Introduction
There has been a debate in the Protestant Church since the Reformation about who should be baptised.
The traditional view that is documented since the patristic era is that children should be baptized. (I may write a future article on baptism in church history.) The first people in the modern era who documented their rejection of baptising children were the Anabaptists, the people who led the radical reformation.
Reasons why people reject covenantal baptism
Let me state that this is my personal experience and analysis of why people reject covenantal baptism. It may not be the reason why YOU reject covenantal baptism.
I grew up in the Reformed tradition and the very first person who challenged me on baptism (I was still in school at the time) said “You do not wash a clean shirt.” meaning that since babies are without sin, their sins need not be washed off. He was a full Pelagian, denying the truth of our depraved nature that even unborn children share in, because of Adam’s fall.
One of our best sources of ancient baptismal theology comes from Augustine and specifically his debates against Pelagius, who denied original sin. One of Augustine’s arguments against Pelagius regarding original sin was as follows:
- Everybody knows we Baptise babies because the Apostles told us to.
- Baptism is a sign of purification of sin and regeneration.
- That means that even babies have sin.
Note that Augustine argued from the non-controversial, universally accepted premise (As far as I know NOBODY disagreed with his first premise, that the Apostles told us to baptise babies) to the controversial: That babies have sin and need regeneration and purification from sin.
So here is my view on why people reject covenantal baptism:
1. A rejection of God’s sovereignty in salvation (predestination) and therefore a rejection of covenantal theology. If God cannot decide who He will save, then He cannot make a covenant with those he plans to save. If the Abrahamic covenant is not for us, then baptism cannot be a sign of the covenant. Most Arminians will reject covenantal baptism for this reason.
2. A rejection of the total depravity of mankind and original sin. If babies are born without sin they need not be saved, but go to heaven by default if they die. Since baptism is a sign of salvation, it does not apply to people who do not need salvation. Pelagians and semi-pelagians believe this. Some Arminians are semi-pelagians. Anybody who says that all babies go to heaven when they die is a pelagian, because of the rejection of original sin.
3. A defective view of the church (ecclesiology). This follows from a defective view of the covenant and subsequently who should be members of the church. Reformed baptists fall into this category. They may or may not deny that baptism is the sign of the covenant, but they do deny that people who cannot believe can be members of the church. Since babies cannot believe, they should not receive the rite that makes them members of the church.
I will not address reasons 1 and 2 in detail in this article, but I will give a Biblical view of the covenant. If you are a pelagian, semi-pelagian or an Arminian, you will find that the Bible contradicts your beliefs in this matter. Hopefully it will prompt you to do further Bible study on the matter.
Terminology
People who baptise children are called paedobaptists, (paedo = child) and those who don’t, credobaptists (credo = faith). These terms should be rejected since they represent a false narrative. We do not baptise children, we also baptise children. We baptise new adult believers and their children.
We are covenantal baptists, and because we are covenantal baptists, we are credobaptists. Faith is absolutely required for baptism.
So, to my “credobaptist” friends, please stop calling us paedobaptists. Call us what we are – covenantal baptists.
The covenant and the covenantal community: Israel, the kingdom of God / heaven, and the church.
Please read Genesis 17, the whole chapter!
God makes his covenant with Abraham and his offspring, which includes people from all the nations.
Genesis 17:4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.
Genesis 17:7And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
Since Abraham’s offspring are to include multitude nations, the covenant is with people from a multitude of nations.
2. God makes an eternal covenant with Abraham. This means it is still in effect now, and will be for all eternity after Jesus has returned.
Genesis 17:7 … an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
3. God’s covenantal promise is to be Abraham and his offspring’s God – forever.
Genesis 17:7 … to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
4. The sign of God’s covenant with Abraham is circumcision.
Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
5. Not all who are circumcised believe or will believe. The covenantal promise, “to be your God” is therefore not for everybody whom God commanded to be circumcised, but only for those he would save.
a. Baby boys had to be circumcised when they were 8 days old. They might believe later in life or they might not.
Genesis 17: 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised.
b. Ishmael had to be circumcised, even though God did not make his promises to Ishmael and Ismael would not be saved.
Genesis 17:18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” 19God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.” 22 When he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. 23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
Abraham pleads for his son Ishmael’s salvation. God answers “No”. His promise is for Isaac, the son not yet born.
So this is one of the most important concepts of God’s covenant with Abraham that one has to grasp: God establishes a visible covenantal community of all those who are circumcised. BUT He does not establish his covenant with everybody in the covenantal community.
Ismael is part of the covenantal community but not part of the promise. Isaac would be the son of the promise – God would establish his Covenant with him and his offspring.
Paul describes this in Romans 9 as follows:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
In Romans 8, Paul presents the “golden chain of redemption: Those who were called, are infallably saved:
Romans 8: 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
The question immediately arises, since God called Israel, and most of Israel rejected Jesus, did God not break his promises to Israel? Paul says no: Not all Israel (the visible covenantal community) is Israel (those who belong to the real covenant)
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
God never made his promises to Israel according to the flesh. His calling and promise were to Israel according to the promise. So his word has NOT failed.
8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
The covenantal community was never meant to be composed only of the elect, but of a mixture of the elect and the reprobate. But the sign of the covenant was to be for everybody in the covenantal community.
So, if all those who are circumcised and therefore part of the covenantal community are not saved, what is the point of the covenantal community? Paul gives a clear answer: The covenantal community is the visible people of God, and they provide the safe earthly structure in which his elect may thrive.
4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever.
God manifests his glory through the visible covenantal community. He proclaims his covenants, his law, the liturgy (worship) through them. And Jesus was born out of the visible covenantal community.
That is why Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob that “salvation was always from the Jews” – the covenantal community.
So there were 2 ways in which a person could become a member of the covenantal community and therefore receive the sign of the covenant:
- By believing. Abraham received the sign of the covenant as the seal of his own faith.
- By being born of believing parents. Isaac and Ishmail both became members of the covenantal community and received the sign of the covenant because their father Abraham believed.
How does it happen that some people in the covenantal community are not saved?
a. By false conversions, and false confession of faith.
b. If a child of believing parents apostatizes.
Jesus and the Kingdom.
Many people do not understand what the “Kingdom of God” or the “Kingdom of heaven” is, that Jesus talks about so often. They assume it is only some spiritual reality that cannot be seen. The answer is simple: It is the covenantal community. In the Old Testament, it was Israel. (That is why God promised David through the prophet Nathan that his kingdom would stand forever.) In the New Testament, after pentecost, it is the church. Not understanding that the kingdom of God is the visible church leads to error.
Let’s look at what Jesus says about his kingdom:
1. Not everybody in the world is in the kingdom. The kingdom does not equal the world. In fact, most of the world is quite unaware that it exists.
Mattthew 13:44 The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
2. Not everybody in the kingdom is saved. There are two groups of people in the kingdom, the saved and the unsaved. When Jesus returns, the unsaved in the kingdom will be thrown in hell, and the escatological kingdom will then consist only of the saved.
Matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. 48 When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad. 49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Question: Where do we find a group of people that may be called the “(something ) of God” but consists of both the saved and the unsaved? The kingdom of God now is not some invisible spiritual principle or pie in the sky. It is concrete. It is here and now. In the Old Testament the kingdom was Israel, now it is the visible church.
3. The kingdom belongs to little children. This means that little children can be full members of the visible church.
Matthew 19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
Paul says the same thing:
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
“Holy” here does not necessarily mean “saved”. People are not saved because of who their parents are. It simply means “set apart”. In the Old Testament a copper bowl could be “holy” because it was set apart for use in the temple only. So being “holy” means that he or she is a full member of the church.
This brings us to why Reformed Baptists are in error. They posit that the church today can only consist of people who are saved (or at least make a credible confession of faith). The reason, according to them, is that the New Testament church is the consummation of what was foreshadowed in the Old Testament. They contradict Jesus directly. Jesus says that the church of today was never meant to consist only of the saved. He also states that little children (who cannot make a credible confession of faith) are full members of the church.
The church will eventually consist only of the redeemed, but only when Jesus returns. In other words, Reformed Baptists confuse the church of now with the escatological Church. The consummation of the church they believe has happened at Pentecost will only happen when the Lord returns.
Circumcision had to stop being the sign of the covenant.
1. God promised Abraham that the covenant would be “for many nations”
“Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.
2. The sign of the covenant, circumcision, made one a national Jew.
Shechem had sinful relations with one of Jacob’s daughters, Dinah. He offered to marry her. Her brothers demanded that Shechem’s whole family become Jews:
Genesis 34:13 The sons of Jacob answered Shechem and his father Hamor deceitfully, because he had defiled their sister Dinah. 14 They said to them, “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a disgrace to us. 15 Only on this condition will we agree with you—that you will become as we are by every male among you being circumcised. 16 Then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people.
Note the words “one people”. If you were circumcised, you became a member of the Jewish nation.
Moses says exactly the same thing in Exodus 12:
Exodus 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land.
Being circumcised makes you a native of the land. A national Israelite.
3. Because circumcision makes you a national Jew, the covenant can only be for the Jews while circumcision is the sign of the covenant. God’s promise that it is for all the nations cannot be fulfilled unless circumcision is replaced with something else.
This happened at Pentecost, when the apostles started speaking in the tongues of the world as a sign that the covenant was now for the nations. Paul refers to this in 1 Corinthians 14 when he discusses the gift of speaking in other languages.
1 Corintians 14:21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
4. Circumcision is a bloody sign, and all bloody signs were fulfilled in the death of Christ.
Exodus 4:25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!”
Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Baptism replaces circumcision in the New Testament.
1. Both are outward signs of inner regeneration
Circumcision
Deuteronomy 30:6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or my wrath will flare up and burn like fire because of the evil you have done – burn with no one to quench it.
Romans 2:28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
Collossians 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands.
Baptism
Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Acts 1:5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
2. Both are outward signs or seals of the believer’s faith.
Circumcision
Romans 4:11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
This text is immensely important: Abraham was given the circumcision as a sign of his faith, just like we receive baptism as a sign of our faith. Abraham was a credo-circumcisionist!
Baptism
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
3. Both are signs of God’s covenant with Abraham
Please remember that
- God’s covenant with Abraham is for all nations, not just for the Jews. The denial of this is a major error in many churches today!
- God’s covenant is everlasting. It is for today and all eternity. The idea that it ended with the New Covenant is another major error in the church today.
Those who assert that God’s covenant with Abraham is not valid for us today are simply ignorant of the Bible, and should be reading it instead of teaching it!
Circumcision as sign of the covenant.
Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
Baptism as sign of the covenant
Galatians 3: 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
- Baptism places us in Christ.
- Because we are in Christ we are part of the covenant (children of Abraham and heir to the covenant promises.)
- Therefore: Baptism is the sign of the covenant.
4. Both are signs of God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt, and therefore of sin.
Circumcision
Exodus 3:9 And now, behold, the cry of the people of Israel has come to me, and I have also seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them. 10Come, I will send you (Moses) to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.”
Note that God decrees that Moses will lead Israel out of Egypt. Moses, not anybody else.
But then a short while later, God threatens to kill Moses. Killing Moses would mean that Israel would not be redeemed from Egypt.
Exodus 4:24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.
Why was God threatening to kill Moses and therefore not save the Israelites? Because his son was not circumcised. The moment Zipporrah circumcised the boy, the plan to redeem the nation was reinstated. This means that circumcision is a prerequisite sign of salvation.
Joshua 5:2 At that time the Lord said to Joshua, “Make flint knives and circumcise the sons of Israel a second time.” 3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. 4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they had come out of Egypt. 5Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised.
The Israelites were not circumcised in the desert. Before they could enter the promised land (a metaphor of our salvation) they have to be circumcised. Again, circumcision is the sign of salvation.
Baptism
1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink.
The cloud and the sea are both signs of baptism. Baptism is therefore, like circumcision, the sign of God leading Israel from Egypt.
5. Circumcision and baptism are both signs of purification from sin.
Circumcision as sign of purification from sin
Collossians 2:11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ
Please note that the word “flesh” refers to the sinful state of all humans after the fall. Cutting off the flesh of the foreskin is therefore a sign of purification from our sinful nature.
Baptism is a sign of purification from sin.
Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience
6. All new believers had to be circumcised / baptized
Circumcision
Exodus 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
The only reason a “stranger” would want to partake of the passover would be if he came to believe in the God of Israel. A stranger wanting to eat the passover is therefore a new believer.
Baptism
Matthew 28:19 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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The Apostles were Jews. They were thinking like Jews. They knew the law: New believers had to be circumcised. Yet Jesus changes the law here explicitly. Do not circumcise them, baptise them. This text, in its context of the law that the Apostles knew and loved, is on its own conclusive proof that baptism replaces circumcision as initiation rite into the kingdom of God.
8. The families of new believers were to be circumcised / baptised
Circumcision
Exodus 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
Baptism
Although there is no specific command in the New Testament that families have to be baptised, it is a definite pattern. Is it coincidental? In the light of the fact that the Apostles had to baptise instead of circumcise new believers in obedience to the command in Exodus 12, it is only logical that they would baptise whole families in obedience to the same command.
Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
1 Corinthains 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16( I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
The importance of family baptisms was not so much that children may have been included, but that it establishes a definite link between baptism and the command to circumcise families in Exodus 12. It is evidence that baptism replaces circumcision, since the same law applies to both.
8. In the Old Testament circumcision was a prerequisite for using the Passover. In the primitive Christian church, being baptised was a prerequisite for partaking in the Lord’s Supper (which replaces the Passover.)
Circumcision
Exodus 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
Baptism
Didache 9:5. But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord’s Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
The Didache is the oldest existing Christian text outside the New Testament. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache ) It was written in the first century, only a few decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection. While it is not Scripture, it does prove conclusively that the earliest Christians, those who perhaps personally knew and remembered the Apostles, regarded Exodus 12:48 as binding for the rite of baptism. This proves that they regarded baptism as replacement for circumcision.
9. Paul equates circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2
Colossians 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
The three most important rules in explaining a Bible text are Context, Context and Context.
The context in Colossians 2 is that people were telling the Colossians that they had to be Jews in order to be saved. They had to adhere to all the Old Testament rituals.
Look at verse 8:
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
The deceitful philosophies that Paul warns his readers about are
- You have to be circumcised. (Verse 11)
- You have to eat specific food and drink. (Verse 16)
- You have to keep specific holidays: Festivals, new moons and the sabbath. (Verse 16)
- You have to deprive yourself of things (Verse 18)
- Worship angels (Verse 18)
These were all things Judaizers were telling the Colossians. Please note that Paul does not say these rules were bad when they were practised in the Old Testament. The problem was that the Judaizers said that they were necessary for salvation. They were preaching a gospel of works, which was no gospel at all. The ritual law in the Old Testament was never what saved the Israelites. They pointed to, they were signs of, that which would truly save them: Jesus’ death on the cross! (Verse 17)
So, Paul says, these people are telling you to get circumcised? You don’t need to be circumcised, because you were circumcised when you were baptised! The circumcision of Christ is being buried with him in baptism!
Please read the whole chapter again!
Why children of believers should be baptised
1. God has always included children of believers in the covenantal community. There is absolutely no indication that this was to change in the New Testament. In fact, Jesus states explicitly that little children are part of the kingdom of God. Since baptism makes the recipient a member of the church, and little children are part of the church, they should be baptised.
2. Children have always received the circumcision as sign of the covenant in the Old Testament. While new converts were circumcised as adults as the seal of their faith, babies of believing parents were circumcised on the 8th day after birth.
3. Baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant because circumcision was limited to the Jews and the covenant was to be for all the nations. Also circumcision is a bloody sacrifice, and as such was fulfilled in the crucifiction of Christ.
4. Because children were circumcised, and baptism replaces circumcision, babies of believing parents should be baptised.
The fact that babies cannot understand baptism is of no consequence: Babies could not understand circumcision either. Also baptism is not an act of man (a confession or witness of faith) but an act of God. The baptiser baptises “In the Name of God” and therefore acts as a prophet for God. I say more about this a bit further down.
What does baptism do?
This has been one of the most debated issues in the 2000 year history of the church. I will not go into all the controversies, but will state the following based on this study so far.
1. Baptism does not save or regenerate a person. If this were true, then Ishmail and Esau, and in fact every person that was circumcised or baptised in the history of the world would be saved.
2. Baptism is, like hearing the Gospel, a means of grace. (One could say that baptism is the tactile and visual part of hearing the gospel.) Paul says in Romans 10 that one cannot be saved unless one hears the gospel. So while hearing does not save us (most people who hear are not saved), the way God saves us is by hearing. (One cannot be saved without hearing). In the same way, while baptism does not save us, baptism is one of the means by which God saves us.
Since one cannot be saved without hearing the Gospel, we say that hearing the gospel is a necessary means of grace. I do not believe that the sacraments are necessary means of grace, I believe they are just means of grace. (Augustine regarded baptism as a necessary means of grace. But that is for another article.)
