Chapter 29: Of Baptism
Introductory Observations
“Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ”
When the Confession begins to deal specifically with the ordinance of baptism, it first says that baptism is a New Testament ordinance that finds its origin in the will of Jesus Christ. This language reminds us of the statement made in chapter 29, paragraph 1 concerning both ordinances: “Baptism and the Lord’s supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.”
It seems to be stating the obvious to say that baptism was not practiced during the time of the old covenant, but this is a significant point because it suggests an important principle of Biblical interpretation. A correct understanding of the ordinance must surely be derived primarily from a study of the New Testament, because it is in the New Testament that we find the practice of baptism described and explained.
It is especially important to remember this principle when we ask the question, “To whom is baptism to be administered?”. As we shall see, it is plain from the testimony of the New Testament that baptism was administered only to those who repented of their sins and expressed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
In spite of this, many Christians believe that it is also appropriate to baptize the infant children of believers. This practice is called “paedobaptism” (paideia is one of the Greek words for child).
Some paedobaptists (for example, Roman Catholics) base their practice on a sacramental view of baptism. They believe that saving grace is actually conveyed to the infant in the act of baptism. It is easy to dismiss their position. As we have already seen in our discussion of chapter 28, and as we shall see again, the Bible teaches that the ordinances are pictures of God’s saving grace, but they do not themselves convey that grace.
But there are many other paedobaptists who are evangelical and Reformed in their theology. They base their practice on their understanding of the Biblical covenants. Their argument is essentially this. In His covenant with Abraham, God includes Abraham’s children. God requires that Abraham’s children receive the covenant sign of circumcision. In the new covenant that God makes with believers in Christ, therefore, we would expect God to continue that pattern. This is especially true since circumcision and baptism point to the same spiritual reality, the removal of the filth of sin.
We will consider this argument later, but for now we need to appreciate the principle of Biblical interpretation suggested by the statement that “baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ”. We believe that there is some continuity in God’s covenant dealings, and we further believe that there are certain parallels between circumcision and baptism, but we also believe that our practice of baptism must not be determined by the practice of circumcision.
The Confession summarizes the teaching of the Bible concerning baptism under three heads: the Biblical significance (paragraph 1), the appropriate subjects (paragraph 2), and the proper manner (paragraphs 3 and 4).
I. The Biblical Significance of Baptism (Paragraph 1)
Introductory statement.
“to be unto the party baptized, a sign”
Baptism, according to the Confession, is a sign. It is important to understand this language.
We are accustomed to regarding certain actions as signs. When we see certain things happen, we say to ourselves, “That is significant. It means something.” When an Olympic athlete is presented with a gold medal, for example, that is significant. It means that he has taken first place in his sporting activity. The awarding of the medal is the sign of that reality. It is not the reality itself. The athlete has not taken first place because he has received the medal; he has received the medal because he has taken first place.
It is impossible to overestimate the importance of the Confession’s assertion that baptism is a sign. Baptism points to the reality of what Jesus has done for the believer. Baptism does not itself convey those saving benefits! It is a picture of those benefits, and it is a picture of the appropriate response to those benefits.
This is another way of stating the truth that justification is by grace alone through faith alone. God’s grace is received by faith; that is to say, the sinner must personally repent of his sins and exercise faith in Jesus Christ. It was (and still is) the belief of Roman Catholicism that the church has been given a supply of God’s grace which it then dispenses through baptism and the other sacraments. The Confession, reflecting the Bible, denies this perversion of the gospel. The Confession insists that baptism is a sign of the benefit received when a sinner repents and believes.
It is worth noting that the Confession states that baptism is a sign “unto the party baptized”. We often think of baptism as a statement made by the one being baptized, and so it is. But that is not where the Biblical emphasis is placed. According to the Confession, baptism functions primarily as a sign to the believer. It is primarily a powerful statement made by God to the one who has trusted Jesus for salvation.
We shall see that a believer’s baptism serves in this way both to motivate and to comfort. This reminds us of the kindness of God. Sometimes Jesus’ disciples need to fight the temptation to sin. Sometimes they need to fight the temptation to discouragement and fear. God ministers to both of those needs by pointing His people to the picture painted in baptism.
