We now turn to the Pauline epistles to see what Paul has to say about baptism. I count 12 verses containing an explicit reference to baptism, eight of which are in 1 Corinthians. The other four are in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians. And Paul refers to Christians having been “washed” in Ephesians and Titus, with both references being likely references to baptism. There is no explicit reference to baptism in 2 Corinthians, 1 or 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, or 1 or 2 Timothy.
By way of comparison, Paul refers to “faith” or a cognate in 132 verses, including all of his epistles. He mentions the Holy Spirit in over 100 verses, also including every single epistle.
This does not make his teaching on baptism any less true, of course, but it does tell us about the appropriate emphasis in Christian teaching. We are not to be known as the people who’ve been properly baptized. Rather, faith in Jesus and the Spirit are far more the identifying marks of the church and should be far more characteristic of our teaching.
Romans
The first few verses of Romans 6 are a classic proof text used to demonstrate that baptism is a burial and hence an immersion rather than a pouring or sprinkling.
(Rom 6:1-5 ESV) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We 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. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
The most obvious reason Paul wrote this passage is to say that, at baptism, we are mystically immersed “into Christ Jesus” and therefore into his death and, ultimately, his resurrection. The death, burial, and resurrection into which we are baptized are the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus — accomplished by him for us, which we receive by being in him.
The power of baptism, therefore, is not in the immersion and a supposed picture of death, burial, and resurrection. The power of baptism is in being incorporated into Christ. Paul is speaking of Jesus’ experience, which we participate in by being in Jesus.
Follow Paul’s language closely. Verse 3 says we are baptized into Christ. Therefore, we are baptized into his death — not because we went under water but because Christ died on the cross. It’s the “into Christ” fact that establishes that we were baptized into his death.
Verse 4 says we are “therefore” buried with him. The “therefore” refers to the fact that we were “baptized into his death” in v. 3, which is because we were “baptized into Christ.”
Verse 4 and 5 then argue that because we died and were buried with him, we will also be resurrected with him — future tense! We’ve already come out of the water (“the watery grave,” the preachers like to say), but we’ve not yet been resurrected. That comes later. But the fact that we’re in Jesus assures us that he’ll keep his promise.
Now, it’s a very cool fact that an immersion visibly pictures what is really happening in the spiritual realm, but Paul is not speaking of the mechanics of immersion. He’s speaking of what it means to be in Christ — a theme he turns to many times in his writings, quite apart from baptism. Baptism is part of the picture because baptism is into Christ. The question Paul presents isn’t the mode of the baptism but into whom were we baptized?
As G. R. Beasley-Murray puts it —
… ‘We were buried with HIm’ indicates that the action of baptism primarily means, not that the baptistry becomes our grave, but that we are laid in the grave of Christ. To be buried along with Christ in a Jerusalem grave c. A.D. 30 means unequivocally that the death we died is the death He died on Golgotha.
(Baptism in the New Testament 132). Therefore, baptism is not a work that we perform to emulate the death of Christ. Rather, we are baptized into his death, burial, and resurrection. It’s something we receive.
But, of course, the notion that we are baptized “into” (eis) Christ is no trivial idea! Beasley-Murray wrestles with the meaning of eis, the Greek preposition meaning “into.” Of course, all prepositions have varied meanings. In English, “into” normally means moving from outside to inside. But it can have other meanings: “I’m not really into his teaching style”; “I’m going into biology”; “He ran into a wall.” But we can’t just take the various dictionary meanings and try them out until we get the result that suits our theology! Rather, we have to try to read as a First Century reader would have read.
“Baptize” means literally to immerse or dip. It’s a verb that begs to be followed by “into.” The most natural reading for eis, meaning most literally into, following “baptize” is “into.” Thus, to “immerse into the death of Christ” means to move from outside to inside Christ’s death, even though the subject is intangible. The other possible meanings of eis just don’t come into play.
