Review of “Does the Book of Acts Teach Spontaneous Baptisms?”

Review of Caleb Morell’s “Does the Book of Acts Teach Spontaneous Baptisms?”

The author, Caleb Morell, is a graduate of Georgetown University and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as a pastoral assistant at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. Morell gets down to business and promptly arrives at a definition of spontaneous baptism: “A baptism is spontaneous in (sic) when it happens without forethought or planning.” I would say that this phrase and its definition is somewhat skewed by our modern ideas and practices – more so than being a “biblical definition.” In writing on the topic, I preferred the words “urgent” (very important and requiring attention) and “immediate” (accomplished without delay) over spontaneous. Nevertheless, there are those who promote a similar practice who use the word spontaneous to describe their view. For example J. D. Greear writes, “After all, every single baptism recorded in the New Testament, without exception, is spontaneous and immediate.” Those who believe, as a matter of faith and practice, that baptisms should be immediate do not believe them “spontaneous” in the sense of “without forethought or planning.” They have studied the Bible, thought about what it teaches, and plan to put that biblical teaching into practice at the proper time. Yes, for the baptizand, it might be as spontaneous as his unexpected and unplanned repentance and belief. It should not be for the church[i]

You readers who know me know that I am a lover of history in general, and church history in particular. In the end, though, church history proves history. It proves what has been done historically in churches and by Christians. However, we must go to the Bible itself, our only rule of faith and practice, to prove and know what is to be our faith and practice. This brings us to his next section, “The Pattern of Acts.”

Considering the baptismal instances in Acts, Morell must admit, “Assessing the data, this seems to be largely accurate”[ii]  that the baptisms were immediate. Morell finds nine “Instances of Baptisms of Acts.” I would add a tenth “generic” reference.[iii]  After tentatively agreeing with the data, Morell quickly cordons off four of the nine, leaving “five instances of baptism as possible models for spontaneous baptisms.” He thinks the timing of the baptisms of Lydia and her household in Acts 16, and the Corinthians in Acts 18 is “ambiguous.” While we might spot a little bit of ambiguity in the description about Lydia, there is no reason to suppose any in regard to the Corinthians, who heard, believed, and then were baptized.[iv]  He excludes the other two because they “involve the delayed reception of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:12ff; Acts 19:5).

After cordoning off these four baptisms, Morell attempts to build an exclusionary, somewhat theological hermeneutical, case that the baptisms in Acts are not normative.[v]  That “Luke records surprisingly few baptisms in Acts” Morell thinks “suggests that the baptisms actually recorded are unusual or even inimitable.” What a strange conclusion for a Baptist, and for anyone who believes the Bible is our rule of faith and practice, the inspired word that is profitable, completely, “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” For this project of exclusion, the author stresses “Three features characterize the baptisms in Acts.”

1. The baptisms recorded all involve “first converts” in a historically-redemptively significant setting.
2. Nearly every baptism is accompanied by supernatural acts of the Holy Spirit.
3. Each baptism takes place in response to believing the Apostolic message.

To the first, Morell concludes “one of the main reasons baptisms are recorded in Acts is to highlight God’s work in pioneer settings as the gospel advances to new regions.” That, in itself, seems reasonable, and hardly any reason to reject the practice of baptism in these cases as normative.

Morell believes Luke connects baptism “with the visible work of the Holy Spirit” in order to highlight “that the Spirit of God is driving the expansion of the gospel and the growth of the church.” Again, not unreasonable, and hardly any reason to reject the practice of baptism in these cases as normative. In fact, the author thinks “these visible manifestations of the church help its unity because they signify the movement of the same Spirit.” Yet he then oddly argues for a disunity of baptismal practice.

His third point is similar to the second. 

“The point of each recorded baptism is to highlight how the expansion of the gospel doesn’t result in the fragmentation of the church. Rather, the church remains firmly united despite their diversity because of the Holy Spirit and the consistent apostolic message.”

This is confusing. Morell thinks many baptisms are not recorded, and the ones that are recorded serve a purpose (that is, for their being recorded in Scripture). I agree. Surely the purpose is not to teach us that the multitudes of unrecorded baptisms are different from the recorded ones! And that we should therefore practice differently than what is written.

Writing on the anomaly of receiving the Holy Spirit after baptism, this author misses several points. He in unclear on what he thinks this reception of the Holy Spirit is, and gratuitously assumes the disciples at Ephesus are “John the Baptist’s disciples.”

Morell comes back to the cases of Lydia’s household and the Corinthians, as these will now serve his purpose. They “leave out any mention of visible supernatural work” and (according to Morell) “leave out any mention of the timing of baptism.” He acknowledges “it’s possible to read this as taking place immediately,” but wishes it to be otherwise. If otherwise, it allows the naysayers to insert “some period of instruction” before baptism.[vi]  Concerning the practice in Corinth, Morell appeals to Peterson (probably David Peterson)[vii] that in this account “the use of the continuous tenses in the Greek (‘hearing’ and ‘believing’ and ‘being baptized’) suggests an ongoing pattern of responding to gospel preaching.” I fail to see any reason why this “ongoing pattern of responding to gospel preaching” excludes immediate baptism. On the face of it, it does not, and perhaps even supports it.

