “an act, experience, or ordeal by which one is purified, sanctified, initiated, or named.” ^[4]

But is this what was understood by the hearers of Jesus and the Apostles, as well as the early readers of the New Testament when they came upon the various words related to the word baptizw ? James Strong, author of the “Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible” would indicate that people in biblical times understood the Greek word baptizo in a much more specific manner; they knew exactly how the recipient would be affected by the “use of water”:

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. ^[5]

This helps us understand why in John’s gospel a special note is made regarding the location John the Baptist chose. In John 3:23 it is noted that John chose a location at Aenon near Salim “because there was plenty of water.” Why would this be necessary except for the fact that they would be dipping and immersing the recipients?

Such a general understanding as that proposed by Merriam-Webster, the modern definition quoted above, was not even how the great Reformers understood the meaning of the word. Both Luther and Calvin (along with Grotius and many others) understood that the preferred meaning for all words from the bapto and baptizo families is to dip, plunge, or immerse. Martin Luther, in the 5th of what has come to be known as the Smalcald articles, says, "Baptism is nothing else than the word of God with immersion in water." He goes on to write:

"Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered... Washing of sins is attributed to baptism; it is truly, indeed, attributed, but the signification is softer and slower than it can express baptism, which is rather a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are to be baptized, to be altogether dipt into the water, as the word doth sound, and the mystery doth signify." [6]

John Calvin not only identifies immersion as the meaning of the Greek word, but notes that this mode of baptism was definitively the common practice: "The word baptizo signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church." [7]

Alexander Campbell, a leader in what has come to be know as “The Restoration Movement” or “The Stone-Campbell Movement,” undertook a rather extensive investigation, in which he pointed out how various Greek lexicographers were rather consistent in their definitions, (including also Greek philosophers, historians, orators, and poets) rendering the term baptizo as “dip, plunge, immerse”, but never as indicating sprinkling, pouring, or scattering any thing. He wraps up this discussion with the following conclusion:

If seven such names as are here given are not valid authority on the proper interpretation of laws and positive institutions, to whom shall we hearken? Their testimony being admitted, and the plain and unanimous testimony of the lexicographical jury above given, on the proper, current, and popular use and meaning of baptizo, can any one show reason why we should not, a second time, regard my first proposition as fully proved? All the dictionaries give dip or immerse as the proper, common, and current use of baptizo; and all our quotations from some thirty of the most classic authors, as well as from the canonical Greek Scriptures of the Old Testament, sustain them in so doing. And that the proper, common, and current use of words is to be always preferred and adopted in the interpretation of laws and ordinances, is attested by a host of witnesses of the highest authority, and sustained by Horn and Ernesti in their canons of interpretation. I repeat: must we not, then, conclude that immersion, and immersion only, is Christian baptism, according to the mind and will of our Lawgiver and Judge? [8]

A prolific author and teacher/preacher of more recent years, Warren Wiersbe, has also agreed that the mode of baptism in the early church was immersion. In the following quotation, he not only identifies baptism with immersion, but provides an excellent approach for understanding the meaning and significance of immersion:

Historians agree that the mode of baptism in the early church was immersion. The believer was “buried” in the water and brought up again as a picture of death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism by immersion (which is the illustration Paul is using in Rom. 6) pictures the believer’s identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. It is an outward symbol of an inward experience. Paul is not saying that their immersion in water put them “into Jesus Christ,” for that was accomplished by the Spirit when they believed. Their immersion was a picture of what the Spirit did: the Holy Spirit identified them with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. ^[9]

This is not to deny that there have been some who have tried to say that immersion was not primarily an act associated with water, but is to be understood in a more symbolic fashion as a total surrender of the being to Christ, etc. There is a metaphorical use of the term where baptism is used by the Lord to speak of his sufferings in connection with the cross. But the more symbolic use to explain away water baptism has been refuted in an article included in what is widely accepted and recognized as an excellent as well as one of the leading theological resources, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel, et. al.:

The idea of a mystically understood medium of baptism (“to be immersed in Christ etc.”) is always and in every respect wide of the mark. âáðôßæåéí means technically “to baptize in water.” Hence it is unnecessary to specify a medium. ^[10]

Before moving on to the relationship between baptism and salvation, it is important to note how some well-known, as well as brilliant, writers will admit to so much, but then continue to contend for a position which seems to be based primarily on what many would admit to be exceptions. One illustration of how our traditions or beliefs can limit, or at least form parameters for how we will interpret/understand the written text is the example of Charles Hodge, a 19^th century Presbyterian minister and Professor/Principal of Princeton Theological Seminary has written:

It is not denied that âáðôßæåéí means to immerse, or that it is frequently so used by the fathers as by the classic authors; it is not denied that the Christian rite was often administered, after the apostolic age, by immersion; it is not even denied that during certain periods of the history of the Church, and in certain regions, immersion was the common method in which baptism was administered.

