Tchula Presbyterian Church.

I know many times when you think about Baptism you think of that passage in Romans 6 that talks about that very subject. Now I am not trying to stomp on Baptists or anything, but they like to use this passage to show that the proper mode of baptism is by immersion. But this passage isn’t about the mode of baptism (immersion, sprinkling, pouring, etc.). This passage is about something much greater than the mode of baptism. I also know that some of you are confused over this passage because it might seem contrary to what we have been taught as Presbyterians, but in fact it is not. So because I am not good with words, I give you here an article from your former Pastor (Joseph Pipa) on the subject.

The Mode of Baptism by Dr. Joseph Pipa

What does Romans 6:3-6 teach about the purpose and mode of baptism? Baptist writers maintain that Romans 6:3-6 teaches that baptism symbolizes conversion by picturing that the sinner is buried and risen with Christ. They do not deny that baptism may represent more than it symbolizes, but that it symbolizes death, burial, and, resurrection of Christ. Tom Wells writes,

Let us note first that baptism may represent more things than it pictures. To make my point clear, let me illustrate what I mean. An American penny represents several things. For example, it represents purchasing power. . . ; it also represents the government of the USA. But it does not picture these things. It pictures Abraham Lincoln on one side and the Lincoln Memorial building on the other.[1]

The case for immersion is based upon two primary arguments: the conviction that the term baptizo with its cognates always means immerse/immersion, and the relationship of baptism to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ in Romans 6:3-6 and Colossians 2:1-12.[2] I contend, on the basis of Romans 6:3-6, that baptism represents union with Christ through the washing of regeneration.

In order to understand Paul’s argument in verses 3-6, we need to look briefly at Paul’s argument in verses 1-14.[3] In the book of Romans, the apostle Paul lays the foundation for what we call the doctrines of grace. In the first two and one half chapters, he establishes the depravity of all people in order to lay the foundation for the glorious doctrine of justification received by faith. According to Paul a sinner is justified, not through law keeping, but on the basis of the atoning, propitiatory work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul carefully explains that justification is received by faith alone. In chapter 4 he proves his doctrine from the Old Testament, and in chapter 5 he demonstrates some of the practical outworking of justification and shows how it relates to the covenant headship of the Lord Jesus Christ. In chapter 6 he begins to develop the doctrine of sanctification, not in isolation from justification, but showing the relationship of the two doctrines. Paul teaches in Romans 6:1-13 that our union with Christ has secured not only our justification, but also our sanctification.

In verses 1 and 2, the apostle Paul anticipates the objection that free grace leads to the practice of sin by declaring that it is impossible for a justified person to continue deliberately in sin, because we have died to sin. He says, if you are in Christ, you are dead to sin, and you are alive unto God. Therefore, the gospel declares that justification is not an end in itself, but part of the God’s glorious work for accomplishing the perfection of His saints. Justification does not lead to lawlessness, but rather it leads to power over the dominion of sin. “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” This declaration applies to everyone who truly is in Christ Jesus.

In verses 3-6 Paul proves this assertion by appealing to our baptism and conversion:

“Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin; might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.”

In verses 3-4, Paul asserts that union with Christ is the basis of our victory over sin, and our baptism testifies to us of our union with Christ and Paul revels in the concept of union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice how often he speaks of union with Christ in Romans 6: “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus,” (v. 3); “If we become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,” (v. 5); “If we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,” (v. 8). Union with Christ, in fact, was the apostle Paul’s favorite way of describing the reality of what it means to be a Christian. Think how often He uses the concept throughout his Epistles, “in Him,” “in the beloved,” “in Christ Jesus.” For Paul, union with Christ is the bottom line, the essence of truly being a Christian.

Paul points out that because we are united to Christ as our covenant head, not only did He act on our behalf, but we also acted in Him. Therefore when He died, we died; when He was buried, we were buried; when He rose again, we rose again. He summarizes these things in verses 8-10:

“Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death is no longer master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin, once and for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.”

