Opening Prayer
God, we thank you for this Lord's Day Sabbath. We rejoice once again in your goodness to us. for rest, for the worship of our triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We thank you for the gospel of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. We thank you for your grace, for your mercy, for your loving kindness.
And we just pray that you'd bless us now in this time before worship, that we might know you all the more, that we might know our Savior growing in the grace and in the knowledge of that precious one. And it's in his name that we pray, amen. Amen. Does anyone need a confession of faith?
We're in chapter 29 of baptism. Chapter 29.
Introduction
I'll read the chapter and then we'll have a look at essentially the content sort of clause by clause, almost clause by clause. It's a chapter that is conducive to that because of its size. Its significance, no doubt, is noteworthy given that this is one of those chapters where the particular Baptists, of course, differed from their contemporary Paedo-Baptist brethren of the Westminster and Savoy flavors of Reformed confessionalism. So while it's a small chapter, or a short chapter, It's certainly packed with history, with theology, and with implications for Christian practice.
So this is chapter 29.
Confession Study
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection, of his being engrafted into him, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Immersion or dipping of the person in water is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.
So we're going to look at this chapter under four heads, which align with the four paragraphs, and those are these, and this could be structurally or definitionally the content of each paragraph. First, the nature of baptism. Secondly, the proper recipients of baptism. Thirdly, the proper element and formula of baptism.
And then, did I say fourthly? Thirdly, I think, hopefully I said. And then fourthly, the proper mode of baptism. So
The Nature of Baptism
first, the nature of baptism. And three things to observe here. First, baptism belongs to the new covenant. Baptism and, or excuse me, baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament.
Previously, when we looked at chapter 28, we noticed that very thing. not the explicit language of New Testament, but the obviousness connected to the institution of the ordinance or sacrament by the Lord Jesus Christ. Chapter 28, paragraph one, baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world. And then, so chapter 29, the specific chapter on baptism, provides the explicit clarity that baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament or the New Covenant. And so it is, though baptisms were characteristic of Old Covenant religion.
You may remember if you were here when Dr. Renahan was doing his roadshow on baptism, that he talked about baptism in the Old Covenant and the fact that, you know, the Baptists, this is paraphrasing, but the Baptists have been Unfortunately, playing in the field of the Paedo-Baptists, rather than arguing from the Old Covenant that the baptism of the New Covenant is the fulfillment of, if you will, the baptisms that obtained in the Old Covenant, they play in the field of the Paedo-Baptists trying to trying to deal with circumcision and its role relative to baptism, Old Covenant to New Covenant, that we should, as particular Baptists, as Reformed Baptists, press the reality that baptisms were proper to the Old Covenant, and so therefore, in the New Covenant, baptism is not a fulfillment of circumcision, but simply the fulfillment of the reality that baptism's shadowed in the old covenant. All of that to come back to this point,
Baptism Belongs to the New Covenant
baptism belongs to the new covenant or the covenant of grace in its fulfilled or ratified state. And so baptism simply is an ordinance or a sacrament of the new covenant. Secondly, as the Confession says here,
Baptism as Dominical Ordinance
baptism is, what we've noted before, is a dominical ordinance of or pertaining to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It's a dominical ordinance. The language of the Confession, echoing the previous chapter, it's ordained by Jesus Christ. Baptism is ordained by Jesus Christ.
When we talk about baptism as a dominical ordinance, it's understanding or it's concerning Jesus Christ understood as incarnate mediator. When we read, for example, in the language of Matthew 28, 18 to 20, where we see Christ saying that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Of course, Jesus Christ considered according to his deity, he has by nature of being God, all authority in heaven and on earth. Christ there isn't speaking necessarily according to his deity, he's speaking with respect to himself as mediator, very God, yes, but also very man. in the oneness of his person.
So by virtue of the perfection of his saving work as incarnate son, he's given as a reward by the Father all authority in heaven and on earth. And with that authority, he commands believers to be baptized. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ, considered as incarnate mediator, the one in whom resides all authority in heaven and on earth. Thirdly, we see here that
Baptism Symbolizes Redemption
baptism symbolizes the whole scheme of redemption. Another argument, and we'll look at this when we get to our next point under head number two, just argues for the reality that baptism is for believers only because baptism symbolizes the whole scheme of redemption. Notice, baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with him, that is, with Jesus Christ, in Christ's death and resurrection, of his being engrafted into him, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life. Baptism symbolizes the whole scheme of redemption, all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ.
