Significance of Baptism According to the Scriptures
John: The churches that practice infant baptism seem to teach in general that salvation is conveyed through baptism. In my childhood and youth I was taught that baptism makes us children of God and heirs of eternal life, that it cleanses from sin, and works a new birth. All that is wholly unbiblical. The Scriptural doctrine is that a person must first be saved and then be baptized, for baptism does not save, neither has it power to cleanse from sin and work regeneration, to change the heart, or to sanctify the spirit.
Martin: Don't you believe that baptism has any saving significance to man?
John: Not in the sense that it would convey any grace. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is an altogether false and pernicious doctrine. Regeneration is by the Holy Spirit alone and should precede baptism. Out of this mistaken view of the efficacy of baptism has grown the unscriptural dogma of infant baptism, since Christian parents in the third and fourth centuries had already begun to fear that dying infants could not be saved without it. Baptism is an outward sign of inward grace, showing forth the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost that has taken place before. Baptism is not a means of grace. It is a confession of faith before men. It is not an act of God but a symbolical act of man, in which he obeys the command of Christ and confesses his previous regeneration and faith before men. Repentance, new birth, and salvation by faith in Christ are therefore prerequisites of baptism, not effects of it.
Since baptism symbolizes regeneration, it should be received after the new birth. It would be ridiculous to make the symbol precede the fact by many years. [1]
Martin: It is fine that you give such a thorough and plain description of the baptistic view of the meaning of baptism. Do you really believe that your doctrine is derived from the New Testament and based on its statements?
John: I do. Otherwise I would not hold it. The doctrine of the saving efficacy of baptism is a mere human tradition, and it is a pernicious tradition. The Bible never teaches such a doctrine.
Martin: The matter is not decided if we merely declare that our doctrine is Scriptural. We must also show where the Bible teaches such a doctrine. Let's take our Bibles and study what the word of God says on these things. But before we start our study of the teaching of Scripture, I have a question for you. Do you really believe that infant baptism has grown from the idea of the saving and regenerating efficacy of baptism? Some time ago you admitted that infant baptism has grown from the words of Jesus concerning the infants; the kingdom of God is theirs, and they receive it. In our previous discussion we also arrived at the conclusion that the practice of the Synagogue has contributed to the use of infant baptism in the Apostolic Church.
John: I admit I was rash in saying that infant baptism has grown from the idea of the saving and regenerating efficacy of baptism. Nevertheless, I should not say that baptism has grown from the words of Jesus concerning infants. Rather I should say that the words of Jesus confirm the fact that the infants should be recognized as having a definite relationship under the care of the Church.
Martin: You repeat the argument that you gave before. I must also repeat mine: Jesus does not say that infants merely have a definite relationship under the care of the Church. He says that the kingdom of God is theirs, and that they receive it. You admitted that such children can and should be baptized. You also admitted that the use of infant baptism in the Synagogue has contributed to the practice of the early Church, since Jesus never opposed it, but by His words concerning infants indicated that they have the same position in the New Covenant as they had in the Old one. I do not, of course, oppose your statement that infants and children have a definite relationship under the care of the Church. I only hold that the New Testament teaches more than that ...
Well, let's see how the thing stands. Do you, brother John, believe that to become a disciple of Jesus is the same thing as entering into His kingdom?
John: I do. In the Apostolic Age, Christians were for many years simply called disciples. Christian was a name given them later in Antioch, as Luke tells in Acts, the eleventh chapter, twenty-sixth verse.
Martin: Before His ascension Christ gave his disciples the command, "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them . . . and teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." [2] Don't these words show that baptism and teaching are means that are used in making disciples?
John: Certainly not. Christ states there plainly that people must first be made His disciples and then be baptized and taught; first, the preaching of the Gospel and faith in it, through which people become Christ's disciples, and then baptism.
Martin: Faith in the Gospel is, of course, the main thing in becoming a disciple of Christ. Baptism and teaching would not make disciples, in the true sense of the word, without faith in the Gospel. In fact, a true living faith is the main thing in becoming a disciple. I don't think that we have any disagreement on that point. Still, what I said of baptism and teaching as means that are used in making disciples holds true. Let's imagine Christ giving a command like this: "Go and make disciples of all nations, preaching the Gospel to them, and teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." Wouldn't you understand in this case that the preaching of the Gospel and teaching are means used in making disciples?
John: Certainly. What other means could be used for that purpose?
Martin: Well, let's now compare the sentences: "Make disciples . . . baptizing them . . . and teaching them . . . " and "Make disciples . . . preaching to them . . . and teaching them. . . " Aren't these sentences grammatically alike?
