What do you think?
Rate this book
Baptism: Answers to Common Questions
When Jesus commanded His followers to go and make disciples of all nations, He instructed them to baptize those disciples in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since baptism is a central part of life in the church, why has it been controversial and divisive among so many Christians? In Answers to Common Questions , Dr. Guy M. Richard tackles the key questions people have about What does it mean? Is it necessary for salvation? Who should be baptized, and how should we baptize them? As he searches the Scriptures, Dr. Richard helps us think through what the Bible teaches about baptism and encourages us to deal graciously with our brothers and sisters in Christ even when we disagree.
129 pages, Paperback
Published February 7, 2019
41 people are currently reading
189 people want to read
About the author
Guy M. Richard
5 books4 followersDr. Guy M. Richard is executive director and assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He previously served as senior minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Gulfport, Miss. He has been teaching at RTS since 2010.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews
December 13, 2024
solid defense of paedobaptism. I got like one or two more questions I gotta figure out before I go full Presby mode.
Note: You gotta have some general understanding of Covenant Theology to understand the arguments for infant baptism (and believers-baptism for that matter).
Note: You gotta have some general understanding of Covenant Theology to understand the arguments for infant baptism (and believers-baptism for that matter).
February 12, 2019
This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
It's been awhile since I've read a book on baptism -- it's been awhile since I've seen a new one published, too (but maybe I stopped paying attention), so when I saw this on NetGalley, I had to take a chance. I'm very glad I did. Richard discusses in his introduction that questions about this sacrament are some of the most frequently asked to Presbyterian (and, I assume, Reformed) pastors. Sadly, they're usually asked when pastors can't give the kind of answers they should -- at least based on his experience.
He begins looking at the meaning of Baptism -- both the Greek terms translated as "baptism" and the sacrament. He does so very well, covering all the bases. Following that he moves to the method of baptism -- how should the water be applied? Once he's finished with these matters he moves into the more complicated question -- who should be baptised? He begins with the "household" baptisms in the New Testament before turning to the objections and arguments of Baptist and baptistic brothers. He not only examines and explains them fairly well, he responds to them in an irenic manner, but not giving an inch to them.
The conclusion, "What Can We Take Away from All This" is just fantastic. Richard's meditations on how our baptisms should shape our lives and our faith, to build our faith and give us assurance. It's easily worth half of whatever you pay for the book, and maybe more.
This is probably not a book that will convince any detractors. It may not be enough to convince the earnest seeker. But it will explain the basics for each topic considered. It will demonstrate the systematic and biblical basis for Richard's positions exists and they aren't mere tradition. These are outlines to be filled in with further reflection, reading and research by the reader.
Along those lines, each chapter could really use a "For Further Reading" to help the reader get deeper into the topics covered -- or one at the end of the book. But I do think as each chapter is so topic-focused, it'd be very helpful. As good as each chapter is, they are just an overview. Not every reader is going to want to go deeper into, say, the mode/method of baptism but they might want to spend more time on the meaning of Baptism, or his response to Baptist interpretations of Jeremiah 31. For example, I think I agree with his differing from Murray on the former -- but I'd like to read more about that, if it's possible.
Richard's tone throughout is gracious, kind, yet unbending. It's not easy to putt off in print, especially on a topic like Baptism. There were many times he could've gone for the jugular, rhetorically speaking. He never did, trusting that the arguments would carry the day. And, in my not so humble opinion, he's right to trust that.
Gracious, encouraging, thorough and easy to read -- this introduction to "the waters that divide" Christians is just what you want in a book on this topic. But more than those, it's deeply biblical in nature. Richard's focus in bringing the light of the canon to this topic, and he succeeds there. I strongly encourage you to read it.
Disclaimer: I received this eARC from Reformation Trust Publishing via NetGalley in exchange for this post -- thanks to both for this.
---
It's been awhile since I've read a book on baptism -- it's been awhile since I've seen a new one published, too (but maybe I stopped paying attention), so when I saw this on NetGalley, I had to take a chance. I'm very glad I did. Richard discusses in his introduction that questions about this sacrament are some of the most frequently asked to Presbyterian (and, I assume, Reformed) pastors. Sadly, they're usually asked when pastors can't give the kind of answers they should -- at least based on his experience.
He begins looking at the meaning of Baptism -- both the Greek terms translated as "baptism" and the sacrament. He does so very well, covering all the bases. Following that he moves to the method of baptism -- how should the water be applied? Once he's finished with these matters he moves into the more complicated question -- who should be baptised? He begins with the "household" baptisms in the New Testament before turning to the objections and arguments of Baptist and baptistic brothers. He not only examines and explains them fairly well, he responds to them in an irenic manner, but not giving an inch to them.
The conclusion, "What Can We Take Away from All This" is just fantastic. Richard's meditations on how our baptisms should shape our lives and our faith, to build our faith and give us assurance. It's easily worth half of whatever you pay for the book, and maybe more.
This is probably not a book that will convince any detractors. It may not be enough to convince the earnest seeker. But it will explain the basics for each topic considered. It will demonstrate the systematic and biblical basis for Richard's positions exists and they aren't mere tradition. These are outlines to be filled in with further reflection, reading and research by the reader.
Along those lines, each chapter could really use a "For Further Reading" to help the reader get deeper into the topics covered -- or one at the end of the book. But I do think as each chapter is so topic-focused, it'd be very helpful. As good as each chapter is, they are just an overview. Not every reader is going to want to go deeper into, say, the mode/method of baptism but they might want to spend more time on the meaning of Baptism, or his response to Baptist interpretations of Jeremiah 31. For example, I think I agree with his differing from Murray on the former -- but I'd like to read more about that, if it's possible.
Richard's tone throughout is gracious, kind, yet unbending. It's not easy to putt off in print, especially on a topic like Baptism. There were many times he could've gone for the jugular, rhetorically speaking. He never did, trusting that the arguments would carry the day. And, in my not so humble opinion, he's right to trust that.