How can I know that I have died and been raised with Christ? Paul answers, “Your baptism.” In Rom. 6:3-4 he reminds us that our baptism testifies to us of our covenant connection to Christ: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father so we too might walk in newness of life.”[4] Paul uses the verb baptizo twice in verse 3 and the noun baptisma once in verse 4.

Before looking at these verses, let us establish two things. First, Paul is not saying that baptism regenerates.[5] He is not describing the nature of baptism, but refers to baptism in one of its fundamental, sacramental senses. He says that in baptism God makes a statement to those who are in Christ. Hodge writes, “It is not the efficacy of baptism as an external rite, that he assumes his readers are well informed: it is of the import and design of that sacrament, and the nature of the union with Christ, of which baptism is the sign and the seal.”[6] In our baptism, God declares that we are in union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, though baptizo and its cognates often mean to immerse or dip, these terms are also used to mean wash and cleanse, thus no conclusion may properly be drawn semantically from them concerning the mode.[7] To follow Paul’s argument in Romans 6:3-4 it is imperative to quit equating baptism with immersion. Think of baptism here as sacramental application of water.

First, let us note that Paul is not saying that baptism is a burial. In fact, the language does not relate baptism to burial: “We have been buried with Him, through baptism into death.” Our baptism into Christ’s death shows that we were buried with him. In the context Paul refers to burial to show the absolute character of Christ’s death, and thus ours. Some point to the parallel passage in Colossians 2:12 as proof that Paul equates baptism with burial, “having been buried with him in baptism.” In Colossians 2:13, however, Paul is also referring to union with Christ. In Colossians the burial of Christ is put for the totality of his redeeming work. Notice in verse 13 that Paul contrasts death and resurrection, “And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.” In Romans 6 Paul refers to burial to show the absolute character of the death. He uses the same imagery here. Moule writes,

Union with Christ is primarily union with Him as the dead and Buried, because His Death (consummated as it were and sealed in His Burial) is the procuring cause of all our blessings in Him, as it is our Propitiation and Peace. The Christian joined to Him, shares as it were the atoning Death and the covering, swallowing, Grave of his blessed Representative; he goes to the depths of that awful process with and in his Lord.”[8]

We were baptized into Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

Moreover, the fact that baptism does not refer to the burial of Christ is seen in the consideration of the parallel terms in the text: burial with, implanted with, crucified with. Of these terms Murray writes,

“It is very easy to point to the expression “buried with him” in verse 4 and to insist that only immersion provides any analogy to burial. But such procedure fails to take account of all that Paul says here. It should be noted that Paul not only says “buried together” (sunetaphamen) but also “planted together” (sumphutoi) and “crucified together” (sunestaurothe). These latter expressions indicate the union with Christ which is symbolised and sealed by baptism just as surely as does “buried together”. But it is only too apparent that they do not bear any analogy to immersion. . . . When all of Paul’s expressions are taken into account we see that burial with Christ can be appealed to as providing an index to the mode of baptism no more than can crucifixion with him. And since the latter does not indicate the mode of baptism there is no validity to the argument that burial does.”[9]

Fairfield adds,

“That all argument for immersion, drawn from the word; “buried,” depends upon the conception of a literal burialresurrection in like manner is not literal, but figurative,–is it not a plain violation of every law of language to understand the burial alone as literal?”[10] in the waters of baptism. But when we bear in mind that the death spoken of in both of these passages is not literal death, but figurative; that the

In Rom. 6:3,4, Paul uses baptism to confirm our union with Christ. Although Baptists insist that baptizo always means “immerse” or “dip,” some of them concede that at times baptizo must be understood metaphorically for union. Because of the relation of the thing baptized to the element with which it is baptized the term baptizo may be used metaphorically to express to union. Commenting on Matt. 3:11, Wells resorts to the metaphorical meaning of baptizo. He admits that the baptism of the Spirit is described as pouring out, but that the Spirit surrounds the Apostles, as if they were immersed in him.[11] He builds here on Dagg who wrote:

“Both promises [i.e., the promise of outpouring and the promise of baptism or immersion in the Spirit] were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost; but the two promises exhibit the influence of the Spirit then communicated, in different aspects. In one it is viewed as proceeding from God, and is likened to water poured out; in the other, it is viewed as affecting all the powers of the apostles, surrounding and filling them, as water surrounds and imbues substances which are immersed in it.”[12]

Though Dagg’s interpretation stretches the meaning of the text, we see that he is willing to posit a metaphorical meaning of baptizo that in reality describes union and not burial. Wells concedes the metaphorical use of baptizo in 1 Cor. 10:1-2:

“The Israelites were, “in the cloud and in the sea,” only figuratively. The same figure is used in verse 1 where they are said to have, “passed through the sea.” The sea and a cloud were all around them. It was as if they were immersed in these waters. That is all that Paul’s language requires.”[13]

The great Baptist commentator John Gill, commenting on Mk. 10:38: (”Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”) interprets baptizo metaphorically for being engulfed in sorrow. He writes,

“Which Christ speaks of in the present time, partly because his sorrows and sufferings were already begun: he had already been drinking of the cup of sorrows, being a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefs, all his days; and he was wading in the waters of affliction, though as yet they were not come into his soul, and he was it were immersed in them; he was not yet baptized with the bloody baptism he came into this world for, . . . and the baptism of his sufferings was to be surely accomplished.”[14]

Paul uses baptizo to express the radical nature of union. As baptism brings us in contact with water, it is used to express union. Rayburn writes, “Actually, the Scriptures prove that the word we render baptize actually means to impart to, or apply to an object an element used, whether it be water or fire or something else, in any way–not just by immersion in the element.”[15] “Baptism” metaphorically describes being engulfed in suffering (Mk. 10:38-39); being overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit (John 1:33; Mt. 3:11).

Thus the word itself suggests our radical union with Christ. The concept of union is made even clearer when we examine the particular phrases Paul uses: baptizo eis and baptisma eis. One of the meanings of eis is “into” or “with respect to,” implying relationship.[16]

Moreover, the biblical writers often use the formula baptizo eis and baptisma eis to express union.[17] Paul uses this phrase to express union a number of times. In 1 Cor. 10, Paul uses the figure of baptism to show the union of the Old Testament Church with Moses the covenant head. In verses 1 and 2 he says, “I do not want you unaware brethren that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” The baptism into teaches that they were in union with Moses, the mediator of that Old Covenant. In a sense he was their covenant head. This union is expressed a little differently in Gal 3: 27, “For all of you who are baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Paul again expresses the concept of union, this time using the covering of clothing to picture union. So to be baptized into Christ brings one into union with Him. Consider one other example in 1 Corinthians 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves for free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” Here baptism expresses the unity of the body of Christ. Immersion as a mode fits none of these illustrations.[18]

Returning to Romans 6, notice the development of Paul’s argument. First, he points out that we were baptized into Christ. Thus our baptism declared our union with him. He adds in verse 3 that to be baptized into Christ means that we have been baptized into his death; union with Christ secures union in every aspect of his work. This is made even more particular in 6:4: our burial with Christ is signified to us by our baptism into his death. (The noun baptisma with the preposition eis is only used here and has the same significance as the verb with the preposition.) If our baptism declares our union with Christ, then it expresses union with Christ in every aspect of his work: obedience, suffering, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and session.