Whatever translation of eis may be possible in its varied relations, there is no possible translation when it relates to a real or verbal baptism, but into.
James W. Dale, Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism (Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, et al., 1874, reprinted 1995). Zodhiates defines eis: “After verbs implying motion of any kind, into or to, toward.” Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete New Testament Word Study Dictionary (Chattanooga: AMG International, Inc., 1994). Of course, “immerse” implies motion.
Therefore —
all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death
— becomes —
all of us who have been baptized from outside Christ Jesus to inside Christ Jesus were baptized from outside his death to inside his death.
But Beasley-Murray points out that same construction — “baptize into” — appears in this passage —
(1Co 10:1-4 ESV) For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Perhaps the most common New Testament metaphor for Christianity is the Exodus. This passage is an outworkings of the metaphor, but frankly, is kind of hard to follow. Rather than trying to explain the whole thing, let’s start by focusing on “all were baptized into Moses.” This is obviously meant as an analogy for “baptized into Christ” and so must have a parallel meaning. In what sense were the Israelites “immersed into Moses”?
Well, they weren’t immersed into his death, burial, and resurrection. But they did come under his authority and leadership. Moses did mediate between them and God. Moses served as their protector — imploring God on their behalves. Their salvation came from God, but God chose to work his salvation through Moses. Indeed, their salvation came much more from the obedience and faithfulness of Moses than their own.
And so, when the Israelites passed through the Red Sea they were “immersed” out of Egyptian slavery and control — defeated by God through the waters — and into the safety and protection of God worked through Moses. And so, although Beasley-Murray protests the translation “into” here, it actually fits quite well.
Lenski rejects “into” in this passage, arguing that the thought is that the Israelites became united with Moses. Either way, the interpretation is that the “baptism” of the Red Sea effected a change from slavery to salvation and protection. Yes, of course, this was done by God, but God did it by means of the sea. But for crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites would still be Egyptian slaves.
In short, under any interpretation, baptism effects a change from outside to inside or else from not united to united. Therefore, it’s really hard to interpret Romans 6 as saying that baptism comes after salvation. And, yet, as we’ve just seen, John’s Gospel repeatedly tells us that all with faith are saved. And so does Romans —
(Rom. 1:16-17) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
(Rom. 3:22-24) This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
(Rom. 3:25-28) God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
(Rom. 4:4-5) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Rom. 5:1-2) Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.
(Rom. 10:4) Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
(Rom. 10:9-13) That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Obviously, Paul assumes that all with faith are also baptized. Does that mean that those with faith who are improperly baptized (or not baptized at all) are damned? Well, we can’t let the tail wag the dog. The dog is faith in Jesus. Indeed, the premier theme of Romans is that we are saved by faith. Chapter upon chapter teaches the sufficiency of faith! And Paul gives several reasons, one of which is —
(Rom 4:16-17 ESV) 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring–not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations” — in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
(Rom 4:23-25 ESV) 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Paul’s argument is that our salvation is on the same terms as Abraham’s. He was saved by faith and so are we. God is being true to his covenant with Abraham, extending that covenant to the Gentiles. But if baptism is an absolute necessity in addition to faith, our salvation is no longer like Abraham’s.
So how do we reconcile Romans 6 with Romans 4 (and the rest of Romans)? Well, if we read 6:3 quite closely, we notice that Paul is speaking of “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus” not “all of us.” He doesn’t quite say that only those who’ve been baptized are in Christ. He simply says that those who’ve been baptized were baptized into Christ. He does not address the case of the unbaptized believer.
Of course, at that time, all believers were baptized and correctly so. Paul really had no reason to even think about an unbaptized believer. The only unbaptized believers would be converts who’d not yet made it to a pool to be immersed. Therefore, Paul could safely assume that all converts who were reading his epistle would have been baptized.
