St. Peter's Foot: Baptism

Baptism

Fr. Rand York

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,

baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

(Matthew 28:19)

Introduction

Ministering in both Baptist and Anglican churches (and that at the same time), I thought perhaps to leave this discussion entirely to Donald Bridge and David Phypers, a Baptist and an Anglican who together have written a book on the subject of baptism, The Water That Divides. I remember buying that book and reading it with interest when InterVarsity Press first published it in 1977. But then, this is bigger than Bridge & Phypers, bigger than Baptists and Anglicans, and certainly much bigger than this paper can encompass. Nonetheless, I hope to touch on a few highlights.

Baptism of Christ

The baptism of Jesus at the hand of John the Baptist is one of the great theophanies in scripture, in which the triune God is revealed on earth.[1] In the baptism of Christ, God the Father speaks from heaven of God the Son who is baptized, as God the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove.[2] We begin with this because it is the beginning of Christ’s great work. Baptism is not only something Jesus commanded,[3] but something he did. If anything Jesus ever did was intentional, this certainly was. Matthew tells us that, “Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.”[4] This was a trip on foot of some 70+ miles,[5] and would not have been undertaken lightly. Why would Jesus, “who knew no sin,”[6] ever consent to be baptized for the repentance of sins? That is exactly what John wanted to know when Jesus came to him.[7] It turns out Jesus was not being baptized because of his sins, but because of ours. This was the seal of his commitment to take our sins upon himself. This was his commitment to live and die as one of us in every way. From this point on there was no turning back. And so in our own baptism, we die and live as one with him, and from this point on there is no turning back.

Early Practice

We find baptism to be a thoroughly established practice of the church from the very beginning.[8] At the public establishment of the church at Pentecost, baptism was the first order of the day, following Peter’s electrifying evangelistic sermon.[9] This they did in obedience to Christ’s final command at his ascension: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”[10]

Early practice of Christian baptism was much more dramatic and arresting than any current examples I have witnessed. It spoke forcefully to what is really happening in this rite. The candidate was first anointed with the oil of exorcism, evoking the image of the Roman athlete, “oiling himself before entering the arena.” Then, when the deacon led the candidate down into the water, the officiant (priest or bishop) asked three simple questions regarding the candidate’s belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. After each affirmative response, the officiant shoved the candidate under the water.[11] After this came the oil of thanksgiving (the chrism), which today marks the seal of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and other liturgical traditions.

Baptism in English Church History

Because I am an Anglican, the history of baptism in the Church of England is of particular interest, and so I will include here a bulleted listing of significant moments in that history.

· 14^th Century – “…infants were normally baptized on the day of their birth.”[12]

· 1549 – “The office of Baptism retained the ancient ceremonies of exorcism, chrisom, and unction.”[13]

· 1552 – “The sacrament of Baptism is much simplified, and all prayers for the dead are omitted.”[14]

· 1604 – Puritans are disappointed at the Conference of Hampton Court in their hope that King James I might abolish the sign of the cross at baptism.[15]

· 1644 – The Book of Common Prayer is replaced by the Directory of Public Worship, which strips baptism (and all other sacraments) of any kind of prayer – not even the Lord’s Prayer.[16]

· 1661 – Conference at Savoy Hospital following the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658. Puritans again demand the abolition of the sign of the cross at baptism, and are again disappointed.[17]

· 1689 – Bill in Parliament attempts to try to “find a way round…the sign of the cross in baptism” again fails with the 1702 ascendancy of Queen Anne to the throne.[18]

· Early 20^th Century – “…baptism was often administered in a very casual and indiscriminate way in many town churches – ‘innumerable babies, about twenty at a time; scarcely ever a godparent, the poor babies very imperfectly washed and clothed, a noise like a parrot house, and a smell beyond description.’ In time more trouble came to be taken over christenings, and the public baptism of an infant in the course of Morning or Evening Prayer or at the Holy Communion was introduced into some churches.”[19] Note that we are talking here of early 20^th century England. Much has happened in a relatively short time to bring dignity and honor to both the process and the child.

Purpose: Regeneration vs. Testimony

We should first note that baptism, because of its nature as a sacrament (or ordinance, if you prefer) is first and foremost “a visible sign of invisible reality.” This Augustinian assertion is deeply embedded in the Christian ethos, so much so that it is, “the almost unquestioned starting point for reflection upon ‘the sacraments.’”[20] That being universally accepted, there follows a great deal of dispute over just what it means. An entire spectrum exists across the churches.