Gracious, encouraging, thorough and easy to read -- this introduction to "the waters that divide" Christians is just what you want in a book on this topic. But more than those, it's deeply biblical in nature. Richard's focus in bringing the light of the canon to this topic, and he succeeds there. I strongly encourage you to read it.
Disclaimer: I received this eARC from Reformation Trust Publishing via NetGalley in exchange for this post -- thanks to both for this.
October 14, 2019
Good introduction but left unconvinced. His explanation of the use of the word baptism in the NT and OT, as well as the principle meaning of baptism was good, but after that his arguments were for mebnot strong. The way he used the word “sign” interchanged: he used it talking of believing adults who should receive the sign of baptism for their inward spiritual renewal; he then used it talking of believer’s children receiving the sign of baptism pointing to the hope of their conversion. A lot of his arguments also hinged on the New covenant being the same as the Abrahamic, thus baptism replacing circumcision. His explanation and exegesis I thought wasn’t great. And then to say the recipients of the New Covenant would include unbelievers left me bewildered. I liked his writing style but think there are probably stronger books written for this argument
April 18, 2022
I find this book to be a very easy to understand, accurate representation of the Presbyterian position of "baptism" (Quotation marks, because I don't believe that sprinkling is baptism).
I, myself being a Baptist personally find the arguments fallacious, build on shaky foundations, and somewhat frustrating at times.
That being said, I would recommend this book to any person who desires to understand what Presbyterians believe on the subject of baptism
I, myself being a Baptist personally find the arguments fallacious, build on shaky foundations, and somewhat frustrating at times.
That being said, I would recommend this book to any person who desires to understand what Presbyterians believe on the subject of baptism
November 13, 2019
This will be my go-to book to recommend to Christians on the subject of baptism, particularly in favor of infant baptism. It's a short introductory work at 115 pages, yet it deals with all the important issues—the meaning and mode of baptism, the covenantal case for infant baptism, household baptisms, Jeremiah 31, and objections to infant baptism. It's easy to read and insightful.
April 30, 2024
Solid. My expectation was a book that was focused, clear, and accessible. That’s exactly what Richard’s work here entails. The book is just over 100 pages, so details are left out along with diversity of Reformed viewpoints, but I didn’t feel shortchanged by anything. Truly, the book is clear and to the point and I think really good points are made in favor of the Reformed paedobaptist view. You see the covenantal hermeneutic at work along with contextual exegesis and linguistic analysis, but it’s still pretty straightforward which is pretty cool. Richard also avoids the straw-manning that so often occurs in this conversation. Unity really is important to him, and he argues for the Reformed view while leaving room for Christians who differ.
If you’re looking for a simple and clear introduction to the Reformed paedobaptist view, this is probably my choice.
If you’re looking for a simple and clear introduction to the Reformed paedobaptist view, this is probably my choice.
November 30, 2022
Best little resource on baptism I have read to date
June 5, 2025
This book has helped me realize just how important it is to have children included in God's Covenant.
November 28, 2019
I just finished this book this morning. It is a quick read. I read all but one chapter this morning. It is very clear, thoroughly Biblical, and pastoral in its presentation of the Reformed doctrine of baptism. It answers the common objections to infant baptism from God's Word with an irenic tone. I highly recommend it!
March 18, 2019
Very clear and concise. I recommend this work along with the book- Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament- for anyone who has questions about the church's practice of infant baptism.
February 1, 2020
A solid defense of infant baptism. Direct, cogent, and very pastoral.
December 24, 2022
Most convincing argument for paedobaptism I’ve read. I just might finally become a true Presby.
August 24, 2024
(Warning: this is a long review that continues into the comments section. Get some coffee/tea and/or a blanket.)
One of the marks of Christian maturity is the ability to recognize when a theological issue is more complex than other issues and handle that difficult issue graciously. There are many things to appreciate from Guy Richard’s book entitled Baptism, and his irenic tone is near the top of the list. That being said, I am only further convinced of credobaptism in light of Dr. Richard’s book. I believe much of what drives the baptism divide is the desire to give as clear and simple an answer as we can to the question of what we as believers are to do with our children. How should we treat them? Are they in the covenant or not? These are incredibly important questions about incredibly important blessings (our children)! Yet, we must avoid answering these questions with the simplest and most palatable answers. I fear many adhere to paedobaptism because it is a more enjoyable answer to their questions about their children. While verses can be attached to paedobaptist answers, what they offer from Scripture is implicit at best. Rather than finding the system we like most that can have some verses attached to it, we must be thoroughly biblical in every area of life, especially in our parenting. What God says most explicitly is what we should pursue. While paedobaptism is philosophically coherent and certain verses are offered in support of it, that does not mean it truly reflects God's answer in Scripture on the matter. If God gives a more complex answer than we’d prefer, we must accept it (an example of this is the tension of divine sovereignty and human responsibility). And we must accept God’s answer knowing that it is for the best, even if it is not what we prefer.
Is the blame for this divide all on the paedobaptist side? Absolutely not. Anabaptists were not exactly helpful in this debate. Modern Baptists know little of the biblical covenants or of discipling, catechizing, and raising children biblically. We’ve given very little reason to paedobaptists to reconsider their position. In the following review I aim to address a few of the most significant disagreements I have with my paedobaptist brother while striving to follow the example of charity set by my older brother in the faith. I believe the exegetical arguments below show there is a more biblical answer than what Dr. Richard has laid forward. (Note: I will be including page numbers based on the Kindle version of the book.)
I agree with Dr. Richard’s assessment:
I cannot assign one or two passages of Scripture to answer questions about baptism. Explaining baptism requires a more extended examination of many different Bible texts that must be pulled together (or systematized) in order to develop a picture of what the Bible as a whole teaches on the issue (2).
Dr. Richard is correct: this discussion should involve exegesis of particular texts with an eye to biblical theology as a guide that ensures that exegesis is faithful to all of Scripture. I will not be addressing every possible point of disagreement I have with Dr. Richard. Instead, I will focus on providing a biblical-theological rebuttal to the Old Testament background to baptism, the genealogical promises and the true Seed of Abraham, and what being in God’s covenant people means.