But there remains an issue of timing. If we only enter Christ when we’re baptized, and if all who have faith are saved, then what is our condition between coming to faith and baptism? And what of those who are incorrectly instructed as to the mode or purpose of baptism? Are they damned because the church taught them incorrectly?
“There is no explicit reference to baptism in 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 1 or 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, or 1 or 2 Timothy.”
(From Baptism, an Exploration: Romans, with a little 1 Corinthians 10 thrown in posted on January 1, 2011 by Jay Guin)
Jay,
Colossians 2:11-13 reads,
“11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in BAPTISM (emphasis added, GZ), in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.”
I assume you overlooked this verse when you overstated your case. The Greek word used is baptisma, which is as explicit and direct a reference to baptism as can be found.
Happy New year, Jay!
Blessings,
Grizz
Jay,
The previous comment I made dealt with a rather glaring error in the opening remarks concerning a point of fact that cannot be controverted by any reasonable scholar or reader. It was so glaring that I felt it was worthy of its own comment. When one makes such an error, it casts a real pallor of doubt across whatever statements follow. Without reading any further, it was already necessary and right that a mention of that error should be made as succinctly and directly as possible.
Then I read the rest of this post, which should probably not even be included in what had been, to this point, a rather healthy examination of the topic at hand. In truth, I am hopeful the former standards of excellence might be regained in the next post, since I have often found your writings to be provocative precisely because the foundations of good and reasonable scholarship were so evident. It is because of your departure from that scholarship that I am now compelled to comment further.
You also wrote:
"Obviously, Paul assumes that all with faith are also baptized. Does that mean that those with faith who are improperly baptized (or not baptized at all) are damned? Well, we can’t let the tail wag the dog. The dog is faith in Jesus. Indeed, the premier theme of Romans is that we are saved by faith."
Let's examine that first statement, that Paul assumes something. Is it assumption? Or is it a matter of personal knowledge and convictions surrounding the gospel being preached?
We sometimes are so wrapped in 21st century perspective that we fail to see how someone in the first century could have known what was being preached wherever the gospel of Jesus was spreading. So we deduce that the writer is making an assumption. But have we been fair to the writer?
Consider this:
(1) The writer (Paul) makes no claim of assuming anything.
(2) The context does not demand that an assumption was being made.
(3) IF we consider the writer to be inspired of God, the source of such knowledge and conviction rests upon faith in the Holy Spirit who is the source of that knowledge and is a conviction born of trust (faith) in the truth revealed by that source.
(4) IF Peter is correct about no prophecy being subject to the prophet's pwersonal interpretation (2 Peter 1:19-21), what impact does that have on our efforts to 'interpret' any prophetic/inspired writings?
Now let us move on to your assumptions, Jay. You seem to asume that Paul trusted that the gospel of Jesus that was preached was received with either a proper or improper baptism. I ask you, was Paul not familiar with both proper and improper baptisms? The historic record tells us that he was (Acts 19:1-10). Does Paul address such matters of propriety or impropriety? He does in several passages, but not in direct reference to baptism. In Acts 19 however, we do have Luke's record of what Paul taught concerning proper faith in Jesus and baptism. Paul does not call it 'proper' or 'improper', but rather approaches the subject as a matter concerning into whom the men being addressed were baptized. In this respect, Jay, your approach is similar to Paul's approach. He addressed bapptism as a matter so closely connected to faith that it cannot be separated either in Paul's preaching or in the understanding of the people who heard his address. In fact, the truth is that the men so directly connected what Paul addressed as a matter of faith in the one in whom a person puts their faith with the need for baptism into that person that their immediate response was to submit to baptism into the one to whom John pointed them.