At one end we find regeneration (usually associated with Roman Catholicism). Here baptism is understood to be the vehicle through which, “the baptized person is cleansed of all his sins and incorporated into Christ.”[21] In this understanding, baptism automatically and immediately realizes the grace it signifies.[22] Baptism is the conduit of God’s grace. This view has its roots in Jesus’ words to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”[23]

At the other end we find testimony (usually associated with Baptists). Here baptism is understood to be the vehicle through which an already regenerate person testifies in a public and initiatory way of his or her salvation. Baptist church historian Norman Maring says this: “The fact that baptism does not wash away sins, nor effect regeneration, nor necessarily bring the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, does not leave it an empty forum…Baptism, then, may be thought of as a rite ordained by Christ as the means by which his disciples are to express the humble confession, the faith, and the willing obedience required of them.”[24]

Between these two bookends are a variety of understandings of baptism and regeneration. T.F. Torrance achieves a reconciliatory stance by taking regeneration completely out of the timeline: “Our regeneration does not take place at baptism, or when we first believe. Our regeneration has already taken place in Christ.”[25] In other words, regeneration is an eternal event to which baptism directs us, whether in the future or in the past. Leonard Vander Zee sees baptism as “the true pledge from God that the person baptized has been born again into the new creation in Christ by the Holy Spirit.”[26]

Peter, in his own stream of consciousness that rivals that of my youngest daughter who profoundly connects things others might miss, likens baptism to the Great Flood, noting that a few were saved through water.[27] Edmund Clowney asks, “Why does Peter not say, ‘saved from water’? Perhaps because the water that destroyed the wicked also bore up the ark.”[28] The same water that washed the world clean of wickedness also carried the Lord’s chosen into their new life, a life of choices to be written on a clean slate. This is why Peter refers to it as, “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” God has given you a fresh start – a new life. What will you do with it?

Commitment

Lauren Winner is a half-Jewish girl who converted to Judaism (the religion of her father) and later to Christianity. She takes her religion seriously – or at least with a serious twinkle. She is savvy and smart. She writes for the New York Times, Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, and Christianity Today. In her own words, “I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, but I also wear fishnet stockings and drink single malt Scotch.”[29] But when it came to her own baptism, the promises in the English Book of Common Prayer were too much for her: “This is ridiculous, I can’t promise these things. Half the time I don’t trust God one iota. I can’t stand up there and promise that I will trust Him forever and ever. Who on earth makes these promises?”[30] Who indeed? Constantine wondered the same thing, and so the first Christian emperor delayed his baptism until he was on his deathbed, lest he offend his Lord by sinning after baptism.[31] Lauren Winner found the help she needed in the American prayer book, which includes the phrase, “I will with God’s help.” That was the key for her, as it must be (I think) for all of us.

Mikvah

Early Christian baptism took its form from the first century Jewish mikvah, as it was used for the induction of Gentile converts to Judaism.[32] The mikvah is the Jewish bath for ritual purification, and is, “so essential to Jewish communities that Jews are enjoined to build a mikvah even before they build a synagogue.”[33] For ritual cleansing, the mikvah is naturally most in use during Yom Kippur, although Jewish women also go throughout the year at the end of their menstrual cycles. Less common, but pertinent to our study, is the requirement by Conservative and Orthodox Jews that the mikvah be administered to all converts to Judaism. This “proselyte baptism” is not new; it was quite common in first century Palestine, and archaeological digs have revealed more than 100 such pools in the Old City of Jerusalem. They, like the early Christians, preferred “living water,” and attached to the mikvah pools were water containers called otzar that released water into the static pool in order to make it “living” (i.e. “running”) each time the mikvah was used.[34] For male converts to Judaism, both circumcision and the mikvah are required; for females, just the mikvah.

