The Sacraments
PREVIOUS 139 NEXT

Title
Contents
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C



Site Search:

powered by
FreeFind

Copyright & Credit

The declaration in the Article that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism was ‘ordained’ by our Lord has sometimes been challenged on the ground that the words in St. Matthew 29:19 represent a later tradition rather than the ipsissima verba of Jesus.[1]  But at least the passage indicates that when the First Gospel was written (c. 85 A.D.), Christian Baptism was believed to have the full authority of Jesus behind it.  That conviction is supported by several other considerations of importance: (i) If Jesus did not institute this Sacrament, the very early practice of Baptism by the Apostles after the Day of Pentecost is inexplicable.[2]  It cannot be a mere continuation of John’s Baptism, for he did not baptize ‘in the name of John’, or associate the Spirit with Baptism.  Furthermore, would the disciples continue a custom peculiar to John without express instructions from our Lord?  Nor were they merely continuing the Jewish practice of baptizing Gentile converts (called proselyte‑baptism).  A Jew would have been insulted if he had been asked to submit to proselyte‑baptism.  Obviously the Jewish converts to Christianity did not equate Christian Baptism with proselyte‑baptism, or they would not have accepted it so readily.[3]  (ii) In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 St. Paul, referring to ‘the Old Testament types of the two Sacraments’, shows that he bracketed Holy Baptism and Holy Communion together as of equal status.  He then proceeds to show that the significance of the latter is derived from its close connection with our Lord.[4]  Would he have linked it so closely with Baptism if it was not also of our Lord?  (iii) The significance of Baptism occupies an important place in the teaching of the Apostles, and they show a unity of thought on the subject,[5] which suggests a common authoritative source in the teaching of Jesus himself.  The cumulative effect of all these considerations, supported by the references to Christian Baptism in the Gospels,[6] can only adequately be explained by accepting the tradition that the Sacrament has, in fact, the authority of our Lord behind it.


 



[1]Some of the main arguments are (i) If St. Matt. 28:19 represents Christ’s words, why did the early Christians baptize ‘in the Name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts. 8:16); and (ii) the words do not occur in the parallel passages in Mk. 16:15-18; Lk. 24:44-49; Jn. 20:21-23.  But the argument from silence is always precarious.  Is the Parable of the Prodigal Son to be rejected because it is only mentioned by St. Luke?  For arguments against St. Matt. 28:19, cf. W. F. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, pp. 105-109.

[2]Acts 2:38.

[3]Acts 2:41.

[4]1 Cor. 10:16 ff.

[5]W. F. Flemington, Op. cit., p. 129.

[6]Jn. 3:5, 4:1 f.; Mtt. 28:19.

PREVIOUS 139 NEXT