Baptism: Answers to Common Questions (Richard)

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
This was originally published at the Heidelblog. I wanted to post it here because the book was so good. The last Heidelblog review, unfortunately, got off topic and I wanted to wait for a while.

Review

One often hears the refrain, “Doctrine is not practical,” and many Reformed folk might protest, but of all the doctrines, we can agree that baptism is the most practical. When my own daughter was born, I knew I needed to have a clear understanding of the various positions and formulate my own opinions. Baptism became a very real and practical issue in the life of my family. Although I was already convinced of infant baptism in theory, I was missing some of its underlying principles—namely, covenantal theology—which make more sense of the praxis. A slim volume on the subject of covenantal infant baptism would have been a welcome aid, and Guy Richard has written just such a book: Baptism: Answers To Common Questions.

Guy M. Richard, a noted Samuel Rutherford scholar and President and Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Atlanta, has given the layman a short, yet cogent presentation of Reformed, covenantal baptism. This small volume joins several other books written on infant baptism by pastor-scholars. He structures the book around eleven questions, and these chapters reflect the standard questions that surround infant baptism. Richard’s thesis is that we should approach questions about baptism in terms of both the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture. He points out that Jesus had rebuked the Sadducees for not knowing the implicit and deduced meaning of Scripture (Matt 22:32). Richard’s reason for structuring the discussion about baptism around this point is obvious: Scripture is not as explicitly clear on all the questions as we might wish. Both sides, paedobaptist and credobaptist, make deductions from implied premises.

There are several areas concerning baptism where Scripture is not as explicit as one might hope. The two most obvious are the mode of baptism and the recipients. Should baptism be done by pouring or immersion? Should it be given only to believers, or can it also be given to the children of believers? Scripture gives types and patterns but no detailed instructions. It commands baptism in the Triune Name, but it assumes its hearers and readers know the rest. That is why Richard argues that one must go to the implicit arguments in Scripture in order to understand what Scripture says about baptism.

What is baptism? At its most basic level, baptism is a washing with water. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the verb “wash” is used interchangeably with “baptize.” The New Testament links this idea to the Old Covenant ceremonies and calls those ceremonies “baptisms.” This segues into the mode of baptism. Does baptizo mean immersion or pouring? Richard points out that it can mean either full or partial washings. The New Testament does not explicitly say. On the other hand, Richard points out that the most important baptismal event, although not using the cognate terms, in the New Testament, the day of Pentecost, was a pouring of the Spirit or tongues of fire. The tongues of fire rested upon the apostles. The apostles were not immersed in fire. Of course, the pouring of fire at Pentecost does not prove that New Testament baptisms should be done by pouring, not immersion. What it does establish, though, is that baptismal acts cannot be reduced to meaning immersion and immersion only.

Richard identifies four key elements in Christian baptism: washing from sin, Spirit baptism, union with Christ, and union with other believers. That baptism with water points to a cleansing from sin is obvious enough. How does water baptism relate to Spirit baptism? Should one wait for a secondary baptism of the Spirit? No. Water baptism points to Spirit baptism.As Richard notes, “When we receive the Spirit, we are washed of all our sins.” Water baptism points to the promise of the Spirit. A similar promise and pointing occurs in our union with Christ. Baptism of itself does not unite us to Christ. Paul says those who are baptized into Christ Jesus are baptized into his death (Rom 6:3-5).

As is to be expected... (article continued at Heidelblog)
 
This was originally published at the Heidelblog. I wanted to post it here because the book was so good. The last Heidelblog review, unfortunately, got off topic and I wanted to wait for a while.

Review

One often hears the refrain, “Doctrine is not practical,” and many Reformed folk might protest, but of all the doctrines, we can agree that baptism is the most practical. When my own daughter was born, I knew I needed to have a clear understanding of the various positions and formulate my own opinions. Baptism became a very real and practical issue in the life of my family. Although I was already convinced of infant baptism in theory, I was missing some of its underlying principles—namely, covenantal theology—which make more sense of the praxis. A slim volume on the subject of covenantal infant baptism would have been a welcome aid, and Guy Richard has written just such a book: Baptism: Answers To Common Questions.

Guy M. Richard, a noted Samuel Rutherford scholar and President and Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Atlanta, has given the layman a short, yet cogent presentation of Reformed, covenantal baptism. This small volume joins several other books written on infant baptism by pastor-scholars. He structures the book around eleven questions, and these chapters reflect the standard questions that surround infant baptism. Richard’s thesis is that we should approach questions about baptism in terms of both the explicit and implicit teaching of Scripture. He points out that Jesus had rebuked the Sadducees for not knowing the implicit and deduced meaning of Scripture (Matt 22:32). Richard’s reason for structuring the discussion about baptism around this point is obvious: Scripture is not as explicitly clear on all the questions as we might wish. Both sides, paedobaptist and credobaptist, make deductions from implied premises.