Baptism symbolizes that. And so to baptize one, whom we have no idea whether or not the blessings of salvation are true of that person or not, setting aside the fact that baptism as a command or an ordinance requires the one receiving it to be able to obey the command, it's folly to give that to one for whom the scheme of redemption is not true. back to this point, blessedly, baptism, when a believer goes into the waters of baptism, among other things, it is symbolizing, it is signifying the blessed reality of the A to Z of salvation. That from election and predestination all the way through to glorification, we have all of those spiritual blessings in Christ, the one who commands baptism, and the one who is the very foundation and salvific meaning and ground of baptism. So, baptism belongs to the New Covenant.
Baptism is a dominical ordinance, and baptism symbolizes the whole scheme of redemption. Secondly,
Proper Recipients of Baptism
We want to see the proper recipients of baptism, and we see that in paragraph two, a very simple. statement, one paragraph, really one sentence, but no doubt packed with much theology and implications for proper Christian worship and practice. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. The Westminster Confession of Faith, And the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order reads this way, not only those who do actually profess faith and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized, the Savoy adds, and those only. So the Baptists come along and from the proper vantage point of proper Christian theology and expected practice, the true meaning of baptism, summarize the biblical witness as what we read here.
Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. A number of, not a number of years ago, but was it the last time that we looked at this chapter? I can't remember, but in a previous study where we spent a number of Lord's Days looking at the doctrine of baptism, we sort of took a five-point approach to who the proper recipients of baptism are. We had five arguments as to who the proper recipients of baptism are.
And so just a brief rehearsal of those five things. The
Argument from Covenant Theology
first one was the argument from covenant theology. Covenant theology, far from arguing that the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized, covenant theology in its proper reflection and understanding certainly argues that believers only are to be the recipients of the ordinance of baptism. The argument from covenant theology to summarize it, baptism is the sign of membership in the covenant of grace. And because that covenant finally established in the new covenant ratified by Christ, comprehends none but those savingly united to him by faith, its sign belongs to believers alone and not to the unbelieving children of believing parents.
In other words, because the members of the covenant of grace are only those saved by the king of grace, Jesus Christ, those who believe in him, then only those members of the covenant of grace are to be baptized. John Owen, a Pato Baptist, wrote this with regards to the fulfillment of the promises of the old covenant, and the reality of the children of Abraham being only those who are of faith. So it's an interesting argument by Owen, which is inconsistent. He got his theology right, but he got his practice wrong.
This is John Owen, and hopefully we can, take this and roll it around in our Christian minds and apply it to baptism. But speaking of the fulfillment of Old Covenant promises and connected to the language of the children of Abraham, that this separation and privilege was to cease. That is, the Jewish separation from the Gentile world and sort of the Old Covenant promises resting, if you will, on the house of Israel. that this separation and privilege was to cease when the end of it was accomplished and the Messiah exhibited, the very nature of the thing declares. For to what purpose should it be continued when that was fully effected whereunto it was designed?" In other words, Christ coming, bringing an end to the Old Covenant.
But they would extend this privilege and mix it with the other, contending that because they were the children of Abraham according to the flesh, the whole blessing and covenant of Abraham belonged unto them. But as our Savior proved that in the latter sense they were not the children of Abraham because they did not the works of Abraham, So our apostle plainly demonstrates, Romans 4, 9, 10, and 11, Galatians 3, 4, that those of them who had not the faith of Abraham had no interest in his blessing and covenant. Notice the weight of that. Those of them who had not the faith of Abraham had no interest in his blessing and covenant.
We apply that to the argument where Pato Baptist sort of transfer Abraham and his seed to believers and their seed, being those who receive blessing and covenant. John Owen of Paido-Baptist is saying it's only those who have faith. Seeing therefore that their other privilege was to come to an end with all the carnal ordinances that attended it by the actual coming of the Messiah, whereunto they were subservient. So he's saying that the old covenant, is not an administration of the covenant of grace, but a subservient covenant that pointed forward to and shadowed new covenant blessing.
