3. What makes baptism baptism (forma baptismi).
Baptism includes water and the application of water, as we have seen. But what makes baptism Christ's baptism is the fact that Christ has given his word, the word of command and promise, to this application of water. This is expressed by the much quoted words of Augustine: Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.1033) Thus, baptism involves a. water, b. the application of the water, c. Christ's
1032) According to Luke 11:38, the Pharisee was surprised that Christ had not first baptized Himself (έβαπτίσϋη) before the meal. Νίπτεσϋαι and βαπτίζεαϋαι are apparently used as synonyms in Scripture. Mark. 7 it says v. 3: The Pharisees do not eat without having washed their hands (εάν μη νίψωνται τάς χεϊρας). In the following verse, "baptize" is substituted for "wash": "they do not eat without being baptized" (εάν μη βαπτίσωνται), and following this it is added that the Jews have the custom of washing cups, jars, metal vessels, and table stocks to baptize (παρέλαβον κρατεΐν βαπτισ-μονς ποτηρίων και ζεστών και χαλκίων και κλινών). So also Cremer: "According to Mark. 7:4: Luke 11:38 … βαπτίζειν seems to have been the technical term for these [Levitical] washings at that time." In Walther, Pastorale, pp. 115 f., is compiled about all that can be said about the matter: "Since the word used in the original text of the words of institution signifies every kind of washing, and since by the external form of baptism not only the burial into death (Rom. 6:3. 4), but also the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5-6) and being sprinkled with Christ's blood (Hebr. 10:22; cf. Ex. 24:8; Hebr. 9:19; 1 Cor. 10:2); since also in baptism the application of water does not effect the washing away of the body (1 Pet. 3:21), but only the washing away from the soul, which is thereby effected by means of the word; and since finally the power of baptism is not hidden in the water, therefore much water does not have more power than little: so in each of these mentioned forms the baptism is valid caeteris paribus (if everything else is correct). As immersion is not to be rejected, though the same less clearly intimates washing and being sprinkled with the blood of Christ; so also pouring and continued sprinkling are not to be rejected, though by these forms less clearly intimates being buried in death. However, a servant of the orthodox church has to conform all the more to the form that has become customary among them, since the Anabaptists still today want to make these adiaphoris, contrary to God's Word of God and truth and contrary to Christian freedom in particular, essential components of baptism. Gal. 2:4-5."
1033) In Ioh. Tractatus 80. opp. IX, 303.
302 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 257-258.]
Word. What this Word of God is, which must be added to the application of the water, we do not need to give to our own thoughts, since Christ does not merely give the command: "Baptize!" but adds the closer definition: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Luther says in reference to the Word of God, which must be added to the application of water: 1034) "If you were to baptize a child with water and say an Our Father or something else from Scripture and the Word of God over it, this would not be called a true baptism, and it is not enough for you to say, 'If the water belonging to baptism and the Word of God are there,' for the third matter is still lacking, that God has not commanded you to say such words" (such as Our Father, etc.)." "Here in baptism we can prove that he commands us and tells us to baptize, that is, to lower the man into the water and to say the words 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' For such baptisms of water I have not yet chosen any man to be, as the magicians or papal consecrators of the host [Fladenweiher], nor devised the words myself, nor spoken them out of my own devotion; but both water and word are clearly and distinctly named to me, and are comprehended in his command, and thus preserved."1035)
Unfortunately, we have to say something more about "baptismal formulas". Newer theologians have succeeded in spreading a kind of terror, as before all "formulas", so especially before the "baptismal formula": "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". Also Nösgen1036) is obviously infected by this terror when he says that Matt. 28:19 "is, however, formally not a baptismal formula in the strict sense of the word commanded". But Nösgen braces himself and adds: "Materially, however, the baptismal formula is contained in it all the more, since the historical occurrence of many a βαπτίσματα [baptisms] conditioned it from the outset to pronounce each time" (scil. at each baptism) "for what purpose and goal the βαπτίζειν would be performed on the person to be baptized. But the utterance of the εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος [“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”] makes the baptized certain that by baptism he is placed in the fellowship of the triune God known by his name according to his nature." Nösgen thus very correctly reminds us that there are many a βαπτίσματα in the Gentile world on
1034) X, 2068. 2067.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1035) Likewise l. c., p. 2065, § 21.
