Ancient Wisdom That Works Today

Is The Mode Of Baptism Illustrated In Scripture, and Who Gets Baptized?

How does Baptism save us? We are not born again by water baptism; but it is the symbol or picture of the real ark; Jesus who saves us. Water baptism is the symbol for what really happens to the believer. It can not cause one to be saved.

It is not the water or putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience.

“The like figure”:  the figure of baptism or being saved by water was a boat afloat, not immersed. The point is, it is not the water, but the response of conscience that is Baptism! A good conscience; not water that can only wash the flesh.

Not the putting away the filth of the flesh:  which is to say, what saves us is not the water in the symbol, but the answer of a good conscience; is what this text teaches!

The same is true of 1 Cor.10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;…

How were all people, including children baptized? They were baptized into the covenant family  by obedience.  The answer of a good conscience. Moses is a type of Christ, as was the ark. They were baptized by obeying the symbol of being safely taken  through judgment. Believers are saved by the efficacy of Christ who passed through the judgment of God for them and paid their penalty. We can do nothing to merit this salvation. Only Christ could get us pardon from the judgment that came upon those in the flood and those dying in the Red Sea; and the judgment to come upon all who do not obey Him. According to Paul and Peter what was done in the OT baptism and was an act of good conscience in obeying and doing the type or sign or symbol of that regeneration that truly pardons us from final judgment.

These texts says nothing of immersion. It speaks of obedience from the heart!!  The only way water baptism can be said to save us is as a type of the real baptism of the Spirit in regeneration.

The passage through God’s judgment which was procured by another; Noah and his ark, or Moses and his parting of the Sea were types.

The obvious mistake of those who state baptizo always means immersed, is manifest as we saw in the baptizo at the Red Sea where they were  on dry ground.

Pharoah’s Egyptians were immersed in judgment, while God’s people were said to be baptized as they walked on dry ground through the parted Red Sea. The only water for the covenant people here would have been the sprinkling overspray from the held back waters.  Immersion is more clearly a sign of judgment than baptism in scripture.

Baptism in these passages does not mean immersion in water but the answer of a good conscience toward God. Water baptism does not convert us, it does not unite us to Christ in his death or burial. That is the old heretical teaching of baptismal regeneration.

We see the contrast in this verse of water baptism with the non-immesion, non-water baptism of the Spirit. Acts 1:5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” NKJV

So we see there is more than one distinct useage and meaning for the word baptism in scripture. One is the sacrament of water baptism, which symbolizes a second, the real baptism of the Holy Spirit or regeneration and a third would be other ceremonial washings or purifications rites which did not demand total immersion. We have to check the passage to see what meaning is being used  and not assume it is always water baptism and for sure not immersion.

Any good lexicon will show more meanings than immersion or dipped. The word must be misrepresented, to mean only immersion or dip. Look up each OT and NT use of the Greek word for Baptism and try to substitute “immersion into water” and you will quickly see it can not mean immersion under water” in all cases.

The scriptural use of the word can have its own variant meaning that is different from its common secular meaning anyway. Dipping part way into water or immersing may be the secular usage of the word but that does not mean it can only be used that way in scripture.  Identification or union with Christ and spiritual cleansing or purification are the spiritual meanings of baptism. The Greek word was also used for dyeing, dipping, pouring, sprinkling, cleansing and purification. Washing was not only done only by immersion.

Baptize and Bapto do not imply a mode but the merging, identification, or changing of something,  as used in secular writings of the 1^st century, a bird’s blood baptizing the water. That is why the word is used for dyeing cloth or changing the color of the cloth or water.

The word baptize was used to explain the process where cloth was put into dye to color it. The meaning has less to do with the putting the cloth into the dye, than it does the dye going into the cloth and changing it to be like the dye. It is the identification, union, merging that is made that is indicated. The word baptizo in and of itself does not specify mode, but rather, effect. While baptism normally involves an outside element (but not always), it always produces a change or effect in the person or thing baptized.

This is why the symbol of water baptism is also a picture of what really happens in conversion, the change and identification with Christ. We are not plunged into the Spirit but the Spirt poured on us and put into us.  The water is the symbolic picture of people being identified with, put in union with Christ. Believers are infused with the color of Christ and become like Him by Holy Spirit baptism.

Water baptism should symbolize the reality of what happens. It should not be based on  an analogy used of regeneration which was we are buried with him by baptism of the Holy Spirit at conversion.

The word baptism in the Bible is used of the symbol and it is used to mean regeneration or the actual pouring out of the Spirit on a person that converts. Adults making a profession of faith may have already been baptized into the Spirit before the symbol of water baptism is administered. So they are baptized when united with Christ; believers are saved when identified with Christ’s atonement. The symbol is not the same thing as the spiritual aspect it represents. They are distinct. Just as the word circumcision in these verses one refers to the sacrament, one to the reality it symbolized. Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 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.

Col 2:11 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:

So as circumcision does not only mean to cut flesh, baptism has at least two distinct meanings. One the symbol, one the inward reality or being baptized into Moses or Christ or the Spirit; the spiritual baptism.

