What is baptism? Putting the question to John and Charles

Well we only began to visit an Anglican church (a parish of the Reformed Episcopal Church—where, I just recently learned, Moody Bible Institute president James M. Gray was a pastor!) in October, and started to learn about the various differences between my own Plymouth Brethren background and traditional Anglican beliefs a little later. I remember that the first really big difference, at least the first one that struck me as a potential roadblock to our joining, was infant baptism. (I’ve since read that at least some in the Exclusive Brethren do baptize the infants of believers, but I’ve never heard of it among the Open Brethren, with whom I grew up.)

This I consider an important point: I don’t believe that there are two baptisms, one for believing adults and one for their infant children. Paul wrote to the Ephesian church that just as there is one Lord and one faith, there is one baptism:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Ephesians 4:4–6 (NKJV)

This matters vastly (I think) to the debate over whether to baptize Christian believers’ infants: we cannot co-opt the one baptism to serve just any other purpose, however well-intentioned. I’ve said to someone during these last few months of digging into the issue that I know my children belong to God, and I would be happy to declare that or make that known in some meaningful or official way. I understand that some churches hold “baby dedications” for this purpose. But if Christian baptism does not extend to infants, then I have no business “borrowing” it to fulfill such a purpose. Aside from being (I believe) wrong in the first place, that would not be true baptism, and my children would later in life—after making each his or her own individual profession of faith—have to be truly baptized for the first time, as my Brethren or Baptist friends might say.

But what is baptism? I’ve been asked at least once to describe what I believe it does and… I’m in the middle of digging on the topic. I need to know what baptism is before I can conclude that it does or does not pertain to my little children.

And as a related question: how am I to understand Biblical descriptions of baptism such as the following? (All Scripture quotations are from the NKJV.)

• “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (‭‭Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬)
• “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” (‭Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭3‬)‬‬
• “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭27‬)‬‬
• “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” (‭I Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭21‬)

I just want to contrast two views here. I know there are more than two, yes. 🙂 But I may be noticing a pattern among advocates of the more Baptist view and among advocates of (for example) the Anglican view, and though I know that there is only one baptism, I don’t think that the two sides in this debate agree on what it is.

Passive picture painted by the believer

This is what I held to (though without deep study of my own on the issue) ever since I had a belief about baptism. I think it’s what has been called the “Bare Token” view: baptism is a picture of my identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, and a command of the Lord Jesus—I must be baptized. But baptism “does” nothing.

Here is Charles Spurgeon’s description of baptism:

…Just as our Saviour said—“This is my body,” when it was not his body, but bread; yet, inasmuch as it represented his body, it was fair and right according to the usage of language to say, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And so, inasmuch as baptism to the believer representeth the washing of sin—it may be called the washing of sin—not that it is so, but that it is to saved souls the outward symbol and representation of what is done by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the man who believes in Christ.

What connection has this baptism with faith? I think it has just this, baptism is the avowal of faith; the man was Christ’s soldier, but now in baptism he puts on his regimentals. The man believed in Christ, but his faith remained between God and his own soul. In baptism he says to the baptizer, “I believe in Jesus Christ;” he says to the Church, “I unite with you as a believer in the common truths of Christianity;” he saith to the onlooker, “Whatever you may do, as for me, I will serve the Lord.” It is the avowal of his faith.

Next, we think baptism is also to the believer a testimony of his faith; he does in baptism tell the world what he believes. “I am about,” saith he, “to be buried in water. I believe that the Son of God was metaphorically baptized in suffering: I believe he was literally dead and buried.” To rise again out of the water sets forth to all men that he believes in the resurrection of Christ. There is a showing forth in the Lord’s Supper of Christ’s death, and there is a showing forth in baptism of Christ’s burial and resurrection. It is a type, a sign, a symbol, a mirror to the world: a looking-glass in which religion is as it were reflected. We say to the onlooker, when he asks what is the meaning of this ordinance, “We mean to set forth our faith that Christ was buried, and that he rose again from the dead, and we avow this death and resurrection to be the ground of our trust.”

Again, baptism is also Faith’s taking her proper place. It is, or should be one of her first acts of obedience. Reason looks at baptism, and says, “Perhaps there is nothing in it; it cannot do me any good.” “True,” says Faith, “and therefore will I observe it. If it did me some good my selfishness would make me do it, but inasmuch as to my sense there is no good in it, since I am bidden by my Lord thus to fulfil all righteousness, it is my first public declaration that a thing which looks to be unreasonable and seems to be unprofitable, being commanded by God, is law, is law to me. … The very simplicity and apparent uselessness of the ordinance should make the believer say, ‘Therefore I do it because it becomes the better test to me of my obedience to my Master.’”

Sermon on “Baptismal Regeneration” (1864)

Notice the repeated references to the believer’s speaking out: “he says to the baptizer”, “he says to the Church”, “he saith to the onlooker”. “We mean to set forth our faith that Christ was buried, and that he rose again from the dead”.

I am not joking, I used to wonder, when I was smaller: if a baptism takes place without witnesses (ideally unbelievers) present, what is the point? If my baptism is a public profession where I identify myself with Christ’s death and resurrection and I speak to the baptizer, the Church, the onlooker that I have faith in Christ, ought I not to want a crowd to watch?