Let us now proceed to consider what the Confessions says concerning the actual significance of baptism.
A. The significance of baptism stated.
“a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him”
Simply stated, baptism is a sign of the believer’s union with Christ in His death and resurrection. In baptism, a new disciple is plunged beneath the water and then lifted up again. This is a picture of death, burial and resurrection. It points to the amazing reality that the believer has died with Christ, been buried with Christ, and resurrected with Christ. It is no surprise that baptism is selected as the picture which represents the essence of Christian discipleship, because when we speak of the Biblical doctrine of the believer’s union with Christ we are at the very heart of the Christian gospel.
The Bible tells us that every natural descendant of Adam participated in Adam’s sin. Adam acted as our representative. When Adam sinned, we all sinned (Romans 5:12-21;
1 Corinthians 15:21, 22). Furthermore, we all share in the consequences of Adam’s disobedience. We are born sinful, and are subject to the penalty of death (cf. Romans 3:23). (For a fuller discussion of this truth, the reader is referred to the article on Chapter 6, “Of The Fall Of Man, Of Sin, And Of The Punishment Thereof”.)
In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Jesus is called “the last Adam”. Like Adam, Jesus stands as the representative of His descendants. Just as Adam’s sin is reckoned to his natural children, so Christ’s righteousness is reckoned to His spiritual children (again, Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22). It is just as if believers obeyed when Jesus obeyed, and suffered for sin when He suffered for sin. (For a full treatment of this subject, the reader is referred to chapter 11, “Of Justification”, especially paragraphs 1-3.)
The Confession further describes this union with the use of familiar imagery: “of his being engrafted into him”. The word “engraft” is used of the process by which one living organism is implanted into another, forming a single entity. There can be little doubt that the writers were thinking of Romans 11, where Paul describes the Gentile believers as “a wild olive tree” (v. 17), some of whose branches are engrafted into that “tree” which represents the people of God.
Those who embrace Jesus Christ in true repentance and faith become a part of Him, just as much as an engrafted branch would become “a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree” (again, v. 17; cf. the following verses). The result of engrafting is one tree. The result of faith and repentance is union with Jesus Christ. The believer is in Christ, and is considered one with Him.
The Scriptural support for the Confession’s assertion that baptism is a sign of this union is found in the three passages cited by the Confession.
Romans 6:3-5: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into His death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.”
The fact that the believer has died and risen again with Christ is a powerful encouragement to holiness, as we shall see. But for now it is enough for our purposes to observe the language which Paul employs here. Those who “were baptized into Jesus were baptized into His death” (v. 3). In baptism, disciples are “buried with Him” (v. 4). In verse 5, he asserts that believers “have been united together in the likeness of His death” and “shall be in the likeness of His resurrection”. This, of course, is pictured in baptism.
Colossians 2:12: “…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.”
Here we find this same imagery employed: “buried with Him”, “raised with Him”. This reality is signified in Christian baptism. The believer was once regarded as one with Adam, and now he is regarded as one with Christ.
Galatians 3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Take note of the striking language: “baptized into Christ”. When a sinner turns from his sins and believes in Jesus Christ, he comes to be in Christ. He becomes one with the Savior. The disciple is inseparably united to Christ. It is as if the disciple had put Christ on as a garment!
A helpful illustration of the believer’s union with Christ is found in the Bible itself, in a passage not cited by the Confession. In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter says that baptism is an “antitype” of the ark constructed by Noah at the direction of God. He means that the ark was a picture that pointed to the saving reality signified by Christian baptism.
Those who took refuge in the ark did not avoid the flood which God brought as a judgment upon the world. Instead, they passed safely through that flood because they were in the ark appointed by God for their salvation. In exactly the same way, those who believe in Jesus Christ take refuge in Him. They pass safely through the wrath of God because they are in Christ. They were present in Christ when He endured the wrath of God on the cross, they emerged in Him from the tomb, and thus rise to a new life.
This, then, is the significance of baptism stated. Baptism is a simple yet stunning picture of the believer’s union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.