The symbol water Baptism should be a picture of  the true spiritual  reality of baptism.  That is, the Spirit put into us, or poured out on us from above.  Not us put into something or immersed under. The symbol should picture the reality and spiritual identification, the change in the person is the reality. Water baptism is the outward sign of an inward reality. The answer of a good conscience toward God. The mode of baptism, should be determined by the Biblical spiritual  meaning, not just the heathen use of the word.

Notice the mode the Spirit uses throughout scripture to symbolize the purification or sanctification that comes from identification with the Spirit or atonement!

Acts 22: 16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’  NKJV

The washing away idea is ceremonial purification or cleansing which  was done by pouring or sprinkling as the following show. Gen. 28:18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

Lev 8:12 And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him. (KJV)

Exodus 24:6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

Exodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Exodus 29:21 And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, …

Lev 14:51 And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird,  and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:

Num. 8:7 And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of  purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them  wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.

Num. 19:13 …; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him. (KJV)

1 Sam 10:1 Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?

Isaiah 52:15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: …

Ezek 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse  you. (KJV)

Acts 2:33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.  (ASV)

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. (ASV)

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Heb 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water,…  Running water is clean. Stopped up water is stagnant and not used for cleansing. Even if water was in a bowl, it was  poured out on the hands, not dipped into which pollutes the bowl for the next person.

Heb 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than (that of) Abel.   (ASV)

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

Rev 19:13 And he (is) arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

From all their past history, what would the Jewish believer understand and do for this new symbol of obedience and entry to the covenant people of God? This was always the sign God used for cleansing of sin, purifying, sanctifying, anointing, etc.  To accurately symbolize what is really occurring when we are identified with the purifying or cleansing pardon from Christ’s work, it is obvious from scripture, water baptism should be sprinkled or poured out on us from above.

Without a clear direction to submerge someone the Jewish believers would have continued to sprinkle or pour as the symbol of unification and purification.

Why would you want to use different words than God used to describe what He is doing to His people? God says He will sprinkle His people clean in the OT and the NT. Only satan would want to change the sacrament from a picture of what God says He is doing sprinkling to life, to immersion, the sign of judgment and death.

Every time some people see the word baptize they force themselves to think immersed in water.  That is not the only meaning of the word, nor is it the meaning used in scripture. It is to force  an interpretation on some passages as “buried with Him in baptism” to mean immersed in water when that is simply not what is stated.

We are identified with His burial and so as good as buried with Him or dead to sin which is the context of the passage. Immersion  is not a translation, but an interpretation. Notice this verse:

Col 2:12 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. KJV

So whichever definition of baptism you use, it only gets you buried, faith gets you raised.

In no possible way could Rom.6 teach burial and resurrection has to do with water baptism or the way baptism is administered. The word aptism in these verses is being equated with regeneration or conversion not the water symbol. Many words are used of regeneration; like we are crucified with Christ, or planted with. These are equal descriptions for regeneration. The passage could have as easily said planted with him in baptism or crucified with him in baptism. It had nothing to do with the symbol. Baptism is a symbol, not of death, but, of LIFE.

The symbol does not unite us to Christ but symbolizes that true baptism by the Spirit that unites us with Christ.

Just as circumcision, which was changed to water baptism as a sign of one being marked as a member of the visible covenant people of God, it did not necessarily mean being elect or regenerated. Being in the covenant community is not the same as being regenerated or in the invisible covenant of grace. God deals with families, and the nation of Israel and the visible church who we address as saints, believers, children of God but not all are converted at that time or even of the elect.

Baptism is a sacrament like the Lord’s supper; a symbol or sign of a real thing.  It is not the real thing. Many are water baptized who were not regenerated. Similarly, many take communion who are not converted.   Just as communion is a symbol, a reminder of the atonement not the actual blood of Christ saving us. We are saved only if his blood was payment for us because we were really identified with Him though the new birth and faith. Just as the sins of Israel were identified or united with the scapegoat. These verses following show us the spiritual meaning of baptism in distinction its carnal usage. Try using the definition “identified or unites” in place of the word baptism; then try “immersed in water” and see which is correct in the scriptures.

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 11:15-16 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?… (KJV)

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (KJV)

1 Cor 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (KJV)

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Though some people interpret that some of these verses refer to a special action of the Spirit only occurring during Pentecostal times, there is clearly a meaning for the word that cannot be: immersed under water.

Water baptism is a sign of acceptance into the visible earthy body of professing believers and their seed. Everyone who is born of the Spirit is regenerated; not all who get water baptism are true regenerated believers; because man can not know the heart, nor is he asked to. It is not a sign you are regenerated; just as not for all who were baptized in the Red Sea we converted. But all were members of the covenant people of God and called children of God.

Some people later manifested they were not truly His people; and when this was manifest they were put out or killed. Just as today, some who professed and were baptized manifest unregeneracy and are excommunicated from the people of God now.

This clear verse helps us properly interpret other verses. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (KJV)

We are baptized by the Spirit, into the body of believers. There is no room for water in this verse either. We are identified with all the other believers and united into the body of Christ.

The following verse points out another error some hold to.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

They already received the Holy Spirit before water baptism. Water baptism certainly does not impart the Spirit to us. Nor does it mystically activate manifestation gifts. This had already occurred as well.