3. Baptism makes a person part of the covenantal community – the kingdom of God which is the visible church, just like circumcision made one a national Jew. Since God is the sovereign ruler of his kingdom, this is an act of God. This happens ex opere operato – it happens automatically because of the rite performed. Remember that not all in the kingdom of God are saved. But when one is baptised, all the benefits of belonging to the visible church that Paul describes in Romans 9 (of Israel) become yours.
4. For the elect, their baptism is an unbreakable promise from God for all that baptism stands for: It is the seal of their faith. It confirms their regeneration, their cleansing from sin, and of their inheritance of God’s promise to Abraham – that He will be their God. They are unified with Christ in his death and resurrection. They are in Christ.
5. For the baptised reprobate, their baptism is an indictment that will be held against them at their judgment. All the covenantal curses that God promises in Leviticus 26 apply to them:
Leviticus 26:14 But if you will not listen to me and will not do all these commandments, 15 if you spurn my statutes, and if your soul abhors my rules, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant, 16 then I will do this to you: I will visit you with panic, with wasting disease and fever that consume the eyes and make the heart ache. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee when none pursues you.
And it goes on – go read the whole chapter!
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
What does it mean to be baptised in the name of the Triune God?
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 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, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
When one does something in the name of somebody else, it means that one acts as an agent of that person. One acts for that person. It is as if the person in whose name one acts is performing the act himself.
When we baptise in the “Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” we are saying that it is not we who baptise, but God. True baptism can never be a human act, it is always an act of God.
The baptiser acts as a prophet of God, acting for God and proclaiming God’s act of redemption to his people.
The idea that baptism is our confession or testimony of our faith to the world is therefore utterly false. Our testimony or confession of faith is a human act, a response to what God has done for us. And baptism is an act of God.
The relationship between baptism and the Lord’s supper.
The Lord’s supper is our response to the grace that we have received in baptism.
1 Corinthains 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
“Let a person examine himself” This means that we have to examine whether we believe that Christ has died for us, and confess our sin before we can partake of the Lord’s supper, lest God visits his covenant curses on us. The Lord’s supper therefore represents our confession of faith, and our repentance of our sin. It represents Christ’s sacrifice for our sin. As the priests of the Old Testament spoke for the people to God, presenting the sacrifice for their sin to God, Christ entered into the holy of holies, in heaven itself to offer himself once and for all as the perfect sacrifice to God.
Hebrews 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
So while baptism is a prophetic act in which God makes us a member of his covenantal community and presents us with both his covenant promises and curses, the Lord’s supper is a priestly act where we commemorate Christ bringing his sacrifice on our behalf to his Father.
A prophet speaks in the name of God, for God, to the people. A priest speaks for the people to God.
People who see baptism as a human act, as man’s confession and witness of faith, have a serious problem. If this is the meaning of baptism, then the Lord’s supper has very little left to do. Baptism has then replaced the function of the Lord’s supper.
Maybe this is why the Lord’s supper is neglected in many churches?
Conclusion
- God established a covenantal community which consists of both redeemed and reprobate people. In the Old Testament this was the nation of Israel. In the New Testament it is the church.
- God’s covenant is only with the redeemed, who are part of the covenantal community.
- There were then, and are now, two ways to become members of the covenantal community: By believing as an adult (like Abraham) or by being born to believing parents (Like Ismael and Isaac). In both cases, the sign of the covenant is administered.
- Jesus says that the kingdom of God consists of redeemed and reprobate people, and that with his return, it will be purified to consist of only the redeemed.
- Little children are an integral part of the kingdom.
- The Old Testament sign of the covenant was circumcision.
- Circumcision had to be replaced because it made one a national Jew, and God promised Abraham that the covenant would benefit many nations. Also, circumcision was a bloody sacrifice, which was fulfilled in Christ.
- Jesus replaced circumcision with baptism when he ordered his apostles to baptise new believers instead of circumcising them, when He gave them the great commission.
- Baptism performs exactly the same functions in the New Testament as Circumcision did in the Old Testament.
- Both are outward signs of inner regeneration.
- Both are outward signs or seals of the believer’s faith.
- Both are signs of being part of God’s covenant with Abraham.
- Both are signs of God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt, and therefore of sin.
- Circumcision and baptism are both signs of purification from sin.
- All new believers had to be circumcised / baptized
- God commanded that the families of new believers had to be circumcised in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, apostles baptised families of new believers in obedience to this command.
- In the Old Testament circumcision was a prerequisite for using the Passover. In the primitive Christian church being baptised was a prerequisite for partaking in the Lord’s Supper (which replaces the Passover.)
- Paul equates circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2
While baptism does not save us it is a means of grace: A tool that God uses to save us. Baptism makes us part of the kingdom of God or the visible church. For the redeemed Baptism is the unbreakable seal of all God’s promises to us. For the baptised reprobate, baptism is an indictment against them.
When we baptise in the Name of God we act as prophets: Baptism is an act of God, not man. Seeing baptism as man’s confession or witness of faith robs the Lord’s supper of its function. Baptism is a prophetic act, proclaiming God’s grace to us, the Lord’s supper is our response to it, commemorating Christ’s priestly sacrifice for us to God.
Wynand Louw
April 2020, hiding from Coronaviruses in a secret bunker somewhere in Cape Town.
hier staan ek 
Jan Louw said:
This is a good one.
It covers all the aspects of the debate.
hierstaanek said:
Dankie Jan
Henrietta Klaasing said:
Lots to think about. “Seeing baptism as man’s confession or witness of faith robs the Lord’s supper of its function. Baptism is a prophetic act, proclaiming God’s grace to us, the Lord’s supper is our response to it, commemorating Christ’s priestly sacrifice for us to God. ” (last paragraph). Have never noticed this connection. I read Exodus 12 a number of times the past week, and also the verse about the strangers (only those who accepted the “Israelite” belief in God I read in some other chapter, not just any stranger) who could have the circumcision and then partake of the Passover.
hierstaanek said:
The whole idea that “babies can’t be baptised because they cannot make a profession of faith” hinges on the idea that baptism is something WE do to profess our faith.
It is man-centred.
Yet when you read the history of Abraham, God nowhere asks Abraham’s consent. And when (in Genesis 15) the animals are sacrificed as a sign of the covenant curse, God moves through the sacrifices alone, thereby promising that if Abraham (or his offspring) were to break the covenant, He, God, would take the curse on himself. Alone.
God’s covenant with us is 100% unilateral. He initiated it, and He completes it.
Even though the Lord’s supper is something “we do”, all we do is commemorating what Christ has done for us: He went to calvary to present our case, and our sacrifice, to the God who would otherwise destroy us.
In baptism, God makes a covenant with us.
In the Lord’s supper, he takes the curse of the covenant we have broken on Him, the Son presenting his sacrifice for us to his Father.
Baptism: Covenant promise.
Lord’s supper: Covenant curse.
This is a completely God-centered theology.
But not being the centre of things is not what we humans want, is it?
Henrietta Klaasing said:
“April 2020, hiding from Coronaviruses in a secret bunker somewhere in Cape Town.” I laughed out loud when I read this!! 🙂
hierstaanek said:
Kruip jy nie ook weg vir die virus nie? 🙂
Henrietta Klaasing said:
Nee, wegkruip is asof ek bang is vir iets wat my agtervolg. Dit maak net vir my sin om my af te sonder (vanoggend twee volle weke) ter wille van kwesbare mense om my. Ek is in ‘n oord vir seniors (nie aftree of versorgingsoord nie) . My bure reg langs my is altwee 88 jaar oud en skuins agter my pragtige dame wat 93 jaar oud is. Ek luister na geleerde dokters soos jy! 🙂
Henrietta Klaasing said:
Maybe this is part of another debate but what about children taking part in Holy Communion, seeing that families and extended “famiies” partook in Passover…. Especially now that we are in lockdown. I am all on my own, by the way.
hierstaanek said:
Anybody who 1) is baptised and 2) can “examine himself” as Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 11 may partake of the Lord’s supper.
In practical terms, the elders have to make sure that the participants can indeed make credible confessions of faith, before allowing them to partake. That means that children have to be evaluated on individual basis.
Henrietta Klaasing said:
These days it will be “Holy Communion” without the “communion” for many people. This was the very first Passover. It was very much like our circumstances. I think it was meant to be celebrated in koinonia, “love feasts” with other believers.
Henrietta Klaasing said:
Is the “circumcision of the heart” not more important? Did Israel not trust too much in the real physical circumcision, but what God really wanted was more than the physical. A time lapses since the second time Moses had to go up the mountain to get the Ten Commandments. It seemed as if they had now learned their lesson?
“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?…Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.” (Deut. 10:12-16)
“Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed…And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live…And you will again obey the voice of the Lord and do all His commandments.” (Deut. 30:5-8)
Henrietta Klaasing said:
What I mean is do people still seriously think about their christening or baptism, in the way God wants us to? A long forgotten unimportant ritual, whether it was done by parents or “believer’s baptism”?
hierstaanek said:
Absolutely right.
For those who are saved, their baptism is the “holy and visible seal” of their regeneration, redemption, sanctification and ultimate glorification. We hold on to our own baptism as proof of God’s promises to us. And we are reminded of it again every time we witness the baptism of a new believer or baby in the congregation.
FOr those who are not saved but were baptised, whether you were baptised as a baby or after false conversion, your baptism is an indictment to you, God will justly visit the covenant curses on you.
The covenant is not just about promise and blessing. It is also about the curse that follows breaking the covenant.
Christ took our covenant curse on him. When we reject his sacrifice, nothing stands between us and the just wrath of God. That is the point of Hebrews 6.
As I said before: Baptism represents the covenant promise.
The Lord’s supper represents the covenant curse.
hierstaanek said:
Hi Hetta
Circumcision, like baptism, does one thing as it is: It is the initiation rite into the covenantal community. It makes you part of the community. And it does this ex opere operato: when you are baptised you are in the kingdom of God, based on the rite alone. Finish en klaar.
But it is much more than that: It is also the external sign of internal regeneration
Circumcision -> Circumcision of the heart
Baptism -> Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Both terms refer to the same thing: Regeneration. Being born again. Having the stone heart removed and replaced with a heart of flesh. Conversion.
The problem is that the Jews over the ages (and the Judaizers Paul fought against) did not see circumcision as a sign of regeneration, they saw it as a cause of regeneration, or alternatively as a work to be performed to earn salvation.
So their theology was a theology of works.
So that is what God said: It is not about the sign, it is about the thing it signifies. If you focus on the sign, you lose the thing it signifies. The sign is not the destination, it only points to the destination.
Paul did not say circumcision was wrong, because then baptism would be wrong also. He said that the theology that says that circumcision earns your salvation is wrong. In Galatians 1 he anathematizes those who hold that theology. So the same principle stands for baptism: The moment baptism becomes a work that you perform to please God your theology goes off the rails.
Nico Engelbrecht said:
BAPTISM
By
Francis A. Schaeffer
In introduction, there are several things to emphasize as we begin this study.
1. We do not believe in Baptismal Regeneration. Let me remind you that it was over the question of the sacraments that Calvin and Luther differed during the Reformation Period. To Calvin, and those who have followed him, the important thing is the individual’s coming directly to Christ for salvation. In regard to baptism, we who are Presbyterians, are interested primarily not in the water baptism but in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which takes place when the individual accepts Christ as his personal Saviour.
2.Our Confession of Faith, Chapter 28, Section 5, makes it very clear that our subordinate standards do not teach Baptismal Regeneration: “Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”
Let us again say then, once for all, we do not believe in Baptismal Regeneration. 2. Further, in introduction, let us remind you that no one has to accept our view of baptism to join our churches. The door to membership in these local visible churches rests upon the individual’s credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour.
3. Historically, Presbyterians have not made an issue over baptism. However, if we never teach or preach it, people forget the Biblical facts upon which our view of baptism rests. We should not ride our view of baptism as a hobby any more than any other teaching, it is not the center of our theology, but neither should we fail to teach it in its proper place.
4. At times people say that they believe in our view of baptism but do not practice it because of the abuse of the Roman Catholic Church. If this is good reasoning, then let us give up all use of the Lord’s Supper, for the heart of classical Roman Catholic error has been its teaching concerning the Mass.
Further, let me remind you that the Cambellites, “the Christian Church” who practice immersion and adult baptism, are as in error concerning the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration as is the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, on this reasoning, those who are Baptistic should give up immersion and adult baptism.
Further again, there are many outstanding modernists who are Baptists. Thus it is that the abuse of baptism by various parties proves nothing either way. 5. Finally, in introduction, let me remind you that we have good fellowship with our Baptistic brethren. We all realize that a Christian’s view of baptism should not be the determining factor of such fellowship. Even further, those who are Baptistic are welcome to the Lord’s Table in our church, and I praise God that we are welcome at the Lord’s Table in many of the churches of our Baptistic brethren, This is as it should be. However, this does not mean that we are lukewarm in our view of baptism. We believe that our view is Biblical, and that the position of baptism by immersion only, or for adults only, is a mistake.
IMMERSION
First, in regard to immersion, let me say that, personally, I will ‘Immerse If the individual desires this mode of baptism. Second, it is well to remember that the Greek Catholic Church and certain groups of Brethren have immersed babies as well as adults, and hence there is no necessary link between the mode of baptism used and the question of the baptism of infants. I have never immersed an infant, but I would not refuse to do so.
As a matter of fact, from evidence from the Catacombs before 200, it would seem probable that effusion, pouring, could have been the most common mode of baptism in the early church. That is, they stood in water and then had water poured on their head. Our position as to the mode of baptism is that immersion is not the only mode.
The words baptizo and bapto in the classical Greek are used with great latitude. Neither of these words can be said always to mean immerse. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word “baptize” is used in such a way that it could not possibly always mean immersion. For example. in Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.
In the New Testament use of the word, it is equally true that the word ‘baptize” cannot always mean immersion. For example, in Hebrews 9:10, we read: “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” The King James Version uses “washings” instead of “baptizings”, but the Greek says “baptizings.” This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.
I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.
Mark 7:4 is also clear: “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” Again in the King James Version, the word “washings” is used, but the Greek again is “baptizing”. If baptize always means immerse, it means that the Jews, each time they came from the market place, had to fill a tub with water and go under, head and all. This is impossible, for most of them had no such accommodation in their homes. Further, this passage would also say that they constantly immersed their tables. This is again obviously impossible. Many of the ancient versions add “and couches” to this passage. To say that they regularly immersed their beds, even if they did use bed rolls, is foolish.
At least three of the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament are difficult to imagine as immersion. The eunuch was baptized by a desert road. The jailer was baptized in the middle of the night. Three thousand were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. It is easy to see how these took place if sprinkling or pouring were used, it is difficult if immersion is taken as the only mode.
Baptistic Arguments
The Baptistic argument that “Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water” means nothing. One year we took our vacation at the seashore. one of my little daughters went down into the water and came out of the water every’ day, but she would not put her head under for all our coaxing. The simple fact is that the meaning of this passage is altogether fulfilled if Jesus went down until His feet were in the Jordan.
As to Romans 6:3,4b: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death”. This passage cannot be used to prove immersion. In the first place, if it is taken to mean water baptism, many of us believe that it proves too much, and that we would then logically have to believe in Baptismal Regeneration. Surely, it is not the water baptism which baptizes us into Christ’s death, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, however, even if it is taken to mean water baptism, this passage means more than the totally inadequate picture of burial that going under the water can give. What these verses teach is. the great and marvelous reality that, when we accept Christ as our Saviour, we actually have died with Him.
These things are enough to show that the Word of God does not teach that baptism must be by immersion only.
Lastly, concerning this matter of immersion only, we would remind you that it immersion is the only mode, then the catholicity of the sacraments is destroyed. The Lord’s Supper obviously can be given anywhere. Sprinkling can be performed anywhere, but if baptism is by immersion only, there are many parts of the world in which Christians must be denied this sacrament. Those in the desert, those in the land of unending cold, and those on beds of sickness cannot be baptized by immersion, even if they want to.
The fact is that the position that baptism is by immersion only is not tenable.
INFANT BAPTISM
We do not believe that those who are Baptistic have any more Biblical grounds for teaching adult baptism only than they have for teaching immersion only.
As we begin our thinking on this subject, let us place ourselves in the position of a Jew who has been saved in the early Christian era. He is a Jew, and now he has put his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His mind has not changed overnight, and certain great truths which his people have known and believed for two thousand years are much in his thinking.
Salvation by Faith Alone
First of all, a Jew saved in the early Christian era would realize that even as he had been justified by faith alone, so also Abraham had been justified by faith alone two thousand years before. Romans 4:1-a makes this abundantly clear: “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory’; but not before God. For what saith the scriptures? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Galatians 3-6 is just as definite: “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
The fact is that the Bible carefully emphasizes that Abraham was justified by faith and that only, lust as we are. It is a serious mistake to believe that anyone in any dispensation, has been or can be saved in any other manner than by faith plus nothing. Religious or moral obedience has no place as far as personal salvation is concerned in any dispensation. Notice that it is Paul’s writings that stress this fact so clearly.