John: They are; is no question about that. But their meanings are not necessarily like. All that the words of Christ proved is that baptizing is to go hand-in-hand with making disciples.
Martin: Alright. Let's take them in that sense. Baptism must necessarily accompany the proclamation of the Gospel in making disciples. People cannot become disciples in the full sense without baptism ...
John: That's true, of course. But what is the significance of baptizing in the name of Christ, or in the name of the triune God? Doesn't it mean confession of His name before men?
Martin: I have a question for you. Who performs baptism in the name of the triune God? Who is the person who acts in it?
John: Naturally he who baptizes.
Martin: The person who is baptized only receives it. He does not primarily confess the name of the triune God, even when he is an adult person. He is baptized into the name of the triune God. The very act of baptism is therefore in conflict with your doctrine. Or do you otherwise confess the name of Christ before men while doing nothing but only receiving something from others, or being acted upon by them? Don't you confess Christ and your faith only when you do or speak something?
John: I hadn't thought of that. What you say is worth considering.
Martin: In First Corinthians, the first chapter, second verse, Paul says that the Israelites were baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea. Their baptism into Moses did not mean that they confessed Moses before men, but that they were put under the leadership of Moses, were dedicated to Moses, to obey and follow him as the God-ordained mediator and leader. The sea to which they traveled separated them forever from Egypt and from the rule of its king, and placed them under the government and leadership of Moses. In the same way we are separated from this world and its prince through baptism, being placed by it under the rule of Christ in His kingdom.
The same thing is seen from the question of Paul in First Corinthians, first chapter, thirteenth verse: "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" He does not mean: Did you confess the name of Paul in your baptism? but: Were you dedicated in baptism to Paul, to trust in him, to be under his rule, to follow him, and serve him? Weren't you baptized into Christ, to trust in Him, to be obedient to Him, and serve Him?
John: We also, naturally, believe that we dedicate ourselves in baptism to Christ, to trust in Him, and to follow Him.
Martin: Again you use the unbiblical baptistic language. Baptism is not your work, in which you act. You are acted upon in it. You are dedicated to Christ through baptism, and you dedicate yourself to Him through faith. Did you see the difference? Baptism is an act of God and of his Church upon you. It must find correspondence on your part by faith and surrender to Christ. Baptism is God's act upon you, faith and surrender is your act toward God. You have turned things upside down and made a human act of what in the Bible is an act of God. Isn't that a rather thorough perversion of an aspect of Christianity?
John: Don't be too hard on us. I will think of that. Maybe have had a wrong idea of the meaning of baptism. But let's turn to another question. When Peter preached on Pentecost, there were about three thousand people who were touched, were pricked, in their hearts and asked what they should do. [3] Didn't they first hear and believe the Gospel and receive baptism after that?
Martin: A short while ago I told you that even those who practice infant baptism, that is, the baptism of the babes of Christian homes, first preach the Gospel to adult people and then baptize those who believe it. Baptism is a part of the Gospel. In it the Gospel promise is applied and "sealed" to individuals.
John: I do not agree with you in the view that baptism is a part of the Gospel. The risen Lord gives the commissions to His disciples in the closing chapters of the synoptic gospels. Luke does not mention baptism at all. He is occupied with the Gospel. Baptism is not a part of that, as Paul shows in First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, verses one to four, where he summarizes the contents of the Gospel and does not mention baptism at all, and as he indicates in First Corinthians, first chapter, seventeenth verse, where he says that Christ had not sent him to baptize but to preach the Gospel. The Gospel is concerning God's Son, as Paul says in Romans, first chapter, verses one to four, and not concerning ordinances, however blessed, or works, however proper, to the man already justified. [4]
Martin: Do you, brother John, really mean that Paul intends to show that the whole contents of the Gospel in First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, verses one to four, so that all things not mentioned in this passage but taught elsewhere in the New Testament are outside the Gospel? For instance, Paul does not mention in that passage forgiveness of sins and justification by faith; neither does he mention Christ's dwelling in the hearts of believers, nor the parable of the lost sheep and the prodigal son. Do you think that all these teachings of the New Testament, and many others, do not belong to the Gospel?
John: I do not, of course, mean anything that foolish. At any rate, in First Corinthians, chapter one, verse seventeen, Paul makes a clear distinction between the Gospel and baptism.
Martin: In that passage Paul distinguishes the preaching of the Gospel and baptism, not the Gospel as such and baptism. On Pentecost, when people were pricked in their hearts and asked what they should do, Peter said that they should repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of their sins. Do you think that these words of Peter no longer belonged to the Gospel? When a preacher shows what one should do to be saved, and how we can have his sins forgiven, is he no longer proclaiming and teaching the Gospel?
