Note: This is a paper on baptismal symbolism written prior to this site’s genesis, and it’s long enough to require partition. Part Two will be here; the full version will be here at the end of the month. Sources and the article this is a response to are listed here, at the bottom of the post.

Introduction

According to author R.E. Howard, “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” Whether or not the dictum is true, this paper will attempt not to prove. Nevertheless, it must be stated that Lusk’s inspection of baptism’s symbolism demonstrates a profound lack of understanding on the subjects of baptism and symbolism, turning upon sufficient inspection into an assembly of bad hermeneutics, logical fallacies, and misrepresentations of both topics at hand. Whether this arises from ignorance, haste inexcusable in a teacher, or malice the author of this paper does not care much at this moment. The fact remains that, however non-malign it’s origin, the position Lusk presents is wrong, and uncritical acceptance of it would, if pursued to its logical conclusion, lead to a variety of heresies.

Purpose and Direction of the Paper

This paper is not intended to provide a comprehensive view of baptism as a phenomenon or even of the ways in which baptism acts as a symbol. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to demonstrate that baptism is indeed a symbol, through both positive explanation and by negation of Lusk’s argumentation, and to show the blatant lack of understanding Lusk displays when it comes to the topic of symbolism, particularly baptismal symbolism, as well as his other errors, to the end of demonstrating his unsuitability as an authority on the topic. This paper will not inspect any portion of Lusk’s paper except that portion starting at ‘But what is meant when baptism is called a sign?’ and ending with ‘The Word must accompany the sacramental action to explain what is happening’, particularly the five bullet-points and the paragraph following those.

Lusk asserts the following: “If God intended for baptism to be a picture, he seemed to make a poor choice of rituals. The outward rite simply does not picture what baptism is said to do.” He then purports to support his allegation with several test cases, interpreting each and expositing briefly on the topic of how this verse refers to a part of baptism which the physical act does not symbolize (which parts, by implication of his earlier statements, Lusk believes that baptism actually does). Lusk is wrong, and in the midst of his reasoning he demonstrates a dangerous level of ignorance or misapprehension of the nature of both symbolism and baptism, as well as a startling propensity for non-sequiturs, sloppy hermeneutics, and (hopefully) unintentional heresy (or at least grotesque transgression of orthodoxy). Lusk is wrong, and a careful assessment of the truth reveals that physical baptism is indeed a precise and beautiful symbol grounded in rich Biblical history.

This paper does not assert that baptism is an empty picture, a mere remembrance. This paper, however quietly, holds to the classic Reformed position of the Westminster Confession, wherein baptism is a sign and seal, but lacks inherent efficacy, particularly inherent efficacy to accomplish justification, adoption, or the miraculous portion of sanctification (justification and sanctification being separate, in contradiction of Roman Catholic teaching). That physical baptism can be a work carried out as a part of the working out of sanctification, as per James, the manifestation of faith in life, is of course accepted.

The author of this paper realizes further that he lacks the heaping laurels of reputation which Lusk has accrued to his name. Nevertheless, the exercise of said author’s intellect can operate full well without such achievements, and in pursuit of the commendation of the Bereans (Acts 17:11), he has applied it to the teachings presented in the paper in question. The reader is therefore implored to compare not authority but cogency, not reputation but correspondence to truth. Ultimately, if the words of the man who rules the world, the man whose intellect has outmatched the minds of a thousand others combined, if the words of this man fail to achieve congruence with the Word of God, then in this singular failed achievement the earth ought to see a condemnation outmatching any mortal commendation. May God judge who is in the right, the author, Lusk, or another entirely, and may the truth become plain, either in this discourse or by another means.

The reader may have a question here: ‘What is the importance of the topics involved in this paper? Why should I not settle for the uncertainty or disagreement I currently possess?’ The positions Lusk’s arguments against symbolism would necessitate include a denial of justification by faith alone, something which, according to Galatians 1, is anathema. To attempt blurriness or dialectal tension in that situation would be akin to chopping half-way through one’s own wrist, bandaging the unhurt side, and calling it sophisticated because the hand is only half removed. That not all of the problems are so grave is true, but some of them approach that level or could, in the case of the tendency to eisegesis, lead to such errors with time. Scripture’s position on baptism as a symbol is clear; it is not for man to disregard Scripture. It is not for man to say he does not know the truth when God has revealed it.

