September 1, 2005, Vol.4, No.17.

Baptism

Part 1

Keith Sharp

I have been in friendly contact with a family of Baptists, the Kozateks, who are congenial, morally upright, and dedicated to their religion. We discussed a little concerning our religious differences, and Mrs. Kozatek brought me by a copy of a book she likes to give people on the subject of baptism. It is entitled I want to be baptised and was written by Eric Lane, a British evangelical. The point of the book is to encourage people to be baptized but from an evangelical perspective. The book gives the evangelical position and argumentation on most New Testament passages that deal with baptism. I read the book and wrote a review of it for the Kozatek’s. Because of the length of the review, it will be published in installments. This is part one of the review.

Eric Lane, the author of the book, stated, “If we could agree on baptism, this would do more to promote unity than any other single factor” (24). I believe he is right, and thus, I write this review in ardent hope it will help promote the “unity of the Spirit.”

There are a number of assumptions made in the book that are based on Reformed (Protestant) theology. I am neither a Protestant nor a Catholic but simply a Christian (Acts 11:26; 1 Peter 4:16; 1 Corinthians 1:10-13). I insist that the Bible is our complete, sufficient spiritual guide (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and that we must accept what it teaches regardless of the philosophies (Colossians 2:8-10; Romans 3:3-4; 1 Corinthians 1:18 - 2:16) or traditions (Matthew 15:1-9) of men. I try always to determine and describe my position on any spiritual or religious issue by what the Scriptures plainly teach rather than by reference to theological schools of thought (1 Peter 4:11). I strongly believe there are errors on both sides in the debate between Protestant and Catholic theology. However, in this review I plan to limit my comments to those issues that directly pertain to baptism.

Points of Agreement

 Mr. Lane states, “Paul says there is only ‘one baptism’ (18). This is certainly true (Ephesians 4:5). He declares, “The ‘one baptism’ therefore is the baptism instituted by the ‘one Lord’ in Matthew 28:18-20" (21). Amen! This is highly significant, because in this very passage the Lord Jesus claimed, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (verse 18). Thus, we must do everything “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17), i.e., by His authority ( Vine. 3:100; cf. Acts 4:18). We dare not act without that authority (2 Timothy 1:13; 2 John 9). Thus, whatever baptism we submit to must be the one authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 The author adds:

 The apostle Paul spoke most definitely about ‘one baptism’, meaning that what Christ instituted prior to his ascension was to replace all previous and existing forms of baptising:.... (106-07)

 I agree that this is implied in Ephesians 4:5. Thus, the only baptism pleasing to God is the one baptism commanded by the Lord. Certainly, if the baptism of John, which was from God but is no longer valid (Luke 7:29-30; Acts 19:1-5), will not do, then no baptism that originated with mere men is acceptable to God.

 However, Mr. Lane appears to be inconsistent on this point. He comments:

 But since the only reference to re-baptism of John’s disciples is of certain ones at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5), it seems unlikely that there was a         general re-baptizing (42).

 This is mere human reason in direct contradiction to what the passage plainly teaches. The approved example of Acts 19:1-5 teaches that, though they had received a baptism which formerly was approved of God, they needed to be “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (verse 5). The reason the apostle Paul stated that they should “be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” was that:

 John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus (verse 4).

 Why did this apply to the men at Ephesus but not to others? How many times must the Lord teach something for it to be true? Certainly, anyone today who has only received a baptism of human origin needs to receive the one baptism that is by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 Mr. Lane also teaches:

 This means there is only one mode (or form) of baptism, only one right way to carry out the practice. It means that there is only one meaning (or significance) for baptism.... It also means that one class of persons is qualified to be baptized (19).

 I strongly agree that immersion is the only scriptural “mode” of baptism. In fact, according to the definition of the word “baptism,” sprinkling and pouring are not even baptism, much less scripturally authorized “modes” of baptism. The Greek verb translated “baptize” in the New Testament is defined thus:

 1. prop. To dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge.... 2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, make clean with water.... Thayer. 94) dip, immerse mid. dip oneself, wash (Arndt & Gingrich. 131)  to immerse.... (TDNT. 1:530).

 The apostle Paul twice describes baptism as a burial (Romans 6:4-5; Colossians 2:12). I also agree that penitent believers constitute the only class of people qualified for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:12-13; 16:33-34; 18:8).

 Endnote

Because Eric Lane is British, and his book was published in England, he uses British spelling throughout.

Works Cited

Arndt, W.F. and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Thayer, J.H., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed. Gerhard

Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, article on baptism by Albrecht Oepke.

Vine, W.E., An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.