John: Of course, he is. I was rash in my statement. But baptism into the forgiveness of sins means that this rite is a symbol of the forgiveness the people have first received, and an act of confession of the faith that previously has been born in them through the hearing of the Gospel.
Martin: Let's see what Peter actually said. "Be baptized unto, or into, the remission of your sins." "Into" is a literal translation of the Greek preposition eis that is used here. If you say that you dip your hand into water, do you mean that it is a symbolical act whereby you confess that you previously immersed your hand into water? Don't you mean that the act of dipping takes your hand into water?
John: Your question is nonsense. Don't make fun of me.
Martin: It is you who make yourself ridiculous by saying that the phrase "To baptized into remission of sins" does not mean that baptism takes a person into the remission, or participation of the remission, but is an act whereby he confesses before men that he already has received the remission of sins ...
John: I cannot deny that your explanation is in harmony with the grammatical meaning of the words. But how can an external rite convey the forgiveness of sins?
Martin: Christ said to His disciples that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name. [5] Do you believe that the Gospel of forgiveness conveys remission to a penitent person who receives it in faith?
John: Of course, I do. How else could we have our sins forgiven except by faith in the Gospel, and in Christ on the basis of the Gospel?
Martin: The Gospel is an external thing. You hear it with your years, or see it with your eyes. In baptism, the water, or the external rite, is connected with the word, and the word, or the Gospel, is the main thing in it. It is actually the Gospel that conveys the pardoning grace, and it is appropriated by faith. When the Bible says that a person is baptized into the forgiveness of sins, we accept this word and depend on this promise of the Gospel. Only by appropriating this promise of the word in faith do we receive the blessings of baptism. Don't you think that the word of God is worth believing?
John: I certainly do. I have never understood that you put the main emphasis on believing the word of the Gospel and not on the external rite. I have misunderstood your position on this point.
Martin: I'm glad our discussion helps us understand each other better ... I appreciate your honesty and humble submission to the word of God. That shows that you have a Christian heart despite your erroneous doctrinal views. But in order to understand the teaching of the whole New Testament we should study other passages that speak of the saving efficacy of baptism. One of the most significant of them is Paul's statement Ephesians: "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by washing of water with the word," [6] or literally, "by means of (instrumental dative) the washing of water, in the word." [7]
The literal grammatical meaning of this statement is: The purpose of Christ's giving Himself to suffering and death is the sanctification of the Church. This sanctification takes place by means of the washing of water, in the word, or, if we take the Revised Version translation, after having washed it by means of the washing of the water in the word. Water is here the means used in washing or cleansing, but this washing of water is "in the word," that is, it is based on the word of God and connected with that word. This word is the commandment of Christ and His promise concerning baptism, given by Him and His apostles. It is proclaimed in connection with baptism and gives it its meaning, showing what it signifies and works. Washing with water is a metaphor of cleansing from sin, or blotting out of sin; but through the word it is at the same time a means of this cleansing.
Paul does not write: That he might sanctify it, first cleansing it by His blood, through the word, and then symbolizing it in the washing of baptism, in which the saved person publicly professes his faith before men. He simply says, "by means of the washing of water, in the word." Or can you, brother John, understand this passage in any other way, if you take it literally, in its grammatical sense?
John: Your explanation seems to be grammatically correct.
Martin: Let's turn to the first epistle of Peter. We read there: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." [8]
John: I understand those words of Peter as follows: Noah's salvation through the flood of wrath in the ark shadows forth the believer's deliverance from judgment, as baptism clearly expresses, that is, salvation by the work of Christ. He endured all the curse, even as the ark bore the brunt of the storm. The believer can say: His death was mine. It is not to baptism that the saving efficacy is attached. Baptism does not save. No rite saves. There is not the slightest justification here for the ritualistic dogma of baptismal regeneration. The only thing that gives the answer that the conscience demands is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. That apprehended baptism is full of meaning. [9]
Martin: I agree from my heart with much of what you say. Noah's salvation through the flood in the ark certainly foreshadowed the believer's deliverance from judgment by the work of Christ. However, I cannot agree with your statement that baptism does not save, and that no saving efficacy is attached to it. Peter says, "Baptism doth save us." You say, "baptism does not save." Don't you see that what you say is the direct opposite to what the word of God says? Nevertheless, you claim that your doctrine as Biblical. Is that honest? Isn't it poor interpretation to say that the word of God means the exact contrast of what it says? If the Bible does not mean what it says, but means something entirely different, how can we ever know what it means?