Thus, the two purposes of this paper should lead the reader to the following two conclusions: that baptism is indeed a symbol, albeit that does not render it an empty remembrance (in analogy to Communion, the paper’s position mirrors Calvin rather than Zwingli or Luther) and that Lusk is not qualified (by virtue of prideful ignorance, dull-wittedness, or malice) to speak upon the matter of symbolism or baptism. To be clear, if the arguments in this paper cannot be refuted, Lusk must be one of these three; an informed, intelligent, well-intentioned man (one who, by virtue of these characteristics, has taken the time to consider his position fully when he teaches upon matters of eternal import) would not make the errors found herein.

Definition of Baptism and Symbolism

What is symbolism? Symbolism is the use of one entity (an object, behavior, etc.) to convey information through its similarities (partial) to another entity (often abstract or spiritual), which similarities are partial and not complete by virtue of the entities being distinct, as a symbol in possession of absolute similarity to the symbolized is not in fact a symbol but a facsimile. Examples of symbols abound: words, letters, flags, and liturgical robes all count. How? First, a word on categories must be had. Symbols fall into two categories, here named ‘inherent’ and ‘assigned’. Inherent symbols possess an integral resemblance to that which they symbolize, a resemblance placed there by God and clear through intuition. Assigned symbols possess a resemblance given by man, whether through convention or specific intent; to some extent, Biblical symbols could also be seen as falling into this category, except that God, not man, provided the new level of meaning to them, a meaning clear from the Bible and not pure intuition. The keen reader will discern that inherent symbols are assigned symbols, except God did the assigning very early on, provided to man an intuitive understanding of them.

Words are symbols. The sounds and shapes (letters) by which man communicates are not intrinsically part of the meaning, as can be seen by the existence of multiple distinct languages. ‘Amo’ and ‘ammo’ are different words for different things in different languages, ones that may by some by pronounced the same. They are not intrinsically part of their meaning or vice versa, but they symbolize that meaning nonetheless. Flags are symbols of many things but most generally of allegiance. The American flag possesses a meaning granted to it by its association with the nation and with that nation’s history because the American flag symbolizes America (and all that America means to those who see it). These are both assigned symbols; an example of an inherent symbol would be apropos. Thankfully, the discerning reader has to look no farther than Mark 15:16-20. The crown of thorns which the soldiers place upon Christ’s head is a symbol, an inherent symbol. It possesses an ineluctable resemblance to a king’s crown. From that resemblance it derives its meaning; through its differences it acquires the fullness of its meaning. Without the symbolic resonance between the crown of thorns and the gold crown of a king, the difference between agonizingly sharp thorns and well-smithed gold would be a difference without meaning; with the resemblance, that difference assumes a great import.

Physical baptism and spiritual baptism are two different phenomenon which must be explained in the reverse order, as the first symbolizes the second and is therefore reliant upon it. Spiritual baptism is the name given by theologians (see more below as to the term ‘baptism’ itself) to the process of imputation and regeneration which is the operative force of justification (as well as adoption) and the beginning of sanctification. In spiritual baptism, the man, being elected by God to salvation and not damnation, is, by faith, united to Christ in His death and in His resurrection. The sins of the man are imputed to Christ in His death; by this death, which is the just punishment for sin (death, as the full and just punishment for sin, removes the guilt of that sin from the person who dies both spiritually and physically, his wages having been paid; thus, death is a cleansing (a removal) of sin (Romans 6:23)), Christ atones for the sin, cleansing it from the record of the originator and Himself. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the man in His resurrection, making him not only sinless but superlative in active righteousness, deserving, in the eyes of God, not only of not being punished but of being rewarded. In this death and resurrection, the man is re-born, re-made; this new, spiritual birth (John 3:1-8) is the nativity of his new conscience, a conscience no long enslaved to sin, a conscience ever more reflective of the new reality of his enslavement to God (1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:5). All this, moreover, is the work of God, not man, brought upon him by the faith given him by his Creator. This is spiritual baptism, wherein man is cleansed (‘baptized’ being a derivative of the Greek word for ‘cleansing’, bearing an implication of a changing cleansing, rather than just a superficial rinsing (Studylight)) of his sins.

