To appreciate the differences of opinion within Baptist circles on the proper time to administer the sign of baptism, you would have to understand the diversity within those who are labeled Baptists. To put it succinctly, imagine it this way: If you were to throw all of the Methodist denominations and all of the Presbyterian denominations into a single denomination and labeled it Paedobaptists and were to force them to work together and to throw money into a single pot, you would begin to see a bit of the diversity that exists among those who call themselves Baptists. Anyone who believes in believer’s baptism is a Baptist, be he a Calvinist or an Arminian, Reformed or Dispensational, an advocate of an elder-ruled church government or of congregation-ruled, alcohol connoisseur or teetotaler, etc., and it is for this reason that nobody cares to go to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention unless it is known beforehand that something like Calvinism or alcohol is going to be discussed, and then members flock to it by the droves. It is sort of like looking at a wreck; you know that you shouldn’t, but you just can’t help yourself.

I say this because I know beforehand that there is going to be some Baptists and perhaps some Reformed Baptists who disagree with me on this subject. And I obviously believe my view is biblical and therefore right, but so does Joe Blo Anabaptistlover down in Dallas. So then, I will attempt to draw my argument from what I said in the previous post, because that would be the most faithful and consistent way to deal with topic.

The Covenant Sign and Its Administration
It is important to understand what baptism is before we speak on its proper administration. Baptism by water, that which we simply call baptism, is a sign and a seal of the New Covenant after Christ’s ascension. We see this in the final command given by our Lord to the apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28:19). And I contend that baptism is the sign of the Covenant after Christ’s ascension, because it was not until the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost that the sign was preached by the apostles and had its full significance fulfilled. Now we see the first-fruits of baptism’s significance at the baptism of Jesus Christ where the Spirit descended upon our Lord and rested on him, but baptism as a Christian practice and as a sign of the Covenant in Christ’s blood was not realized until the promised Holy Spirit had been poured out (cf. Ez. 36:25-27). The reason for this is that baptism as we practice it now, post-Pentecost, is a sign and a seal of baptism by the Holy Spirit by our risen and reigning Lord (cf. Mt. 3:11). Through the Spirit, we are buried with Christ into his death and are thereby “born again” to a “living hope” so that “we might walk in newness of life” (cf. 1Pt. 1:3; Rm. 6:4). Baptism by water therefore is a picture, a sign, and a seal of the real baptism by the Spirit of God, and thus it carries with it no merit, no salvific weight, and no grace (aside from the grace of that to which it points). It is also for this reason that Baptists call the practice of baptism by water an ordinance and not a sacrament, because we believe that the grace rests in the real baptism by Spirit, not in the sign, and that further grace is given upon the remembrance of the real baptism through the ordinance of baptism by water (For more on baptism, see Baptism Now Saves You).

Therefore, when we as Baptists consider the ordinance of baptism, we consider it as a seal administered to those who have been brought under the New Covenant by him who baptizes with Holy Spirit (cf. Mt. 3:11). We as Baptists view the administration of the Covenant consistently with every other instance of administration of covenant signs in that it is granted to those who are under the covenant. For this reason, Abraham was circumcised after he had been counted righteous by faith in the Promise of God as a “seal of [that] righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Rm. 4:11). Likewise, every other sign of a covenant is administered to those who are under the covenant to which that sign points. For this reason, God gave to Noah the universal sign of the rainbow for it was to be a sign of the covenant between God and “all flesh” that he would not again destroy the earth by water (cf. Gen. 9:16, 17), and why every Jewish child was circumcised by requirement of the Mosaic Code in order to seal that child under the stipulations of the Mosaic Code. Furthermore, it is for this reason that Peter, at the Council at Jerusalem, denounced the circumcision of the Gentiles, because it would bring the Gentiles under the weight of the Old Covenant / Mosaic Code, thereby “placing a yoke on the neck of the [Gentile] disciples that neither [the Jewish] fathers nor [the Jewish disciples] had been able to bear” (Acts. 15:10). Therefore, covenant signs are given to those who are under the covenant to which it is a sign.

