Anonymous Asks (317)

“What does it mean that there is ‘one baptism’?”

I can see how this expression might confuse a new Christian. Technically, there is not “one baptism” in scripture; there are many. I read somewhere once that there are seven.

That would be a neat thing ... if true.

In fact, let’s count and see.

Baptism in Scripture

In roughly the order they are mentioned, here are the various events called baptisms in the Bible:

First, there was John’s baptism, a physical immersion in the Jordan River to signify repentance.

Second, there was the immersion of Jesus by John, a unique act of testimony in which the Father and the Holy Spirit declared him well pleasing to God, having nothing of which he need repent. Same river, same man baptizing, but an entirely different purpose: Christ’s was a baptism of non-repentance.

Third, there was the baptism by immersion that Jesus’ disciples performed in his name prior to the cross, which cannot possibly have signified precisely the same things as Christian baptism, since Jesus had yet to die and rise from the dead. At very least this baptism testified to discipleship and probably repentance for the forgiveness of sins as well.

Fourth, there was the metaphorical baptism of the Lord Jesus, presumably into death. Most of us do not go through that.

Fifth, there is Christian baptism, also by immersion, an act of obedience commanded by the Lord and practiced for centuries by believers, signifying that we have died and been raised again with Christ.

Sixth, there is the mystical baptism of the Holy Spirit, a one-time act of God to which John testified and the miracle of tongues at Pentecost, in the household of Cornelius and elsewhere gave evidence, by which the Spirit incorporated Jews and Gentiles into one body, the Church, and into which each new believer enters at salvation.

Seventh, there was the mystical baptism of Israel into Moses “in the cloud and in the sea”.

All these are scriptural baptisms, whether literal, mystical or metaphorical, and all have distinguishable purposes and spiritual significance. In addition, there are the ceremonial washings of the Pharisees, the same Greek word as is translated “baptism” elsewhere, as well as the “baptism for the dead” to which Paul refers. We will not count these, since they are not acts in any way associated with genuine faith, either Jewish or Christian. There is also a “baptism of fire” mentioned by John that is always contextually connected with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and thus probably refers to the tongues of fire at Pentecost. That would not make it a distinguishable baptism.

Which Baptism?

Manifestly, then, there is not “one baptism” in a strictly literal sense. There are seven, or perhaps more. So what did Paul mean by this statement to the Ephesians?

“There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

The context of chapter 4 is all about unity and diversity. The apostle begins by urging the Ephesian Christians to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. He reminds them of all the things they have in common: they are a single, united body of believers; the same Spirit indwells, informs and empowers them; they obey the same Lord; they follow the same teachings; they worship the same Father. Having established the things they all have in common, Paul is going to go on to talk about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and how they differ from person to person, but all are intended to contribute to the “unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God”.

So then, the “one baptism” to which he refers must be either Christian baptism by immersion or else the baptism of the Holy Spirit; no other baptism mentioned in scripture could possibly have had application to the Ephesian believers at the time Paul wrote.

A Variety of Opinions

As to which of the two he meant, commentators offer a variety of opinions.

Tony Hoss insists water baptism is in view. He says if you are not water baptized, you are not in the Church. Of course, our minds immediately go to the thief on the cross, who had no opportunity to be water baptized as he died shortly after professing faith in Christ. Having died pre-Pentecost, we might not call him part of the Church exactly, but the Lord’s promise “today you will be with me in paradise” strongly affirms the man’s salvation was genuine and his eternal fate secured. But the thief’s salvation without water baptism raises this problem: Can we really say that water baptism is the only baptism that matters when thousands during the Church Age have also made deathbed or last-minute confessions of faith? Surely not. Did these not instantly become members of the Body of Christ in the moment they confessed Jesus as Lord and believed in their hearts that God raised him from the dead? Surely they did, even if their circumstances never gave them opportunity to live out that unity for the glory of God.

Jack Cottrell maintains the two baptisms are actually one. He calls them “two sides of a single act”. This is valid in the sense that the outward act of public confession in water baptism testifies to the inward reality of the Holy Spirit’s presence and activity. Still, while the two baptisms are certainly connected, we can hardly help but notice they do speak of distinct spiritual realities. In going down into the water, the new believer testifies that he died with Christ and was buried with him. In coming up again, he testifies that he has been raised with Christ and is a new creation. This would be the case apart from any practical ongoing association with a church (local) or the Church (universal), though we would normally expect that to be the natural result. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is an unseen reality in which the Spirit comes to indwell the new believer, uniting him with all others. A man or woman can be saved without being water baptized; he or she cannot be saved without the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

William MacDonald gets around the dilemma by acknowledging that there is a twofold sense in which the “one baptism” statement is true. There is one baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ and there is one baptism by which believers identify with Christ in his death and resurrection. The fact that the expression “one baptism” may be understood in two distinct senses does not take away from the reality that there is only one of each. Such a resolution involves a little verbal bobbing and weaving, but I can’t really disagree with him there.

Personally, I think it isn’t all that complicated, and that Paul was just referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I do not insist on it.