The OT Background to Baptism
Dr. Richard states, “For the first-century Jew, baptism would have meant cleansing or purification, and it would have been applied directly to the person who is unclean in the sight of God in order to wash him and render him clean or pure before God” (11). Certainly cleansing would have been an idea associated with baptism, but washings were not used as a means of covenant entry in the OT. Additionally, the New Testament ties baptism specifically to the Flood (1 Pet 3:18-21) and to the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:1-5). Jesus calls his death a baptism (Mk 10:38; Lk 12:50). That death and resurrection is the sign of Jonah as Jonah’s burial in the water and preservation in the fish leads to him rising onto dry ground (Mt 12:38-42). Precedence must be given to the Scriptures’ own stated background for baptism.
So how does the flood, the crossing at the Red Sea, and Jonah’s plunge into the waters help us understand the OT background of baptism? Each of them conveys a large amount of water, enough to cover those who are in sin. What happens through God’s judgment on the wicked is the deliverance of God’s people onto dry ground (Jonah was the wicked man who experiences a form of judgment, repents as God’s prophet, and is delivered from the deadly state of his disobedience). Each of these events is typological of new creation via death and resurrection. John the Baptist is calling Israel to see they deserve the floodwaters of God’s judgment due to their sin, hence the need for repentance to be baptized (Mt 3:5-8). Jesus, undeserving of the floodwaters, gets baptized to the surprise of John because He is fulfilling all righteousness through His life, baptism into death, and resurrection that makes us new creations in Him (Mt 3:14-15).
Why does this matter for the baptism debate? Baptism is reserved for those who have repented and believed in Jesus to show that they have been made new creations out of the deadness of sin through Jesus’ baptism into death and resurrection (Rom 6:1-4). This further clarifies that the most likely mode of baptism from the NT texts should be seen as immersion not only due to the large bodies of water involved but the fact that Jesus wasn’t sprinkled by death, He was fully buried in the grave in accordance with the Scriptures/OT types (1 Cor 15:3-4).
Dr. Richard does not situate baptism against these OT backdrops given specifically in the New Testament, instead he states the washings mentioned in Heb 9:10 refer to the partial washings from Ex 30:18-21 (10-11). The washings in Hebrews have to do with worshippers who need their consciences purified by the priest (Heb 9:9, 14). The priests’ washings are not the most obvious referent in Heb 9. Why does this matter? The washings for the congregants in Israel frequently included complete bathing of the body (Lev 14-17), including the priests themselves occasionally (Num 19:7-8). The Greek root bapt does not appear at all in the LXX version of Ex 30:18-21, which further goes against it being the intended background passage for Heb 9:10 as suggested by Dr. Richard. To borrow from a famous movie line, “we’re going to need a bigger bo(dy of water)!” Adoniram Judson’s book Christian Baptism catalogs that Luther, Calvin, and many other Reformers conceded that baptism refers to immersion as it is the obvious meaning of the Greek word.
The Genealogical Promises
What about the genealogical promises to Abraham? Richard argues that these promises clarify that the physical children of believers must receive the covenant sign of baptism. Does this idea adhere to the redemptive historical progression of the covenants? I believe the answer is no for the following reasons (special credit is due to Kingdom Through Covenant by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum).
First, we need to consider why circumcision was chosen as the covenant sign. Abraham and Sarah were old and barren, yet God promised to give them seed or offspring. This Seed would not just be any baby though. Ultimately, this Seed would be the Seed of the Woman (Gen 3:15) who would fulfill all righteousness (Gen 18:19) and redeem many seed of the serpent so they would become seed of the woman. The covenant sign was fittingly placed on the reproductive organ to remind Abraham of his need (and all of Israel’s need) for this Seed of the Woman. Additionally, the sign was meant to convey covenant membership (Gen 17:14). To be in covenant with God is to be a faithful king priest (Ie. Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the Israeli kingdom of priests). Egyptian royalty and priests would be circumcised, and Israel’s circumcision of the heart is tied to working and keeping, which was Adam’s and the Levites’ priestly calling (Deut 10:12-13; Gen 2:15; Num 3:7).
What does this mean for our understanding of circumcision? To summarize, the sign of circumcision symbolizes that God’s covenant blessing will come to His people through the Seed/Offspring of the Woman/Abraham who will be perfect in covenant righteousness as the King Priest the people need to be freed from Satan’s domain (as conquering King) and brought near to God (as interceding Priest). How can He bring sinners to God? He offers His blood for their atonement as the One covenantally cut off in their place. By His resurrection the people are justified (Rom 4:24) and made new in their risen King.
Should we really interpret circumcision in such a spiritual way rather than a familial way? Moses himself shows that we should! Israel needed their hearts circumcised (Deut 10:16), but they had no way of performing such an operation. Unless God removes the sinfulness of our flesh we remain fallen and incapable of loving God. God foretold of Israel’s exile due to their covenant-breaking sin, but He also promised to perform the heart circumcision they needed to remake Israel as a people defined by repentance and love for God (Deut 30:1-10). This appears to include a dividing of Israel’s generations and the inclusion of foreigners (Deut 29:22-28). We will return to this point about dividing the families of Israel shortly. For now, we must note that circumcision was a matter of the heart from the outset and that God instructed Israel’s second generation about the need for the heart change while they remained physically uncircumcised till they crossed over the Jordan with Joshua (Josh 5:2-9). God was so concerned that Israel understood the priority of the heart that He was content to let them remain physically uncircumcised while Moses instructed them about heart circumcision in Deuteronomy. Though it had been commanded, God was never fully pleased by the outward sign being applied without a heart change (Jer 9:25-26). This is why the greater realities of baptism must only be applied to those who have been circumcised in heart (more on this later).