Jay, do you find any direct reference to being 'damned' in Acts 19:1-10? Or is it possible that the connection is only to be found in a 21st century mind rather than in the evidence given in Acts 19? I find it difficult to imagine that we can discern much about the evidence Luke provides in Acts 19 with no thought for the difference between the first century and 21st century mindsets. We cannot approach Acts 19 as though it has no historical milieu unless we are determined to project our 21st century perspectives into Paul's thnking. If it is Paul's mindset that we are seeking to discern so that we may understand him, then our own perspectives need to be abandoned in favor of what Paul and those who wrote about him can tell us. If we hope to let the dog wag the tail and not have the tail wag the dog, then I hope we can agree that using as our foundation a 21st century perspective is unconstructive.
What do you say, Jay? Shall we stop assuming and let Paul speak?
Toward more scholarship and less bias,
Grizz
Although seldom discussed, the word for baptism was also a technical term used by Greek blacksmiths for the tempering (and specifically the quenching) process.
From Homer's Odyssey,
Without getting into the technical details of metallurgy, when one heats an iron based metal and then allows it to cool slowly it becomes softer than before (called annealing). When one heats that same metal and quickly cools it by immersing in water or other cold liquid the metal actually becomes tougher and harder.
The lesson? Baptism is the necessary completion process for becoming a God-strengthened Christian.
Rich W:
Thanks for that interesting and thought-provoking post!
Jay's summary questions:
"But there remains an issue of timing. If we only enter Christ when we’re baptized, and if all who have faith are saved, then what is our condition between coming to faith and baptism? And what of those who are incorrectly instructed as to the mode or purpose of baptism? Are they damned because the church taught them incorrectly?"
END JAY
And these are good, necessary questions based on our COC teaching. Was Paul damned from his Damascus Rd. experience until he was baptized? Granted, Paul was part of a bigger plan — but what if I was taught out on a mountain somewhere, and it was going to take me three days just to get to a body of water for immersion? To me, that makes a mockery of God by saying, "tough luck if you happen to meet up with bandits that kill you along the way! I guess you should have accepted the message sooner, and you wouldn't be in this situation."
As well, this interpretation leads to a necessary legalism. The moment you conclude 'baptismal regeneration' I must necessarily follow with —
*What if you die of a heart attack as you step into the water
*What if you die of a heart attack right before the tip of your nose is submersed
* (alternative question, if it is actually the "coming out" of the water when you are saved) What if you die of a heart attack once you are raised back up…but your feet still haven't come out of the water?
These are not silly questions — they are the necessary questions one must ask under 20th Cent. COC doctrine.
Jay,
You wrote:
"I count 10 verses containing an explicit reference to baptism, eight of which are in 1 Corinthians. The other two are in Romans and Galatians. On the other hand, Paul refers to Christians having been “washed” in Ephesians and Titus, with both references being likely references to baptism. There is no explicit reference to baptism in 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 1 or 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, or 1 or 2 Timothy."
In addition to Colossians 2:12 mentioned by Griz above, how did you overlook Ephesians 4:4-6? There is also 1 Cor 6:11 for another "washed"text.
"But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
This certainly seems to connect with Acts 22:16; 2:38; and a number of other texts in Acts that link baptism to the name of Jesus and the Spirit of God.
When I wrote my master's thesis in 1976, I saw a large body of material that makes 1 Peter 1:1 – 4:11 a baptismal sermon, though "baptism" is there only once (3:21). Many saw allusions to baptism in the many references to the new birth, especially in 1:3.
"…he has given us new birth into a living home through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
I see a link with 3:21 here where Peter says baptism "saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." If that is a valid link, then other "new birth" references in 1 Peter – such as 1:22 & 2:2 are also significant to someone coming to the baptismal font.
The "therefore" in 4:1 points back to 3:21-22 (and context).
"Therefore, since Christ suffered [i.e., died] in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin." (1 Peter 4:1, NIV)
I also believe you dismissed resurrection with Christ in Romans 6 as being yet future. Certainly, Romans 6:11-13 seems to demand that we have been raised together with him – particularly, "…count yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (v. 11) and "…offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life…" (v. 13). I've read many statements from you concerning our present sitting with the Lord in the heavenly places (as in Ephesians 2:1-6). I know that you understand the concept of "already but not yet."
