The Theology of Baptism by the REV

56 THE CHURCHMAN (i) The plea is for yet another series, to be produced while the present series goes on, designed for those who are newly literate or very badly educated. There are multitudes on the fringe of Chris tianity, or recently baptized who could not compass the reading of these books. They have an urgent claim on the attention and care of the Church. I realize that Bishop Neill and his very small staff are hard pressed. I realize that those who could write such simple books as I have in mind are few and far between. But I believe the need is urgent and immediate. (ii) Some suggestions. World Christian Books is one of the exciting, creative acts of the Christian Church in this century. Those of us who are alive to the demands of evangelistic educational work at home and overseas ought to line up behind those responsible for this work and see that, so far from allowing it to go by default, we assure its increasing success. What can we do ? I would suggest four things : (a) Pray. This is a work with vast potentialities for good, and indeed (if it were to be mishandled) for ill. The editor, the writers, the translators, the business agents, all need the prayers of the Church. (b) See that these books are on the bookstall of your own Church and well known among your Church people. (c) See that your local public library knows about these books and takes them. (d) See that the missionaries who have gone from your Church get a copy of each book as it comes out. This might well be a gift from the Church to them ; and the offer to provide more copies as needed on the field would be very welcome. The publishers and distributors of World Christian Books are the United Society for Christian Literature, 4 Bouverie Street, London, E.C.4. The Theology of Baptism BY THE REV. MARTIN PARSONS, M.A. 1 BEGIN with a quotation which I think will receive universal I agreement. It is from Donald Baillie's lecture on baptism in the book, The Theology of the Sacraments, edited after his death by his brother, and containing a charming biographical memoir. He says: " Those who are entrusted with the care of souls in the pastoral mjJlistry must frequently ask themselves with some misgivings what the sacrament of baptism means to the main mass of Church people who bring their children to be baptized. But, indeed, a great many ministers must sometimes feel that they themselves have more questions to ask about the meaning of baptism then they are able to answer, and that they are thus not very well equipped to give clear and sound guidance to their people as to what they should believe about this 1 A papel" read to the London Diocesan Union of Evangelical Clergy. THE THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM 57 sacrament of the Church. Moreover, if they turn to the theologians for guidance, they may find among these also a good deal of confusion ; and certainly they will find very lively discussion." And a little further on he says, "I believe that a great deal of light can be thrown, and indeed has been thrown, on these questions by a return to the study of the New Testament." Since my subject is "The Theology of Baptism," and not "Modern Pastoral Practice in regard to Baptism," I intend to study it from the standpoint of Holy Scripture. I acknowledge my debt to W. F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, which may be taken as the standard modern work on the subject. In passing, we note with interest that Flemington, and Oscar Cullman who wrote Baptism in the New Testament for the S.C.M. Book Club, and Donald Baillie, are none of them Anglicans, but all come down heavily on the side of infant baptism. In considering Baptism in the New Testament we cannot ignore the baptism of John. All the four Gospels mention it and Jesus Himself submitted to it in order to fulfil all righteousness. It was a baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. But John is clear that his ministry is only preparing the way for the ministry of Christ. "I baptize with water. He shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Can we regard John's baptism as merely an intensification of prose lyte baptism as practised by the Jews? Surely not. It is true that in both cases baptism in water, probably by immersion, signified a new beginning and initiation into a new community. But there the similarity ends. John's baptism was accepted mainly by Jews, those who were already within the People of the Covenant. It involved, therefore, not just a change of status, but a moral reformation. There had to be a confession of sins. Gentiles, who desired to embrace the religion of Israel, had the ceremonial washing of baptism. But in the case of John's baptism, Jews, who were not living as the People of God should, underwent a moral cleansing through repentance and so entered-in some sense at least-the Kingdom of God. It is on the whole better to view the baptism of John, not as a specific application of proselyte baptism, but rather as the culmination of the Word of the Prophets. Jesus so identified Himself with those He came to save that He accepted the baptism of John, though not without a protest from the latter. And at the baptism the Holy Spirit came upon our Lord in visible form, and the voice of the Father was heard to say, "Thou art My beloved Son." It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is a connection between this incident and the later truth that baptism is linked with the receiving of the Holy Spirit and adoption to be sons of God. Karl Barth, as quoted by Professor Baillie, says that this is really how Jesus instituted the sacrament of baptism. The only occasions on which our Lord speaks of baptism which He Himself is to receive are Luke xii. 50, "I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished" ; and Mark x. 38, " Can you . be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized ? " The reference is clearly to His coming passion. The use of the word " baptism " might be no more than an extension of such 58 THE CHURCHMAN Old Testament phraseology as "When thou passest through the waters ... ", "I am come into deep waters." But are we right to dismiss it so easily ? Surely the constant linking of baptism with the death of Christ in the Epistles can find its origin in these sayings of our Lord. I think we can see the origin of Christian baptism not merely in the command of Matt. xxviii. 19, but in the whole ministry of Jesus. He was baptized by John. He allowed His disciples to baptize even larger numbers than John had, though it was evidently the equivalent of John's baptism (John iv. 1). And He spoke of His approaching death as a baptism. Flemington aptly says : "Such a reference becomes full of meaning if we recognize that it is a matter of history that the death of Jesus and the subsequent belief in His resurrection did in fact mark the inauguration of His wider ' ministry ' in the world at large, as surely as the baptism in the River Jordan inaugurated His ministry in Palestine." When you come to the practice of the Early Church as recorded in the Acts it is difficult to find a single pattern. I doubt if we can establish our belief about baptism and confirmation from that alone, any more than we can find there the threefold order of the ministry. For instance, at the very beginning of the Acts our Lord, just before His Ascension, contrasted the water baptism of John with the Spirit baptism which they should receive. There is nothing in those words to suggest the Christian rite of baptism with water. We might expect Peter's words at the close of his Pentecostal sermon to represent the norm : " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Yet in the case of Cot'nelius and his fellow-hearers, the Holy Ghost fell on them before they were baptized. The case of the disciples at Ephesus is different again. They had received John's baptism but knew nothing of the Holy Spirit. After Paul's explanation they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, but only after confirmation did they receive the Holy Ghost. Saul's own experience had been the reverse. Ananias laid his hands upon him and he received his sight and (as I read it) was filled with the Holy Ghost. After that he was baptized. What happened after the preaching of Philip in Samaria is the nearest to the order which we now take for granted : faith, baptism, confirmation, receiving of the Spirit. Can we even be certain that everyone who had received John's baptism (e.g. the Apostles) was baptized with water again? Was the baptism of the Spirit all that mattered? I think a study of the Acts leads us to the conclusion of Dr. Silva New, as quoted by Flemington : "Belief in Jesus (or in His Name), baptism, the re mission of sins, the laying on of Apostolic hands, and the reception of the Spirit, seem to have formed a single complex of associated ideas, any one of which might in any single narrative be either omitted or emphasized.'' Flemington says that baptism outwardly embodied the meaning and essence of the Gospel, and shows us the position in the Acts in these words : " The convert could appropriate that meaning for himself by undergoing baptism.

Load more