Baptism

[Ioustinos]

Hello friends!

I haven't posted in our forum in a while but I wanted to ask a question regarding baptism that is two fold.

For Reformed Baptists, does baptism represent our burial and resurrection with Christ as believers or does it symbolize the washing away of sins?

I ask the same of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters?

Blessings,

Justin

 

[Epiphoskei]

For Reformed Baptists, the answer would be both. The latter is on account of the former.

 

[Arete]

As a Reformed Baptist, my convictions are as Epiphoskei has said - both

 

[mlqurgw]

Hello friends!

I haven't posted in our forum in a while but I wanted to ask a question regarding baptism that is two fold.

For Reformed Baptists, does baptism represent our burial and resurrection with Christ as believers or does it symbolize the washing away of sins?

I ask the same of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters?

Blessings,

Justin

As a Baptist who isn't Reformed in theology but more in the John Gill camp I would have to say both but that for the most part it signifies our death, burial and resurrection with Christ. How is that for a run on sentence in the vain of Gill? Though it does represent the washing away of our sins it isn't the primary focus. Romans 6 makes it clear that we are to identify ourselves with His death, burial and resurrection. We come forth from the watery grave and walk in the newness of life. Our sins died with Him and us in Him. We become more Christlike in our walk as we grow in grace (not to be confused with santification) and knowledge of Christ and the Word but the work was finished on the cross. The blood of Christ, which the water represents, washed away the sin of all the elect in one great act as it did in one great sacrifice. It isn't a continual act but a finished one that stands forever effectual. As He is so are we in this world and in Him is no sin.

 

[Ioustinos]

Thanks for the responses guys


The reason the question came to mind is because of the means by which the two camps baptize. Reformed Baptist practice immersion while Presbyterians sprinkle.

My thought process was that perhaps Presbyterians sprinkle because their view is that baptism symbolizes cleansing (? I am perhaps wrong ?) while Baptists practice immersion as they view baptism as the symbolism as identifying with Christ in his burial and resurrection.

I fall on the Reformed Baptist side in that I understand baptism to represent our death and newness of life in Christ.

If any of our Presbyterian brothers would like to clarify their view I would greatly appreciate it!

Thanks,

Justin

 

[nill]

I've heard that the sprinkling is about cleansing, yeah. Like, reflecting the sprinkling of blood in the former covenant that was to signify atonement? Also, the hand on the head after sprinkling signifying imputation (I think), since the priests would lay their hands on the head of a goat, as a transferal of the people's sins, and then have it go off into the wilderness (hence, the term "scapegoat").

As you can see, I'm not incredibly well-versed on this.

I think we need a mode of baptism that can encompass all of this. Like mlqurgw said, identification with Christ is an important part. But like you said, Emir, cleansing is part of it, too. And there's also imputation.

There's a lot of stuff that is signified. I think the same with the bread and wine—the Lord's Supper: remembering Him and His suffering; Him being the source of our growth and sustenance (Bread of Life); Him dwelling in our hearts (a little sketchy on that one, to avoid the Roman Catholic interpretations); Unification with Him and with His body, each other, the church; etc. It's all there... and some people "take" communion in different ways: the bread being one loaf, until separated into two by the minister, the bread being pre-cut (my church back home did that, at least during flu season!), the "bread" actually being little, like, crackers, the drink being either grape juice or wine, etc...

So also with baptism: there are different ways of doing it, which is, I think, sometimes unnecessarily confusing, and at first glance, I would have to abstain from agreeing with any Presbyterian brethren of mine who say their Baptist brethren are "doing it wrong." Water is water; what matters is the Spirit, and the faith of the believer.

I dunno, I could be all wrong on this. I'm just typing aloud.

 

[Knight]

Methods of baptism vary for a variety of reasons.

Baptists believe in immersion for the reasons already stated. There is no overly direct interpretation given in Scripture for either immersion or sprinkling though I believe the meaning behind the Greek favors immersion.

Baptists also do not believe in baptizing infants. Presbyterians and Reformed do. I think that is partially why they do not practice immersion. It is bad form to dunk a baby in a tank of water. (That's a joke fellas...)

 

[Arete]

Also, while some of my Baptist friends almost color me a heretic for it - I will use sprinkling or pouring - especially in the case of infirmity or poor health on the part of the one being baptized.

 

[mlqurgw]

Also, while some of my Baptist friends almost color me a heretic for it - I will use sprinkling or pouring - especially in the case of infirmity or poor health on the part of the one being baptized.

Heretic!

 

[DD2008]

Presbyterians use immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. Baptism is not necessary for salvation but is a sign of the new covenant and an act of obedience. It is how one enters the visible Church.

This is the Chapter on Baptism from the Westminster Confession of Faith (The confession that we believe is the best representation of what scripture says):

CHAP. XXVIII. - Of Baptism.​

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his 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.
6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
7. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

Link: PCA: http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_contents.htm

 

[student ad x]

Also, while some of my Baptist friends almost color me a heretic for it - I will use sprinkling or pouring - especially in the case of infirmity or poor health on the part of the one being baptized.

Heretic!

...

 

[Knight]

Here is the London Baptist Confession...

Chapter 29: Of Baptism

1._____ Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 ) 2._____ Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )
3._____The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 )
4._____Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )

 

[msortwell]

As a Baptist, I see baptism as a picture of our baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit. I see it as the NT picture of what was represented in OT circumcision, that circumcision made without hands.

“10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” (Col 2:10-12 AV)

Blessings,

 

[Perceivence]

It is bad form to dunk a baby in a tank of water. (That's a joke fellas...)

Haha.

The Eastern Orthodox do it, though, not once, not twice, but THREE times.

YouTube - Orthodox Infant Baptism

 

[heymikey80]

Thanks for the responses guys


The reason the question came to mind is because of the means by which the two camps baptize. Reformed Baptist practice immersion while Presbyterians sprinkle.

My thought process was that perhaps Presbyterians sprinkle because their view is that baptism symbolizes cleansing (? I am perhaps wrong ?) while Baptists practice immersion as they view baptism as the symbolism as identifying with Christ in his burial and resurrection.

I fall on the Reformed Baptist side in that I understand baptism to represent our death and newness of life in Christ.

If any of our Presbyterian brothers would like to clarify their view I would greatly appreciate it!

Thanks,

Justin

They both represent both. The body is anointed for burial; the blood of the sacrifice is also used to sprinkle those covered by it.

I generally hold to affusion (pouring ) as the form of baptism as historical, as it "covers" everything dealing with the history of baptism. The Didache expects quite a range of practice, as do other references to baptism in the church fathers and the archaeological evidence (e.g., the earliest baptismal found ca 235 AD wasn't big enough for full immersion). To make one mode necessary would tend to deviate from quite early practices of Christian baptism.

Anciently the quantity of water wasn't the modal issue in ancient times. The preference was for fresh water; when back-translated to Greek you'll see the obvious reason: it back-translates to "living water".