Do not be so eager to correct the erroneous teachings of the CoC regarding baptism that you divorce baptism from faith and trust in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. If we, over the past years had properly stressed faith in Jesus and His suffering for us in death as in life, we would not now be treating baptism as the be all and end all of our salvation.
I appreciate the stress you are placing on faith and the link between baptism and the gospel (death, burial and resurrection of Jesus). Just do not let the link between baptism and faith be broken! I wait to see how you will handle Galatians 3:26-27 & 4:6.
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ…. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father.'"
Thank you for bringing some much needed correction to our understanding of baptism. I look forward to the rest of this series.
Jerry Starling
Grizz and Jerry,
I've been poking around in my BibleWorks software to see how my search for every Greek reference to "baptism" overlooked Colossians 2:12 and Eph 4:4-6. Here's what I found.
Colossians
1. In the critical Greek text (Nestle-Aland), the noun in Col 2:12 is baptismos, not baptisma. The difference is that baptismos refers to —
It's the same word used in Mark 7:4 and 8, Heb 6:2 and 9:10.
2. But in the Byzantine text (the "majority text"), baptisma is used. This is the word almost always used of Christian baptism.
F F Bruce concludes in the New International Commentary on Colossians that baptismos is likely the original word. And that's why I overlooked it. But I should have known better.
The Colossian text is "having been buried with him in [baptismos]." The reference is plainly to baptism, although it would be worth considering why Paul chose this particular Greek word, contrary to his normal practice.
Ephesians
The cause is purely from not carefully proofing my work.
I've corrected the post. Thanks for pointing out my mistakes.
Jay,
I agree that Paul does not address the unbaptized, but I would not get there from this passage. I look forward to contradicting myself. I know what the Bible and ECF taught in agreement, but it’s hard to fully articulate every aspect in a perfect chronological sequence. Paul stressed justification by faith, apart from works, in all of Romans. Thus, it’s amazing that Paul uses a chapter on baptism to emphasize grace working in one’s life and a believer’s death to sin. Paul says that in baptism, believers are buried (v4), crucified (v6), die (v4, 7), and joined with Christ (v4-5). I disagree with you on one point (scary, only 1), namely Paul’s question in v3 “do you not know that all of us who have been baptized…” I like your understanding, but Paul is being rhetorical, given that an unbaptized Christian is foreign to the NT. Can you give me some sources supporting your view so that I may study (truly)?
Normally, something from God really happens in baptism through faith in Jesus. Paul is talking to believers about their legally declared state of being justified by faith (Ch. 1-5) and then discuses the regenerative state in baptism (Ch. 6). This is one reason I will not support paedobaptism. The progression is “faith > response > change” by Gods power. All human analogies fail, but let me try one: a jailed man can be legally declared innocent, yet still be in shackles; He needs to be processed [changed] to fully embrace his declared freedom. A justified sinner is declared and actually innocent, but needs to be set free from sin [changed], meaning regenerated and empowered by the Spirit, which benefits a believer’s life for maturity and service.
Perhaps Moses Lard in his Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans in 1875 (pg. 197) was dealing with the same issues when he said “…it is proper here to add, that immersion into Christ is not the only means of transition into him. We believe into Christ as well as are immersed into him and the former just as certainly as the latter. [Jn. 3:36]… ” He goes on to talk about similar verbal forms and identical significations of the Greek between Jn. 3:36; Rm. 6:3.
Jay,
Non-Christians can mimic the fruit of the Spirit for a short time; Christians can grieve the Spirit; Some believers have the Spirit, though they have not been immersed. The Bible specifically teaches immersion, gives assurance to those immersed, and provides an apostolic example of what to do with the unimmersed. Peter knew something was [out of order? different?] and commanded Cornelius to be immersed (Acts 10:46-47). Cornelius submitted to immersion. Therefore, it is my position that everyone who is able should submit to believer’s immersion.