If they did not, by faith in the promised seed, attain an interest in this of the spiritual blessing, it is evident that they could on no account be considered as actual sharers in the covenant of God. In other words, the children of Abraham, according to the flesh, were not actual sharers in the covenant of grace. Therefore, by the same logic that paedo-baptists apply to the children of believing parents, those children are not actual sharers in the covenant of God. That is considered as unbelieving.
Chapter 10, paragraph three, notwithstanding at this point. So all of that to come back to the point that members of the covenant of grace are believers. Therefore, members of the covenant of grace or believers are only those who are to be baptized.
Argument from Federal Headship
The second argument is the argument from federal headship. Baptism signifies union with Christ. Remember the language here is being engrafted into him. Baptism signifies the union with Christ, the covenant head of the one baptized.
And because every person stands under one of only two federal heads, either dead in Adam or alive in Christ, never both, the sign of union with Christ is due only to those actually united to Christ by faith and not to the children of believers who, until they believe, remain in Adam. So one who has Adam, the inheritor of judgment according to the covenant of works, and all of his progeny after him, wholly defiled and all the faculties of soul and body, those should not be the recipients of a sign which signifies union with Christ. It's madness to do so. Only those who have Christ as covenant head, which means Christ as Savior, they believing in him, only they are to receive the sign that signifies union with him.
Argument from Doctrine of Salvation
Thirdly, the argument from the doctrine of salvation. Baptism is directly connected to the perfect finished work of Christ and the application of the benefits of that work to those for whom he lived, died again and for whom he ever lives to intercede. Let's once again turn in our Bibles. We looked at this passage last time, but let's look at it again.
Because it's noteworthy Roman 6. And then. and then time willing we'll have a look at another passage. But this is one the confession itself cites and also that is more than noteworthy in the argument regarding baptism. Romans 6, 1, what shall we say then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
Certainly not. How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly also we shall be in the likeness of his resurrection. So you see the link between baptism Really, two things, the link between baptism and what we call the historia salutis, history of salvation, specifically as it is in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is intimately and undivorceably, that's a word, linked to the historical life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those who avail of that are those who are united with Christ and baptized.
So the history of salvation, the actual in truth, in history, reality of Christ's work. But then also, of course, the application of the benefits of that perfect work. So those who are linked to the historical reality and the theological depth and richness and meaning of what that is for believers. that they're washed in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. They're made alive by amazing and victorious grace.
They're justified. They're adopted. They're sanctified. They're glorified.
So the argument from the doctrine of salvation, Nehemiah Cox, wrote this, and this communion that believers have with Christ in his benefits through the faith of the operation of God is in a lively manner held out and signified to them in their baptism, wherein they are said to be both buried and risen together with him. The immersion of the body into the water bearing an analogy to his burial as the railing of it again out of the water, that's probably raising, the L is probably a funky looking S in the 17th century English. The raising of it again out of the water doth to his resurrection. This the apostle intends that even their baptism upon their first receiving, and profession of the Christian religion did reach and oblige them to live upon Christ alone and to join no other thing with him in the foundation of their hope.
And listen to Owen, again, a Pato Baptist, on this link, the argument from the Doctrine of Salvation for the baptism of believers only. Indeed, this is the excellence of this covenant, the covenant of grace. And so it is here declared that it doth effectually communicate all the grace and mercy contained in it to all and everyone with whom it is made, with whom His sins are pardoned. The wonderful inconsistency of John Owen here.
The argument from the doctrine of salvation. As I think it's Fred Malone, he says something like, infant baptism does violence to the doctrine of particular redemption. Christ died so as to secure the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, and so those who are the blessed yet undeserved recipients of the perfection of that redemption are the only ones who are to receive the sign of that work.
Argument from New Testament Clarity
Fourthly, the argument from the clarity of New Covenant or New Testament revelation. The Bible clearly and exclusively only sets forth believers' baptism. Never once do we see the command to baptize an infant, which we'll look at under the fifth and last point. Always and everywhere we see the command for believers to be baptized, and we see the narrative capturing of believers only being baptized.