John: Don't be too hard on us. I cannot deny that in its literal grammatical sense this passage of Peter means that baptism saves. But how can it mean that? Isn't it true that only Jesus saves?
Martin: I certainly believe that only Jesus saves. We have no disagreement on that. Nevertheless, don't you think that when Jesus saves He can do it by using instruments, means, and agents, and save sinners through them? And if He uses means and agents, isn't it still He who saves? Let's assume that I fall from a ship and you throw me a rope; I take hold of it and you pull me up to the ship. Should I say "John saved me," or "The ropes saved me"? I guess both statements could be true. The meaning would be: John saved me by means of the rope, using the rope as his instrument.
Likewise, Christ saves us, but He uses men as His agents for preaching the Gospel and performing the rite of baptism. He saves by using the word and the sacrament as His means or instruments. It is, however, He, He alone, who actually saves.
John: I have never considered the matter from that angle. I thought that baptism took the place of Christ. Now I see that when you speak of baptism as a means of grace you mean that it is an instrument that Christ uses. That makes a big difference.
But I have a remark to make on the words of Peter which we are discussing. I understand the words "putting away the filth of the flesh" to mean that it is not the external ceremony of washing, that is, the putting away of the filth of the flesh that saves. Salvation takes place in the inward cleansing by faith in which the conscience is purified by the resurrection of Christ. Baptism only symbolizes it. Hebrews, ninth chapter, thirteenth verse, speaks of Old Testament ceremonial cleansings to the cleanness of the flesh. I think Peter refers to such a cleansing here.
Martin: You're partly right and partly wrong. You're probably right in saying that the words "putting away the filth of the flesh" refer to the same thing as the verse in Hebrews. Peter says that baptism is not such a ceremonial washing as the Old Covenant washings were. He does not make any distinction between the external act and inward cleansing, as you do. He does not say: It is not the external washing that saves, but . . . He says that "baptism doth save us," not in the Old Covenant ceremonial way but in the New Covenant way. The Old Testament sacrifices and washings could not, as touching the conscience, make the worshipers perfect, as we read in Hebrews, ninth chapter, ninth verse. But the New Testament washing, baptism, does give a good conscience since the finished work of Christ, His resurrection, gives it its efficacy, while the Old Covenant washings were based only on typical sacrifices.
When Peter says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God, he obviously means: When a penitent sinner goes to baptism he asks for the forgiveness of sins. In baptism he receives what he asks for. His sins are forgiven, and so he attains a good conscience through the resurrection, or finished work, of Christ.
John: Your interpretation doesn't look bad. But Paul's words about being buried by baptism into death with Christ and of being raised with Him in Romans, sixth chapter, verses three and four, are not in harmony with your view. Burial and resurrection with Christ can come about only through faith. Baptism merely symbolizes this burial and resurrection, which has previously occurred through repentance and faith. If the burial and resurrection with Christ cannot occur in an external ceremony, how can the cleansing of the conscience and obtaining a good conscience take place in it?
Martin: I am in complete agreement with you as far as the spiritual cleansing of the conscience and the spiritual burial and resurrection of Christ are concerned. These things can take place only through repentance and faith. The appropriation of forgiveness and justification occurs through faith, and the new birth takes place by faith. But I do not see that there is any more conflict between baptism and faith then there is between the Gospel and faith. Through the Gospel and baptism the saving, pardoning, and regenerating grace is offered and given us, and we receive and appropriate it by faith. Baptism signifies and offers the grace of burial and resurrection with Christ, and faith accepts and uses it; or, in other words, in faith the burial and resurrection of Christ become an actual and living reality in our life; this food is put into our mouth with a spoon and we appropriate and use it by swallowing, digesting, and assimilating it. Or I may use an illustration that I employed a short time ago. I can say either that you saved me, or that the rope saved me, or that I was saved from drowning by taking hold of the rope and hanging on it. You are my actual savior, the rope is the means of my salvation, and taking hold of the rope and hanging on is my part in the matter. Likewise, Christ is the Savior, the Word and sacraments are the instruments, and faith is my taking hold of the promised grace, appropriating it, depending on it, and using it.
We were baptized into Christ's death and buried with Him through baptism. Baptism, connected with the Gospel, is a means whereby we are put into Christ's death, that is, placed under a shelter, so that it "covers" our sins. In baptism, we are made partakers of the blessings of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as completely as if we ourselves had done all that.