The Covenant Is Immutable or-the Unity Of the Covenant
Secondly, the Jew saved in the early Christian days would realize that the Covenant made with Abraham is Immutable, that is, unchangeable. Hebrews 6:13-18: “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could sware by no greater, he sware by himself. Saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily sware by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.”
This passage is very’ definite that, first, the Covenant made with Abraham is unchangeable, and that, second, it includes us who are saved in this dispensation.
Covenant Is Primarily Spiritual
This Jew would also remember that the Covenant made with Abraham was primarily spiritual. For those of us who are Gentiles saved in this era the national promises made to the Jews do not apply, but the spiritual promises do apply. Romans 4:16 is clear concerning this. The 13th verse tells us definitely that God is here speaking of the promise to Abraham, and yet verse 16 is equally clear that we, the Gentiles saved in this present era, are the fulfillment of that promise. “Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.” Therefore, the promise could not be primarily national, but spiritual. Galatians 3:7,8,13,14 and 25 tell us exactly this same thing. We, the Gentile Christians, are the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham; therefore, (though there is a natural, national portion of the Abrahamic covenant) the promise is not primarily national but spiritual. These passages also show that there is a spiritual unity in all dispensations.
Galatians 3:17 makes it abundantly plain that the spiritual promise made to Abraham was not set aside by the giving of the Mosaic Law four- hundred and thirty years afterward. The spiritual unity was not broken by the giving of the law on Sinai.
This Jew of ours, therefore, would have in his mind that Abraham was saved in the same manner as we are saved; and that the promise made to Abraham is Immutable and primarily spiritual; and further, that we who are saved in this dispensation are included in that promise. He would have in mind the Unity of the Covenant.
The Outward Sign
This Christian Jew would also remember that the spiritual promise in the Old Testament days was sealed with a physical sign. Romans 4:10, 1 la: “How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, and that after he was justified, circumcision was given as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised.” This passage says that Abraham was justified by faith, and that after he was justified, circumcision was given as a seal of the righteousness which was his by faith before he was circumcised.
The Old Testament and the New Testament alike also remind us that the circumcision of the flesh was to be an outward sign of the true circumcision of the heart. In other words, that true circumcision was a spiritual thing. Deuteronomy 10:16 reads: “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.” Romans 2:28, 29 says the same thing; “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Circumcision, therefore, was primarily spiritual.
Further than this, we must never forget that circumcision is not just a sign through the years of Abraham’s faith, but it is a sign of the faith of the individual father. The case of the proselyte and his child proves this. Exodus 12;48; “And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall he as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” In other words, when a Gentile became a true believer in the living God and wanted to have a part in the religious observances of the Passover, first of all he had to be circumcised, but all his children had to be circumcised too. Thus, circumcision was the sign of personal faith and not just the faith of Abraham.
Therefore, this Jew, saved in the early Christian era, would remember that not only was the promise made to Abraham primarily spiritual, but the outward seal, that was given to show the individual’s faith, was also primarily to be of spiritual meaning.
This, of course, is exactly what baptism in the New Testament is; and, therefore, circumcision in the Old Testament was in that dispensation what baptism is in this, Colossians 2:11, 12 is the final proof of this. The King James Version is not as clear as it might be. The American Revised is more accurate and we quote from it. By omitting that which should be in parentheses, this is when we have: “In whom ye were also circumcised in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism.” This being so, the Bible declares that Old Testament circumcision was what baptism is in the New Testament.
Sign Applied to Infants
Now, however, realizing that baptism in the New was what circumcision was in the Old, the Jew of whom we are speaking, saved in the early days of the Christian era, would also know that, in the Old Testament, circumcision as a sign of personal faith was applied not only to the believer himself, but also to all the boy babies in the home.
In applying this sign to the boy babies in the Old Testament, circumcision was still primarily spiritual and not just national. The sign was applied not only to Isaac who was the sole representative of the racial blessing, but to Ishmael as well. Deuteronomy 30:6 makes it plain that the circumcision of the child was primarily spiritual just as was the circumcision of the adult. “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”
The Jew living in the early New Testament days would know something further. He would know that in the Old Testament there were two great ordinances the Passover and Circumcision. I Corinthians 5:7, 8, as well as the fact that Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper at the time of the Passover meal, makes it plain that the Lord’s Supper took the place of the Passover. Colossians 2:11, 12 and the other facts which we have considered make it evident that baptism took the place of circumcision.
These things all being so, it would be impossible for the saved Jew not to expect that, as in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the believer’s child, so also the sign of his faith, baptism, should likewise be applied to his child. Why should he expect less in this dispensation of fullness than he would have possessed in the Old Testament era?
New Testament Practice
These questions would be further aggravated by what this saved Jew himself would have heard taught in the New Testament time. For example, he would have heard Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 38, 39: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Remember, Peter said this to Jews, Jews who were used to having the outward sign of their faith applied to their children.
With all these things in his mind, he would expect his child to be baptized. If it were refused, what would you have done in his place? You would have asked the Apostles the reason why. So would the thousands of Christian Jews in that day. The question would have been asked in a hundred meetings; and Peter, John. Paul, and the others would have sat down and written in their Epistles to clear up the matter, just as they answered other questions that arose. The New Testament would have contained the clear answer as to why in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the infants of believers, but in the New Testament it was to be withheld from them.
The only reason possible for the New Testament not dealing with this problem is that the problem did not exist. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews’ minds was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.
In the light of the teaching of the whole Bible, for w not to baptize babies there would have to be a clear command in Scripture not to do so. Instead of that, the emphasis is all the other way. Of the seven cases of water baptism mentioned in the New Testament, three were of families. Someone may say, “But it does not say that them were infants involved.” I would point out to you that in the light of the natural expectancy of the saved Jew, if babies were not baptized, the Scripture would have made it clear that such was the case. God deals with families in the 0. T. and in the N. T. too. The promise made to the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:31b, “And thou shalt be saved, and thy house,” adequately shows this. No matter what interpretation we, individually, may hold concerning this passage, certainly God here does show that He deals with families not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well.
Let us never forget, God’s use of signs is found in every era. He gave Noah the rainbow He gave circumcision and the Passover to the Old Testament Jew. He has given the visible church in this age the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The dispensational change from Circumcision to Baptism is no more than that of the change from the seventh day to the first as the day of worship.
Church History
Church history continues with the same lesson concerning infant baptism. Origen was born about 180 A.D. and he was baptized as an infant, Remember, this was eighty years or less after the death of the Apostle John. There are still earlier references which seem to speak of infant baptism, but there is no question in the case of Origen.* The first ones who argued against infant baptism, for example Tertullian, did not do so as though it were a new practice being brought in, but did so because they had come to the un-Biblical position that one should wait until just before death to be baptized.* Their arguments are therefore an incidental proof that the Church baptized infants from the beginning, for, if it were an innovation, these men who were against it because of their un-Biblical views would have delighted to have pointed out that infant baptism was not an Apostolic practice. Saint Augustine, writing concerning infant baptism, said, “This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained.” Those who would teach that the practice of the early Church was not infant baptism should be able to show in Church History when it started. There is no such break recorded.
In the light of this, the claim that infant baptism is a product of the Roman Catholic Church is totally mistaken.
Therefore, for now almost four thousand years, since the day of Abraham, those who have been saved by faith have been marked at the command of God by an external sign, and this external sign has, without a break, been applied not only to them but to their children.
We believe in Infant Baptism because of the unity of the spiritual promises in all dispensations. The national promises are for the Jews alone, but there is a unity of the spiritual promises throughout the whole Word of God. The basis of this unity is the great central fact of Scripture that all men of all eras are saved on the basis of the finished work of Christ through faith in Him, plus nothing, or they are not saved at all. This spiritual unity does not disturb the fact of the differences between the different eras, nor does it disturb our peculiar privileges as those saved and living in this age.
Baptistic Arguments
Let us look at the usual Baptistic arguments against infant baptism.
a) “Believe and be baptized.” Notice that the same thing was said in effect to Abraham concerning circumcision, “Believe and afterward be circumcised,” but that it is altogether clear that the sign of his personal faith was to be applied also to his child.
Further, in the case of the first days of the Christian era, everyone who believed was of necessity baptized an adult, because, the new Testament teaching being new, no one would have been previously baptized as an infant. The same thing is true on any new mission field of any day. There are no baptized infants until there are some Christian parents.
b) Often those who are Baptistic ask why we baptize both boys and girls, when only males were circumcised in the Old Testament. Galatians 3:28 gives the answer: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye all are one in Jesus Christ.” In this era, there is no difference between the man and the woman before the Lord in worship.
c) The question is sometimes asked, “If baptism took the place of circumcision, why did baptism and circumcision exist side by side for a time among the Jewish Christians?” Many Jewish believers in the early Christian Church kept various Old Testament practices at least until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. As long as these were not thought of as adding something to Christ’s finished work for personal salvation, they were allowed. Notice in this regard Paul’s circumcision of Timothy, Acts 16:3, and also his partaking in the Temple worship, Acts 21:20, 26. The Bible says that Paul did these things for the sake of the believing Jews who still kept these practices. The answer, therefore, as to why baptism and circumcision existed together for a time is that this was part of the gradual clarifying of the dispensational changes.
d) Perhaps the most used Baptistic argument is that there is no definite command in Scripture in baptizing babies. There is also no command in Scripture to change the day of worship from the seventh day to the first. In certain parts of the United States, there is a small group known as the Seventh Day Baptists. I feel that they are mistaken on both of these counts, but at least they have the virtue of consistency. To be consistent, everyone who ii Baptistic should worship on the seventh day.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, as we have our babies baptized, let us realize that it is not a matter of magic. As parents, what we do is to covenant with God to be faithful toward the child. It is the parents’ work to train the child. It is the parents’ privilege in many cases to lead the child to Christ. Christian parents should not depend upon the church’s evangelistic services when the child becomes an adolescent, or even a full-grown adult, to lead him to Christ. The little child should learn of Jesus Christ from his parents from his earliest childhood, and in many cases when he is yet a child he should be led to a personal acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior by his father or his mother.
Take advantage of this God-given privilege of infant baptism. The Christian parent’s heart, moved and guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit, has a natural urge to bring his child to God. This is so strong that even those who are Baptistic have come to the place of dedication of their children. There is no command for the dedication of children in the New Testament, but the saved parent feels such an urge to this that most Baptistic churches of necessity have dedication services for the children. They are not wrong in this – their only mistake is that they do not go far enough.
Let us not stop short of all that God means us to do and to have as Christian parents. If you are a Christian, your child is a child of the Covenant, and God means him to have the engagement sign of the Covenant. As a born-again parent, it is your privilege to apply it to him.
In the Old Testament, God disciplined those who did not circumcise their children. Moses and Zipporah found this out to their sorrow. God does not deal with His people in this age in this way. We are not killed for picking up sticks on the Lord’s Day, but we keep the Lord’s Day nevertheless because we love our Lord. We are not killed in this age for not baptizing our children, but we should do it nevertheless because God wants us to. The Baptism of your infants is a part of your privilege as a Christian. Take it with thanksgiving along with the other good things God gives you.
Questions Asked Publicly of Parents Before Infant is Baptized
1. Do you yourselves know that you are saved through faith in Christ, not through anything you have done or ever will do, but simply through your faith in Christ’s finished work on Calvary’s cross – as He died in space and time, in history?
2. Do you realize that this is not a saving ordinance and that this child will have to accept Christ as his own Saviour when he comes to the age of accountability?
3. Have you covenanted with God to give back this child to Him, so that, if He sees fit in His providence to call this child home to Himself, you will not complain against Him, or if the child grows to adulthood and is called to some form of special Christian service, you will not stand in his way but rather encourage him?
4. Do you realize that this sacrament is not a matter of magic, but that in it you covenant with God to raise this child in the fear and admonition of the Lord, to pray for and with him, to keep him in the house of God and with God’s people, to be faithful in your home life for Christ as you live it before him, and to do your utmost personally to lead him to a saving knowledge of Christ at an early age?
*Baptism of Infants, Philip Schaff, Vol. 1, p. 209. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia.
hierstaanek said:
Baie dankie Nico. Dit is ‘n uitstekende artikel.
Iets wat ek nie in my artike genoem het nie is natuurlik die rol van die verbondsgesin, die kleinste eenheid van die verbondsgemeenskap.
Geen baba word in isolasie van die verbondsgesin en die kerk gedoop nie.
Philip Coetzee said:
Ek wil net almal se aandag daarop vestig. Ons moet mooi verstaan wat God bedoel het met:” tussen My en jou en jou nageslag… en kinders van slawe wat in jou besit gebore is” en nie met die hele wêreld ( ander nasies) se nageslagte nie, dit is ñ eksklesiewe verbond. Hierdie was dan ñ verbond tussen God en Israel. In die Nuwe Testament vind ons dan ook geen gronde of bewyse dat mense, buiten Jode, eers die besnydenis moes ondergaan nie, in teendeel was Paulus daarteen. Ook geen bewyse dat daar gesê word dat die doop in plek is van besnydenis nie. Daarom het Jesus gekom om ñ nuwe verbond te sluit met die ganse wêreld. Slegs Sy bloed kan die sonde afwas van ek en jy, en alhoewel water water as reiniging voorgestel word, kan dit NOOIT Jesus sen bloed vervang nie. Water word maar net as ñ simbool van reiniging gebruik, dis hoekom Paulus beklemtoon dat die doop jou nie kan vrywaar van die verderf nie. Ek is ñ teoloog en verbonde aan die NG kerk maar in my hart ñ voorstaander van die beweringsdoop soos ook in die NT na verwys word. Die kinderdoop is ook goed, maar ek ervaar dit meer as ñ belofte gebaar, die ouers sal die kindjie wei aan God, in sy/haar groeiproses en wat daarmee gepaard gaan.
Philip Coetzee said:
Bekerings doop asb in voorwaarde berig en nie beweringsdoop.
Philip Coetzee said:
Different Interpretations of Baptism in Scripture
By
Philip Coetzee
A Bachelor Honours of Theology
Research Project Proposal
In
A Theological View on Baptism
Assignment 3
NTS4241 New Testament
South African Theological Seminary
Facilitator: Dr. B Grover
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Baptism, according to the New Testament…………………………………………….4
1.1 Baptism According to the Gospels and John……………………………………4
1.2 Baptism according to Paul…………………………………………………………5
1.3 Baptism according to the remainder of the New Testament……………………7
2. Denominational views on baptism………………………………………………………8
2.1 Pentecostal and Charismatic………………………………………………………8
2.2 The Dutch Reformed Church……………………………………………………..9
2.3 Lutheranism………………………………………………………………………..10
2.4 Roman Catholic……………………………………………………………………11
2.5 Baptist Church……………………………………………………………………..13
2.6 Dispensationalists…………………………………………………………………14
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….15
Annotated bibliography…………………………………………………………………….17
Introduction
The New Testament is not always clear on some of the actions or statements made by different authors. For instance, when Paul makes a statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he was not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. Thus, does this make him guilty of furthering the mysteries surrounding baptism in the New Testament? Therefore, the above question will be my main goal to evaluate the theological message of Paul as it relates to baptism and all the aspects surrounding it. Therefore, to achieve the overarching aim of my research paper, I will draw on several academic resources, which will include selected articles, books, encyclopedias, and biblical commentaries.
Furthermore, I will engage in an in-depth study of several Christian denominations and movements. My aim will not be to criticize them, but to the best of my abilities, explain their views and practice of baptism. Thus, it will allow me to prove that scripture, and particular, the New Testament does not provide a cut and dry case on all its teachings. Therefore, I will respect their right to analyze scripture to form a nucleus whereby, according to their understanding. Like all preaching, baptism carries with it the call to that which we should in response or correspondence to what Christ has done for us, a response of repentance and faith in whichever way a person sees fit according to the Gospels (Ga 2:20).
To prove my point, I will engage with several scholarly works on the subject of baptism by describing the views on baptism according to the New Testament, with emphasis on Paul’s views. Thus, providing a good understanding of the praxis of baptism in scripture and the spiritual value according to different denominations. For this purpose, I will engage with Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Dispensationalists to explain the view and practice of Spirit baptism, and with the Dutch Reformed Church, Lutheranism, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Baptist Church to explain different views and praxis of baptism with water. In my conclusion, I will give a summary concerning all the different views, and the result obtained, including the view and statement of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:17. I will predominantly quote from the NIV Bible unless otherwise stated.