Therefore, when we consider the question, “When and to whom do we administer the sign of baptism by water,” we must ask, “Who falls under the New Covenant?” Many paedobaptists will answer that it is Christians and their children who fall under the New Covenant, for “the promise is for you and for your children” (Acts. 2:39). Now, I am not sure how many honest, biblical paedobaptists will answer with that reference from Acts 2, but to those who do, that answer is proof-texting of the worst sort. It is thus, first, because it truncates the declaration of the apostle Peter, for he says in full, “This promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off.” In other words this “promise” of which the apostle speaks is one that is for them, their children, and even to those who are far way, expressly the nations. It is for this reason that our Lord commands the apostles in the previous chapter, saying, “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). In other words, this promise is to be preached to Jews, to half-breed Jews, and to non-Jews, for it is a promise for them all. Secondly, this promise of which the apostle speaks is not the sign of baptism, but it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. The apostle declares, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the names of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38; cf. Acts 1:8). Thirdly, this promise that is for all is restricted by election. In other words, this promise of the Holy Spirit is for all nations, but it is not for every single person who inhabits the nations. For the apostle declares, “The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself (Acts 2:39). In other words, this promise is for all those who inhabit the earth whom the Lord our God chooses to bring to himself. Therefore the promise is not restricted to a particular nation, neither is restricted by whose child one is, but it solely “depends on him who calls” (cf. Rm. 9:11).

Therefore, when we ask the question, “Who is under the New Covenant,” we must answer, “It is those whom God has called to himself.” How then do we know that God has called one unto himself? We know this because they believe in Jesus Christ, they repent from their sins and worldliness, and they obey the commands of Jesus Christ. In other words, they become a disciple of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that our Lord gives his final command in this way:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Mt. 28:19, 20).

In our Lord’s final command, he gives the evidence of those who are under the covenant, viz. they will be disciples, and he gives the sign of the covenant that is to be administered to them, viz. baptism. Now I say evidence rather than requirement, because we learn elsewhere that this discipleship, this obeying the commands of our Lord, is an evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rm. 6-8:17). All those whom the Lord calls to himself and baptizes by the Holy Spirit walk in “newness of life” which is the fulfillment of the law of Christ (cf. Rm. 6:4, 8:1-4). So then, the New Covenant is as we said it is in our previous discourse, namely the Covenant of Grace, for God fulfills all of the requirements on our behalf, and we bear the fruit of his work (cf. Ph. 2:12; Rm. 7:4). And it to these, namely those who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit and made to walk in newness of life as Christ’s disciples, that our Lord commands the apostles to give the sign of the covenant, viz. baptism. It is for this reason that the call of the apostles is never merely, “Be baptized,” but it is, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:28), or, “Believe and be baptized” (cf. Mk. 16:16; Acts 8:12, 13; 34-38). No one in Scripture is given the sign of baptism apart from belief and repentance, for it those who believe and repent who are called by God under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.

Considering the Age of Those Who are to be Baptized
Therefore, when we come to the question of age with regard to the giving of the New Covenant sign of baptism, it is almost an irrelevant question. For if the question is one of those whom the Lord baptizes by his Spirit and calls to be his disciples, then we must admit our Lord is free to do as he pleases. Where the question does find relevancy is in the ability of the soul to comprehend his state under the law and sin and is thus able to recognize his own condemnation by it and is therefore able (if the Spirit so wills) to believe and to repent from his lawlessness and throw himself upon Jesus Christ. Some call this state the age of accountability, however, I am not comfortable with calling it an age but a state. For not all men are the same, and the ability to comprehend the law and thereby die by its comprehension is an individual matter not a universal one (cf. Rm. 7:9-11, see also On the Scope of Adam’s Universal Condemnation and Its Implications on the So-Called Doctrine of “The Age of Accountability”). Thus, when a soul is presented or presents himself to be baptized, it is not his age that must be considered, but it is his own recognition of his destitute state and his repentance from it and his belief on Christ. Of course, this will take on far less sophisticated verbiage when expressed by a young child, however, if a child can rightly comprehend these things and believes upon his Lord, the waters of baptism should not be refused to him.

