“What Baptists Generally Teach” (Part 2)

Last week, we began an examination of what the Baptists “generally believe” concerning baptism, based in part on what the Baptists’ own Manual teaches but also including the description found in the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia. Last week’s analysis of these two sources mainly dealt with the purpose of baptism, and it was observed that the purposes which the Baptists list for baptism do not coincide with the purpose the Scriptures teach.

Before saying more on the proper person to be baptized, the Encyclopedia talks about the mode of baptism. They correctly point out that Baptists “differ from the majority of Protestants in that they believe that the proper mode (many would insist the only mode) of baptism is immersion…” (466). Yes, that is correct. This is the one doctrine concerning baptism that we and the Baptists agree on. But neither the Baptists nor we need to try to prove that immersion is the only Divinely-commanded and accepted form of baptism. The encyclopedia does it for us, which is absolutely amazing! They write:

As for the question of the proper form of baptism, the day is past when immersion can be ridiculed for its eccentricity and scorned for its indecency. Lexicographers universally agree that the primary meaning of βαπτίζω is “to dip” or “to immerse,” and there is a similar consensus of scholarly opinion that both the baptism of John and of the apostles was by immersion (cf. John 3:23; Acts 8:36-38) (466).

Do the encyclopedia writers believe that sprinkling can serve as baptism? Undoubtedly. But they state the truth about the meaning of the word baptism, along with acknowledging that immersion was used in the New Testament. In case the reader missed the significance of the two verses they cited, the first records that John was baptizing where there was much water (which sprinkling or pouring would not have required). The second passage declares that Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and then came up out of it. Only immersion requires these actions.

But wait! There’s more! They again point out that Baptists believe that the original form of baptism was immersion; they also acknowledge that immersion, with its “sinking below the water and rising again out of the water more adequately symbolizes union with Christ in His death and resurrection” (466). And they cite Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:11-12. One would think that the encyclopedia agrees that baptism should be by immersion. They have given the four reasons we usually cite as proof that baptism must be done by immersion.

1. Lexicographers agree that the definition of βαπτίζω (baptizo) is “to dip” or “to immerse.”

2. John’s baptism required much water.

3. When Philip baptized the eunuch, it was a burial in water.

4. Romans 6:3-5 pictures baptism as a burial.

These truths cannot be successfully denied; so how can anyone argue in defense of sprinkling or pouring water on someone? Yet they do. Notice a subtle clue they already provided. In the first quote, the encyclopedia said some insist immersion is the only way, which indicates they disagree with that concept and think that sprinkling and pouring are just as valid.

A second evidence lies in a source they quote after listing John 3:23 and Acts 8:36-38. For no apparent reason other than one of rebuttal, they add these words:

In the Didache 7 (A.D. 100-160), the oldest baptismal manual extant, triple immersion is assumed and pouring allowed, if there is an insufficient amount of water. (The word used for pouring is εκχέω, not βαπτίζω.)

Now why would they appeal to an uninspired source to disagree with the inspired Scriptures that they just called attention to—if not to disagree with them? The Didache was written quite early—some now say in the first century, but no one knows for certain when the original was composed—or by whom. But the fact that should jump out at the reader is that the encyclopedia quickly runs to a source outside the Scriptures instead of staying in the New Testament. They could not find evidence for sprinkling or pouring within the pages of the New Testament; so they try to undermine what they just taught from the Scriptures by appealing to an uninspired work of men—and no one knows who the men were!

Furthermore, we know that the Didache contains one error in it when it advocates triple immersion. Was the eunuch baptized three times? No. Was Lydia or the Philippian jailer? No. Was anyone within the pages of the New Testament? No. So, why would a claim to consider pouring be considered valid when it too was never used by John, Jesus, His apostles, or anyone else?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). God gave to us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). The faith was delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3). For this reason, only the Scriptures can serve as our authority in religion. Nothing written in any other century since was written by an inspired prophet of God. Jesus claimed all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). How does He feel when the baptism He authorized—by immersion and for the remission of sins—is cast aside in favor of sprinkling, pouring, dipping three times, or anything else invented by man? One wonders if He will ask some on the Day of Judgment, “What was unclear about “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved?”