1. Baptism according to the New Testament
1.1 Baptism According to the Gospels and John
The word baptism derives from the Greek baptism that denotes the action of washing or plunging in water, which also refers to the Old Testament means of purifications. Still, in the New Testament, it refers to the baptism of John. In the Gospels, we find that all narratives referring to Jesus’ baptism are fundamentally referring to anointed with the Spirit, and Christ himself gives the authority to man for the observance and practice thereof (Mat 3:16, 28:19; Mk 1:10; Lk 3:22; Jn 1:32). Thus, John offers an alternative for being baptized in “spirit and fire” with baptism in water as a symbol of total repentance and reformation of life (Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:7-17) (Elwell 2001:136). In other words, the promise of the Spirit became a reality by baptism and more significant, the experience of Jesus’ baptism with water by immersion and receiving the descending Spirit in the form of a dove. Therefore, there should not be a separation between reception of the Spirit and water baptism, but a fitting analog as a supplement and fulfillment, for instance, to be baptized into one body of Christ (Jn 1:26, 33; Ac 1:5).
Interestingly, Ericson (2015:412) explains that Christians should practice baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as commanded by Christ in Matthew 28:19. His reason for this statement is that it forms part of the beginning of Christian life, the invincible church as well as the local, visible church. Thus, this is a significant statement to emphasize God’s interaction with man in restating and reaffirming his promises of the Spirit of God through his Son Jesus Christ (Isa 11:1-2, 61:1-3; Jn 14:17, 16:7). Therefore, it is essential to understand the meaning of baptism fully and not to dwell or speculate on the physical practice thereof.
Considering all the facts given in the Gospels and John, there is no specific information, further significant or definite instructions concerning the practice of baptism, other than Jesus’ baptism by John. Jesus also never baptized anyone personally or explained the practice thereof, whereby we could have a better understanding of the physical nature thereof (Jn 4:2), but what do we make of John 3:22? Another unanswered twist in the tail. Therefore, I will now draw my attention to the remainder of the New Testament to analyze further views and statements in the New Testament and contemporary scholars for clarity and understand.
1.2 Baptism according to Paul
“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ is empty of its power” (1 Co 1:17). Thus, Paul’s prominent statement without giving clear reasons for his action. Will this lead to more confusion and dividing views on baptism by contemporary Christian denominations? Many contemporary authors defend Paul’s statement and his view on baptism, but the irony of it all is that many of them do not share the same view. Therefore, I will briefly discuss three prominent views.
Firstly, the Application Study Bible (NIV 2005:1914) defends Paul by explaining that he was not minimizing the importance of baptism since Jesus commanded it and practiced by the early church (Mt 28:19). Furthermore, Paul already carried a heavy burden bringing the Gospel to a vast area and, therefore, relied on team efforts to assist him in other ministry duties for him to only preach the Gospel as the gift given to him by God personally. Thus, a plausible view, but Paul did not mention this alternative in reducing his workload. Secondly, Harrison and Pfeiffer (1990) make use of Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 4:15; 9:1, 22; 15:1-2 emphasize the fact that Paul did not deem baptism to be necessary for salvation, but rather to present the Gospel as the only way for salvation. Therefore, not depreciating baptism but merely recognizing it as a symbolic act of identifying with Christ. Yet again, Paul did not mention or offer this explanation. MacArthur partially shares this view.
Thirdly, MacArthur (1984:31) presents a different angle to the problem. Firstly, he explains that Jesus preferred not to baptize anyone because that would cause an irresistible temptation to pride and, therefore, set such people apart from others. He furthermore explains that Paul faced the same dilemma; thus, he was afraid of the forming of a cult, “so no one can say that you were baptized into my name” (1 Co1:15). In contrast to the Application Study Bible’s view, MacArthur relies mainly on Acts 26:16-18 to strengthen his view that Christ did not commission Paul to baptize but purely to reveal and preach the Gospel. Therefore, we can ask the question of why did he previously perform baptism and does he view baptism as an essential part in the lives of Christians and the church (1 Co 1:16). If others, who performed the baptism, could explain the reason or significance of baptism to people “in the name of Christ,” surely Paul could have done the same because he profoundly claims that justification, and not baptism, is a gift and not a wage or reward (Ro 3:24). In Ephesians 4:5, he makes another statement “one Lord, one faith, one baptism (MacArthur 2017:4, 64).
Yes, baptism was essential to Paul, but he viewed it without any saving power (Ro 6:3). Therefore, it is essential to note that during his visit to Ephesus, Paul explained the difference of being baptized by John and being baptized in Christ, thus receiving the Holy Spirit when he placed his hands on them (Ac 19:1-7). Thus, a clear example of the importance of baptism to Paul, but other than laying of hands, there is no indication or any form of ritual, when performing baptism, to relate to. In other words, we can rightfully ask whether Paul deemed the necessity of water when baptizing, as necessary. Therefore, the question can be; will this passage also pave the way to misinterpretation or confusion amongst different Christian denominations when practicing baptism? A further question arises when Paul states that the grace he received was more important than his commission (1 Co 3:10-15).
Morris (1976:43) uses Mark 3:14 to defend Paul, whereby he explains that the very essence of Paul’s commission was not to administer rites, even important rites like baptism, but only to preach the Gospel. Thus, to my mind, it is contradictory to Matthew 28:19. Furthermore, I also found that many scholars in their commentaries, journals, or books do not elaborate or address 1Corinthians 1:17 in a clear and understanding manner. However, De Silva (2004:564) explains the predicament Paul found himself in when refusing patronage. Thus, his rhetorical skill and presentation came under scrutiny (1 Co 1:17; 2:1-5). Then what do the remaining passages of the New Testament teach us?
1.3 Baptism according to the remainder of the New Testament
Another factor that we should consider in the same context as Acts 19:1-7, where people first was baptized before receiving the Holy Spirit, is in Acts 10:44-48. when the household first receive the Holy Spirit and then being baptized, and this also leaves us with a question surrounding children and infants baptism. This discussion will form part of further discussions in the light of denominational views. Furthermore, there is a difference in proceedings that need to be followed. Firstly, baptized with water (Ac 10:48) and the laying of hands (Ac 19:6). De Haan (2002:11) explains this phenomenon as nothing out of the ordinary simply because baptism is the outward and physical of a person’s inward and spiritual cleansing from sin by the Grace of God. He explains his view in the light of 1 Peter 3:18-21, whereby the physical saving through water must be understood, not as the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then what is Den Haag telling us?
Baptism must be performed in the physical presence of water because water, symbolically and figuratively, expresses cleaning of the body, as a physical saving factor, for instance, Noah and his family. Therefore, baptism is an inward spiritual cleansing by those who have received Christ’s forgiveness. Thus, it is quite evident that neither the New Testament nor De Haan (2002:11-12) leaves us with any clues as to the actual method of baptism. Then how do different Christian denominations view and practice baptism?
2. Denominational views on baptism
2.1 Pentecostal and Charismatic
The Pentecostal movement (Assemblies of God) view baptism in the Holy Spirit as a past event to conversion and is evident by the sign of speaking in tongues. They claim that all spiritual gifts mentioned in the New Testament will, therefore, be at their disposal. The charismatic movement shares this view with the exception that some of them are not clear whether tongues is a sign of baptism in the Holy Spirit. Still, overall they teach the baptism in the Holy Spirit happens to all Christians at conversion; they call “filling” with the Holy Spirit (Grudem 2000:763). At which point do they base their understanding of baptism in the Holy Spirit?
It is clear that water baptism does not form part of their baptism traditions and rituals, and their formulation is founded on Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, and Acts 1:5; 11:16 (Grudem 2000:766). Thus, the question is whether they can draw any conclusions to what baptism with the Holy Spirit is because Jesus was said to be the one who will carry out this specific baptism and, therefore, performed it on his followers. Furthermore, scripture does not elaborate on any specifications of this form of baptism, before conversion or after, but the Pentecost in insist that baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs at conversion by referring to 1 Corinthians 12:13. Therefore, they argue that this activity of the Holy Spirit is the beginning of sanctification and regeneration of the Christian life (Grudem 2000:769). This phenomenon will most probably be part of the Dutch Reformed Church’s argument on infant baptism and in general (Ac 11:15-17).
Ladd (1974:68) presents a different view of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, whereby he explains when the Holy Spirit comes in power, he ordinarily came to groups of people (Ac 2:4;8:17; 10:44; 19;6) rather than to isolated individuals, except in the case of Saul (9:17-18). In other words, although receiving the Holy Spirit and baptism, which takes place at the same event according to the New Testament, they are distinct from each other but a specific element in the order of salvation. Is it then appropriate to claim rebirth before baptism and to receive the Holy Spirit and, therefore, to speak in tongues as the only way of practicing baptism? Grudem (2000: 775) makes a fair assessment on the Pentecostal doctrine and similar movements and denominations, of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a dualistic dividing entity on Christianity into two categories, ordinary believers, and Spirit-baptized believers.
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a sign of simple faith in Christ. The baptism follows automatically, positioning his people in Christ and cementing them securely into the family of God. Paul taught these “position in Christ” concepts in Colossians 2:12. Peter also enunciated them in 1John 4:15. The baptism of the Spirit refers to the new believer’s incorporation into the body of Christ by a spiritual-organic union effected by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Peter declared the same in his sermon in Acts 2:28. The new Christian is now “in Christ.” Therefore, the baptism in the Spirit is permanent and received at conversion. It is not to be repeated (Ac 2:38). There is no scripture text urging believers today to seek the Spirit’s Baptism (1Pe 3:21) (Barrier 2014).
2.2 The Dutch Reformed Church
The Dutch Reformed Church deems the people in the church as the property of God; thus, he commits himself to submit to him and those directing and teaching them on his behalf. They also rely substantially on Genesis 12:7, 13:15-16 and 17;7, whereby the descendants of Abraham form part of God’s covenant with Abraham and view Colossians 2:11-12 as an essential connection between circumcision and baptism (Ro 4:11-12; Ga 3:26-29. Furthermore, they argue that because the coming of Christ terminated the covenant with Abraham, they are already circumcised, in other words, they have already received the sign of admission to the new covenant through putting off their sinful nature (circumcision of the heart). Thus, by being baptized, a person receives the spiritual meaning of circumcision, to share in the covenant of God to Abraham (Online article, Why Infant Baptism,www.thebanner.org).
MacPhail B (2018) also explain in detail the acceptance of infant baptism as part of practice throughout the New Testament (Ac 10:24; 16:15; 16:31-34; 18:8 1Co 1:16) and reaffirms John Calvin’s statement “infants cannot be deprived of baptism without open violation of the will of God” (Inst. 4, 16, 8). He passively defends this practice by stating that although the New Testament does not prescribe this practice, it does not explicitly forbid the baptizing of infants either. Furthermore, he points out that because baptism has more to do with the cleansing of sin to be accepted as a child of God, Calvin’s assertion that infants of believers must be baptized (1 Co 7:14). When considering all these factors, the children of believers will be considered holy. Therefore, infants will chare the covenant status with their parents, and it is rightful for them to be part of the covenant community (1 Co 7:14). Elwell (2001:133) describes the view on infant baptism as based upon 1 Corinthians 7:14 as a “direct introduction to biblical baptism, which provides a second line of support for baptizing infants.” In other words, the parents of an infant or child who accepted Christ as their Savior, the sign and seal of Christ will accompany them throughout their growth, with the knowledge of His saving Grace on the cross.
De Haan (2002:2), although a supporter of infant baptism, states in his journal that sacramentalism is an incorrect view of baptism. Thus, baptism cannot wash away your sins; neither does it have any saving power; therefore, It should instead be called an ordinance. Furthermore, like many other contemporary Christian scholars and denominations, including the Dutch Reformed Church, De Haan (2008:8) accepts any form of water baptism as an accepted norm. However, the Dutch Reformed Church prefers the sprinkling of water as their norm.
2.3 Lutheranism
Lutheranism believes that baptism should fall under two general groups. The first should cater to adults who have come to faith in Christ and be baptized (Ac 1:4; 8:36-38). The second will be children and infants, with a special mention and reference to Mark 10:13-16, thus, identifying the touch of Jesus as a symbolic act of baptism. Furthermore, they also refer to family and household baptism as God’s recognition that adult, children, and infants are all part of God’s family, like the whole family in the time of the Old Testament, was part of the nation of Israel (Ac 11:14; 16:15, 31-34;18:8) (Erickson 2015:413).
In contrast to the Dutch Reformed Church, they do not recognize baptism as a form of God’s covenant with children but rather to remove the taint of original sin, because infants pose an unconscious faith (Mt 18:6; 19:14; Mk 10:14; Lk 1:15;18:16-17). To fulfill this ritual, the faith of the parents and even the church are essential factors. Still, in general, they do not view baptism as an essential factor since the New Testament is unclear on the form of baptism or essential, indispensable symbolism in the mode. Thus, it is an opposite view to that of the Roman Catholic doctrine where faith by the parents is not necessary, but baptism renders salvation (Ericson 2015:413).
2.4 Roman Catholic
Elwell (2001:1038) states the importance of the sacrament and the power thereof to infuse the grace of Christ, earned on Calvary, to the receipt. Therefore, all the people must be baptized to receive God’s grace and salvation and therefore been reborn of water and the Spirit. Thus, to cover all aspects of life, the Roman Catholic doctrine provides and acknowledge different types of baptism. First, the traditional sacramental baptism by water. Secondly, the “baptism of blood,” whereby a person gives his life for Christ (give their life for the sake of faith) in extraordinary circumstances, are baptized by their death for and with Christ (Mt 2:16-18). Thirdly, when a person has the desire to a sacramental baptism (“baptism of desire”), for some reason are prevented from doing so, or those who suffered death before been baptized, are assured of receiving salvation through the sacrament. These views are not prescribed in the New Testament, and also cause more confusion concerning the practice of baptism, but only expresses Paul’s view on the reality of the resurrection, and reaffirm his stance on baptism as not having any saving power, but by Grace, will be saved through our faith (1 Co 15:1-3, 29-34; Eph 2:8-9)
In The Sacrament of Baptism, according to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Witczak (2011:4), claims that Acts 2:36-42 was the standard set for new members to follow Christ. Thus, they would be baptized with water for the forgiveness of their sins to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Strangely he states that it is not clear why baptism was accepted as the norm or ritual to enter into the Body of Christ because scripture does not provide adequate answers to this question. He furthermore, makes an impressive statement when suggesting that Jesus and his disciples baptized some of their followers (Jn 3:22). Consequently, it is in contrast to John 4:2 and, therefore, adds another mystery to the New Testament and baptism.
On the note of infant baptism, Witczak (2011:5), like the Dutch Reformed Church and Lutheranism, believe that Acts 10:44, 48; 16:14-15 and 16:25-34 implies that children and slaves were part of the early Christian community and therefore, would also be baptized. Furthermore, baptism is performed in a threefold manner by infusion or immersion in recognition of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and this is only part of a long list of ritual praxis. Then how do they view the Grace of baptism?
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the subject of the grace of baptism, they radically differ from the two previous denominations as far as the power of baptism is concerned. The Dutch Reformed Church, Lutheranism, and several other denominations (will be addressed at a later stage) do not believe that baptism has any saving powers, unlike the Catholic Church, who believes that immersion in water symbolizes death and purification and regeneration and renewal. Thus, all sins are washed away, original sin, and personal sins, thus the grace of justification will be saved through baptism. Also, they claim the baptism is a seal of eternal life. On this subject of justification, Edwards (2006:537) openly opposed the Catholic Church mainly because he thought it misconstrued the gospel message itself by confusing people as to the doctrine of justification. For his argument, he refers to Romans 4:16 and Hebrews 12:22-24 “no man is just in the sight of God by his Justice,” therefore, we can elaborate on Edward’s view that works or rituals justify no one.
2.5 Baptist Church
Ericson (2015:414) states that the Baptist Church relates to baptism “as a token, an outward symbol or indication of the inward change that has been affected in the believer.” Therefore, they claim that it is an initiatory rite, thus baptized into the name of Christ. They also view baptism as an ordinance rather than a sacrament, because it does not produce any special spiritual powers or blessings, but serves as a form of proclamation of salvation. Furthermore, they claim that there is no regeneration through baptism, but rather portray a person who is already regenerated and experienced the new birth based on faith. In other words, it is a symbol of cleansing of sin; therefore, the removal of sin by Jesus’ death on their behalf (Ac 22:16). Thus, symbolizing our death in Christ and raised again to a new life (Ro 6:3-5; Col 2:12), an initiation rite to join a church as a symbol or your identification with Christ and the Church.
This view will, therefore, disqualify infant or children baptism, even slaves who did not accept Jesus as their Savior. In other words, they do not lend any thought towards Acts 10:44, 48; 16:14-15 and 16:25-34, like the Dutch Reformed Church and Lutheranism, belief, that implies that children and slaves were part of the early Christian community and therefore, would also have been baptized. Furthermore, they claim that baptizing infants violates Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:32. They claim to follow in the footsteps of John the Baptist and Peter when they demanded repentance and confession of sin (Mt 3:2, 6; Ac 2:37-41) (Ericson 2015:414).