 

We are also water baptized into the visible church or visible covenant people of God as a sign of what the Spirit really does in the truly saved, but water baptism does not put you into the Holy Spirit or unite you with Christ.

Since no one knows who is regenerate, man baptizes only into the visible body of professing people of God. The Spirit infallibly baptizes into the invisible one body, by regeneration which saves us.

John A. Battle, Th.D. from Western Reformed Seminary in his course on Eccleisology says: “The Reformed standards recognize a number of strains of significance in baptism: union with Christ, regeneration and cleansing from sin, initiation into the visible church.

Baptism should symbolize all of these elements, not just that of regeneration. In the scriptures the modes of sprinkling and pouring are most often associated with these concepts. 8.11 Further study has shown the centrality of the new covenant, and the place of baptism as the initiatory rite bringing one under its sanctions—the sanctions being pictured:

(1) While regeneration is an important part of baptism’s significance, it is not the

entire or even the basic meaning symbolized.

(2) Sprinkling and pouring appear to be the Scriptural modes which are most often associated with the new covenant:

Jer 31:31, 33, new covenant, write law in hearts

Ezek 36:24-27, sprinkle, put Spirit in hearts

Isa 52:15, sprinkle many nations (n6z6h in Hiphil)

Heb 8, new covenant replaces Mosaic covenant

Heb 9:10-15, “baptisms” of Mosaic covenant accomplished by sprinkling of blood of animals or of water; under new covenant, we are sprinkled by blood of Christ

Heb 10:19-22, “bodies washed” parallel to “hearts sprinkled”

1 Pet 1:2; 3:21, baptism similar to sprinkling of blood of Jesus, produces sanctification and good conscience

Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:17; promise of new covenant, pouring out of Holy Spirit; cf. Zech 12:10 and WCF proof texts from Acts (see section

earlier in this chapter); linked there to water baptism

(3) Since sprinkling often was of blood, it also represented the sanctions of punishment under the new covenant (cf. Christ’s “baptism”); and this mode therefore symbolizes death and burial, as well as new life under the

resurrection.”

The Greek of Acts 9:18, “and having stood up, he was baptized (a’nasta\v e’bapti/sqh anastas ebaptisthe),” indicates that he was baptized standing up, apparently in the same room.

Historical evidence shows sprinkling was used and heretics like the Essenes and Jewish sects and cults that rejected the Messiah used immersion.

Some authors say there was no sprinkling mentioned in the 1st 300 years. Those men who say this are not reliable. Often some will say whenever the word wash or plunge or dip is used it is complete immersion. Remember that dip or plunge does not mean it was immersed completely. The finger is dipped into the oil. We dip things part way in. We plunge into the edge of the river to easily bend down and get a handful of water to pour over the head. Even the Mikveh or fountains were not necessarily used for complete immersion but to have water connected to moving water to pour over things. Pots were used to collect the running water and pour over something unclean.

What is the point of running water?  That it stay clean so it can be poured over something. To climb into a fountain or pool would make it unclean. Menstuous women did not climb into the pools and immerse themselves to be clean, that would ruin the clean aspect of the water. It was poured or sprinkled over them.

The whole point of the running water was to symbolize cleanliness not to get into something dirty or already polluted by an unclean person, but it is “new” water that has not been used.

In scripture immersion is only the putting away the filth of the flesh, as in a women’s time of fleshly cleansing; or God’s wrath on the unregenerate.  Especially considering their thinking about stagnant water as unclean or polluted; immersion would not have entered their mind. If you want to be immersed, consider your company of those who are unclean and were immersed to death.  But the mode scripture uses to be regenerated is sprinkled or poured upon for purification, as with the saving blood of Christ and the Spirit poured out on us. This would be what was already done by Jewish believers; unless there were specific instructions to do it differently. But scripture does not give us this special instruction.

The Didache, ch. 7 (ca. A.D. 150; ANF 7:379b) 8.16

“But concerning baptism, thus you shall baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if you have not living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of

the Holy Spirit.”

Cyprian’s letters (ca. A.D. 250):

Letter 69:1 (ANF 5:376a), “It is required, then, that the water should first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may wash away by its baptism the sins of the man who is baptized; because the Lord says by Ezekiel the prophet: ‘Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness.’”

8.17Letter 70:1 (p. 377), describes heretical baptism with the term “dipping”: “For I know not by what presumption some of our colleagues are let to think that they who have been dipped by heretics ought not to be baptized when they come to us.”

Frescos and drawings from before the Roman Catholic church and through history evidence against immersion but possibly show the trend developed over time. They usually show the person standing in water, sometimes on dry

ground, usually naked. Water is poured over the head; in one case, sprinkled by a branch (ca.

A.D. 200, Rogers, p. 246, Clement F. Rogers, Baptism and Christian Archaeology (Oxford, 1903),). Frequently a dove is in the picture.

An interesting feature of these pictures is the water level; it follows a definite pattern:

First 3 centuries, water up to ankles

4th – 5th centuries, water up to knees (cf. pp. 262-63)

5th – 6th centuries, water up to waist (cf. pp. 277-78)

But often standing on ground, or up to knees (pp. 281-83)

Jesus up to waist, but John on ground (pp. 268, 289)

6th – 7th centuries, in fonts, water to chest

Baptizer outside (pp. 293-97)

Sometimes smaller fonts (p. 298)

9th century, 3 examples of immersion, all of infants (pp. 301-04)

It should be noted that it was possible to show submersions, if this had been desired; cf. the

Egyptians in the Red Sea on p. 258.