And He could equally ask, “How did you not know you needed to be immersed when you knew that the very word baptism involved immersion by definition?

Arguments for Sprinkling

One of the first arguments that one is likely to hear is that whole households in the New Testament were baptized; therefore, infant baptism was practiced; therefore, sprinkling was used. Scriptures cited are Acts 10:47-48; 16:15, 29-34; 1 Corinthians 1:16, and 16:15. No one would deny that whole households were baptized, but which one of them contained infants? A household might only include sisters and servants. They might be a family of a husband, wife, and some teenage children. Not one of these passages implies an infant or that pouring was used. The word is baptized in each case; none had water sprinkled or poured on them. The encyclopedia admits that “there is no express instance of infant baptism” (467).

An even more prominent allegation appears in Paedobaptist literature, accord to the encyclopedia. Proof of infant baptism is alleged in Jesus’ blessing of the children (Mark 10:14-16). Here the encyclopedia agrees that blessing the children hardly means they were baptized. They even quote the popular Baptist preacher Spurgeon, who commented on this text: “See that you read the word as it is written and you will find no water in it, but Jesus only” (467). Those words are sufficient to show the fallacy of such reasoning.

A third argument is that baptism takes the place of circumcision, and since Hebrew males were circumcised, infants need to be sprinkled. Are circumcision and baptism linked? Yes, they are. The Judaizing teachers were constantly pushing for the children of Christians to be circumcised—and to obey all the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1, 5). Paul wrote that Christians already have a circumcision (baptism) and therefore do not need the physical one in addition to it.

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Col. 2:11-12).

Circumcision was part of an agreement that God first made with Abraham (Gen. 17). Males had to be circumcised, or they could not be part of the covenant (under Moses, also). Baptism corresponds to that, but there are vast differences. The most obvious one is that only males in Israel were circumcised, but both males and females are baptized. (If not, then explain Lydia).

The Hebrew males had a piece of skin removed, but in baptism what is put off is described as “the body of the sins of the flesh.” So, the former involved cutting off a piece of flesh, the latter involves the removal of sins. One is physical, the other is spiritual.

A third difference is that the Hebrew male child was circumcised on the eighth day, and he had no say in what was being done to him. The same is not true with a Christian. He knows the reason he is being baptized. He is buried in the waters of baptism (not sprinkled) and raised up through faith in the working of God, who raised Jesus from the dead. Whereas the Hebrew child did not need any faith whatsoever to be circumcised, a Christian is baptized because he has faith. He has faith that God will remove his sins in the process. He understands that the same God who raised Jesus up from the dead also has the power to remove all of a person’s sins.

Therefore, while circumcision and baptism have some elements in common, they have at least three differences. And the greatest of these is that infants cannot be baptized because they have no faith, as yet, in God.

A fourth argument made is totally unintelligible. It begins by pointing out that baptism does not always involve the concept of immersion. For example, Paul writes that those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. They claim that baptism is compared to putting on a garment, and there is no immersion involved in that. This is proof? Doesn’t baptism still mean “immersion”?

So, if the church is called a kingdom, is it not still spiritual? If the church is a temple, then its members are priests—not members or citizens. If the church is the family of God, Jesus is our older brother, but then how can He be high priest? The encyclopedia is simply guilty of mixing metaphors. But consider these last two sentences:

The Gr. term βαπτίζω indicates a certain effect without prescribing the precise mode by which this effect is secured. Hence the ordinance is properly administered by sprinkling or affusion (468).

What? Does anyone understand these words—or the logic (?) behind them? Your congenial editor is at a loss. They had already admitted that βαπτίζω means immersion. So, how can they even speak of modes when none else existed at the time the New Testament was written?

The fifth argument made in favor of sprinkling or pouring is that of popularity. In logic, this is called the ad populum fallacy, which is a Latin phrase that means an appeal is made “to the people” for authority. Wikipedia defines it this way: “In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.” The encyclopedia says:

The great majority of confessing Christians have, from ancient times till the present, baptized infants as well as adults. In fact, it is undoubtedly true that most Christians, if one takes into account all the centuries of Christian history, have been baptized in infancy, having been brought to the font by their parents or sponsors, rather than having come by their own consent or volition (466).

(To Be Continued)