Reminiscent of the baptismal practice of the early church, the candidate for conversion will be naked. Not just undressed, but really naked. Winner explains:

“…she will undress and remove her wig, all her jewelry, any Band-Aids she might have wrapped around a cut on her finger or her calf. She will shower. She will peel off her nail polish, and she will floss, because the water from the mikvah must touch every part of her body; the smallest speck of spinach stuck in her teeth would interfere…I disrobed, and the mikvah lady supervised my three immersions,[35] making sure every hair on my head was saturated and that my toes fingers weren’t clenched together when I dunked down. And then I was a Jew.”[36]

Somehow, this feels related to the words of Rev. E.D. Campbell: “Is anybody here ever was baptized, when he let you down in the water, Spirit of God got all in your hands, got all in your feet, got all in your soul, got your soul all [watered] with fire? My God is alright.”[37]

Paedobaptism – Credobaptism Introduction

With regard to paedobaptism (from the Greek pais, or "child") vs. credobaptism (from the Latin credo, or "I believe"), we find that the majority of Christians practice the former, while a significant minority restrict baptism to the latter. Those who baptize infants would include Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, UCC, Lutherans, Nazarenes, etc. Those who practice believer's baptism would include Baptists (of course!), Mennonites, Amish, Seventh Day Adventists, Plymouth Brethren, Pentecostals, Churches of Christ, etc. There are also some Christian groups, such as Salvation Army and Quakers, who do not baptize at all. This last category comprises what we might call “spiritual Baptists,”[38] interpreting Matthew 28:19 in a spiritual rather than literal sense.

Paedobaptism

Paedobaptists argue that children have always been included in God’s covenant with his people. This was true in the Old Testament, and the Christian experience should be no different in this regard. Just as God established his covenant with Abraham, “…and to your offspring after you,”[39] so is it true for Christians. Paul makes this clear to the church in Corinth: “For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”[40] Put simply, “…children are included within their parents’ covenant.”[41] This could be suggested also in the baptisms of the various households mentioned in the New Testament: Cornelius,[42] Lydia,[43] the Philippian jailer,[44] Crispus,[45] and Stephanus.[46]

Children have always been included in God’s covenant, not only in initiation, but even in instruction: “There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.”[47] The New Testament, in continuity with the Old Testament, records Jesus saying, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”[48] The believer’s baptism argument that children don’t understand did not stop either Joshua or Jesus from including them right alongside the grown-ups.[49]

Credobaptists argue that an infant cannot understand or profess faith. With qualifications, I would agree. An infant cannot profess faith, but neither can someone who is severely retarded. What age, then, do we assign as the “age of reason”? And what IQ should we assign as the “IQ of reason”? And how do we answer the Lord when he asks us why we refused to baptize those who did not meet our (arbitrary?) threshold? Will you deny baptism to an infant, or to a 30 year-old with an IQ of 25 because they don’t understand the meaning of it? I am an Anglican priest, and I don’t even fully understand the meaning of it! In fact, I think my own understanding is only inches deep in an ocean that goes down for miles. The argument that babies should not be baptized because they cannot make and keep the baptismal promises strikes Winner as unpersuasive and “…too individualistic. The very point is that no baptismal candidate, even an adult, can promise to do these things all by himself. The community is promising for you, with you, on your behalf.”[50]

Orthodox theologian Stanley Harakas argues for an interesting psychological benefit of infant baptism: “Psychologically, we are stable and balanced when we know ‘who we are.’ Parents do not leave…many other areas of life unresolved until the children ‘grow up and choose for themselves.’ Religion is more than simply a cohesive social force. It is more than personal conviction…Such an important thing cannot be left to chance. When it is, you have a generation of people without moorings.”[51] The Roman Catholic church requires infant baptism, and as soon after birth as practicable.[52] The Eastern Orthodox, because they immerse babies (unlike Roman Catholics), wait until the baby is strong enough for immersion, but before the child becomes unmanageable. The best age for this would be 4 to 7 months old.[53]

Though opposed to infant baptism, Ulrich Zwingli continued the practice of it in Zurich, bowing to popular demand in a city that in so many other ways had shown itself to be open to his reforms: “Nothing grieves me more than that at present I must baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done…But if I were to stop the practice of Infant Baptism, I would lose my office.”[54]

Credobaptism

Credobaptism is often misnomered as “adult” baptism, though the age of responsibility recognized in most credobaptist churches is well below the commonly accepted age of adulthood. Common usage, however, dictates that the terms adult baptism and believer’s baptism (credobaptism) may be used interchangeably in most discussions. Believer’s baptism is clearly attested to in scripture, and indeed there is no specific reference to infant baptism anywhere in the New Testament. Because of this New Testament silence on the subject, proponents of believer’s baptism hold that the practice of infant baptism by the early church (at least as early as the second century)[55] was divergent from New Testament practice, and a mistake.[56] The New Testament, it is argued, is the record of a first century, first generation missionary endeavor, and so does not address second generation questions which naturally arose in the second century.[57] As a first generation effort, they baptized only those old enough to express faith in Christ. Baptism is a reflection of, and dependent on, faith. This is especially true of baptism as testimony.

