BAPTISM (REFORMED VIEW). Baptism is the ordinance instituted by Christ on the eve of His Ascension to heaven (Matt 28:19), dispensed by washing with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and signifying and sealing the benefits of the new covenant.

1. Import. Though the washing of regeneration and sprinkling with the blood of Christ (cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Col 2:11, 12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21) are signified, yet the more explicit references indicate that central to the import is union with Christ (cf. Rom 6:3-6; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27, 28; Col 2:11, 12). The word of institution points in the same direction, for baptism into the name of the persons of the Godhead means baptism into union with and the discipleship of the three persons. In accord with Numbers 6:24-27 the words of our Lord signify that in baptism there is the seal of God’s ownership and of the distinguishing relation each person of the Godhead comes to sustain to men in covenant union and communion (cf. John 14:16, 17, 23; 17:21-23). Though the accent falls on union with Christ, the Father and Holy Spirit are also necessarily embraced in the bond signified by this ordinance.

2. Mode. There are various modes by which baptism may be administered—sprinkling, affusion, immersion. The Baptist insistence upon immersion as the only valid mode and therefore of the essence of the symbolism is controverted by non-Baptists. The two arguments advanced by Baptists are: (a) that certain passages (cf. Rom 6:3-6; Col 2:11, 12) indicate that the burial of Christ in the earth and emergence from it in the Resurrection supply the pattern that must be adhered to, and (b) that the Gr. terms for baptism mean immersion.

The fallacy of the first argument resides in an arbitrary selection of certain aspects of Paul’s teaching regarding our union with Christ. It is true that believers are united with Christ in His burial and Resurrection, and it is also true that immersion in and emergence from the water appear to represent and symbolize this phase of union with Christ. But the union with Christ signified by baptism includes more than union with Him in His burial and Resurrection. It signifies union with Him in His death and crucifixion. The burial must not be equated with either. Paul in Romans 6 speaks of being baptized into Jesus’ “death” (v. 3), of being “united” with Him in the likeness of His death (v. 5), and of being “crucified” with Him (v. 6; cf. Gal 2:19). It is apparent that immersion and emergence do not resemble these. But they are as germane to union with Christ as burial and resurrection. In the Baptist argument, therefore, the burial and resurrection are accorded the exclusive relevance in the plea for symbolism.

Other passages likewise prove the arbitrariness of preoccupation with the analogy of burial and resurrection. Paul also writes: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Gal 3:27 ASV). It would be as legitimate to argue for the mode of baptism from this passage as from Romans 6:4. But the figure here is that of putting on a garment to which immersion bears no resemblance. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 the figure is that of making up one body which is foreign by way of analogy to immersion. The fact is that baptism signifies union with Christ in the whole range of His ministry, and other aspects are as integral as burial and resurrection. It is prejudicial to the completeness of the union signified to limit the symbolism to any one phase of Christ’s redemptive accomplishment.

It is not possible in the space available to set forth the evidence bearing upon the meaning of the terms which denote baptism. Suffice it to say that there are numerous instances in which the action denoted does not imply immersion and which prove that baptism does not mean immersion (cf. Lev 14:6, 51; Matt 15:2; Mark 7:2-5; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor 10:2; Heb 9:10-23). The Gr. term βαπτίζω, G966, indicates a certain effect without prescribing the precise mode by which this effect is secured. Hence the ordinance is properly administered by sprinkling or affusion.

3. Subjects. There is no issue of principle between Baptists and non-Baptists respecting the conditions necessary for the baptism of adults. It is true that there has been in some cases a difference of viewpoint or at least of emphasis on the question of the prerogatives belonging to the church in the admission of candidates for baptism. This difference can exist among Baptists and among non-Baptists. So the line of demarcation should not be drawn in these terms. The injunctions of Peter on the day of Pentecost and the practice followed on that occasion make it clear that repentance, the faith of the Gospel, and the reception of the Word are the conditions upon which baptism was administered (Acts 2:38, 41, 42, 44). Other instances corroborate this as apostolic practice (Acts 8:34, 35, 36, 38; 10:34-47; 16:14, 15, 31-33). The only question that properly arises is: what criteria does the church apply in its judgment? The classic Reformed position is that it is not the prerogative of the church or of those who in the name of the church administer baptism to determine whether those seeking baptism truly and sincerely repent and believe. It is the duty of the church to propound the conditions and insist that only those complying with them are eligible in the sight of God. And the church must assist candidates to examine themselves. But the church accepts for baptism those who make an intelligent and uncontradicted confession of faith. Any other position errs either on the side of presumption or looseness.