On pp. 303-04, Rogers states his conclusions:

“We notice from these sixty examples, ranging from the first to the tenth century and

coming from Rome, Gaul, Spain, Milan, Ravenna, Armenia, Syria, Egypt, Byzantium,

Sicily, Ireland, and the Kingdom of Lombardy, and the court of Karl the Great, that the

type is persistent, . . . As far as there is any development in the actual mode of

administration it is towards submersion, but the furthest step in that direction consists in

representing the water as rising (in most cases miraculously) as high as the neck. . . . We

have seen then that all the evidence of archaeology goes to prove that the essential part of

baptism was considered in the early Church to be the pouring of water over the

candidate’s head by the bishop, or the guiding his head under a descending stream,

followed by the laying on of hands.”

Rogers also lists and discusses 38 baptisteries dating from the 2nd to the 10th centuries; cf. his chart on

p. 349.

Observations from Rogers’s findings:

Normally contain 2 or 3 steps down

Depth varies, from 8¼ inches to 4½ feet

Diameter varies, from 2 feet to 62 feet

• • The biggest baptistery: the Lateran, 4th century A.D.; 62 feet long, oblong; 3 feet

deep; but it has carvings on both sides showing baptism being administered by

pouring

• • All fonts, and many baptisteries would forbid any immersions (except perhaps of

infants); some, although the dimensions are sufficient, are so constructed to forbid

immersions (as the baptistery at Stefano, p. 337)

 

Examples discovered more recently

(1) Church of St. Babylas, at Kaoussie in Syria

• • Discovered in the 1930s
• • Baptistery added to the church ca. A.D. 425
• • “In the baptistery the baptismal basin was large enough to receive a candidate into

the water but not large enough to provide for his immersion, so the ceremony

must have been carried out by affusion.” (Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past,

540-41)

(2) House-church in Dura-Europos

• • Earliest baptistery intact
• • Dura-Europos is in the Syrian desert
• • House-church built in A.D. 233
• • Discovered in 1930’s

8.20

• • Discussed by Finegan, LAP; in detail by Clark Hopkins, The Discovery of Dura-

Europos, esp. ch. 6-7 (pictures on pp. 97, 107); see also New ISBE 1/998; detailed

photos in Christopher Haas, “Where Did Christians Worship?” Christian History

37 (12:1; 1993) 32-35 (description of baptistry on p. 33)

“The greatest interest attaches to the small room known as the chapel. At its west

end is a niche set against the wall with an arched roof resting on pillars. This contains a

sunken receptacle which may have been a baptismal font. Like the baptistery in the later

church at Kaoussie, this was too small to have permitted the practice of immersion, and if

it was really a baptistery it must be assumed that the rite was performed by affusion.”

(Finegan, LAP, 499)

Some say but look at the Eunuch who went down into the water and came up out of the water. But if he went under water so did Phillip because it says this of both of them; read again closely to see your immersion filters at work. Isn’t it obvious they both walked down into the shallow oasis and they both came back up out of the edge of the water?

Robert Harbach, in his work The Biblical Mode of Baptism  gives some Greek to help prevent these misinterpretations.  “Here, then, we have one of two interesting words in Matthew’s account, the word apo, from (v.16). According to this, Jesus was not at all in the water, but by the water. Nor is it anywhere stated in Scripture that He was baptized in water, but with water. The difference between these two prepositions must not only be maintained, but also appreciated. The Greek preposition en has either reference to place or reference to means. When it refers to place, as it does in Matt. 3:6, it is properly translated in. When the idea is that of means or instrument, then it is properly translated with. The KJV is correct in having “with water” and “with the Holy Ghost” (3:11). The ASV is correct at this point only in its margin. Mark states, “John did baptize in the wilderness,” “baptized in the river Jordan,” denoting place. The King James translators properly understood Mark’s meaning when they translated the same preposition (en) “with water” and “with the Holy Ghost.” These venerable translators show understanding of en as it appears twice in the same verse: “in their synagogue . . . a man with an unclean spirit” (1:23). In the synagogue he was, but in the unclean spirit he was not; it was in him! Also we find, “set Him at (en) His own right hand in (en) the heavenly places” (Eph. 1:20), and, “is set down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2). So, better would be, “the Son was seen at the water.”

The other interesting word in Matthew 3 is katabainon, descending. As Jesus was baptized with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit was seen descending upon Him, fulfilling the promise, “I will pour out My Spirit.” Certainly the Lord’s baptism with water must be perfectly congruent to His baptism with the Spirit. John 1:31-33 (KJV) stands in proof of this. According to the KJV, Matthew writes that He went up out of the water, and Mark, that He was coming up out of the water. Matthew uses apo, from the water, and Mark uses ek, also, properly, from (the water). Mark cannot contradict Matthew.

