Conclusions

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is a minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and has authored a number of books, including (among others) the following: Doctrine According to Godliness: A Primer on Reformed Doctrine (2004), The Coming of Zion’s Redeemer: Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (2015). He was also the joint author of Saved by Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism (1995) and its accompanying study guide (all of which can be purchased at http://www.cprc.co.uk and http://www.rfpa.org).

*          *          *          *          *          *

[Previous section: “Other Passages”]

The only possible conclusion, therefore, for anyone who will look closely and carefully at the testimony of Scripture, is that there is no biblical ground for immersion as a proper mode of baptism.  Baptism in Scripture (whether the reality or the sign) is by sprinkling or pouring.

      

This matter of mode, however, is not as important as the matter of the proper subjects of baptism—either believers and their children or believers only.  Nevertheless, the two are not unconnected and a proper understanding of the mode of baptism leads to a better understanding of infant baptism.  It does that in several ways.

      

First, understanding the biblical teaching concerning the mode of baptism leads to an understanding of the meaning of baptism.  This is crucial.  If baptism means immersion, as the Baptists contend, it is difficult to see how even the sign of baptism can be applied to infants without seriously injuring them.  If baptism means that we are brought into contact with something that changes our condition, it is not only easy to see why infants need baptism, but how baptism can be applied to them.

      

Second, a proper understanding of the mode of baptism helps us to see that the focus in baptism is not on our faith, repentance or conversion, but on God’s grace.  It signifies, when done by sprinkling or pouring, that we have everything “from above.”  That, too, is crucial to an understanding of infant baptism.  If baptism marks our faith or repentance, infants ought not be baptized, since they are incapable of both conscious faith and active repentance; but if baptism marks the promise and grace that are from above, then infants can be baptized, since grace does not depend on our age, efforts, or abilities.

      

Third, understanding the mode of baptism makes the water of the sacrament much less important.  We believe that one of the reasons Baptists have such a difficult time seeing the warrant and necessity of infant baptism is that they place far too much emphasis on the water and the amount of water used.  Baptism, to them, means immersion, and so they lose sight of the biblical reality to which the water points.

      

For these three reasons, we have considered the question of mode, and pass now from that question to the more important and more difficult question of subjects—from the “how” of baptism to the “who” of baptism.

      

Before we do that, though, there is one more question to be answered: “Does Scripture’s emphasis on sprinkling or pouring as the proper mode of baptism mean that those who have been baptized by immersion are not truly baptized or that they ought to be rebaptized?”  We do not believe that to be the case.  The more important thing in baptism is that one be baptized according to the formula of Matthew 28:19—that is, into the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

      

Also, no Reformed church since the time of the Reformation has refused to recognize these baptisms by immersion.  That would be to put too much emphasis on the water and would suggest that Baptists, simply because of the way they were baptized, are not fellow Christians. That suggestion we will not make and do not believe it ought to be made.

[Next section: “Infant Baptism in the New Testament”]