# Romans 6:3-4: Water or Spiritual baptism?



## TKarrer (Oct 21, 2009)

I am currently looking through Romans 6, specifically verses 3-4 right now, and am puzzled that so many people take it to be referring to water-baptism. More to the point though, Im wondering if anyone knows of any good reformed resources on this passage, which advocate a spiritual-baptism position? 

A friend of mine suggests that Douglas Moo's work may be the best, along with Schreiner's; does that sound accurate? Secondly, this friend, in reading Schreiner, is convinced that "baptizo", in the way it is used in this passage (the Greek tense), is never used of spiritual baptism by Paul (or anyone else?); is that accurate? If that is true, does the Greek tense distinguish it's usage, and therefore render it distinct from Paul's Greek tense in references to spiritual baptism? 

Any help or links would be much appreciated!


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 21, 2009)

Water baptism is often used as imagery for spiritual baptism. Why can't this passage be referring to the former as a picture of the latter?

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 07:41:17 EST-----



TKarrer said:


> I am currently looking through Romans 6, specifically verses 3-4 right now, and am puzzled that so many people take it to be referring to water-baptism. More to the point though, Im wondering if anyone knows of any good reformed resources on this passage, which advocate a spiritual-baptism position?
> 
> A friend of mine suggests that Douglas Moo's work may be the best, along with Schreiner's; does that sound accurate? *Secondly, this friend, in reading Schreiner, is convinced that "baptizo", in the way it is used in this passage (the Greek tense), is never used of spiritual baptism by Paul (or anyone else?); is that accurate? If that is true, does the Greek tense distinguish it's usage, and therefore render it distinct from Paul's Greek tense in references to spiritual baptism?*
> 
> Any help or links would be much appreciated!



No, the word baptism is not linguistically different when used in a spiritual sense. For instance, John the Baptist uses the same word in both contexts here:



> "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
> -Matthew 3:11(ESV)



N.b. The word is different only because of 1st/3rd person and tense reasons (tense as in past-present-future).


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 21, 2009)

TKarrer said:


> I am currently looking through Romans 6, specifically verses 3-4 right now, and am puzzled that so many people take it to be referring to water-baptism. More to the point though, Im wondering if anyone knows of any good reformed resources on this passage, which advocate a spiritual-baptism position?
> 
> A friend of mine suggests that Douglas Moo's work may be the best, along with Schreiner's; does that sound accurate? Secondly, this friend, in reading Schreiner, is convinced that "baptizo", in the way it is used in this passage (the Greek tense), is never used of spiritual baptism by Paul (or anyone else?); is that accurate? If that is true, does the Greek tense distinguish it's usage, and therefore render it distinct from Paul's Greek tense in references to spiritual baptism?
> 
> Any help or links would be much appreciated!



See D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones _Romans 6: The New Man_ published I think by Banner of Truth or Zondervan for a detailed presentation of the non-water baptism spiritual baptism position.


----------



## Nathan Riese (Oct 22, 2009)

TKarrer said:


> I...am puzzled that so many people take it to be referring to water-baptism.


- Me too!

I attached the following to the end of this post:

John Murray, "Christian Baptism," _Westminster Theological Journal Volume 13 _(Westminster Theological Seminary, 1950; 2003), 105-136.

The whole document is very good, especially the part toward the very end under *B. The Burial and Resurrection of Christ *

It is true, as said before, that just because Paul may be referring to Spirit baptism does not necessarily mean that there is _no _application to water baptism, HOWEVER, the same is equally true of the opposite--that it does not necessarily mean that there CAN be an application to water baptism. 

Since it is proven exegetically that he is referring to Spirit baptism, the burden of proof is to show that there is somehow some reference, symbol, application, or _anything whatsoever_ related to water baptism. With that burden of proof on the Baptists' side, this article by John Murray shows that there is no evidence and no proof at all for any application to water baptism to be made from this passage.

The article does deal a lot with other aspects of baptism and the etymology and Bible usage of the word, but the end of the article is where you will find more dealing specifically with Romans 6 and Colossians 2.


----------



## Nathan Riese (Oct 22, 2009)

Try to follow the logic of the following syllogism:

1. Water baptism symbolizes Spirit baptism
2. Because of Spirit baptism, we have been united with Christ
3. Christ died to sin.
4. Therefore, because of Spirit baptism, we have also died to sin
5. Christ was resurrected to life
6. Therefore, in Spirit baptism, we are resurrected to life
7. Therefore, water baptism symbolizes death, burial, and resurrection

It is a logical fallacy due to its unsoundness.

All Wisconsiners enjoy milk.
I enjoy milk.
Therefore, I am a Wisconsiner.

There is no _necessity_ that water baptism symbolizes death burial and resurrection because of the fact that Spirit baptism _results_ in spiritual death, burial, and resurrection.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 22, 2009)

Hold on a moment - you guys are assuming that only a Baptist can understand this to be a reference to water baptism. I think it is a reference to water baptism, but not to the _physical appearance_ of baptism (i.e. looking like burial).


----------



## Nathan Riese (Oct 22, 2009)

austinww said:


> Hold on a moment - you guys are assuming that only a Baptist can understand this to be a reference to water baptism. I think it is a reference to water baptism, but not to the _physical appearance_ of baptism (i.e. looking like burial).



it is a typical requirement of Baptist doctrine to take this interpretation, but not required of those who take non-immersionist viewpoints. So, I was speaking in general terms, but I do recognize that many presbyterians and other aspersionists and affusionists can have a water baptism type of reference in their interpretation of this passage. I am just saying that it is _typical _of Baptist theology, but not typical of affusionist/aspersionists.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 22, 2009)

Nathan Riese said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Hold on a moment - you guys are assuming that only a Baptist can understand this to be a reference to water baptism. I think it is a reference to water baptism, but not to the _physical appearance_ of baptism (i.e. looking like burial).
> ...


Thanks for clarifying. I think this is a reference to water baptism and I am paedo, but I don't think the burial and resurrection mentioned are a reference to what baptism looks like, but rather what it is connected with.


----------



## TKarrer (Oct 23, 2009)

Thank you for your insights. I will be looking into the Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Murray resources. _Many_ paedo-baptists have/do in fact view it as a reference to water-baptism; which has only complicated things for me. But, as in all things, I certainly want to allow the Scripture to speak for itself, without allowing my love for Calvin's theology to dwarf all other views!


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 23, 2009)

Nathan Riese said:


> TKarrer said:
> 
> 
> > I...am puzzled that so many people take it to be referring to water-baptism.
> ...



Nathan,

I grew up outside of Aledo, IL. PM me.


----------



## TKarrer (Oct 23, 2009)

*Greek students/scholars Wanted!!*

I guess I'm still curious to know what the significance is of Paul's using the 3rd aorist passive indicative form, without modification by the presence of a dative noun, in this text, to refer to baptism? Schreiner, I'm told, believes that because it is normative for Paul to use this when referring to water-baptism, as opposed to spiritual baptism, it clearly proves water-baptism is in view.


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 23, 2009)

TKarrer said:


> I guess I'm still curious to know what the significance is of Paul's using the 3rd aorist passive indicative form, without modification by the presence of a dative noun, in this text, to refer to baptism? Schreiner, I'm told, believes that because it is normative for Paul to use this when referring to water-baptism, as opposed to spiritual baptism, it clearly proves water-baptism is in view.



The problem with the form of "stylistic argument" advocated by Schreiner is that confuses a normative pattern of writing with an exclusive pattern of writing. A writter's normal practice is not necessarily his inevitable practice, which is why we may not conclude that it is his invariable practice, unless the writer tells us so. 

Absent such firsthand information as to the writer's grammatical practice, if arguments in the immediate context suggest that water baptism is not in view, those explicit contextual arguments will trump such implicit grammatical ones.


----------

