Here - Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

When we say mode of baptism, we are introducing
redundancy. We, as Baptists, actually don’t believe in
baptism by immersion. We believe in baptism, which is
immersion. Let me explain: the word baptizein in Greek
means to immerse. When we begin talking about the
mode of baptism, we prejudice the matter severely against
Christ having revealed a specific form, the very form of
the phrase there. Our word “baptize” in English is a lone
Greek word, an anglicized transliteration of the Greek
baptizein.
We could speak of mode of baptism if we were commanded
to wash persons with water. If the command
were to wash, louein, then we might ask, how much water
should we use to fulfill the command? Shall we wash by
immersion? By pouring? By sprinkling? It would be legitimate
to ask about mode of baptism in this case. But we
are not commanded to wash. We are not commanded to
wet, we are not commanded to soak and we are not commanded
to purify; we are commanded to immerse.
Are only baptized persons qualified
for church membership and
admission to the Lord’s Supper?
My answer to this question is
“yes.” The only person whom we
ought to admit to the Lord’s table
is one who is truly baptized, one
who has obeyed the biblical command
of baptism.
The question before us is, What
about those who profess faith? Are
we to invite all persons who profess
faith to the table and to church
membership or only those who profess
faith and have been biblically
baptized, that is, immersion upon a
profession of faith? Why should we
deny unbaptized persons church membership and communion?
Well, the basic answer, as I see it, is that they are
in disobedience. They have not yet obeyed the first command
of Christian discipleship, which is to be baptized.
Disobedience that is unknowing and unintentional
is not as bad as disobedience that is high-handed and
intentional. The Lord Jesus makes this distinction. The
fact that disobedience is unintentional and sincere does
not turn disobedience into obedience. Only the strangest
and most perverted logic can take sincere disobedience
and say that because it is sincere, it is obedience. I
am glad that people who have been sprinkled or poured
are sincerely trying to obey God’s command to be baptized.
But I must warn them that they are yet in disobedience.
Unbaptized does not mean unbelieving, but a
person’s belief that he is baptized does not change the
character of the divine command.
The commission of
Christ given to the
apostles determines
what constitutes
baptism.
name of Christ, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit is a true baptism. We must recognize that a Mormon
immersion is not a baptism. Not Christian baptism,
anyway, for the Mormon church is not a Christian church.
Eastern Orthodox immersions and Roman Catholic immersions
are also not true baptisms because they are not Gospel
churches. The Christian church, Churches of Christ
and Disciples of Christ traditionally have believed that
baptism actually accomplishes the remission of sins. That
is not Christian baptism. That is an overthrow of the Bible
teaching of justification by faith. Baptists have traditionally
not recognized their immersions as true baptisms.
What makes a baptism true or false? The form must be
correct for it to be a true baptism. We’ve already dealt with
that. But is that enough? What about the meaning? Clearly,
the meaning is key. Roman Catholics teach baptismal
regeneration. When the immersion of a professing believer
in a Roman Catholic church takes place, that baptism is
held to be a regenerating baptism. That is the proclamation
and doctrine of that church. That is not a biblical baptism.
So, the meaning of baptism
must also be right for a baptism to
be valid.
I would also argue that the commissioning
agent of the administrator
determines the meaning of a
baptism. Baptism was established
by Christ, in the commissioning
of His apostles. That’s where baptism
begins. It didn’t begin in the
synagogue. It begins in Christ who
established His church.
Acts 19:1-7 is a key passage in
helping us better understand this.
Here you have the 12 disciples from
Ephesus who come to Paul and he
sees that they have not been filled
with the Holy Spirit, that they have not yet been united to
Christ through the Spirit. He asks them about their baptism:
“Into what were you baptized?” It is pretty interesting
the way he phrases it: “Into what were you baptized?” That
implies that baptism gets its meaning from somewhere.
And they respond: “The baptism of John.” And Paul says,
“The baptism of John was.” He knows what John’s baptism
is. It has a definite content, a definite substance, a definite
meaning. John was commissioned by God to baptize for a
specific purpose.
The commission of Christ given to the apostles determines
what constitutes baptism. If we act in that commission
consistently, in Gospel doctrine, ordinances and
confession, and with a faithful Gospel administrator, then
we have true baptism.
Does the administrator matter?
Again, this is the question that deals with the question
of alien immersions. Do we recognize the immersions performed
by pastors of other denominations?
Let’s recognize that not every immersion done in the
Greg Wills is professor of church history at
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
and director of the Center for the Study of the
Southern Baptist Convention.
Southern Seminary Magazine | Fall 2007 page 11