Notice also the phrase “[act] of obedience”. Now I do not deny that to be baptized as a believer is to obey the Lord. But this specific phrase was one I heard fairly often growing up, in reference to baptism, and I’ve lately wondered if that wasn’t partly because we believed that baptism “does” nothing. If God doesn’t do it, it must be that we do it; we cannot do it in order to have anything, and nothing about us can change when we do it. Why do we do it? Because the Lord commanded it. That is certainly the only reason we need to do anything, but consider what Spurgeon says just after:

Reason looks at baptism, and says, “Perhaps there is nothing in it; it cannot do me any good.” “True,” says Faith, “and therefore will I observe it. If it did me some good my selfishness would make me do it, but inasmuch as to my sense there is no good in it, since I am bidden by my Lord thus to fulfil all righteousness, it is my first public declaration that a thing which looks to be unreasonable and seems to be unprofitable, being commanded by God, is law, is law to me. … The very simplicity and apparent uselessness of the ordinance should make the believer say, ‘Therefore I do it because it becomes the better test to me of my obedience to my Master.’”

This is consistent with the understanding I had of baptism all my life: it is a command from the Lord Jesus, and I do it because He commands it. It is a symbol or illustration of my being buried and rising with Christ, which has already happened in the past (since I am not to be baptized until I believe and thus have assurance that I am saved). Every Scripture reference to my being buried with Christ into death, putting on Christ, receiving remission of sins, and being saved, I took as meaning “as is pictured in your baptism”.

Visible, faith-stimulating word from God

And now for what I see as the main alternative understanding. I was recently struck by some pieces of John Stott’s article “The Evangelical Doctrine of Baptism” (1964), and I think it is an adequate introduction to this view.

Stott begins, in the section “The Meaning of Baptism”:

The best way to introduce the meaning of baptism is to assert that both the sacraments of the gospel are essentially sacraments of grace, that is, sacraments of divine initiative, not of human activity. The clearest evidence of this in the case of baptism is that, in the New Testament, the candidate never baptizes himself, but always submits to being baptized by another. In his baptism, he is a passive recipient of something that is done to him.

There’s, if not a definition, a category to describe baptism: a sacrament. This is not a word that I heard, understood, or accepted in my Brethren background. The ACNA catechism says:

A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. God gives us the sign as a means by which we receive that grace and as a tangible assurance that we do in fact receive it. (Genesis 17:1– 21; John 6:53–58; Romans 2:25–29; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1662 Catechism)

Stott cites the Thirty-Nine Articles to explain:

…the Articles refer to baptism as not only a sign of grace but a means of grace; and not only a sign, but an effectual sign of grace (Article 25), ‘by the which God doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him’. Since a sacrament is a visible word, and it is the function of God’s word to arouse faith (Rom 10:17), the sacraments stimulate our faith to lay hold of the blessings which they signify and to which they entitle us.

Then having begun with the assertion that baptism represents divine initiative and not human activity, he gives to the question “what grace of God does it signify”? a “threefold” answer:

• union with Christ (Romans 6:3–4)
• forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Titus 3:5)
• the gift of the Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:38–39)

And finally (for my purposes), forgive me if I quote at some length from the section “The Effect of Baptism”:

The question may be asked why, if baptism does not by itself confer the graces it signifies (but rather a title to them), the Bible and Prayer Book sometimes speak as if they did. I have already mentioned such phrases as ‘baptized into Christ’ (Rom 6:3), ‘as many as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ’ (Gal 3:27), ‘baptism saves us’ (1 Peter 3:21), and ‘this child is regenerate’ (Book of Common Prayer).

The answer is really quite simple. It is that neither the Bible nor the Prayer Book envisages the baptism of an unbeliever; they assume that the recipient is a true believer. And since ‘baptism and faith are but the outside and the inside of the same thing’ (James Denney), the blessings of the New Covenant are ascribed to baptism which really belong to faith (Gal 3:26, 28). Jesus had said ‘he that believes and is baptized shall be saved’, implying that faith would precede baptism. So a profession of faith after hearing the gospel always preceded baptism in Acts. For instance, ‘they that received the word were baptized’ (2:41), ‘they believed Philip preaching… and were baptized’ (8:12), ‘Lydia gave heed to what was said by Paul. And when she was baptized…’ (16:14, 15), ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…’ (16:31-3).

It is the same in the Prayer Book service. There is no baptism in the Church of England except the baptism of a professing believer, adult or infant. The adult candidate’s declaration of repentance, faith and surrender is followed by baptism and the declaration of regeneration. The same is true of an infant in the 1662 service, where it is not the godparents who speak for the child so much as the child who is represented as speaking through his sponsors. The child declares his or her repentance, faith and surrender, and desire for baptism. The child is then baptized and declared regenerate. So he is regenerate, in the same sense as he is a repentant believer in Jesus Christ, namely in the language of anticipatory faith or of sacraments.

It is in this sense too that we must understand the Catechism statement ‘I was made a child of God’. It is sacramental language. I was ‘made’ a child of God in baptism, because baptism gave me a title to this privilege, not because baptism conferred this status on me irrespective of whether I believed or not.

Conclusion: I have a lot to learn

And that’s whichever way you slice it.

Note: This entire post was inspired by Phil at Theology Thoughts, who in his fascinating series on baptism demonstrates the difference in (specifically) the Baptist and Presbyterian understandings and in the process cites the Spurgeon sermon I mention here.