There are several areas concerning baptism where Scripture is not as explicit as one might hope. The two most obvious are the mode of baptism and the recipients. Should baptism be done by pouring or immersion? Should it be given only to believers, or can it also be given to the children of believers? Scripture gives types and patterns but no detailed instructions. It commands baptism in the Triune Name, but it assumes its hearers and readers know the rest. That is why Richard argues that one must go to the implicit arguments in Scripture in order to understand what Scripture says about baptism.

What is baptism? At its most basic level, baptism is a washing with water. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the verb “wash” is used interchangeably with “baptize.” The New Testament links this idea to the Old Covenant ceremonies and calls those ceremonies “baptisms.” This segues into the mode of baptism. Does baptizo mean immersion or pouring? Richard points out that it can mean either full or partial washings. The New Testament does not explicitly say. On the other hand, Richard points out that the most important baptismal event, although not using the cognate terms, in the New Testament, the day of Pentecost, was a pouring of the Spirit or tongues of fire. The tongues of fire rested upon the apostles. The apostles were not immersed in fire. Of course, the pouring of fire at Pentecost does not prove that New Testament baptisms should be done by pouring, not immersion. What it does establish, though, is that baptismal acts cannot be reduced to meaning immersion and immersion only.

Richard identifies four key elements in Christian baptism: washing from sin, Spirit baptism, union with Christ, and union with other believers. That baptism with water points to a cleansing from sin is obvious enough. How does water baptism relate to Spirit baptism? Should one wait for a secondary baptism of the Spirit? No. Water baptism points to Spirit baptism.As Richard notes, “When we receive the Spirit, we are washed of all our sins.” Water baptism points to the promise of the Spirit. A similar promise and pointing occurs in our union with Christ. Baptism of itself does not unite us to Christ. Paul says those who are baptized into Christ Jesus are baptized into his death (Rom 6:3-5).

As is to be expected... (article continued at Heidelblog)
Excellent.
 
On the other hand, Richard points out that the most important baptismal event, although not using the cognate terms, in the New Testament, the day of Pentecost, was a pouring of the Spirit or tongues of fire. The tongues of fire rested upon the apostles. The apostles were not immersed in fire. Of course, the pouring of fire at Pentecost does not prove that New Testament baptisms should be done by pouring, not immersion. What it does establish, though, is that baptismal acts cannot be reduced to meaning immersion and immersion only.

One problem with this kind of interpretation is that it goes against the majority of historical exegetes on the matter. For example, here are two early Greek-speaking fathers and one medieval:

Cyril of Jerusalem: But He came down to clothe the Apostles with power, and to baptize them; for the Lord says, “ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” This grace was not in part, but His power was in full perfection; for as he who plunges into the waters and is baptized is encompassed by the waters, so were they also baptized completely by the Holy Ghost. The water however flows round the outside only, but the Spirit baptizes also the soul within, and that completely.​
Chrysostom: When he said, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,” at once, by the very figure of speech, declared the abundance of the grace, (for he said not, “He will give you the Holy Ghost,” but “He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost”).​
Theophylact: The very term “be baptized” signifies the abundance and, as it were, the riches of the participation of the Holy Spirit; as also, as perceived by the senses, he who is immersed in water in that manner bathes the whole body, while he who simply receives water is not wetted all over.​

Notice their arguments are primarily lexical rather than theological. I for one am slow to believe the "right" interpretation on passages like this escaped all former generations, led by early native Greek-speakers, only to be discovered in modern times, by polemical authors, with the meaning being contra the historical interpretation.

Similar issues can be raised with the other points made here on mode. But I also realize by now arguments like mine are not likely to change minds...


 
Last edited:
One problem with this kind of interpretation is that it goes against the majority of historical exegetes on the matter. For example, here are two early Greek-speaking fathers and one medieval:

Cyril of Jerusalem: But He came down to clothe the Apostles with power, and to baptize them; for the Lord says, “ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” This grace was not in part, but His power was in full perfection; for as he who plunges into the waters and is baptized is encompassed by the waters, so were they also baptized completely by the Holy Ghost. The water however flows round the outside only, but the Spirit baptizes also the soul within, and that completely.​
Chrysostom: When he said, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,” at once, by the very figure of speech, declared the abundance of the grace, (for he said not, “He will give you the Holy Ghost,” but “He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost”).​
Theophylact: The very term “be baptized” signifies the abundance and, as it were, the riches of the participation of the Holy Spirit; as also, as perceived by the senses, he who is immersed in water in that manner bathes the whole body, while he who simply receives water is not wetted all over.​

Notice their arguments are primarily lexical rather than theological. I for one am slow to believe the "right" interpretation on passages like this escaped all former generations, led by early native Greek-speakers, only to be discovered in modern times, by polemical authors, with the meaning being contra the historical interpretation.