Other arguments in favor of believer’s baptism actually read more as arguments against infant baptism. Believer’s baptism is necessary, they say, because infant baptism misplaces the confidence we have in Christ by directing it to baptism, allows entry into the church on a basis other than personal faith, sends a mixed message by allowing church membership while denying access to Communion until Confirmation,[58] does not permit children to come to Christ on their own later in life, separates faith from baptism, and in some historical instances has contributed to the nationalization of the church.[59] In addition, Karl Barth objected to infant baptism as having no basis in scripture, as implying that people can be born as Christians, and as obscuring the need for a conscious pursuit of discipleship.[60]

Paedobaptism – Credobaptism Summary

Infant and adult baptism speak to the two sides of our relationship with God. Divine initiative is highlighted in infant baptism. In it, we sense our own helplessness to better our sinful condition, and that God’s love and provision for us precedes, and is therefore not dependent on, anything we might be able to do. Infant baptism highlights God’s love and affirmation of us from the beginning of our lives and underscores, “God’s loving reception of the child into a covenant community that takes responsibility for helping this child to mature in faith.”[61] Adult baptism does not miss this, but the focus is often much more on our response to God’s greatest gift to us. In baptism we embrace the divine embrace, and our declaration is much more than a mere witness to others; it is love reflected back to the lover of our souls.

The concept of baptism as a response to God is reflected in the song Water Grave. Before it was a hit for the Imperials this powerful song (if you can get past the mixed metaphors) was originally done by Dogwood, and I first heard it when we played together at the Koinonia in Nashville in 1976.

Water Grave[62]

In my house there’s been a mercy killin’
The man I used to be has been crucified
And the death of this man was a final way of revealin’
In a spiritual way to live, I had to die
Now if I let a dead man linger in me
I might get a little idle in my ways
So I’m going down to the celebration river
I’m gonna take this dead man down to his water grave
I’m goin’ down to the river, my Lord
I’m gonna be buried alive
I wanna show my Heavenly Father
The man I used to be has finally died
I’m goin’ down to the river, my Lord
I’m gonna be buried alive
I wanna show my Heavenly Father
The man I used to be has finally died

Mode: Immersion, Pouring, Sprinkling

With sprinkling common to the Roman Catholic and most Protestant churches, pouring among some Anabaptists, and immersion preferred by both Baptists and the Eastern Orthodox, there is a complete spectrum of mode in use across the Christian churches. The word “baptize” itself comes from the Greek baptizo (βαπτίξω)[63] or “immerse,” while hrantizo (ραντίξω)[64] means “sprinkle.”[65] The fact that we call it baptism and not hrantism suggests recognition (at the very least) of immersion as the normative practice of the New Testament church, and the Didache supports this:

“But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize…baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. 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.”[66]

“Living water” suggests a river, stream, lake, or spring-fed pond, in which the convert would then undergo full immersion at the hands of the baptizer. While pouring is not out of the question here, it seems clear from the final instruction that pouring is a last resort to those without means to undergo immersion.

All three modes, however, tell a story. Immersion tells the story of death and resurrection, as we die to sin and rise with Christ. Paul speaks to this in his letter to the church at Rome:

^“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? ²By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ³Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. ⁵For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”[67]

And again in his letter to the Colossians: “…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”[68]

We are buried in death with Christ as the water closes over us, and we burst forth into new life even as he burst forth from the tomb. Pouring, on the other hand, speaks of the gift of the Holy Spirit poured out on us in these last days,[69] connecting the Spirit of God to the act of baptism even as he descended at John’s baptism of Christ.[70] Sprinkling tells yet another story, this one of cleansing, that we are washed clean by the blood of the Lamb, even as Moses purified the people through sprinkling.[71]

The Eastern Orthodox, who tend to be less particular than their Western brethren on many things, happen to be very particular about this one. Infusion (pouring) is permitted in special cases, such as when immersion might prove to be medically dangerous. Otherwise, “Sacramental symbolism therefore requires immersion or ‘burial’ in the waters of Baptism, and then ‘resurrection’ out of them once more…but Baptism by sprinkling or smearing is quite simply not real Baptism at all.”[72] Perhaps the Orthodox insistence on immersion and emersion has something to do with their understanding that something is happening in baptism that runs far deeper than forgiveness and cleansing of sin. Birth is going on here. Jesus’ words to Nicodemus ring true: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”[73] Nicodemus, though a Pharisee and a teacher of religion, had trouble grasping this: “Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’”[74] Dionysius the Areopagite calls baptism “a ritual of divine birth.”[75] As in childbirth, the waters are broken and the newborn emerges, naked and pure and ready to grow. This is the first resurrection. “The resurrection of the soul takes place in the present life and as such precedes the resurrection of the body, which will take place on the last day.”[76]

When all is said and done, perhaps it is more important that we baptize than how we baptize. I have baptized infants in all three modes, and that in the same service!

