Baptism
A Reply to a Lutheran Catechismby Fred G. Zaspel, 1988
Introduction
In April, 1988, a friend sent me (by way of a mutual friend) a copy of a page from his church catechism which dealt with the subject of baptism. The catechism was Lutheran, an expansion of Martin Luther's Small Catechism. The views in it, however, are somewhat beyond what Luther himself taught.
As I said, this man is a friend, and so I appreciated the opportunity to reply frankly. That reply (with names removed) is reproduced here in hopes that the evaluation will be of help to others who may be considering the same questions.
Following the reply is a compilation of statements concerning the mode of baptism from various men in the history of the church, in hopes to demonstrate that the view presented here is neither late nor sectarian.
April 18, 1988
Dear ________,
I assume you had ______ send me your little pamphlet on baptism because you wanted to learn what the Bible really teaches about the subject. At any rate, I am sure you did not have it sent expecting to hear nothing! _____ said that you would be glad to read any dissertation I send, so here it is! You'd better sit down.
I will admit that reading it caused mixed emotions--I was upset, amazed, amused, and distressed all at the same time! There is so much to say about this that I don't know where to begin, so I'll just follow their plan and take the questions in order:
#1 "Who instituted baptism?"
This is the one question answered correctly. Jesus Himself instituted Baptism.
The only question here relates to the terminology, "the Sacrament of Holy Baptism." What is meant by "sacrament" is "a means of grace," that is, that Baptism actually accomplishes something for or in the person's soul (see their answer to #6). This is nowhere taught in the Bible, but quite to the contrary. Baptism (by the way, never in the Bible is it called "Holy Baptism"; it is a relic of Roman Catholic tradition), like the Lord's Supper is merely a symbolic rite which sets forth a basic, central truth of the Christian faith. It has great symbolic significance and is necessary as a step of obedience to Christ's command, but it is never said to be a means to acquire grace. It will issue in blessing as does every act of obedience, but it is not sacramental.
#2 "What is the meaning of the word 'baptize'?"
To begin with, the Greek term is not babtizo but baptizo. (I suppose this could be a typographical error on their part, but I rather think it is indicative of something else!) Baptizo properly means "to dip, plunge, or immerse." This is the definition which is consistently given in all Greek lexicons (dictionaries). In secular Greek the word is used of warships being "baptized" at sea and the like. Obviously, that is not "pouring" or "washing." (By the way, the Greek does have other words which mean pouring and sprinkling [ ekcheo and rantizo] which the New Testament writers could well have used if that is what they intended. But these words never appear in connection with baptism.) The word sometimes took on another meaning, namely, "to dye," because in the ancient world they would dip a cloth into the dye to get the desired color. The word can be used to describe a "washing," but that is not the meaning of the word itself. The pamphlet says, "To baptize simply means to apply water in any manner, whether there be a few drops of water or rivers of water." That definition is necessary for the Lutheran practice to be true, but it is impossible to support from any Greek lexicon; there is no evidence whatever to back it up; it is an assertion which can never be proved. A. T. Robertson, on anyone's scale one of the greatest Greek scholars America ever produced, went so far as to say that he questioned either the honesty or the scholarship of anyone who said that baptizo meant anything other than "to dip, plunge, or immerse." Martin Luther himself wrote, "On this account . . . I could wish that such as are to be baptized should be completely immersed into the water, according to the meaning of the word, and to the significance of the ordinance, not because I think it necessary, but because it would be beautiful to have a full and perfect sign of so perfect a thing; as also, without doubt, it was instituted by Christ" ( Luther's Works, 1551 edition, Vol. 2, p.76). John Calvin wrote that ". . . it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church" ( Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XV, Paragraph 19). The famous Presbyterian church historian, Philip Schaff, wrote, "Immersion and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, normal form of baptism. Immersion shows the very meaning of the Greek word baptize" ( History of the Apostolic Church, p. 568). John Wall, an Episcopalian, wrote, "Immersion was in all probability the way in which our blessed Savior was baptized, and certainly the most used way of baptism" ( History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, page 571). These confessions are significant coming men who practiced sprinkling! Further, it can be demonstrated that baptism was administered by immersion (predominantly) for at least the first thirteen centuries of the church. Understandably so, for if the word itself means "to dip or immerse," then when Jesus said "Go ye therefore and baptize" we don't expect to find the disciples raising their hands and asking "by what mode?" It would be like asking "What method of immersing do you prefer?" The pamphlet argues that "we dare not insist that one particular method must be used" and that the Lord did "not specify the mode." But how many methods or modes of immersion can there be?
To the Greek mind, "John the Baptist (baptizer)" meant "John the immerser," not "John the washer" or "John the sprinkler." It may be interesting to you to know that even today the Greek Catholic church immerses. They understand well the meaning of their word baptizo.