Furthermore, the majority of Baptists practice immersion to demonstrate the believer’s resurrection from spiritual death to claim spiritual regeneration (Ericson 2015:415). Thus, it is a confusing statement as well as a contradictory one. They already stated that a person should be regenerated (born again) before baptism, “they claim that there is no regeneration through baptism, but rather portray a person who is already regenerated and experienced the new birth based on faith.” Furthermore, they point out that the word “baptism” means to “dip in” or to “immerse” For example, in the “Odyssey,” Odysseus escaped from the Cyclops by sticking (the Greek word is “baptized”) a stake into his eye. Odysseus did not sprinkle it in. He immersed it deeply. In the Bible, “baptize” never means “to sprinkle” as some teaches today. When we receive Christ, we are immersed (baptized) entirely by the Holy Spirit into Christ and the family of God (Ro 6:1-10).
2.6 Dispensationalists
Zuber (2006) states that Dispensationalists reject water baptism (in most cases). Instead, they believe in baptism made without the use of hands and water, but by the Spirit, which occurs when one believes in Christ as their Savior. Therefore, identified with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Ro 6:3-4; 1 Co 12:12-13; 2 Co 1:21-22; 5:5; Ga 3:27; Eph 1:12-14; 4:5; 4:30; Col 2:11-12; Heb 9:8-10). There are large irreconcilable differences between the Mid-Acts position and the Acts 28 position just as there is between them and the Acts 2 position. They differentiate among themselves by terminology, reflecting when the normative portion of Paul’s ministry to the church began. The most obvious differentiation is the absence of the practice of water baptism because it is considered a ritual for Israel under the last dispensation and not for the body of Christ in this present dispensation.
Furthermore, Dispensationalists tend to reject all ordinances, including the Lord’s Supper. In other words, reject all sacraments, including baptism with water. There is only one baptism made without hands where the believer is baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit (1 Co 12:13), which is held in contradistinction to Christ baptizing believing Israel in Acts 2, with the Holy Spirit. Pouring out the baptism of the Holy Spirit is in fulfillment of the Old Testament promise of the new covenant to Israel. “If Christianity were the new covenant, which it is not, the Holy Ghost is the seal of faith now as circumcision was then, then Matthew 28 was never carried out. The mission to the Gentiles was given to Paul explicitly (Gal 2), “who was not sent to baptize…” (Zuber 2006).
Zuber (2006) furthermore explains that the baptizing work of the Spirit is the one work of the Spirit that is not present in any other dispensation, “That is, it is limited to this age and can be demonstrated theologically and biblically.” Thus, 1 Corinthian 12:13 forms the theological argument which defines the baptizing work of the Spirit that places a person in the body of Christ. Since “the body of Christ… is distinctive to this age, then so is the baptism.” The biblical argument is twofold: first, “the baptizing work” is never mentioned in the Old Testament and is not mentioned about the Spirit’s work in the millennial age: and second, that work began at Pentecost. Thus, Jesus’ statement in Acts 1:5 indicates the baptism of the Spirit was yet future, and Peter’s phrase “at the beginning” in Acts 11:15-17 refers to the Pentecost experience, indicating this was the first occurrence of Spirit baptism. Therefore, 1Corinthians 12:13 clearly states that baptizing work is universal among all believers.
Conclusion
With all the above views and explanations to our disposal, can we ask or expect to arrive at a tenable explanation or mutual understanding in the light of unclear scripture passages? There are views expressing baptism as a means of regeneration as essential to salvation based on several texts supporting such a position. Still, the contrary is present in scripture. A good example that could be neutral to all different views is in John 3:22, which is in direct contrast to John 4:2 if they are individually used to justify any actions. Yet we find that Paul, according to MacArthur (1984:32), made use of John 4:2 to clear himself of any accusation that might derive from his statement in 1 Corinthian 1:17, claiming that Paul does not practice what Christ instructed in Matthew 28:19, to excuse him from performing the baptism. However, he admitted that he had done so in the past (1 Co 1:14, 16). The above does not make sense and can lead to confusion. Thus, should it not been better if Paul simply stated that the task laid upon him to preach the Gospel, was so great that he distributed the minor tasks, like baptism, to his fellow companions because this was also true (Ex 18:17-19; Ac 6:1-4)?
As I explained in my introduction, my aim is not to criticize any denomination or movement’s practice or views on baptism but purely to demonstrate how scripture can be applied to promote a particular view or action. When scrutinizing all the information on baptism in scripture, as well as studying different views and interpretations, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that no denomination can lay claim possessing the correct and right way of practicing baptism. Therefore, Erickson (2015:418) states, that whichever praxis a person or denomination adopts, baptism must be viewed in a serious light, due to its importance. “For it’s both a sign of the believer’s union with Christ and, as a confession of that union, an additional act of faith that serves to more firmly cementing the relationship.”
The issue of baptism, where it is practiced through different rituals using water, or by Spirit baptism, has been a much-contested subject over centuries. De Haan (2002:2) explains by the 12th century, there were as many as thirty different rites and ceremonial praxis in church, and this is an ongoing phenomenon. Yes, baptism is important, but should not be used to cause separation amongst Christians, but we instead should take Romans 10:9-10 as the anchor text in our lives: “If you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and is justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (NIV).
Annotated Bibliography
Application Study Bible NIV 2005. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers.
This study bible will provide me with insight into many other aspects of Pauline’s statements on baptism, as well as contextualization on the whole issue of Christ’s command.
Barrier R 2014. Water baptism as a norm. Online article http://www.the-baptism-filling-of the-spirit.html.
In this article, Barrie explains that water baptism precedes Spirit baptism, but cannot be executed without the presence of the Holy Spirit.
De Silva DA 2004. An Introduction to the New Testament. Downer Grove: InterVarsity Press.
As the anchor textbook of this assignment, it contains not only some relevant information on my problem but also a broader scope of information regarding Paul’s belief system, also on baptism.
De Haan RW 2002. Baptism And The Lord’s Supper: The Meaning Of Baptism. Grand Rapids. RBC Ministries.
De Haan is an outspoken defender of water baptism, but not a sacramentalism but rather view baptism as an ordinance of the church. He also sees himself as a reformer and regards Luther and Calvin’s views on baptism highly.
Edwards WJE 2006. The Blank Bible (vol. 24). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Edwards is an outspoken critic against the Roman Catholic doctrine on several matters, especially on their view on baptism. Thus, he provides a detailed view of their belief and practice in the light of his and other views.
Elwell WA 2001. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
This dictionary is more than that, and it is also a reliable commentary that covers all aspects of baptism as well as most of Paul’s fundamental teaching about his statements and that of other scholarly statements and views. In other words, it provides me with different angles of approach to a problem by different denominations and movements.
Erickson MJ 2015. Christian Doctrine (3de ed). Grand Rapids: Baker Publishers.
Erickson comes without any introduction; his knowledge of scripture is highly regarded throughout the Christian academic world. Therefore, his input through his book is an enrichment of the soul, especially when he does not stand skeptical towards other beliefs, other than his. He provides different aspects and ways to view baptism; therefore, it creates another view than that of the reader. He also strives to formulate a “middle path,” whereby different denominations and beliefs can reach out to each other.
Grudem W 2000. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
This book also systematically analyses Paul’s teaching and statements. Therefore, I can draw on several chapters to aid my understanding of how Paul approaches different scenarios, as well as critically engage on different views of other sources, as discussed in the book and especially on Spirit baptism.
Harrison EF and Pfeiffer CF 1990. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody Publishers.
In this commentary, the authors defend Paul’s statement in 1Corinthians 1:17 but also admit that it could lead to confusion. Therefore, his actions prove that a baptism is a symbolic act and, therefore, did not emphasize baptism.
Ladd G 1974. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ladd is not a supporter of Spirit baptism but prefers the view of Spirit-filled baptism ceremonies, except that of Paul’s baptism, which he regards as a special event. Other than that, he promotes water baptism but in conjunction with the presence of the Holy Spirit.
MacArthur J 1984. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: First Corinthians. Chicago: Moody Publishers.
MacArthur is a profound supporter of Paul’s theological claims and teachings. He takes a decisive stance in defense of Paul, especially on the subject of baptism throughout Paul’s letters.
MacArthur J 2017. The Gospel According to Paul. Nashville: Nelson Books.
This book exclusively covers all that is connected to the Gospel in Paul’s teaching and preaching, thus embracing the good news. In this book, MacArthur defends Paul’s statements and teachings, especially on baptism, according to the gospels. Therefore, it provides exciting reading when comparing different gospel commands and views on baptism in the book, to relevant passages and with that of other scholarly works.
MacPhail B Online article John Calvin: Infant Baptism. Online article accessed from http://www.reformedtheology.ca 2018-7-18.
MacPhail explains in detail the acceptance of infant baptism as part of practice throughout the New Testament.
Morris L 1976. In RVG Tasker (ed.). 1Corinthians. An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester: InterVarsity Press.
The book mentioned above is helpful regarding Paul and the problems he encountered in Corinth. The author thoroughly explains his understanding of Paul’s action, and further on in his book, he describes Paul’s given grace as more important than his commission (1Co 3:10-15). Thus will let me ask a further question, under which category does baptism sorts, grace or commission?
Why Infant Baptism. Online article accessed from http://www.thebanner.org. 2018-07-22.
This article provides valuable information on infant baptism in general.
Witczak MG 2011. The Sacrament of Baptism. Minnesota: Liturgical Press.
Witczak is well informed on the Roman Catholic Church’s rituals and believes in baptism. In his book, he provides insight into the heart of the Roman Catholic belief system concerning baptism.
Zuber KD 2006. The Baptism of the Spirit: A Defense of a Dispensational Understanding of the Phrase. Online journal, accessed from http://www.galaxie.com/articale/ctj10-29-02.
Zuber is a prominent and active member of the Dispensational movement or belief system. He wrote several books, journals, and articles explaining the views and beliefs of this growing movement, therefore, he is regarded as a master on his subject.
hierstaanek said:
Dankie vir die skakel.
hierstaanek said:
Hi Philip
Dankie vir jou bydrae
Jy sê:
Ek wil net almal se aandag daarop vestig. Ons moet mooi verstaan wat God bedoel het met:” tussen My en jou en jou nageslag… en kinders van slawe wat in jou besit gebore is” en nie met die hele wêreld ( ander nasies) se nageslagte nie, dit is ñ eksklesiewe verbond. Hierdie was dan ñ verbond tussen God en Israel.
Jou eerste fout is dat jy nie kyk WIE Abraham se nageslag sou wees nie.
Genesis 17:4“Dit is my verbond met jou: jy sal die vader wees van ‘n menigte nasies;
Abraham se nageslag is “baie nasies”
Dan sê jy dat omdat god se verbond met Abraham net vir sy nagslag is, die nasies uitgesluit is van die verbond.
Omdat jou eerste premis verkeerd is is jou gevolgtrekking verkeerd. Abraham se nagslag is baie nasies, daarom is die verbond vvir die nasies.
Boonop weerpsrpeek jou verkeerde gevolgtrekking God se woord direk. Ky k wat sê die Woord in Galasiers 3:
Galasiers 3: 26Deur hierdie geloof in Christus Jesus is julle nou almal kinders van God, 27want julle almal wat deur die doop met Christus verenig is, het nou deel van Christus geword. 28Dit maak nie saak of iemand Jood of Griek, slaaf of vry, man of vrou is nie: in Christus Jesus is julle almal één. 29En as julle aan Christus behoort, is julle ook nakomelinge van Abraham en erfgename kragtens die belofte van God.
Almal wat in Christus is, is Abraham se nageslag.
Jy sê:
“In die Nuwe Testament vind ons dan ook geen gronde of bewyse dat mense, buiten Jode, eers die besnydenis moes ondergaan nie, in teendeel was Paulus daarteen.”
Jy is heeltemal reg. As jy my artikel goed lees sal jy sien dat ek verduidelik waarom die besnydenis as verbodsteken moes vervang. Die besnydenis maak van mens ‘n nasionale Jood. Dus solank as wat die besnydenis die verbondsteken was was die verbond nie vir die nasies nie. Met Pinkster het die gelowiges wonderbaarlik in al die tale van di enasies begin praat: God se teken dat di everbond nou vir al die nasies is. Daarom verval die besnydenis en word dit vervang met die doop, wat NIE beperk tot nasionale Israel is nie.
Jy sê:
Ook geen bewyse dat daar gesê word dat die doop in plek is van besnydenis nie. Daarom het Jesus gekom om ñ nuwe verbond te sluit met die ganse wêreld.
1. Lees asb my artikel. Ek gee on teenseglike bewys uit die Nuwe Testament dat die doop die besnydenis verrvang as verbondsteken. Miskien wil jy eksegese doen van my bewys tekste en se waarom ek dit verkeerd interpreteer?
2. Jy maak die algemene fout oor wat die “Ou” en “Nuwe” verbonde is.
a. God se verbond met Abraham is ewig en vir al die nasies wat as sy nageslag gereken sou word.
b. Omdat dit ewig is en vir die nasies is, is dit nie deur die “Nuwe” verbond vervang nie.
Hebreërs sê dat die rituele wet van Moses, dus God se verbond met Moses, in Christus vervul is.
Hebreers 9:9 Dit alles wys vooruit na die huidige tyd waarin offergawes en diereoffers gebring word wat nie vir dié een wat dit bring, ‘n volkome skoon gewete kan gee nie. 10Dit het net betrekking op voedsel, drank en ‘n verskeidenheid reinigingsgebruike. Dit is voorskrifte wat slegs die uiterlike raak en wat opgelê is tot die tyd dat God ‘n beter orde sou instel.
11Maar Christus het gekom as Hoëpriester van die weldade wat nou verwesenlik is. Hy dien in die verbondstent wat groter en volmaakter is en nie deur mense gemaak is nie, dit wil sê wat nie tot hierdie wêreld behoort nie. 12Met sy eie bloed en nie met dié van bokke en kalwers nie, het Hy net een maal die heiligdom binnegegaan en ‘n ewige verlossing tot stand gebring.
Let asb op die volgende:
Vers 10: “Dit het net betrekking op voedsel, drank en ‘n verskeidenheid reinigingsgebruike. Dit is voorskrifte wat slegs die uiterlike raak en wat opgelê is tot die tyd dat God ‘n beter orde sou instel.”
Dit beteken dat die rituele wette wat betrekking het op kos, en reinigingsgebruike in Christus vervul en.
En Vers 12: “Met sy eie bloed en nie met dié van bokke en kalwers nie, het Hy net een maal die heiligdom binnegegaan en ‘n ewige verlossing tot stand gebring.”
Die offerhande van slagoffers is in Christus se kruisdood vervul.
Met ander woorde:
Die “Ou” verbond wat deur die “Nuwe” verbond vervang is is GOD SE VERBOND MET MOSES en nie God se verbond met Abraham nie!!
KOS, REINIGINGSGEBRUIKE EN DIE OFFERHANDE.
Het jy die artikle gelees voor jy kommentaar gelewer het?
Wynand
Henrietta Klaasing said:
In most cases in the New Testament (Jesus’ own baptism Matt 3:16 and also in Matt 28 :19) the word baptize means to cleanse by washing, immerse, sink, submerge, overwhelm. It first dawned on me later in my life when I read that the word is used for instance when a ship sinks and disappears under the water, when one colours a cloth by dipping the cloth underneath the new colorant and when one makes gherkins by totally submerging the small cucumbers in vinegar. In each of these cases it is impossible to imagine that a few drops of water will do the job.
Henrietta Klaasing said:
The gherkin one makes the most sense to me, because it tells me that it is a process to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus, to mature as a Christian. It is best described for me personally by Paul, in the Book of Colossians, starting with the baptism in chapter 2 likened to us being buried and risen with Christ. In the following chapter it tells of our spiritual growth.
Henrietta Klaasing said:
I agree with Philip that is significant that Paul who was one of the big contributers to the text of the New Testament, makes a statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he was not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. In Acts we read that Paul’s main focus was on the resurrection of Christ. See how many times he was bound, thrown on the ground, jailed and stoned on account of his preaching on Jesus being raised from the dead. As Philip says, as the anchor text in our lives we should take Romans 10:9-10: “If you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and is justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” (NIV).
hierstaanek said:
1) The idea that the word “baptism” was only used to mean “immerse” has been proven false. In Hebrews 9:10 the word “baptismois” or “baptisms” is translated as “washings” and the “washings” referred to in the text were mostly being sprinkled with blood, or water with the ashes of a burnt offering mixed in them.
Hebrews 9:6These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. 8By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing 9(which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, 10but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
This is what the text in Hebrews refers to when it speaks of the high priest entering only with blood.
Leviticus 16:14 And he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.
15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.
There were definitely instances when purification rites or “washings” in Leviticus was done by immersion, but most were not. Most “washings” were done by sprinkling.
