Reformed Baptist Distinctives: Baptism Part 2

Baptism is Immersion
The proper mode of baptism is immersion in water. This is the meaning of the word baptizing in Matthew 28:19, which is translated from the Greek word transliterated baptizo, which is defined "(1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) (2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe (3) to overwhelm"

The Greek words for sprinkling are different, and are transliterated rhantizo or rhantismos, which are used in the New Testament in reference to O.T. ritual purification (Hebrews 9:13, 21, 11:28) and the fulfillment of that which ritual purification pointed to, Christ's death being applied for the purification of believers united to him by faith, which is justification (Hebrews 10:22, 12:24, 1Peter 1:2). Although baptism signifies our justification, the use of the word sprinkling in the New Testament refers to the very act of justification in our uniting to Christ by faith.

Likewise, the Greek words translated in English to indicate pouring is used of different words, transliterated variously as ekcheo, ballo, didomi, epicheo, katacheo, and spendo, and are used many times in the New Testament in different contexts but never in reference to the ordinance of baptism.

It is difficult for me to understand how sprinkling and pouring could possibly be considered immersion or dipping, which is the literal translation of the very Greek word for baptism. If we use the English equivalents of the Greek terms: sprinkle, pour, dip - these three words mean three different things and to use them interchangeably is absurd. It could and should be concluded from this alone that the proper mode of baptism is immersion, but there is more evidence for immersion as we shall see.

Reformed Baptist Distinctives: Baptism Part 1

I have been, slowly and sporadically, working on content for my website. The latest is an original article about Christian Baptism. Hopefully I will have it completed before I die.

In the completed form at my website, there will be extensive footnotes and links as usual. But in the meantime, I thought I would blog the article in sections to keep you interested.

Baptism

It is unfortunate that among modern Baptist churches that the doctrine of the ordinance of baptism has often been neglected and weakened into relative insignificance, or else confused with mixture of errors that have never been practiced or believed by Baptists, but have found there way in as Baptists have rejected statements of orthodoxy and despised our historic roots. This arises from the importance of doctrine being relegated to only very core Christian distinctives, and often not even that, with nearly the entirety of church polity being open to various interpretations and beliefs which are all too readily accepted by an ignorant and apathetic laity.

As Dr. Timothy George has observed:

"The recovery of a robust doctrine of believers' Baptism can serve as an antidote to the theological minimalism and atomistic individualism which prevailin many credobaptist churches in our culture."

What follows is a short treatise on the Reformed Baptist theology of baptism,
which is an attempt at a recovery of the historic Baptist doctrine. I will give
positive statements of what baptism is, signifies, and the right administration
of it, as well as address some of the common errors.

Baptism is a New Testament Ordinance of Perpetuity

Baptism and the Lords Supper are ordinances of positive, and soveraign institution; appointed by the Lord Jesus the only Law-giver, to be continued in his Church to the end of the world. (1689 LBCF, Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper)

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; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of Life. (1689 LBCF, Chapter 29: Of Baptism)

An ordinance is a regulative statute, or rule of law, ordained by a governing authority, with the limits and due administration of the statute prescribed by that governing authority. Jesus Christ is the governing authority of the church, and it is he who commanded the institution of the ordinance, its limits, and the right administration of it.

Jesus Christ gave the ordinance of baptism to the church after his resurrection, in his final address to his disciples before he ascended to the Father, known as "The Great Commission":

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with
you always, to the end of the age."

Jesus starts by stating that he has been given authority to institute commands to the church; "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.". He then commands that the gospel be preached throughout the world; "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations," Disciples are students and followers of Christ; viz." teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." He then commands that his disciples be baptised; "baptizing them". Christ gives the ordinance as an institution to be observed in perpetuity, or, "without end", till he comes at the end of the age;

"The commission was given, just before Christ ascended to heaven, and was
designed for the dispensation which was to follow ... Since the ascension of
Christ, no change of dispensation has occurred by which the commission could be
revoked. The promise which it contains, of Christ's presence until the end of
the world, implies its perpetuity. Under this commission the ministers of Christ
now act, and by it they are bound, according to the manifest intention of his
words, to administer water baptism."

The strange world of Dr. Scott Clark

Dr. R. Scott Clark is finally drawing some attention to himself with his incredibly sectarian views on what it means to be "Reformed" and "Covenantal". Dr. Bob Gonzales, dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary
has written a short article calling attention to Clark's contentions, including this amazing statement:

We would discipline someone if they left our church and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect…. I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments

Good thing Dr. Clark left that baptistic sect he used to belong to and discovered the true church. At least he was baptised with true Christian baptism before he left.

I don't believe that Dr. Clark considers Baptists to be damnably heretical, so I have to wonder how he reconciles the idea that he has that a person can be in the body of Christ and not a member of the true church. That is a strange idea to say the least.

Ironically, in another statement quoted by James White at the Alpha & Omega blog, Clark accuses Baptists of the same error:

As a consequence, we regard our children as Christians and as baptized persons. Baptists, of course, do not regard our children as Baptized persons nor do they regard those of us who've not been re-baptized as Baptized persons!

That's a huge matter. According to the Baptists I'm not a Christian. That's no small thing.

