Baptism.
(De baptismo.)
1. The divine order of baptism.
Baptism is not merely a church order, but a divine order (institutio divina), which is valid until the Last Day and for all nations. It is not less divine order than the sermon of the Gospel and the doctrines of the divine Word in general, with which it is composed by the command word of Christ Matt. 28:19-20 is composed: Πορευχλέντες ουν μαϑητεύσατε πάντα τά εϑνη, βαπτίζοντες αυτούς εις το δνομα τον πατρός καί τον νϊον καί του άγιον πνεύματος, διδάσκοντες αυτούς τηρεΐν πάντα δσα ενετειλάμην νμΐν' καί ιδού, εγιο μεϑ' υμών είμι πάσας τάς ημέρας εως της συντέλειας τού αίώνος ["Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world!”]. The divine order also emerges from the apostolic practice. Immediately on the first feast of Pentecost we find baptism in practice, not as good counsel, but by commandment, and in reference to all faithful individuals. Peter's words are, "Repent, and be baptized (βαπτισθήτω έκαστος) every one of you in the name of JEsu Christ for the remission of sins."1017) Likewise it is said of Peter in the house of Cornelius, "He commanded them to be baptized (προσέταξε αυτούς βαπτισϑηναι) in the name of the Lord."1018)
That the Quakers reject baptism follows from their rejection of the external means of grace in general. They substitute spiritual and fire baptism for water baptism. The Socinians admit in the later editions of the Rakau Catechism that baptism was ordained by Christ, but only for that time. Likewise the Salvation Army. The latter parallels water baptism with circumcision, clipping the hair, washing of the feet of the saints, and other "Jewish ceremonies" which "should never be binding on our conscience".1019)
Recent theologians, especially of a critical trend, but not only they, strive with all their might to prove that Christian baptism cannot be traced back to a command of Christ to baptize. While admitting that baptism was in general use in the apostolic church, the apostles and congregations, for several reasons, such as Jewish and
1017) Acts 2:38.<w:t>1018) Acts 10:48.
1019) The evidence in Günther, Symbolik 4, p. 294 [Popular Symbolics., p. 329].
298 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 254]
pagan analogies and prompted by John's baptism, may have come to baptism on its own. Holtzmann, for example, admits1020) that "the Christian baptismal custom belongs to the original possession of all Christianity", but at the same time claims that "an actual institution by the historical Jesus" cannot be proven. Matthew ascribes ch. 28:19 the baptismal command to the risen Christ. Now the belief in the risen Christ is also "original Christian common property",1021) but this belief is not based on the fact of the resurrection of Christ, but on the desire, especially of Peter and Paul, to have a risen Savior. Thus Holtzmann "proved" that there is no "actual" baptismal command of Christ. For, to be sure, if Christ is not risen, then the risen Christ could not give the baptismal command reported by Matthew. Holtzmann complains,1022) that "the Lutheran representative theologian A. von Öttingen" accuses him of "dogmatic prejudice". Von Öttingen, without becoming unobjective, could have said more. Holtzmann is, after all, the whole Christian doctrine terra incognita. Nevertheless, he presents individual parts of the doctrine, such as the doctrine of satisfactio vicaria in Paul, objectively correctly, as we have also acknowledged. But in the doctrine of baptism, and especially with regard to Christ's command to baptize, his animus against Christianity leads him to one logical absurdity after another. That the apostles did not know Christ's command to baptize, he wants to prove from the fact that Paul himself baptized only a little (1 Cor. 1:14), and that Peter indeed commands to baptize in the house of Cornelius, but does not baptize himself.1023) Also the evangelist John is said to have known no command of Christ to baptize, because he reports chap. 3:22; 4:2 that Christ did baptize, but did not perform the baptism "with his own hand". Whoever not only allows himself such absurdities but also presents them in a tone of superiority, proves that he has lost his objective point of view regarding baptism and the command to baptize.1024) Against the
1020) Neutest. Theol. I, 452.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1021) op. cit., p. 433.
1022) op. cit., p. 450, note.<w:t>1023) So also Pastor Feine in RE. 3 XIX, 397.
1024) As such, who have also "proven" "the unhistorical nature of the Matthean baptismal command", Holtzmann names among others: de Wette, Schölten, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Jülicher, Weizsäcker, Pfleiderer, Harnack. "The formal authenticity of the words of institution, especially the Trinitarian formula, is also disputed by Bossert, Beyschlag, B. Weiß, A. and R. Seeberg, and Feine."
299 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 255]
"historicity" of the command to baptize Matt. 28:19 has also been objected — and not only by those whose faith in Christ ends with the "died and buried" — that the first Christians could not be trusted with such a "reflection" on Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Matt. 28:19 to the first Christians. It must be said that the theologians who raise this objection date their own deficit in the knowledge of Christian doctrine 1800 years backwards and transfer it quite unhistorically to the first Christians. According to everything we know from the Gospels and the letters of the apostles about the state of knowledge of the first Christians, the knowledge of the Father and the Son , and of the Holy Spirit belonged to the ABC of their faith. Therefore, we are not surprised that already in the "Didache"1025) and then in Justin1026) the baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is addressed as something natural and well-known.
If newer theologians of a positive trend recognize baptism as an order which, according to God's will and command, is to remain in the church until the Last Day, but at the same time, in contrast to the old theologians, reject the "statutory legal" character of the order,1027) the meaning of the contrast is not clear. Since baptism is a special form of witnessing and application of the gospel, the church's being bound to baptism is no more legal than its being bound to the sermon of the gospel. According to Lutheran doctrine, the fact that a man can possess grace and salvation even without baptism1028) is due to the fact that the word of the gospel conveys not only a part but the whole of the salvation acquired by Christ. But this does not deprive baptism of the character of the divine order any more than the Lord's Supper ceases to be a divine order because even without it faith in the forgiveness of sins can exist on the basis of the word of the Gospel.
1025) Ch. 7:1, ed. Harnack, p. 22: Βαπτίαατε εις το δνομα τον πατρός και τον νίον καί τον άγιον πνεύματος.
1026) The Apology I, 61 (St. L. ed., 65): Επ' ονόματος τον πατρός των δλων καί δεσπότον ϑεον καί τον οωτήρος ημών Ίησον Χρίστον καί πνεύματος άγιον τό εν τω νδατι τότε λοντρόν ποιούνται.
1027) Cf. F. Kattenbusch in RE. 3 XIX, 423.
1028) This has always been asserted in enthusiastic circles against the divine order or against baptism as a means of grace.
300 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 255-256]
God is "abundantly rich in grace"1029) and therefore, in condescension to our practical need, does not merely give "one way, counsel, and help against sin". This point is covered again under "Necessity of Baptism".