Baptism: Vertical and Horizontal
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
Just this past Friday morning I stood at the place Caesarea Philippi where some 2000 years ago, in the midst of the pagan worship of His day, Jesus was instructing his disciples concerning His headship of the church. As I listened to the rushing headwaters of the Jordan river, Christ’s words reminded me of the appreciation I have for those Baptist’s that have made a decisive effort to come along side Holy Scripture to accurately and boldly teach the meaning and purpose of biblical baptism.
Matthew 16:13-18 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (14) And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” (15) He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” (16) Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (17) And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (18) “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
For the most part Baptist’s have preserved the essential meaning of baptism by correctly maintaining its meaning in relationship to the “vertical”. A clear vertical doctrine of baptism is much needed in theology today. This vertical relationship is maintained through the one confession whereby the Father has revealed Jesus as Lord to each of His adopted children. Yet there are teachers in the church intent on diluting or compounding (a process of liberal theology) the doctrine of baptism by constructing a tradition exclusive to their administration of a local body in the “horizontal”,… therefore, out of ignorance, some have adapted and redefined biblical baptism as a right to participate, or as a means of privilege where the horizontal relationship becomes the primary definition for unity. Yet it is clear that no matter how well meaning or how good the intentions of men are to justify their horizontal reasoning, it is consequential that any slight deviated move to the horizontal diminishes the relationship of Christ and the Holy Spirit’s work in the church and ever so slightly moves the glory of baptism from God to man.
A horizontal deviation from the clear teaching of Christ on baptism and His church has remained a constant blight throughout the history of the church. This aberrant view continues to sweep across the landscape of poor theology. The blight began in the earliest of first century churches (seen in the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians), moving forward into the administration of the church as outlined by Constantine,….growing into the insistent institution of the Catholic Church to include infants as indelibly marked members through baptism, and even now not too far removed from Catholicism we observe several prominent denominations performing acts of infant baptism as elements to create membership in their churches through these virtual baptisms. Baptism as the means to causing membership remains a lively but aberrant view of the theology of baptism, spilling over into reformed and protestant denominations being described in their confessions, not only for infants but for adults as well.
By biblical definition, baptism has always rested in the knowledgeable act of obedience by a believer, governed by God’s grace as commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words,“what prevents me from being baptized?”….well actually nothing at all, since baptism is something received as a consequence of confession, not something used as a means to participation. Jesus has acknowledged this similar question by way of Luke in this way..
Luke 20:1-8 On one of the days while He was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders confronted Him, (2) and they spoke, saying to Him, “Tell us by what authority You are doing these things, or who is the one who gave You this authority?” (3) Jesus answered and said to them, “I will also ask you a question, and you tell Me: (4) “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” (5) They reasoned among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ (6) “But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” (7) So they answered that they did not know where it came from. (8) And Jesus said to them, “Nor will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”
The act of baptism is administrated and maintained by the authority of Christ alone and is biblically more than a symbol, as some allege, because of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. The act of baptism is a grace afforded to all believers in their participation with Christ and is received without exception. If it were merely a symbol, then Satan himself….if he could put on flesh, would be “able” to merely act out baptism. There are many people today that rub shoulders with the church on Sunday who maintain this false testimony of baptism for the sake of membership and privilege. Yet the act of baptism is much more than a mere symbol, because it is received based upon the confession that only believers are able to give in accordance with the gospel of God (Romans 1: 16-17, 6:3-11). Paul brought forward the same argument in his first letter to the Corinthians…..
1 Corinthians 12:3-4 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
The act of baptism is measured by the cleansing work of our Savior, where Christ has made living stones built on His true and only foundation as the head of the church. Therefore, all that confess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord are baptized immediately, anywhere and anytime in the world, because the administrator is Christ alone for His church. Luke gives us a clear definition to the receiving of baptism that is consistent throughout the entire New Testament, without exception.
Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. (13) Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip.
Acts 8:36-38 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (37) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (38) And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Acts 18:7-8 Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God, whose house was next to the synagogue. (8) Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.
There is little doubt that we observe horizontal aspects of baptism based upon the command of Christ. We certainly experience those aspects as we baptize and as the person responds obediently to be baptized as he or she identifies with Christ alone. This action of being baptized is played out and observed in the horizontal relationship, yet it is not maintained by horizontal definition. The clear and distinct meaning and essence of baptism is always and ever will be known in the vertical with respect to its identification with Christ through the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. So, it is biblical truth that delivers clear meaning to the act of baptism. In fact, baptism is received by the individual that is captured by Christ, made slave and friend of the King, born again by the righteousness of Christ where Christ’s righteousness is applied by the person of Holy Spirit… this gives baptism its distinct definition and meaning. This is the reality and essence of baptism and is the doctrine of “being baptized” made distinct and clear by Christ and the Apostles.