1036) In the commentary on Matt. 28:19.
303 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 258-259.]
gods and men, and that therefore Christ instructs that his (Christ's) baptism among all nations should be done "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," as distinguished from all other customary baptisms.1037) ¶ But now the counter reasons against Matt. 28:19 as a "baptismal formula"! That Christ's command to baptize in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is not to be regarded as a "baptismal formula" is to be seen from the fact that Peter on the day of Pentecost exhorts the believers to be baptized in the names of Jesus Christ (επί τφ δνόματι Ίησον Χρίστον), and that also otherwise in Scripture Christian Baptism is briefly called baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (εις το δνομα τον Κνρίον "Ίησον), "in the name of the Lord" (εν τφ δνόματι τον Κνρίον) and, even more briefly, is characterized as baptism "into Jesus Christ" (εις Χριστόν Ίησοϋν).1038) To this it must be said that the whole difficulty is a made one. There is not the slightest reason for taking these "shorter expressions," in which the baptism instituted by Christ is characterized as baptism into Christ, etc., for the baptismal formula used by the apostles, and for contrasting them with Christ's command to baptize, which is into the triune God. Quite correctly Meyer says that Peter's command Acts 10:47, to baptize "in the name of the Lord", "leaves the consummation words of baptism untouched".1039) The simple situation is this: By baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," according to Christ's instruction, the apostles baptized eo ipso in the name (έν τφ δνόματι), on the basis of the name (επί τφ δνόματι) and also in relation to the name (εις τό δνομα) of Christ, Christ having indeed commanded baptism into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thus this baptism is a baptism "in the name of Christ." This
1037) Tertullian points (De bapt., c. 5) to the same fact: Et sacris quibusdam (nationes exterae) per lavacrum initiantur Isidis alicuius aut Mithrae; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa, totasque urbes aspergine circumlatae aquae expiant passim; certe ludis Apollinaribus et Pelusiis tinguntur. Idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere praesumunt. Item penes veteres quisquis se homicidio infecerat purgatrice aqua se expiabat. [Google] Cf. Bretschneider, Dogmatik 4 II, 626. text and note 501.
1038) Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:47; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3.
1039) Meyer seems to get into contradiction with himself, because he brings (to Matt. 28:19) the "short expression": baptize " into Christ", "on the name of Christ" in contrast to Matt. 28:19 as a "baptismal formula".
304 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 259-260]
Baptism is also based on Christ's name because it is acquired through Christ's substitutionary satisfaction, as Eph. 5:26 explicitly teaches: “Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it (εαυτόν τιηρέδωκεν νπερ αντης, satisfactio vicaria), that he might sanctify it by cleansing it through the bath of water in the word” (καϑαρίοας τώ λοντρώ τον νδατυς εν δήματι). And as to the baptism εις το δνομα τον Κνρίον ΊηοοΓ, upon or in the name of Christ JEsu, it must not be forgotten that the confession of the name of Christ always comprehends in itself the confession of the Holy Trinity. This is clear doctrine of the Scriptures. When in the name of Jesus (εν τώ όνο ματ ι Ίησον) all those knees bow who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and all tongues confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, they thereby at the same time honor God the Father,1040) and at the same time they worship the Holy Spirit, without whom no one is able to call Jesus a Lord.1041) Scherzer rightly says according to the processes of church fathers: "The confession of Christ is the confession of the whole Trinity."1042) Why, then, artificially assert the "abbreviated expressions": "in the name of Jesus Christ," etc., in contrast to baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? 1043) Moreover, we know from the
1040) Phil. 2:10. 11.<w:t>1041) 1 Cor. 12:3.