Having set this base he goes on to write:

But it is denied that immersion is essential to baptism; that it was the common method in the apostolic Churches; that it was at any time or in any part of the Church the exclusive method; and more especially is it denied that immersion is now and everywhere obligatory or necessary to the integrity of Christian baptism ^[11]

What then follows is a treatise based upon “exceptions to the norm.” For instance, there is a discussion on how baptism is to be universal/catholic and how it cannot be so if immersion is the mode when sufficient water is not always available as in a desert or in the Arctic regions. Another argument is based upon the belief that baptism is to be readily available to all and since there are those who for reasons of health cannot be immersed, immersion cannot be the obligatory or necessary mode.

It is understood that there might be situations in which total immersion is not possible. Though there are other reasons why it is not a good or even relevant example, many will cite how the thief on the cross was promised salvation without immersion. This of course is true. On the other hand, once could equally point out that, according to scripture, there will even be many who have called upon His name (belief), have cast out demons, and performed miracles who will be sent away.

But does a valid exception make a general rule / statement untrue? Who is to decide? That is why, in the first place, we can be thankful that we are not the judge. We would be out of place to tell the Lord who he can and cannot allow to enter heaven! He, and only He, needs to worry about the exceptions. The fact remains that the vast majority of the references to baptism (one author cited 77 of a total of 99) involve water and the term was clearly understood to mean “to plunge, dip, or immerse.”

For further investigation into the mode of baptism and the Greek terms, let me suggest three works. The first, though the book has now been in print for over 30 years, is an excellent resource for further study into the historical antecedents, the foundation, the emergence of Christian baptism in Acts, and other biblical teachings on baptism – George R. Beasley-Murray’s book Baptism in the New Testament. A second work, which is from the Stone-Campbell Movement, is Baptism: a Biblical Study by Jack Cottrell (published by College Press in 1990). I would be remiss if I did not include this third resource, which I believe to be one of the most scholarly and comprehensive studies of baptism: Christian Baptism: With Its Antecedents and Consequents, a book written, printed and published by Alexander Campbell in 1851.

Again, it is not my practice to answer directly the second question, “Is baptism essential for salvation?” There is certainly sufficient reason to deny that anyone has the right to do so. G. W. Beasley-Murray indicates that the very question “would have sounded as strange to a first generation Christian as many other queries characteristic of our time such as, ‘Is it necessary for a Christian to join the Church? Is it necessary to pray? Is corporate worship necessary? Is preaching necessary? Is the Lord’s Supper necessary? Is the Bible necessary?’ Such matters are self-evident, for they belong to the very structure of the Christian life.”¹²

We need to continually remind ourselves that we are not the judge and it is not up to us who will enter heaven. Jesus said that we are to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28: 19-20, NIV). Since Jesus is my Lord as well as my Savior, I can only respond to his directive by making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them.

Biblically speaking, Peter’s answer to the crowd on Pentecost is as close as one might come to answering the question of whether or not baptism is essential. When he was asked by the crowd what they should he answered rather pointedly, “Repent, and be baptized.” In other words, this is what you must do!

There is only one passage of which I am aware in which being saved, baptism, and water all come together – 1 Peter 3: 20-22. Peter uses the ark of Noah, which saved a few through water, to portray the salvation now available in Christ. Although the parallel between the Old Testament deliverance of Noah's family and New Testament salvation through Christ is not precise in every detail, Peter says that the water of the Flood portrays the water of baptism. Baptism is the counterpart of what is represented in the Flood, even the "fulfillment" of the Old Testament deliverance from judgment.