The ECFs agreed with the Bible and upheld believer’s immersion as normative until the early-3rd century when other modes were accepted even if immersion was available. Other forms of baptism are not apostolic, but the ECFs believe the apostles would have approved in certain cases. From an early date ECFs considered believers to be saved if they were killed before baptism. As early as (90-100ad) the Didache, VII affirmed believer’s immersion, but accepted believer’s pouring during an emergency, like a shortage or water or deathly ill. Cyprian specifically says modes other than immersion are only an accommodation. Novatian’s pouring had been accepted while near death, but he lived so when he took a leadership role in the church in 251ad, the pouring was challenged as a partial conversion; He was charged by a majority of the clergy to be immersed. The high view of baptism and infant mortality rate, among other factors, gave rise to infant baptism, by any mode, in the 2nd-3rd centuries and became a more common practice in the 4th century even if the child was healthy.
There is a difference between (1) disobedience, and (2) a desire to fulfill a command and being prevented from fulfilling it. Abe, believed and obeyed God in his heart (Gen. 22:2, 9-12, 16). Abe was prevented from finishing, yet God considered the command “completed” (v16) and provided a lamb. Thus, when faith prompts obedience, but one is unable to fulfill the action, God does not count the situation as disobedience. James uses this scenario as an example of obedient saving faith (Jm. 2:21-23; Rm. 15:4) because Abraham was credited righteousness by faith, not works (Rm. 4:1-2, 13).
The question in my mind is not what to do with those who trust Jesus 100% for salvation, while striving to know and to have incorrect teachings corrected, yet die before immersion. Rather, my question is what to do with the living who were baptized as infants and believers who have never been immersed after coming to faith in Jesus and refuse to be immersed.
As usual, I will stay with Scripture and tradition. Believers in Christ (truly trusting) are justified, but limited in fellowship and roles in the church. I am very loving towards them, but my “fellowship” is extremely limited with those who refuse to be immersed after coming to faith in Christ.
When it comes to the Spirit of God there is no shortage. The prophets consistently point forward to a day when the Spirit will be active as never before, like abundant rain producing a harvest in the hearts of men, resulting in obedient hearts and changed lives.
HistoryGuy,
You asked for sources on my argument that Paul doesn't address the unbaptized believer. To me, it's obvious from the text — and I've confirmed the result in the Greek.
The KJV is very close to the Greek —
(Rom 6:3 KJV) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
"So many of us" is hosoi in the Greek, meaning "as many as." Hence, as many as were baptized into Jesus were baptized into his death.
Hence, quite literally, the text doesn't say "only the baptized were baptized into the death of Jesus." But the argument makes little sense unless Paul expected that all his readers had been baptized.
And as a matter of history, the early church unquestionably baptized all their converts — and saw that baptism as "into Christ Jesus."
Jay,
You raise an interesting point in 6:3 that I have never encountered, and admittedly never considered. I am truly intrigued by it and will study the issue. Thank you for putting forth this view. FYI: I was asking about sources, not as a jab at you, but to read the strengths and weaknesses, like a scholarly peer review. — have a great evening.
Gracethrufaith,
Neither I nor the 1st century church believed there was a shortage with God the Father or the Spirit. I am sorry if you gathered that from my post. Just to be clear, I did not write the Didache, but faithful Christians who walked with the Apostles did. It accurately describes some beliefs of 1st century church life, and is the oldest Christian literature that is not part of the NT. It was not considered inspired, but it is very highly respected. To deny the life of the church discussed in the Didache is to treat the Bible and church as occurring in a vacuum. You and I may not like parts of Christian history, but the truth is – a large group of Christians in the late 1st century actually believed —
Scripture is the sole infallible authority. I am simply trying to show that the 1st century church did give insight to difficult questions, like those who could not be immersed. Since only Scripture is infallible, and we are not, it would be naïve to discount what the non-inspired Christians of the 1st century thought about situations that we are currently discussing.