1042) Systema. De bapt., p. 356. cf. the quotations from the Church Fathers in Gerhard, , L. de bapt., § 91. RE.2 XV, 242 ff. The ordinary remarks on the difference of prepositions are thus: εις expresses the relationship into which the baptized are placed: επί and εν denote the basis upon which baptism is effected (Cremer): or: εις into, to fellowship, to property, εν, επί on ground (Ebeling). But it goes without saying that; such general designations as: ,.in relation to", "on ground" or even like the popular "in the sphere of" etc. only gain their certain meaning through the context. If baptism on the ground of the name of Jesus Christ has with it the proximate designation εις αιμεπιν των αμαρτιών, εις denotes the purpose or effect. Baptism is for the remission of sins; it is the medium of the remission of sins. Quite correctly Ebeling says that εις also designates 1 Cor. 12:13 the effect of baptism: εν ενί πνενιιατι πάντες ήιιεΐς είς εν σώμα εβα.ττίσΰημεν. Because baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, it also implants into the spiritual body of the Church.
1043) Also Zöckler says in the commentary to Acts 2:38: "The baptismal formula used by the baptizing apostles was certainly the one prescribed by the Lord Matt. 28:19 (cf. for this also the Didache 7, 2. 3), not the mere mention of the name of JEsus, for which the επί τω ονόματι Ι. Xρ, v. 38, is quite improperly adduced by some."
305 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 260-261]
apostles themselves were certain that they would not have baptized anyone who wanted to be baptized into Christ, but not into the Father and the Holy Spirit at the same time. This is evident from the fact that they consistently include the knowledge of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in one another, 2 Cor. 13:13: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all!"1044) It has still been urged that the baptismal records in so far more and different beside Matt. 28:19 insofar as e.g. Acts 2:38 addresses the baptism from the names of Christ "for the forgiveness of sins". On the other hand, it must be remembered that the Matt. 28:19 is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the name of God who is merciful to sinners, and therefore baptism from the names of the Triune God is always baptism "for the remission of sins". The heathen, who know that there is one God but do not know the triune God revealed in God's Word, think of God as an angry God whom they have yet to reconcile through worship and sacrifice. Christians, on the other hand, who hold to the Christian concept of God, always think of the triune God as the God who is merciful to men for Christ's sake, that is, who forgives their sins.
Also within the Lutheran church the question has been discussed whether baptism "in the name of the Lord", "from the names of Jesus Christ" etc. is valid, if otherwise the confession of the Holy Trinity is expressed at baptism, but in a wording different from Matt. 28:19 different wording. Brenz assumes the following case: "If someone, after reciting the Apostolic Symbol in baptism, were to say to the baptized these words: I have therefore heard the confession of your faith from your mouth, that you believe in God the Father, Creator Almighty of heaven and earth, and in His only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit: upon this confession and out of this faith I immerse you in water, or sprinkle water on you, that by this sign you may know that you are grafted into Jesus Christ and into the fellowship of all
1044) Thus, Peter's sermon on Pentecost, Acts 2:14 ff, is a powerful sermon about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Cf. 1 Cor. 8:4 ff; 12:1 ff; Gal. 4:4-7; Eph. 1:11-14; 3:2-5; 4:3-6; Tit. 3:4-7; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:16-21; 1 Jn. 2:22-24; 3:23-24; 4:2-3; 5:6-12 (also with omission of the critically challenged 7 b and 8 a.).
306 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 261]
His possessions; go in peace!’ This baptism would undoubtedly be a true baptism, because it contains what is necessary for baptism, and because the meaning of Christ's words is publicly expressed, although the sound of the words themselves seems to be somewhat altered." One will agree with Brenz that with this vigorous confession of the Holy Trinity in Baptism, Baptism should be recognized as a valid one. ¶ But here the remark is obvious that the assumed case will occur very rarely, especially since Brenz prefaces the words for practice: "It is to be noted that in baptism these common words: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and that no one should be allowed to use these words arbitrarily, or to use other words in baptism as he sees fit. For there are very important causes (gravissimae causae), the enumeration of which is superfluous here, why the use of these words should be carefully maintained" (diligenter retinendus sit).1045) Just think what erroneous thoughts of complete and less complete, even of "better" and "lesser" baptism easily arise when the words used for the application of water are changed ad libitum. Nevertheless, we also admit that a baptism which was performed in the manner described by Brenz would have to be recognized as a true baptism. We therefore agree with the judgment of the theologians, who firstly hold that the words in the command to baptize Matt. 28:19 is the most suitable, simplest and all disputation excluding "baptismal formula". "Christ had," says Deyling, "no doubt important causes for the sake of which he expressed the names of the individuals in this initiatory formula, and willed that they should also be expressly mentioned." 1046) But we also add, on the other hand, that a baptism performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" is to be recognized as valid if those so baptized are known as confessors of the Holy Trinity and express this at the baptism in the manner assumed by Brenz.1047)
1045) Catechismus pia et utili explicatione illustratus. 1551, p. 56.
