(A paper delivered at the 1996 Youth Conference)
Rev. Keith M. Watkins
Part Two: The symbolic import of baptism and the spirit of the gospel
IN Part One, “The meaning of the term ‘baptism’, and instances of baptism” (which appeared in the last issue), the author dealt with; 1: The Greek words that are used for baptism; and 2: The recorded instances of baptism in the New Testament. -Editor
3. THE symbolic import of baptism is much more fully represented in the mode of affusion than in the mode of immersion. Most immersionists would be amazed to hear us make such a claim, for they are convinced that this is where they hold the ground alone. To the immersionist, baptism has one great overriding symbolic meaning — union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, and this meaning is fully and only symbolised by immersion. As Christ died and went down into the grave, so the “old man” in the believer dies with Christ and is laid in the grave — this is supposedly symbolised by immersion into the baptismal water. And as Christ rose again out of the grave, so the believer rises to new spiritual life — this is supposedly symbolised by coming up again out of the baptismal water, leaving as it were the “old man” behind. The great proof text used by the immersionists for this concept is Romans 6:3-6, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him.” To this they add Colossians 2:12, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” As we proceed to refute this immersionist argument, the true and full symbolic import of baptism will become clear, and so will the superiority of the affusion mode.
First, to say that baptism symbolises union with Christ, especially in His death and resurrection, whilst true, is nevertheless only partially true. For baptism symbolises many other things in addition, including regeneration itself, the work of the Holy Spirit on the soul and purification from sin. Immersionists fail to explain why the symbolic act of baptism should refer exclusively to just one of its many imports, and why it should be union with Christ in His death and resurrection that should be so chosen, and all the other rich truths cast aside.
Even in the Romans 6 passage itself, other aspects of a believer’s union are mentioned. Not only are believers buried with Christ so as to rise with Christ, but they are also said to be crucified with Christ and planted with Christ. If the Romans passage really is intended to teach us the correct mode of baptism, then a mode needs to be found that can combine all these imports. In no sense does immersion represent crucifixion nor planting. To seize upon burial and resurrection is entirely arbitrary.
In Galatians 3:27 we find that “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” There the analogy is to putting on a garment, for believers are clothed with Christ. It would be as justifiable to insist from Galatians on a mode of baptism that would involve say putting on some kind of white garment as to insist from Romans on a mode of baptism involving a kind of burial. The truth is, neither of these passages speak of the mode of baptism at all, otherwise they would be grossly contradictory.
Thus whilst in Romans 6:3-5 there is much reference to union with Christ in His death and resurrection, a precious truth that is symbolised in the sacrament of baptism, yet the sacrament itself and its appropriate mode are not mentioned here at all. Berkhof, speaking of Colossians 2:12 as well, says most correctly of other passages, “They do not speak directly of any baptism with water at all, but of the spiritual baptism thereby represented. They represent regeneration under the figure of a dying and rising again. It is certainly perfectly obvious that they do not make mention of baptism as an emblem of Christ’s death and resurrection.”
Secondly, in any case the idea that plunging under water is a suitable symbol of burial is unconvincing, to say the least. This is especially so in the case of burial at the time of the New Testament, which could be performed not by laying the body six feet under the ground, but by laying it in a cave at ground level. It is hard to see how plunging beneath water can have any resemblance to such burial whatsoever. This flaw in immersionist logic is especially telling in view of the Saviour’s burial being by this latter method — and yet the immersionists think that by immersion under water they are buried “with Him”.
Thirdly, although the immersionists make so much of burial in the symbolism of baptism, it is no easy matter to discover from Scripture what the great significance of Christ’s burial was for His people. Yes, there was significance in His death and His resurrection, for He “was delivered [to death] for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:25). But what was the significance of His burial? Says Dabney: “Sacraments (always few) are only adopted by God to be commemorative of the most cardinal transactions of redemption. Christ’s burial was not such.” The mention of burial in the context of Romans 6, in which the believer’s dying to sin is being expounded, is to show that the old life of sin is to be altogether gone, just as we say of the deceased that they are dead and buried. It is the dying rather than the burial that is of importance — yet the immersionist mode at best can only be said to represent the less important burial.
Fourthly, chief in the symbolism of baptism is purification from sin, and that by the influence of the Holy Spirit in the washing of regeneration uniting the soul to Christ. How many factors there are that lead inescapably to this conclusion, however much the immersionist insistence upon burial seeks to evade it. For one thing, excluding the exceptional case of burial at sea which is hardly to the point, the element of water has nothing whatsoever to do with burial even if one is immersed in it from head to foot, but it does have everything to do with cleansing and washing. Baptism with water speaks of purification. When John was baptising in Aenon, the question that arose between some of John’s disciples and the Jews was “about purifying” not burying (John 3:25). Surely that was because baptism symbolises purification rather than burial. Ananias told Paul, “Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16), not, “Arise, and be baptised, and be buried with Christ.” Only this is compatible with baptism’s replacing the circumcision of the Old Testament, which symbolised the soul’s being cut off from sin by the heart circumcising influence of the Holy Spirit.
Now having established that baptism’s chief symbolic import is purification from sin, it needs to be understood that from the biblical point of view, purification is much more appropriately symbolised by affusion than by immersion. In the first place, the purifying influence of the Holy Spirit is never in all Scripture likened to a soul’s being submerged in Him. Rather, He is always One who is poured out or sprinkled upon the soul. In the second place, neither is purification itself usually represented by immersion but by affusion. Thus in Ezekiel 36:25, the promise is, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.” In the third place, the idea of being plunged into a pool would represent the very opposite of purification to the Jewish mind. Only running water, as in the case of the ceremonial cleansing of a former leper (Lev. 14) or the living water put with the ashes of the red heifer (Numbers 19), could give the idea of cleansing and purification; still water would be defiled the very moment the first sinner entered it. Thus the cleansing provided for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem would be by means of opening a fountain, wherein the purifying waters would be ever moving, not by filling a reservoir with stagnant water. Only sprinkled water, or water poured out, would always give the idea of purification, even if it came from a container of still water, as it did in the laver of the tabernacle service, because the process of affusion would give the idea of running water. Affusion, the application of water to the person, is more representative of purification than immersion, the application of the person to the water.
Thus our brief review of the symbolic import of baptism has brought us to the conclusion that affusion is in fact a mode of baptism that more clearly represents purification, the central symbolism, than immersion ever could. Nevertheless, immersion does not invalidate baptism. The essential matter as to mode is the use of water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and this holds with immersion as well as with affusion.
4. Affusion and not immersion is more in keeping with the spirit of the gospel.
The affusion mode of baptism is entirely in accordance with the universality of the gospel. A sacrament of the New Testament must be generally appropriate for all nations and all persons at all times. Unlike immersion, sprinkling is as appropriate for frozen climates, where perhaps all water turns to ice for at least half the year, as it is in desert climates, where even sufficient drinking water can scarcely be found throughout the year. Likewise, sprinkling is appropriate for infants and the aged and the infirm, in situations where immersion could be harmful and even dangerous. We cannot think that God would command a sacrament of universal obligation to professors of the true religion and their children that would preclude many from its benefit and endanger the health of others.
Affusion is also in accordance with the simplicity of the gospel. How simple and unceremonial are sprinkling and pouring! The smallest quantity of water is sufficient; no lavish preparations are required. But what a ceremony is involved in immersion — it has to be seen to be believed! Special clothes to be worn, both by the minister often with his thigh-length anglers’ waders and by the person immersed; special pools to be expensively built in churches or special places in rivers to be painstakingly sought out; special precautions to be taken such as heating the water beforehand; the trail of towels on the church floor between the baptismal pool and the place where the dripping wet immersee will change into dry clothes, and so on. Compare all this complexity with the obvious simplicity with which baptisms in the New Testament were performed. The laborious paraphernalia that proliferate with immersion are themselves sufficient to warn us that it cannot be a New Testament requirement, but affusion must be right when it fits so well with gospel simplicity.
Affusion and not immersion is also in accordance with the decency of the gospel. Great care has to be taken to preserve a modest appearance during immersion. Going down into the baptismal pool, the natural force of the water will cause women’s skirts or dresses to rise. To counteract this some immersionist churches supply gowns with heavy sand sown into the hem, with varying degrees of success. But even then, when coming up out of the baptismal pool in the full view of the assembled congregation, it is extremely difficult, especially for women, to find clothes that do not become decidedly immodest once they are dripping wet. However much the woman has tried, oftentimes decent and chaste eyes have to turn away from the sight of her wet clothes clinging so tightly to the shape of her body. If I offend you by describing it in such terms, turn your offence upon the indecency of the thing itself. If the immersionists really think that the holy God would sacramentally command a mode of baptism that necessarily involves women in such dangers with immodesty, that is their business, but we think that the God of unimpeachable holiness would never command such a thing. What? Shall the one God command that in day to day living “women adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Tim 2:9), and then in the special day of baptism command them to appear so immodestly? God forbid.
Thus sprinkling or pouring, not immersion, reflects the spirit of the gospel, in its universality, its simplicity and its decency. Surely then affusion is the gospel mode of baptism, not immersion.
By way of overall conclusion as to the proper mode of baptism, we shall do nothing more than reiterate the statement of the Westminster Confession: “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.”