The statement goes this way in summary. The New Testament is clear and explicit when it, first, provides explicit command that believers be baptized, containing no such command for the baptizing of infants. Second, provides narrative stating the believing prerequisite for baptism, providing no narrative account of any other prerequisite. And third, provides narrative instances and summary reports of believing preceding the administration of the ordinance and provides no such instances and reports of any other type of administration.
So it's always the case that there is explicit command that believers be baptized, and there is never the case for a command for the baptizing of infants. It's always the case that the narrative account states the believing prerequisite for baptism. It's never the case that there is any other prerequisite given. And then, again, lastly, it's always the case that summary reports of believing precede the administration of baptism, and it's never the case that there is any other type of administration, whether the baptism of infants or unbelievers or any such thing.
Now, we say that because there is the exception, and when I say that, it's the exception of Simon in the book of, Simon Magus in the book of Acts, where the disciples, not themselves being infallible, took a legitimate profession of faith and baptized thereby, only to subsequently discover that he was not a true believer, but again, that's an exception. It's not a cannonball in the canon of paedo-baptists to argue against the legitimacy of credo-baptism.
Argument from Regulative Principle
The last argument, the argument from the doctrine of worship, The regulative principle of worship requires that ordinances or sacraments be observed as instituted by Christ the lawgiver with no additions, no subtractions, and no substitutions. The regulative principle of worship rejects elements of worship that are not explicitly commanded by God. Infant baptism is not explicitly commanded by God, and not only that, but believer's baptism is explicitly commanded, and so infant baptism is contrary to the expressed commands of God regarding how he is to be worshipped. the Paedo-Baptists violate their own rule of the regulative principle of worship in baptizing infants. There is a terrible inconsistency there.
This is the Baptists, I believe, in their appendix to the Confession of Faith. So at the end of the confession of faith, we don't have it in our copies here, we don't have the epistle at the beginning or the appendix at the end, but those are great things to read and to avail of. And in the appendix on baptism, the Baptist wrote this, that religious worship for which there is no command nor example in the scripture of truth is will worship and unlawful. But your infant baptism, speaking to Paedo-Baptists, is a religious worship for which there is no command nor any example written in the scripture of truth.
Ergo, your infant baptism is will worship and unlawful. And John Owen, again, with an interesting inconsistency. Once more, therefore, what is commanded in the worship of God is unlawful, yea, is our duty, oh, excuse me. Once more, therefore, what is commanded in the worship of God is lawful, yea, is our duty to observe.
All particular instances of this sort that are to have actual place in the worship of God were easily enumerated and so expressly commanded. Just pause for a moment, there's another sentence here. So what he's saying is, is that those things that are to be observed by Christians are easily enumerated and so expressly commanded. That is obvious, not sort of implicitly gained under a cloud and under a shroud of terrible interpretation, but it's expressly commanded.
And why, among sundry things that might equally belong thereunto, one should be commanded, and another left at liberty, without in any institution no man can divine." He's speaking against his own practice of infant baptism without really even knowing it. And so just to summarize, why do we baptize believers only? The argument from covenant theology, from federal headship, from the doctrine of salvation, from the clarity of New Covenant or New Testament revelation, and from the doctrine of worship, the regulative principle of worship. Now that's just a sort of a comfortable five-fold Summary, there'd be other categories or reasons, but those are five significant ones.
Proper Element and Formula of Baptism
Moving then next to the proper element and formula of baptism, the proper element and formula of baptism, this is paragraph three. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. So here we have element and formula. First, the proper element is water.
And so we may ask the question, why water? Well, there are at least three reasons why water. First, the washing and purification significance with regards to baptism. Now, of course, the water does not itself wash away and purify the recipient from his or her sins, but rather, water bearing that meaning and bearing that application in reality, it symbolizes or it signifies what is true of the recipient by virtue of grace and the work of Christ.
It symbolizes that by virtue of the work of Christ and the application of that work, we have been washed, we have been purified, from our sins. So it bears that reality. Water, and more as it is joined to the proper mode of baptism, the overwhelming reality of water. When one is immersed into and overwhelmed by the water, that signifies the reality of death with Christ and burial with Him.
So that overwhelmingness that we have when we're dipped into the water is symbolizing our death with Christ, a la Romans 6, 1 to 5. And thirdly, the water as a principle of life communicates or symbolizes regeneration. So that when we rise up from out of the water in baptism, that's a declaration, a proclamation, a symbolizing of our being raised with Christ. So water in its purifying or washing reality, in its weight of overwhelmingness, and as a principle of life communicating regeneration.
