Toward A Theology of Baptism …

BAPTISM: GOD’S WORK OF GRACE

John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. —Mk. 1:4

I should like for this article to be one of many among the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement in an effort to rethink our position on baptism, and so I entitle it in part “Toward a Theology of Baptism.” We must concede at the outset that we have never had anyone position on baptism but several positions. Even our founding pioneers, particularly Stone and Campbell, never completely agreed on baptism, which is all the more reason why we should keep on studying the subject freely and objectively. It is a serious mistake to suppose that, after all these years, we have learned all that is to be known about the subject.

Stone and Campbell did agree on what I believe to be the most important description of baptism coming out of our heritage, and we have made that a part of our title also —“God’s work of grace,” which is a quotation from Campbell. That is the essence of what I believe our theology of baptism should be. It is God’s work of grace. Baptism is not something that we do as much as it is something God does to us. Grace! That is what baptism is all about.

Baptism Unto Repentance

It is remarkable that as Mark writes his record of “the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” he is hardly started before he tells of John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord by preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. This is not the same as preaching repentance and baptism. It rather describes the nature of the baptism that John practiced. It was a baptism unto repentance or a baptism that initiated one into a new life. It might be rendered, “John preached a baptism that was unto a changed life.” And so Mark also says, “and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.”

This is part of the new look that we must take of baptism —its relation to a new life, a changed life, to Christlikeness. Through the years we have taken an imbalanced view, seeing only or mostly what we choose to call the “mode” and “design” of baptism. It is by immersion (the mode) and it is for the remission of sins (the design). These aspects of baptism are easily debated, we suppose, and we have always felt secure in defending our position in these respects. But these are but part of what baptism is about. If all these years our emphasis had been where John’s was, as he introduced the kingdom of God, and people had joined us “confessing their sins” and resolving to live changed lives, we would have had far fewer debates.

Our pioneers were aware of this emphasis, but, unfortunately it was not the emphasis that we picked up on. Alexander Campbell, for instance, in a short piece on “True Baptism” wrote as follows:

Brother, are you a husband and the head of a family? Do you daily and constantly read the scriptures and pray in your family? Do you bring up your children in the correction, instruction, and admonition of the Lord? Are you spiritually-minded, and rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God? Do you often meditate, and carefully examine yourself? Have you your behavior without covetousness, and are you intent on making your calling and election sure? If so, baptism verily profiteth you; if not, it is no better than baby sprinkling? (Mill. Harb., 1840, p. 570)

Campbell, who stood up in debates for the cause of immersion for the remission of sins, is saying that baptism is not true just because its mode and design are right. It must be a baptism unto repentance. If it was true of John’s baptism it would be no less the case of baptism in the name of Christ.

How Baptism Saves

There is some sense in which baptism saves or an apostle would never have written, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21). Peter refers to the antitype of Noah’s flood “in which a few, that is eight persons, were saved through water.” In reading the story of the flood one would not think of the survivors being saved by water. By the ark, yes; even by Noah and certainly by God. But by water? It is not in the Genesis account that they were saved by water, but only in Peter. He gives the story that twist so as to make a point about baptism. Exactly what is the point?

The apostle is careful to note that baptism is not “a removal of dirt from the body,” which means there is no inherent power within the water itself. Even if a detergent were added to the water it would not and could not wash away any impurity of the soul. Baptism is not taking a bath, nor is any sin removed by the physical properties themselves. While water is involved and while water is essential to the baptismal act, it is not the act of ceremonial washing that saves.
It is in such a context as this that we might find the basic principle of baptism, and sure enough it is stated in that pungent line, “baptism is an appeal to God for a clear conscience,” and he adds “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This connects baptism (our resurrection) to the resurrection of Christ.

We are on our way toward a responsible theology of baptism when we see it as “the appeal made to God by a good conscience,” as the New English Bible puts it, or “a pledge made to God from a good conscience,” as the Jerusalem Bible has it. Or it is simply “the answer of a good conscience” as the King James renders it.

This means that in being baptized we manifest our sincerity before God. Just as a child shows loyalty to a parent by doing the parent’s will, so we show a submissive spirit to God when we obey him in baptism. In the ordinance of baptism he gives us something to do to show that we love and honor him, a way for our good conscience to “answer” God’s call of grace. This is how baptism saves us, and it shows that baptism is not our work but the work of God’s grace. God works in us through baptism as evidence that we have an unfeigned faith and a sincere conscience.

Baptism As the Sign and Seal of Regeneration

This is a quotation from the Westminster Confession, and if this is what our religious neighbors are supposed to believe about baptism, that it is “a sign and seal of regeneration,” there has been no need for debate. We only need to show them what their own creed testifies to.

This is the only theology of baptism that we need, though we might clothe it in biblical language: “When the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:4-5).

From the early days of our Movement we have erred in leaving the impression that baptism is regeneration. Campbell was visited in his latter years by one of his critics who urged him to correct while he yet lived a misconception widely held by Campbell’s followers, that baptism is regeneration. On that occasion Campbell made it clear that he had never taught that baptism is regeneration but rather “the laver of regeneration” as the Scriptures say. He went on to say that baptism is the consummation of the regeneratiive process which begins with faith and repentance and includes being “born of the Spirit.”

