John Greer (1954-) is the current moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, the denomination founded by the late Ian Paisley. Unlike most Free Presbyterians I have encountered (e.g., Colin Maxwell), he is a bit more informed about the issues, including having a knowledge of biblical Greek (he taught Greek for a few years in the FPC seminary in the USA). He was elected moderator of the FPC in September 2012.
With respect to baptism, they hold to the following position (emphasis added):
Baptism — The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration. (Free Presbyterian Church Articles of Faith 6a; emphasis added).
In other words, with respect to the mode of baptism (whether by immersion, affusion, or sprinkling) or the subjects of baptism (whether infants or confessing adults), a member of the FPC has freedom to hold a certain doctrine; however, baptismal regeneration is a position that is condemned by the FPC and their articles of faith and cannot be held by any members thereof.
In a recent sermon given on the ordinance of baptism, Greer said the following:
Baptism is not an integral part of the gospel in the sense that it is not essential for salvation. (approx. 32:20 mark).
To support this idea, he appeals to 1 Cor 1:17, arguing that Paul separates baptism from the Gospel; in reality, part is talking about two functions within the gospel itself—baptism and the preaching of the gospel. In reality, Paul himself taught baptismal regeneration, and nothing in 1 Cor 1:17 contradicts baptism being salvific—sadly, Greer is engaging in the common eisegesis of this verse (see my blog post addressing this verse here).
Joseph Fitzmyer, commenting on 1:17 and 3:6-10, writes:
17. For Christ did not send me to baptize. This startling statement is not meant to undermine the value of baptism or liturgical actions. It reveals only how Paul understands his own authorized mission: cultic or liturgical ministry was not as important to him as that of preaching the gospel. Others can baptize, but he must preach, because he was called by God to preach his son “among the Gentiles” (Gal 1;16); now he ascribes his call and sending to Christ himself (Christos without an article, hence Jesus’ second name).
But to preach the gospel. i.e., to proclaim the good news (euangelizesthai) of salvation that comes through Jesus Christ . . .
9. For we are God’s fellow-workers . . . In the first clause, Paul regards both Apollos and himself as synergoi theou, a title that he used also of Timothy in 1 Thess 3:2. The phrase synergoi theou has been understood in two ways: (1) “God’s fellow-workers,” i.e., those who work together with God and are engaged in a common endeavor with God himself, who is the principal worker . . . (2) “Fellow workers in God’s service,” or “God’s servants, working together” (NRSV), or “fellow workers who belong to God,” i.e., Paul and his colleagues are those who work together and thus serve God by such shared labor . . .[v.10] Paul’s preaching has laid what he calls themelion, “a foundation,” for what he achieved thereby was fundamental for the Corinthian church, but he does not call himself the foundation. It is, however, the basis of the authority that he now exercises over the community, and to it he will return in 9:1-2. Paul calls himself architekton, “builder,” a title found only here in the NT. For the idea of a “foundation of the community,” see 1QS 7:17. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians [AB 32; Garden City, Doubleday, 2008], 147, 195-96, 197.)
Anthony C. Thiselton, a Protestant biblical scholar, commented on 1 Cor 1:17 thusly:
Since baptism and the Lord’s Supper also, for Paul, proclaim the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-11; 1 Cor 11:24-27), the contextual meaning of βαπτιζειν has been conveyed by translating it to perform baptisms, with its emphasis on ministerial agency. (Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000], 143 [emphasis in original].)