In summary, anything “more” or anything “less” than baptism into Christ alone, into the likeness of His death and the certainty of being raised by His resurrection, can only regress from the truth of biblical baptism and can easily become an iconic demonstration of baptism that is destined to ultimately resolve into the likeness and obedience to man, or an organization, or a system,…rather than into Christ. But thanks be to God, biblical baptistic theology is clear….We are made fishers of men, Spiritually gifted to make disciples, led to repentance by the Holy Spirit, and baptizing all those that confess Christ, by way of and in recognition with the Holy Spirit, …confessing Christ as Lord and King!…and all the Glory of God!
Galatians 3:27-28 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Blessings,
Chris



Exactly.
Sister Debbie,
I love the simplicity and beauty of baptism. Baptism is a glorious grace allowed to those that have confessed Christ as King and Lord. Thank you for agreeing with its meaning to all those being saved.
Blessings,
Chris
I agree with you here, Chris, as I often do. I have been proposing similar things on my blog in relation to communion.
I would say this, though: While salvation is vertical through connecting us to God, it has horizontal effects. The vertical is seen in Ephesians 2:1-10, while the horizontal effect of what Christ has done is found in Eph. 2:11-18.
For too long, Evangelicals have focused on the vertical to the neglect of calling for the horizontal effect because we are positionally one in Christ (John 17:20-23).
But, regarding baptism, I would agree with you in promoting the vertical core, but add that it has horizontal results in speaking to our oneness in Christ together.
I would say the same about Communion.
Of the 7 baptisms in the Word of God, Two concern the Church. The
Baptism of The Spirit [I CORINTHIANS 12;13] puts one into the body of
Christ. Baptism by immersion in Water is a testimony, or profession
of faith in Christ. wATER BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO A GOOD CONSCIENCE
[I PETER 3;21];It is an act of obedience. It gets you wet.
Whereas, when you were saved,[If you were] you were placed into Christ’s body by the Baptism of The Spirit.
Brother Alan,
Excellent points!,…. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper have the same core fabric. Throughout scripture, the horizontal is expressed as consequence while the definition always initiates in the vertical. The Lord’s Supper reflects this same aspect when we “participate” with Christ (1 Corinthians 10).
Thanks for the input,
Blessings,
Chris
Dr. Foltz,….there is joy in getting all wet!
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
As Debbie said,
“Exactly!”
John’s baptism, from God or from man? Of course it was the commandment to baptize, i.e., he being a prophet which was spoken of, but it does beg this question, was John ever baptized? By whom? Not by men for then the authority would have been above him in men and the text says that is not the case. His response to Jesus is very curious. He had need of being baptized, but Jesus’ response was not “you need to be”, but that Jesus’ baptism would suffice to fulfill all righteousness. John was a member of the body of Christ, perhaps without ever being baptized.
Since no one can confess Jesus as Lord exept by the Spirit, what do we make of those who say that one must believe and confess first before regeneration, or one must “place their faith in Jesus” to receive the Spirit? Does this reversal of the biblical teaching invalidate the authority of the baptizers? What of those who have believed this? Isn’t their salvation founded upon a decision raise the spectre of decisional regeration? I agree that upon confession we should baptize, but we have that pesky little word confession, just what does that mean? Like so many other things in Scripture, some passages are little more than truncated subject summaries that are more fully examined in the entire context of Scriture. It would seem then that a catechesis might be more in order prior to baptism. I don’t think it absolutely necessary, but we cannot take Acts as regulative for the church seeing that it had not yet been fully established and the time of Acts was one of unique occassion and not the normal case. Like the perpetuity and continuance vs the cessation of sign gifts, we look elsewhere for the regulation of them, not the book of Acts, nor even in those churches described in the Epistles as mentioned in Acts, but to more subtle nuances in those books.
I am not trying to be picky, but the BFM muddies the water, I think, when it involves in the meaning of baptism the actions of the believer. As you have captured here, it is not really about the believer, but about Christ’s monergistic work upon them by the Spirit Eph. 2.
If sprinkling of the blood of Christ is the washing which speaks of a clear conscience, and blood, cross, death are all word idea equivalents, why isn’t sprinkling acceptable? 1 Peter 1:2 and 1 Peter 3:21 are the same thing, cf Hebrews 10:22 (where sprinkling of blood and washing are a Hebrew parallelism and elsewhere where washing is an equivalent to baptism and Jesus shows that the ceremonial wasings, i.e baptism might only be for the feet, face and hands, Luke 7:4 and Mt 15:2). As a baptist who believes that immersion is best representative of the Gospel, I still think that Baptists have overstepped the line in insisting that baptism is only by immersion. It is impossible to prove that Jesus or the eunuch were immersed, a Baptist selling point. Especially with the eunach. Just what water was he baptized in, again? Though there are some rivers in Palestine, the likely candidate is a small streamlet on the way down to Azotus from Jerusalem. In any case it is an argument from silence to conclude that he was immersed. Not to say he wasn’t, but the text cannot be shown to say he was. The same is the case with Jesus’ baptism.