However, with that said, a child should only be put forth for baptism if he understands his salvation biblically. I am thinking particularly of the countless times I have heard a child (bless his heart) say before a church that he has “let Jesus Christ into his heart.” Now, it is his teachers who are to be blamed for such unbiblical language spilling forth from his mouth, however, despite this, the child must understand his lawlessness and the Remedy for his lawlessness, namely Jesus Christ. He must understand that his disobedience to his parents, his cheating in school, his pulling his sister’s hair, etc. are all sufficient enough to condemn him eternally, and he therefore needs Someone who has never disobeyed his parents, never cheated in school, and never pulled his sister’s hair to bear his guilt for him. The child must know that it is not because of his not praying a prayer that he is condemned to hell, but it is because of his willful breaking of the commands of God. If he cannot comprehend this (even in the most simple of language), we cannot say that he has repented and become a disciple of our Lord by the baptism of his Spirit, and therefore we should not administer the covenant sign to him. Now, this is not to say that that child might not be under the care of God’s Spirit, however, I think it safe and wise to withhold the sign of the Covenant from that child lest he unwittingly bear false witness by entering into the waters of baptism (cf. 1Cor. 11:27-31).

Conclusions
All this is to say that the Covenant sign of baptism belongs to those who have been baptized by the Spirit of God and have thereby believed on Christ, repented from their sins, and have covenanted to follow our Lord by denying themselves and taking up their crosses. The covenant sign should only be restricted upon those terms, and even if the youngest of children can comprehend this (their parents being the chief ones to observe such a comprehension), then the Covenant sign should be granted to them. It therefore falls upon the shoulders of a child’s parents to know their child, and it falls upon the shoulders of their pastors / elders to teach the child’s parents the evidences of the New Covenant. It is not something that should be taken lightly, neither is it something that should be denied to those upon whom the Lord is pleased to rest his Spirit.

Therefore the apostle gives this command to the church, “Let not sin therefore reign in you mortal bodies to make you obey its passions” (v. 6:12). In other words, do not submit yourself to the slavery of sin and let sin be your Lord so that you follow after the fleshly passions of your body. As those who have been baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, we are cleansed not only from the condemnation of our wicked deeds, but we are released from the slavemaster who commands them of us so that we can live our lives in such as way that we do not submit to the passions of our flesh. For now, Christ has redeemed our flesh so that which was once use for wickedness can now be used for the sake of righteousness.

Therefore he writes, “Do you not present your [fleshly] members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your [fleshly] members to God as instruments for righteousness” (v. 6:13). In other words, that which we used formerly to perform deeds of wickedness should now be used to perform deeds of righteousness. Instead of using our fleshly members as a son of Adam would use his members, we should use are members as a son of God would use his members. Instead of having a mouth that is full of curses and bitterness (v. 3:14), we should have mouths that bless and are eager to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ (v. 10:15). Instead of feet that are swift to shed blood (v. 3:15), we should have beautiful feet that carry the Gospel of Jesus Christ (v. 10:15). Christ has redeemed all things in us so that we can now use them to glorify him and his Gospel.

How are we able to do this? The apostle declares, “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (v. 6:14). Sin will not be our Lord, sin will not reign over us, because we have, in baptism, been taken out from under the law and placed under grace.

Next: On Baptism, V. You are Slaves of the Master whom you Obey

This obedience which God accomplishes in his people comes about first through the emancipation from sin that baptism affords. Paul addresses this truth thoroughly in the sixth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. However, before we look at that text, I would like to explain how the apostle structures his argument. Yes, baptism is the apostle’s topic in Romans 6-8:17, however he does not come at the topic directly as though he were writing an essay on baptism, but he does it in response to certain objectionable questions, each question raised by a prior claim of his. The reason he structures his discourse in this way, I believe, is because he is preparing the church for the false teachers who will inevitably spring up among them proclaiming destructive heresies. He expresses this concern at the end of his epistle, writing, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (Rm. 16:17). Therefore, the apostle structures his discourse on baptism in such a way that the church will have a defense against those who bring in a false gospel.

The first question that is raised in objection to the apostle’s teaching is found in v. 6:1: “What then, are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” This question is founded upon the previous statement of the apostle in v. 5:20, viz. “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” The apostle’s answer to this objection is an emphatic, “No!” He writes, “By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” His answer to the objection brings in a new facet of the discussion. In the previous section of the discourse, the apostle goes to great lengths to highlight the superiority of the work of Christ over the work of Adam, yet he does not demonstrate how that effects those who have been taken out from under the headship of Adam and placed under the headship of Christ. The apostle, however, introduces the concept in v. 5:21, viz. “So that as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” however he does not expound on how this reign of righteousness occurs in the life of a subject of Christ until this point. Thus, from his response to the objection, we find that this reign of righteousness first happens through Christ’s subject’s death to sin.

