As I bring this series on Spirit baptism to a
close, I would note that in addition to Romans 6:3-4, which has just been
examined, Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; & 1 Peter 3:21 are also used, on
occasion, as evidences that Spirit baptism continues to take place today, but
the only substantial argument that these texts do not refer to immersion in
water lies in the assumption that they would teach baptismal regeneration were
they accepted as references to the church ordinance of baptism. However, none of these verses by any
means proves baptismal regeneration, as I have proven in my book Heaven Only
for the Baptized? which can be accessed at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7
or purchased in Kindle format from amazon.com, and which will hopefully be
available in print soon. I will,
therefore, refrain from comment on these texts here, referring interested
readers to my book.
close, I would note that in addition to Romans 6:3-4, which has just been
examined, Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; & 1 Peter 3:21 are also used, on
occasion, as evidences that Spirit baptism continues to take place today, but
the only substantial argument that these texts do not refer to immersion in
water lies in the assumption that they would teach baptismal regeneration were
they accepted as references to the church ordinance of baptism. However, none of these verses by any
means proves baptismal regeneration, as I have proven in my book Heaven Only
for the Baptized? which can be accessed at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7
or purchased in Kindle format from amazon.com, and which will hopefully be
available in print soon. I will,
therefore, refrain from comment on these texts here, referring interested
readers to my book.
Since none of the alleged references to Spirit
baptism in the epistles teach baptismal regeneration when analyzed with
grammatical, historical hermeneutics, the affirmation that one must abandon the
natural interpretation of these passages, which recognize them as references to
immersion in water, and refer them instead to Spirit baptism, fails to
convince. The historic Baptist
position, which considers all these texts as references to immersion in water,
should be maintained. Indeed,
since none of the passages, interpreted naturally, has anything to do with
Spirit baptism, arguing that they teach baptismal regeneration if interpreted
of immersion in water actually plays into the hands of the advocate of
sacramentalism, since he can demonstrate that the texts in question do not deal
with Spirit baptism. Whenever
baptism is spoken of in the epistles of the New Testament, immersion in water
is in view. This is not unusual in
light of the transitional and temporary nature of the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. The Pentecostal events of
Acts 2 were already over when the epistles were written.
baptism in the epistles teach baptismal regeneration when analyzed with
grammatical, historical hermeneutics, the affirmation that one must abandon the
natural interpretation of these passages, which recognize them as references to
immersion in water, and refer them instead to Spirit baptism, fails to
convince. The historic Baptist
position, which considers all these texts as references to immersion in water,
should be maintained. Indeed,
since none of the passages, interpreted naturally, has anything to do with
Spirit baptism, arguing that they teach baptismal regeneration if interpreted
of immersion in water actually plays into the hands of the advocate of
sacramentalism, since he can demonstrate that the texts in question do not deal
with Spirit baptism. Whenever
baptism is spoken of in the epistles of the New Testament, immersion in water
is in view. This is not unusual in
light of the transitional and temporary nature of the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. The Pentecostal events of
Acts 2 were already over when the epistles were written.
It is very easy to demonstrate that historic
Baptist doctrine has taken all the alleged verses on Spirit baptism in the
epistles to refer to immersion in water.
In addition to the historical material referenced earlier, one notes, as
a sampling, that the Baptist Confession of 1689, agreed to by over one hundred Baptist churches in England and Wales and
signed by such men of God as Hanserd Knollys and William Kiffin, affirms in
Article 29, “Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus
Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of fellowship with him, in his
death (Romans 6:3, 4, 5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27) and resurrection; of
his being engrafted into him; of (Mark 1:4; Acts 26:16) remission of sins; and
of his (Romans 6:2, 4) giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and
walk in newness of life.” The same
language and passages were employed in the Baptist Orthodox Creed of 1679, the famous American Baptist Philadelphia
Confession of Faith of 1720, and the Second
London Confession of Faith of 1677. Among Baptists outside of the
English-speaking world, the 1879 French Baptist Confession, “received by all the Baptist churches of France,
Belgium, and Switzerland,” affirms in Article 9, “We believe that baptism is,
for Christians voluntarily dead to the world and to sin, the striking and
solemn emblem of burial and of resurrection with Christ, to whom they are
united by faith, to live in Him a new and holy life. We believe, after the order of Christ, His example and that
of the apostles, that the immersion of believers must precede admission into
the local church and participation in the communion . . . Romans 6:3, 4; . . .
Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; . . . 1 Peter 3:21). The German Confession of Faith and Constitution of
the Churches of Baptized Christians commonly called Baptists originally composed in 1847 and commonly received
into the twentieth century, affirms in Article 8 that “Baptism is a first-fruit
of faith and love to Christ, the entrance into obedience toward the Lord . . .
and his church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 2:47). It is the solemn declaration, the confession of the sinner
(1 Peter 3:21) . . . who has recognized the frightfulness of his sin and the damnability
of his whole being . . . that he sets all his hope solely on the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ his Saviour (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3, 8) . . . and
believes on him as the Redeemer from the curse and wages of sin[,] . . . that
he consecrates himself with body and soul to Christ and puts him on (Galatians
3:26-27), as his righteousness and strength[,] . . . that he gives his old man
to death and wishes to walk with Christ in a new life (Romans 6:4-6).” Indeed, it is questionable if there is
any Baptist confessional support at all, anywhere, for the view that the texts
in question refer to Spirit baptism rather than to immersion.[1]
Baptist doctrine has taken all the alleged verses on Spirit baptism in the
epistles to refer to immersion in water.
In addition to the historical material referenced earlier, one notes, as
a sampling, that the Baptist Confession of 1689, agreed to by over one hundred Baptist churches in England and Wales and
signed by such men of God as Hanserd Knollys and William Kiffin, affirms in
Article 29, “Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus
Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of fellowship with him, in his
death (Romans 6:3, 4, 5; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:27) and resurrection; of
his being engrafted into him; of (Mark 1:4; Acts 26:16) remission of sins; and
of his (Romans 6:2, 4) giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and
walk in newness of life.” The same
language and passages were employed in the Baptist Orthodox Creed of 1679, the famous American Baptist Philadelphia
Confession of Faith of 1720, and the Second
London Confession of Faith of 1677. Among Baptists outside of the
English-speaking world, the 1879 French Baptist Confession, “received by all the Baptist churches of France,
Belgium, and Switzerland,” affirms in Article 9, “We believe that baptism is,
for Christians voluntarily dead to the world and to sin, the striking and
solemn emblem of burial and of resurrection with Christ, to whom they are
united by faith, to live in Him a new and holy life. We believe, after the order of Christ, His example and that
of the apostles, that the immersion of believers must precede admission into
the local church and participation in the communion . . . Romans 6:3, 4; . . .
Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; . . . 1 Peter 3:21). The German Confession of Faith and Constitution of
the Churches of Baptized Christians commonly called Baptists originally composed in 1847 and commonly received
into the twentieth century, affirms in Article 8 that “Baptism is a first-fruit
of faith and love to Christ, the entrance into obedience toward the Lord . . .
and his church (1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 2:47). It is the solemn declaration, the confession of the sinner
(1 Peter 3:21) . . . who has recognized the frightfulness of his sin and the damnability
of his whole being . . . that he sets all his hope solely on the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ his Saviour (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3, 8) . . . and
believes on him as the Redeemer from the curse and wages of sin[,] . . . that
he consecrates himself with body and soul to Christ and puts him on (Galatians
3:26-27), as his righteousness and strength[,] . . . that he gives his old man
to death and wishes to walk with Christ in a new life (Romans 6:4-6).” Indeed, it is questionable if there is
any Baptist confessional support at all, anywhere, for the view that the texts
in question refer to Spirit baptism rather than to immersion.[1]
Conclusion
to the Entire Study on Spirit Baptism
to the Entire Study on Spirit Baptism
Scripture teaches the Baptist doctrine that
Spirit baptism was a historical event completed in the first century. Both the post-conversion special power
(PCP) and the universal church dispensational (UCD) views of Spirit baptism are
erroneous. The references to
Spirit baptism in the Old Testament, in the Gospels, and in Acts all
corroborate the classical Baptist view and contradict both the UCD and PCP
positions. Passages that speak of
baptism in the epistles and that are used by PCP’s and UCD’s to support their
respective doctrines fail to do so because in every case the texts refer to the
church ordinance of believer’s immersion.
Believing the Biblical, historic Baptist doctrine of Spirit baptism will
protect God’s people from serious and harmful errors in pneumatology,
soteriology, and ecclesiology. It
will preserve them from false religious systems, such as Pentecostalism, that
are largely based upon erroneous views of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It will enable them to more effectively
grow in grace and in the knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2
Peter 3:18) as they have a more Biblical understanding of the doctrine and
practice of sanctification. Most
importantly, it will enable them to more greatly love, honor, and serve the
Triune God as they live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth (Matthew
4:4; John 14:15). To Him alone be
the glory for the wondrous truths about Himself and the ineffable graces
bestowed on His saints that were authenticated and enacted in the Biblical,
Baptist doctrine of Spirit baptism.