How does baptism "save"? Peter makes sure that the reader understands that it does not concern an external washing from filth, but relates to the "conscience". The conviction of sin by the Spirit in the human mind calls for a response of faith or commitment to Christ and his work. This is concretely and, as one writer has written, "contractually" done in the act of baptism. Saving faith is expressed in baptism (cf. Ac 2:38-39). Salvation comes to people because Christ has risen from the dead.

In Acts 16:25ff, when the jailer at Philippi asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" the immediate reply was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household.” Though they are not told to repent, few would deny that it repentance is essential. Yet many will cite this same passage to point out how they are only told to believe without the command to be baptised. We are not told by Luke what all was included when Paul and Silas took time to explain to him and the others of his household “the word of the Lord.” But it resulted in change!

To judge by their actions, the jailer and his family came to believe in Christ. Again, Luke uses language of urgency to note that “At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16: 30-33). Why would Luke have done this unless he wanted his readers to sense the importance of baptism? I don’t mean to be pejorative, but it should be obvious that the importance of their act so late at night is not due to their desire to join a local church. We have already seen the same urgency (“here is water”) in the desire of the Ethiopian eunuch to be baptized without even a house-church around. The urgency was to complete their identification with Christ, to procure the promises of the Spirit and eternal/abundant life.

What we have seen in Peter, Paul, and Luke is also evident in the writings of the Apostle John. As Kittel has observed,

In John conversion and baptism are related, cf. also Ac. 13:24; 19:4. Similarly, Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, which obviously accords with early practice, connects conversion and baptism (Ac. 2:38).¹³

It is common when speaking of conversion/salvation to speak in terms of faith, repentance, and confession. It should not surprise anyone that each of these three is also associated with baptism. For instance, in Acts 8:37, when the Ethiopian eunuch asks Philip what would hinder him from being baptized, Philip responds, “If you believe with all your heart, you may” (NASB). And in Acts 18:8, Luke records the conversion Crispus and his household, emphasizing that “ Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.”

Though admittedly the reference is to the baptizing that John the Baptist was doing for repentance of sin, it is still worth observing that confession of sin was understood to be an individual responsibility for wrongs done (Lev 5:5; 26:40; Nu 5:6-7). In the New Testament confession is scarcely less important (cf. Ac 19:18; 1Jn 1:9). Since John was urging people to prepare for Messiah's coming by repenting and being baptized, we may surmise that open renunciation of sin was a precondition of his baptism. So it is that Matthew states in a matter-of-fact manner, “Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River” (Matt. 3:6).

We have already noted how in Acts 2:38 there is the direct association of repentance and baptism, as well as the purpose statement (“for the forgiveness of your sins”) and the promise (“And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”).

Martin Luther is credited with beginning the Protestant Reformation based on the concepts of three Latin phrases: Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura. His belief in Sola Gratia – which means "by Divine Grace alone" – was his way of stating that people cannot "earn" their way into Heaven by good works. Sola Fide – which means "by Faith alone" – was his way of referring to the "human" side. Since people could not actively "earn" their way into Heaven, this statement was necessary to describe exactly what requirement actually applies to us. The third Latin phrase is associated with those two, Sola Scriptura, which means "by the Bible alone". Rather than trusting any human to provide information, this statement was Luther’s way of saying that we should rely only on what Scripture says.

Obviously, Luther did not view baptism as a “work,” though many who authoritatively cite his Sola Gratia and Sola Fide are accustomed to doing so. Luther would clearly state that baptism has a purpose – “to save.” This is best seen in The Book of Concord: the Large Catechism, where we find the following words of Luther:

23] In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted, that is, what it profits, gives, and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 24] Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. 25] But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.¹⁴

Though he would deny that baptism is absolutely essential for salvation, John Calvin does not seem very hesitant to connect baptism with salvation, as he writes:

Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, have not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise , "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," (Mark 16: 16.)¹⁵

Calvin’s use of the longer ending of Mark’s gospel might be problematic for some. Again, it is important to see that regardless of the authenticity of the text, its acceptance by so many as such an early date lends credence to the teaching. In this rendition of the Great Commission (cf. Mt 28:18-20), belief and baptism are so closely associated that they are conceived of as virtually a single act. The inward reception (belief) is immediately followed by the external act or witness to that faith (baptism). The result is salvation. Refusal to believe results in judgment. The close connection of repenting, believing or confessing with baptism is evident throughout the book of Acts. Many have even identified baptism as one aspect of the confession done publicly before other Christians. It also testifies to the “urgency” for baptism that we have already observed in Luke’s accounts of the Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailer.