How did this death to sin occur? The apostle writes, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life (v. 6:3, 4). Though the apostle does not deal with the cause for our death to sin directly in these verses, he intimates its cause through baptism’s end, namely, so that “we might walk in newness of life.” We who have been baptized into Christ, that is, we who have in some mystical and spiritual way been identified in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, have been identified for the purpose of our “walking in newness of life.” In other words, we who were formerly walking in the oldness of death under the headship of Adam have been taken out from under Adam and identified with Christ so that that which was old and leading to death might be made new so that we would no longer live as we once lived.

To demonstrate how this newness of life comes about in the life of those who have been placed under Christ, the apostle uses a literary structure that is common in his writings where he takes two concepts and structures them in such a way that each concept comments upon the other. This structure is an A B B A structure, where concept A brackets and comments upon concept B and vice versa (cf. Rm. 2:7-10; 10:9, 10). The structure is thus:

A. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his (v. 6:5).

B. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin (v. 6:6).

B. For one who has died has been set free from sin (v. 6:7).

A. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him (v. 6:8).

Concept A is that dying with Christ guarantees living with Christ in eternity. This living with Christ is the hope of our salvation, for the apostle writes later, “For in this hope we were saved” (v. 8:24). Concept B is that our dying with Christ has accomplished that which we could not accomplish, namely that Christ’s death redeems us from our slavery to sin under the headship of Adam. Therefore, our union with Christ in his death freed us from the bondage of sin, for our union with him, as the apostle writes, “Crucified our old man with Christ in order that the body of sin would be eradicated.”

The structure of the text is thus, because the hope that with have of living with Christ is contingent upon our emancipation from sin’s bondage. We cannot live with Christ apart from freedom from sin, for no one will see God unless he be righteous and do the works of righteousness. For God will, as the apostle writes earlier, “Render to each one according to his works” (v. 2:6).

Now it needs to be noted that the apostle does not write, “He will render to each one by his works,” but that, “He will render to each one according to his works. The difference is that God does not repay salvation based upon the merits of good works, but that he gives salvation in accordance to the works that he produces in those who are in him. This notion is seen everywhere in Scripture and perhaps most clearly in another epistle of the apostle Paul, where he writes, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” Why? “Because it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Ph. 2:12, 13). Therefore, God is just to render to men according to their works, because they do not work for God in their natural and foul state, but they work for God in their state under Christ.

It is for this reason that the apostle ends the previous section, writing, “Grace might also reign through righteousness leading to eternal life” (v. 5:21). For God in his divine ordinance, has not chosen to save men by merely granting to them life in eternity, but he saves men in such a way that they become righteous now, and the fruits of that righteousness lead to life everlasting.

Next: On Baptism, IV. Let Not Sin Reign in Your Mortal Bodies

The Good News is that God has not left us to ourselves. For Paul declares in Romans 5 that that same Offspring that preserved the life and the holiness of ancient Israel has come into the world as the Second Adam–the second head of the human race–and where the first Adam failed, the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, succeeded. Where the first Adam brought judgment into the world, the Second Adam–Jesus Christ brought justification into the world. Where the first Adam brought the reign of death, the Second Adam–Jesus Christ brought the reign of righteousness unto eternal life. Where the first Adam was disobedient, the Second Adam–Jesus Christ was obedient. Where the first Adam brought the condemnation of the law, the Second Adam–Jesus Christ brought the abundance of grace.

Therefore, the question becomes not, “What work must I do, or how shall I exercise my will,” but, “How am I, a son of Adam, to be taken out from Adam’s headship and placed under the headship of Jesus Christ?” “How am I, a disobedient and faithless person, to be placed under the One who fulfilled the obedience of faith?”