In ordinary speech, and according to ordinary grammar, the preposition "through" or "by" (in Greek dia with genitive) denotes means, instrument, way, channel, and so forth. The dictionaries explain that "through" means "by way of," "by means of," "of the instrumentality or aid of." The preposition "by" means "through the agency, means, or help of." You explain that these prepositions mean something like a symbol used afterward to show forth, exhibit, and confess what has happened before. According to ordinary grammar and common sense, these prepositions never have a meaning even remotely related to the sense you give it.
John: I cannot deny that you're right as far as the grammatical meaning of these words of Paul is concerned. I understand now your viewpoint in regard to this question better than I did before, and I admit that it does not look as bad as I had thought.
Martin: God's work in us has its external and internal side. The Holy Spirit uses in his work external means, the Word and the sacraments, as well as agents, Christian people, the ministers and others. I think that Luther is right when he explains that the Gospel is the actual and chief means of grace, from which the Sacraments receive their efficacy. Even in the sacraments, grace is actually given through the Word, the promise of Gospel. Luther says in his Small Catechism: "Is not the water indeed that produces these effects, but the word of God, which accompanies and is connected with the water, and our faith which relies on the word of God connected with the water." Luther also says that the external element in the outward act of a sacrament are like a seal which confirms the promise of the Word in order to help us to believe it more firmly. As the document is the main thing and the seal only confirms it, so the Gospel word is the main means of grace; the Sacrament is an external confirmation of the Gospel promise. Thus we can say that even in the sacraments grace is promised and imparted to was mainly through the word of the Gospel, with which is connected a sign or seal, that is, the element and sacred act.
The word that we hear with our ears and a sacramental act that we perceive with other senses are the external or instrumental side of the work of the Holy Spirit. Its internal and actual side is faith and the inward owning and experiencing of salvation. Without this inward side the word and sacrament would not bring us any personal blessing, just as your throwing of the rope does not save me from drowning unless I take hold of it and hang on until I get back into the ship. Mere external hearing of the word and receiving the sacrament does not save unless the grace thus offered and conveyed is accepted in faith and becomes our own in the experience of salvation. Luther expresses this truth aptly: The Holy Spirit "teaches us to know the work of Christ and helps us to accept it and use it for our benefit . . . He does it externally and internally: internally through faith and spiritual gifts; externally by means of the Gospel, baptism, and the sacrament of the altar. . . through which he comes to us and renders the sufferings of Christ effective in us for our salvation." [10]
John: That explanation sounds pretty good. I had a suspicion that you harbored some kind of magical view of the efficacy of the means of grace. Now I see the you believe, as we do, that the inward work of the Holy Spirit is the actual and main thing, and a means of grace are only external elements used by him. I have nothing against such a view ... At any rate, faith alone gives value to baptism. Apart from faith it is a meaningless form, and therefore I think that a person should first be converted and then be baptized. [11]
Martin: You speak in that manner because you think that baptism is given on the confession of faith, and is itself a part of that confession, or profession. When the significance of baptism is understood in that way faith naturally gives value to it. But the matter is different when we take baptism in its Biblical meaning. According to the New Testament, a person is baptized into the death of Christ and into the forgiveness of sins, he puts on Christ, water saves him as baptism and so on. In a word, the Bible teaches baptism as a divine act on man and as a gift to him. These blessings have their value in themselves, whether they are received or not. If I give you a precious diamond, this diamond has its own value whether you receive it or not. But it has value to you only if you accept it, appreciate it, and use it. Likewise, baptism has its own value independently of faith, but the baptized person owns and enjoys its value for his personal benefit only by faith. True, it is a meaningless rite to the unbeliever, and he has no benefit from it, but in itself is, nevertheless, a precious thing ...
[1] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (5th ed., revised and enlarged; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1896), pp. 527-531, 535, 538. Edward T. Hiscox, The New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1894), pp. 123-127, 389, 482. William L. Pettingill, "The Evils of Infant Baptism," reprinted in Dr. J. Oliver Buswell's booklet Both Sides of the Baptism Question, p. 2.
[2] Matt. 28:19-20.
[3] Acts 2:36ff.
[4] H.A. Ironside, Baptism: What Saith the Scripture (3d ed., 1930), p. 19.
[5] Luke 24:27.
[6] The Authorized Version: "... sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word ..."
[7] Eph. 5:25-26.
[8] 1 Pet. 3:21. Thus the A.V. The R.V. has "... which also after a true likeness (or, in the antitype) doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation (or, inquiry) of a good conscience toward God ..."
[9] Ironside, op. cit., p. 26.
[10] Luther, On the Lord's Supper, Confession, 1528, Weimar ed., vol. 26, p. 506.
[11] Ironside, op. cit., p. 22.
[Read more selections from "Scriptural Baptism" by Uuras Saarnivaara]