Truth Warrior

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Believers’ Baptism (Acts 2:41-42)

Baptists hold to “Believers' Baptism.” I will try to answer the questions: “What is it?” “Who is it for?” and “What does it mean?”

The New Testament was originally written in the Greek language and eventually translated into English. The word “baptize,” however, is an exception. So interesting ... it is not translated into our English Bibles! Instead, it is transliterated … which basically means English letters were used in place of the Greek letters. According to Spiros Zodhiates, a scholar of biblical Greek (who also happens to be Greek), the word “baptize” means to immerse, submerge, or dip. It seems to me, and I am no Greek scholar, that if the word “baptize” was translated into English, one of the above words would have been employed. I wonder how much controversy that would have caused back in the day? After looking at these facts about the word “baptize”, there seems to be only one conclusion: real baptism IS immersion. Sprinkling or or wiping water on the forehead might be less messy, but it isn’t baptism. Let me quote what brother Bobby Grow, a fellow blogger, has pointed out:

It's interesting in the Didache, an early church document (50 yrs within the time of the apostles) which served as a "commentary" on various church practices such as baptism … the preferred methodology was indeed immersion…” (also cf. Matt.3:6,16; Mark 1:10; John 3:23; Acts 8:38-39)

BTW the Greek word for sprinkling is rhantizo, and it has been correctly translated into English in our NT, one place is Heb.9:13 you’ll want to read this in the context.

Who then is to be immersed? I divided a washboard into two columns. Column #1 was “NT persons baptized after trusting Christ for salvation.” Column #2 was “NT persons baptized before trusting Christ for salvation.” I asked my Adult Bible Fellowship to look up verses on baptism. As they read them out to me, I asked the class if they belonged in column #1 or #2. I’ll give you the Scriptures and you may look them up and tell me what you came up with. They are Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12-13; Acts 16:14-15, 31, 33; Acts 18:8. The result in class was quite revealing. You may find some other Scriptures you want to share on this topic, in this post. Participation is encouraged. In our ABF class, we concluded that NT persons baptized after trusting Christ for salvation won the contest. There were none listed in column #2.

One of my favorite preachers used to say, (in a southern drawl) “All the water in the world can not wash away your sins!” I would agree with a hearty, “Amen!” (we do that sort of thing in a Baptist church). Just when you could hear a pin drop, he would lower his voice a bit and say, passionately, “Only the blood… only the blood of Jesus can save you… wont you trust Him… wont you trust Him now?” Once you have, my friend, you’ll want to obey Him and get baptized (immersed), to be identified as a Christian. This ordinance is a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and a “showing forth” that you trust in this. It is the initiation into the local church. It is an outward public declaration of what has already occurred in your heart when you were born again.

After a candidate for baptism would tell their story of saving grace, Pastor Edward Fuller would put his right hand above the head and say, “[Tom] upon your profession of faith alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, I now baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Then he would put his hand on the back of the neck in a fatherly manner and the candidate would cling on to Pastors left hand and as he was lowered into the water, Pastor would continue, “…dead to sin…” then as the new member of our local body came up out of the water, Pastor concluded “…and raised to newness of life.” It was all very clear that this was a living testimony of an historical occurrence.

There are some problematic texts on this issue. Perhaps I will circle back to this at some later date … unless some wish to challenge (with chapter and verse) my thinking on baptism or anything that can be remotely related to this post. I now commit these thoughts to your scrutiny.

17 Comments:

  • I think you hit the nail on the head! (not "literally" of course!)

    Antonio

    (hehe)

    By Blogger Antonio, at 10/11/05 6:08 PM  

  • Antonio,
    Thanks your comment. Keep coming back.

    cheerfully in Christ,
    brother John

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 11/11/05 7:23 AM  

  • That washboard thing pure genius! Great post..I agree with the results.

    Mark

    By Blogger mark pierson, at 11/11/05 11:06 AM  

  • Mark-
    If only I could take credit for it, the curriculum I use as a guide is from Regular Baptist Press (RBP), it suggested a chalk board, but the washboard was available so...

    Thanks for the kudos,
    John

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 11/11/05 5:22 PM  

  • I'm a Presbyterian (the conservative variety), so I have a bit of a different take on baptism :o).

    About the Didache, it talks about baptizing in the presence of running water, and it does not specifically say how you should baptize with it. But that is a side point.

    If you're going to point to early historical references to baptism, the vast majority of early church fathers refer to baptizing infants.

    Now, you and I know that we don't blindly follow early church fathers. They are often a mixed bag in doctrine. But paedobaptism seems to be the norm in most of the earliest references about baptism.