1046) Pastor pastoralis, p. 366.
1047) Thus Brenz, Scherzer, Deyling. The quotations in Walther, Pastorale, p. 110 ff. Gerhard, L. de bapt., § 91-93, speaks very intelligently and calmly about the whole matter. Luther expressed the opinion in 1520 in De captivitate babylonica (St. L. XIX, 61) that with words like Acts 2:38: "in the name of Jesus Christ" indicate the baptismal method (ritus) of the apostles.
307 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 262]
A completely different question is what to think of the baptism of anti-Trinitarian fellowships when they use a Trinitarian baptismal formula. Already Augustine makes the remark that not many heretics are to be found who do not use the words prescribed in Matt. 28:19 at baptism.1048) The American Lutheran Church came in contact in several places with Free Protestant congregations who baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but publicly taught (even in their catechism) that Christ was not the Son of God, but an excellent man, and that the Holy Spirit was not God, but the Spirit of formation, etc. In this case, in spite of the orthodox formula, we did not recognize baptism as Christian baptism, because here there was a public explanation that one did not recognize Matt. 28:19 which was instituted by Christ. In this baptism not God's Word comes to the water (ad elementum), but a human thought, which is at the same time a mockery of the baptismal words of Christ. We consider the principle established by Walther to be correct:1049) "If a heretical pastor baptizes with the same sounds as orthodox preachers, but teaches publicly with his entire fellowship that he understands by Father a God who does not exist in three persons, by the Son of God a pure man, by the Holy Spirit the spirit of the age and of the Enlightenment, or only an alleged
be. Walther remarks (Pastorale, p. 111): "From this opinion, that the apostles baptized in this way, Luther seems later to have departed." Walther's judgment is confirmed by Luther's words of 1535 just quoted. Incidentally, that remark of Luther's is opposed to the erroneous view of those who do not recognize in baptism God's own work (a baptism "of the Holy Trinity itself by men"), but regard baptism as a performance in which a man, using certain words of God, "infuses grace" into the baptized. Therefore, in the same context, Luther also opposes the view of some scholastics that "there is a hidden spiritual power in the Word of God and water, which works the grace of God in the soul of the one who receives it," even without faith on the part of the baptized. Of course, that remark of Luther in De captivitate Babylonica gave the Romans a welcome opportunity to accuse Luther even of Arianism. Thus Bellarmin. Gerhard counters (L. de baptismo, § 90) Bellarmin's attack with the fact that church fathers, Roman teachers, and even Pope Nicholas I have spoken just as Luther did and are therefore nevertheless excused by Bellarmin. Luther, too, in his various adaptations of baptismal formularies, always gives only the instruction to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Cf. the baptismal forms, St. L. X, 2134-2149.)
1048) RE.2 XV, 243.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1049) Pastorale, p. 121.
308 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 262-263.]
attribute or effect of God, so that he does not baptize with those sounds into the Most Holy Trinity: such a heretical pastor baptizes not only without faith,1050) but also without God's Word; he keeps the sound of the same, but for the designation of a completely different sense. Therefore, the alleged baptism of all pastors of anti-Trinitarian fellowships is not to be recognized as a true baptism, just as a baptism for joking and mockery is not to be recognized, and those allegedly baptized by them are to be baptized first. 1051) Various reasons have been given that Unitarian baptism may be a true baptism after all, especially in the case when Christian parents fall into Unitarian fellowships out of ignorance. But to reckon with possibilities here does not want to do. Baptism is a serious matter. It is intended for practical use. The Christian should and wants to be comforted by his baptism. This means that the fact of baptism cannot be questioned. At least the baptism given within a Unitarian fellowship falls into the category of uncertain baptisms even in the case mentioned. With regard to all uncertain baptisms, however, the rule must be that they are to be treated practically as non-baptisms. It is in the nature of things, and experience confirms it, that uncertainty about the fact of baptism makes the use of baptism on the part of the baptized impossible.1052)