The strongest argument for immersion is the meaning of the word, and they have it wrong. While the word “Baptism” definitely often does mean “immersion” the writer of Hebrew uses it in the sense of the cleaning rites of Leviticus – therefore mostly sprinkling.
2) The mode of baptism is not important and has never been. While no conclusion can be made from the New Testament (yes everybody will find THEIR opinion on this reflected in the Bible) the early church was clear. It did not really matter. There were preferences, but if the situation called for it, pouring was perfectly fine.
Didache 7: And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
So here are the preferred modes of Baptism in order of preference in the first-century church
1: Living water. Which means a FLOWING RIVER. I do not know of many dogmatic immersionists that were baptised in a flowing river! (Here in Melkbos they do it in the sea, but not many churches are close enough to the beach.)
2. Cold water
3. Hot water
4. Pouring.
The question is, why do most European covenantal baptists sprinkle.
I believe it is BECAUSE EUROPE IS COLD and central heating in churches is a very recent addition. You could kill a baby by immersing it. The Eastern church do immerse babies, I would not do it.
Henrietta Klaasing said:
Wynand you said “The idea that the word “baptism” was only used to mean “immerse” has been proven false.” …. I said “in most cases” ….
hierstaanek said:
Regso!
Philip Coetzee said:
Ek wil nie ñ geskil verklaar nie en ook nie kommentaar lewer op jou terugvoer nie, behalwe oor “nageslag. Prof Vosloo skryf dat die lot geval (Ge 15:13-16) is ñ bevestiging van slawerny en bevestiging van die land waarna hulle sal terug keer. In vv 18-21 volg die beskrywing van die land en die volke wie se land hulle sal besit, dit sal dan later ook die grense wees tydens Salomo se bewind.Voorts sien ons dan weer in Genesis 17 die woord gebruik van “baie nasies ” en nie alle nasies nie. Met ander woorde, nie alle nasies is ingesluit nie. Vosloo sê ook dat ” ñ bepaalde gemeenskap se geloof nie geken moet word deur nakoming van sekere reëls of rituele nie, maar deur die verhouding met God, dit is ñ verbond”. Dit was dan so dat God ñ nuwe geloofsgemeenskap geskep het dus nie “ñ natuurlike ontwikkeling deur mense nie, maar ñ herskeppende werking deur God vir bepaalde mense in Abraham se tyd, wat hulle aanmekaar bind”. Dit is gegewe die Abraham verbond en latere alomvattende verbond deur Jesus self vir alle mense wat Hom erkenning gee en aanvaar.
MY afleiding: ons mag nie besnydenis uit sy oorspronklike konteks neem om ñ bepaalde denominasie se verstaan daar van te regverdige nie, nog minder om ander wat nie saam stem te kritiseer nie.
hierstaanek said:
Hi Philip
1) Verstaan ek jou reg: Jy sê dat Abraham is die vader van die mense wat tydens die verblyf in Egipte kanaan bevolk het op grond van heirdie teks:
GEnesis 15:18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
Jou fout is a) die teks sê Abraham sou hulle LAND kry, nie die volke nie, en b) dat die Israeliete die nasies van die aardbol sou vee. Abraham se nageslag (onder leiding van Joshua) het die volke van Kanaan met die banvloek getref.
Joshua3: 10 And Joshua said, “Here is how you shall know that the living God is among you and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Perizzites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
Verder c) weerspreek die idee dat God se verbond met Abraham NIE vir ons is nie die Bybel direk:
Galatians 3:if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
(Mens sou dink dat as iemand se teologie die Bybel so direk weerspreek, dat mens jou teologie sou verander.)
En “Al die nasies” is beslis “Baie nasies”.
2) Jy sê: “Vosloo sê ook dat ” ñ bepaalde gemeenskap se geloof nie geken moet word deur nakoming van sekere reëls of rituele nie, maar deur die verhouding met God, dit is ñ verbond”.”
a) Ek onderskei met opset tussen die “vebondsgemeenskap” en die “verbond” maar die woord “verbond” kan en word vir beide konsepte gebruik. (Byvoorbeeld deur die Federal Vision groep). Die probleem as mens dieselfde woord vir beide konsepte gebruik is dat dit dieselfde verwarring veroorsaak as wat Paulus in die begin van Romeine 9 aanspreek.
b) Die “verbond” word juis met reels en rituele bevestig en daardeur definieer. Die Abraham-verbond: Die besnydenis is die teken van die verbond. Die Moses-verbond: Die Tien Gebooie, die tempeldiens, die reinigingsgebruike ens. Die vebond was van die begin af opgeskryf in die “Boek van die verbond”
Exodus 24:7Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
c) As jy my artikel lees sal jy sien dat al die sigbare tekens van die verbond – die besnydenis in die Abraham-verbond, en die rituele gebruike van die Moses-verbond wys na ‘n geestelike waarheid. DIe besneidenis verwys na die “besnydenis van hart” (wedergeboorte) en die Moses-rituele verwys na Christus wat ons sonde kom wegneem.
Die belangrike punt is egter dat die verbondsGEMEENSKAP NOOIT net uit wedergeborenes bestaan het nie. Nie in Abraham se tyd nie (Ismael is besny maar is verlore) en ook ne in Jesus se tyd nie (Daar is goeie en slegte saad in die koringland, en daar is goeie en slegte visse in die visnet – MAttheus 13.) Die verbondsgemeenskap sal eers met die wederkoms van ons Heer gesuiwer word. MOENIE DIE KERK VAN NOU VERWAR MET DIE ESKATOLOGIESE KERK NIE!
Jy sê: “MY afleiding: ons mag nie besnydenis uit sy oorspronklike konteks neem om ñ bepaalde denominasie se verstaan daar van te regverdige nie, nog minder om ander wat nie saam stem te kritiseer nie.”
Ek sal dit waardeer as jy kaan aantoon WAAR ek die besnydenis uit konteks neem?
Wynand
Philip Coetzee said:
Wynand jy wil nie of kan nie verstaan wat ek probeer sê nie want jy hou aan om my woorde verkeerd te interpreteer. Gaan lees Genesis 15:7-21 weer, spesifiek vv. 18-21. Tweedens, jy verander my woorde om jou siening te bevorder, sodoende maak jy aannames wat nie water dra nie.Lees gerus ook 1Petrus 3:21b. Laastens, as jy dan wil sien dat die verbond met Abraham, vir alle mense daarna was, haal jy God se verbond uit konteks en sodoende besnydenis, veral gesien in ander volke en nasies se rituele van besnydenis vir redes nie gekoppel aan geloof, vowassenheid ens. Net ñ laaste gedagte: waar in die nuwe testament sê dit dat kinders op die 8ste dag gedoop moet word, en wat was die bedoeling van Jesus sê woorde “dit is alles volbring” einde van ñ volbringde erase en die begin van ñ nuwe? Jy moet ñ goeie dag hê en ek sal myself nie meer verwerdig om vêrder aan hierdie onderwerp deel te neem nie, want dit laat my onwillekeurig herhinder aan liberalistiese orientasie.
hierstaanek said:
Hi Philip
Ek is onseker hoe ek jou verkeerd verstaan het?
Is dit dalk wat jy bedoel het: Daar is mense wat sê dat die feit dat God aan Abraham spesifieke grondgebied belowe het bewys dat die Abraham-verbond beperk tot Israel is.
Daar is twee belofes aan Abraham in Genensis 15:
a) Vers 5: Daarop lei Hy hom uit na buite met die woorde: Kyk nou op na die hemel en tel die sterre as jy hulle kan tel. En Hy sê vir hom: So sal jou nageslag wees.
In Genesis 17, omtrent 14 jaar later maak God dit duidelik dat die nageslag “Baie nasies” sal insluit.
Genesis 17:4 Wat My aangaan, kyk, my verbond is met jou, en jy sal die vader van ‘n menigte van nasies word.
Paulus maak hierdie belofte direk op Griekse Christene van toepassing:
Galasiers 3:29 En as julle aan Christus behoort, dan is julle die nageslag van Abraham en volgens die belofte erfgename.
Die probleem wat jy het as jy beweer dat die Abraham verbond nie vir ons is nie, is dat jy dan in die selfde asem MOET sê dat Paulus hier verkeerd is. Is jy bereid om dot te doen???
b) Die tweede belofte wat God aan Abraham maak is vir ‘n spesifieke grondgebied vir sy nageslag. Die Bybel weerspreek homself nie, dus moet ons die belofte reg interpreteer. God herhaal die belofte in Genesis 17:
Vers 8: En Ek sal aan jou en jou nageslag ná jou die land van jou vreemdelingskap gee, die hele land Kanaän, as ‘n ewige besitting; en Ek sal vir hulle ‘n God wees.
Die land Kanaan is die ewige besitting.
KYK HOE INTERPRETEER GOD SELF DIT IN HEBREERS 11
Hebreers 11:8 Deur die geloof het Abraham, toe hy geroep is, gehoorsaam weggetrek na die plek wat hy as ‘n erfenis sou ontvang; en hy het weggetrek sonder om te weet waar hy sou kom.
9Deur die geloof het hy as vreemdeling gaan woon in die land van belofte soos in ‘n vreemde land en in tente gewoon met Isak en Jakob, die mede-erfgename van dieselfde belofte.
10Want hy het die stad verwag wat fondamente het, waarvan God die boumeester en oprigter is.
11Deur die geloof het Sara self ook krag ontvang om bevrug te word; en toe sy oor die leeftyd was, het sy gebaar, omdat sy Hom getrou geag het wat dit beloof het.
12Daarom is daar ook gebore uit een vader, en dit ‘n verstorwene, kinders soos sterre van die hemel in menigte en soos die sand aan die strand van die see, wat ontelbaar is.
13In die geloof het hulle almal gesterwe sonder om die beloftes te verkry, maar hulle het dit uit die verte gesien en geglo en begroet, en het bely dat hulle vreemdelinge en bywoners op aarde was.
14Want die wat sulke dinge sê, verklaar dat hulle ‘n vaderland soek.
15En as hulle bly dink het aan dié vaderland waaruit hulle weggetrek het, sou hulle geleentheid gehad het om terug te keer.
16Maar nou verlang hulle na ‘n beter een, dit is ‘n hemelse. Daarom skaam God Hom nie vir hulle om hulle God genoem te word nie, want Hy het vir hulle ‘n stad berei.
Belangrik!
Kyk na hierdie teks: “Daarom is daar ook gebore uit een vader, en dit ‘n verstorwene, kinders soos sterre van die hemel in menigte en soos die sand aan die strand van die see, wat ontelbaar is. In die geloof het hulle almal gesterwe sonder om die beloftes te verkry, maar hulle het dit uit die verte gesien en geglo en begroet, en het bely dat hulle vreemdelinge en bywoners op aarde was.”
AL ABRAHAM SE NAGESLAG HET GESTERF SONDER OM DIT WAT BELOOF IS TE ONTVANG! Is dit reg?? Het daar oor die eeue tussen Abraham en die vernietiging van Jerusalem in 70 NC nie miljoene Jode in Israel gebly nie? Kyk wat sê die teks: Hulle het bely dat hulle vreemdelinge en bywoners op aarde was. God het vir hulle ‘n hemelse vaderland voorberei volgens vers 16.
Dit is dus baie duidelik uit die teks dat die belofte dat ons, Abraham se nageslag volgens Galasiers 3, wel Kanaan belowe is, maar dat die fisiese land Kanaan slegs ‘n voorskou, of metafoor was van die hemelse vaderland waarna ons almal uitsien.
Ja, Israel het vir amper 2 millennia in Kanaan gebly, maar dit, sê die Hebreerskrywer, is nie wat hulle as die beloofde land gesien het nie. Dit was ‘n beeld van die hemel. En die Bybel is vol sulke beelde: Bv die paaslam is Christus. Die belofte van Kanaan is dus vir ons – maar dit is die hemelse Kanaan, soos in Hebreers verduidelik.
Net ‘n opmerking: Ek het beslis nie gesê die verbond is vir alle mense nie. Ek het gesê daar is mense uit alle nasies in die verbond.
Jy sê: Net ñ laaste gedagte: waar in die nuwe testament sê dit dat kinders op die 8ste dag gedoop moet word, en wat was die bedoeling van Jesus sê woorde “dit is alles volbring” einde van ñ volbringde erase en die begin van ñ nuwe?
Die doop is nie die besnydenis nie, dit VERVANG die besnydenis. Ons doop nie net mans en seuns nie, ons doop ook vrouens en dogters. Ons doop nie met ‘n mes nie maar met water. Dit is nie nodig om babas op dag 8 te doop nie.
Tog het die antieke kerk die verbad tussen doop en besnydenis bevestig: Abrosius se doopfont in Milaan, die een waarin Augustinus en sy seun Adiodatus gedoop is, is agt kantig: Die uitdruklike rede hiervoor is, dat Jesus op die agste dag opgestaan het! Dis reg: 7+1=8.
Waarom sê dat Jesus op die agste dag opgestaan het as ons weet dit is op die eerste dag? Omdat die Christene die besnydenis gesen het as teken van wedergeboorte (besnydenis van hart) en dus die opstanding gesien het. En hulle het die doop gesien as die besnydenis van die kerk – daarom die agt kantige doopfont.
So al doop ons nie kinders op dag agt nie, het die vroë kerk hulle doopfonte agt kantig gemaak omdat hulle presies daardie verband met die besnydenis gesien het.
Oor Jesus se woorde “Dit is volbring” Die Griekse woord, volgens mense wat Grieks ken, beteken iets soos “volledig betaal”. Christus se taak was om aarde toe te kom om dié wat die Vader Hom gegee het te kom verlos deur die prys vir hulle sonde te betaal. Nadat die Vader hom verlaat het (volgens Jesaja 53 het dit God behaag om hom te VERBRYSEL) het Jesus gesê “Dit is volbring. Die prys is betaal. Die transaksie is afgehandel.” Hy het toe gesê “Vader, in U hande gee ek my gees oor” en gesterf.
Galasiers 2:13 En julle, wat dood was deur die misdade en die onbesnedenheid van julle vlees, het Hy saam met Hom lewend gemaak deurdat Hy julle al die misdade vergeef het,
14en die skuldbrief teen ons, wat met sy insettinge ons vyandig was, uitgedelg en weggeruim het deur dit aan die kruis vas te nael,
Die skuldbrief is betaal. Dit is volbring!
Ek hoop dit beantwoord jou vrae.
Wynand
Henrietta Klaasing said:
Hierdie dinge is eintlik vir ons ’n voorbeeld van wat op geestelike gebied by die doop gebeur. Daar skei die paaie van die mense wat gered word en dié wat nie gered word nie. Dit gaan nie oor vuilgoed wat die water van jou liggaam afwas nie. Dit gaan eerder oor dit wat binne-in jou gebeur. Dit gaan daaroor dat jy God opreg vra om alles weg te vat wat jou skuldig laat voel. Dit is moontlik omdat Jesus uit die graf opgestaan het en leef.
1 Petrus 3:21 DB
https://bible.com/bible/50/1pe.3.21.DB
Christi Pienaar said:
Most of the controversy around Baptism disappears if the Greek word “baptiso” is translated as purify or purification as is clearly stated to be the meaning of it when describing the ritual John started and the disciples of Jesus continued with (John 3: 25 + 26 and John 4: 1+2). The question the Pharisees askes John “Then why are you baptizing if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” (John 1:24) also indicates that “baptize” here means purification and specifically by sprinkling. The Prophet is the one like Moses (Deut. 18: 15) and Moses gave the purification rites, and all was done by sprinkling. Elijah through his successor Elisha told Naaman to wash (actually purify) himself seven times (Lev. 14:7) in the river Jordan. The Hebrew word “tabal” is here (2 Kings 5:14) translated as “dipped” but it has actually come to describe the whole ritual of purification by sprinkling. Isaiah 52:15 clearly states that the Christ will “sprinkle many nations” and what follows makes it clear that it is for the purification from sin (Heb. 9:13 + 14). Jesaja 52:15 het “nazah”, vertaal as “opspring van verbasing” in al die huidige Afrikaanse vertalings sowel as `n paar Engelse en ander vertalings. Hierdie afleiding kom uit die Septuagint wat “taumasontai” (verwonderd, bewonder of skrikmaak) hier het. Maar “nazah” beteken sprinkel of spat, ek hoop ons vertalers sal in die toekoms `n regstelling maak.
Of coarse John was the Prophet and Elijah, as Jesus confirmed (Matt. 11:9-14) that is why Jesus insisted that John baptise/purify Him. John as Prophet of the new covenant had to inaugurate the high priest of the new Covenant just as Moses did Aaron (Exodus 29). First purified with water then anointed and then declared acceptable to God. Note how John protest that Jesus should be purifying/baptising him, as Jesus is pure and John not (Numbers 19:18+19)
1 John 5:6 – 13 tell us that the baptismal water (Heb. 10:20 calls it pure or purifying) with the blood of Christ is the testimony of God the father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that whoever believe in the Son of God has eternal life. It is emphasized that it is not only the water but the water and the blood and the way God said that the water and the blood is to be used ceremonially is to sprinkle it. By sprinkling the baptismal/purifying water it becomes Gods testimony, the sprinkled blood of the new covenant (Heb. 12:24)
hierstaanek said:
OK, Christi my brein is nou geblaas. Ek het die testverwysings gaan naslaan. Dankie! Dit maak vir my nuwe insigte oop!