B. The significance of baptism elaborated.
The Biblical doctrine of union with Christ has profound practical implications, and the Confession recognizes this. Because the believer is in saving union with Jesus Christ, two things are true.
1. His sins are forgiven.
“of remission of sins”
The Confession cites two passages of Scripture in support of its assertion that baptism is a picture of the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1:4: “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”
According to this passage, baptism is first of all an expression of repentance. The forerunner of the Messiah understood the Messiah’s mission and message. John knew that Jesus was not coming to conquer the Romans; He was coming to accomplish redemption from sin. The Christ would preach the necessity of repentance (v. 15). Those who would be counted as disciples of the Messiah must express genuine repentance, and they did so by submitting to baptism. (In Luke 3:7-14, we discover that John insisted on convincing evidence of repentance before he would administer baptism, showing once again that the act of baptism does not actually save.)
But baptism also serves as a statement from God that the one who truly repents and believes in Jesus is forgiven of his sins. It says that John preached “a baptism of repentance for (literally, unto) the remission of sins.” “Remission” means a releasing, a sending away. The remission of sins, therefore, means that those sins are sent away. They will never again come between God and the believer. Baptism is a picture of that reality.
Think again of Peter’s assertion that Noah’s ark was a picture of Christ. Those who took refuge in the ark passed safely through the waters of judgment, just as those who take refuge in Christ pass safely through the fires of judgment. Because they are in Christ, they emerge from judgment untouched. This is what God says to the believer in baptism: “Because you have trusted in Jesus Christ, the Savior I have provided, you shall pass safely through judgment.”
(In addition to the waters involved in the flood at the time of Noah, it could well be that the Jews of John’s day would also think of the waters of the Red Sea. The people of Israel went through the Red Sea in perfect safety as they followed Moses, while the same waters proved deadly to the Egyptians who defied God.)
Acts 22:16: “`And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’”
The fierce persecutor of the church, Saul of Tarsus, has become a believer. At the command of the Lord, Ananias goes to him and speaks of the mission which Christ has given Saul. Then Ananias exhorts Saul to “be baptized, and wash away your sins”. Saul’s sins are forgiven because he has repented and believed in Jesus, and that forgiveness is portrayed in baptism.
In fact, cleansing is one of the most obvious images conveyed by immersion in water. If an outsider were to observe a baptism, and be told only that baptism is administered to those who have become disciples of Jesus, the outsider would naturally conclude that the first thing a disciple needs is a bath…and he would be correct! The sinner needs to be cleansed from the filth of his sin. In baptism, God says this to the believer: “Because you have repented and believed in my Son, your sins are washed away.”
2. He has turned from sin to follow Jesus.
“and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life”
Once again, the Confession refers us to Romans 6, where Paul responds to an objection that may be raised against the doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Christ. Won’t such a teaching just encourage people to sin? The apostle reminds his readers that faith in Christ is inseparable from repentance. In fact, the believer in Jesus experiences a radical spiritual transformation. He turns from sin to obedience. Paul describes this conversion experience as a death to sin (cf. v. 11) and a rising again to a new life of righteousness (cf. v. 13).
It is this saving union with Christ that is pictured in baptism. The believer’s baptism is an outward demonstration of an inward change that Paul describes as a death and a resurrection. The Christian no longer lives in the old ways of sin. “Even so” Paul writes, “we also should walk in newness of life.” In verse 6 he goes on to say that “our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.”
In this way, baptism becomes a powerful weapon in the believer’s war with his remaining sin. It is a reminder of the public commitment made in baptism, a commitment to turn from sin and follow Christ. But it is also a reminder of the work of conversion done in the believer by God. As Paul goes on to explain in chapter 6, the believer is no longer the slave of sin. He does not have to obey the old sinful impulses anymore. He is a new man in Christ, and should act like a new man.
This, then, is the Biblical significance of baptism. It is a sign. It points to the glorious reality that the believer is in saving union with Christ. And because he is in saving union with Christ, his sins are forgiven, and he is enabled and committed to live a life of obedience to Christ.
II. The Appropriate Subjects of Baptism (Paragraph 2)
“Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.”