Interestingly, Morell included the baptism of the eunuch of Ethiopia among those associated with supernatural acts, because Philip is told by angel of the Lord where to go. On the other hand, he did not include the baptism of Lydia and her household, even though Paul went to Macedonia because of a vision that appeared to him in the night.

After setting the stage, Morell is ready to answer whether we should practice “spontaneous” baptisms. He concludes that “The claim that Acts demonstrates a uniform pattern of spontaneous baptisms is overstated.” The data really is not all that complex, as regards the timing of baptism. Furthermore, those of us who believe that the book of Acts provides patterns for us to follow do not have a problem agreeing that “Luke’s purpose in recording baptisms in Acts was not simply to provide a model to follow.” But does that purpose also include providing a model to follow? Why would it exclude it?

To finish his arguments, Morell condescendingly takes us all to “Hermeneutics 101.” Yes, some of us barely passed the class, but others passed with flying colors. We know that you cannot make a pattern of everything described in the New Testament. The word must be rightly divided. What the apostles taught and practiced, and that the churches received very well could be establishing practices for us. Inquiring minds want to know. Morell suggests applying two principles for discerning whether or not a pattern is binding. 

• “First, we should assume the principle of non-contradiction: however complex the issue, we should assume the unity of Scripture and draw widely from Scripture to discern which principles are binding.” 
• “Second, we should look for reinforcement for the doctrine or practice in question in other parts of the New Testament. As John Stott puts it, ‘What is descriptive is valuable only in so far as it is interpreted by what is didactic.’”

Then in two “slam-dunk” sentences, Morell vanquishes “positive warrant for baptizing immediately.” Or does he?

There is nothing in the principles or unity of Scripture that opposes immediate baptism, neither does the didactic contradict the descriptive. Morell cannot just wave his hand and make it all disappear. In fact, he is aware that “baptism is so closely connected with conversion that Paul can speak of them as one and the same event” – and at the same time wishes to put some contrived distance between the closely connected. In fine, the difference in modern practice and New Testament practice becomes “we live in different days” (my words for their words), or as Morell puts it, “Our context today is simply not analogous.” This is a deadly doctrinal trend, which, if not used sparingly, allows us to dismiss most of the Bible as neither commended nor critical for our current situation.[viii]

In many ways I appreciate the conservatism of 9Marks folks much more than some of the progressive Southern Baptists who are advocating “spontaneous” baptisms. On the other hand, I think they are somewhat lacking in their ecclesiology and orthopraxy, causing them to weaken biblical Baptist practice as I see it.

Ultimately, folks like Morell ask us to reject the models of Acts as “not a model” and rather adopt their own practically developed models as the models we ought to follow. On biblical grounds, I protest.

Baptism, a rite of immersion in water, is important, urgent and should not be unnecessarily delayed because:

• It is commanded [to both converts to proclaim (Acts 2:38; 10:48) and to the church to perform (Matt. 28:18-20)].
• It is the believer’s first act of obedience (Acts 2:33-39; Acts 10:47-48; Matthew 10:32).
• It pictures the gospel and testifies of new life (2 Corinthians 5:17).
• It signifies a spiritual commitment, that we who are born again are now free to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).

The unity of the command, precept, and example braid a three-fold cord that is not easily broken – and that should not be readily discarded.

 I strenuously object to the easy-believism and pseudo-evangelistic methods often associated with “spontaneous” baptisms. Nevertheless, New Testament command, precept, and example must govern and we must submit. I am not urging our rushing professors into the baptismal waters like driving dumb dogies through a dip. But I am saying this – if a church accepts a person’s profession as genuine, there is neither doctrinal reason nor biblical example to delay baptizing that person.

---

[i]  A “baptizand” is a person who is about to submit to baptism.

[ii] He must needs insert “largely” as a weasel word, since he will not allow the biblical data to affect his practice.

[iii]  In Acts chapter 2, we are told believers were added to the church in Jerusalem daily. If the Lord was adding to the Jerusalem church daily such as should be saved; then they were also baptized daily – since baptism precedes church membership.

[iv]  Of course the same is true of Lydia and her household, so not so ambiguous in my opinion.

[v]  Morell here comes close to a precipice. If the record of baptisms, though consistent, are not normative for his purposes, why should one allow them to be normative for believers’ immersion, for example?

[vi]  If the same Peterson, in his commentary he also allows that “some period of instruction intervened” between the belief of the eunuch and his baptism by Philip. I cannot speak with certainty concerning Peterson, but I have read the 9Marks philosophy. They do not just mean the instruction between professing faith and teaching them they then need to be baptized. They mean putting a person in a class and teaching/catechizing that person over several weeks or months before he is baptized.

[vii]  Morell does not give a good citation, but apparently this is David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (The Pillar New Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009.

[viii]  Polar opposites Morgan Edwards and William Whitsitt understood this, though for different reasons and with different concerns.