An Interview with Tom Schreiner on Baptism

From: Between Two Worlds: Justin Taylor's Blog


Here's an interview I conducted with Tom Schreiner about the new book on baptism that he has co-edited.

Tom, first of all, can you tell us a bit about yourself--your family, where you teach, etc.?

I grew up as a Roman Catholic and was saved at the age of 17, mainly through the witness of a girl named Diane who is now my wife! We have 4 children (3 boys and one girl from the ages of 24-15). I have been teaching since 1983 and since 1997 have taught New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. I am also the preaching pastor at Clifton Baptist Church.

What's the title of your new book, and who are the contributors?

The title is: Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Shawn Wright and I edited the book and both wrote a chapter. We are thrilled with the other scholars who contributed, including Andreas Köstenberger, Bob Stein, Steve Wellum, Steve McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Duane Garrett, Ardel Caneday, and Mark Dever.

How would you define "baptism" biblically?

I think the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 defines baptism beautifully. “We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life.”

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

The mere mechanical act of baptism doesn’t save. Cornelius and his friends received the Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48), showing that they were saved before baptism. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 1:14-17 that baptism must be understood in light of the gospel of grace, not vice-versa. On the other hand, Bob Stein argues convincingly in his chapter that baptism is part of the complex of saving events. {JT note: cf. this SBJT article by Stein.} So, if someone understands that God commands baptism and then refuses to do it, one has to wonder if such a person is saved.

If you don't need to be baptized as a believer in order to be saved, why is it so important? If this is a non-essential doctrine, is it really worth debating and dividing over?

I would refer readers here to my answer above. Baptism is important because it is associated in the NT with the saving events of Christ’s death and resurrection. It is “the” initiation rite into the Christian church, and hence it is not “optional” or “insignificant.” I don’t believe that baptism in and of itself saves, and someone may be a Christian and not undergo baptism because he or she misunderstands what Christ requires. In any case, believer’s baptism is important because it relates to our understanding of the nature of the church. The church is composed of regenerate church members (or at least it should be). Those who baptize infants compromise the purity of the church because they allow into the church those who are unregenerate, for baptism in the NT always follows faith.

Assuming that paedobaptism didn't exist in the NT, when did it first arise historically onto the scene? What caused it?

Scholars differ as to when infant baptism began. Most agree that it probably started sporadically in the 2nd century, and Steve McKinion argues that it was not common until the 4th or 5th centuries. The “why” is hard to answer. It certainly seems to have been at least partly because of pastoral and parental concern about babies dying in infancy. Baptizing them was a means of assuring their salvation in case of their deaths. According to Augustine it was crucial for removing original sin and entrance into heaven. I also encourage everyone to read Jonathan Rainbow’s chapter, for he shows that Zwingli introduced an innovation in the doctrine of baptism. No one before Zwingli claimed that one could be baptized without being a believer. Zwingli diverged from all preceding him by separating baptism from faith and regeneration. More.