To prove that Paul rejected baptismal regeneration, Greer offers the following comments based on 1 Cor 10:
With regard to the sense and essence the New Testament words, either the verb "to baptise" or the noun "baptism," the principle idea is always that of union [with Jesus Christ] . . .[with respect to 1 Cor 10:1-2] look at those words; they [the Israelites were] baptised unto Moses. The word "unto" there could also be read "into," and so, in a sense, in a certain sense, as the children of Israel went through the Red Sea, they were baptised into Moses; the meaning is that they were united with Moses, in other words, he was their leader and they were joined to him, and this is the language of the Holy Spirit, I want you to get a hold of that, these are the words of the Spirit of God, and in that event of crossing through the Red Sea, the children of Israel were baptised into Moses. Now, the point I want you to notice here is this--in this event, where the word "baptised" is used, is the thought of union is really in view; "baptised into Moses"--he is the man of God; he is the leader of Israel; and in a certain sense, these people are brought into union with him, and the point is this--that there is no water in view in terms of this "baptism" [as the Israelites passed through dry land] . . . This word is the very same word used when [the Bible] refers to water baptism but it brings out this fact that the idea of the word "baptised" is the idea of union. (beginning at the 37:50 mark)
One reason Greer has to engage in this absolutised (mis-)reading of 1 Cor 10:1-12 comes out, beginning at the 41:34 mark, when he confesses that, if water baptism is in view in Rom 6:3-4 (which is the case; see here), Paul taught baptismal regeneration:
Very plainly, the thought again here, is that of union, and it is union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Look at those words in verse 3: "Baptised into Jesus Christ." But I want to stress to your minds--there is not a drop of water in view in verses 3 and 4 of Romans 6; there is no water here in this setting. This "baptism" is a spiritual baptism, "baptised into Jesus Christ." If there were water mentioned in these verses, that would actually mean that we would actually be forced to espouse baptismal regeneration.
It is amazing, as well as the sign of sheer hypocrisy and projection, that so many Protestant apologists and theologians claim that Latter-day Saints rely on wrenching the Bible out of context to support our doctrines, when in reality, their leaders are forced to engage in such eisegesis of the Bible and such illogical reasoning.
With respect to 1 Cor 10, Paul is discussing various events in the Old Testament that are types of the ordinances of the New Testament, which are the antitypes or fulfillments of these Old Testament types. A type/antitype relationship exists between the passing of the Israelites through the Red Sea and their being immersed in the cloud and water baptism, just as there are type/antitype relationships between the manna from heaven and the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, as well as a type/antitype relationship between the rock that followed them and none other than Jesus Christ Himself:
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did drink all the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Indeed, the Greek term τυπικως, defined by Thayer as "by way of example (prefiguratively)" in v. 11:
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (τυπικως): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Further, Greer is trying to read texts that speak of water baptism in light of a metaphorical usage thereof; consider the following comments on this verse from the NET, an Evangelical production:
A number of witnesses, some of them important, have the passive ἐβαπτίσθησαν (ebaptisthesan, "were baptized") instead of the middle ἐβαπτίσαντο (ebaptisanto, "baptized [themselves]") in v. 1Co 10:2 (so א A C D F G Ψ 33 al latt). However, the middle is not without its representation (î46c B 1739 1881 Û Or; the original hand of î46 read the imperfect middle ἐβαπτίζοντο [ebaptizonto]). The passive looks like a motivated reading in that it is clearer and conforms to typical Pauline usage (his thirteen instances of the verb are all either active or passive). B. M. Metzger, in representing a minority opinion of the UBS Committee, suggests that the middle would have been appropriate for Jewish baptism in which the convert baptizes himself (TCGNT 493). But this assumes that the middle is a direct middle, a rare occurrence in the NT (and never elsewhere with this verb). Further, it is not really baptism that is in view in v. 1Co 10:2, but passing through the Red Sea (thus, a metaphorical use). Although the present editors agree with the minority's resultant reading, it is better to take the middle as causative/permissive and the scribes as changing it to a passive for clarity's sake. Translational differences are minimal, though some exegetical implications are involved (see ExSyn 427).
In spite of the gross abuse of 1 Cor 10:1-2, wherein Greer is trying to read a metaphorical use of a term into the normative (water baptism) usage of βαπτιζω is a serious exegetical fallacy; in addition, whenever water baptism is in view, that baptism is the instrumental means of bringing about a remission of sins and “union with Christ,” and is not merely a symbol of such a union. Consider Acts 2:38-39 (exegeted in detail here):
Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptised 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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
In spite of some linguistic trickery by some Protestant apologists, here water baptism is the instrumental means of this “remission of sins.” Such is also part-and-parcel of the teachings of Jesus, such as John 3:1-7, which, in spite of objections, is about the salvific necessity of water baptism.
Additionally, Rom 6:3-4 is about water baptism—just as we are buried in the water (immersion) and then are raised out thereof in the act of baptism, we are buried with Christ and are raised to newness of life into Christ. For my exegesis of this text, see here.