Thus in our baptism, God declares to us that we are in union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Above we have explained the reality of this union. It is a covenantal union, secured by God’s election of us in Christ from before the foundation of the earth. Election is never divorced from union with Christ. God never looked upon any of us in favor divorced from His looking upon Christ with love and favor. God testifies to us of this union in our baptism. Thus we see that Paul is speaking of what baptism means, rather than what it symbolizes. Pierre Marcel, commenting on Romans 6:3-6 and other passages, nicely summarizes this point:

“One is not here concerned with a question of imitation, as though the death of Christ ought merely to serve as an example to us following which we ought to die to sin and rise to a new life. The question here is primarily one of participation. On the one hand, we are made partakers of His death: the death of Christ has power to extinguish the enmity of our flesh and to cause us to die to sin. On the other hand, we are made partakers of His resurrection, for His resurrection has power to arouse in us a new condition which makes it possible for us to live a new life. The efficacy of Christ’s death and resurrection is communicated to us.”[19]

Recognizing that baptism in Romans 6:3,4 expresses union, we understand that the act of baptism is more than merely a symbol or a sign. Paul says our baptism testifies to us about our union with Christ. If the consideration of one’s baptism argues for union with Christ, baptism is a sealing ordinance as well as a signifying. Cranfield writes,

“What then did Paul mean by his claim that Christian baptism is essentially baptism into Christ’s death? Not that it actually relates the person concerned to Christ’s death, since this relationship is already an objective reality before baptism takes place, having been brought into being by God’s gracious decision, which is implied by the uper emon in 5.8; but that it points to, and is a pledge of, that death which the person concerned has already died–in God’s sight. On God’s side, it is the sign and pledge that the benefits of Christ’s death for all men really do apply to this individual in particular, while on man’s side, it is the outward ratification (we are thinking of course of adult baptism here) of the human decision of faith, of the response already begun tow hat God has done in Christ. That Paul thought of it (in its aspect of divine pledge) as an automatic, mechanical, magical guarantee is impossible in view of 1 Cor. 10. But it does not there follow that he thought of it as a “mere sign”, a signum nudum. It seems likely that he thought of Christ Himself as present and active personally in freedom and in power in the visible word of baptism as well as in the spoken word of the preached message.”[20]

The sealing element of baptism is expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith 28:1:

“Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: . . .”

Having seen that the phrase baptizo eis expresses union, let us consider the second line of evidence is our regeneration and conversion.[21] In Romans 6:5,6 our baptism also speaks to us about the nature of our conversion, “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.”

Although Paul applies baptism to union, he implies its relation to conversion by the close relation of verse 5 (”For…”) to what precedes. Our baptism testifies to us of union, because we have truly died with Christ and been raised with Him.

In these verses, Paul applies the language of Christ’s death to our conversion. In our conversion, our covenant death and resurrection become living realities. He says that our old man has been crucified with Him. It is difficult for you and me to grasp the audacity of this language. Centuries of Christian use have sanitized the term crucifixion. When Paul introduces the term here in the book of Romans, it would have a great deal of shock value. Crucifixion was the worse form of capital punishment ever invented, and its results were absolute. There was no way one hanging on the cross could escape death. Though death came slowly and painfully, it came with certainty.

With this language, Paul teaches the absolute, transforming nature of regeneration. At regeneration what Christ did for us covenantally becomes ours in reality and we die to sin. When God regenerates us, we die; our old nature dies totally and completely. The Bible does not allow for the idea of the Christian having two natures: the old man and the new man. We often hear that the Christian has a new nature and a sinful nature and that these two natures are like two dogs, a black dog and a white dog. The dogs are constantly fighting and whichever one you feed the most on a particular day gets the upper hand. No. Such an idea is contrary to the Biblical doctrine of human nature. We have one nature. Before conversion, it is an unregenerate nature; from the perspective of conversion, the old man. In Christ, the regenerate nature is the new man. Paul is reminding us that if we are converted, the unregenerate nature has been put to death, and, therefore, we are dead then to sin.