Grace and peace
I wasn't addressing the mode of baptism, but the fact that God's Spirit doesn't reside in a river or baptismal tank which isn't always readily available. When it comes to the Spirit of God there is no shortage.
I understand the thrust of this post is not to place undue emphasis on the meaning of a preposition. The CofC and others have done that, but I do not believe Jay is trying to force it when he quotes Beasley-Murray as follows:
— But, of course, the notion that we are baptized “into” (eis) Christ is no trivial idea! Beasley-Murray wrestles with the meaning of eis, the Greek preposition meaning “into.” Of course, all prepositions have varied meanings. —
I do wish to suggest that we could easily place too much emphasis on a preposition. If I were to speak of baptism IN the HS, or baptism OF the HS, or baptism BY the HS one could rightly conclude I was speaking of the same thing even though the preposition is different in each case.
When it comes to Acts 2:38 the CofC has made much of the preposition "eis" meaning "for" as in – in exchange for the remission of sins; and the Baptists have insisted it means "for" as in – because of the remission of sins.
In English a man could buy a loaf of bread FOR (in change for) two dollars, or be executed FOR (because of) murder, of I could give you something but it is FOR you son (with a view towards or with that goal in mind). It is clear prepositions may be used with a great deal of latitude and I believe that is true in many languages. I wonder if it is wise to build a doctrine on a single verse of scripture, much less a single preposition in that verse.
Again, it is clear that Jay is not doing this, but the CofC and Baptists have battled over this preposition for decades.
Please excuse this intrusion. I shall now return to reading from the background.
Hesed,
Randall
HistoryGuy wrote: "All human analogies fail, but let me try one: a jailed man can be legally declared innocent, yet still be in shackles; He needs to be processed [changed] to fully embrace his declared freedom. A justified sinner is declared and actually innocent, but needs to be set free from sin [changed], meaning regenerated and empowered by the Spirit, which benefits a believer’s life for maturity and service."
Grizz responds: What happens if that man who is in shackles and is declared legally innocent mounts an attempt to escape before processing? Can you actually declare that the man had any faith in the system that declared him innocent but was not finished processing his release?
In our legal system, leaving before you are fully processed is termed 'escaping custody' and is a punishable offense that can be carried out despite the earlier declaration of innocence on the other charge(s). In other words, society recognizes that the man who has been declared innocent but is not fully processed is NOT free to walk away without that due process. This is also the actual and effective legal condition of the man not fully processed out: he is still a prisoner. His denials of guilt, whether true or false, whether actual or a result of technical difficulties with his arrest, are of no concern when he tries to escape before being properly processed out of custody. He is still guilty of attempting to escape custody, which is a punishable offense even if he was wrongfully arrested and taken into custody.
The processing is not separate and apart from the freeing of the prisoner, but is the system's chosen means for effecting that release. People who question whether a person needs to be baptized are like someone who argues that the prisoner was going to be released if he had finished the process. That is not ours to judge. Nor is it ours to push God to change the process He designed and decreed so that the 'glitch' does not occur.
Making a positive case from a lack of evidence – as when Jay points out that Paul does not specifically address unimmersed Christians (as if such could exist) – is never conclusive because it is founded upon speculative reasoning from a supposed 'fact' not in evidence. The fact is that there is no scriptural evidence to support the existence of Christians without having been immersed into Christ. What we have are multiple assurances that one is immersed into Christ without exception in the scriptural record. We cannot reliably speculate either way – to prohibit or to accept. So why not teach what we know instead of inventing issues from what we do not know? Do we truly believe we have found a 'glitch' in God's planning?
Grizz
Concerning why Paul chose to muse baptismos instead of baptisma, I decided to compare three passages (Ephesians 4:5, Colossians 2:12, and Romans 6:4). I found that all refer to a singular action, one is a verb and the other two are nouns, and each passage employs a different mood (one dative, one indicative, one nominative). In the end, it is the mood that seems to determine the form used.