Evangelicals with more intellectual integrity than Greer admit that, while there is a symbolic meaning behind the term “baptism,” and its cognates, water baptism is always in view in texts such as Rom 6:3-4. N.T. Wright, author of scholarly volumes such as Justification and The Resurrection of the Son of God, discusses this issue here (as well as a very pertinent insight on Gal 2:20):
Even Martin Henry, a popular Reformed commentator, in his commentary on this text, understands this to refer to water baptism (emphasis in original):
Baptism binds us to Christ, it binds us apprentice to Christ as our teacher, it is our allegiance to Christ as our sovereign. Baptism is externa ansa Christi--the external handle of Christ, by which Christ lays hold on men, and men offer themselves to Christ. Particularly, we were baptized into his death, into a participation of the privileges purchased by his death, and into an obligation both to comply with the design of his death, which was to redeem us from all iniquity, and to conform to the pattern of his death, that, as Christ died for sin, so we should die to sin. This was the profession and promise of our baptism, and we do not do well if we do not answer this profession, and make good this promise.
A.T. Robertson, a leading Reformed theologian and Koine Greek grammarian, also admitted that Paul had in view in this pericope water baptism, contra Greer:
Interestingly, earlier in the sermon, Greer states that baptism for a believer is not optional, and is a commandment--and he is absolutely correct. Sadly, his Reformed theology results in him holding to, not just a warped, unbiblical conception of the nature of water baptism, but also an inconsistent view of baptism vis-a-vis the believer. Indeed, Greer begs an important question, "For what purpose are we baptised at all?" it is all very well to claim that baptism is a commandment and to protest against those who do not obey it, but what does baptism achieve? Nothing in the symbolic view held by Greer et al. For unless the baptised person can give a sound theological reason for doing so, his submission to baptism in such a theological system is pointless--what does it signify? He does not know. What is its effect? He believes it has no effect whatsoever. Why then be baptised in the first place? Simply because Jesus commanded it. No other reason other than "just because," and not because of any significance of its own. Such makes a great mockery and degradation of the baptism of John, the Great Commission and the commandment of Jesus Christ in Matt 28:19, as well as the believer's symbolic enactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (as discussed in Rom 6:3-4).
The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and our death to sin (verse 1), forwards to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave. (Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [6 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1931], 4:362; emphasis in original).
Furthermore, one should note that, with respect to 1 Cor 10:1-2, there was indeed a “baptism” or an “immersion,” which is what βαπτιζω denotes; to quote again from Robertson:
The picture is plain enough. The mystic cloud covered the people while the sea rose in walls on each side of them as they marched across . . . The immersion was complete for all of them in the sea around them and the cloud over them. Moses was their leader then as Christ is now and so Paul uses eis concerning the relation of the Israelites to Moses as he does of our baptism in relation to Christ (Gal. 3:27) (Ibid. 4:151)
Interestingly, earlier in the sermon, Greer states that baptism for a believer is not optional, and is a commandment--and he is absolutely correct. Sadly, his Reformed theology results in him holding to, not just a warped, unbiblical conception of the nature of water baptism, but also an inconsistent view of baptism vis-a-vis the believer. Indeed, Greer begs an important question, "For what purpose are we baptised at all?" it is all very well to claim that baptism is a commandment and to protest against those who do not obey it, but what does baptism achieve? Nothing in the symbolic view held by Greer et al. For unless the baptised person can give a sound theological reason for doing so, his submission to baptism in such a theological system is pointless--what does it signify? He does not know. What is its effect? He believes it has no effect whatsoever. Why then be baptised in the first place? Simply because Jesus commanded it. No other reason other than "just because," and not because of any significance of its own. Such makes a great mockery and degradation of the baptism of John, the Great Commission and the commandment of Jesus Christ in Matt 28:19, as well as the believer's symbolic enactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (as discussed in Rom 6:3-4).
As with so many arguments against the salvific efficacy of water baptism, Greer’s comments in his sermon is representative of the eisegesis one encounters from apologists for the Reformed/symbolic view of baptism. However, the Lord does bring good from evil (cf. Gen 50:20), and has given us another opportunity to refute doctrinal error (cf. Gal 1:6-9) and present the truth about the doctrine of baptism. Yet again, if any denomination can lay claim to being reflective of “biblical Christianity,” it is not the various Reformed denominations where most of our theological opponents come from; it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
