The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is water baptism to be practiced today? [New]

I have no intention of dealing with every single point included in your paper. It would take far too much time, which I do not have to spare. But secondly, I do not think it necessary to do so because the ‘foundation’ upon which it rests is faulty. Put another way, the presupposition(s) that you hold to are contrary to truth and sound biblical hermeneutics. Therefore, I want to briefly examine this fundamental aspect of your paper and then make some positive remarks as to how Scripture is to be handled. The testimony of the Church in regard to the perpetuity and administration of baptism is unanimous because of its unity in understanding biblical interpretation. Admittedly, there is a lack of unity in many ‘details’ concerning baptism; mode, recipients, and to some degree even in its meaning. Yet, just because of this disunity on some of the details, the unity concerning the perpetuity and practice of water baptism in the Christian Church becomes all the more forceful.

I. Criticism of the presuppositions held and applied.
a. Perhaps I should get this one thing out of the way at the beginning and get done with it. It is in regard to one of your sources, Dr. Robert D. Luginbill. He is a professor at Talbot Seminary. The seminary’s doctrinal position is antithetical and antagonistic to the Reformed churches and their theology, expressed in its various Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms. I cannot help but assume that the school and Dr. Luginbill are ‘Dispensationalists’. Therefore, his paper holds very little weight for not only this reason, but it is evidenced in the paper itself, i.e., his approach to Scripture is not in accord with what I deem to be sound biblical exegesis. Yes, I read his paper completely and carefully.

b. Your approach, unfortunately, is similar in kind to that of Dr. Robert D. Luginbill, i.e., a ‘Dispensational’ hermeneutic, not necessarily in the matter of its narrow definition commonly associated with the locus of Eschatology, but rather methodology. What I mean by that is that you clearly make radical distinctions and bifurcations of different parts of Scripture. This is evident in your determination that the book of Acts as a whole is ‘transitory’ in nature, thus concluding that nothing in the book of Acts can be taken as paradigmatic or normative for the Church as it developed thereafter. You simply state this as fact without offering any substantial proof of its verity. That there are things that occurred in the book of Acts which were temporary in nature is certainly true, e.g., the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit whose main purpose was to show that Gentiles were to be admitted to Christ’s Church no less than their Jewish counterparts. But the practice of baptism cannot be shown to be a temporary practice due to its very meaning and purpose, which I shall expand upon below in the next section.

c. There is misunderstanding of the “two” baptisms found prior to that commanded in Matt 28:19; baptism performed by John the Baptist and baptism performed by Jesus and His disciples. Both of these were preparatory, although the latter is far closer to that commanded by Jesus just before His ascension. Both of those two preparatory baptism were indeed temporary by design and pointed to something else and far greater. Thus Dr. Lunginbill’s attempts to refute the validity of the Church administering water baptism is moot.

d. In the ‘Baptism in the Epistles’ section, you make the following statement: “It is remarkable to note the shift in emphasis from water to spiritual baptism in the Epistles.” This was not proven, just stated. Firstly, I see no warrant nor justification upon which to base your conclusion. The record of Luke in Acts encompasses the time period during which the Epistles were written. One of the fundamental rules of biblical hermeneutics is: ‘The Epistles interpret the Gospels [and Acts]’. Thus, what we read in the pastoral Epistles of Paul are to be recognized as commentaries on what we find in the Gospels and the book of Acts. They expand upon many things which are briefly mentioned, thus giving us a clearer and deeper understanding. Secondly, if you dispense with baptism, then that which baptism signifies and seals is lost. Water baptism is pregnant with meaning, having various marvelous aspects to it which we read about in the Epistles. Paul’s explanations of these various aspects of water baptism aren’t to be a substitute for and thus a warrant to abrogate its practice. But rather a firm substantiation of not only its continued practice but of its fundamental importance to the Church and its individual members.

e. Great Commission. In this section the statement is made: “The great commission has historically been interpreted with one fundament presupposition: water. Yet in the preceding context, we believe that it is clear that the Lord cannot be referring to water, but to the Spirit…. It seems far more consistent with the flow of Christ’s words to insist that He was indeed referring to spiritual baptism.” I have to strongly object to this proposition for it is clearly unwarranted from both the passage itself (Matt 28:19) and the eisogetical insertion of this idea of “transitory period”, as well as the idea that the passages cited from Luke somehow are to determine the meaning of ‘baptism’ in the text.