What about Gen 17? Have I just jettisoned the foundational passage on circumcision? Paedobaptists and non-dispensational credobaptists agree that Scripture clearly teaches Jesus possesses the land promises (Mt 28:18-20; Acts 2:33-36) as the true Seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16). He is the Davidic King and true Adam who has taken worldwide dominion to distribute the blessing of Abraham to all the peoples of the earth (Ps 72). Yet, we must see in Gen 17 that God ties together the land and genealogical promises (Gen 17:8-9). The OT shows that one Seed will fulfill what is required (Gen 18:19) and defeat the enemies of God (Gen 22:17-18). This King will take dominion and bring the blessing even to His offspring, His children in Israel (Deut 17:20). Consider these verses from the OT:
Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isa 8:18; cf Heb 2:13)
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isa 53:10)
Praise the Lord!
Blessed is the man who fears the Lord,
who greatly delights in his commandments!
His offspring will be mighty in the land;
the generation of the upright will be blessed. (Ps 112:1-2)
Notice the seed/offspring language from Gen 17 is tied directly to the Messiah in the OT. How does Jesus have such offspring if he never married a woman? Because the fulfillment of these promises is spiritual not physical (Rom 4:9-12; Gal 3:25-29). Jesus is the promised Seed anticipated by circumcision, who fulfills the covenant-keeping we could not as the perfect King Priest (and Prophet; cf Deut 18). He was cut off so that we who believe in Him would not be. His resurrection on the 8th day is the fulfillment of the symbolic timeline from Gen 17:12 that shows God has done a new creational work to bring blessing to all the peoples of the earth. Everyone who believes is adopted as a true seed of Abraham because their hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit (Rom 2:28-29). Though we are adopted as sons of God the Father, Jesus as the true Adam does have a fatherly role in giving us new life as our federal head (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15).
To summarize, Jesus is the typological fulfillment of the sign of circumcision because of who He is (the Seed), what He does (fulfills covenant faithfulness), and how He changes His people (heart circumcision). Therefore, He is the possessor of all of God’s promises including the inseparable land and genealogical promises. One last note on this subject should be helpful: circumcision was meant to forever be in the flesh (Gen 17:13). Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Lk 2:21), and when He rose, His body continued to bear the signs that He had finished His work of fulfilling all righteousness (Jn 20:27). This indicates He is forever bearing the circumcision of Gen 17, which means no one else needs to (cf Gal).
One of the marks of Christian maturity is the ability to recognize when a theological issue is more complex than other issues and handle that difficult issue graciously. There are many things to appreciate from Guy Richard’s book entitled Baptism, and his irenic tone is near the top of the list. That being said, I am only further convinced of credobaptism in light of Dr. Richard’s book. I believe much of what drives the baptism divide is the desire to give as clear and simple an answer as we can to the question of what we as believers are to do with our children. How should we treat them? Are they in the covenant or not? These are incredibly important questions about incredibly important blessings (our children)! Yet, we must avoid answering these questions with the simplest and most palatable answers. I fear many adhere to paedobaptism because it is a more enjoyable answer to their questions about their children. While verses can be attached to paedobaptist answers, what they offer from Scripture is implicit at best. Rather than finding the system we like most that can have some verses attached to it, we must be thoroughly biblical in every area of life, especially in our parenting. What God says most explicitly is what we should pursue. While paedobaptism is philosophically coherent and certain verses are offered in support of it, that does not mean it truly reflects God's answer in Scripture on the matter. If God gives a more complex answer than we’d prefer, we must accept it (an example of this is the tension of divine sovereignty and human responsibility). And we must accept God’s answer knowing that it is for the best, even if it is not what we prefer.
Is the blame for this divide all on the paedobaptist side? Absolutely not. Anabaptists were not exactly helpful in this debate. Modern Baptists know little of the biblical covenants or of discipling, catechizing, and raising children biblically. We’ve given very little reason to paedobaptists to reconsider their position. In the following review I aim to address a few of the most significant disagreements I have with my paedobaptist brother while striving to follow the example of charity set by my older brother in the faith. I believe the exegetical arguments below show there is a more biblical answer than what Dr. Richard has laid forward. (Note: I will be including page numbers based on the Kindle version of the book.)
I agree with Dr. Richard’s assessment:
I cannot assign one or two passages of Scripture to answer questions about baptism. Explaining baptism requires a more extended examination of many different Bible texts that must be pulled together (or systematized) in order to develop a picture of what the Bible as a whole teaches on the issue (2).
Dr. Richard is correct: this discussion should involve exegesis of particular texts with an eye to biblical theology as a guide that ensures that exegesis is faithful to all of Scripture. I will not be addressing every possible point of disagreement I have with Dr. Richard. Instead, I will focus on providing a biblical-theological rebuttal to the Old Testament background to baptism, the genealogical promises and the true Seed of Abraham, and what being in God’s covenant people means.
The OT Background to Baptism
Dr. Richard states, “For the first-century Jew, baptism would have meant cleansing or purification, and it would have been applied directly to the person who is unclean in the sight of God in order to wash him and render him clean or pure before God” (11). Certainly cleansing would have been an idea associated with baptism, but washings were not used as a means of covenant entry in the OT. Additionally, the New Testament ties baptism specifically to the Flood (1 Pet 3:18-21) and to the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:1-5). Jesus calls his death a baptism (Mk 10:38; Lk 12:50). That death and resurrection is the sign of Jonah as Jonah’s burial in the water and preservation in the fish leads to him rising onto dry ground (Mt 12:38-42). Precedence must be given to the Scriptures’ own stated background for baptism.
So how does the flood, the crossing at the Red Sea, and Jonah’s plunge into the waters help us understand the OT background of baptism? Each of them conveys a large amount of water, enough to cover those who are in sin. What happens through God’s judgment on the wicked is the deliverance of God’s people onto dry ground (Jonah was the wicked man who experiences a form of judgment, repents as God’s prophet, and is delivered from the deadly state of his disobedience). Each of these events is typological of new creation via death and resurrection. John the Baptist is calling Israel to see they deserve the floodwaters of God’s judgment due to their sin, hence the need for repentance to be baptized (Mt 3:5-8). Jesus, undeserving of the floodwaters, gets baptized to the surprise of John because He is fulfilling all righteousness through His life, baptism into death, and resurrection that makes us new creations in Him (Mt 3:14-15).