Wonderful Gift[77]

Don’t know much about sprinkling

And I don’t have an inkling

If immersion is such a better course to take

I never was a part of that great debate

But I know God’s children should be baptized

Die to sin and look into his eyes

What a wonderful gift it is

Symbol

“The early church fathers compared the water of baptism to the primordial waters, the water of the grave, the Red Sea waters, the water from the rock, the water in which Naaman was immersed, the water of Mary’s womb, the Jordan River, the living water promised the woman at the well in Samaria, the healing pool of Bethsaida, the water from the side of Christ, and the waters of Paradise.”[78]

The water of baptism is not a metaphor or simile so much as it is a symbol. It does not stand for something not present, so much as it connects that which is very much present. The very word “symbol (from συμβάλλω, ‘unite,’ ‘hold together’)”[79] signifies a thing that is the central conduit between realities. Put simply, symbol is that which unites, as opposed to diabolical, that which divides. It is this connector, this symbol, that makes it possible for us to be buried with Christ in our baptism.[80]

Rebaptism

There is, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”[81] Paul’s assertion is so simple and direct as to leave no room for debate, and indeed, almost all churches agree on this point. To baptize more than once would suggest that the first (and therefore any) baptism could somehow be deficient in accomplishing its purpose, be that purpose new life and the remission of sins through regeneration, or a mere testimonial rite of initiation as a Christian. To be truly effective, all of these must be sufficient and without need of repetition. To suggest that regeneration could be in need of repetition to become more complete would not be unlike suggesting that someone could be a little bit pregnant and that further copulation would make them more so. Or to suggest that initiation might be in need of repetition would draw blank stares if it were, say, a college student asking to be admitted again to the institution he or she is already attending. Even as a testimonial, baptism points to faith, and therefore to God’s saving work in the life of the one being baptized. “Hence,” says Laurence Stookey, “rebaptism impugns the integrity of God. Stated bluntly, rebaptism is a form of blasphemy.”[82]

Few would disagree with this, yet rebaptism happens. Why? In most cases, it is because the church that is doing it does not view the first baptism as valid. Baptists are perhaps the best known example of this, as they will readily baptize adults that have been previously baptized as infants in another denomination. Baptists will say that this practice is not rebaptism at all, since their theological perspective holds that infant baptism is not really baptism at all. The appeal of “believer’s baptism” gets its strength from New Testament roots in which it is clearly practiced and in which infant baptism is not to be specifically found. And the appeal is strong indeed. It took, for example, a mere five decades from the time John Smyth baptized himself in Amsterdam in 1608, until there were 300 Baptist churches in England alone, both General and Particular (read: Arminian and Calvinist), by 1660.[83] So, once again, how can one practice “believer’s baptism” in the context of those who were baptized as infants, and still be true to the biblical teaching of “one baptism”? By declaring the previous baptism to be invalid, in this case because an infant cannot profess faith. Interestingly, this is not the only argument that has been made for the practice of rebaptism.

From the Great Schism of 1054 and through the Crusades, relations between the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West increasingly deteriorated, until in 1755 three of the Eastern churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem) formally declared Roman Catholic baptism to be without validity, and those so baptized to be in need of rebaptism in order to be Christian (i.e. in order to be in communion with the Orthodox churches). This remained the official position of the Greek church (but not the Russian) until the end of the 19^th century.[84]

Today, however, the issue of rebaptism (with exceptions)[85] tends to be a personal issue, and not one of church politics. By “today” I am including 1975, when I was a Wheaton student studying Bible and Archaeology at the American Institute in Jerusalem. An opportunity arose during the school term for students to be baptized in the Jordan River at a place traditionally associated with the baptism of Jesus. Though I had been baptized in infancy at Lookout Mountain Presbyterian Church, the idea of believer’s baptism had begun to grow on me, and it seemed natural for this desire to reach its fruition at the banks of the Jordan. I signed up. Then Paul’s words to the Ephesians began to haunt me.[86] One baptism. One baptism. One baptism. Paul never really appealed to me anyway, and he wasn’t one of the Twelve, but – One baptism. One baptism…kept ringing in my head, and I decided not to go through with it. Still, the rationalization for those who do go through with it remains the same as for others throughout church history: the previous baptism was not valid; this time it’s real.