The crucial issue concerns the baptism of infants and on this Baptists offer vigorous dissent. The argument in support of infant baptism is based upon the essential unity and continuity of the covenant grace administered to Abraham, unfolded in the Mosaic and Davidic covenants, and attaining to its richest fruition in the new covenant. The new covenant is the administration of grace that brings to fulfillment the promise given to Abraham: “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen 22:18 ASV). It is the blessing of Abraham that comes upon the Gentiles through Christ (Gal 3:14). Abraham is the father of all believers and they are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise (Rom 4:16-18; Gal 3:7-9). The promises fulfilled in Christ were given to Abraham with covenantal confirmation. So it is proper and necessary to say that the new covenant is the fulfillment and unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gal 3:15-17). The same unity and continuity are intimated when the covenant people of God are likened to one olive tree with several branches, all of which grow from one root and stock and form one organism (Rom 11:16-24).

The covenant made with Abraham included the infant seed and was signified and sealed by circumcision administered by divine command (Gen 17:9-14). That circumcision is the sign of the covenant in its deepest spiritual significance is demonstrated by the fact that it is called the covenant (Gen 17:10; cf. Acts 7:8) and therefore identified as token (cf. Gen 17:11) with the covenant in the highest reaches of its meaning (cf. Gen 17:7; Exod 10:5, 6; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Rom 4:11; Col 2:11, 12). Since the infant seed of the faithful were embraced in the covenant relation and there is no indication that this feature of covenant administration has been abrogated under the new covenant, the conclusion derived from the unity and continuity of covenant grace is that the same privilege belongs to the infant seed of believers under the new covenant. In addition, there is the evidence showing the continuance of this principle (Matt 19:13, 14; Acts 2:38, 39; 16:15, 33, 34; 1 Cor 1:16; 7:14; Eph 6:1, 4; Col 3:20, 21). These considerations are the ground for the propriety and validity of infant baptism.

The basis upon which baptism is dispensed to infants is, therefore, this divine institution. The promise of the covenant is to believers and their children. The abuses often attendant upon the baptism of infants should not be pleaded as objections to the ordinance itself. It is necessary that the church should exercise care and vigilance to prevent these abuses. Parents eligible to receive baptism for their offspring are only such as are faithful in their confession and in the discharge of their covenant obligations. Those who do not give evidence of the union with Christ which baptism signifies cannot claim the grace and promise extended in this institution (cf. Ps 103:17, 18).

4. Efficacy. As a rite instituted by Christ baptism is not to be identified with the grace signified and sealed. This is apparent from the terms of institution (Matt 28:19) and from the nature of baptism as seal. The existence of the grace sealed is presupposed in the giving of the seal. The tenet of baptismal regeneration reverses the order inherent in the definition which Scripture provides. The efficacy resides entirely in the pledge fo God’s faithfulness. God not only brings men and women into union with Christ as the embodiment of covenant grace at the zenith of its realization, He not only gives exceeding great and precious promises that are yea and amen in Christ, but He seals this union and confirms these promises by an ordinance that portrays to our senses the certainty of His grace. Depreciation of baptism insults the wisdom and grace of God and, more particularly, His faithfulness. He confirms to us the bond of union with Himself by adding the seal of baptism to the end that we may be more firmly established in the faith of His covenant grace.

Bibliography J. Calvin, Institutes, IV, xiv-xvi; R. Wilson, Infant Baptism a Scriptural Service etc. (1848); O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (1950); P. Ch. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism (1953); J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (1960); J. Murray, Christian Baptism (1962).