You also say it is not mere symbol, I agree, but the BFM, and from what I understand of Baptists in general, tends to see it as such.
Anyway, sorry to drone on. Hope I haven’t detracted from your fine expose’.
You know what I find amazing, Chris, is that we are pretty much all Baptists on these blogs – and we STILL can’t always agree on the doctrine of baptism.
Thank you for a sound addition toward furthering that understanding.
Chris,
AMEN AMEN,AMEN,AMEN,AMEN,AMEN,AMEN
Welcome Back!!!
This is the only one Baptism that counts, the water Baptism is for public confession of faith.
Wayne
Chris,
THE ONE TRUE CHURCH
THIS IS THE TRUE CHURCH TO WHICH A MAN MUST BELONG, IF HE WOULD BE SAVED. Till you belong to this, you are nothing better than a lost soul. You may have the form, the husk, the skin, and the shell of religion, but you have not got the substance and the life. Yes, you may have countless outward privileges; you may enjoy great light, and knowledge — but if you do not belong to the Body of Christ, your light and knowledge and privileges will not save your soul. Alas, for the ignorance that prevails on this point! Men fancy if they join this church or that church, and become communicants, and go through certain forms, that all must be right in their souls. It is an utter delusion, it is a gross mistake. All were not Israel who were called Israel, and all are not members of Christ’s Body who profess themselves Christian. TAKE NOTICE; you may be a staunch Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Independent, or Baptist, or Wesleyan, or Plymouth Brother — and yet not belong to the true Church. And if you do not, it will be better at last if you had never been born.
J.C. Ryle
Thomas makes a good point about sprinkling. There are paintings in the Roman catacombs of people having water poured on their heads. This was likely a common practice for early Christians since the only place within the city where immersion could be accomplished on an adult was the public baths. To do so in the open would have meant death.
Roman Catholic doctrine regards either immersion or sprinkling as valid. Since most parents do not want their infants to be immersed, sprinkling is the more common practice.
Brother Thomas,
You have surfaced a lot of things to discuss, so I’ll try to stick to the theme of the article while trying to answer a couple of your thoughts.
I have heard the arguments for the implementation of a catechesis, and in some instances that approach has been done in baptistic churches, yet there is no biblical evidence for the “program” as such. Since catechesis is nothing more than transmitting the gospel, it should be noted that if the church is faithful in knowing and transmitting the gospel, then baptism becomes a simple act of response to the gospel not some goal or prize to achieve at the completion of the class. Because as you have well said,…the work of salvation is God alone, which is the gospel…”for it is the power of God for salvation” (Romans 1). So we simply respond in faith that was given as well (Ephesians). Then baptism is a response to that confession…that Jesus is Lord. Luke gives us some great history as he revealed the believing disciples in Acts 19 who were finally baptized into Christ and recognizing the Spirit. These guys were believers, but were baptized only by way of John’s baptism. Once they recognized what New Covenant baptism meant, they were simply baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The same can be said for infant baptism…since baptizing infants carries the same meaning as John’s baptism. In other words, John’s baptism was not the baptism that Christ commanded, it was the one of John’s making. In fact John gives the testimony…..
Matthew 3:11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
As you and I have certainly read throughout history, the case for immersion vs. sprinkling or the inclusion of both as permissible has and will always be a heated subject until Christ comes again. Although I believe that immersion is what is conveyed by scripture, I will leave that defense for another time. Just returning from an archeological trip to Eqypt, Jordan and Israel, water is an interesting subject and at least for this time in 2009, there was plenty, but there are times when water cannot be found.
I hope some of this helps….
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Dave,
Yes,…baptism is always colorful I think because we want it our way. As I mentioned to Thomas above, if we could have the same attitude as John the Baptist, we could all agree and baptize those that confess Christ as Lord…and leave it at that. But, we typically are not content unless we can approve the action actually meets the system that we buy into.
Christ command was simple,..make disciples and “baptizing them”. Not a hard deal actually.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Brother Wayne,
It is good to be back after fighting snow for two days in New York and in the same clothes.
JC Ryle is always a good read!
Brother Patrick,
Thanks for the comments…. The sprinking thing is a good study to do…because there is clear history and distinction to why sprinking was implemented during the first few centuries after Christ. That of course does not make sprinkling the norm, but it does give us clues to why man is always about the business of making things pragmatic. Now sprinkling infants is simply another matter altogether. It washes away no sin,…so it is about as effective as dedicating children at the front of the church a few weeks or months after birth. Seems like a nice thing to do….but the process of dedication or sprinkling has absolutely nothing to do with the gospel and the imputation of righteousness.
This may be something good to discuss in a future post though.
Blessings,
Chris