When we deal with the appropriate subjects of baptism, we are really asking the question, “To whom should baptism be administered?”. The importance of this issue cannot be overestimated. It brings us to the heart of the disagreement which exists among Reformed Christians concerning baptism. There is a difference of opinion over the proper manner of baptism (Baptists practice total immersion in water while Paedobaptists generally sprinkle with water), but the most important question is not “How shall we baptize?”. The most important question is, “Whom shall we baptize?”
The 1689 Confession asserts that “the only proper subjects” of baptism are “those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus”. But, as we have already noted, there are many believers who disagree, even though they share our evangelical and Reformed convictions. Paedobaptists believe that baptism should also be administered to the infant children of Jesus’ confessed disciples. The Westminster Confession of Faith, published by the English Presbyterians, makes this statement in chapter 28, paragraph 4: “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized.”
We will deal with the matter of the appropriate subjects of baptism under two heads: the Baptist position supported, and then the Paedobaptist argument considered.
A. The Baptist position supported.
We cannot place too much emphasis on the simple fact that the position taken in the 1689 Confession is derived from a straightforward reading of the New Testament. It is in the New Testament that baptism is introduced, and we have already noted that the New Testament data should therefore primarily regulate our thinking on the subject.
There are three lines of New Testament evidence to consider.
1. The significance of baptism.
When the writers of the Confession assert that baptism should be administered only to “those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus”, it seems clear that they are thinking of the implication of the significance of baptism as stated in paragraph 1. If baptism is a sign of union with Christ, resulting in the forgiveness of sins and a newness of life, then it would seem obvious that baptism should not be administered to infants who are incapable of comprehending the gospel, much less of expressing the appropriate response of repentance and faith.
It is precisely here that the practical impact of one’s position on the appropriate subjects of baptism becomes very apparent. Of whom may it properly be said that he is in saving union with Christ, that his sins are forgiven, and that he has committed himself to walk in newness of life? To put it another way, to whom may a church say, “You are a Christian.”?
It is quite true that baptism saves no one, and it is also quite true that a church has no right to make an infallible pronouncement regarding anyone’s true spiritual state. But whenever a church administers baptism, it is acting in obedience to Christ’s mandate in Matthew 28:19, 20. On behalf of the Lord, the church says to the baptized one that he is in saving union with Christ. It is easy to see how the church may say that to one who gives credible evidence of faith and repentance, but it is not easy to see how the church may say that to an infant.
There appears to be considerable confusion and disagreement among Paedobaptists at this point. When they baptize the infant children of believers, are they saying that those children are actually Christians? Are they presuming that they will become Christians? Are they saying that these children have certain “covenant” privileges that fall short of actual salvation? Or is baptism actually a statement about the parents and their commitment to rear their children according to the terms of the covenant?
The New Testament evidence regarding the significance of baptism is unambiguous, and clearly supports the assertion of the Confession that baptism should be administered only to “those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus”.
2. The examples of baptism.
The assertion of the Confession does not rest entirely upon the implication of the significance of baptism. The writers proceed to cite passages which describe the way that the Apostles of Christ approached the practice of baptism. These passages teach explicitly that baptism is to be administered only to those who do comprehend the gospel and make the appropriate response.
The Confession first cites Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (A parallel is found in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”)
Following His resurrection from the grave, Jesus Christ commanded that His gospel be proclaimed throughout the world. Those who became His disciples (that is, those who would respond to the preaching of the gospel in repentance and faith) were to be baptized. Baptism is only for disciples of Jesus. Nothing is said about baptism for the infant children of disciples.
It seems clear that the apostles understood our Lord’s “Great Commission” in this way, because we are informed of their uniform practice in the administration of baptism.
The Confession cites the following examples from the Book of Acts.
2:41: “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized, and that day about three thousand were added to them.”
8:12: “But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.”
8:36,37: “Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, `See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?’ Then Philip said, `If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, `I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”
18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”
In each and every example, baptism is explicitly connected with an intelligent and positive response to the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This practice accords perfectly with that of John the Baptist, who insisted not only upon the expression of repentance, but also upon some evidence of repentance. (Interestingly, John also made it clear that a claim of family membership was an insufficient response to the preaching of the coming Messiah; there must be a personal response of repentance, Luke 3:8.)