    By Blogger Earl Flask, at 11/11/05 6:37 PM  

  • Actually the Didache does speak of immersion; I'll have to dig up the quote. But either way, I'm not entrenched in the belief that immersion is the only way for baptism.

    Paedobaptism really is only assumed from a covenant theology framework (i.e. baptism replacing the sign of circumcision Col 2). I think one must assume this theological construct in order to argue consistently for paedobaptism. Which I don't, which is a whole other discussion (between dispensationalism and covenant theology/or continunity views vs. discontinuity views of the relationship between old and new covenant thinking).

    I agree scripture is the final arbiter here.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11/11/05 7:56 PM  

  • BTW John, thanks for the quote (even though it's in dispute a little, I'll try to dig up the quote, this was from recollection, it definitely spoke of believer's baptism--I'll keep digging mysefl a hole here ;). I think this is a great post.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11/11/05 8:00 PM  

  • Here's the pericope (quote) on baptism from the Didache (trans. J.B. Lightfoot):

    "7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
    7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
    7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
    7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
    7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
    7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
    7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before."


    Esp. not 7:2,3,5. Running water would be say, a river, which implies immersion--this can be deduced by 7:5 which says if one does not have a "living" water source--then go ahead and "sprinkle". Looking at this again, it does show that the important thing isn't the methodology, necessarily, but that one is baptized with the trinitarian formula. It also argues, implicitly against paedobaptism in 7:7, i.e. an infant or small child would not be expected to fast.

    Since I asserted certain things about the Didache's communication on baptism, in light of Earl's comment, and your quoting of me, John--I thought I should follow it up--so there it is :).

    God Bless

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11/11/05 8:17 PM  

  • Every once in a while, you need an easy pitch from the opposition for you to hit the ball out of the park. I provided that service for you. :o)

    By Blogger Earl Flask, at 11/11/05 11:24 PM  

  • Actually I prefer sliders, earl ;).

    BTW, I don't consider you the opposition, I just don't agree with your view on padeobaptism--but we're still brothers in Christ.

    You did make me re-think if I was mis-characterizing the Didache; you made me flinch enough to actually go look it up--thank you, seriously!

    In Christ,
    Bobby

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/11/05 2:35 AM  

  • "Water baptism" is a picture of what transpired when the believer placed his faith and trust in the sacrificial death, physical burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). Believers partake in "water baptism" as a public testimony to the fact that they have received God's gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 6:23).
    Great Post

    By Blogger forgiven, at 12/11/05 6:03 AM  

  • totally agreed.

    By Blogger Shawn, at 12/11/05 10:44 AM  

  • Bobby, you're right, we aren't the opposition to each other. I was saying that tongue-in-check.

    When I read my copy of the Didache, and I saw that you could argue exactly the way you did. I just made my observation to see how you'd answer -- and you answered very well. While I could try to argue a different view, I don't think I could present a good case from the Didache alone that the authors had a different view.

    The discussion was useful for me too. It's always good to examine the historical documents themselves, and see where my bias can influence how I read things.

    By Blogger Earl Flask, at 12/11/05 6:47 PM  

  • Good conversation Earl, thanks! I see it was just a test, looks like I passed, alright :) . . .

    BTW, you do realize that "most" patristic Fathers, not only held to paedobaptism, but also to paedobaptismal regeneration, right ;)?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 13/11/05 2:11 AM  

  • So Earl,
    How close are you to believer's baptism by immersion?

    By Blogger Jeremy Weaver, at 13/11/05 8:29 AM  

  • Yes, I realize that the patristic fathers are full of gems, like baptismal regeneration. There are even some Reformed people who hold that view (shudder!)

    How close am I to believer's baptism by immersion? Not very. I was an ardent believer's baptism supporter until around 10 years ago. We had moved into the Atlanta area, and we started visiting a conservative Presbyterian church who held to the inerrancy of Scripture. But I struggled with many things about them, would get into all sorts of arguments.

    What clinched baptism for me what the Covenant Theology approach. It was one aha moments in my life, I was a latent Covenant theology people -- so the categories and the appraoch to Biblical interpetation made sense. I know for many people this doesn't.

    So, this is where I am. But I sure enjoy reading y'all's comments.

    By Blogger Earl Flask, at 13/11/05 10:58 PM  

  • Brothers,
    I also see some inconsistencies with covenant theology and believers' baptism. On this post, I am simply declaring what Baptists have historically believed. I thank you for the mind stretching questions and for those who have researched some things and posted them here! I hope to speak more about my views on covenant and dispensational theology at a later time.

    Earl, I have a rich Presbyterian heritage that has caused some people to say that I am just an immersed Presbyterian. Thanks for reading and for your comments.

    brohter John

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 14/11/05 6:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Who Links Here