1) Christ asserts His supreme and universal authority in v. 18, upon which what He is about to command His disciples to do is founded.

2) The command is the universal making of disciples (not transitory). A disciple is one who follows a master. That master is Christ, the LORD of all. Thus this discipleship involves a total commitment and allegiance.

3) Baptism is inextricably connected to the making of disciples, i.e., it is a sign of both Christ’s lordship (not transitory) and of the recipient’s commitment to follow Him as a disciple (not transitory).

4) Therefore we would expect to find and we do find that the Gospel was preached, sinners professed faith in Christ and were baptized in water. Consequently, they were received into the Church as members who continued in the teaching of the Apostles, i.e., that which the Apostles taught and which was perpetuated through other teachers. (cf. Acts 2:38,41,42,44; 8:34-36,38; 10:34-47; 16:14,15,31-33.)

II. Positive Remarks Concerning How Scripture is to be Handled and Examples Set Forth.
a) We will all agree that there is a continuity between the OT and the NT and that there is discontinuity between the OT and the NT. Of course, the disagreements come when trying to specify what is continuitous and what is discontinuitous. The historic Reformed denominations and churches all agree and insist that the Bible is a covenantal book, a record and unveiling of God’s covenant dealings with man. And, the historic Reformed and confessional churches all agree upon the continuity and oneness of the ‘Covenant of Grace’.

b) The administration of this one Covenant of Grace differs between the OT and the NT, most clearly because the OT administration was typological and thus pointed to the future and fuller fulfillment of that which it expressed in its types and shadows; i.e., the coming of the Messiah and the final establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth; the New Earth.

c) This Covenant of Grace was first established with Adam and more fully established and explained with Abraham, unfolded in the Mosaic and Davidic covenants, attains its highest fruition in the new covenant. The new covenant is the administration of grace that brings to fulfillment the promise given to Abraham: ‘In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’ (Gen 22:18). It is the blessing of Abraham that comes upon the Gentiles through Christ (Gal 3:14). Abraham is the father of all believers, and they are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise (Rom 4:16-18; Gal 3:7-9). The promises fulfilled in Christ were given to Abraham with covenantal confirmation. So it is proper and necessary to say that the new covenant is the fulfillment and unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gal 3:15-17). The same unity and continuity are intimated when the covenant people of God are likened to one olive tree with several branches, all of which grow from one root and stock, and form one organism (Rom 11:16-24).

The covenant made with Abraham was signified and sealed by circumcision administered by divine command (Gen 17:9-14). That circumcision is the sign of the covenant in its deepest spiritual significance is demonstrated by the fact that it is called the covenant (Gen 17:10; cf. Acts 7:8). And therefore identified as taken (cf. Gen 17:11) with the covenant in the highest reaches of its meaning (cf. Gen 17:7; Ex 19:5,6; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 4:11; Col 2:11,12).

The new covenant sign has been changed from circumcision to baptism (Col 2:10-12) to reflect the fulfillment of all that the OT administration of the covenant pointed to and promised. Water baptism is thus indispensible as some of the Puritans referred to the sacraments, as ‘visible sermons’. Baptism’s significance and fullness of meaning cannot be dispensed with for it is the sign of the Covenant of Grace which is to last until the end of the age (cp. Matt 28:20).

d) God not only brings men and women into union with Christ as the embodiment of covenant grace at the zenith of its realization, He not only gives exceeding great and precious promises that are yea and amen in Christ, but He seals this union and confirms these promises by an ordinance that portrays to our senses the certainty of His grace. Depreciation of baptism insults the wisdom and grace of God and, more particularly, His faithfulness. He confirms to us the bond of union with Himself by adding the seal of baptism, to the end that we may be more firmly established in the faith of His covenant of grace.

e) The person who refuses baptism and declines the reproach of Christ, which it entails, cannot be received as a member of Christ’s body. And the organization which discards baptism and thereby evinces its rejection of the authority and Lordship of Christ cannot be accounted a branch of the true Christian Church.