Does that help?
Grizz
Grizz,
Thank you for wading through my longwinded post, but in so doing you missed several points. I am not sure if you would like me to respond to your concerns or just the question from the quote. I will briefly say the following. (1) You admit the man is declared innocent, which proves my point. Guilty people don’t begin processing, they stay condemned. (2) Your question is about falling away from grace, not whether or not he was ever declared innocent. My theology is Classical Arminian and thus I affirm that one can lose his salvation. (3) The prisoner that escapes before processing is complete displays a rebellious attitude toward the gracious judge, rejects his innocent status, and incurs Holy wrath in hell. Baptism is more than a symbol, or step of obedience. I have a very high view of baptism. All I am saying is that baptism does not trump belief.
Grizz,
I truly thank you for your thoughts. I don’t make my case based on a lack of evidence. Instead, I support my position from clear evidence in Scripture and Church History. I have affirmed that I teach believers immersion as part of God’s regenerative act. However, believers really do die before they can be immersed, so it must be answered. You seem to deny the fact that this question has been asked and dealt with in every age of the church since Pentecost. There is nothing wrong with God’s planning, rather the problem is a hermeneutic and belief (by many today) that contradicts the Bible and the consensus of church history.
Every conversion in Acts (etc) is a record of the completed process. Nobody died mid-way before immersion. It is also clear that the Spirit came upon some before, during, and after immersion. The problem is that we are not told if these people fail away, what happened to those who died before they could be immersed, or a host of other facts that the early church knew and dealt with. Luke is writing a history of the church, perhaps to defend Paul at trial. He is not giving us a theological treaty on the chronology of conversion and what to do with “what we call” abnormal circumstances.
God has been abundantly clear that those in the OT and NT are justified by faith apart from works. Eph. 2:8-10 “grace > faith > good works” In Romans 3:19-21, 28-30, “works of law” is a reference to any human response to God’s law, good or bad. Romans 4:1-8, 21-25 emphasizes this same point. Abraham was credited righteousness by faith, when he believed God, which was before he acted, left Ur, or circumcised himself. One is justified by faith; faith comes before action, so it is faith that causes one to act/respond. Romans 11:6; Gal. 2:16, 21; Gal. 3:5-6; Philippians 3:9 conclude that Paul is very consistent because God is consistent about his plan to save people.
God has been consistent while spanning covenants by saying that we are justified by faith. From Adam, Noah, Moses, David, John the Baptizer, thief on the cross, and those who Jesus encountered, to those who heard Peter preach and believers who died before they could be immersed, God’s plan of justification by faith has been perfect. What is the common factor? It is faith in Gods promise to save them through the savior. As a note, I have said that justification and regeneration are not the same thing. Contrary to Calvinism, a believer can be unregenerate.
In this thread, on Jan 2 @ 5:28am, 5:32am, 4:48pm, 5:13pm, I gave very clear references to the fact that the early church taught believers immersion as a part of the saving transformation process according to Scripture, but accepted as saved, those poured or faith/desire, if a believer was killed or died before they could be immersed. However, those able were commanded to be immersed. Though not inspired, this was believed by those who were taught by the apostles and also preserved the inspired writings. Both the Bible and the very early church that preserved the Bible always gave faith a higher place than baptism.
Christianity did not happen in a vacuum. One must either give a reason why the non-inspired early church [i.e. Didache] was wrong about their views of those who died before immersion, or accept their conclusion, while following their example to (1) uphold Scripture (2) teach all who are able “believers immersion.”
With all sincerity and humility, I ask you: What are your reasons for believing the non-inspired early church [Didache, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Eusebius, and every ECF] is wrong about believers who die before immersion?
PS: My Go-T is bigger than yours, brother 🙂