Christi Pienaar said:
The Baptists are also wrong in insisting that the word “baptizo” and thus “bapise” always means to dip or immerse, it can sometimes have that meaning, but it is not true that the word means “immerse” and only “immerse.” Regardless of what else his massive volume, Classic Baptism, proves, R. W. Dale for all time has settled the question of the extra-biblical usage of baptizo. Though the word possibly can mean “immerse,” he has clearly demonstrated that this is not usually true and certainly not the basic meaning of the term. In fact, the word is a rather “fluid” one (to use a bad pun) comprising such divergent concepts as “to plunge, to pour, to tinge, to sprinkle, to dye,” and many others. In summarizing the results of his exhaustive study of Classic Baptism, he writes,
Usage, the accepted arbiter, has spoken freely, and, I think, has been faithful, as teaching —
(1) bapto, TINGO, and DIP, are words, which, in their respective languages, represent, for the most part, the same identical ideas.
(2) baptizo, MERGO, and MERSE, are words, which, in their respective languages, represent, for the most part, the same identical ideas.
(3) These two classes of words differ from each other essentially. They are not interchanged, nor interchangeable ordinarily, much less identical.
(4) bapto and baptizo exhibit a perfect parallelism in their development.
1. bapto; TO DIP.
1. baptizo; TO MERSE.
2. bapto; To dip into any coloring liquid for the sake of the effect; TO DYE.
2. baptizo; To merse into any liquid for the sake of its influence; TO DROWN.
3. bapto; To affect by the peculiar influence of coloring matter (without the act of dipping); e.g., to sprinkle blood; to squeeze a berry; to bruise by blows.
3. baptizo; To affect by any controlling influence (without the condition of mersion), e.g., to sprinkle poppyjuice; to pour water on hot iron; to drink intoxicating liquor.
The perfect parallelism of development thus exhibited, in these two words, goes far to show that the true interpretation of each has been secured.
(5) Baptism is a myriad-sided word, adjusting itself to the most diverse cases.
Agamemnon was baptized; Bacchus was baptized; Cupid was baptized; Cleinias was baptized; Alexander was baptized; Panthia was baptized; Otho was baptized; Charicles was baptized; and a host of others were baptized, each differing from the other in the nature or the mode of their baptism, or both.
A blind man could more readily select any demanded color from the spectrum, or a child could more readily thread the Cretan labyrinth, than could ‘the seven wise men of Greece’ declare the nature, or mode, of any given baptism by the naked help of baptizo.
. . . Over against the Baptist answers:
1. Baptizing is dipping and dipping is baptizing. Baptist Confession of Faith.
2. To dip and nothing but dip through all Greek literature. Alexander Carson, LL.D., Baptist Board of Publication.
3. To immerse, immerge, submerge, to dip, to plunge, to imbathe, to whelm. T. J. Conant, DD., Baptist Bible Union.
I would place this answer:
WHATEVER IS CAPABLE OF THOROUGHLY CHANGING THE CHARACTER, STATE, OR CONDITION OF ANY OBJECT, IS CAPABLE OF BAPTIZING THAT OBJECT: AND BY SUCH CHANGE OF CHARACTER, STATE, OR CONDITION DOES, IN FACT, BAPTIZE IT.[2]
Taken from THE MEANING AND MODE OF BAPTISM
by Jay E. Adams
Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1976
Thus taking its meanings of “merse” and “change of character, state or condition”, baptizo and baptise are actually good descriptive words for the Christian sacrament of baptising/purifying with water as well as the baptism/sanctification with the Holy Spirit.
Christi Pienaar said:
Doop is egter nie meer `n goeie afrikaanse vertaling nie, want dit het die betekenis van besprinkel tot `n groot mate verloor. besprinkel as sulks is ook nie eintlik `n goeie vertaling vir baptiso nie, reinig is wel. ek hoop ons vertalers sal dit ook oorweeg.
Chris Pienaar said:
Wanneer mens met `n foutiewe voorveronderstelling begin kan jy nie by die waarheid uitkom nie, en om te beweer dat die Griekse woord “baptizo” altyd onderdompel of insteek beteken is so `n foutiewe voorveronderstelling. Uit die woord “baptizo” alleen kan mens slegs aflei dat `n permanente verandering plaasvind, miskien deur saamsmelt of versmelt ( engels – merse), maar om die medium en metode te bepaal het jy konteks nodig. Dus as “baptizo” gebruik word om `n Joodse reinigings seremonie te beskryf beteken dit die metode is besprinkeling en die medium is bloed, water of bloed of as in water.
Hebreërs 9: 9 – 22; 9Dit alles wys vooruit na die huidige tyd waarin offergawes en diere offers gebring word wat nie vir die een wat dit bring, `n volkome skoon gewete kan gee nie. Dit het net betrekking op voedsel, drank en `n verskeidenheid reiniginsgebruike. 10Dit is voorskrifte wat slegs die uiterlike raak en wat opgelê is tot die tyd wat God `n beter orde sou instel. 11Maar Christus het gekom as Hoëpriester van die weldade wat nou verwesenlik is. Hy dien in die verbondstent wat groter en volmaakter is en nie deur mense gemaak is nie, dit wil sê wat nie tot hierdie wêreld behoort nie. 12Met sy eie bloed en nie met dié van bokke en kalwers nie, het Hy net een maal die heiligdom binnegegaan en `n ewige verlossing tot stand gebring. 13Wanneer die bloed van bokke en bulle en die as van `n vers op die onreines gesprinkel word, maak dit hulle uiterlik rein. 14Hoeveel te meer sal die bloed van Christus ons gewete bevry van die las van dade wat tot die dood lei, sodat ons die lewende God kan dien! Hiervoor het Christus immers Homself as volkome offer deur die ewige Gees aan God geoffer. 15Daarom is Hy ook die middelaar van die nuwe verbond. Sy dood het plaasgevind om mense te verlos van die oortredinge wat onder die eerste verbond begaan is, sodat dié wat geroep is die beloofde ewige erfenis kan ontvang. …..18Daarom is die eerste verbond ook nie sonder bloed ingestel nie. 19Nadat Moses al die gebooie van die wet aan die hele volk oorgedra het hy bloed van kalwers en bokke saam met water geneem en met rooi wol en hisop die wetboek self sowel as die hele volk besprinkel 20en gesê: “Dit is die bloed van die verbond wat God vir julle ingestel het.” 21Ook die verbondstent en al die voorwerpe vir gebruik by die erediens het hy op dieselfde wyse met die bloed besprinkel. 22Byna alles word volgens die wet met bloed gereinig, en sonder die vergieting van bloed vind daar geen vergifnis van sondes plaas nie.
As mens wil weet wat die doop met water is en hoe daar gedoop is dan moet jy tog skrif gedeeltes soek wat dit vir jou verduidelik en nie probeer om dit aftelei uit skrif gedeeltes wat meer van die doop met die Heilige Gees praat en ook meer in `n abstrakte manier bv Gal 3: 26, Rom 6: 3+4 en Titus 3: 5. Al wat ons oor die doop met water uit hierdie skrif gedeeltes kan aflei is wat die doop met water simbolies moet voorstel want die doop met water is tog die sigbare teken vir die doop met die Heilige Gees – Hand 10: 45 – 47 en 11: 16.
Die Skrif is eintlik baie duidelik oor presies hoe Johannes en Jesus se dissipels gedoop het. In Johannes 1:24 vra die Fariseërs vir Johannes “Nou waaroor DOOP jy dan as jy nie die Christus is nie en ook nie Elia nie en ook nie die Profeet nie?” Die DOOP is dus iets waaraan hierdie persone herken sou word. Verder in Johannes, in Joh. 3: 25 word die doop “die’ reiniging” genoem, dus moet die drie persone reiniging seremonies in gemeen hê. Dit is ook insigewend dat Johannes 3: 23 sê dat daar by Enon gedoop was, want enon is Aramees vir fonteine, daaroor die “baie waters – hudata” want daar is verskeie water bronne of fonteine, maar beslis geen water diep genoeg vir onderdompel nie, maar genoeg skoon drinkwater en “rein” water. Dit was winter met die Jordaan in vloed – na die paasfees (Joh. 2:23) – so beide gevaarlik met geen skoon drinkwater nie.
Johannes 3: 22 – 26 sê dat Jesus begin doop het terwyl Johannes nog gedoop het, Joh. 4: 1+2 verduidelik dat dit nie Jesus self nie maar sy dissipels is wat gedoop het. Gedurende Jesus se bediening het sy dissipels dus die bekeerlinge en moontlik ook hulle kinders gedoop en hulle waarskeinlik gedoop in die naam van Jesus. Die Jode sou beslis daarop aandring dat hulle kinders ook gereinig word – die teken van die nuwe verbond ontvang – want die kinders word van geboorte by die verbonde ingesluit – Gen 17:11+12, Lev 12:6 + 8, Lukas 2:24 – en Joël 2: 16 betrek beslis die kinders en selfs die suigelinge by “dié Reiniging” – Joh. 3: 25. Dit verduidelik dan ook wat die ouers met hulle kinders by die dissipels gemaak het, en waaroor hulle wou hê Jesus moet die kinders seën, want die seën was gebruiklik by die doop (Hebr 6:2).
Die Profeet is natuurlik die een soos Moses (Deut. 18: 15) en Moses het die reiniging seremonies vir die Israeliete gegee wat volgens Hebr. 9: 9 tot 14 dui op Christus se volkome offer vir `n ewige verlossing.
Deur sy opvolger Elisa is dit eintlik wel Elia wat Naäman stuur om hom sewe maal in die Jordaan te gaan was (reinig), (2 Kon. 5:10). In 2Kon. 5: 14 word die hebreeuse woord “tabal” vertaal as onderduik / gebad/ Engels ;- dipped, maar tabal beskryf hier eintlik die besprinkelings deel van die seremonie soos deur Moses voorgeskryf (Deut. 18:15) net soos “tabulim” die Joodse proseliete se besprinkelings reiniging beskryf. So Elia het wel iemand in die Jordaan gedoop/gereinig en net soos Moses met besprinkeling.
In Handelinge 8 vanaf vers 26 lees ons van Filippus en die Etiopiër. Dit is duidelik dat die Etiopiër uit Jesaja 53 lees en Filippus vertel hom dat dit die Christus is waarvan Jesaja praat. Jesaja praat egter al reeds in hoofstuk 52 van die “dienaar”, in engelse vertalings lees Jesaja 52:15 “He will SPRINKLE many nations”. Jesaja 52:15 het “nazah”, vertaal as “opspring van verbasing” in al die huidige Afrikaanse vertalings sowel as `n paar Engelse en ander vertalings. Hierdie afleiding kom uit die Septuagint wat “taumasontai” (verwonderd, bewonder of skrikmaak) hier het. Maar “nazah” beteken sprinkel of spat, die korekte vertaling sou dus wees “Hy sal baie nasies laat besprinkel”, en die Etiopiër sou dit ook so gelees het. Hebreeus het twee woorde vir sprinkel “zaraq” en “nazah”. Num. 19: 4, 18, 19 en 21 gebruik “nazah” met `n assosiasie met die een wat die besprinkeling doen en vergifnis van sonde (sondoffer – vers 10).
Toe sien die Etiopiër op die woestynpad (tussen Jerusalem en Gasa is woestyn) `n rare gesig, water, en as fontein of syferwater dus lewende of rein water, idiaal vir reiniging. Moses se voorskrif het bepaal dat water vir seremomieële reiniging vars lopende water moes wees en die Jode het dit lewende water of rein water genoem omdat dit vir die reinigings water met die as van `n rooi vers in by die tempel reinigings gebruik was (Levitikus 14: 5 – 7 + 49 – 51, Num 19 :9, Heb 9: 13), hulle kon dus nie sommer van hulle drinkwater vir die seremonie gebruik het nie. Natuurlik vra die Etiopiër om gedoop/gereinig te word, en word dus met besprinkeling gereinig, want (1) Jesaja sê besprinkel, (2) daar was nog nooit in die gebied enige natuurlike water bronne diep genoeg vir onderdompel nie, en (3) selfs al was daar sou niemand in so `n water skaars gebied ooit `n waterbron so gebruik nie, (4) albei gaan saam af na die water en kom saam op van die water af soos wat nodig is met die paar natuurlikke bronne wat wel in die gebied voorkom omdat dit onder in slote of skeure voorkom. (5) Johannes en Jesus se dissipels (Fillupus was `n dissipel/volgeling en diaken maar nie een van die twaalf nie) sou op geen ander manier as wat deur Moses en die profete geleer is, reinig/doop nie, want dit is juis besprinkeling wat wys dat dit “dié reiniging” is (Joh. 3: 25) waarvan die profete praat wat saam met die terugkeer van die volk, die koms van die Mesias, die uitstort van die Heilige Gees en die nuwe Verbond sou val.
Die Christen doop word dan ook deur `n hele paar profete as `n volks REINIGING voorspel, Jeremia en Esegiël noem die terugkeer, die nuwe verbond en die volksreiniging (Jer. 32: 36 – 41; 33: 7 + 8, Eseg. 37: 21 – 28). Esegiël en Joël praat albei van ‘n volksreiniging voor die uitstorting van die Heilige Gees (Eseg. 36: 24 – 28, Joël 2: 16 + 28). Jesaja praat van die oorblyfsel in Sion wat gereinig sal word en noem die Heilige Gees en Sagaria praat van `n fontein wat reinig met die koms van die Mesias (Sag.13: 1, Jesaja 4: 3 + 4). En dan ook natuurlik Jesaja 52:15.
1 Johannes 5: 6 tot 13 sê dat God drie – enig se getuienis: dat die wat glo in die Seun van God die ewige lewe het, lê in die water van die doop en die bloed van Jesus se dood. Dan word dit beklemtoon ; nie net deur die water nie, maar die water en die bloed. Hebr. 9 verduidelik hoekom, met die instel van die Sinai verbond (ook genoem die wet, ou verbond en eerste verbond) het Moses die bloed in water gesit en toe die volk besprinkel, die nuwe verbond vervang hierdie verbond en deur die doop water te sprinkel word dit die besprinkelingsbloed van die nuwe verbond (Hebr. 12: 24).
Hebreërs 10: 22 – “Laat ons tot God nader met `n opregte hart en met volle geloofsekerheid, ons harte is immers deur BESPRENGKELING GEREINIG (rherantismenoi – permanent besprinkel;- met die bloed van Christus – 1 Petrus 1:2 … het Hy julle uitverkies en deur die Gees afgesonder om …. besprinkel te word met die bloed van Jesus Christus.) van `n skuldige gewete en ons liggame is gewas (lelousmenio – permanent gewas dus GEREINIG) met REIN (katharō – reinigende) water.” Saam met Heb.9: 13 “die as van `n vers” en Hebreërs 13:11+ 12 “Die bloed van die offerdiere word deur die hoëpriester in die heiligdom ingebring vir die sonde, maar hulle liggame word buitekant die laer verbrand. (12) Daarom het Jesus ook buitekant die stadspoort gely om die volk deur sy eie bloed van hulle sonde te REINIG.”, wys duidelik dat die reinigings water van Num. 19 in die besprinkelings doop voortbestaan. Dit is net soos Esegiël voorspel het.
Esegiël 36: 24 – 28 Ek sal julle tussen die nasies uit wegvat, julle uit al die lande bymekaar maak en julle na julle land toe bring. Ek sal reinigingswater oor julle uitgooi (sprinkel – zaraq) sodat julle rein kan word. Ek sal julle reinig van al julle onreinheid en van al julle afgodery. Ek sal julle ‘n nuwe hart en ‘n nuwe gees gee, Ek sal die kliphart uit julle liggaam uithaal en julle ‘n hart van vleis gee. Ek sal my Gees in julle gee en Ek sal maak dat julle volgens my voorskrifte leef en my bepalings gehoorsaam en nakom.
Hebreeus het twee woorde vir sprinkel “zaraq” en “nazah”, Numeri 19: 13 + 20 gebruik “zaraq” in assosiasie met “reiniging” om aanvaarbaar vir God te wees en deel van die gemeente/volk van God te bly. In Esegiël 36:25 kry ons ook “zaraq” vertaal in Afrikaans as “uitgooi”, maar reinigings water word gesprinkel.
Die reinigings water van Num. 19 dui op reiniging van sondes, vers 9 en eenheid met die volk van God (gemeente) en verbond van God, (tabernakel/heiligdom) verse 13 en 19. Let ook op dat almal wat in die woning is besprinkel word, dit beteken kinders en klein babatjies ook.