Why does this matter for the baptism debate? Baptism is reserved for those who have repented and believed in Jesus to show that they have been made new creations out of the deadness of sin through Jesus’ baptism into death and resurrection (Rom 6:1-4). This further clarifies that the most likely mode of baptism from the NT texts should be seen as immersion not only due to the large bodies of water involved but the fact that Jesus wasn’t sprinkled by death, He was fully buried in the grave in accordance with the Scriptures/OT types (1 Cor 15:3-4).
Dr. Richard does not situate baptism against these OT backdrops given specifically in the New Testament, instead he states the washings mentioned in Heb 9:10 refer to the partial washings from Ex 30:18-21 (10-11). The washings in Hebrews have to do with worshippers who need their consciences purified by the priest (Heb 9:9, 14). The priests’ washings are not the most obvious referent in Heb 9. Why does this matter? The washings for the congregants in Israel frequently included complete bathing of the body (Lev 14-17), including the priests themselves occasionally (Num 19:7-8). The Greek root bapt does not appear at all in the LXX version of Ex 30:18-21, which further goes against it being the intended background passage for Heb 9:10 as suggested by Dr. Richard. To borrow from a famous movie line, “we’re going to need a bigger bo(dy of water)!” Adoniram Judson’s book Christian Baptism catalogs that Luther, Calvin, and many other Reformers conceded that baptism refers to immersion as it is the obvious meaning of the Greek word.
The Genealogical Promises
What about the genealogical promises to Abraham? Richard argues that these promises clarify that the physical children of believers must receive the covenant sign of baptism. Does this idea adhere to the redemptive historical progression of the covenants? I believe the answer is no for the following reasons (special credit is due to Kingdom Through Covenant by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum).
First, we need to consider why circumcision was chosen as the covenant sign. Abraham and Sarah were old and barren, yet God promised to give them seed or offspring. This Seed would not just be any baby though. Ultimately, this Seed would be the Seed of the Woman (Gen 3:15) who would fulfill all righteousness (Gen 18:19) and redeem many seed of the serpent so they would become seed of the woman. The covenant sign was fittingly placed on the reproductive organ to remind Abraham of his need (and all of Israel’s need) for this Seed of the Woman. Additionally, the sign was meant to convey covenant membership (Gen 17:14). To be in covenant with God is to be a faithful king priest (Ie. Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the Israeli kingdom of priests). Egyptian royalty and priests would be circumcised, and Israel’s circumcision of the heart is tied to working and keeping, which was Adam’s and the Levites’ priestly calling (Deut 10:12-13; Gen 2:15; Num 3:7).
What does this mean for our understanding of circumcision? To summarize, the sign of circumcision symbolizes that God’s covenant blessing will come to His people through the Seed/Offspring of the Woman/Abraham who will be perfect in covenant righteousness as the King Priest the people need to be freed from Satan’s domain (as conquering King) and brought near to God (as interceding Priest). How can He bring sinners to God? He offers His blood for their atonement as the One covenantally cut off in their place. By His resurrection the people are justified (Rom 4:24) and made new in their risen King.
Should we really interpret circumcision in such a spiritual way rather than a familial way? Moses himself shows that we should! Israel needed their hearts circumcised (Deut 10:16), but they had no way of performing such an operation. Unless God removes the sinfulness of our flesh we remain fallen and incapable of loving God. God foretold of Israel’s exile due to their covenant-breaking sin, but He also promised to perform the heart circumcision they needed to remake Israel as a people defined by repentance and love for God (Deut 30:1-10). This appears to include a dividing of Israel’s generations and the inclusion of foreigners (Deut 29:22-28). We will return to this point about dividing the families of Israel shortly. For now, we must note that circumcision was a matter of the heart from the outset and that God instructed Israel’s second generation about the need for the heart change while they remained physically uncircumcised till they crossed over the Jordan with Joshua (Josh 5:2-9). God was so concerned that Israel understood the priority of the heart that He was content to let them remain physically uncircumcised while Moses instructed them about heart circumcision in Deuteronomy. Though it had been commanded, God was never fully pleased by the outward sign being applied without a heart change (Jer 9:25-26). This is why the greater realities of baptism must only be applied to those who have been circumcised in heart (more on this later).
What about Gen 17? Have I just jettisoned the foundational passage on circumcision? Paedobaptists and non-dispensational credobaptists agree that Scripture clearly teaches Jesus possesses the land promises (Mt 28:18-20; Acts 2:33-36) as the true Seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16). He is the Davidic King and true Adam who has taken worldwide dominion to distribute the blessing of Abraham to all the peoples of the earth (Ps 72). Yet, we must see in Gen 17 that God ties together the land and genealogical promises (Gen 17:8-9). The OT shows that one Seed will fulfill what is required (Gen 18:19) and defeat the enemies of God (Gen 22:17-18). This King will take dominion and bring the blessing even to His offspring, His children in Israel (Deut 17:20). Consider these verses from the OT:
Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isa 8:18; cf Heb 2:13)
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (Isa 53:10)
Praise the Lord!
Blessed is the man who fears the Lord,
who greatly delights in his commandments!
His offspring will be mighty in the land;
the generation of the upright will be blessed. (Ps 112:1-2)
Notice the seed/offspring language from Gen 17 is tied directly to the Messiah in the OT. How does Jesus have such offspring if he never married a woman? Because the fulfillment of these promises is spiritual not physical (Rom 4:9-12; Gal 3:25-29). Jesus is the promised Seed anticipated by circumcision, who fulfills the covenant-keeping we could not as the perfect King Priest (and Prophet; cf Deut 18). He was cut off so that we who believe in Him would not be. His resurrection on the 8th day is the fulfillment of the symbolic timeline from Gen 17:12 that shows God has done a new creational work to bring blessing to all the peoples of the earth. Everyone who believes is adopted as a true seed of Abraham because their hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit (Rom 2:28-29). Though we are adopted as sons of God the Father, Jesus as the true Adam does have a fatherly role in giving us new life as our federal head (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15).