You know, the language of the Bible, where we read stuff like, we have not been redeemed by deeds of righteousness, which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us through the washing of regeneration. Baptism isn't that washing of regeneration, but it symbolizes it. The Holy Spirit regenerating us, the effectual call, the removal of the stony heart and the giving of a fleshly heart and that Ezekiel 36 language of being cleansed by the Holy Spirit, the washing of regeneration. So water bears a significant emblematic meaning pointing to salvation, which itself, again, is an argument for believers only.
The very element used and what it communicates is an argument for believers-only baptism. So we have the proper element, water, and then we have the proper formula of baptism. It is to be in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Trinitarian baptism.
You can turn, of course, to a passage already cited, Matthew 28. The giving of the Great Commission at the end of Matthew. Then the eleven disciples, verse 16, 28-16, went away into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." The biblical text cited in the Confession and really given verbatim in the language of the Confession is Matthew 28, 19, and 20, wherein the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And interestingly, If we go to Matthew 3, we see that very reality of the Trinity, the Trinitarian reality of baptism. As Jesus goes into the water, not for the forgiveness of sins, but for the fulfilling of all righteousness.
In the inauguration, if you will, of his messianic mission, we see the Trinity at the baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3, 13. Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent him, saying, I need to be baptized by you, and you are coming to me. But Jesus answered and said to him, permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.
Then he allowed him. When he had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were open to him, and he saw the Spirit of God ascending like a dove and alighting upon him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. There we have the blessed biblical portraiture of the Trinity given in this account of Jesus going from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
We have the Son in the water, we have the Spirit descending, and the Father the Father speaking from heaven, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. So not only in the commission to the church, but also in that sort of exemplary baptism and inaugural baptism of Jesus Christ, do we have the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It's a cool quote from Gregory of Nazianzus. who wrote this. This was actually in his oration on baptism.
And he's calling upon the recipients of this oration, this sermon, he's calling on them to recall their baptism, to think back upon that time when they entered into the water and were baptized in the triune name. He says, remember your confession. Into what were you baptized? The Father?
Good, but still Jewish. The Son? Good. No longer Jewish, but yet not perfect.
The Holy Ghost? Very good. This is perfect. Was it then simply into these, or was there some one common name of these?
Yes, there was, and it is God. He's coming with the weight of Matthew 28, 18 to 20, and calling upon Christians to remember their confession. And this is something historically that's noteworthy. When we think about the early creeds of the Christian church, there is an inseparable connection to baptism.
You know, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the sort of provincial creeds that were enshrined in history by Christians that confessed the Trinity of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and those sort of central gospel truths, they were connected to the Christian confessing it before God and men at their baptism. So that's why Gregory of Nazianzus says here, remember your confession. When you go into the waters of baptism, you were simultaneously in the symbol, but also verbally to an audience declaring your affinity with the triune God and your loyalty to the risen Christ. So that's why the baptism here, The chapter on baptism summarizes wherein the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
And then
Proper Mode of Baptism
lastly, we have immersion or dipping the person in water is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. This is the proper mode of baptism. The element, the proper element is water, the proper formula is planetarian, and then the proper mode is immersion or dipping. Now, when this clause is read, or dipping, It's not setting it against immersion as a secondary option to immersion.
It's explanatory or elaborative. It's immersion. It's a synonymous statement. It's not distinguishing it from immersion.
It's just further explaining immersion. Dipping was the English term, the 17th century term used. It's not like, you know, the dipping of the toes of the recipient of baptism into the water, and therefore we have baptism. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration of Faith read, dipping of the person into water is not necessary, but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. which itself is silly and wrong, but they're disclosing, or they're comparing dipping or immersion to pouring or sprinkling.
So when the Baptists here, again, when they say immersion or dipping, it's just a synonymous statement, just explaining immersion. Immersion is the Latin we could say, and dipping is the English. So immersion or dipping of the person in water is necessary to the due administration of the ordinance. And immersion or dipping is really what the word baptized means.