And thus we come to the third option of dealing with Paul’s “obedience of faith,” and that option is baptism. “What business does water have to do with obedience?” you might ask. The apostle Paul gives perhaps the most thorough explanation of this truth in Romans 6-8:17, however, before we look at that text, it would be profitable to look at Scripture outside of the apostle Paul. Concerning this truth, the apostle Peter writes:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him (1Pt. 3:18-22).

The apostle intimates that baptism in its essence is not the removal of dirt from the body, i.e. by water, but it is an appeal to God for good conscience. How does one have a good conscience? By doing as he ought to do–by obeying the commands of God. We know this is the case, for in the paragraph preceding this text, the apostle writes, “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed … having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (1Pt. 3:13, 14, 16). Therefore, baptism by God results in a good conscience which comes about by obedience.

And lest we think that baptism is a post-Christ ordinance, the prophet Ezekiel testifies about this reality and its significance in the New Covenant:

I will take you from the nations (or Gentiles, cf. Is. 60) and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God (Ez. 36:24-28).

Therefore, the prophet declares, as the apostle declares, that baptism results in the obedience of God’s people. How? Because God places in his people a new heart and a new spirit, and he puts his Spirit in us so that we will “walk in [his] statutes and be careful to obey [his] rules.” Therefore, man’s inability to fulfill the obedience of faith is remedied by God’s ability, for it is God who works in his people to bring them to obedience through Jesus Christ. The question that remains then is, “How is this accomplished?”

Next: On Baptism, III. Redemption from the Slavery of Sin

The sad irony for most of us who call ourselves Baptists is that we bear baptism in our denominational title, yet we by and large have no clue what baptism is. In this way, we are much like the Circumcision party of whom the apostle Paul writes in Galatians 5 in that we, like them, bear the symbol of God’s covenant in our title, and, we, like them, understand the symbol of the covenant with great precision, and yet we do not understand the reality behind the symbol. We, like the Circumcision party, are zealously meticulous about practicing the symbol correctly, giving lectures and preaching sermons on why baptism by immersion is the only acceptable mode of baptism, all the while neglecting to teach upon the reality of baptism. We will harp upon the mode of the symbol to such detail so as to say that a baptizer cannot hold the nose of the one being baptized because dead people do not hold their noses, yet we neglect to teach that baptism is matter of the heart performed by the Spirit of God not by the letter of the law.

“What is the big deal? Why does this zealotry upon the proper mode of baptism have any weight upon the health of the church?” The reason that this emphasis upon the proper mode of baptism has been a burden upon the church is that it more often than not draws attention from the teaching of the reality that is baptism. And by focusing upon the symbol and neglecting the reality, we who call ourselves Baptists have neglected the proper teaching of the Gospel. For if what the apostle Peter writes is true, namely that “Baptism saves you” (1Pt. 3:21), and salvation comes through the Gospel alone, then baptism is the Gospel. Therefore, our proper understanding of baptism is essential to our proper understanding of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

However, before I address the proper understanding of baptism and the Gospel, I need to first address why we need baptism and the Gospel that accords with baptism. In his Epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul bookends his letter by testifying that he has two charges as an apostle: to preach the Gospel and to bring about what he calls the “obedience of faith” in those to whom he preaches (Rm. 1:1, 5; 16:25, 26). As we read further into the Epistle, we find that these two charges given to the apostle–to preach the Gospel and to bring about the obedience of faith–are not two separate charges, but they are in fact the same charge. In other words, the Gospel is the obedience of faith. For we find in the Epistle that no one will see God and have life apart from the Gospel, and no will see God and have life apart from the obedience of faith. For the apostle writes, “He will render to each one according to his works. To those who by patience in well doing seek glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury” (Rm. 2:6-8). Therefore, obedience is necessary for salvation and eternal life, and disobedience leads to damnation. Therefore, since obedience to the law of God saves a soul, then obedience therefore has some part in the Gospel.

However, despite the clear declaration that “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rm. 2:13), the apostle seems on the surface to contradict himself later in the letter by writing that salvation comes from faith alone apart from works of the law. He writes, “For the Promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents (obeyers) of the law who are to the be the heirs, faith is null and the Promise is void” (Rm. 4:14). Thus he writes later, “Therefore, we have been justified by faith” (Rm. 5:1), seemingly contradicting what he had written earlier, namely, “The doers (obeyers) of the law will be justified” (Rm. 2:13). So then which is it? Are we justified by faith, or are we justified by obedience?