The validity of baptism was also at issue in the Donatist controversy of the 4^th century. Beginning as a controversy over who should be recognized as bishop of Carthage (Caecilian and Donatus both claimed the title), it quickly escalated into a dispute over the validity of the sacraments, with the Donatists insisting that validity was dependent on the worthiness of the bishop or priest performing it.[87] Justo González picks up the trail here: “Caecilian and his followers responded that the validity of the sacraments and of other such acts cannot be made to depend on the worthiness of the one administering them, for in that case all Christians would be in constant doubt as to the validity of their own baptism…”[88] With the Emperor Constantine siding with Caecilian, the Donatist position receded in terms of its impact on the church, but the concern raised by the question itself has remained with us.

The Caecilian position is supported anecdotally by a story I have long known, but cannot source it or authenticate it. Nonetheless, it speaks volumes about God’s faithfulness to his loved ones. It seems that in the old Soviet Union, a mother took her five year old son to a town some distance away from their rural home, in order to be baptized. The priest in that town was known by all to be a KGB agent, but this was not known to the woman or her son. The day after the baptism, the woman and her little boy were walking down the street when they saw the priest across the way.

“Look!” said the mother, “There is the priest who baptized you.”

“That man did not baptize me,” answered the boy. “I was baptized by a shiny man, while two other shiny men held the priest back.”

Was this child granted vision to see the unseen real? Whatever Donatus and his followers might say, Jesus’ words ring in our ears: “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”[89] The unworthiness of a KGB agent, and even my own unworthiness, cannot stand in the way of God’s blessings given to his people.

There are, however, those who view baptism not unlike a mere dedication or testimonial. This low view of baptism does filter through sometimes to examples such as the girl I counseled earlier this year who had been baptized no less than six times! For such people, rebaptism may occur because of a renewed commitment to their faith, because of a desire to more closely identify with a new church or denomination, or for some other reason personal to the one being baptized. And this could have been an issue in the first century, as well. In addition to the Jewish use of the mikvah for repeated ritual cleansing persisting to the present day, the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal a daily practice of this among the Essene community in both Qumran and Jerusalem.[90] With increased repetition implying increased piety, Paul’s declaration that there is only one baptism is particularly instructive for first century Christians, especially in light of the Judaisers who went around routinely undoing Paul’s work among the churches.

Baptism & the Holy Spirit

The gift of the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from baptism. This has been true since the Holy Spirit first poured out at Pentecost, and Peter said at the end of his magnificent impromptu sermon: “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 Holy Spirit.”[91] Those who had been “cut to the heart” by Peter’s words[92] were called upon first to repent and be baptized. “Then they would receive two free gifts of God – the forgiveness of their sins (even of the sin of rejecting God’s Christ) and the gift of the Holy Spirit (to regenerate, indwell, unite and transform them).”[93] And so, “repentance or faith, water baptism, forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are presented as correlative aspects of one’s entrance into a relationship with Christ.”[94] Because Luke, “makes no mention of phenomena like wind or fire, or of languages,”[95] might we speculate that after their baptism many or most of these 3,000 new believers received the Holy Spirit without these accompanying supernatural signs?[96]

No such speculation is necessary in the case of Cornelius and his household,[97] for the Holy Spirit fell on all of them even before Peter finished speaking. In a classic “cart before the horse” scenario, God surprised Peter’s team not only by pouring out the Holy Spirit on Gentiles, but by doing it before they were even baptized! Clearly then, while baptism and the Holy Spirit are once again seen together like peas and carrots, the gift of the Holy Spirit is not delivered via baptism. Rather, Peter treats them together as one complete package. Baptism is the sacrament, while the Holy Spirit is God himself, the third person of the Trinity. Who indeed could deny baptism to those who have received him?