Much appeal has been made to two other Greek prepositions, ek and eis, to support, practically exclusively, the ideas out of and into, respectively, in order to teach that the baptized went down into the water and came up out of the water, and that in the very act of baptism. But when you examine the usage of eis and ek in Scripture, you find something different from this claim. In John 20, Mary Magdalene comes “unto (eis) the tomb” to find the stone removed “from (ek) the tomb.” Here it is plain that Mary went to the tomb, not into it, and that the stone was taken from the tomb, not out of it. Then Peter and John “went toward (eis) the tomb” and John “came first to (eis) the tomb . . . yet entered not in.” Peter arriving, “entered into the tomb . . . Then entered in the other disciple” (vv. 1-8). Here demonstrated is the distinction between “going to” and “going into.” By itself, eis means to, expressing motion toward, as in Jn. 20:1, 3, 4. To express motion into, the preposition is both prefixed to the verb and added after the verb, as in v.6, eiselthen eis. (See Acts 9:6, 8, 17; Matt. 18:3; Jn. 3:5; Mk. 2:1; Mt. 6:20). So then, Mark 1:10, 11 ought to be translated, “coming up from (ek) the water” and “a voice came from (ek) the heavens,” as in John 20:1, “from (ek) the sepulchre.”

 Who Do We Administer Baptism To?

Was the church in the OT? Were there true regenerated believers in the OT?

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (KJV)

Who were members of the OT church? All who  followed and kept the covenant. Even foreigners who professed to adopt the faith and circumcised their male family members; children and servants. But only a remnant were really saved. All were called the Children of Abraham but the promises to believers and their seed was really only to the seed of faith; the spiritual reality. Just as Abraham also was not seeking a future Jerusalem reconstruction on earth, but he saw it as a heavenly promise, the spiritual meaning. The promises and foretypes have a more clear type in the new testament, but both picture the eternal spiritual reality to come.

Act 2:38 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.: 39 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. This was the promise, first given to the Jews but meant to be expanded to all nations. The same promise, the same covenant was to save not just nationally, but all the spiritual seed. It was given to children of professing believers and all nations of the world. The same promise and covenant made with Adam and Abraham to save them from the wound of the serpent by one who would crush his head. Adam had no thought or need of a nation for this fulfillment, only a redemption from the fall. Even Abraham  was not seeking an earthly city but a heavenly. He knew the earthly Israel and Jerusalem was only a foreshadow of the spiritual promise to his seed. And now in the NT we have that same promise or covenant being renewed in forms and signs after the coming of the redeemer. But it is still the same promise made to the people of God through all ages. So as Communion replaced Passover, baptism the new mark of God’s people, replaced circumcision. Who would the Jewish believers  naturally apply the sign to? The same as had received it before. Those to  whom the promise was given; believers and their children. Let’s look at some examples in scripture.

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, …

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

You may have forgotten that the people of the bible did not have bathtubs in their houses. They did not take off to go anywhere. They were baptized in the same mode as they described the picture of Holy Spirit baptism. Why would the authors use the words, fell on them, poured out on us, sprinkle us clean, etc. The scripture is very clear we are to sprinkle and that is what God did to us. It is rebellion against God’s clear teaching to immerse.
Isa 52:14 So His visage was marred more than any man, And His form more than the sons of men;
15 So shall He sprinkle many nations.

Ezek 36:25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
NKJV
Why rebel against the very words God uses to describe what He will do to us in salvation? The believing Jews would have sprinkled living water from a fountain or the shallow streams where John baptized because there is no water deep enough to baptize where he was.
You must have very strong clear evidence to do something different.

“Then what was the manner of their receiving Him? He fell on them and was poured out on them. When Peter saw the pouring out and the falling on them of the Spirit, he saw that the baptism with the Holy Spirit was the real baptism (of which water baptism is the sign), and it was accomplished by pouring! This pouring out of the Spirit on the people suggested to Peter’s mind John’s baptism. Remarkable! Would that pouring out of the Spirit suggest to the mind of an immersionist John’s baptism? How did John baptize? And how were these baptized, after Peter commanded it to be done? Could it have been in any other manner but in harmony with the outpouring and the falling on them of the Spirit? “

Have you ever heard of whole households believing at the same time? There is nothing in the word that says each one in these households was savingly was converted or even professed to understand and believe. You would be adding to scripture to say this had to be. You must start with a belief and then force a meaning on scriptures that do not say this to come up with that. Start with the word not your belief and it is not there.
That was not necessary or the way the Jews would have done it in the past. They did not seek to elicit decisions of their young to ease their consciences. Jews knew their children were already in the visible covenant and there was no need to try to get a minor, (who was not accountable to make contracts or give consent), to make the most important contract of their life taking a vow to God until they were of an age of consent. Unless a specific instruction was given to change, Jewish believers would have seen their children the same as they always had; part of the covenant people of God, with promises to their salvation. Children were baptized according to their parents faith, just as in the OT households were circumcised and made part of the visible children of God based on the faith of the head of the house. In these verses do you really believe every person in the house made a profession of faith, including any infants even though the word does not say all did?

Acts 11:14… who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ NKJV

Household is the language God uses and He deals with households by covenant. But salvation has come to the house, not necessarily each person in it.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Joshua 24:15…: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (KJV)

In each of these cases the household is said to serve the Lord or believe because of the faith of the head, not because each one did savingly believe.