Spirit baptism was a historical event completed in the first century. Both the post-conversion special power
(PCP) and the universal church dispensational (UCD) views of Spirit baptism are
erroneous. The references to
Spirit baptism in the Old Testament, in the Gospels, and in Acts all
corroborate the classical Baptist view and contradict both the UCD and PCP
positions. Passages that speak of
baptism in the epistles and that are used by PCP’s and UCD’s to support their
respective doctrines fail to do so because in every case the texts refer to the
church ordinance of believer’s immersion.
Believing the Biblical, historic Baptist doctrine of Spirit baptism will
protect God’s people from serious and harmful errors in pneumatology,
soteriology, and ecclesiology. It
will preserve them from false religious systems, such as Pentecostalism, that
are largely based upon erroneous views of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It will enable them to more effectively
grow in grace and in the knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2
Peter 3:18) as they have a more Biblical understanding of the doctrine and
practice of sanctification. Most
importantly, it will enable them to more greatly love, honor, and serve the
Triune God as they live by every word that proceeds out of His mouth (Matthew
4:4; John 14:15). To Him alone be
the glory for the wondrous truths about Himself and the ineffable graces
bestowed on His saints that were authenticated and enacted in the Biblical,
Baptist doctrine of Spirit baptism.
Note that this complete study, with all it parts and with additional material not reproduced on this blog in this series, is available by clicking here.
[1] All confessions and documentation above were accessed
on the Baptist History Collection CD, ver. 1. Paris, AK: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2005.
on the Baptist History Collection CD, ver. 1. Paris, AK: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2005.
Thank you Bro. Ross. I have enjoyed reading the articles. I agree this is an important doctrine that affects many others especially soteriology and ecclesiology. I know you teach at Baptist College of Ministry in WI, I was wondering what the schools view is on ecclesiology and pneumatology? I was under the impression they were universal church and therefore held to the PCP or UCD positions. Just wondersing, I have some friends who were trained there and they seem to hold to the universal church interpretation of spirit baptism.
Dear Bro Steve,
Thanks for the kind words on the series. I am very thankful for the many good things at Baptist College of Ministry, and rejoice that the Lord has given me the opportunity to be an adjunct professor there. However, as an adjunct, I'm only there for two nine week blocks each year, teaching two classes a block (this year, I've taught and am teaching 2nd year Greek, the book of Ephesians, and the book of Romans in Greek). BCM's policy is that statements of doctrinal, etc. positions are pre-approved (which is wise) before being made. Thus, I have no ability to make an official statement about the school's position on ecclesiology or pneumatology. I would encourage you to call the office or speak to someone who is resident staff on that. BCM is (properly) concerned that, as they have adjunct faculty from a variety of places teach a variety of courses, that they don't get their own position misrepresented either intentionally or unintentionally. Furthermore, as someone who is not resident faculty or even a member of Falls Baptist Church, I would say that my comments on this blog rather represent my own view–and I can say that the church of which I am a member, Mukwonago Baptist Church, takes the view of Spirit baptism as a completed event that I have exposited here. I would also consider the "What is Truth" blog as something that is under the aegis of Bethel Baptist Church, as it is Pastor Brandenburg's blog.
Something else I would say is that here at Mukwonago Baptist Church we used to point our kids towards another school that was driving distance in the area, that is supposed to be a fundamental Baptist institution, and upon going there, the kids would often end up rejecting Biblical standards taught by our church, becoming worldly, and even leave the church. It was ridiculous and an awful situation. On the other hand, the kids that have gone to BCM tend to become stronger spiritually, be on fire for God, fervent in prayer and in evangelism, desirous to fit into our church and serve there, are committed to a faith-based method of finding a life's partner instead of the world's way of dating, continue to uphold our church's standards on issues such as music and dress, etc. All of that has been very refreshing. However, as for an official statement about their doctrinal position on ecclesiology, pneumatology, or anything else, for that matter, they want to have such statements issued directly on their part–which is perfectly reasonable.
I hope that helps. Sorry if it isn't more specific.
Bro. Ross,
I completely understand your explanation. BCM is one of a couple schools I actually still recommend. I prefer local church institute training myself, although the Lord used a parachurch bible college in my background. Thanks again.