Conclusion

Baptism is one of the two sacraments specifically commanded by Christ, and we willfully ignore or reinterpret it at the risk of missing the goodness of the gift. Just as I take Jesus at his word regarding communion,[98] so too do I accept his straightforward command to baptize[99] in a sense that is quite literal, and that Christ deems to be quite necessary. I do not look for ways to exclude people, especially the most helpless among us. Mode is not immaterial, but neither is any one mode obligatory. Rather, immersion is preferred, followed by pouring, and then sprinkling. Baptism is a participation in an eternal salvific event, and is in that sense regenerative. Any attempt to bind its efficacy to time is bound to fail. As Migliore contends, “Baptism and faith are inseparably related. The question is simply one of time.”[100] Just as credobaptism points back to faith received, so does paedobaptism point forward to faith yet to be embraced. Yet both connect to the one event that stands outside time – our life in Christ. And so there is need for but one baptism in execution of complete connection with Christ. This is normative, but not exclusive. Baptism is not magic in that it somehow offers exclusive conveyance of Christ’s redemptive work on our behalf. We will see many in heaven who did not undergo Christian baptism on earth.[101] But water baptism is normative. Our baptism, like our faith, is at God’s initiative, not ours. God acts and we respond, as we take our place in the community of believers, the body of Christ.

Bibliography

Boyd, G. A. and P. R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum : Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Bridge, Donald and David Phypers. The Water That Divides. Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2008.

Clowney, Edmund. The Message of 1 Peter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Dowley, Tim (ed.). Introduction to the History of Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity (Volume I). San Francisco: Harper, 1984.

Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Harakas, Stanley. The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers. Minneapolis: Light & Life, 1988.

Hardon, John A., S.J. The Catholic Catechism. New York: Doubleday, 1981.

Hatchett, Marion J. Commentary on the American Prayer Book. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995.

Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Atheneum, 1976.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Lightfoot, J.B. & J.R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers. Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile, 2004.

Mantzaridis, Georgios I. The Deification of Man. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984.

Maring, Norman H. & Winthrop S. Hudson. A Baptist Manual of Polity & Practice. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1963.

Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004.

Moorman, J.R.H. A History of the Church in England. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1980.

Sante, Luc. Take Me to the Water. Atlanta: Dust-to-Digital, 2009.

Schmemann, Alexander. The Eucharist. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988.

Stookey, Laurence Hall. Baptism: Christ’s Act in the Church. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982.

Stott, John R.W. The Message of Acts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Torrance, T.F. Conflict and Agreement in the Church. London: Lutterworth, 1960.

Vander Zee, Leonard J. Christ, Baptism & the Lord’s Supper. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Ware, Timothy (+Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. London: Pelican, 1964.

Winner, Lauren F. Girl Meets God. New York: Random House, 2002.

Winter, Ralph D. and Roberta H. Winter. The Word Study New Testament and Concordance. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1978.

[1] The first theophany arguably occurred at the Oaks of Mamre in Genesis 18, and is memorialized in André Rublev’s icon The Holy Trinity.

[2] Stanley Harakas. The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers. (Minneapolis: Light & Life, 1988) 19-20. See also Matthew 3:16-17.

[3] See Matthew 28:19

[4] Matthew 3:13

[5] Luc Sante. Take Me to the Water. (Atlanta: Dust-to-Digital, 2009) 33.

[6] II Corinthians 5:21

[7] See Matthew 3:14

[8] Leonard J. Vander Zee. Christ, Baptism & the Lord’s Supper. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) 84.

[9] See Acts 2:38.

[10] Matthew 28:19

[11] Marion J. Hatchett. Commentary on the American Prayer Book. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1995) 253-254.

[12] J.R.H. Mooman. A History of the Church in England. (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1980) 123.

[13] Moorman. Op. cit. 189.

[14] Moorman. Op. cit. 190.

[15] Moorman. Op. cit. 223.

[16] Moorman. Op. cit. 239. I have not studied this event in detail, but I must hope that they stripped out the prayers, not because they were against praying, but because they wanted to encourage genuine, heartfelt, and spontaneous prayers.

[17] Moorman. Op. cit. 250.

[18] Moorman. Op. cit. 269.

[19] Moorman. Op. cit. 429.

[20] Vander Zee. Op. cit. 167.

[21] John A. Hardon, S.J. The Catholic Catechism. (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 505.

[22] J.N.D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines. (New York: Harper & Row, 1960) 427.

[23] John 3:5

[24] Norman H. Maring & Winthrop S. Hudson. A Baptist Manual of Polity & Practice. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1963) 132-133.