One must first free themselves from the blinders of dispensational theology to have a clear understanding of the subjects of baptism. Those who do not see that baptism is the NT sign of joining  the visible covenant people,  just as Communion is the NT clearer sacrament replacing Passover; are usually still confused by dispensational concepts, where the scripture is chopped up in groups and only certain sections are looked at regarding some doctrines.  Covenant theology approaches all the scriptures for every issue with the awareness it is God’s unfolding of His plan to redeem one body of true believers through a visible earthy congregation by fulfillment of the one covenant of grace. A covenant of works was made with Adam who failed it and no one could ever be saved by that covenant. The covenant of Grace was made with Adam and Eve after the fall  and renewed through history as it was made clearer as to how this redemption from sin would be done.

As you look into this, consider that baptism is performed on professing believers not on the elect only. It is not known by man, who truly is saved. Adult church members are in covenantal relationship with each other based on their external visible profession. Man can not have covenantal relationships with other men based on things known only to God. This is why  there are wheat and tares or sheep and goats in the church. They are in the family of God and acting as brothers based on visible fruits, which sometimes prove to be an imperfect means for man to identify the saved; not because of a true spiritual reality of absolutely both being elect. The error of some is to think the new aspect of the covenant after Christ, is that now somehow only true believers are in this new covenant church. They know it is not true; the visible church contains unregenerates; which the invisible church of faith does not. But they get confused about which aspect of church or which aspect of covenant they  are speaking of.  Also they don’t see the “new”, does not refer to a completely new covenant anyway; for there is only one covenant of grace, one body of Christ. It is new in that the dim foreshadows and types are all replaced with more clear types, signs, knowledge, better sacraments; and the completion of the atonement. The final once for all atonement of Christ is done and also the indwelling of the Spirit now is done in a way that all are priests and may know the Lord and no longer need an earthly priest to intercede for them. Though these are weighty improvements in administration, yet it is still the same covenant of grace. We are all graft into Israel of faith, the same covenant of grace with the same promises and saved the same way; by the atonement. Yes in this new and clearer view of the covenant of grace, the law is written on the heart of the true believer. The whole law, all 10 commandments I might add. But the covenant community or people of God or church as we experience it and live in it, is not made up of only elect or converted. Just as there were non believing Jews in the covenant family in the OT, so are there now in the NT church. Yet they were all referred to as the Children of God, My people. And all of the children became covenant members and the males received the sacrament of circumcision as a sign of their belonging to the visible people of God, the church in the wilderness. We must see the 2 aspects of the word covenant. One is secret and deals with God and all the elect. One is visible, earthly and is the people who covenant together in the name of the Lord to worship and serve based on a visible expression. These people, though referred to as the church or covenant people are not all saved. To mix these two aspects of the covenant will cause much confusion throughout scripture. Were all Jews in the covenant of grace? They were all the seed of Abraham and Israel and covenant family. But this is the visible covenant. Not all Jews were elect. Or not all Israel is Israel.

The improvement in the new testament is shown in Heb 8-10. There is so much better clarity, it is called new. But it is similar to the renewing of the covenant of grace made over and over with Abraham’s descendants, Moses and David. These were not totally new, but new in the way of the performance. The types of the covenant that pointed to the reality are now dropped as the reality they pointed to take place.  Therefore just as the people of God were a group who visibly appeared to follow Jehovah and were partakers of the benefits of covenant life; so now those who appear to believe, by a reasonable expression of faith and manifest a life consistent with God’s law, are accepted into the covenant family with their children and receive the benefits of being in the church. These benefits include being able to hear the gospel and be with the people of God. The head of a household in Israel would circumcise his whole household because of his belief. Even if a foreigner became a follower of Jehovah, his whole house, children, even servants became members of the covenant, were called children of God and received the sign of the covenant, even if they did not express their own belief. In the same way we see examples in the NT when one member believes, the whole house is baptized as a sign they are now in covenant or contract relation with the people of God, or in the church. The sign of the covenant was and still is based on the covenant being made with professing believers and their seed. Remember the covenant that man has to deal with and judge others by is not made with the elect only, since he cannot know the heart, but with the covenant people in a visible sense. The covenant between God and the elect is not something men can live and judge by in this life since we can not see who is elect and who is not. So God operates His church through a chain of authority based on visible signs man can use to judge and discipline. We do not baptize the elect, nor excommunicate non-elect. We excommunicate out of the covenant family relationship those who no longer manifest the reasonable outward expression of an invisible inner work of the Spirit. This aspect of the covenant is a foretaste and picture of the heavenly church just as Israel the nation was, though it contained non elect and  a remnant of elect.

In children we can not see if this invisible spiritual work of regeneration has occurred until they reach an age where they can make  reasonable actions and thoughts. Therefore they are kept in the covenant until they reach an age where they can make a rational expression of their belief and walk. If they eventually do not make an expression of a reasonable faith, they would come under the discipline of the church to offer help toward  their conversion or they will be excommunicated from the covenant family; just as any adult who did  not manifest a credible profession and life. Just as in the OT, children were kept with the people of God until they manifested they were not following Him and were killed or sent out of the camp.