It would have served Campbell well to have quoted his critic’s own creed, the Westminster Confession, that baptism is the sign and seal of regeneration. It would be difficult to find a more meaningful description of baptism than those words convey. If people would only believe what they put into their creeds!

When we make baptism itself regeneration we presume to say that baptism is absolutely essential and there is no way to be saved and go to heaven without it, which is to go too far. If one dies while being regenerated, as a believing penitent, it would be worse than legalistic to say that he would be lost because his regeneration was not stamped and sealed by baptism. Another way to put it is that the new life in Christ does not begin at birth (baptism) but when one is begotten of the word and becomes a believer. There are two extremes to be avoided, one is to make baptism everything, the other is to make it nothing. But we are on target in following the Westminster divines and our own pioneers, as well as the apostle Paul, when we see baptism as “the laver” of regeneration or its “sign and seal.”

Baptism Means Identification With Christ

No passage about baptism is more pregnant with meaning than Gal. 3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The metaphor of putting Christ on as one would put on a garment means that he becomes part of us and we become pan of him. It is like the hot poker —the poker is in the fire and the fire is in the poker. We become one with Christ in baptism; we are identified with him.

While the church through the centuries has used the trinitarian formula (Mt. 28:19) in baptism, it is noteworthy that in Acts believers were always “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” The significance here is that to be baptized in someone’s name is to become identified with that person. Paul, for instance, complained to the Corinthians for saying they belonged to Paul, and so he asked, “Were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13). So, in being baptized in the name of Christ we become identified with him. It is a sign and a seal that we belong to him. How beautiful!

We will improve our theology of baptism by restoring the significance of “in the name of Jesus Christ” as it was used in the founding years of the Christian church. Baptism takes on tremendous significance when it is realized that in that ordinance we are identified as belonging to Christ.

We would do well to change our baptismal formula to something like this: “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, into (not in !) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The “into” (eis is wrongly translated in) in Mt. 28:19 also shows identification in that we are baptized into a relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The “in” (epi) is also in Acts 2:38: “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,” which suggests, as throughout Acts, that in baptism one becomes identified with Christ or belongs to Christ. In the same passage baptism is referred to as “for (eis) the remission of sins.” As in the case of the Bible saying that baptism saves, we can only conclude from Acts 2:38 that baptism is for the remission of sins at least in some sense. Not in every sense, for we know that Christ’s death was for the remission of our sins, but in some sense. I will again follow Campbell here and say that we cannot make Acts 2:38 mean that baptism procures pardon or remission, but that it certifies that we are pardoned.

Again, it is a sign or an assurance that God has forgiven us. We can know that we have forgiveness when we submit to the act that God has ordained as a pardon assuring ordinance. Campbell said baptism is like a road sign. We know when we enter Ohio because the road sign assures us that we have, and so we know we have the forgiveness of sins because we have been baptized. Campbell thus defended himself against those “who have given to baptism and undue eminence —a sort of pardon-procuring, rather than a pardon-certifying and enjoying efficacy” (Mill. H arb., 1840, p. 545).

This view of baptism was good news on the American frontier where so many people, due to the extravagances of Calvinism, had no way of being sure of their salvation. Campbell taught that there is an “enjoying efficacy” to baptism in that it is the sign whereby one can know that God has saved him by grace. This is the enjoying efficacy that we see in Luther when he complained, “The pope can’t talk about me like that, for I’ve been baptized just as he has.” Luther knew where he stood because he had been baptized.

Baptism Is Incorporation In The Body of Christ

When one is “in Christ” he or she is in the Body of Christ. Baptism relates to both realities. We are “baptized into Christ” (Ro. 6:3), and we are “baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Putting on Christ (Gal. 3:27) is being both in Christ and in the Body of Christ.

The exciting truths in Col. 2:12 ties all this together: “You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” The same “work of God” that raised up Jesus raises us up in baptism. This is baptism as God’s work of grace. “Buried with Christ in baptism” is both to be identified with him and incorporated into his Body.

The apostle goes on to say in verse 19 that we are to hold fast the Head, from whom “the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.” He is of course talking about the church, the Body of Christ, made up of those who are incorporated in the Body by “the working of God” in baptism.
Some Scriptures, therefore, show a very personal identity with Christ in baptism —Christ is in us and we are in Christ. Other Scriptures describe the believer as incorporated in the Body with other believers. It is of course both. One is in Christ, as if it were a fellowship between only two persons; and he or she is at the same time in the Body, in a fellowship with all others who are “knit together” and are growing with a growth that is from God. And baptism is the sign and seal of all this.

Perhaps all of this will bring us closer to seeing that when we talk about baptism we talk about grace. Baptism is no arbitrary command. It is related to the power of God and to the resurrection of Christ. It is God who acts in baptism more than ourselves. He extends the grace and we accept. This makes baptism God’s work of grace. —the Editor
 

——————Campbell on Baptism——————
 

We do not place baptism amongst good works. In baptism we are passive in everything but in giving our consent. We are buried and we are raised by another. Hence in no view of baptism can it be called a good work.

It is a solemn pledge and a formal assurance on the part of the Father that he has forgiven all our offences. —Mill Harb. 1847, p. 250