This thread is for those who are interested in reading about Martyn Lloyd-Jones' views on Baptism. His views on baptism "almost never appeared in his public ministry", but on one occasion (as part of his on going Friday night lecture series on Biblical Doctrines) he actually did share his views. Iain Murray, commenting on Lloyd-Jones' views on baptism, said:
For the rest of this post, I will share from his tape on "Baptism", which was part of his Biblical Doctrines series (Tape # 2233). In order to keep this post from getting too long, I will be selective in presenting his views, and will summarize and use point form where possible.
A) What is the meaning of "Baptism"?
1) The primary meaning is "union".
ML-J says:
- Matt. 28:19 1 Cor. 1:13; 10:2: 12:13 Romans 6:3-6 Gal. 3:27-28 Col. 2:11,12
ML-J says:
2) A sense of "cleansing" and "purification".
ML-J says:
Acts 2:38 Acts 22:16 1 Peter 3:21
ML-J says:
1 Cor. 6:11 Titus 3:5
ML-J says:
B) What exactly is the purpose of "Baptism"?
ML-J summarizes by saying:
C) Who is to be baptized?
1) What are the New Testament arguments that are produced in favour of infant baptism?
i) Brought little children to the Lord to bless them
ML-J says:
ii) Acts 2:39
ML-J says:
Martyn Lloyd-Jones goes on to respond to other New Testament verses that paedobaptists use to support infant baptism, but I think I can summarize his responses with this one response. He says:
2) What are the Old Testament arguments that are produced in favour of infant baptism?
i) The analogy that is based upon the Old Testament and circumcision
ML-J says:
ML-J concludes this section by saying:
The quotations by Martyn Lloyd-Jones have been taken from a tape. Please excuse any mistakes in punctuation.
Mike
His position was also original on the subject of the administration of baptism. Though serving all his ministry in churches belonging to denominations of paedo-baptist belief, he early abandoned the practice of infant baptism. Yet he did not become a Baptist because he did not believe in immersion. Two authors in particular swayed his judgment against immersion; one was Charles Hodge and the other B.B. Warfield in his article, 'The Archaelogy of the Mode of Baptism'. As a result he was to say: 'I was quite convinced that the case for infant baptism could not be proved but equally convinced that the case for immersion could not be proved.' In practice, then, he dedicated the children of believers and baptized others by sprinling upon their profession of faith. The questions which he put publicly to those he baptized were usually taken from the Heidelberg Catechism. His views on baptism almost never appeared in his public ministry, partly, I suppose, because opposition to infant baptism would have been contrary to the trust deeds of the churches he served but certainly because of his burden to emphasize the things which all evangelicals hold in common. He especially regretted that baptism had ever been made a point of denominational identity and was critical of Baptism in that regard.(Iain Murray, "D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight Of Faith 1939-1981", pgs. 790-791)
For the rest of this post, I will share from his tape on "Baptism", which was part of his Biblical Doctrines series (Tape # 2233). In order to keep this post from getting too long, I will be selective in presenting his views, and will summarize and use point form where possible.
A) What is the meaning of "Baptism"?
1) The primary meaning is "union".
ML-J says:
The significant thing to observe is, that the phrase that is generally used is baptize "into".
- Matt. 28:19 1 Cor. 1:13; 10:2: 12:13 Romans 6:3-6 Gal. 3:27-28 Col. 2:11,12
ML-J says:
The first thing and the impotant thing about "Baptism" is, that it suggests union. Being placed into something. Baptized into the Holy Ghost, baptized into Christ, baptized into Moses. It suggests a union. So that it is very important that we should bear in mind that the primary meaning of baptizing is not cleansing, but union. That you become identified with a certain medium. That you are put into a certain atmosphere. We are baptized into the body of Christ, and so on.
2) A sense of "cleansing" and "purification".
ML-J says:
Now, we are cleansed and purified from the guilt of sin...
Acts 2:38 Acts 22:16 1 Peter 3:21
ML-J says:
...and also we are delivered from the pollution of sin.
1 Cor. 6:11 Titus 3:5
ML-J says:
Very well then, we can say that the meaning of "Baptism" is that it puts us into this position of "union". But in order that we may be there, we need to be cleansed and purified from the guilt and the pollution of sin.
B) What exactly is the purpose of "Baptism"?
What is it's function? Well, as I indicated last Friday, it can be summarized in this way: It is a "sign" and a "seal" of certain things. First, the remission of sins and our justification. You remember how we defined the "seal"? It is something that speaks to me. As the ring on the finger speaks, baptism speaks to the one that is baptized. And it gives him an assurance that his sins are remitted and are forgiven and that he is justified. He is not justified because he's been baptized. He is baptized because he's justified. It is not the means of his justification. It is an assurance to him that he is justified. It "seals" it to him. It's a "sign" of it and a "seal" of it. Remission of sins, forgiveness, justification.