Similar issues can be raised with the other points made here on mode. But I also realize by now arguments like mine are not likely to change minds...



Cyril's analogy means they were completely baptized by the Holy Spirit, not that they were immersed in fire, which was exactly my point.

I'm not sure what Chrysostom's comment has to do with anything I said, nor is it clear how Theophylact's comment addresses the phenomena at Pentecost.

***only to be discovered in modern times, by polemical authors, with the meaning being contra the historical interpretation.***

Dr Richard is a president of RTS, hardly a "polemical author." He also got his doctorate in historical theology and is probably the world's leading authority on Samuel Rutherford.
 
Cyril's analogy means they were completely baptized by the Holy Spirit, not that they were immersed in fire, which was exactly my point.

I'm not sure what Chrysostom's comment has to do with anything I said, nor is it clear how Theophylact's comment addresses the phenomena at Pentecost.
The term "baptized" in this context is figurative (Chrysostom says μεταφορά). So readers are intended to focus on one main tertium comparationis, and not get distracted by or overly ponder other details in such accounts. These authors' point is that the main tertium comparationis in this part of the passage is the extent or the result of the act, which is conveyed by βαπτίζω, i.e. expressly being immersed in or surrounded by the Holy Spirit, in full keeping with the normal meaning of the term. In other words, the pouring is not the baptism per se.

I should have perhaps given more references, but all three authors are commenting with regard to Pentecost, whether the description as foretold by John or the account in Acts - PG 33:985, PG 57:197, PG 125:512, respectively.
 
Last edited:
Here are a variety of other commentators of note whose interpretations are in accordance with the Greeks':

Edward Leigh: To baptize in [Matthew 3] verse 11 means dip, immerse, submerge you; that is, he will dip you in the ocean of his grace, as opposed to the mere sprinklings that were in place under the Law.

Ezekiel Hopkins: John Baptist, St. Matt. 3:11, speaking of Christ, tells them, that he should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire-, that is, he should baptize them with the Holy Ghost, working as fire: for, as fire eats out and consumes the rust and dross of metals; so those, that are baptized with the Spirit, are as it were plunged into that heavenly flame, whose searching energy devours all their dross, tin, and base alloy.

Herman Witsius: That great fiery impartation of the Holy Spirit is called a Baptism, on account of its abundance.

Nicolaus Gurtlerus: Baptizein is a Greek word that doubtless means to immerse, to dip; and baptismos and baptisma denote an immersion, dipping. …Baptismos en Pneumati hagio, “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” is immersion into the pure waters of the Holy Spirit, relating to the diverse and abundant gifts that He bestows; for to receive the Holy Spirit poured out is, as it were, to be immersed in Him.

Conrad Iken: We begin by noting, as all agree, that the basic sense of the Greek word baptismos indicates the immersion of an object or person into something. ...Here as well [Matt. 3:11], according to the same simplicity of the term, the baptism of fire, or as such is done in fire, must signify the sending or immersion into fire; and all the more so in this case, since to baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire is not only connected with, but at the same time contrasted to being baptized in water.

Alfred Edersheim: Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire—in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, and so effectively qualified for the “Kingdom.” ...The expression “baptism of fire” was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanhedrin 39a [Talmud] we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isaiah 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Numbers 31:23.


 
Phil, I think the point is that the biblical record is that when God baptized them in the Holy spirit, He poured the Spirit on them, he didn’t take them and dunk them into anything. They may have been poured upon to the extent of “immersion” but the act itself was one of applying the agent to the recipient, not vice versa. And regardless, they were not each surrounded in fire every whit. Whether interpreters figuratively call it immersion or not, I think the point is just that…it wasn’t actual immersion.
 
but the act itself was one of applying the agent to the recipient, not vice versa.
Again, if you go back and see what all these authors are saying, their point is that is not the point. Baptizo is expressly used in the passage to describe the resultant extent or abundance. Since the entire description is figurative, describing something given "from above" as a pouring out is a natural part of the figurative description. But such a construct does not indicate that the pouring out = the baptism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top