To summarize, Jesus is the typological fulfillment of the sign of circumcision because of who He is (the Seed), what He does (fulfills covenant faithfulness), and how He changes His people (heart circumcision). Therefore, He is the possessor of all of God’s promises including the inseparable land and genealogical promises. One last note on this subject should be helpful: circumcision was meant to forever be in the flesh (Gen 17:13). Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day (Lk 2:21), and when He rose, His body continued to bear the signs that He had finished His work of fulfilling all righteousness (Jn 20:27). This indicates He is forever bearing the circumcision of Gen 17, which means no one else needs to (cf Gal).
Read
July 4, 2023“We need to remember that everyone’s answers to the common questions about baptism are going to be somewhat complicated—or at, at least, they should be. That is because the Bible is not explicitly clear on its answers to many of the questions.”, p. 4
April 29, 2021
To love ones neighbors, even the most saintly of neighbors is an impossible task unless one relies on the strength of God. Who is my neighbor? My Reformed Presbyterian brothers and sisters of course! But oh how hard it can be to love them when the exposition is so contrary to the plain meaning of the text.
I’m am confident that Guy Richard is a much more godly and well versed man than I, but a plow boy armed with Scripture carries more weight than popes, councils, or even RTS faculty members!
To whomever reads the work, read the Biblical passages referenced as well in context.
One will find that Jeremiah 31 supports not continuity but discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant almost as if distinctions are obvious by the very names of the covenants, but alas I go too far. Again, one will find that Acts 2:39 in which Peter offers a promises to those who have believed, remarkably is connected to Acts 2:38, but again I offer an extreme interpretation. Again, reading that the people went to John the Baptist by the Jordan because there was ample water there or that the Ethiopian eunuch pointed to water beside the road as a place in which he could be baptized couldn’t possibly mean that immersion is a normative practice for baptism. Or could it? No, the author is surely right in arguing that they went down into the water to be sprinkled. Silly me. Pardon my absurd notions but I must try one last time. As the author repeatedly argues, the Abrahamic covenant was spiritual and not physically in nature. It couldn’t have been both because Sarah didn’t produce any physical children and Abrahams descendants never enter any physical land. What a crass interpretation I must have made when I thought that Abraham and Sarah produced a physical son from which lineage Christ came or that Canaan was an actual land and prefigured a renewed creation. I must again apologize for such wild interpretations!
I do not intend to jest harshly here, but it is hard to avoid not giggling when some of these interpretations are offered. The arguments of course carry a great deal of weight and strength until one weighs them against the balances of Scripture.
I’m am confident that Guy Richard is a much more godly and well versed man than I, but a plow boy armed with Scripture carries more weight than popes, councils, or even RTS faculty members!
To whomever reads the work, read the Biblical passages referenced as well in context.
One will find that Jeremiah 31 supports not continuity but discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant almost as if distinctions are obvious by the very names of the covenants, but alas I go too far. Again, one will find that Acts 2:39 in which Peter offers a promises to those who have believed, remarkably is connected to Acts 2:38, but again I offer an extreme interpretation. Again, reading that the people went to John the Baptist by the Jordan because there was ample water there or that the Ethiopian eunuch pointed to water beside the road as a place in which he could be baptized couldn’t possibly mean that immersion is a normative practice for baptism. Or could it? No, the author is surely right in arguing that they went down into the water to be sprinkled. Silly me. Pardon my absurd notions but I must try one last time. As the author repeatedly argues, the Abrahamic covenant was spiritual and not physically in nature. It couldn’t have been both because Sarah didn’t produce any physical children and Abrahams descendants never enter any physical land. What a crass interpretation I must have made when I thought that Abraham and Sarah produced a physical son from which lineage Christ came or that Canaan was an actual land and prefigured a renewed creation. I must again apologize for such wild interpretations!
I do not intend to jest harshly here, but it is hard to avoid not giggling when some of these interpretations are offered. The arguments of course carry a great deal of weight and strength until one weighs them against the balances of Scripture.
March 28, 2019
Like many who have grown up in Christian homes, I was never sure exactly why baptism caused a rift between Christians. I didn’t know why Presbyterians sprinkled and why Baptists immersed, and why this seemingly small difference caused two separate denominations. I didn’t know why some believed infants should be baptized and some believed only adults who have made a profession of faith should be baptized.
As the granddaughter of a former pastor and a serious Christian, I felt I should do my research. Thankfully, Guy M. Richards did it for me.
In his book Baptism: Answers to Common Questions, Guy clearly outlines the following: what baptism is, what it means, why we baptize, who should be baptized, why and what the objections our fellow brothers and sisters raise, and what we can take away from all that. In a humble manner, Guy delves into Scripture to answer these questions. These aren’t his opinions. These are answers, clearly from the Bible itself.
Now I realize why baptism is a serious difference. Now I know what I believe, and I feel equipped to answer questions about what I believe. This book is relatively short, but extremely concise, very well-written and easy to read, and a staple if you are like me and have questions about baptism.
The last thing that I want to praise is that Guy stresses several times that although baptism is something that many denominations argue about and disagree on, we are all children of God. We should not let it cause a huge rift between us, and when he presents his case, he is respectful of those who believe differently – but he does not sugar-coat what he has found in Scripture.
I highly recommend this book. Five stars!
*I was given a copy of this book for free to review by NetGalley and Reformation Trust Publishing. A positive review was not required.*
As the granddaughter of a former pastor and a serious Christian, I felt I should do my research. Thankfully, Guy M. Richards did it for me.
In his book Baptism: Answers to Common Questions, Guy clearly outlines the following: what baptism is, what it means, why we baptize, who should be baptized, why and what the objections our fellow brothers and sisters raise, and what we can take away from all that. In a humble manner, Guy delves into Scripture to answer these questions. These aren’t his opinions. These are answers, clearly from the Bible itself.
Now I realize why baptism is a serious difference. Now I know what I believe, and I feel equipped to answer questions about what I believe. This book is relatively short, but extremely concise, very well-written and easy to read, and a staple if you are like me and have questions about baptism.