To be fair to all of the New Testament examples of baptism, it is essential that we consider the so-called “household baptisms”. There are three incidents recorded in Acts in which baptism is administered to a new disciple of Jesus Christ along with others who were members of his household: Cornelius (10:47,48), Lydia (16:14,15), and the Philippian jailer (16:33).
Some Paedobaptists would point to these incidents and insist that there is at least the likelihood that these households included small children. Do these examples not warrant the baptism of such children along with their believing parents?
It must be replied that the Bible simply does not tell us whether there were small children present in these families or not. In the case of Lydia, for example, it may well be that her “household” means only her household servants. Since no husband is mentioned, and since she was herself a merchant, it may well be that she was single with no children of her own. Or she may have been a widow whose children were grown. We are not told.
Furthermore, there is evidence that the members of these “households” were themselves old enough to hear and understand the gospel, and to make the appropriate response. In the case of Cornelius, for example, those who were baptized (10:48) were those who heard Peter’s preaching (10:33, 44). They also experienced the reception of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (10:44-47, an experience connected with belief, cf. 11:17). In the case of the Philippian jailer, it explicitly says that Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house” (16:32), and that the jailer “rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (v. 34). The members of the man’s family heard and believed, just as he did, and that is why they were baptized along with him.
A fair evaluation of the New Testament examples of baptism leads to one conclusion: “Those who do actually profess repentance toward God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.”
B. The Paedobaptist argument considered.
If one wishes truly to understand Reformed and evangelical Paedobaptism, it is not enough to interact with the New Testament data. It is essential to come to grips with the Paedobaptistic understanding of the Biblical covenants. The most persuasive argument for the baptism of the infant children of believers is derived from the covenants which are described in the Old Testament.
A full discussion of this issue is impossible in an article of this size! Countless books have been printed on the subject, and it is difficult concisely to state the Paedobaptistic position on this point when the representative writers often disagree among themselves. But I believe that the basic Paedobaptistic argument from the covenants may fairly be summarized as follows.
God’s covenants with men have always been structured along family lines. Adam acted as the representative of his descendants; the consequences of his disobedience fell upon them, just as the blessings of his obedience presumably would have been theirs. When He destroyed the world with the flood, God welcomed Noah’s sons into the ark of safety, and the benefits of the covenant which God made with Noah after the flood were enjoyed by all of Noah’s posterity.
It is God’s covenant with Abraham, however, which becomes the focus of attention, since it was in the context of that covenant that the blessings of salvation through Jesus Christ would be realized. The promises of that covenant were made to Abraham and to his descendants after him (Genesis 17:7,8). Furthermore, Abraham’s descendants were to receive the covenant “sign”, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14; cf. Romans 4:11). Circumcision involves the cutting off of actual flesh, and is intended to serve as a picture of the cutting off of sin in the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Colossians 2:11). God desired purity in His covenant people. They were to be separate from the nations around them.
It seems unlikely (Paedobaptists would argue) that God would change this procedure with the introduction of the new covenant through the ministry of Jesus Christ. God had always included the children – would He suddenly exclude them? Would we expect His saving purposes to be more restrictive under the new covenant? There is unquestionably a change in the covenant sign: baptism takes the place of circumcision. But circumcision and baptism both appear to point to the same inward spiritual reality: “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh” (Colossians 2:11, 12).
Because of this, the absence of explicit New Testament evidence for infant baptism is neither surprising nor troubling. Why would the writers even bother to mention that children receive the covenant sign along with their parents? That practice was so well established that its continuation would be naturally assumed. In fact, one might expect some convincing warrant for not baptizing the children of disciples!
In response, it must be admitted that the Paedobaptist argument from the covenants seems persuasive. There certainly seem to be more Reformed Paedobaptists than Reformed Baptists! A detailed treatment of the Paedobaptist argument, as already noted, is far beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the argument fails to appreciate a major structural change that takes place with the introduction of the new covenant.