I am not saying that we are sinless. God in His providence has left a remnant of sin within us. One helpful analogy to explain the reality of the remnant of sin is that of smoldering embers. When firemen extinguish a great fire, they leave some men to watch the scene of the fire. They must watch, because under the rubble could lie smoldering embers, which the slightest breeze could cause to flame up with raging fierceness. God in His providence has left within you and me the embers of the remnant of sin. Thus we must watch ourselves and wrestle with sin. But the nature of the sinful person has been put to death in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Our baptism testifies to our regeneration as well as our union. Murray wisely comments,

“There does not appear to be in the New Testament any passage which expressly says that baptism represents purification from the defilement of sin, that is to say, regeneration. But since baptism is washing with water, since it involves a religious use of water, and since regeneration is expressed elsewhere in terms of washing (John 3:5; Titus 3:5; 1 Cor. 6:11), it is difficult, if not impossible, to escape the conclusion that this washing with water involved in baptism represents that indispensable purification which is presupposed in union with Christ and without which no one can enter into the kingdom of God. There is also the consideration that baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament (Col. 2:11-12). Circumcision, without doubt, symbolised purification from defilement. We should infer that baptism does also.”[22]

One of the Bible’s primary references to regeneration is cleansing or washing with water. See Ezekiel 36:25; Titus 3:5,6; John 3:5. This symbol is based on the Old Testament concept of ritual cleansing by water: Numbers 19:17-19; Hebrews 9:9:13,19; 10:22. Peter joins baptism with the concept of cleansing in 1 Peter 3:21. Picking up on Dr. Wells’s reference to the significance of a penny, I maintain that the direct symbolism of baptism is cleansing with water. We confirm this by comparing baptism with the Lord’s supper. As bread and wine materially represent the body and blood of the Lord given for us; water in baptism materially represents washing.

How do we relate the two concepts of union and regeneration? Union with Christ is achieved through regeneration. Through the washing of regeneration we are brought into union. Therefore the verbal significance of baptizo eis refers to union and the material symbolism to washing of regeneration. Union through the washing of regeneration is the basis of the inference with respect to the mode of baptism.

Hebrews 9:13,19 teach that washing was by sprinkling: “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, . . . For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according tot he Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people.” Earlier in verse 10 the writer refers to these ceremonial cleansings by the term translated “washings.” The term he uses is the noun baptismos. The relation between the “baptisms” of verse 10 and the ceremonial sprinkling in verses 13 and 19 seems quite clear. Murray writes,

“The significance of this passage as it bears upon our present interest is that the ‘divers baptisms’ referred to in verse 10 must surely include the lustrations expressly referred to in the succeeding verses . . . In a word, the imperfection of the Levitical lustratations is contrasted with the lustration once for all perfected by Christ. In this sustained contrast every lustratory rite that comes within the writer’s purview must be included in the ‘divers baptisms’ of verse 10. And that simply means that the lustratory rites mentioned in the succeeding context must come within the scope of the ‘divers baptisms.’”[23]

There really is no reason not to relate the cleansings to baptism. The case is strengthened by the consideration that the majority of the Old Testament references to cleansing are by sprinkling or pouring. Wells, by appealing to non-canonical rabbinical practice of cleansing by immersion,[24] asserts “that there was a good deal of immersion connected with the tabernacle rites.”[25] But the Old Testament clearly teaches that the majority, if not all Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, was by sprinkling or pouring.[26]

The link between cleansing and union is the Holy Spirit, as Paul points out in Titus 3:5,6, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our savior.” He cleanses and indwells. Thus we may not ignore the relation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit to our baptism. Rayburn comments,

“To try to separate baptism from the work of the Holy Spirit is to do violence to the whole revelation of the Scriptures upon the subject. Real baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit, and water (ritual) baptism is that which symbolizes His work. Yet the most uneducated reader cannot fail to see that in the New Testament believers were not dipped into the Spirit, nor were they immersed in Him, nor plunged down into Him; but, to the contrary, the Spirit was shed forth, was poured out, fell, came, or rested upon them, and as a result they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Baptism then is not the person’s being put into the element, but rather the elements being put upon the person. It is impossible to prove anything from Scripture if this point is not proved: that a person is properly baptized when the element of the baptism is put upon him.”[27]