It might also be instructional to point out at this point that Calvin taught that baptism is for those who have been taught and believe. Therefore, baptism is not a requirement for those who are incapacitated and cannot obey. Again, as I have written above, beliefs should not be based upon or controlled by the exceptions. Calvin would argue from logic that God's promises are not invalidated for children or for the untaught. Any alteration of practice necessitated by an exception should never be applied to those able to fulfill all of the benefits of baptism as a seal of commitment.

In conclusion, let me return once again to the work of Gerhard Kittel, where we find expressed once more the idea that the purpose of baptism is “new and eternal life.” You will note, as was seen in the writing of John Calvin, that there is some hesitancy, some qualification, but a clear identification of baptism with salvation in the following:

Christian baptism certainly has as its final goal new and eternal life. Yet even in this respect it is not to be understood primarily or directly in terms of the idea of vivification or regeneration... The significance of baptism thus depends on the fact that it is a real action of the holy God in relation to sinful man. Hence both as to the saving significance of baptism. ...Though mediated by men, baptism is the action of God or Christ (Eph. 5:26).¹⁶

What follows is the entry for “Baptism” as it is found in Knave’s Topical Bible. I have included it for those who wish to look further into the biblical texts in which the term baptism appears. It might be noted that, once again, the definition is limited to “dip, or immerse.”

BAPTISM [G966+, G967, G968] (dip, or immerse). As administered by John (Mt 3:5-12; Jn 3:23; Ac 13:24; 19:4). Sanctioned by Christ's submission to it (Mt 3:13-15; Lk 3:21). Adopted by Christ (Jn 3:22; 4:1-2). Appointed an ordinance of the Christian church (Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15-16). To be administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19). Water, the outward and visible sign in (Ac 8:36; 10:47). Regeneration, the inward and spiritual grace of (Jn 3:3, 5-6; Ro 6:3-4, 11). Remission of sins, signified by (Ac 2:38; 22:16). Unity of the church effected by (1Co 12:13; Gal 3:27-28). Confession of sin necessary to (Mt 3:6). Repentance necessary to (Ac 2:38). Faith necessary to (Ac 8:37; 18:8). There is but one (Eph 4:5). Administered to: Individuals (Ac 8:38; 9:18). Households (Ac 16:15; 1Co 1:16). Emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11; Tit 3:5). Typified (1Co 10:2; 1Pe 3:20-21).

__________________

^[1] Packer, J. I.: Growing in Christ. Wheaton, Ill. : Crossway Books, 1996, c1994, S. 95

^[2] Packer, J. I.: Growing in Christ. Wheaton, Ill. : Crossway Books, 1996, c1994, S. 96

^[3] Packer, J. I.: Growing in Christ. Wheaton, Ill. : Crossway Books, 1996, c1994, S. 96

^[4] Merriam-Webster, Inc: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. Springfield, Mass. : Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003

^[5] Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. G907

[6] As quoted by Alexander Campbell in Christian Baptism found online at http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cbac/CBAC205.HTM

[7] Op. cit.

[8] Campbell, Christian Baptism, 134.

^[9] Wiersbe, Warren W.: The Bible Exposition Commentary. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1996, c1989, S. Ro 6:1

^[10] Kittel, Gerhard (Hrsg.); Bromiley, Geoffrey William (Hrsg.); Friedrich, Gerhard (Hrsg.): Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. electronic ed. Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans, 1964-c1976, S. 1:539

^[11] Hodge, Charles: Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. 3:537

^[12] Beasley-Murray, G.W. Baptism in the New Tetament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962, 1973) p. 297

^[13] Kittel, Gerhard (Hrsg.); Bromiley, Geoffrey William (Hrsg.); Friedrich, Gerhard (Hrsg.): Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. electronic ed. Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans, 1964-c1976, S. 4:1004

^[14]Luther, Martin. The Concord Book: The Large Catechism located online at http://www.bookofconcord.org/largecatechism/6_baptism.html

^[15] Calvin, John. Institutes Book 4.15.1

^[16] Kittel, Gerhard (Hrsg.); Bromiley, Geoffrey William (Hrsg.); Friedrich, Gerhard (Hrsg.): Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. electronic ed. Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans, 1964-c1976