Baptized, as you may know, comes from the Greek word baptizo, which means, quote, to dip repeatedly, to emerge, immerse, to submerge. It's used of vessels sunk, the lexicon that I was reading this morning notes and that you've heard before. It's used of vessels that were sunk to immerse, to fully emerge or immerse into water. There is a word for sprinkle.
And that is Rantidzo, which means to sprinkle, and it's used in the Bible as well. In fact, it's used in a passage in Hebrews 9 that the Paedobaptists use as an argument for sprinkling. In fact, there is, I think, evidence that the Baptists would call, Paedobaptists, they would say we should deny to them the term Baptists at all. In other words, not Paedobaptists, and not practicing baptism, but we should call them Rantists, practicing Rantism, because to sprinkle comes from the Greek Rantizo, not from the Greek Baptizo.
In fact, Paedobaptists themselves acknowledge this with regards to immersion. Claudius Salmassius, who was a French Paedobaptist who favored sort of a, he was a Presbyterian, but kind of favored an Episcopal approach to immersion. to church, to the doctrine of the church, he wrote this. So an infant Baptist wrote this. Baptain from which baptizain signifies immersion, not aspersion.
So not, you know, not sprinkling. Nor did the ancients baptize any, but by dipping either once or thrice, except clinics or persons confined to a sickbed. So he's really being honest and denying that baptize should be used by paedo-baptists. And he's saying that the ancients practiced immersion or dipping and not sprinkling.
He also wrote, baptism is immersion and was formerly celebrated according to the force and meaning of the name. Now it is only rantism or sprinkling not immersion nor dipping, which is very, very interesting. And we have that famous statement by John Calvin, which at the same time is honest, but also stupid. When the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence.
Churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates. Now notice this though. Although it is evident that the term baptized means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church. The first statement was dumb.
The second statement is honest and acknowledging what's true with regards to the doctrine of baptism. Joseph Mead, also a Paedo-Baptist, wrote this, I add, because perhaps some men's fancies are corrupted therewith, that there was no such thing as sprinkling, or rantismos, used in baptism in the Apostles' times, nor many ages after them. So we ask the question, why then sprinkle? I don't know. because we're slaves to our bad practice and are trying to, you know, theologically legitimize something that isn't legitimate.
So properly, the mode of baptism, the proper mode of baptism is immersion or dipping of the person in water, and that is necessary to the due administration of the ordinance. So that's a quick study on chapter 29 of baptism.
Questions and Answers
We have 10-ish minutes. Any questions at all about that material or baptism at large? Mm-hmm. So who historically started triple baptism?
Yeah, I don't know. I imagine it happened, you know, this is just a guess, and maybe, Jim, you might know or Grant with your knowledge of church history, but I imagine it arose in the early centuries of the church. These quotes talk about the ancients not practicing it, the apostles and ages after that. But I imagine it, you know, it might have emerged as early as the third century.
I don't know. Yeah. Any, any ideas? Probably.
I mean, you would have seen some of it beginning in the third, but mostly in the fifth, fourth, late fifth, late fourth and fifth century. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
So like Gregor Pansy answers. wasn't baptized as a baby. Yeah. Yeah. It was not common at all for people to be baptized as a baby.
Right. I think Christian families. Right. So.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And for Constantine was baptized on his bed.
Deathbed. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If you don't have living water and if you don't have a good amount of water, you can pour out water price on the head.
Yeah. more of a concession. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Not the proper mode, but a concession.
Yeah. And that's kind of what cell cell massius was, was saying to the proper mode is immersion. Um, but given particular circumstances, you might not have the ability to do so. Yeah.
Yeah. Charlotte. Um, with the early church in the catacombs when they were being persecuted, um, some people got to the point that they were, they knew they were going to be fed to the lions. So then they would end up having their babies baptized, so were they, like, they wouldn't have been in any lay.
They would have obviously had the core in there. Have you heard of that? I haven't before. No, that's the first time I've heard of that.
Yeah, that might be the case. It sounds like it's the first I've heard of that. Yeah. Because people were, they were kind of like, well, just in case.
Right. Yeah. make sure they're okay. Yeah, yeah. And yeah, you know, and that's sort of the, sort of the the nature of the nature of the human mind within a religious context is kind of, yeah, you know, let's, let's cover our bases sort of mindset, which is more, which is more perhaps superstition than it is the actual legitimate Christian practice.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Any, any other questions?
