The baptism of jesus, pt.2 Have you followed the Lord in baptism?

II. REASONS FOR THE NEGLECT OF CHRIST'S BAPTISM.

God has placed a spotlight on Jordan.

Nonetheless, it has garnered little attention.

Evangelical pulpits have paid little attention
to what it was that compelled the Father to speak from heaven.

Modern Christian authors seem unmoved
by that which moved the gospel writers.

Why this lack of interest?

Here are some possible reasons.

A. Baptism as a topic is so controversial that many leave it alone for fear of offending someone. Strong beliefs are not viewed as positive in our post-modern society.

B. The baptism of Christ is viewed by most as a topic of great theological difficulty. The crossfire of conflicting opinions leaves many pastors intimidated by the subject.

C. The majority of evangelicals as well as all Campbellites have concluded that John's baptism was not Christian baptism. Such thinking naturally diminishes interest in the subject.

III. DO WE FOLLOW CHRIST IN BAPTISM?

On September 13, 1855, an Englishman named J. C. Philpot
was baptized by John Warburton at Allington, Wiltshire.

Mr. Philpot was a polished Oxford scholar and a clergyman in the established church.

John Warburton was an uneducated and unpolished Baptist minister who suffered throughout his life from poverty, persecution and domestic trials.

Needless to say, this baptism raised many eyebrows.

The action cost Mr. Philpot his income and his respectability in polite society.

He had been brought to the font as an infant, yet he considered that to be only a superstitious ritual, a relic of popery. At thirty years of age, cost what it may, he must, as he put it, "follow the dear Lord in baptism."

We who are Baptists often speak of "following Christ in baptism."

The expression implies that we submit to baptism willingly,
and that the baptism we receive is the same as that received by Christ.

Those who view John's baptism as an Old Covenant lustration (purification)
or as a form of proselyte baptism originated by some Jewish sect,

do not - indeed cannot - speak in this way.

Likewise those who were baptized as infants
cannot speak of following Christ in baptism, for they had no choice in the matter.

They did not come like Christ but were brought to baptism.

Certainly those who believe that baptism saves cannot be said to follow Christ into the water, for he had no sins to be cleansed nor any nature to be renewed.

This leaves us to consider the claim implied by Baptist churches in this common expression, "following the Lord in baptism."

Do these churches indeed follow Christ in the one baptism mentioned in Ephesians 4:5?

The only way to substantiate this claim is to compare in each aspect the baptism administered by John the Baptist with that administered in Baptist churches today.

Things that are identical in every aspect are the same.

Therefore, let us compare.

A. Baptism requires a Scriptural mode. As far as I know, no one claims that John's baptism was any different in mode than baptisms administered later.

Baptists, of course, believe that immersion is the only Scriptural mode.

The word translated baptism in the New Testament is "baptizo", which means to immerse, dip or submerge.

B. Baptism must be administered by divine authority. Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

Some mistakenly see this as a baptism formula, a liturgical wording intended to be recited when someone is baptized.

While there is certainly no harm in such a practice, Jesus was rather explaining that baptism must be performed by divine authority.

(Compare this with Matthew 18:20 and I Corinthians 5:4.
Also think of the common phrase, "Stop in the name of the law!")

John undoubtedly baptized with divine authority:
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)

And John bare record, saying,
I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,
and it abode upon him.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water,
the same said unto me,

Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending,
and remaining on him,
the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. (John 1:32-34)

You may ask,
"Was Jesus baptized in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?"

The answer should already be clear, but for the sake of any who may yet be confused, I will again point out that the authority of the Holy Trinity was never more evident in anyone's baptism than in that of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Father audibly expressed his pleasure in it.

The Son obviously concurred, because he walked for perhaps two days and then insisted that John baptize Him.

The Holy Spirit approved, for immediately upon the baptism he visibly anointed Christ.

C. Baptism requires a proper administrator.

Baptist churches have historically baptized through their ordained ministers.

Now some may question concerning John himself.

Was he baptized?

Was he a church member?

Was he an ordained minister?

As we have seen, his ordination came directly from God (John 1:6, 32-34).

Was John baptized?

We answer by saying that Adam had no mother!

Some things must begin with God.

John was the first Baptist.

By that we mean he was the first ever to administer baptism.

His authority came from heaven.

There was no one to baptize him.

Was John a church member?

No. (In John 3:29, he calls himself simply the friend of the bridegroom.)

However, without John, there would have been no church,
for the first church was made of people baptized by him.

This became the church at Jerusalem.

(We often hear that baptism requires church authority.

This is somewhat confusing.

Baptism is administered by the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The church is not the authority behind baptism,
but it rather has received authorization from God to administer baptism;

see Matthew 18:20.

In this sense, the church holds the keys of the kingdom, Matthew 18:18-20.)