Though one is put out of the covenant relationship it is not saying they are not regenerated, but  just that reasonable people must manifest a reasonable faith to be in the covenant family.   And because some are left in the covenant family does not mean they are certainly saved; but just that they are able to manifest a reasonable walk. So the earthly covenant membership has only to do with visible signs, judged by men, not judging  the certain spiritual reality. Just as Phillip simply asked the eunuch, if you believe… Phillip could not know for sure; nor did he wait to see a lifestyle to prove he was converted. He baptized him into the covenant simply based on his words, I do, and perhaps the fact he had an interest in understanding scripture and God.  But many non-believers have that. This is why some churches have baptized immediately on profession of faith but waited until one was catechized and could discern the Lord’s body before making them communicant members.

Since it is not possible to only baptize true believers, and since many false professors are baptized, there is no problem in allowing the children of a believer to be baptized based on the idea that they may not be a true believer. Adults may not be true believers too. Since children are in the covenant family they receive the sign of the covenant. Since it is only a sign of union, not actual regeneration, and it is the sign of having made a verbal profession, and the sign of those in covenant relationship with the visible church, there is no problem giving it. It is a sign of those living in the covenant community, having a general promise or seal to them as God promised to Abraham’s seed; though not every one of the fleshly seed got it. Not all the baptized children of the new covenant will be saved. But the covenant family is the means God uses to call out His people. It is His usual way of advancing His kingdom. There is a much greater opportunity and more likelihood for a child raised in the church to be saved than a child born in some desolate land. That would be the exception more than the rule. And even as the church advances through the world it does it through the church family; those vowing or contracting with others to submit to the order and authority of God’s elders. It is a seal of God’s contract with those to whom the promises were made, that if they kept their part of the contract He would save them. They must follow through with faith and repentance or the seal or contract is voided by them. The offer is genuine if they obey Him. This is how baptism is seen a s a seal or promise of God’s covenant promises to believers and their seed.

This is what is meant by the reference to children of a believer being holy instead of unclean. Or even an unbelieving husband is said to be sanctified by his wife. 1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

It can not mean  they are saved because of their parents or spouses belief. This is presumptive regeneration or baptismal regeneration which true Biblical reformed Christians deny.  So the only sense they can be said to be sanctified or set apart to God is in that visible relationship with the people of God on earth. They are set apart from the rest of the world by covenant parents training them and protecting them from getting into the world. They are allowed to be included in the fellowship and activities of believers. This is the only thing it can mean. This is what water baptism provides; a sign of the person being brought into the covenant family, set apart from the world in lifestyle. It can not signify a group of  elect since we never know that. Even an adult making a reasonable profession is not baptized because we know he is saved, but because his profession entitles him to be in the covenant family. Notice even an unbelieving spouse gets some of the covenant benefits like influence from the believer and an opportunity to hear the gospel they may not have otherwise gotten if left totally in the world.

God works through His family on earth and through family households and heads. We call each other brother as  a sign of this family; yet not all may really be our brother in the true spiritual sense. Those with a credible profession get the benefit of the covenant and are not treated as the heathen. It is not sensible that our children be excluded from this covenant. Obviously all professing Christians live this way though they have never thought of why their children get these benefits and privileges other people do not. It would be virtually impossible to live any other way. God in His wisdom has set it up for practical reasons as well, that children of covenant families be included in the covenant life. Otherwise they should be excluded from all the same things that Christians are told not to do with heathen. This is not only non-sensible but impossible to live that way. Don’t you teach your children to pray to God? And why if they are not in a relationship with God? Do you teach them heresy that God would actually hear the prayers of a heathen let alone answer them? God has ordained to work through the family authority structure and made promises to the family. Not infallible promises that each and every child will be elect; but in the covenant of grace believers and their seed are  partakers of the temporal benefits, which may be the means used to bring them to salvation. Or in the case of Esau, a means of greater condemnation should they still refuse to follow; in light of this extra opportunity they had, that others outside of the covenant did not. Didn’t God make a promises to Abraham and his seed? Yet not all his seed were saved. So that same promise is in effect to NT Christians and their seed.

If there was ever a question if circumcision had a place with NT believers these verses end it.

Phil 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Are you the circumcision? You had better be.

Col 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the  circumcision of Christ, (and what symbolizes this circumcision of Christ?) 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. The circumcision of Christ is symbolized by baptism. Baptism is indeed the NT clearer type for circumcision involving everyone.

When a Jew was born again, he no doubt would have assumed that just as in the past his children would be in the covenant too. As Peter promised that in the new covenant the promise is still to believers and their children. Acts2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children…This reiteration of OT language would only mean one thing to the Jewish believer; that his children are still in the covenant. So we are not surprised to see examples in the NT when a person believes, his whole household is baptized; just as the whole house was circumcised in the OT when one joined the covenant people. Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

This everlasting sign of the covenant must continue until heaven. Gen 17:13. So where is it continuing in the covenant people if it has not changed form; like Passover becomes communion and stoning is now excommunication or being put out of the covenant people? All the eternal signs continue in a new better form until their perpetual everlasting fulfillment in heaven.