The last thing that I want to praise is that Guy stresses several times that although baptism is something that many denominations argue about and disagree on, we are all children of God. We should not let it cause a huge rift between us, and when he presents his case, he is respectful of those who believe differently – but he does not sugar-coat what he has found in Scripture.
I highly recommend this book. Five stars!
*I was given a copy of this book for free to review by NetGalley and Reformation Trust Publishing. A positive review was not required.*
May 8, 2025
I suspect that this book was given to me by a friend of mine, along with the Lord’s Supper book, to try and win me over to his team. As I have been a vocal Memorialist and Credobaptist, I cannot imagine that these books were given to me without that in mind.
Regardless of the intentions behind such gifts, this book served as a comprehensive, concise, and clear presentation on the topic of baptism from a Paedobaptist perspective.
The biggest thing I learned was about myself was that to consider new perspectives/arguments, there needs to be a prerequisite foundation that is in place in order to understand new information coming in. The fact that that foundation was lacking in me regarding this topic was made apparent as I read through the book. I was either misinformed or simply did not know many of the points raised in this book. Points that I had been quick to dismiss before had come from a place of ignorance, not a solidity in my own arguments.
While I do not come away a paedobaptist, I come away with much food for thought and a desire to approach different topics as honestly as I can.
Tl;dr: 4.5/5 - learned a lot
Regardless of the intentions behind such gifts, this book served as a comprehensive, concise, and clear presentation on the topic of baptism from a Paedobaptist perspective.
The biggest thing I learned was about myself was that to consider new perspectives/arguments, there needs to be a prerequisite foundation that is in place in order to understand new information coming in. The fact that that foundation was lacking in me regarding this topic was made apparent as I read through the book. I was either misinformed or simply did not know many of the points raised in this book. Points that I had been quick to dismiss before had come from a place of ignorance, not a solidity in my own arguments.
While I do not come away a paedobaptist, I come away with much food for thought and a desire to approach different topics as honestly as I can.
Tl;dr: 4.5/5 - learned a lot
May 19, 2020
Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for a copy of this book. All opinions are my own. I had not heard of Guy Richard prior to reading this short book on baptism. After a brief search online, I realized we shared many similar beliefs so I figured this book was a safe bet. However, shortly after starting the book I realized that wasn’t the case. This book is written in support of infant baptism, which I don’t support, and I wish the cover mentioned that in some way. I firmly believe in believers baptism, now even though I grew up in a church that practiced infant baptism. Acts 2 shows believers baptism being practiced. One needs to confess their belief in Jesus to be baptized and an infant can’t do that. For these reasons, among others, I can’t recommend this book.
July 20, 2021
I picked this up, simply because I realized I couldn’t explain why my tradition (Presbyterian), and others, baptize babies, and why Baptists did not - and why it was all so controversial for some. I trust my church’s faithfulness to Biblical teaching, but I just didn’t have a good handle on what that teaching was in this case!
This is a useful, clear, respectful, and well-reasoned teaching on baptism, which gives the Bible the respect and study it deserves. If you have questions about what baptism is, why it matters, and who should be baptized, start here!
(Note: it’s best to have a basic understanding of covenant theology before reading).
This is a useful, clear, respectful, and well-reasoned teaching on baptism, which gives the Bible the respect and study it deserves. If you have questions about what baptism is, why it matters, and who should be baptized, start here!
(Note: it’s best to have a basic understanding of covenant theology before reading).
May 24, 2019
A good and clear explanation of the Reformed protestant view on Baptism. Richard firmly falls into the peadobaptist camp while also being gracious and thoughtful in his engaging of the credobaptist argument.
This book covers all the major issues. What is the New Covenant? Continuity between the Old and New Covenant. Visible/invisible distinction. What baptism does. The only thing that I thought was lacking was what baptism does not do... I would have been helpful to address some of the wrong thinking about baptism beyond his criticism of credobaptism. The only other caveat I would have about this book is that it is dulled down significantly.
This is an easy read and I would suggest it for the lay people in the church as well as people new to peadobaptist churches.
This book covers all the major issues. What is the New Covenant? Continuity between the Old and New Covenant. Visible/invisible distinction. What baptism does. The only thing that I thought was lacking was what baptism does not do... I would have been helpful to address some of the wrong thinking about baptism beyond his criticism of credobaptism. The only other caveat I would have about this book is that it is dulled down significantly.
This is an easy read and I would suggest it for the lay people in the church as well as people new to peadobaptist churches.
October 21, 2024
This book gives an excellent argument for baptizing infants and children. Whether or not you agree, you will at least understand the argument. The author is respectful to the opposite view throughout, and even recommends the best book for that counterargument.
I especially appreciated how well the author showed continuity between the various covenants throughout testaments. That is something I have always wondered about and I found a lot of questions (more than baptism) answered in a compelling way.
I especially appreciated how well the author showed continuity between the various covenants throughout testaments. That is something I have always wondered about and I found a lot of questions (more than baptism) answered in a compelling way.
February 25, 2021
Wonderful treatment of the topic of baptism, especially in how it relates to the New Covenant, and the Covenants of the Old Testament. Here we get a wonderful picture of God’s covenant of grace, which shows the continuity of God’s covenants, perfected and culminating in the covenant sealed in Christ’s blood. He clearly adresses and carefully answers many questions Christians have about Baptism, such as:
-Does baptism replace Old Testament Circumcision?
-How important Is the mode of baptism? (Immersion/sprinkling)
-Should we be re-baptized if our first baptism was not “genuine”?
-Should we include or exclude infant children from receiving the sign of the new covenant, baptism?
-Why do so many disagree on this issue?
Baptism in and of itself does not save, but it is a beautiful sign of the salvific grace we have been shown in Jesus Christ. A great book and a sound representation of historic reformed, paedobaptist, covenental, Presbyterian views of baptism.
-Does baptism replace Old Testament Circumcision?
-How important Is the mode of baptism? (Immersion/sprinkling)
-Should we be re-baptized if our first baptism was not “genuine”?
-Should we include or exclude infant children from receiving the sign of the new covenant, baptism?
-Why do so many disagree on this issue?