The answer to the question is not an easy one, and it has been typically answered in one of three ways. Two of the ways are false ways and are prevalent in the church even now, and one is true and not as prevalent. Both false ways distort the language of the Gospel, and both are, because of this, a false gospel. The first of the two false ways to deal with what the apostle calls the obedience of faith is the emphasis of obedience to the neglect of faith. This is what we would call a works-based Christianity. And though it is found across denominational lines, the chief example of this way is Roman Catholicism. These who hold to such a works-based gospel focus upon the deeds of men and neglect the righteousness that comes by faith, and as such, they must distort the language of the Gospel to change the Christian religion from a heart and Spirit-based religion to one that is deeds based. Thus when you speak to many Roman Catholics, you will hear them speak of charity instead of love, of penance instead of repentance, of service instead of worship, and of sacrament instead of grace–all these manipulations highlighting their distortion of the Gospel.

The second is its opposite, and it likewise distorts the Gospel and its language. It is the response the apostle’s declarations that emphasizes faith to the neglect of obedience, and it is prevalent in many churches who call themselves Evangelical. This way emphasizes the initial will and response to its gospel call, and neglects the fruits of true faith, which is obedience unto holiness and eternal life. Thus those who hold to such distort the language of the Gospel by using phrases such as “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior” instead of “Believe and repent,” “Once saved, always saved” instead of the doctrine of the “Perseverance of the Saints,” and, perhaps the worst of all, “You have accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior, will you not accept him as your Lord?”

And though both distort the language of the Gospel so as to make it what it is not, both have a much more fundamental problem, namely they both rest upon the work of men. This is such a problem because both presume that men by their nature are able in their present state to perform in such a way so as to bring themselves into God’s favor. The problem with such a presumption is that the apostle Paul declares in Romans 5 that all men are sons of Adam, and as his sons, have him as their head and are therefore children of disobedience and slaves of sin and unrighteousness. Thus the apostle says of men in Adam:

None is righteous, no not one;
No one understands, no one seeks for God;
All have turned aside, together they have become worthless;
No one does good, not even one;
Their throat is an open grave;
…They use their tongues to deceive;
…The venom of asps is under their lips;
Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness;
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
In their paths are ruin and misery;
…And the way of peace they have not known;
…There is no fear of God before their eyes (Rm. 3:10-18).

For this reason, no man can work his way to God, for, “No one does good, not even one,” and no one can will his way to God, for, “No one understands, no one seeks for God.” It is for this reason that the apostle writes later in the Epistle, “So then, [salvation] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy” (v. 9:16), and why he quotes the prophet Isaiah later in that chapter same concerning Israel, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah” (v. 9:29).

Next: On Baptism: II. The Remedy to Man’s Inability

And because of our focus on the physical ordinance of baptism and our neglect of the reality of baptism, we as Baptists are terribly confused by such declarations as that of the apostle Peter, who wrote, “Baptism now saves you” (1Pet. 3:21). For we have so ritualized and despiritualized the practice of baptism that we have become unbiblical in our understanding of it despite our denomination’s title. And instead of doing as we ought and running to the Scriptures to discover what true baptism is, we do as many have done with other doctrines by forming our doctrines and then explaining away passages that do not fit our doctrinal understanding rather than explaining them.

And the reality of baptism is not a trite reality. For if what the apostle Peter says of baptism is true, namely that it saves us, we who claim to have salvation should be eager to understand it. And if we do not understand baptism, we should by way of the apostle’s declaration not be so eager to proclaim that we have understood our salvation. For if salvation comes by baptism, and we declare, as most Baptists do, that no one is saved by baptism, we have much explaining to do.

If then baptism is not merely the immersion of a person under water, what is baptism? To form my answer, I am going to use two sections of Scripture, Romans 6-8:17 and 1 Peter 3:18-22. For while these two passages were penned by two different authors, their testimony to baptism is singular, and it is not, as Peter writes, “The removal of dirt from the body” (1Pet. 3:21).

