# The Southern Presbyterian Journal/Volume 13/Number 46/Baptism

For other articles in this series, see Articles on the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Articles on the Westminster Confession by Gordon H. Clark The Word of God (WCF 1) Creeds Knowledge and Ignorance The Trinity (WCF 2) A Hard Saying (WCF 3) Providence (WCF 5) Creation (WCF 4) Healthy, Sick, or Dead? (WCF 6) The Covenant (WCF 7) Christ the Mediator (WCF 8) Justification (WCF 11) Sanctification (WCF 13) Free Will (WCF 9) Effectual Calling (WCF 10) Adoption (WCF 12) The Law of God (WCF 19) Assurance (WCF 18) Saving Faith (WCF 14) Repentance (WCF 15) Good Works (WCF 16) Christian Liberty (WCF 20) Perseverance (WCF 17) Worship and Vows (WCF 21, 22) The Sacraments (WCF 27) Baptism (WCF 28) The Church (WCF 25) The Civil Magistrate (WCF 23) The Lord's Supper (WCF 29) Censures and Councils (WCF 30, 31) Resurrection and Judgment (WCF 32, 33)
​Baptism is a doctrine on which there are obvious disagreements among Christians: the meaning of baptism is disputed, the subjects to be baptized are not agreed upon, the method of performing baptism is different, and, if we consider some of the smaller eddies of Christian thought, it is even denied that Christ commanded baptism.
Although the difference between the Baptists and the other Christian denominations is commonly supposed to be their peculiar insistence on immersion, the root of the matter goes deeper into the significance or meaning of the rite. The Baptists hold that baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ. They quote Rom. 6:3,4: ". . . were baptized into his death—Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death." But for Presbyterians and other Christians, while this of course is true, it is not the whole story. That is to say, connection with the death of Christ does not exhaust the significance of baptism. Gal. 3:27 speaks of being baptized into Christ, without particularizing his death; and most obviously of all, the reference in the command to baptize is not limited to Christ alone, much less his death, but the command is to baptize into the name of the ​Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Naturally, if a theory omits two thirds or more of the relevant material, a number of errors can be expected.
Baptism can be maintained as exclusively a symbol of burial with Christ only by ignoring most of what the New Testament says about its significance. In John 3:22-25 the practice of baptism by John's disciples and by Jesus' disciples gives rise to a discussion on purification. The baptism of cups and pots in Mark 7:4, following the washing of hands in the preceding verse, shows that baptism is a washing or purification. Hebrews 9:10 speaks of divers baptisms and in verses 13, 19, and 21 shows that these baptisms are sprinklings for purification. Similarly the blood of Christ, which he shed at his death, purges our consciences from dead works. Acts 22:16 says, "Be baptized and wash away thy sins." From verses like these we conclude that baptism is not a symbol of burial with Christ but of cleansing from sin. If burial were to be symbolized, instead of using water it would have been more appropriate to dig a grave and use earth. Water fits in with washing.
The second question concerns the persons who are to be baptized. Baptists baptize adults only; the other churches baptize infants also. Some of our good Baptist friends (and we are by no means questioning their devotion to our Lord) may maintain that an explicit authorization of infant baptism would be the only justification for the common Christian procedure. But if all the details of a rite had to be explicitly authorized in the New Testament, then it would follow that women ought not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. But not everything is explicitly set down in Scripture. God has given us the divine gift of logical reasoning, so that as the very first chapter of the Confession says, (section six) certain things may be deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence.
Part of the material from which infant baptism is deduced was referred to in the chapters on the Covenant and on the Church. First, the Covenant has always included the children of believers. Cf. Gen. 9:1,9,13; Gen. 12:2,3 and 17:7; Ex. 20:5; Deut. 29:10,11; and Acts 2:38,39. And it hardly needs pointing out that the sign of the covenant was administered to male infants in the Old Testament. Now, second, the Old Testament church and the New Testament church are the same church. Not only was the gospel preached to Abraham so that those in Christ are Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:8,29), but Romans 11:18-24 teaches that the Jewish branch was cut off from the tree that a Gentile branch could be grafted into this same tree, and that the Jewish branch will again be grafted back into the same tree. Note that it is all one tree from one root. The Jews will be restored, not to a new and different church, but to their own olive tree into which the Gentiles have been grafted. (Cf. Eph. 2:11-22). Accordingly, if children received the sign of the Covenant in the time of Abraham, far from requiring an explicit authorization to continue their inclusion in the Church, it would require an explicit authorization in the New Testament to deny them the privilege now.
This line of reasoning is more than completed by pointing out that, as the Lord's Supper replaces the Passover, so baptism has been substituted for circumcision. Col. 2:11,12 indicates that baptism is the circumcision of Christ.
After so much heavy argument, the disagreement as to the mode of baptism will have to be dismissed with a bit of humor that I trust no one will think misplaced. In I Cor. 10:1,2 the Israelites are said to have been baptized in the cloud and in the sea; and in I Peter 3:20 the flood is said to represent baptism; but while the Israelites and Noah may have been sprinkled, it was the others that were immersed.