Baptism in and of itself does not save, but it is a beautiful sign of the salvific grace we have been shown in Jesus Christ. A great book and a sound representation of historic reformed, paedobaptist, covenental, Presbyterian views of baptism.
January 1, 2020
Excellent.
Brief and direct, Richard shows his competency, wisdom, and pastoral care when discussing this, sadly, controversial subject within Christianity. I highly recommend this short volume on Holy baptism to all looking to develop their understanding of this sacrament.
Brief and direct, Richard shows his competency, wisdom, and pastoral care when discussing this, sadly, controversial subject within Christianity. I highly recommend this short volume on Holy baptism to all looking to develop their understanding of this sacrament.
November 27, 2019
Accessible and concise, asking and answering many of the important questions. More pastoral than technical.
June 24, 2020
A quick read answering all the common objections to infant baptism. Richard also provides 2 chapters on the "professing believers only" baptism side with answers to those points as well. Very helpful!
December 28, 2021
Great book on Baptism. Richards answers common objections to infant baptism.
September 24, 2023
This was a great concise explanation of what the PCA church believes around baptism. It was very clear and organized, which made a complex topic easier to digest.
July 24, 2024
Good introduction into the topic of baptism. I enjoyed his section on Jeremiah 31 and its implications for covenant members.
July 31, 2019
One of the challenges in understanding the rituals and practices of the Christian faith lie in finding biblical support. What exactly is baptism? Does it mean only immersion? What about requirements on who should be baptize? What about the different ways of baptism? How do we relate to our fellow believers who believe in other different points of view about baptism? Moreover, there are certain groups like the Baptists who are adamant about immersion as the way to be baptized. How do we respond? These questions and more are not easily referenced by mere Bible verses alone. He writes this book as a way to synthesize Bible texts and to relate them as much as possible to present day contexts. He cautions us against using specific texts to build whole doctrines about baptism. What is important is that we think through, with Scripture as guide, about the meaning and the importance of baptism. At the same time, it is hoped that the understanding would be expanded to other brothers and sisters. Instead of letting differences divide the Christian world, it is hoped that with greater understanding, we would be more united on the importance and significance of baptism. Key points of agreement are:
Christian baptism is important;
Water is needed for baptism;
Baptism is to be done in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;
Baptism is a core essential and practice of faith.
On baptism, Richard takes us through the Old Testament and New Testament instances of baptism. The crux of the matter remains the same: Cleansing and rite of washing. We get to understand the different ways of baptism: Immersion, sprinkling, pouring, and even affusion (pouring out of the Spirit). We learn that we should not miss out the meaning of baptism by wrongful emphasizing any one mode. We understand the four meanings of baptism; the reasons we baptize; the ways to do it; the differences between Baptist practices and the rest; how to respond to baptist arguments that we don't agree with; and Jeremiah 31 that is often used to promote "believers-only baptism."
My Thoughts
This book is a convenient layout of the basic things to know about baptism. Author and Pastor Guy Richard makes three points very clear. The first is to caution us from using scattered texts per se to explain all of baptism. He explains that if we want to explain what baptism is, we need to extensively examine what the various Bible texts are saying and to put together a bigger picture of what it means. One should not depend on short pet answers which would do injustice to the whole concept of baptism. The second point is to recognize that we should not give simplistic answers to a more complex issue. Trying to be dogmatic about any position, especially controversial ones will be unhelpful. The third point is a helpful one that points us to a more respectful and reverent study of the Bible. All of these are carefully dealt with for the sake of uniting the wider Christian family. It begins with understanding. We may not agree on the exact mode or theology behind baptism. What we could agree are the basic need and importance of baptism; that it must include water; that it is an essential part of being a believer.
I warmly recommend this book for general reading and understanding of baptism.
Guy Ritchie is executive director and assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He has also served as senior minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Gulfport, Miss for 12 years.
Rating: 4.25 stars of 5.
conrade
This book has been provided courtesy of Reformation Trust and NetGalley without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.
Christian baptism is important;
Water is needed for baptism;
Baptism is to be done in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;
Baptism is a core essential and practice of faith.
On baptism, Richard takes us through the Old Testament and New Testament instances of baptism. The crux of the matter remains the same: Cleansing and rite of washing. We get to understand the different ways of baptism: Immersion, sprinkling, pouring, and even affusion (pouring out of the Spirit). We learn that we should not miss out the meaning of baptism by wrongful emphasizing any one mode. We understand the four meanings of baptism; the reasons we baptize; the ways to do it; the differences between Baptist practices and the rest; how to respond to baptist arguments that we don't agree with; and Jeremiah 31 that is often used to promote "believers-only baptism."
My Thoughts
This book is a convenient layout of the basic things to know about baptism. Author and Pastor Guy Richard makes three points very clear. The first is to caution us from using scattered texts per se to explain all of baptism. He explains that if we want to explain what baptism is, we need to extensively examine what the various Bible texts are saying and to put together a bigger picture of what it means. One should not depend on short pet answers which would do injustice to the whole concept of baptism. The second point is to recognize that we should not give simplistic answers to a more complex issue. Trying to be dogmatic about any position, especially controversial ones will be unhelpful. The third point is a helpful one that points us to a more respectful and reverent study of the Bible. All of these are carefully dealt with for the sake of uniting the wider Christian family. It begins with understanding. We may not agree on the exact mode or theology behind baptism. What we could agree are the basic need and importance of baptism; that it must include water; that it is an essential part of being a believer.
I warmly recommend this book for general reading and understanding of baptism.
Guy Ritchie is executive director and assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He has also served as senior minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Gulfport, Miss for 12 years.
Rating: 4.25 stars of 5.
conrade
This book has been provided courtesy of Reformation Trust and NetGalley without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.
February 20, 2019
Good defense of "one baptism". He made a good case for infant baptism for children with at least one believing parent. This is a good support for Sinclair Ferguson's view of one baptism per believer. I doubt it would convince many Baptists, but it should be reinforcement for the Reformed community. If baptism is the sign of being "in Christ" and regeneration, it probably comes down to the definition of regeneration.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews