What is Baptism?

[Robert Truelove]

I recently posted a new blog post on Reformed Baptist Blog entitled What is Baptism? A Baptist Speaks from the 17th Century. I thought some of you may be interested in this.

What is Baptism? A Baptist Speaks from the 17th Century | Reformed Baptist Blog

 

[MW]

I recently posted a new blog post on Reformed Baptist Blog entitled What is Baptism? A Baptist Speaks from the 17th Century. I thought some of you may be interested in this.

What is Baptism? A Baptist Speaks from the 17th Century | Reformed Baptist Blog

According to the blog, "Baptism is a sign of present regeneration in the one baptized."

The Westminster and London Confessions agree (10.3), "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit."

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

"Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state or condition of any object is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state or condition does, in fact, baptize it." ~James W. Dale

Thus, baptism (baptizo) means the thorough changing of the character, state or condition of an object.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thus, baptism (baptizo) means the thorough changing of the character, state or condition of an object.

That seems to be a redefinition of baptism in my estimation.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Thus, baptism (baptizo) means the thorough changing of the character, state or condition of an object.

That seems to be a redefinition of baptism in my estimation.

Do you mean a redefinition of Dale's definition of baptism?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It seems to be a redefinition compared to all I have ever understood. How does baptism mean a thorough changing of the character? Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by that. Baptism signifies our union in Christ. It signifies the Grace of God upon the Church. It signifies cleansing. What do you mean by thorough changing of character? I could read that as something implying an aberrational doctrinal called entire sanctification actually. Your definition and Dale's also seem to say that baptism itself is capable of changing that character which is akin to baptismal regeneration.

 

[Robert Truelove]

Just to clarify the intention of the blog post...It was not the point to dredge up the debate between credo and paedobaptism...but rather to challenge those who saw only the subject's "first act of obedience" and "public profession" in baptism.

Respectfully, when that is the thrust and purpose of the post, I don't see any profit in debating credo versus padeo in this thread.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sorry the thread got sidetracked already Pastor. I haven't had time to look at it yet. I am still listening to your sermon on the Lord's supper. It is really good.

 

[MW]

Respectfully, when that is the thrust and purpose of the post, I don't see any profit in debating credo versus padeo in this thread.

The blog states, "He did this to demonstrate that infant baptism was incompatible with the things that define the sacrament itself." That opens the post up for discussion on this point.

 

[JP Wallace]

Robert

This is important material. I'd change point 3 from 'Baptism is a sign of present regeneration in the one baptised.' to Baptism is a sign of regeneration in the one baptised (omitting 'present'). I would make this change because I would be very uncomfortable applying to baptism to any one on the basis of present regeneration, how could I ever know for sure? I don't believe that's my job (or within my ability) - rather I apply the sign on the basis of a credible profession of faith.

Again, as I commented on another post you have written, well done for raising and preaching this material, I have long said that many Reformed Baptists are practically sub-confessional on the sacraments, they view and preach about and practice baptism in a way identical to general Baptists and this cannot be in light of what the confession and Scripture teaches.

I often quote Keach's catechism at this point,

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

(1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)

Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs.

(Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)

Q. 100. What is Baptism?

A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.

(Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27)

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

It seems to be a redefinition compared to all I have ever understood. How does baptism mean a thorough changing of the character? Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by that. Baptism signifies our union in Christ. It signifies the Grace of God upon the Church. It signifies cleansing. What do you mean by thorough changing of character? I could read that as something implying an aberrational doctrinal called entire sanctification actually. Your definition and Dale's also seem to say that baptism itself is capable of changing that character which is akin to baptismal regeneration.

Martin, neither I nor Dale are talking about the sacrament of water baptism, but the meaning of the term "baptism" (baptizo) in general.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

First, Samuel , what you have stated is a redefinition (by definition ....). Here is what it means in general terms:

bap·tism   [bap-tiz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
Ecclesiastical . a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.
2.
any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.
3.
a trying or purifying experience or initiation.
4.
Christian Science . purification of thought and character.

Even in a non-Christian sense it's some sort of purification. From babies to dishes. It's purifying or cleaning something in some way.

Second, pastor Wallace yu stated that you baptize based upon credible profession yet you are weary to baptize based upon regeneration. Yet, if they do profess, and it's credible, by default don't you believe they're regenerate?

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

First, Samuel , what you have stated is a redefinition (by definition ....). Here is what it means in general terms:

bap·tism   [bap-tiz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
Ecclesiastical . a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.
2.
any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.
3.
a trying or purifying experience or initiation.
4.
Christian Science . purification of thought and character.

Even in a non-Christian sense it's some sort of purification. From babies to dishes. It's purifying or cleaning something in some way.

Second, pastor Wallace yu stated that you baptize based upon credible profession yet you are weary to baptize based upon regeneration. Yet, if they do profess, and it's credible, by default don't you believe they're regenerate?

Why would baptism (baptizo) have anything to do with water? I wouldn't trust in the International Phonetic Alphabet, when searching for the meaning of baptism.

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------

To purify does not agree with all the Biblical references to baptism. Were the children of Israel purified into Moses (I Cor. 10:2)? Was Christ purified with a purification, by His penal sufferings on the cross (Mark 10:38; Matt. 20:22; Luke 12:50)? Nor is this definition wide enough to include many usages in the classics. For example, a man is baptized by an alcoholic drink, when he consumes too much. Origen, a third century Christian theologian, even speaks of certain persons who were baptized "by wickedness." These baptisms are clearly not purifications.

We need a definition of baptizein that includes purification but is broad enough to do justice to all the various baptisms. Dale's general definition of baptizein is sufficient:

Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state or condition of any object is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state or condition does, in fact, baptize it.

John Murray's analysis is similar:

[Baptizein], we must conclude, is one of those words which indicate a certain effect without itself expressing or prescribing the particular mode by which this effect is secured.

Thus baptizein means to change thoroughly the character, state or condition of an object.

 

[JP Wallace]

Second, pastor Wallace yu stated that you baptize based upon credible profession yet you are weary to baptize based upon regeneration. Yet, if they do profess, and it's credible, by default don't you believe they're regenerate?

Yes. But believing on the basis of evidence seen is not identical to actuality all the time, though normally it is. The basis of their baptism, or for that matter even in a Presbytertian church a person coming into communicant membership is not their regeneration, but evidence that they do indeed appear to be regenerate. I guess what I'm saying is that only God can see the heart. In reverse sometimes a professed believers sins so gravely that the Church excommunicates them, based on evidence.

 

[KMK]

This is important material. I'd change point 3 from 'Baptism is a sign of present regeneration in the one baptised.' to Baptism is a sign of regeneration in the one baptised (omitting 'present'). I would make this change because I would be very uncomfortable applying to baptism to any one on the basis of present regeneration, how could I ever know for sure? I don't believe that's my job (or within my ability) - rather I apply the sign on the basis of a credible profession of faith.

The RB position is that Baptism is a sign of several things including 'his giving up himself to God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life'.

LBC 1689

Chapter 24 Paragraph 1. 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;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5

Spurgeon's Catechism

75 Q What is Baptism?
A Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ (Mt 28:19) to be to the person
baptised a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and burial, and resurrection (Ro 6:3 Col 2:12), of
his being ingrafted into him (Ga 3:27), of remission of sins (Mr 1:4 Ac 22:16), and of his giving up himself
to God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life (Ro 6:4,5).

However, I tend to agree with Pastor Wallace that the word 'present' may be assuming too much seeing that the RB also believes that the only proper subjects of the sign (of giving one's self to God, through Christ, to live and walk in newness of life) are those who profess repentance, faith and obedience, not those who presently live and walk in newness of life.

 

[KMK]

I recently posted a new blog post on Reformed Baptist Blog entitled What is Baptism? A Baptist Speaks from the 17th Century. I thought some of you may be interested in this.

What is Baptism? A Baptist Speaks from the 17th Century | Reformed Baptist Blog

According to the blog, "Baptism is a sign of present regeneration in the one baptized."

The Westminster and London Confessions agree (10.3), "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit."

Rev Winzer, are you implying that Baptists are inconsistent in that they believe that Baptism is a sign of regeneration, and that elect infants are regenerated, and yet they deny infants Baptism?

 

[Phil D.]

"Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state or condition of any object is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state or condition does, in fact, baptize it." ~James W. Dale

Thus, baptism (baptizo) means the thorough changing of the character, state or condition of an object.

First, baptizo is a common classical Greek verb that is transliterated "baptize", while "baptism" denotes the derivative noun baptisma, which was first and uniquely used to designate religious water ordinances in he NT. Of course we are explicitly told that NT water baptisma-s were performed by baptizo-ing (eg. Matt. 3:6, 7), but the two terms must not be treated identically.

Also, Dr. James Hadley (Congregationalist; Professor of Greek at Yale University) critically (and even a bit sarcastically) pointed out the obvious fallacy of Dale's overly nebulous definition:

He [Dale] does not say that a surgeon who, by a successful amputation, saves a dying patient, baptizes that patient; or that a whetstone, when it changes a dull knife into a sharp one, baptizes the knife; or that the sun, when it dries up a stream in summer, baptizes the stream. But we are left to infer that he would regard these, and others like these, as natural and appropriate expressions. (The New Englander and Yale Review, 26:755)​

Simon the Sorcerer certainly received a baptizo, but without undergoing a "thorough changing of character, state or condition" (Acts 8:13-23).