1. Baptism is Identity in the Death of Christ
The apostle Paul writes concerning baptism, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rm. 6:3,4). What the apostle is speaking of in this passage is not a physical occurrence in the life of the believer, but he is speaking of a spiritual reality of all those who are in Christ. All who are in Christ, irrespective of the depth to which they were plunged or the amount of water that was poured upon their heads, have been baptized into the death of Christ.

This baptism, this identification in the death of Christ, happened so that we who were once slaves of sin would be set free from our slavery to sin, for, “One who has died has been set free from sin” (Rm. 6:7). The apostle Peter calls this what Christ has done, “the preaching to the spirits in prison” (1Pet. 3:19), for apart from Christ all men are prisoners to sin and disobedience (cf. 1Pet. 3:20).

This slavery to sin has come through the Law of God, for men who are slaves to sin are at their core rebellious to God and therefore rebel when they comprehend the law of God. Romans 7 is a full exposition of this reality, and there the apostle writes:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin seizing an opportunity through the commandment produced in me all kinds of covetousness. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me (Rm. 7:7-11).

And the remedy for this condition brought about through sin’s utilization of the law is not law-keeping in the flesh, as the speaker of Romans 7:14-25 demonstrates the futility of such an attempt, but it is baptism into the death of Christ. For through baptism into the death of Christ we have been set free from our bondage to the law and therefore have been set free to obey God. The apostle puts it this way:

Do you not know, brothers … that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? … You also have died to law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Rm. 7:1, 4-6).

Therefore, our baptism into the death of Christ afforded for us two things, release from the slavery of sin and the ability to bear fruit for God. The apostle calls this ability to bear fruit to God slavery (Gr. doulein) in the new way of the Spirit (Rm. 7:8), and previously slavery to obedience (Rm. 6:16), to righteousness (Rm. 6:18), and to God (Rm. 6:22) leading to sanctification and eternal life (Rm. 6:22,23). It is for this reason that Peter is able to write, “Baptism now saves you” (1Pet. 3:21), for our baptism into the death of Christ sets us free from our bondage to sin and puts us into bondage to God, which is true freedom (cf. Jn. 8:36, where Christ speaks of slavery to sin).

In light of the fleshly inability of the speaker of Romans 7:14-25 to keep the righteous requirement of the law while bound to sin, the apostle writes:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done, what the law weakened by the flesh could not do, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rm. 8:1-4).

The seemingly ironic reality that we who have died to the law and set free from it participate in is that we have not died to the law in order to be rid of it, but we have died to the law so that we would be released from the bondage of sin and, by that release, obtain the ability to keep the law. For apart from baptism into Christ and transfer under the slavery of the Spirit, all men who esteem the law are as the speaker of Romans 7:14-25 is, desirous to do what is right, but unable to do it (cf. Rm. 7:18). But now, we who have been baptized into the death of Christ Jesus have the ability to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law (Rm. 8:4), and now are able, as the apostle Peter writes, “[To] appeal to God for good conscience” (1Pet. 3:21). For we who have been baptized have not been merely made wet, but we have been brought under the very Spirit of God so that we now do the requirement of the law that we desire to do, and we put to death the deeds of the body which we were formerly unable to do (Rm. 8:13).

2. Baptism is Identity in the Resurrection of Christ
Because of our union in the death of Christ, we who have been baptized have the hope that we will have eternal life. The apostle Paul writes, “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. … Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him” (Rm. 6:5; 8). This hope that we have in our identity with Christ in his resurrection is not some unfounded doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” but it is based upon our union with Christ in his death and our ability to keep the law and put to death the deeds of the flesh because of that union. For, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rm. 8:8), and, “If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live” (Rm. 8:13). And, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rm. 8:9), and, “All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Rm. 8:14). Therefore our salvation and hope of resurrection rests in our baptism, for apart from baptism we are fleshly and unable to do the righteousness of the law (cf. Rm. 7:14; 18), for those who are fleshly are hostile to God and do not submit to God’s law because they cannot, and therefore they cannot please God (Rm. 8:7,8).