It is clear to anyone willing to accept the plain meaning of words that "baptism" is "immersion." Whatever else may be said of the practice of sprinkling or pouring, it cannot be rightly called a "baptism."
As you can tell by looking at the word, "baptize" is only an English transliteration of the Greek baptizo; it is not a translation. The translators of the King James Version, in 1611, did not want to offend the King or be factious in their new work, so they left the word untranslated for us to understand it however we wish.
#3 "Who should administer baptism?"
As the pamphlet points out, baptism is generally administered by a pastor, but the Bible never says that they only may do it.
The problem in this answer is what is implied in the following sentences, "especially when one is in danger of death..." etc. It assumes that Baptism has some saving merit, but throughout the Bible, of course, the whole point of salvation is that it is never granted on the basis of anything a man does or could ever do; it is only a gift of God's grace. To offer salvation on the basis of any works (whether the circumcision of the Judaizers in the early days of the church or the so-called "baptism" of "churches" today) is to contradict the gospel itself. (More of this in question #6).
With a proper understanding of the meaning of the word "baptize," the next sentence here becomes absurd: ". . . pour or sprinkle water on the head of the person and say, 'I immerse you. . . .'"
#4 "Who is to be baptized?"
The answer given in the pamphlet is "Christ commands us to baptize all people everywhere, all human beings, without any distinction of sex or age. All need to be born again" and cites Matthew 28:19 as proof. Matthew 28:19 reads, "Go ye therefore and teach ("disciple") all nations, baptizing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The question is simply, to whom does the "them" refer? The answer is as obvious: the "them" refers to those in all nations who are taught (discipled). In other words, baptism is not to be administered indiscriminately but only for believers. This is the consistent teaching of the New Testament. For example, when the Ethiopian became a believer, he said, "'See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?' And Philip said, 'IF THOU BELIEVEST with all thine heart thou mayest'" (Acts 8:37-38). In Acts 2:41 it was those who "gladly received the word" of the apostles who were baptized. Only believers may be baptized.
Furthermore, there is not the slightest hint in the New Testament that an infant was ever baptized. Not one line of evidence can be given. Not one. And the reason is obvious--the subjects of baptism are believers! That, of course, excludes infants, who obviously cannot even understand, let alone believe.
Again in this answer as well the false doctrine of works-salvation creeps up: "All need to be born again." Never does the New Testament anywhere say that baptism is the means of the new birth! And again, to teach such a thing is to invite a curse (Galatians 1:8).
#5 "Why should infants be baptized?"
This question is answered above (#4) and will be in #6, but it is interesting to see their attempted defense of supposed infant belief. Basic to belief of anything is an understanding of it. To just assert that infants can believe or that God gives them faith through baptism is to say something Scripture never does--never. Baptism is for those who have faith; it does not give faith. I am always amazed that these teachers consistently appeal to Mark 10:13-16. In this passage Jesus blesses the children, but there is not even a hint of baptism! Furthermore, these are children, not infants. The theory rests on assumptions and theological reasonings which cannot be supported with any text of Scripture.
#6 "What are the benefits of Baptism?"
Here the discussion becomes very serious. To claim that baptism (or circumcision, or church membership, or confirmation, or helping little old ladies across the street, or any other work) can actually "bring the sinner into union with the Savior, give forgiveness of sins, bring salvation, new birth and new life . . . regenerate . . . create saving faith" is a denial of the gospel of grace. It strikes at the very heart of Christianity itself. Throughout the books of Romans and Galatians especially, Paul goes to every length to show that anyone who teaches that salvation comes by any means but through faith alone by grace alone is a false teacher and is himself excluded from the pale of salvation. In Galatians 1 Paul is very dramatic to make the point: "whether it is I or even an angel from heaven--if anyone should teach you any different, let him be accursed!" (see verses 6-9; no wonder in verse 10 he says he is not writing to please men!). Make no mistake about this--this affects your eternal soul--if you (or I or any man) are resting your salvation on a few drops of water--or an ocean of water, for that matter--you are lost. God has set the terms--by grace alone, through faith alone; to add anything at all is to refuse it. God requires that we trust Jesus Christ and Him only to save. He requires that we come to Him boasting of no works whatever (Ephesians 2:8-9).
________, please don't be offended or take me wrong; I am not being over-dramatic. This is not only error--it is error of the most serious kind. Baptism has never saved anyone and never will. Faith is the appropriating instrument in salvation, not baptism or any work. See Ephesians 2:8-9. Anything else added is what Peter calls "damnable heresy" (II Peter 2:1), for to believe it is to be condemned. This is not a question of what mode or how much water; this is a question of salvation itself. I do hope you do not believe what is in that pamphlet and are not relying on your "baptism" to save you. Anyone who teaches such a thing has turned from the very basic truth of the Christian gospel--grace.
