The Baptism Of Believers (1)

by T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Category: The Baptism Of Believers | Oct 1980

It is a distressing anomaly of our times that the ordinance of baptism, so clearly commanded by our Lord and faithfully observed by His apostles, should continue to be a matter of controversy even among born-again believers. Jarring voices are to be heard on every side. The main reason for the discordance, traced to its source, will be found in certain 'traditions' which were appended to the Christian Faith in the sub-apostolic period. These traditions, without the sanction of apostolic teaching or practice, have been endorsed and systematized in most 'Church' Confessions or formularies. They are so widely accepted as Christian doctrine that their authority is taken for granted by the many.

In this short series of articles it is proposed to restate the scriptural mode, meaning and purpose of the ordinance. In doing this some prevalent misteaching on the subject will come under notice against the background of the New Testament writings. We begin with the command of the risen Lord to His apostles:

"All authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:18-20).

There could be no higher authority for the ordinance of baptism than this. The terms of our Lord's momentous declaration are clear and comprehensive, providing the blueprint for apostolic labours - the cause to which they would devote their lives following His ascension to the Father. And His instructions are age-long in their relevance. They stand, without modification or amendment; the charter of God's people "till He come".

The Mode

There can be no question that the baptism commanded by the risen Lord required that the believer be immersed in water. The Greek verb baptizo and its derivatives admit of no other meaning than "to immerse, to dip". This can be verified by reference to any reliable Greek Lexicon (e.g. Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, Abbott-Smith). Attempts to bring "sprinkling" within the meaning of baptizo may be dismissed as special pleading. The Greek language has distinct words for "sprinkle" (rhantizo) and "immerse". Theologians affiliated to 'Churches' which advocate the sprinkling of infants do not claim scriptural support for the practice. They concede that dipping is the only form of baptism prescribed in Scripture. We give a few examples:

"In the primitive church baptism was a total immersion" (Luther). "Baptizo signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church" (John Calvin).

"Baptism is immersion" (Dr Chalmers, Free Church of Scotland). "In the apostolic age, those who came to baptism came in full age, and of their own choice. Those who were baptized were immersed" (Dean Stanley, Episcopalian).

"The mode of administering baptism was by immersion, the whole body being put under water" (Dr Adam Clarke, Methodist).

"The earliest generation of Christians ... having been baptized as adults, had an indestructible living recollection of their baptism performed by immersion" (Prof. A. Deissmann).

In the New Testament, the first mention of baptism occurs in Matthew 3:6,7. That John the Baptist practised baptism by immersion cannot be gainsaid (see John 3:23). While John's baptism differed in application and significance from Christian baptism, its form was identical.

Sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish that there is neither scriptural nor lexical authority for bringing "sprinkling" within the meaning of baptizo and its derivatives. It may well be queried, Why, then, have not translators when referring to the ordinance of Christian baptism rendered the Greek words by their English equivalents? Because, had they done so an error already being practised would have been exposed. The first English translation of the Scriptures goes back to Wyclif. By that time (1382) Christendom had already adopted sprinkling of infants and designated it as baptism. "The English reader is thus precluded from knowing that the Greek word means to dip. The Greek is not translated but transliterated. To have translated the Greek word would have shown that the practice of sprinkling is not apostolic or scriptural" (G.H. Lang).

Does the Mode matter?

Decidedly on two counts:

Firstly, by substituting sprinkling for dipping the commandment of the risen Lord is violated (Matt. 28:19). No 'Church' or Council has been authorized to change or re-interpret His plain words. Although widely regarded as an orthodox Christian ordinance sprinkling (christening) is a human alternative devoid of Scriptural authority. It is no part of "the Faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" for which we are exhorted to "contend earnestly" (Jude 3). (In a future article we propose to examine in more detail the heresy of infant sprinkling).

Secondly, the practical significance of the baptismal act is lost if the applicant is not dipped in water. This is made clear in the important passage, Romans 6:1-11. There Paul teaches that the mode of baptism is a symbolic representation of death, burial and resurrection with Christ. Sprinkling robs the ordinance of this sublime concept.

On these two counts the human expedient is found wanting. It fails the crucial test of Scriptural authority.

T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Oct 1980
The Baptism Of Believers