New Covenant Baptism, Part 3

Orthodox Christian Baptism

By virtue of the title itself, believer’s baptism suggests that a person should be baptized because he or she has been converted. Unquestionably, baptism in the New Testament is always presented as an act of obedience which follows repentance and faith. John Piper states, “in every New Testament command and instance of baptism the requirement of faith precedes baptism.” The Gospels, Acts and the Epistles are in agreement on this.

The Continuity of Baptism in the Gospels

John’s baptism, Jesus’ baptism, and the baptism enjoined in the great commission are so closely related as to be largely indistinguishable in practice. Both John the Baptist and Jesus baptized individuals as they came in obedience to the call to repent. In Matthew 3:6 we find that John’s converts “were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (NKJV). In John 4:1, Jesus and his disciples “made and baptized more disciples than John” (NKJV). In both instances, baptism followed a serious faith commitment. Likewise, in the great commission Jesus commanded his disciples to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). Certainly, the Apostles, many of whom had been followers of John the Baptist, would have had in mind the same baptism as that which they had previously practiced under the ministries of John and Jesus.

While John Murray allows that the baptism performed by Jesus and His disciples was a “close relation” to that commanded in the great commission, he does not allow it of John’s Baptism. And, he sees in neither John’s nor Jesus’ baptism the pattern for the ordinance of baptism as instituted in the great commission. Interestingly, Murray himself notes that celebrated reformer John Calvin considered the two baptisms--John’s and Jesus’--the same as that which is commanded in the great commission. The author agrees with Calvin.

The phrase good and necessary inference is often employed by those who oppose believer’s baptism. They say that good and necessary inference in the administration of the sign of circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant demands that baptism be similarly administered in the new covenant. Let us, however, turn their guns upon them! Using the principle of good and necessary inference, we must assume that the ordinance of baptism enjoined in the great commission, is to be administered quite similarly to that which was practiced by John the Baptist and Jesus. To use the words of Benjamin Warfield, “nothing short of an actual forbidding” or “express warrant” changing the practice, would be sufficient to alter the pattern of believer’s baptism that was so clearly demonstrated by John and Jesus in the Gospels. Given the similarity between the several baptisms, dare we look to circumcision and the Abrahamic covenant for instruction on the ordinance of baptism?

Baptism in Acts and the Epistles

This same pattern of baptism--a baptism of disciples who come for baptism by virtue of repentance and faith--is the only pattern found in the New Testament. Acts 2 tells us that on the day of Pentecost Peter preached a powerful sermon pointing out the sinfulness and guilt of those who rejected their Messiah. Acts 2:37 records their response as simply, “what shall we do?” Peter answers in verse 38, “repent and be baptized, every one of you for the forgiveness of sins.” Clearly, repentance and faith preceded baptism on the day of Pentecost.

Likewise, in Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch is baptized after having come to faith in Christ. Acts 9:18 records that Paul was baptized by Ananias after having received the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 we find that Peter commanded Cornelius and those who had “received the Holy Spirit” to be baptized. For Peter, possession of the Holy Spirit was prerequisite to orthodox Christian baptism. Similarly, in Acts 16 we find the remarkable story of Paul, Silas, and the Philippian jailor. The jailor and “his whole household,” after having believed in God, were baptized in the wee hours of the early morning!

In a very interesting passage in Acts 19 we find Paul’s encounter with some disciples of John the Baptist. They had looked forward to the coming of Messiah, repented, confessed their sins and were baptized “into John’s baptism” (Acts 19:3 NKJV). However, they had not yet come to saving faith in Christ. This is evidenced by the fact that they had not received the Holy Spirit. In fact, they confessed that “they had not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:2 NKJV). Even though they had repented and believed John’s message concerning the coming of the Messiah, it was not enough to have been baptized based on a future kind of faith that looked forward to the coming of Christ. Therefore, after having believed in the risen Christ, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, and received the Holy Spirit.

Yet another very compelling and interesting case for believer’s baptism is found in I Peter 3. Peter compares the deliverance of Noah and His family through the floodwaters by means of the ark to “an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscious toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (I Pet 3:21 NKJV). The deliberate pledging of oneself to God in repentance and faith is inseparable from baptism. It is only too obvious, then, that “the answer of a good conscious toward God” requires a certain level of maturity and awareness. Any attempt to insert infants into the text is mere isogesis.

Baptizo

A common yet forceful argument for believer’s baptism is found in the Greek word for baptism--baptizo. The word baptize is a transliteration of this Greek word. The generally accepted meaning--even among great paedobaptist scholars such as John Calvin--is to dip or to immerse. In his commentary on the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, John Calvin maintains that immersion was the practice of the “men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water.” Obviously, infants do not make good candidates for immersion! In fact it was not until the 4th century, that infant baptism became the accepted practice of the church.