Baptism -- what's it all about?

How important is water baptism?

Since the 5th Century when Augustine described sacraments as ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’ baptism has been seen in the church as a sacrament. For some churches it is a critical part of becoming a Christian or 'saved', with Baptists arguing for Believers Baptism and other churches practising infant baptism where the child obviously cannot 'make the profession of faith'. Other churches and Christians put the emphasis on faith. Is baptism a symbol or something deeper than that?

There are a number of times that baptism is mentioned in the Scriptures, many with a similar emphasis starting at what is called the Great Commission:

‬And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.' (Mark‬ ‭16:15‭-‬16‬ ‭ESV)

And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.' (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV) 

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. (1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16 ESV)

Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12 ESV)

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. (Romans 6:3-4 ESV)

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. (1 Peter 3:21 ESV)

Reading those passages it could be interpreted that baptism is far more important than just a symbol that we do following Jesus commandment. 

Three things to note:

1. The third version of the Great Commission in Luke doesn't include baptism at all but a proclamation of the gospel: [Jesus] said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,  and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.' (Luke 24:46-49 ESV)
2. There is no record in the Scriptures of Jesus baptising anyone, yet he commanded others to do so, implying (if he didn’t baptise anyone) that we are following his example in doing so in obedience rather than actually following a method taught by him. In Scripture, we see only the method demonstrated by John in which Jesus was a participant.  Contrast this with the model prayer which we call the Lord's prayer and the meal we call the Last Supper.
3. There is no record in the Scriptures of the 12 disciples being baptised. Because it would be incoherent for them to baptise unless they themselves were baptised one needs to realise that some things are probably implicit rather than explicit. However, if they were baptised, who baptised them?

In Acts 2:38 Peter's words merge Luke's version of Jesus' words and Mark's version of Jesus' words including baptism:

And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

Following on from in verse 41 we see that those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

It was an immediate response to Peter where three thousand were baptised, with no discipleship course and no other preparation. Was this because there was some urgency to do it immediately? 

In a discussion with a friend from Nicosia he summarised it as:

There are certain things in the scriptures above that we cannot deny. 

• Jesus commanded that everyone be baptized
• Jesus said that the one who believes and is baptized will be saved.
• Peter said that we must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins.
• People were baptized immediately upon believing. There was no delay, even to the point where they had to baptize 3000 people in one day.
• There is language in the Bible that shows that baptism is somehow linked to our death and resurrection in Christ.
• There are scriptures that show that baptism is somehow linked to forgiveness.

This doesn't address the issues of how the baptism takes place -- should it be still or moving water, sea or fresh water and full immersion or sprinkling. Nor does it address the question of whether it includes the infant family members of believing parents or not. 

Because there is no record of Jesus baptising people we don't have a direct model to follow, though of course Jesus himself was baptised in the river Jordan, hence why some people argue that baptism must take place in fresh water that is moving (like a river). 

And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. (Acts 16:33 ESV)

There are at least three references in Scripture to whole families being baptised. Though it is argued by those who follow only adult Believers Baptism and that didn't include the children and infants of the family, this is argued from cultural assumptions rather than Scriptural text.

My feelings and personal thoughts

My personal feeling – from a more general reading of Scripture – is that the separation of physical (including water baptism) and spiritual (including Holy Spirit baptism) is not the way of God. He has never really separated physical and spiritual, yet we tend to do so, often elevating spiritual above physical. 

Some years ago an American missiologist theologian (I forget who) wrote a paper about ‘the forgotten middle’ where he was addressing the issue that we often have this gap between physical and spiritual. Hence, I would argue that baptism is not a sacrament in the sense of ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’ because that separates physical and spiritual. Our lives are integrated and that affects everything. 

I don't believe water baptism is some ‘magic act’ for bringing people into the family of God. At the same time, I find it both more than a physical sign and more than a spiritual grace, it is therefore part of the theology of mysterium (Mystery of God). The problem for me in Augustine's statement is the word 'of' indicating that the outward is (merely) a sign of the spiritual. Had Augustine said an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual grace I would have been more comfortable that it fitted with Scripture as both/and rather than one indicating the other. The signs 'of' are later in Mark 16: 17+.

Because we are modernist (or post-modern) we need to deal with coherence and hence answer the question (based on the assumption implied from Mark 16:15-16 and 1 Peter 3:21) that unless one is water baptised one will not be saved and hence the question what happens to those who die between belief and baptism?

In response one can note that Jesus' words as recorded in the Gospel of Mark are not symmetric: ‘belief + baptism = saved’ but ‘disbelieved (not believed) = condemnation’. So it appears Jesus is putting more weight on belief than baptism, and indeed continuing to verse 17 there are signs of belief (not signs of baptism)… demons kicked out and speaking in new ‘tongues’ and picking up snakes and healing the sick etc.

Now those signs are normally linked to Holy Spirit baptism and indeed those who reject Holy Spirit baptism frequently argue that those signs are no longer for this era since the completion of the canon of Scripture. However, it appears to me that Jesus is indeed pointing to John baptized with water and he said Jesus would baptize with Holy Spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:11) and hence using Mark 16 to focus on water baptism is to take that single verse out of context.

In discipleship, I would be looking for the signs Jesus talked about in Mark 16:17+ more than (physical water) baptism. Those signs are a mixture of invisible (demons kicked out) and physical (healing the sick) which again shows how Jesus integrated the physical and spiritual.

Of course, raising the question of baptism logically raises the question of why Jesus was baptised since he did not sin. In my experience, almost whenever one talks about baptism this inevitably comes up in the discussion. One then needs to address the reasons why Jesus was baptised which are different from those of his disciples.

Starting from the premise that spiritual and physical are not entirely separate realms then we as incarnational beings need physical and spiritual baptism (cleaning) and Jesus to demonstrate he was God incarnate needed physical baptism (cleaning). And his baptism was a lot different to our baptism!

The word baptism is, I understand, related to the same word used for dyeing cloth. People sometimes use that understanding of the word to argue for full immersion baptism. However, maybe one needs to understand baptism not just in the sense of washing but in the sense of (permanently) staining with the colour of the family of God. If one sees baptism as dyeing with the colour of God then Jesus and our baptism is less dissimilar in that at the start of His ministry he was being dyed with the colour of God. Coptic Christians often have a cross tattooed on their arm, in a sense baptism is an invisible tattoo showing we are part of God's family. However, it should be noted that most Scripture references link to washing and dying rather than dyeing!

How we understand baptism will, in part, be related to how we understand the Scriptures and the weight we put on them. Those who argue for 'word for word' translations will see things one way and those who argue for 'thought for thought' translations another... those who give weight to tradition and traditional interpretation of Scripture will see it differently to those who believe Scripture stands on itself. 

But I do think that belief is overplayed and baptism underplayed in some Evangelical circles. The reason for that is an over-emphasis on cerebral faith rather than integrated physical and spiritual faith following in the steps of the Messiah in our daily physical walk with Him, and like Him, spiritually listening to the Holy Spirit.

[As an aside, some Charismatic Evangelical Anglicans see two baptisms in the two services of Baptism and Confirmation. The (water) Baptism service and then the (Holy Spirit baptism) Confirmation service. For adults who come to faith, Charismatic Evangelical Anglicans would then see the two baptisms combined as adult baptism and confirmation – usually by immersion. Infant baptism by immersion is still in the Anglican prayer book except for those ‘unfit’ or ‘tender’… but is basically never practised now.]