A comparison of the old and new covenants is provided in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (which is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12). God had made a covenant with the Jews when He brought them out of Egypt. The descendants of Abraham became a political entity, and settled in a specific geographical location. They were also a religious community, whose worship anticipated the coming of the great priest who would make satisfaction for the sins of God’s people.
The arrival of that great priest would signal the arrival of the “new” covenant. While there would be many similarities between the covenants, there would be one major difference, advertised in Jeremiah 31:34: “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying `Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
This language is striking. There were some in the old covenant community who did not know the Lord. In fact, it is fair to say that most of the descendants of Abraham did not know the Lord. Paul addresses this very issue in Romans 9, demonstrating that the rejection of Jesus by the majority of the nation of Israel should not surprise us. God has always had a “remnant”: true believers had always constituted a tiny minority in the nation of Israel. Note especially vv. 6-8:
“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are of the seed of Abraham; but, `In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.”
Nevertheless, the sign of the covenant was to be administered to all of the male children (as well as male household servants, Genesis 17:10-14). Interestingly, Ishmael was also circumcised, even though it was clear that he was not among “the children of God” (Romans 9:8,9; cf. Genesis 17:19-23). Ishmael had not experienced the spiritual reality to which circumcision pointed, yet he received the covenant sign at the explicit command of God.
There is an explanation for this, and it has to do with the structure of the old covenant. The people of God at that time existed as a tribe which developed into a distinct national unit which occupied a specific geographical location. Certain blessings came to all of the descendants of Abraham whether they had cut off their sins or not. It was therefore quite appropriate that the members of that community (including servants who were not even related to Abraham) should be marked by the covenant sign.
It was also appropriate that the sign be received at birth, since membership in the larger community did not depend on one’s spiritual state. God certainly wanted each member of the covenant community to have an obedient heart, but it is equally clear that such a heart was not absolutely necessary to covenant community membership.
(The fact that circumcision signified membership in that larger family and national group is suggested by the very nature of circumcision itself, since circumcision is a procedure which involves the male organ of reproduction.)
The structure of the new covenant is different. God’s people no longer exist in a tribal or national unit; they exist in churches scattered throughout the world. It is expected that each member of each church should give evidence that he “knows the Lord”. The sign of new covenant membership, baptism, is appropriate for both males and females, and is administered only to those who demonstrate that they are Abraham’s spiritual descendants.
Some Paedobaptists point to 1 Corinthians 7:14 as evidence that a believer’s children are also included in the covenant, and should therefore be baptized. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.”
Most likely Paul is addressing the situation in which God is pleased to convert one spouse in a marriage. Can the believer remain in the marriage? Would he not incur defilement because he is married to one who is still in the world of sin and darkness? To the contrary, Paul asserts that the unbelieving spouse is “sanctified”. This cannot mean that the unbelieving spouse has become a Christian, or he would not be called “unbelieving”! It must mean that he is brought (in some sense) into the orbit of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But if this text justifies the baptism of the believer’s children, it also justifies the baptism of a believer’s unbelieving spouse! The children are called “holy”, but the unbelieving spouse is described as “sanctified”, which is simply the verb form of the noun “holy”. The believer’s spouse and children receive certain blessings because there is a believer in the family, but they do not receive the mark of the covenant because the structure of the covenant has changed.
Paedobaptists would also point to the occasion when mothers brought their small children to receive a blessing from Jesus (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17). When the disciples tried to prevent them, Jesus rebuked the disciples and directed that the children should indeed be brought to Him. “For of such”, He explained, “is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14) May this not be an indication that small children should receive the sign of inclusion in the covenant community?
By way of response, it should be noted first of all that this passage is inconclusive on the subject of baptism…especially because nothing at all is said about baptism! Whatever Jesus meant to convey by His willingness to “bless” these little ones should not be allowed to overturn the overwhelming testimony of other passages of Scripture which deal plainly and pointedly with baptism.
Having said that, it should be noted that Jesus says nothing in the text about the parents of these children. The reason for His rebuke of the disciples is rooted in the children themselves. It is therefore essential to ask a very specific question: What exactly did Jesus mean when He said “of such is the kingdom of heaven”?
