On the inconsistency of the Baptist hermeneutic:
One result of this lack of a theology
of baptism is seen in the tendency to focus on narrative descriptions of
baptism in the New Testament and to treat didactic baptismal texts only in a superficial
manner. For example, although Romans 6:3-4 is often quoted by Baptists to justify
immersion as the proper mode, it is used in some very surprising ways. This
text is routinely interpreted as saying that baptism is a picture of burial and
resurrection. However, while the text may well assume the practice of immersion
(a whole host of non-Baptist commentators would agree), in point of fact the
text does not say in so many words that baptism pictures anything.
What it does say is that baptism effects union with Christ and his
vicarious suffering and resurrection. This if, of course, too strong for a
purely symbolic view of baptism, so that many Baptists resort to interpreting
the text as a reference to Spirit-baptism, while at the same time wanting to
retain it as a proof-text for immersion of water. (Stanley K. Fowler, More
than a Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism [Studies
in Baptist History and Thought 2; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2002], 2-3,
italics in original)
On the Interpretation of Rom 6 in the works of John Gill (1697-1771):
Romans 6:3-5 was a very
significant text virtually from the inception of the Particular Baptist
movement, in that it provides the strongest biblical evidence for the symbolism
of death-burial-resurrection in the act of immersion. Although this text is
obviously useful for this cherished Baptist idea, the text also seems to say
that baptism effects union with Christ, which is an idea less at home in the
Baptist tradition. Gill was not blind to this, but rather than accepting the conclusion
that baptism is an effective sign, he suggested another way of interpreting the
phrase “into Christ”:
. . . baptized into Christ . . .
by which is meant, not a being brought by it into union with Christ, which is
either secretly form eternity, or openly at conversion, and both before the
baptism of true believers, nor a being brought by it into the mystical body of
Christ the church, for this also is before it; but rather it designs a being
baptized or a being brought by baptism into more communion with Christ, into a
participation of his grace and benefits; or into the doctrine of Christ, and a
more distinct knowledge of it. . . . though rather the true meaning of the
phrase, baptized into Christ, I take to be, is to be baptized purely for
the sake of Christ in imitation of him, who has set us an example, and because
baptism is an ordinance of his; it is to submit to it with a view of his glory,
to testify our affection for him, and subjection to him, without laying any stress
or dependence on it for salvation. (John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament
[Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1811], 2:479)
It would seem, then, that Gill was
ultimately unsure what the phrase “baptized into Christ” actually signifies. It
might be a post-conversion, higher-level communion with Christ, or a leap
forward in understanding the truth about Christ’s work, or an act of imitation.
But whatever it means, it is clear what it does not mean—for Gill it
could not mean baptism brings the sinner into union with Christ. (Ibid., 38-39)
On εις Χριστον ("into Christ") denoting a salvific union with Christ:
The locus classicus is Paul’s
reference to baptism εις Χριστον in Romans 6:3-4. Baptism is there
viewed as the event in which believers were effectively united to Christ and
thus to the benefits of his redemptive work-baptism εις Χριστον in the condition of being εν Χριστω. For centuries Baptists have relied
on this text as a support for the mode of immersion, but while the imagery of
immersion may underlie Paul’s words, the text itself seems to assert much more
than a pictorial significance for baptism. This language of burial with Christ
in baptism occurs also in Colossians 2:12, where Paul clarifies that this
occurs “through faith” and not simply through a ritual act, and where he
explicitly refers to being “raised” with Christ in baptism (as opposed to the more
guarded language about resurrection in Romans 6). The language of baptism εις Χριστον appears also in Galatians 3:27,
where it explains the Χριστον and εν Χριστω Ιησου (vss. 26,
28). The conjunction of εις Χριστον and εν Χριστω seems to indicate that the former
phrase means something more than simply “with reference to Christ”—it is
indicative of movement into saving union with Christ. (Ibid., 161)
On “Baptism” in Rom 6 being Water Baptism, not “Spirit-baptism”:
First,
given the compressed nature of Paul’s argument in Romans 6, it seems highly unlikely
that “baptized into his death” in vs. 3 would denote only baptism in the
Spirit, while “baptism into death” in the next sentence would denote only
baptism in water. Granted that the spiritual realities in view may demand that more
than water-baptism is in view in vs. 3, it is still unlikely what water-baptism
is absent from there if it is admittedly present in vs. 4. Since about 1640,
Baptists have wanted to see in Romans 6 a basis for the mode of immersion, due
to the symbol of burial and resurrection, while at the same time they have
often been nervous about the apparent indication that baptism actually unites
the individual to Christ, but they cannot have it both ways. If water is in
view in this text, then it is more than a symbol.
Second,
the imagery of baptism in the Spirit, as found in the Gospels and in Acts 1:5,
points to Christ as the baptizer who brings his people into the sphere of the
Spirit, but in both Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27 Christ is the goal of the
baptism rather than the baptizer. Although some fluidity of language is
allowable in the use of metaphors, the use of εις Χριστον appears to connect Romans 6 to
Matthew 28:19 (εις το ονομα) more naturally than to the language
about baptism εν πνευματι.
Third, the
connection between baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit is sufficiently
close to question this bifurcation of water and Spirit which is being
suggested. Although Christ’s baptizing in the Holy Spirit is contrasted to John’s
baptism, it is never contrasted to Christian baptism. In fact, both Acts 2:38
and Acts 19:1-6 seem to assume that the norm is that Christ would baptize in
the Spirit in connection with baptism in water. If this is
true, then allusions to Spirit-baptism in Romans 6 or Galatians 3 would not
imply that water-baptism is absent from view. (Ibid., 171, 172)