Thus our union with Christ is effected by the Spirit (poured out, Titus 3:5,6) who washes (by sprinkling, Ezekiel 36:25ff.). Water baptism signifies and confirms our union with Christ, effected by regeneration, by the power of the Holy Spirit, who was poured out on the church on the day of Pentecost, but continues to be poured out in regeneration. Although Romans 6 does not speak explicitly to the question of mode of baptism, but rather to meaning (not burial with Christ, but union through cleansing) we may infer mode of sprinkling or pouring. The meaning is a sealing of one’s union with Christ, effected by regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Mode proceeds from the meaning of baptism and not the meaning of baptizo or its relation to burial. Thus the mode should reflect that of ceremonial cleansing (sprinkling) or the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (pouring).

———-
[1] Tom Wells. Does Baptism Mean Immersion? A Friendly Inquiry into the Ongoing Debate. (Laurel, MS: Audubon Press, 2000), p.24.

[2] For arguments in addition to Wells see J.L. Dagg. A Treatise on Church Order (1858; reprint, Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1990), 13-73.

[3] I have adapted part of this material from a chapter in a book edited by Andy Wortman and me entitled Sanctification: Growing in Grace (Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2002).

[4] Some writers maintain that Paul is using baptizo to express the work of regeneration. See also Robert Rayburn. What About Baptism? (1957; reprint, A Press: Greenville, SC, 1990), 41ff and James W. Dale. Baptizo 4 vols. (1867-98; reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1989-95), IV: 242, ff.

[5] Paul is not discussing infant baptism in Romans 6:3,4, but rather the role of baptism as a believer reflects on his baptism.

[6] Charles Hodge. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. (1886; reprinted, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 193.

[7] John Murray. Christian Baptism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), p. 29. See also Robert Rayburn. What About Baptism? (1957; reprint, A Press: Greenville, SC, 1990), p. 25; Robert L. Dabney. Systematic Theology (1878; reprint, The Banner of Truth Trust: Edinburgh, 1985), pp.758-777; James W. Dale. Baptizo 4 vols. (1867-98; reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1989-95).

[8] H.C.G. Moule. Studies in Colossians & Philemon (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977), pp. 104,105.

[9] Murray, pp. 30,31.

[10] Edmund B. Fairfield. Letters on Baptism (1893; reprint, Nashville: Publishing House of the M.E. Church, South, 1925), 189.

[11] Wells, pp. 26,26.

[12] Dagg, 65.

[13] Wells, p. 11.

[14] John Gill. Gill’s Commentary (1852-1854; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), V, 373.

[15] Rayburn, p. 26.

[16] See Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans and augmented by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 230; Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 491,492.

[17] See Bauer, 131, 132.

[18] See also Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:16; Acts 19:3,5; 1Cor. 1:13,15.

[19] Pierre Ch. Marcel. The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, trans. By Phililp Edgcumbe Hughes (London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1953), 145.

[20] C.E.B. Cranfield. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark Limited, 1985), I, 303.

[21] As noted above a number of writers take the reference to baptism in verses 3 and 4 to refer to the work of regeneration.

[22] Murray, 7,8.

[23] Ibid., p. 21.

[24] Ibid., p. 8f. See Murray, p. 17.

[25] Wells, p. 7.

[26] Rayburn says, “The idea of immersion is foreign to the Jewish economy. The word immerse does not even appear in the original Greek or Hebrew of the Bible in any of its forms,” p. 28. Wells seeks to refute this by appealing to archeological finds that suggest immersion was practiced to some degree. Note that Rayburn is referring to the Old Testament, when he says “the Jewish economy.”

[27] Rayburn, p. 24.