#7 "How can water do such great things?"
Of course, the answer is that it can't. The pamphlet tries to reason around this by arguing that it is the Word of God associated with the water that accomplishes such great things. Notice again that the verses of Scripture to which it appeals for support do not resemble the answer in any way. The Word of God is powerful to effect a change in man, but this is never connected with baptism in the New Testament. No verse of Scripture can be found to teach it. Again, this is a vestige of Roman Catholic theology which simply cannot be supported from Scripture.
#8 "Can anyone be saved without being baptized?"
I am glad that they don't insist on baptism for salvation in every case, but notice that they continue to say that it is the normal means. The question itself assumes that people are normally saved through works (baptism), and the pamphlet actually says that one who denies baptism is lost! That is as clear a statement of salvation by works which can be made; it is an addition to the gospel. Again, Paul's point in Romans 11:6 is that it is either grace or works; it is impossible to speak of both.
#9 "What is the significance of baptism?"
The answer given to this question only builds on the error begun earlier. It actually says that "baptism forms a union between a man and his Savior" and that it is "the cause of salvation." This is again a denial of salvation by grace. It is interesting that again these teachers are forced to cite verses which say nothing resembling the answer given.
Baptism, as I said earlier, is merely a symbolic rite which sets forth central truths of the Christian faith. It is a memorial, a symbol, and never is it said to be any more (anything more would be in conflict with the gospel). It pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It further pictures our identification with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. It also, then, pictures our cleansing from sin and new life in Christ. But it is a picture, a symbol only, not a means to attaining these things. This is the plain meaning given in the New Testament (See Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12).
It is difficult for me to think of a doctrine which has given more people a false assurance of salvation than the one in this pamphlet. This is what makes it so awful. If it were only a question of mode or how much water or even whether or not to baptize, it would be bad enough, but when they go so far as to say that the sprinkling saves, it becomes heresy of the most dangerous kind. There are immersionist groups which teach that by being immersed a person is saved; their's is heresy as well. The gospel is one of grace; salvation is received by faith only and that so that it cannot be of works of any kind (Romans 4:16; 11:6).
I do hope you will receive this as it was written--out of concern for you and the truth of Scriptures. I was not at all offended by receiving the pamphlet (in fact, I'm glad you thought of me), and I hope you won't be offended by this lengthy "pastoral epistle."
More importantly, I hope and pray you will come to the point where you can know without doubt that God has saved you by His grace which you have received through faith, without works, and that you then will give public testimony to the same by following in obedience to Christ's command to be baptized.
Thanks again for thinking of me; I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to explain things to you. If you want, we can continue this another time. Until then--
Sincerely,
Fred G. Zaspel
Statements Concerning the Mode of Baptism
from various leaders in the history of the church
Cyril of Jerusalem (mid-fourth century)
"You are about to descend into the baptistry in order to be plunged in water. . . . For he who is plunged in water is surrounded on all sides by water." ( Catechism, 3, 17)
Augustine
"After you professed your belief, three times did we submerge . . . your heads in the sacred fountain." ( Homilies, 4. Quoted in Hinton, A History of Baptism)
The Council of Celchyth (Canterbury, England, A.D. 816)
"Let ministers take notice that when they administer the holy baptism, that they do not pour the holy water upon the heads of the infants, but that they be always immersed in the font; as the Son of God has in His own person given an example to every believer, when He was thrice immersed into the waters of the Jordan. In this manner it ought to be observed." ( Canon 6)
Thomas Aquinas
"Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with it. But it is the safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most common custom." ( Summa Theologiae, Part 3, Quaest. 66, Art.7)
William Tyndale
"The washing [of baptism] preacheth unto us that we are cleansed with Christ's bloodshedding, which was an offering and a satisfaction for the sin of all that repent and believe, consenting and submitting themselves unto the will of God. The plunging into the water signifieth that we die, and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin which is Adam. And the pulling out again, signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us and work the will of God in us, as thou seest Rom.VI." ( Obedience of a Christian Man, 1571 edition, p. 143.)