Final Thoughts: Baptism is Salvation
What is all this to say but that baptism is salvation? For no one is saved apart from baptism, for no one is united with Christ apart from baptism. That which we call baptism, be it by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, is merely a shadow and a picture of the reality of baptism, and to focus so heavily upon the mode of the shadow and to neglect the reality is a great atrocity. Are some modes of physical baptism a better illustration of the reality of baptism than others? Of course, but at the end of the day, the picture is still a picture. It saddens my heart greatly that those among us who have been baptized into Christ feel as though we must divide over the mode of the picture when we all are partakers in the reality. The picture of baptism will one day pass just as the equivalent picture of circumcision passed, but the reality of baptism will remain forever. Why cannot we who will fellowship for Eternity in the presence of him who baptized us by his Spirit not fellowship now? I hope that by God’s grace we one day will, recognizing that despite our divisions there is yet, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:5,6). Amen.

Though I find myself agreeing with Piper on his stance on baptism and church membership, it is not because I have wavered in what I believe is biblical concerning baptism (see Why I am a Baptist). I have, however, since concluded that the issue is not one on the validity of believer’s baptism over other teachings on baptism, but it is one concerning the doctrine of the Church and how the Church is to be gathered together and comprised. The question that must be raised is not, “Is believer’s baptism biblical?” but it is, “Should fellowship be severed because of one’s stance on baptism?” Should we as Baptists deny membership to one who is clearly in Christ and desires membership in a Baptist church but disagrees on the nature of the doctrine of baptism?

The answer that I offer is a resounding “No.” We should not deny membership to those who are clearly of Christ who disagree, at the time of their request for membership, on the Baptist stance on baptism. Why? Because, first, as Piper intimated in one of his arguments on the matter, we are hypocrites if we do. We as American Baptists will admit into our churches persons who possess all sorts unorthodox beliefs insofar as they will submit to the one doctrine of believer’s baptism. With regards to other doctrines, we presume that they, as they grow in the faith and godliness, will, under the teaching of the Word, in time grow out of their heterodoxy and be conformed to the right teachings of Scripture. Why should one’s stance on the doctrine of baptism be any different? Are we so insecure as to the biblical validity of our stance of baptism that we are not willing to allow those who disagree with us at the time of their membership to come under the teaching of the Word and through teaching and time be conformed to our view on baptism? Should we refuse their fellowship now in this passing age when we will surely be in their fellowship at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?

Secondly, denying membership based upon believer’s baptism by immersion distorts the nature of the church. The church is, in its simplest form, the gathering together of genuine followers of Christ in a particular locale. We have lost this notion in the American church, where multiple churches can occupy different corners of the same intersection. Therefore, instead of finding, for example, the church at Raleigh, we find a Baptist church, a Presbyterian church, and a Methodist church all within one hundred yards of the other. Granting that all these churches submit to their Lord Jesus Christ as their Head, it is strange and troubling that we would refuse to break bread with them now. We, rather than letting our doctrinal diversity act as iron sharpening iron, break bread only with those who align themselves exactly with us on particular doctrines so as to eliminate all discord within our particular spheres. We do not practice this for the sake of biblical unity, but we practice it for the sake of our own comfort. We do not wish to be challenged when we gather together, but we rather shop around for churches until all grounds for challenge are eliminated. This creates a stagnancy within the church and then allows for other doctrinal fallacies to creep in since the church is unfamiliar with and unequipped to address doctrine.

Thirdly, Scripture never gives warrant to break fellowship with one another on the nature of baptism. We are, however, instructed by the apostle in his first letter to the Corinthians, not to associate with certain persons, and there he writes:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1Cor. 5:9-13, emphasis mine).

The apostle declares in this text that the only reason for the breaking of fellowship is regards to carnality. We should not break bread with those who call themselves our brothers when they exhibit worldliness not doctrinal differences. The reason is to keep the church pure and to promote godliness and holiness within the body. We would be much better off in our Baptist churches today if we were committed to purging the carnal from among our membership rather than turning away the paedobaptist! We, however, are much happier to break bread with licentious who are immersed than the godly who are not.

Though I do not expect that things will ever change within our Baptist churches concerning the true nature of the church as being the fellowship of the followers of Christ, I do hope that we will at least consider loving those who differ on particular secondary issues of the Faith rather than despising them and being reproached by a unbelieving world because of it. We should get used to the idea that we will break bread with those whom we refuse to break bread with now for eternity, and we would be wise to have eternity in perspective rather than this passing age. Just a thought.