Physical baptism provides a beautiful, accurate picture of this process. A man is cleansed with water physically to reflect the spiritual cleansing of death (a symbol which calls upon the imagery of the Flood as well, alongside the death of Pharaoh’s army). Washing with water is a classic Biblical symbol for cleansing and making holy in a spiritual sense. In Numbers 8, for instance, the Levites are instructed to sprinkle the “water of purification” upon themselves (6-7). Here physical cleansing is used as a symbol for spiritual cleansing. The Levites, to be fitting offerings to God (8:14-19), must be perfect, spotless, without blemish (Exodus 12:5; Leviticus 1:3); thus, they are symbolically washed of sin in preparation for their holy duty. Similarly in Leviticus 8, referenced by Lusk himself, the first part of Aaron’s preparation for the high priesthood (and his sons’) is being washed with water by Moses, God’s prophet, who was as God to the Egyptians, a clear presaging of baptism applied to the already regenerate (Leviticus 8:6; Exodus 7:1). Death, as shown above, cleanses from sun, just as water washes from filth. Once again, death is a washing of sin; water baptism is a washing of dirt (in its purely physical component, prior to the addition of its symbolic meaning). The physical, water baptism, corresponds to the spiritual, death. This cleansing, this symbolic death, is visited upon the Christian by the officiant, symbolizing God, and not by the believer himself, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:9). Then the water ceases to be applied; death is passed through. In forsaking this symbolic death, the man states a faith that Christ has resurrected him from his spiritual death, by symbolically being resurrected. This, furthermore, is the birth of a new part of his identity: the man is now openly a member of the church of God. All this symbolism, however, is worse than nothing for the man who knows not God because, as Calvin said, the “whole energy” is ascribed to God, not man (Institutes, Book 4, Section 9). In other words, the physical baptism’s efficacy relies entirely upon the efficacy of the spiritual baptism; its efficacy is therefore reliant entirely upon the work of God and God alone. In the life of the one who is not elect and therefore unsaved, physical baptism is a blatant and damning lie, a symbol of something which has not happened and therefore an empty gesture in the eternal scheme. It may, true, be a blessing within that person’s life, but through eternity, he who is so blessed and who spurns God will be cursed yet more for his dereliction (Luke 12:48). Physical baptism is thus a representationally effective, inherent symbol of spiritual baptism, with further weight assigned to it by the Biblical context.

The terminology of ‘spiritual baptism’ and ‘physical baptism’ may appear to open up this paper’s position to the question, ‘Why don’t you just interpret baptism as baptism? Surely when the Bible writes about baptism, it’s writing about the ritual, not some spiritual happening the word only refers to metonymically.’ This objection makes sense on the surface, but is lacking in merit. Why? The Greek word usually translated ‘baptism’ does not mean the physical ritual. The Greek word used for ‘baptism’ means ‘cleansing’ (roughly). In context, it can refer either to a physical ritual or a spiritual event. The physical meaning is, of course, the default, being the basic meaning of the word, but the use of a word (washing, for instance, in Titus 3:5, as Lusk himself acknowledges) to mean a spiritual happening which that word’s literal meaning bears a resemblance or symbolic relation to, this use is common practice not only in the Bible but in the whole of human speech regarding such matters. When God says in Zechariah 13:9 and Malachi 3:3 that He refines His people as if they were gold, He’s not saying that He literally melts them down, lets the slag rise to the top, skims it off, and pours the remaining people-stuff into a mold. He’s saying that He will put them through a process analogous to refining, on a spiritual level. What’s important here is that the choice to take ‘baptism’ as either physical or spiritual is not a choice of translation but of interpretation. Interpreting (the Greek word for) ‘baptism’ as spiritual or physical is not eisegesis. It is not the imposition of a desired doctrine upon the text in contravention of its plain meaning. Both meanings are possibilities, and careful, systematic, Biblical analysis must be used in each case to determine which is intended by the Author.

Part Two will be published here next week.

Context:

Return to the top

This paper is primarily theological, being a response to R. Lusk’s article on baptism (linked below) written in August and September of 2022. It addresses symbolism extensively, however, and I’ve therefore judged it writing-adjacent enough to post. Sections will be going up weekly over the next three weeks, with the full version being published concurrent with the last installment.

All verses, unless stated otherwise, are taken from the ESV.

This website was used to provide information on the words of the original text.

The paper as a whole is a answer to a section of the article found here. My anti-virus dislikes this webpage, but it has yet to cause issues. If you are worried, I advise copy-and-paste to move the article into a Word document- it makes taking notes easier. The rest of the paper seems to be of similar quality to the section this paper examines, though I’ve not inspected it as closely.