But more than that, and I would say especially, it is a "sign" and a "seal" of regeneration, and our union with Christ, and our receiving the Holy Spirit. Now, again, you notice I say it is a "sign" and a "seal". I do not become regenerate as I am baptized. I only have a right to be baptized because I am regenerate. It tells me that I am regenerate. It certifies to me that I am born again, that I am united to Christ, and that the Holy Spirit dwells in me. It is, I say again, the "sealing" of that to me. It's a special way that God has appointed and chosen and commanded that those who are regenerate and born again may know in this way that they are...
And then thirdly, and lastly of course, it is a "sign" of membership of the church, which is his body. It is a separating from the world and an introduction officially in an external manner into the body of Christ, into his visible body. We are already in the invisilbe, but here we enter into the visible, and it is a "sign" or "badge" of that.
ML-J summarizes by saying:
The main thing and the first thing about "Baptism" is that it is something that God has chosen to do to us. It is God giving us this "seal" of our regeneration. And as we are baptized, he's speaking to us, and he's telling us, that we are regenerate. He is "sealing" it in that way. But, of course, as we do that, we are incidently bearing our witness to the fact that we have believed the truth. Otherwise we would never have asked for "Baptism". We would never have sought it. So that secondarily, it is a bearing of witness and of testimony...
C) Who is to be baptized?
1) What are the New Testament arguments that are produced in favour of infant baptism?
i) Brought little children to the Lord to bless them
ML-J says:
Now the reply to that, of course, is that there is no mention of baptism at that pont at all. The question of "Baptism" doesn't really seem to arise. And therefore it is one thing to say that our Lord can bless children, it's a very different thing indeed to say that he therefore taught that children should be baptized.
ii) Acts 2:39
ML-J says:
Clearly what is meant by "children" is this, not their physical descendants, not their own personal children. What the Apostle is saying is: The promise is not only for you who are immediately here now, it's for the next generation, and the generation after that, and after that. It's going to continue down the centuries. And not only for Jews, but also for those who are far off, the Gentiles. Those who are outside the commonwealth of Israel. Indeed, it is for as many as the Lord our God shall call. Not your children because you were baptized, but those who come in subsequent generations and all others whom God is going to call throughout the generations.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones goes on to respond to other New Testament verses that paedobaptists use to support infant baptism, but I think I can summarize his responses with this one response. He says:
I think we can sum up by saying that in the New Testamant there is no clear evidence, whatsoever, that a child was ever "baptized".
2) What are the Old Testament arguments that are produced in favour of infant baptism?
i) The analogy that is based upon the Old Testament and circumcision
ML-J says:
We are told that baptism in the New Testament corresponds to circumcision in the Old Testament. And that in the case of circumcision, whenever a child was born to a Jew, he was almost circumcised at once. You remember the Apostle Paul brings that evidence out about himself. Circumcised the 8th day. The argument is this: In the case of Israel, all children born to Israelite parents were circumcised. They were introduced into Israel officially. They were given that "sign" in that way. And, therefore, when you come over to the New Testament, surely the parallel should be carried out.
There is no doubt that in many ways this is a very powerful argument. But if you're interested in my own personal view about it, my difficulty is this: it seems to me that it ignores the essential point in that argument, which is this: surely the vital thing is the "mode" of entry into the kingdom. Now, the "mode" of entry into the kingdom of Israel was by physical descent and by that alone. That was the way. Your were born the child of Jews. Physical descent determined your entry into the kingdom. But surely that is no longer the case. In the New Testament it is spiritual. The great contrast between the Old and the New is that between the material and the spiritual. And in the spiritual, the "mode" of entry is not by physical descent, but by spiritual rebirth. We need to be born again. We must be born of the spirit before we enter the kingdom of God. And we must not tie into physical descent. So it seems to me that that particular argument fails and breaks down at that particular point.
They also introduce the whole question of the covenant, But you see, they base their whole doctrine of the children upon that verse in acts 2:39, which I have already suggested to you is a misinterpretation, because it doesn't mean their physical children, but the subsequent generations.
ML-J concludes this section by saying:
Well, then, what do we saying finally at this point? Surely, it seems to me, the conclusive argument is this: what is baptism meant to do? What does it signify? What's it's purpose? Well, I've already answered the question. If the great thing about "Baptism" is that it is a "sealing" by God of that which I know is already happened to me, well, then, surely it is something for an adult believer. It can't "seal" it to an unconscious infant. That's impossible! If "Baptism" were only a "sign", well then I could see a good argument for baptizing an infant. But as everybody has agreed, even those who put up the case for infant baptism, that much more important than the "sign" is the "sealing". Well, then, surely it is something that can only happen to a person who is conscious, and is aware of what is happening. It's no "seal" to an unconscius infant, or even to an unconscious adult. The essence of the "seal" is that the person is aware of what is happening. And it does seem to me, as you look at the case of Ethiopian Eunuch and the Apostle Paul himself, both of whom seem to have been "baptized" more or less in private, that the important thing about "Baptism" is the "seal". However, as I say, we can't go beyond that. But as far as I myself am concerned, that last argument is a conclusive one.
The quotations by Martyn Lloyd-Jones have been taken from a tape. Please excuse any mistakes in punctuation.
Mike