Evidentally Dr. Clark associates baptism with Christianity so closely that one can be saved and not a Christian. I am really confused about this one, but I can say for sure no Baptist would say that anyone is not a Christian because they havn't been baptised.

Note that in the same statement he admitts that he believes that his infant children are Christians simply be recieving infant baptism.

So in Clark's strange world one one can be unsaved and Christian, saved but not a member of the true church, saved but not a Christian.

Dr. Gonzales lists a few good links to discussions about Baptist use of the adjective "Reformed". I have a feeling this conversation is just getting warmed up.

Reformed Baptist? Me Too!

Pastor Keith Throop is one of my long time favorites of the "Christian Blogosphere" and internet who, like myself, takes exception to those who would claim exclusive use of the descriptor "Reformed". At least excluding Baptists.

Unlike myself he writes his prose with charitable even-handedness and level-headedness which is too often lacking in the many "poison pens" on the Internet.

His most recent post on why he calls himself a Reformed Baptist in response to former Reformed Baptist R. Scott Clark's repeated assertions that such phrase is a misnomer is no exception, in which Pastor Throop lists three reasons why he believes that Baptists can have a legitimate and historically accurate use of the term.

Here is an excerpt from his post:

Second, Clark's comments seem to assume the idea that there is a monolithic historical understanding of the meaning the English word reformed. But this is simply not true. There are broader and more narrow senses in which the word may be used, and not all of these require the specific understanding to which he apparently wishes to restrict usage of the term. In addition, I see know [sic]reason why a modifier cannot be attached to the word that in effect alters and qualifies its meaning so as to rule out the kind of misunderstanding that Clark is apparently concerned about. One such modifier – as I have already noted – is the term baptist, which immediately communicates a distinctive use of the word reformed.

Read the whole post here: Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist

It may be a coinkidink, but the two voices that I hear loudest (Dr.s R. Scott Clark and Matthew McMahon) in objecting to Baptists using the term "Reformed" as a descriptor are themselves former Baptists. I suppose this is usually the case, with former Dispensationalists being the most belligerent towards that system, Roman Catholics the most critical of that movement, etc.

I myself am a former Independent Fundamental Pauline Dispensational Scofield Reading Pre-Trib Rapturing Semi Pelagian'in King James Only Baptist (IFBSRPTRSPKJVOB) and frankly find my shortened self identifier much easier to say and abbreviate; Reformed Baptist, (RB). Nice ring to it too.

Dr.s Clark and McMahon are both very edifying brothers in most respects, by the way, and I with good conscience endorse them both to all y'all Reformed Baptists.

Ironicalism

I find it ironic that just as I was getting tired enough of certain 0f my more learned and respectable paedo-baptist brothers refusing to allow Baptists to use the terms "Reformed" or "Covenant Theology" or even "Calvinist" to describe themselves and differentiate themselves from more mainline and popular Baptist churches (which are semi-pelagian and mostly dispensationalist), and just as I was pondering why they are not being challenged by anybody other than a few guys in the comments sections on the pertinent blogs, and just as I was about to (boy this sentence is becoming long, I feel like John Owen) start my own research as I believe from my limited knowledge that the phrase "Reformed Baptist" is a perfectly legitimate and historically accurate use of the word "Reformed" (I selected the address of this blog (thesectarian) in honor of what I believe to be an erroneous assertion)---

Just as all this was going on in my head, and just I was really feeling uncomfortable with paedo-baptism and the more I consider this the more I realize this is a serious divider between Credos and Paedos that has to do not only with mode and method but a really serious error concerning the Abrahamic covenant among the sprinkling elect brethren, and just as I was thinking that these things need to be addressed well with resources and footnotes and wondering how I do superscripts with this blog---

Then Mark Dever over at 9 Marks does a little blog post that seems to have really taken many Paedos aback. I mean, here we Reformed Baptists are wanting to be associated with their tradition, and being called "sectarian" and told that we cannot be "Reformed" or "Covenantal" or "Calvinist" and being called ugly names like "dispensationalist" because we believe what the New Testament says about the Abrahamic Covenant, and we lie down and no one says a word. But how dare Dr. Dever fence the table when celebrating the Lord's supper against non-baptised believers as per our own Baptist confession, not to mention the bible? How dare he say that to refuse to be baptised as a believer is a sin? How ironic considering how we have been so often shunned as second class citizens and told that to refuse to baptise infants is a sin. And is dispensationalist.

Read some of the backlash to Mark Dever's comments here, here, here, & here. Wow. You can dish it out but you can't take it? At least Dr. Scott Clark, who is a chief offender in belittling Reformed Baptists, understands that this is what Baptists believe and always have and accepts that this will always be a divider; we will not find a middle ground on this.

So let me clear this up so you infant baptising types won't be surprised again. We Calvinistic Sectarians believe that infant baptism is sinful and is not baptism at all, and as many as refuse to be immersed in water as believers united to Christ by faith are in disobedience to the biblical command. Just as you confessing Paedos believe that we are in sin in withholding the covenant sign and seal to our "covenant children", we confessing Baptists believe that you are in sin by including people in the covenant who are not united to Christ by faith.

I don't intend to throw away any of my books written by godly paedo baptist men who have heralded the gospel mightily throughout the ages. And although we are in serious disagreement, I don't want to overstate this disagreement and break fellowship with my Paedo baptist teachers and brethren.