Did He mean to say that children, simply because they are children, are the subjects of God’s redeeming grace? Surely that contradicts everything the Bible teaches about the necessity of the new birth, which leads to faith and repentance. (Even Paedobaptists would not administer the sign of the covenant to children in general.)
Did He mean to say that the children of Jews, simply because they are the children of Jews, are the subjects of God’s redeeming grace? John the Baptist would not baptize anyone simply because he could trace his descent from Abraham (Luke 3:8). Paul points out in Romans 9:6 that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel”.
Did He mean to say that the children of Christian disciples are the subjects of God’s redeeming grace? Nothing is said about whether the mothers of these little ones were themselves believers. Besides, as already noted, the point is not the parents, but the children.
Could not Jesus simply be saying that little ones ought to be encouraged to come to Jesus for salvation? From their earliest days children should be brought to Jesus. They should be lifted up to Him with prayer for His blessing, and they should be brought near to Him in His Word. That this is at least could be the meaning of the text is indicated by a comparison with Matthew 18:1-6. Faced with a dispute among His disciples concerning greatness in the kingdom, Jesus places a “little child” in their midst and says,
“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (vv. 3,4)
Children display naturally what each disciple should display spiritually. Children are naturally trusting, and they do not ordinarily expect to be placed in a position of great honor. He goes on to say that “these little ones who believe in Me” (v. 6) should not be despised simply because they are children. Little ones may believe in Jesus, and ought to be encouraged to come to Him.
These passages, therefore, lend no support at all to the practice of baptizing the infant children of believers.
III. The Proper Manner of Baptism (Paragraphs 3 and 4)
In the third and fourth paragraphs of Chapter 29, the Confession takes up the question of exactly how baptism is to be administered to a believer in Jesus Christ. There are three issues to consider under this head.
A. The outward element.
“The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water…”
This baptizing is to take place in water, as is obvious from the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. The Confession cites v. 38 of that chapter: “So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.”
It is quite true that there is no grace in the water, and it is also quite true that the heart of the candidate is the most important thing. But we must not dismiss the outward act as if it were of no importance at all. It is not carnal to use the elements that God has ordained to portray the spiritual reality.
B. The verbal expression.
“wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
In support of this assertion, the Confession refers us once again to the Great Commission as expressed in Matthew 28:19, 20 (“…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”).
Certainly these words express the spiritual reality which is pictured in Christian baptism. When a believer enters saving union with Jesus Christ, he also enters fellowship with the Father and the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18, 23-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13).
But it also appears that the words are to be spoken on the occasion of the baptism itself.
We have already noted (in our discussion of Chapter 28) that there is no saving grace conveyed in the ordinance of baptism. The ordinances must always be attended by the words which explain their significance. The one administering baptism must declare the meaning of the act, for the benefit of the one being baptized, as well as for the benefit of any others who may be present.
Of course, the verbal expression need not be limited to these specific words. In many churches, a baptism is preceded by a sermon in which some aspect of the significance of baptism is explained from the Scriptures. Then, in the process of the actual baptism itself, the words recorded in Matthew 28:19 are spoken.
C. The actual procedure.
“Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.”
Having established that water is the outward element to be employed in Christian baptism, the Confession is now concerned to address the exact procedure to be followed in the application of that water to the person being baptized.
There are three obvious options, of course: the water could be poured or sprinkled on the candidate, or he could be immersed in the water. The Confession asserts that immersion is the correct option.
The language of the Confession at this point is interesting: “immersion…is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.” The framers of the Confession were apparently unwilling to be absolutely inflexible on the mode of baptism. To put it another way, they were prepared to accept as valid a baptism which involved pouring or sprinkling. At the same time, they believed that the mode was not simply a matter of indifference. There IS a correct way, and that way is immersion.
There are three lines of support for this assertion.
1. The meaning of baptism.
The Greek word which is translated “baptize” means to immerse, or to dip. It would therefore appear that Christian baptism ought to involve the total immersion of the candidate in water. That is what the word means.