[25] Torrance, T.F. Conflict and Agreement in the Church. (London: Lutterworth, 1960) 131.

[26] Vander Zee. Op. cit. 107.

[27] I Peter 3:20-21

[28] Edmund Clowney. The Message of 1 Peter. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988) 166.

[29] Lauren F. Winner. Girl Meets God. (New York: Random House, 2002) 106.

[30] Winner. Op. cit. 81.

[31] Paul Johnson. A History of Christianity. (New York: Atheneum, 1976) 80.

[32] Hatchett. Op. cit. 252.

[33] Winner. Op. cit. 49.

[34] Donald Bridge and David Phypers. The Water That Divides. (Fearn, Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 2008) 19-20.

[35] Three immersions! Sounds almost Christian, doesn’t it?

[36] Winner. Op. cit. 50-51.

[37] Luc Sante. Op. cit. 33. Audio recorded February 26, 1927 in Memphis, Tennessee.

[38] Laurence Hall Stookey. Baptism: Christ’s Act in the Church. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982) 64.

[39] Genesis 17:7

[40] I Corinthians 7:14

[41] G. A. Boyd & P. R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum : Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009) 222.

[42] Acts 11:13-14

[43] Acts 16:14

[44] Acts 16:31, 33

[45] Acts 18:8

[46] I Corinthians 1:16

[47] Joshua 8:35

[48] Mark 10:14-15

[49] Boyd & Eddy. Op. cit. 220-221.

[50] Winner. Op. cit. 80.

[51] Harakas. Op. cit. 18-19.

[52] John A. Hardon, S.J. The Catholic Catechism. (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 505.

[53] Harakas. Op. cit. 18.

[54] Bridge & Phypers. Op. cit. 100.

[55] Johnson. Op. cit. 80. Boyd & Eddy. Op. cit. 223.

[56] Boyd & Eddy. Op. cit. 215.

[57] Stanley J. Grenz. Theology for the Community of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 528.

[58] This is why Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox do not impose this Roman Catholic (and Presbyterian) restriction.

[59] Grenz. Op. cit. 528-529.

[60] Daniel L. Migliore. Faith Seeking Understanding. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004) 284.

[61] Migliore. Op. cit. 285.

[62] You can hear a clip of the original version by Dogwood at www.ccmforever.com/?category_name=dogwood.

[63] Ralph D. Winter and Roberta H. Winter. The Word Study New Testament and Concordance. (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1978) 101.

[64] Winter & Winter. Op. cit. 676.

[65] Grenz. Op. cit. 530.

[66] Didache 7. J.B. Lightfoot & J.R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers. (Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile, 2004) 232.

[67] Romans 6:1-5

[68] Colossians 2:12

[69] See Joel 2:28

[70] See Matthew 3:16

[71] See Hebrews 9:11-22

[72] Timothy Ware (+Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. (London: Pelican, 1964) 278.

[73] John 3:5

[74] John 3:4

[75] Georgios I. Mantzaridis. The Deification of Man. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984) 47.

[76] Mantzaridis. Op. cit. 47.

[78] Hatchett. Op. cit. 253. I find it interesting that the Great Flood is not included in this list, since Peter did include it (I Peter 3:20-21).

[79] Alexander Schmemann. The Eucharist. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988) 39.

[80] See Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12.

[81] Ephesians 4:5

[82] Stookey. Op. cit. 51.

[83] Tim Dowley (ed.). Introduction to the History of Christianity. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 406-407.

[84] Ware. Op. cit. 98.

[85] For example, the International Churches of Christ require the rebaptism of anyone joining them.

[86] See Ephesians 4:5

[87] Many of whom had compromised their faith and commitment to Christ and the church by handing over the holy books to the authorities during the last persecution.

[88] Justo L. González. The Story of Christianity (Volume I). (San Francisco: Harper, 1984) 153.

[89] Matthew 19:14

[90] Bridge & Phyper. Op. cit. 20.

[91] Acts 2:38

[92] Acts 2:37

[93] John R.W. Stott. The Message of Acts. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990) 78.

[94] Vander Zee. Op. cit. 106.

[95] Stott. Op. cit. 79.

[96] That would certainly fit comfortably with most of today’s Anglicans, who do tend to prefer “all things in good order.”J

[97] Acts 10:44-48

[98] “This is my body” (Mark 14:22)…”This is my blood” (Mark 14:24)…”Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).

[99] See Matthew 28:19