As I read the discussion on Bart’s post yesterday my mind went back to a story I heard a Baptist leader tell not too long ago. I wanted to pose this tough question for our discussion. We ought to form our theology based on biblical teachings, not on difficult quandaries such as this, but it is still interesting to ponder what we might do in particular circumstance.
For the sake of this article, we need not argue the basics of biblical baptism. Apologies to our Presby friend Les who hangs out here, but the readers of Voices are pretty much exclusively people who are convinced that biblical Baptism is 1) by immersion, 2) of believers, 3) a command of God that is incumbent on new converts as a public profession of faith in Christ, and 4) a requirement to membership in an SBC church.
I know there are a few Baptist churches who are experimenting with the idea that one could accept into membership pedobaptists, but most of us reject that out of hand. It is clear, we believe, to anyone who simply reads and follows the scriptures and does not interpose some kind of theological system on it, that baptism is what I described above.
What Would You Do? A Difficult Scenario
Mrs. McGillicuddy has recently been saved at her advanced age. However, she is frail, needs oxygen to breath, and is within days of receiving the inheritance in Christ she so recently came into. She wants to be baptized, but immersion is simply not a possibility. Out of the question. Ol’ Beatrice has only two options.
1) She can die without being baptized.
Like the thief on the Cross she can be with Christ in paradise without ever entering the waters of baptism. She is saved by the finished work of Christ. Salvation is not mediated by baptism, but testified to in baptism. So, as a pastor I could just explain to her that God accepts her in Christ and that baptism is not necessary.
2) We can make an exception.
The Baptist leader I mentioned above made a one-time exception in a situation like this. He “baptized’ the person who could not enter into the waters for the correct form of baptism – immersion – by sprinkling or pouring (don’t remember which).
Church membership is not really an issue here, since the lady is bed-ridden. She just wants to follow the Lord in baptism.
I am not trying to use this exception to set the rule. I agree with the rule. Baptism is AFTER profession of faith by immersion. That is the policy of Southern Baptists because, I believe, it is the biblical policy. But in a narrow moment, in an exceptional situation, would you baptize this new convert, Beatrice McGillicuddy, by extra-biblical means like sprinkling or pouring? Or would you simply remind her that baptism, while an important act of obedience, is not essential to salvation and stand by your Baptist guns?
What would you do?
Baptizing any other way but immersion serves no purpose. Just as they did not sprinkle dirt on Christ’s body neither does it paint the picture to sprinkle water on those being Baptized. Those who sprinkle do so because they believe that act of sprinkling administers the grace of God. Why in heaven would we copy that? Baptism does not administer grace it is our confession of identity with Christ.
It is best that we not take part in that which violates scripture, communicates a false message, and is contrary to our own faith and practice.
Mark,
Not driving yet. You said “Those who sprinkle do so because they believe that act of sprinkling administers the grace of God” – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/a-tough-question-for-biblical-baptists/#comment-246866
Just FYI not all who sprinkle or pour believe believe that the grace of God is administered in any saving way. RC do but the PCA do not.
Les, The PCA’s I have talked with have indicated they do. Regardless even if you are correct it does not detract from my point. The reasons for sprinkling, however many there are, do not paint the Biblical picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Doing so as Baptist and more importantly as Biblical Christians makes no sense as well as gives people the false and unbiblical sense of Baptism. It is better to counsel them in a way that helps them to find peace with not being Baptized then it is to follow and unscriptural practice. We need… Read more »
Mark,
Thanks for the reply. If there are PCA ministers saying that baptism conveys saving grace then they are inn error, serious error, and I would love to know who they are. All one has to do is read the WCF and catechisms to see that they would be in error. Please let me know by email if you would be willing to put me in touch with those PCA ministers. Les@haitiorphanproject.org
Thanks brother.
I agree with Mark.
Les, the point Mark was trying to make was that baptism has nothing to do with saving her soul, so to not be baptized would not keep her out of Heaven….so, just don’t baptize her. That’s all Mark was saying, or at least, that’s what I understood from what he said.
David
Dave,
I’m honored, I think, to be mentioned. Good question too. Driving all day but looking forward to the discussion.
I would rather leave such situations to be dealt with WHEN they occur BY the people affected by them. I really see no benefit in speculating about what should be done. Situations like this are very unique. As a deacon I once assisted my pastor in baptizing a frail man in his wheelchair in the church baptistery. Four deacons assisted the pastor and got the job done. But we did not immerse his full face. So was he scripturally baptized? I believe so. But others may disagree. For many who can be baptized but would rather not do it, I… Read more »
I would opt for the first option, because quite frankly in my mind pouring or sprinkling would not actually be baptism so she would still die unbaptized.
I am with those who say that the only way to baptize her is by immersion. Sprinkling and pouring are not baptism. It accomplishes nothing to “baptize” her by sprinkling or pouring because it is not baptism. I would explain to her that her desire to be baptized is commendable and pleasing to the Lord, but actually baptizing her is not possible at this time. The Lord will receive her into His kingdom without baptism. My convictions on this particular question were strengthened only very recently, as we dealt with an issue in our church that propelled me to search… Read more »
So don’t baptize her?
Rebellious defiance is different than physical ailments that make immersion unreasonable.
It’s apples and oranges, IMO.
You cannot baptize someone unless you immerse them. We do not get to create different modes of baptism. No one is accusing the unbaptized of sinning when baptism is impossible. We are saying that baptism is only by immersion. “Baptism” by any other mode is not baptism. We disobey God when we pretend that it is.
Maybe the reason Jesus asked for some water on the cross was so He could “baptize” the new believer next to Him. 😉
So you’re willing to grant exception as it relates to being baptized (by saying they’re not in disobedience for not doing it), but not willing to grant exception with regard to the mode?
As I have said in this thread several times, it is not my place to call something baptism that Jesus and the apostles did not call baptism.
We have biblical precedent for not requiring baptism of someone who is unable to be baptized (i.e. the thief on the cross).