Do
Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27
refer to Spirit Baptism?
It
is a tragedy of heart-breaking proportion that some otherwise
credible scholars will go to such outlandish lengths to
defend cherished theological theories. They hurl exegetical
caution to the wind and adopt absurd views that are wholly
without substance. No better example can be mentioned than
the desperate attempts that some make in attempting to
avoid the connection between the commanded rite of water
immersion and the forgiveness of sins. No responsible Bible
student believes there is some magical power in water to
wash away sins. The blood of Jesus Christ is the agent
of cleansing power resident in God’s plan of redemption
(Hebrews 9:14a).
It
is undeniable, however, that the saving efficacy of that
blood is accessed by faith when one submits to the command
to be immersed “for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38;
cf. 22:16). This is not salvation by meritorious works;
it is salvation by obedience (Hebrews 5:9). One novel approach
of fairly recent vintage is the idea that the baptism of
certain texts involves no water at all; rather, it is a “Spirit” baptism.
For
example, a few sectarian scholars contend that the baptism
of Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27 is not water baptism,
but Spirit baptism. One writer says, of Paul’s statement
in Romans, that some:
“take
Romans 6:3 to refer to water baptism, but the problem with
that is that it seems to suggest that baptism saves. However,
the New Testament consistently denies baptismal regeneration.”
A
similar argument is made concerning the Galatian passage
(Walvoord and Zuck 1983, 461, 600). The position is false.
Consider the following:
(1)
In the New Testament, Spirit baptism is never a command.
How could one possibly command the Holy Spirit to baptize
him? Water baptism is a command (Acts 2:38; 10:48). The
baptism in view in Romans 6 was in response to a command,
to which the Roman Christians previously had been obedient,
thereby being “made free from sin” (6:17-18). It was not Spirit
baptism.
(2)
The baptism of the Great Commission, which puts the candidate
into a relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
is an immersion administered by men. The command is: “Go
. . . make disciples . . . baptizing them" (Matthew
28:19). This clearly is water baptism, for the act is administered
by the one who has taught the candidate. It would be the
epitome of irresponsible exegesis to assert that this baptism
is something different from the immersion that transitions
one “into Christ,” as the case is in both Romans 6:3-4
and Galatians 3:26-27.
Look
at it another way. When Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus,
he declared there is “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). If
this is Spirit baptism, water baptism has been removed.
If it is water baptism, there is no Spirit baptism today.
If both are still in effect, the apostle’s math was in
error. Which baptism, therefore, is now obsolete? It cannot
be water baptism, for that baptism (as administered by
a human teacher) was to continue to the end of the Christian
age (Matthew 28:20). By default, then, Spirit baptism is
no longer extant. It served a first-century purpose (Acts
2 and 10) and has not been a part of the divine plan since
that time.
[Another
explanation, one that we tend to accept, is that the baptism
of the Spirit or immersion in the Spirit simply means the
reception of the Spirit, and this occurs at the very time
that one is also immersed in water. In
other words, water and Spirit constitutes the “one baptism” to
which Paul refers. See
the article on this website titled “Baptized in One Spirit.]
(3)
The baptism of Romans 6:3 was identical with that which
Paul himself had received (note the plural pronoun “we”).
But Paul’s baptism in Damascus was in water (cf. Acts 22:16),
a fact conceded by Professor Toussaint (Walvoord and Zuck,
418).
(4)
It is clear from a consideration of the language in Romans
6:3-4 that the baptism into which one is immersed is also
that from which he emerges (i.e., is raised). Thus the
apostle argues that our baptism, as to its mode of action,
involves both a burial and a resurrection, just as Christ’s
death did (cf. vv. 4-5). The same point is made in Colossians
2:12. Consequently, if one (in his baptism), is immersed
in the Spirit (as these gentlemen allege), he emerges out
of the Spirit when raised. In that case, he would be without
the Spirit. Elsewhere in Romans, Paul declares that those
who are without the Spirit do not belong to Christ!
(8:9b). What a tangled web men weave when they pervert
the Scriptures to buttress their own theological agenda.
(5)
Numerous passages specifically connect salvation with
a process that involves water. Paul declared to
the Ephesian saints that they had been cleansed by
the washing of water with the word. Luke’s record of the
Ephesian conversions certainly makes the mode of
Christian baptism analogous to that of John the Baptist
(Acts 19:3-5; cf. John 3:23). This conforms perfectly with
Jesus’ description of the new birth, which likewise involves
water (John 3:3-5; see note below), as well as Titus 3:5
which speaks of the “washing of regeneration,” i.e., rebirth.
First Peter 3:20-21 certainly connects the baptism that
involves becoming saved with water.
Finally,
a vast host of scholars—even those who do not view baptism
as a condition of salvation—admit that the passages surveyed
above relate to water baptism. The works of Thayer (1958,
94), Danker et al. (2000, 164), Kittel et al. (1985, 93-94),
and Robertson (1931, 362, 298) readily come to mind. The
late F. F. Bruce, who was professor of biblical criticism
and exegesis at the Univeristy of Manchester in England,
wrote:
I
suggest that baptism in the New Testament is always baptism
in water unless the context shows it to be something else;
that is to say, the word is always to be understood literally
unless the context indicates a figurative meaning (1973,
106).
Note: The connection of John 3:5
with water baptism was not denied for the first fifteen
centuries of the Christian era. William Wall, noted Anglican
scholar, in his celebrated volume, The History of Infant
Baptism (published in 1705), wrote:
All
the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man)
do understand that the rule of our Saviour (John iii.5): “Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man [it is in the original ean
me tis, ‘except
a person,’ or ‘except one’] be born of water and
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” of baptism.
I had occasion in the first part [Vol. 1] to bring a great
many instances of their sayings: where all that mention
that text from Justin Martyr down to St. Austin do so apply
it: and many more might be brought. Neither did I ever
see it otherwise applied in any ancient writer. I believe
Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean
baptism. He gives it another interpretation which he confesses
to be new (Wall n.d., 95-96; emphasis added).
--Wayne
Jackson
October
27, 2009
Sources/Footnotes
Bruce,
F. F. 1973. Answers to Questions. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan.
Calvin,
John. 1975. Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 2 Vols.
Danker,
F. W. et al. 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Kittel,
G. et al., 1985. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Robertson,
A. T. 1931. Word Pictures in the New Testament.
Vol. 4. Nashville, TN: Broadman.
Thayer,
J. H. 1958. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Edinburgh, Scotland. T. &. T. Clark.
Wall,
William. n.d. The History of Infant Baptism. Vol.
2. London, England: Griffith, Farran, Browne.
Walvoord,
John and Roy Zuck, eds. 1983. The Bible Knowledge Commentary.
Vol. 2. Wheaton, IL: Victor.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/
1498-do-romans-6-3-4-and-galatians-3-26-27-
refer-to-spirit-baptism
|