Martin Luther
"On this account (as a symbol of death and resurrection), I could wish that such as are to be baptized should be completely immersed into the water, according to the meaning of the word, and to the significance of the ordinance, not because I think it necessary, but because it would be beautiful to have a full and perfect sign of so perfect a thing; as also, without doubt, it was instituted by Christ." ( Luther's Works, 1551 edition, Vol. 2, p.76)
"If you consider what baptism signifies, you will see that the same thing [immersion] is required. For this signifies, that the old man, and our sinful nature, which consists of flesh and blood, is all submerged by divine grace, as we shall more fully show. The mode of baptizing ought, therefore, to correspond to the signification of baptism, so as to set forth a sure and full sign of it." ( De Sacram. Bapt. Quoted by Conant, The Meaning & Use of Baptizein)
"First, the name baptism is Greek; in Latin it can be rendered immersion, when we immerse any thing into water, that it may be all covered with water. And although that custom has now grown out of use with most persons (nor do they wholly submerge children, but only pour on a little water), yet they ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For this the etymology of the name seems to demand." ( On the Sacrament of Baptism)
Then also without doubt, in German tongues, the little word tauf [baptism] comes from the word tief [deep], because what one baptizes he sinks deep into the water." ( Luther's Works, Vol. 21, p. 229)
Ulrich Zwingli
"'Into his death.' When ye were immersed into the water of baptism, ye were ingrafted into the death of Christ; that it, the immersion of your body into water was a sign, that ye ought to be ingrafted into Christ and his death, that as Christ died and was buried, ye also may be dead to the flesh and the old man, that is, to yourselves." ( Annotations on Romans 6:3).
John Calvin
". . . it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church." ( Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XV, Paragraph 19).
John Wesley
"I believe (myself) it is a duty to observe, so far as I can . . . to baptize by immersion." (Moore, Life of Wesley, Vol. 1, p. 425)
"Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion." ( The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, Vol. 1, pp.24). On May 5 he refused to baptize a child whose parents would not admit immersion. (p.29)
Philip Schaff (famous Presbyterian Church Historian)
"Immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, normal form of baptism. Immersion shows the very meaning of the Greek word baptize." ( Schaff's History of the Apostolic Church, p.568)
John Wall (Episcopalian author)
"Immersion was in all probability the way in which our blessed Savior was baptized, and certainly the most used way of baptism." ( History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, p.571)
Dean Stanley (Anglican)
"For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of immersion. They were plunged, or immersed in water." ( Christian Institute, p.17)
George Campbell (President of Marischal College, Aberdeen)
"The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies 'to dip,' 'to plunge,' 'to immerse,' and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion." ( Translation of the Gospels, Matthew 3:11)
J. A. Turretin (Professor of Theology at Geneva)
"And indeed baptism was performed, in that age and in those countries, by immersion of the whole body into water." ( On Romans 6:3-4. Quoted by Conant, The Meaning and Use of Baptizein)
Fritzche (Lutheran)
"But that, in accordance with the nature of the word baptizesthai, baptism was then performed not by sprinkling upon but by submerging, is proved especially by Romans 6:4." ( Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 1, p.120)
Wolfred Cote
"In the primitive Church, and down to the fourteenth century, the ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion of the whole body in water. The original term baptize conveys the meaning of immersion, and no other. On this point we have most valuable testimony from the Fathers of the Church, and other ecclesiastical writers. They invariably designate baptism as the act of dipping, bathing, or washing."
( The Archaeology of Baptism, p. 16).
*Note: These statements all agree with Baptists regarding the mode of baptism but not necessarily the meaning or the subjects of baptism.
Baptism and the Westminster Assembly
From Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines
From Jan.1, 1643 to Dec. 31, 1644
(London, 1824), vol. 13, pp. 300-301
One of the fascinating events in the story of immersion took place in England, where immersion was the common form of baptism until Cromwell's time. In 1644 the Westminster Divines met to discuss the matter. Dr. John Lightfoot, who presided at the Assembly, recorded the following.
"Wed. Aug. 7. This morning we met again. . . . Then fell we upon the work of the day; which was about baptizing of the child, whether to dip him or sprinkle, and this proposition, 'Is it lawful and sufficient to sprinkle this child' -- had been canvassed before our adjourning, and was ready now to vote: but I spake against it, as being very unfit to vote, that it is lawful to sprinkle when everyone grants it. Whereupon, it was fallen upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and long discourse, whether dipping were essential or used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom. . . . After a long dispute, it was at last put to the question, whether the Directory should run thus: The minister shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of the child: and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice, for so many were unwilling to have dipping excluded, that the votes came to an equality within one; for the side was twenty-four -- and the other, twenty-five: the twenty-four for the reserving of dipping, and the twenty-five against it; and there grew a great heat upon it."
The discussion came up for rediscussion the next day, but "as for the dispute itself about dipping, it was thought fit and most safe to let it alone."
So, Presbyterians do not immerse today because in the Westminster Assembly the decision was lost by one vote.
HOME
Biblical Studies & Sermons | Book Reviews | Software Reviews
Word of Life Bookstore |
About Us | Email
Word Of Life Baptist Church Web Site - COPYRIGHT 1996 Fred Zaspel