Toe Moses die opdrag van God gekry het om die verbondstent en alles wat daarmee saamgaan op te rig sê God vir hom om alles presies soos hy gesien het te doen omdat dit `n afbeelding van die hemelse heiligdom is (Heb. 8: 5). Heb. 9: 9 tot 22 sê dat die reinigings gebruike deur Moses ingestel vooruit wys na die nuwe verbond. Die een ding wat al hierdie seremonies in gemeen gehad het was besprinkeling, maar besprinkeling was nie net vir reiniging nie maar ook vir wyding en salwing: Eksodus 29: 21 Vat van die bloed op die altaar en van die salfolie en sprinkel dit op die Aäron en sy klere en op sy seuns en hulle klere. Dan sal hy en sy klere en sy seuns en hulle klere gewy wees.
En die doop is nie net `n reiniging nie maar ook `n wyding:
Efesiërs 5: 25 – 27 Mans julle moet julle vrouens liefhê soos Christus die kerk liefgehad het en sy lewe daarvoor afgelê het. Dit het Hy gedoen om die kerk aan God te wy, nadat Hy dit met die water en die woord gereinig het, sodat Hy die kerk in volle heerlikheid by Hom kan neem, sonder vlek of rimpel of iets dergeliks, heilig en onberispelik.
In Heb. 6: 2 word die leer van die doop (baptismōs – dope/wassings/reinigings – meervoud) as een van die fondamente van die verkondiging van Jesus Christus, oftewel die Nuwe Verbond, genoem. Beide dope word dus bedoel, die doop/reiniging MET water en die doop/reiniging MET die Heilige Gees. En `n meer perfekte EENMALIGE, SIGBARE teken vir die verbond in Christus as besprinkeling met vars water sal jy nie kry nie. (Heb. 9:18 – 20, 12: 24)
Besprinkeling die enigste godgegewe simboliek wat so te sê al die onsigbare werke van die Heilige Gees (die doop met die Heilige Gees) uitbeeld; Reiniging van sondes met die bloed van Jesus Christus (Titus 2: 13+14, 3: 5-7, 1 Petrus 1: 2, Hebreërs 9: 11-13, 13: 11+12) ; Een maak met die liggaam van Christus, die volk van God/ verbondsvolk (Efe. 1: 13+14, 2: 18, Numeri 19: 13 +20); Salf en wy as priesters wat werke wat aanneemlik is vir God kan doen (1 Johannes 2: 20 + 27, 1Petrus 1:2 + 2: 5 + 9, Efesiërs 5: 25 – 27, Eksodus 29: 21, Numeri 8: 5 – 7)
Reg deur die Skrif word besprinkeling as `n teken en seël van God gebruik ook in die Nuwe Testament (1 Petrus 1:2, Hebreërs 12: 24) die besprinkelings doop dui dus ook simbolies op die beseëling van gelowiges as die eiendom van God (2 Korintiërs 1: 21, Efesiërs 1: 13+14; 4: 30 ), en God se seël kom op die voorhoof (Esegiël 9: 4, Openbaringe 7: 3; 14: 1), daaroor sê die Didache ook gooi water drie maal oor die hoof.
Besprinkeling is ook `n teken by die instel van God se verbonde en spesifiek die Nuwe Verbond (Heb. 9:18 – 20, 12: 24)
Die Evangelie van Jesus Christus is die Nuwe verbond, en die sigbare teken wat God ons gee by die aankondiging van die Nuwe Verbond oftewel die begin van die Evangelie van Jesus Christus, is die doop/reiniging met water;
Markus 1: 1 – 4 Die EVANGELIE VAN JESUS CHRISTUS, die seun van God BEGIN so’: In die boek van die profeet Jesaja staan daar geskrywe: “Kyk ,Ek stuur my boodskapper voor jou uit. Hy sal die pad vir jou regmaak. Iemand roep in die woestyn: Maak die pad vir die Here gereed, maak die paaie vir Hom reguit. So het Johannes die doper in die woestyn opgetree. Hy het verkondig dat die mense hulle moet bekeer sodat God hulle SONDES KAN VERGEWE, en dat hulle hulle moet laat DOOP.
Handelinge 10: 36 + 37 Julle weet dat God aan Israel sy woord gestuur het, naamlik die EVANGELIE VAN vrede wat JESUS CHRISTUS gebring het. Hierdie Jesus is Here van almal. Julle weet ook van die gebeurtenisse dwarsdeur die hele Joodse land. Dit het in Galilea BEGIN na die DOOP wat Johannes verkondig het.
Hebreërs 6: 1 + 2. Laat ons nie stilstaan by die eerste dinge wat aangaande Christus verkondig word nie, maar verder gaan na die volle inhoud van die boodskap. Ons wil nie opnuut die fondament lê deur te praat oor die bekering uit ‘n leefwyse wat tot die dood lei nie, of oor geloof in God, die leer van die doop (dope – baptismōs) en die handoplegging, die opstanding van dooies en die ewige oordeel nie.
By sy geboorte profeteer Johannes die doper se pa Sagaria dat Johannes se aankondiging is oor God se verbond en dat die hoof inhoud van die verbond verlossing en vergifnis van sonde uit genade is (Lukas 1: 67, 70 – 72 en 76 – 78) 67Sagaria, die kindjie (Johannes die doper) se pa, is met die Heilige Gees vervul en het as profeet gesê: …..70So het die Here dit reeds van oudsher belowe deur die mond van sy heilige profete: 71om ons te verlos van ons vyande en en uit die hand van al ons haters; 72om Hom te ontferm oor ons voorvaders en sy heilige verbond te onthou.
76“En jy Kindjie, ‘n profeet van die Allerhoogste sal jy genoem word, want jy sal voor die Here uitgaan om sy pad gereed te maak, 77om kennis van verlossing aan sy volk mee te deel, verlossing deur vergifnis van hulle sondes, 78danksy die genadige ontverming van ons God.
Paulus verduidelik in Galasiërs hoe deur die doop met die Heilige Gees ons wat nie as Israeliete gebore is nie nou ook deel kry aan die verbond met Abraham. Dit is ook belangrik om daarop te let dat die verbond met Israel, die wet of ou of eerste vebond niks verander aan die verbond met Abraham nie, en wanneer hierdie verbond met Israel vervang word deur die Nuwe verbond bly die verbond met Abraham steeds van krag omdat dit by die instelling daarvan reeds in Christus bevestig is. Die Nuwe verbond is die verbond met Abraham met die beloftes van die verbond met Israel bygevoeg.
Galasiërs 3:6 – 9, 16 + 17 en 26 – 29 So was dit ook met Abraham:”Hy het in God geglo, en God het hom vrygespreek”. Julle sien dus dat die wat glo, kinders van Abraham is. Die Skrif het vooruit geweet dat God ook mense wat nie Jode is nie, sou vryspreek as hulle glo. Daarom het die Skrif al voorheen die goeie nuus vir Abraham gebring: “In jou sal al die nasies geseën word.” Dit is dus dié wat glo wat saam met die gelowige Abraham geseën word. ……God het sy beloftes aan Abraham en aan sy nakomeling gegee. Daar staan nie “aan nakomelinge”, meer as een nie, maar: “en aan jou nakomeling”, net een, en hierdie nakomeling is Christus. Hiermee wil ek dit sê: God het `n VERBOND MET ABRAHAM gesluit en dit TOE AL GELDIG gemaak. Die wet, wat eers vierhonderd en dertig jaar later gekom het, kan nie hierdie verbond ongeldig maak , sodat God se belofte aan Abraham nie meer sou geld nie. …….Deur hierdie geloof in Christus Jesus is julle nou almal kinders van God, want julle almal wat deur die DOOP met Christus verenig is, moet lewe soos mense wat aan Christus behoort. Dit maak nie saak of iemand Jood of Griek, slaaf of vry, man of vrou is nie: in Christus Jesus is julle almal één. En as julle aan Christus behoort, is julle ook NAKOMELINGE VAN ABRAHAM EN ERFGENAME kragtens die belofte van God.
God gee deur Moses BESPRINKELING met bloed in WATER as teken van die verbond wat deur die Nuwe verbond vervang word, (Hebreërs 9: 7 – 26) en die brief aan die Hebreërs bevestig ook dat dit die NUWE VERBOND IS wat DEUR JEREMIA (Heb.8: 7+8) en ESGIËL VOORSPEL is, en noem Jesus se bloed die BESPRINKELINGS BLOED VAN DIE NUWE VERBOND, (Hebreërs 12: 24) verder beklemtoon 1 Johannes 5: 6 – 13 dat God se GETUIENIS is in die water van sy doop ÉN die bloed van Sy dood en NIE net die water nie. Slegs as die doop water GESPRINKEL word is dit die BESPRINKELINGS BLOED van die Nuwe verbond EN God se GETUIENIS. Dit is hoe God deur Moses voorgeskryf het dat bloed in water seremonieël gebruik moet word om God se sigbare getuienis te wees.
DOOP/REINIGING WAT NIE DEUR BESPRINKELING GEDOEN WORD NIE HET GEEN BYBESE SIMBOLIEK NIE EN KAN NIE GOD SE GETUIENIS WEES NIE.
Daar word gesê dat die onderdompelings doop simbolies is van die dood en opstanding van Jesus Christus, maar dit is die funksie van die nagmaal. Die doop met water dui simbolies op die reiniging van sondes met die bloed van Jesus Christus, (Joh 3:25 + 26, Hand 22:16, Efe 5: 25 – 27, Heb 9: 11 – 15, 10: 22, 13: 11+ 12), ook dui dit simbolies op die eenword met die liggaam van Christus en deel hê aan die verbond (Gal 3: 26 – 29, Efesiërs 2: 11 – 22, Kolossense 2: 11 + 12, Romeine 6: 3 – 5) en as ons weiding en salwing/afsondering as priesters wat God moet dien (Efe 5: 25 – 27, 1 Petrus 1: 2) en ook as getuienis van God drie – enig ( 1 Joh 5: 6 – 13).
Geen van hierdie duidelik skriftuurlike beelde wat aan die doop/ reiniging met water toegedig word nie, kan met onderdompeling aangetoon word nie maar beslis wel met besprinkeling. Die saambegrawe van Kol 2:12 en Rom 6:4 dui op eenheid met die liggaam van Christus en nie sy dood en opstanding nie, daarvoor het God ons die Nagmaal gegee. In `n poging om bybelse legimiteit aan `n mensgemaakte seremonie (die onderdompelings doop) te gee word daar nou uit vertalings van die grieks (Rom. 6: 4 gebruik sunetafēmen en Kolosense 2: 12 suntafentes en beide beteken “saambegrawe”), waar begrawe los voorkom in “saam met Hom begrawe” as verdudelikende vertaling van die enkel woorde “sunetafēmen” en “suntafentes”, “begrawe” as betekenend “begrafnis” te voor te hou. Verder dan ook `n westerse begrafnis waar mense in `n gat in die grond begrawe word, en selfs die beeld word aangepas na in water begrawe sodat die uitkom uit die water op die opstanding uit die dood sou wys. Maar geen van hierdie beelde word word vir ons in die skrif gegee nie. Dus `n totaal mens gemaakte metode met `n mens gemaakte betekenis.
Alhoewel die ingaan in `n rivier tot by jou nek `n baie algemene vorm van reiniging was en nog is onder baie volke, ook die Jode en Christene, word dit nerens in die Skrif vir ons gegee nie. Onder die vroë Christene was die besprinkelings doop wel gesien as komende van die reinigings water van Num 19, in die brief van Barnabas (100AD) word dopelinge as volg aangespreek; “Van wie dink julle is die rooi koei `n tipe? ……… die (Ou Testament bedienaars) sprinkel oor en oor…… die (Nuwe Testament bedienaars) wat sprinkel, is die wat die ‘Goeie Nuus’ bring ……. Ons gaan af na die water vol sonde en onreinheid en kom weg, met harte wat vrug dra. Die Didache uit dieselfde tyd, of moontlik vroër ( 60 – 80 AD) gee uitgiet oor as die enigste vorm aan en sê ook dat lopende water verkieslik is maar enige water kan gebruik word en dat die doop in die Naam van die Vader en die Seun en die Heilige Gees moet geskied. Selfs 100 jaar later word die manier wat die vervolgde christene gedoop het deur Tertolianus (203 n.C) as volg beskryf: “met groot eenvoud, sonder aansit of uitsonderlike voorbereiding, en laastens kosteloos, word `n mens in water gedoop, en saam met die uitspreek van `n paar woorde, besprinkel, en verrys weer, nie veel (eintlik geensins) skoner”.
Waar die Skrif wel mense onder die water plaas in assosiasie met die doop is die beeld baie negatief, 1 Petrus 3: 20 + 21 sê dat dat Noag se ark dui op die doop en 1 Korintiërs 10: 1 + 2 sê die Israeliete is met hulle deurtog deur die Rietsee gedoop. In beide gevalle was die wat onder water beland het die wat verlore gaan.
As ons Jesus se doop as REINIGING MET WATER sien is daar `n sterk ooreenkoms tussen Jesus se doop en die wydings seremonie van Aäron as Hoëpriester in Eksodus 29. Eers gewas met water (vers 4) dan gesalf ( vers 7 ) en dan `n lang seremonie om vir sy sondes boete te doen sodat hy aanvaarbaar kan wees vir die Here (vers 10 – 37) ( sien ook Levitikus 8 ). Jesus word met water gereinig, met die Heilige Gees gesalf en deur die Vader aanvaarbaar verklaar (Mat. 3: 13 – 17, Hand. 10: 36 – 38). Mens kan dus sê dat Jesus se doop was ook sy wydings seremonie as Hoëpriester van die nuwe verbond (Heb. 7: 28, 8: 1 + 6, 9: 11 + 15). Die groot profeet van die Nuwe Verbond (Johannes) wy die Hoëpriester van die Nuwe Verbond (Jesus). Volgens Matteus wou Johannes eers nie vir Jesus doop nie deur te sê “Ek moet eintlik deur U gedoop word, en U kom na my toe?” Hierdie is `n verwysing na Numeri 19: 18 + 19 waar die reinigings prosedure met water beskryf word as “ `n REIN persoon moet die water oor die onreine SPRINKEL”. Jesus bevestig Johannes se siening van die korekte prosedure (dat Jesus rein is en Johannes nie) maar vra hom om `n uitsondering te maak omdat dit God se wil is.
Omdat Mattheus met Jesus se doop sê “opgekom uit die water” word dit beweer dat hy onder die water was dus onderdompel, maar dit gebeur na hy gedoop is en kon dus nie deel van sy doop gewees het nie. Markus sê “ Onmiddelik terwyl hy opgekom het uit die water, het Hy die hemele sien oopskeur, maar Lukas wat self `n ooggetuie was sê “en nadat Jesus ook gedoop is en terwyl hy staan en bid, het die hemel oopgegaan”. Dit is dit duidelik dat die “opkom uit die water” beteken weg beweeg van die Jordaan teen `n wal uit. Mattheus en Markus het Petrus se getuienis opgeskryf, Lukas en Johannes was ooggetuies, daaroor stem Mattheus en Markus so baie ooreen en kry ons dinge in Lukas en Johannes wat nie in die ander evangelies staan nie.
Die hele pollemiek rondom die doop is egter onnodig want die Johannes evangelie maak dit duidelik dat die doop met water deur die profete voorspel is as `n reiniging, en dat dit volgens Moses se voorskrif gedoen is dus met besprinkeling. Verder sê Johannes ook dat Jesus se dissipels al begin doop het terwyl Johannes nog gedoop het op presies dieselfde manier as Johannes maar waarskeinlik net in die naam van Jesus. Die brief aan die Hebreërs verduidelik presies hoekom God deur Moses al die wette en ritueele ingestel het, hoe dit na Christus gewys het en hoekom dit nie meer geld nie. Van al die verskeie reinigings bly net oor “ harte gereinig deur besprinkeling met die bloed van Christus – die doop met die Heilige Gees, en liggame met REIN water – die doop met water, dit is die besprinkelings bloed van die nuwe verbond wat ALMAL WAT GLO permanent van alle sonde reinig maar nie almal wat gedoop is nie. Om te beweer dat daar met die doop van kinders gesê word die kinders is gered is bloot onwaar. Die verbondsvolk hier op aarde het nog altyd gelowiges en ongelowiges bevat, eers na die wederkoms en oordeel sal God se volk uit slegs die wat gered is bestaan. Die doop en besnydenis is nie tekens dat mens gered is nie, dit is tekens dat God die wat glo in die seun van God red, redding was nog altyd deur geloof, in die ou en die nuwe testament (Heb 11, 1 Joh 5: 6 – 13, Rom 4: 9 – 12).
Die onderdompelings doop ontneem Christene God se getuienis, want die getuienis lê in die besprinkeling.