Biblical Baptism Part 1: Where to Begin (Revised)

When it comes to Baptism I’ve pretty much covered all of the bases. I was baptized prior to becoming a believer and afterwards. I have sprinkled as well as immersed. I’ve been baptized in a Catholic church and a Protestant church. The question is which one of these baptisms can be considered Biblical? Is baptizing a child by sprinkling Biblical or must baptism be done by immersion and only on a professing believer?

These questions about baptism have been on my mind for the past several months. There have been other questions as well. What is the meaning of Christian baptism? How should it be practiced in the local church? To what degree should we fellowship with those who differ from our view of the meaning and mode of baptism? It seems to me that baptism is a very vital and important, though not fundamental, doctrine of the church. Unfortunately, the teaching I have received from the pulpit, in Sunday School classes, and other Bible studies seems vastly inadequate in the way they have taught the Biblical understanding of baptism.

Over the next few weeks, months more likely, I plan on devoting my thinking and reading to the Biblical doctrine of baptism. I must state at the beginning that since the time of my conversion I have been a member of several churches, all of which have been Baptist by denomination. Although this will in some ways bias my opinion I will try my best to allow my view of Baptism to be shaped from Scripture alone.

In beginning a study on the doctrine of baptism I am faced with a difficult problem, namely, where to begin. I have done some cursory reading on baptism over the past few months and the one thing I have concluded is that the debates over different views of baptism stem largely from the fact of different starting points. In their defense of infant baptism, Paedobaptists generally begin their argument by arguing for a covenantal view of Scripture, thus beginning their argument in the Old Testament. In contrast, those that argue for credobaptism begin by querying the New Testament for the first instance of baptism and then using that as their starting point. I’m convinced that this is the root cause of the differences between the two. In his book Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics Graeme Goldsworthy rightly notes that: “Throwing proof texts at each other like so many grenades only results in unseemly shrapnel and much suspicion and hurt. But if I as an Anglican am to understand my Baptist brethren; if I as a Calvinist am to understand my Arminian brethren; if I as an amillennialist am to understand my premillennialist brethren; and if they are to understand me, then we must try to understand each other’s starting points and theological assumptions.”

As I have tried to read books on paedobaptism as well as credobaptism I have tried to heed Goldsworthy’s words and understand the different starting points and presuppositions. However, as I begin my own study of baptism I must make a decision as to where I will begin and what my presuppositions I will begin with. I still have not settled the issue in my own mind concerning Covenant Theology as a whole but it does seem to fit better with Scripture than Dispensational Theology. That conclusion would seem to necessitate beginning with the covenants and therefore the OT. However, it also seems that when paedobaptists begin their study of baptism in the OT they presuppose that baptism is the New Covenant equivalent to circumcision in the the Old Covenant. This is a presuppositions that few seem to admit or take the time to argue for beforehand. If circumcision is synonymous in this sense with baptism then it makes perfect sense to begin a study of baptism in the OT, where circumcision is first instituted. However, we can not presuppose that baptism is the New Covenant version of circumcision until we have a proper understanding of circumcision (based upon the teaching of the Old and New Testaments teaching) as well as a proper understanding of baptism (based upon the New Testament). Therefore it seems that the place to begin when studying baptism would be with a proper understanding of circumcision. This does not mean that we start with the assumption that baptism is the equivalent of circumcision, it simply means that in order to properly understand baptism we must properly understand circumcision. Another consideration that persuades me to begin with a study on circumcision is the fact that many of those in the early church would have had an understanding of circumcision prior to being taught Christian baptism.

So as I set off on my journey to develop an understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning baptism I am going to start off with determining two things. First I need to determine what the Bible (both OT and NT) teaches about circumcision. Second, I need to determine how those in the first century understood circumcision. The reason for the second is due to the fact that those in the first century sometimes understood the OT in a way that differed from the true meaning of the text as explained by Christ and his Apostles. This begs the question of whether we come to the NT teaching on baptism with the biblical understanding of circumcision in view or with the prevailing view during the first century. I’ll try to cross that bridge when I come to it. For now I’m off to the Old Testament to attempt to develop a Biblical understanding of circumcision.

~ by apilgrimslife on September 10, 2007.