Yes. I don't know. If someone is baptized into the name of Christ, he would not in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That's an invalid baptism.
Yeah. Yeah, that's an invalid baptism. Yeah. Yeah.
The, the, you know, I think that's taken from passages in the book of Acts, for example, where we have the language being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But that's not giving the mode or the formula with regards to the proper mode of baptism. That's just speaking with regards to the dominical authority of Christ as the one who commanded baptism and who is the very namesake of Christianity. He has all authority in heaven and on earth.
So by that authority and by that name that bears that authority, baptism is to be taken place. But baptism is to be in the name of the Father. and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Yeah. Yep.
In Jesus' name only is typically one that's Pentecostal. It's modal. So, you know, that guilt, certain guilt by association when they emphasize, oh no, we're baptized in the name of Jesus only. Ask them what they think about Trinity.
They deny it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So when it comes to Confessing Christians who are not baptized, so obviously there's the ones who confess and they get baptized, and the ones who confess and for some reason know what baptism is and don't, which is obviously a question of why they're in that state, but the Christians who confess their faith in order to the Presbyterians, you know, Dutch, whatever, they have a different view. What is their, is there any spiritual state, because obviously baptism is a sign, right?
God is merciful and gracious. They're in error. I think infant baptism itself is error. It's a violation of the regulative principle of worship.
It's a violation of Christian worship. So the error is significant. And then for a believer not to be properly baptized, the true meaning of baptism. So baptized as a, you know, an infant, but a true believer not baptized later properly.
Yeah, they're in error. It's not damnable. They're not, you know, outside, they're not, you know, sort of outside of grace and a false believer, but they should be baptized. But, you know, the mercy of God is, everlasting and Christ is glorious as a Savior.
And she was probably in her 80s at the time and we had a baptism and then she came up to me afterwards and said, you know, I've always been deathly afraid of water because I almost drowned as a child. But I know I need to be baptized. And so, yeah, she got baptized and going to church. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yep.
How would you respond to someone like Church of God? I would say, well, in the New Testament, we see baptism and the forgiveness of sins. It's been like entwined. You need to, in order to have the forgiveness of sins, you need to be baptized.
Also say baptism. It's like a kind of a verifying original sin. So how would we distinguish baptism from forgiveness of sins? The necessary.
Right, right. And regeneration. Yeah. Yeah, well, I think there are some places in the scriptures that we could go.
I think if you look at the end of the Gospel of Mark, there is an interesting statement. I think it's in Mark 16. He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned. The implication there is with that negative statement, he doesn't say, but he who is not baptized or does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.
There's weight given to that with regards to the true prerequisite for salvation is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. I think we have, though it's an exceptional case, we have the thief upon the cross, his salvation, which is, that whole narrative, of course, is devoid of baptism. The efficacy there is all wrapped up with the person and the work of Christ and redemption wrought by him. I think there's an exegetical argument to be made that we don't have time to launch upon. in Acts chapter two, where with the sermon by Peter there, when we read, repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, there's a good exegetical argument there that answers that question, where baptism, baptism represents and signifies the reality of the forgiveness of sins being true of the recipient, and baptism itself not being that which is efficacious for the forgiveness of sins.
Who's the fellow that did it? And it was a Jerb's article. I want to say somewhere around 2016, 2017, the exegesis of Acts 2.38. If anybody wants the article, I think I have it in PDF form.
I could send it out. One last question. Yeah. How would you understand the language in the Catechism and in the Confession Book of Baptism being a means of salvation?
Well, a means of grace, I think, but, you know, a means of salvation. I think that the answer, I think the answer comes in a good, a good answer is chapter 14, paragraph one. the grace of faith whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls is the work of the spirit of Christ in their hearts and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word by which also and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper prayer and other means appointed of God it is increased restraint drink so you know the the it's a means of grace not or a means of salvation that is a manner by which God communicates the benefits of the redemptive work of Christ to its recipients. I think Pastor Barcelos, Dr. Barcelos, uses the language of the delivery systems of the risen and exalted Christ by which, by virtue of the amazing grace in his finished work, he communicates the benefits of salvation to his people.
All right, thanks everybody.