One reason Baptists have difficulty seeing this truth is caused by a desire to believe everyone they call brother in the church is really saved. We can’t know this. Our fellowship is based in the covenant relationship, not in knowledge of election just for this purpose. So is discipline. A person may be removed from the covenant people, yet be born again. He did not lose his salvation excommunicated. But because he broke the covenant and the church can judge only in the outward works, he is removed. So also people are baptized and make the covenant vow to live in accord with the word, who later manifest in lack of fruit or apostasy that they were not saved. Being in the covenant community of God’s people, the children of God, is not enough to be saved. It is easier in daily life to believe all in our church are saved and that our fellowship is with the true elect family that we will be with in heaven. But scripture tells us there will be those who are not true believers who will be removed in the last day from among the covenant people. It is this confusion of the visible church; the mixed multitude, with the invisible church; the elect believers from all ages; that causes the error.

Clearly we do not baptize only the converted. We baptize some who are unregenerate. So baptism is not based on our knowledge of the elect or converted, and we do not need to fear we might baptize someone who is not saved. It is not required they be converted to be baptized because we can’t know anyway. It is a sign of being in the covenant family, the visible church. Just as it was not required one be a true believer to be circumcised in the OT. And all those who will be partakers of those benefits will be marked by the visible sign of baptism, whether by virtue of a reasonable ability to outwardly manifest what appears to be from the inner spiritual reality of Spirit baptism or by virtue of being in the household of a believer.

Another problem is some do not clearly see the benefits of being in the covenant community. To be included in the people of God on earth is a great benefit. Just as Paul says There is much profit in being a Jew. Why what profit? It couldn’t save you.  The benefits are:  they knew the foretypes and signs and understood the covenant and promises. They knew of Jehovah God and the messiah that was to come. Though these benefits may not be enough to save them, they were an advantage and became a greater blessing once they were converted. They would be able to understand things a Gentile would need years of study to learn.  Being raised in a Christian family is a means of grace. God is more likely to convert the child of a believer than someone in a far land who may never get the gospel at all. God has chosen to work through the family and the assembly in a special way. He has made special promises to believers and their seed. Notice in excommunication 1Cor 5:5 that Satan can bring destruction to their flesh. But one must be put out for this to occur; showing us that Satan has some restraints inside the community of God’s people.

Never let yourself say it is impossible for God to impart grace to the heart of a child or mentally retarded person or others who are not able to manifest conversion in a reasonable way adults can observe. The Armininan might think this way because he thinks conversion is a work;  that a man must have the ability to make a decision to receive or the mental will to decide to be converted. But those who know salvation is all of grace should not be confused  to think that only a mind capable of reason and expression can be regenerated. Those who understand that it is God who saves by election and giving grace first; through regeneration which imparts the gift of faith and frees him from bondage of sin so he is able to do good and express repentance and works know it is not in man’s reason that enables conversion. If a new heart has to be given by the Spirit for conversion, then why could not the Spirit give this faith to a child or one incapable of a reasonable faith. If the Spirit regenerates one, it will begin to show a reasonable manifestation to the capacity the person has reason and ability. But to say faith can’t have been given before the reason  is demonstrable, is to say  something scripture does not.

The kind of reasoning that says “ scripture says you must believe and be baptized to be converted therefore you must be baptized to be saved”, would be laughed at elsewhere. It is like hearing one true statement, “humans give birth after 9 months of pregnancy”; Then concluding from it, a man can not give birth therefore he is not human. The point was not dealing with all characteristics of humans. Some statements in scripture must be taken as only a partial presentation of the subject. Compare scripture with other scriptures to see if exceptions or other situations exist, other than the few that address the same aspect, before concluding them to be  the whole truth on a subject.

A response from faith is expected from one who can respond. Just as the act of baptism is required of those who can do it. But the thief on the cross was in heaven without baptism; because he was not able to do it. A child may be regenerated already but not able to express a reasonable faith. This does not mean faith is not there or conversion from his natural state has not taken place; though  without these taking place, he could not be regenerated.

We already know God baptized young children in the Red Sea, so why would you change the covenant practice of children being under the authority and household protection of their parents without clear teaching to change. The Jewish believers would not have.

As to the question of  whether infants can be saved; for all but those blinded by remnants of Arminianism, these passages show us infants can be elect and saved, some even before birth.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Judges 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no rasor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb:

Ps 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope  when I was upon my mother’s breasts. 10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly. (KJV)

Isaiah 49:1 …The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. 5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him,

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (KJV)

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.  (KJV)

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: (KJV) Was this leap a manifestation of grace? I think one should fear blasphemy to say this was not a work of the Spirit in John!!

For a more in-depth explanation read Immersion & the Immersionists by W A Mackay  and a tract, Baptism by John Scott  Johnson. For great work in Greek and Archaeology read:

Theology 4: Doctrine of the Church and Eschatology

Western Reformed Seminary

John A. Battle, Th.D.

CHAPTER 8 MODE OF BAPTISM

 

But first seek to be free from any shreds of dispensational influence and become clear in understanding God’s only covenant with His one body, Israel, the seed and heirs of the promises to Abraham, all graft together into the old covenant root of the people of God.                        _{1982  Last Rev. 10/20/98}