Opponents of immersion have pointed out that the word can be used more generally of a washing, not necessarily involving a total submersion of the object or person. They would point, for example, to a passage like Mark 7:4, where the word is used of the special hand-washing practiced by the Jews, as well as “the washing (“baptismous”) of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.”
In response, it must be said that such washings might well have involved submersion. Dishes could easily be plunged completely beneath water, for example. (The word “couches” may not actually be present in the original text.) The washing of hands may have involved the placing of hands completely in water, thus satisfying the meaning of dipping or immersion.
But even if the word may not always have involved total immersion, that is the basic meaning of the word. There is every reason to assume that baptism means immersion if that’s what baptism basically means. This is especially true if there are other reasons to support this conclusion, and there are.
2. Some examples of baptism.
In support of its assertion, the Confession cites two passages of Scripture.
Matthew 3:16: “When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.”
In this passage, Matthew records the baptism of Jesus Himself. The baptism took place in the River Jordan, and Matthew says that Jesus “came up immediately from the water”. This language certainly seems to indicate that Jesus had been down in the water, else He would not have “come up”.
Could Jesus simply have been standing in shallow water near the bank (or even on the bank itself) while water was poured or sprinkled out of a container on His head? Of course that is possible, but surely such a small amount of water could easily have been transported to a more convenient place. Surely it is more natural to conclude that He “came up” from the river because He had been immersed in it.
John 3:23: “Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.”
One writer has commented that the abundance of water is mentioned because such a crowd of people would need ample drinking water. Aenon was therefore chosen as a place for baptism because it offered such a supply of drinking water. This is, of course, possible. But it seems that the text is connecting the abundance of water with the process of baptizing, not with the supply of refreshment. This would fit with immersion.
The Confession does not cite Acts 8:36, 38, part of the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch.
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, `See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?’”
“So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized them.”
If baptism simply involved the sprinkling (or even pouring) of water, then it doesn’t seem likely that a pool (or stream or river) would naturally offer itself as a good place for a baptism. Surely “a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians” (v. 27) would have some water on his chariot! And even if they stopped simply to obtain a gallon or two of water for pouring or sprinkling, why would they both need to go down into the water? The most natural explanation is that they both entered the water because baptism involved immersion.
3. The Biblical significance of baptism.
As we have already noted, baptism is a picture of saving union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5, etc.). Is that not most vividly pictured when the candidate is lowered into the water, and then lifted out again? Is that not the most fitting picture of death, burial, and resurrection?
It is quite true that the imagery of cleansing is associated with baptism (Acts 22:16), but it is a cleansing that results from union with Christ. Furthermore, cleansing does not appear to be the primary element of the imagery of baptism. The primary imagery is death, burial, and resurrection, and that is most naturally conveyed by immersion, not by sprinkling or pouring.
When the framers of the Confession declare immersion to be “necessary to the due administration of this ordinance”, they are standing on solid Biblical ground.
conclusion
The four brief paragraphs which comprise chapter 29 of the 1689 Confession of Faith provide an excellent summary of the Biblical teaching on Christian baptism. The importance of this ordinance is neither overstated nor understated.
Paragraph one reminds us that Christian baptism does not convey saving grace, but it serves as a vivid picture of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ, and of the appropriate response of faith and repentance. No one is saved because he is baptized, but no Christian may safely disregard an ordinance that is issued by the Lord Jesus Christ, especially when that ordinance is designed for the believer’s good.
Paragraph two makes it clear that Christian baptism is only for those who make a credible profession of faith and repentance. We are not willing to withhold Christian fellowship from our Paedobaptist brethren, but neither are we willing to risk the blurring of the gospel by granting the sign of union with Christ to those who are unable to express faith in Christ.
Paragraphs three and four assert that there is a way to administer the ordinance that most accurately reflects the truth conveyed in baptism. The ordinance does not save, and the exact way in which the ordinance is conducted is not to be a test of Christian fellowship, but the Bible tells us enough to convince us that the actual immersion of the believer in water, and the speaking of those words which so concisely express the significance of baptism, is the best way to administer baptism.
Let us be properly thankful to God for this picture of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let us be faithful in its exercise in our churches, for the good of believers and the glory of God.
All rights reserved.