The Theological meaning of "Be Baptized"
Dr. Derek Carlsen
The Sign and Regeneration
Neither baptism nor circumcision were ordained to serve as signs proving the salvation of the recipients (they are not signs of regeneration). They do however, speak of and point to the need of regeneration (and cleansing), and they also mark out God's people. To have God's sign upon you though, does not prove that you have been regenerated. We know from numerous places in Scripture that not all Israel are of Israel (e.g., Romans 9:6). There are the visible people of God and the invisible people - only God knows our hearts (1 John 2:19). Among God's visible people there are believers and unbelievers - always. God ordained the practice of marking His visible people with a sign, and He determined what that sign should be and what it means.
The Significance of the Household
When God called Abraham, that was the beginning of God's special (visible) people/nation and He made it clear then, that the most basic building block was the family unit or household, thus God's sign was for both Abraham and his household (Genesis 17:10-13). Abraham received the sign after believing (Romans 4:9-12) and his son, Isaac, received the sign before believing, because the sign was not proof of faith, but proof of belonging to the visible people of God. This proves that Abraham and Isaac were both in a covenantal relationship with God through the sign of the covenant.
Different Meanings for Different People
Abraham's circumcision was a sign and seal of what God had done for him, namely, that he had been cleansed through faith, and Isaac's circumcision testified to what he needed God to do for him (to be cleansed), but both were members of God's visible/covenant people. The sign testifies about the need for regeneration, but doesn't require, guarantee or prove regeneration. The idea communicated to us through the sign of circumcision, along with the picture of having a circumcised heart, are synonymous in the sense that they point to the need for being both cleansed by and sensitive to the Lord, but this is only possible by grace through faith, which is God's gift in His time.
Presuming Continuity Between the Testaments
A vital component of having a sound hermeneutic is presuming continuity between the Testaments, thus demonstrating a high regard for every word that comes out of God's mouth, which means that when God reveals something it remains relevant until He clearly reveals otherwise. The moral law of God reveals His standard of righteousness and therefore exposes sin. On the other hand, the ceremonial law was restorative, showing how sinners, who had fallen short of the moral law, could have and maintain a relationship with God. The presumption of the continuity of the moral law is obvious and flows through both Testaments without alteration; on the other hand, discontinuity with respect to the ceremonial law is clearly revealed by God Himself (e.g., Acts 10, 15; Galatians; Hebrews).
The importance of the covenant household, that was revealed in the Older Testament, continues in the Newer Testament, because there is no revelation about there being a change with respect to the relationship that existed between God and the household in the Older Testament. The only revealed change that we see is with respect to how the Lord marks His visible people.
The Theology of Baptism
The phrase "believe and be baptized" does not reveal a theology about what baptism means; it does not tell us anything about what it represents or about the full extent of its application (who receives the sign and why). How do believers-only baptism scholars defend their position, namely, that only true believers can be baptized? Not with Scripture, I assure you. For example, the Baptist scholar, G.R. Beasley-Murray in his book, Baptism in the New Testament, defends his imputed meaning of baptism by pointing to the "grandness" of the Newer Covenant rather than citing any Scriptural revelation. However, in doing this he emphasizes the fact that he has no revelation backing up his definition (his theology about the meaning of baptism is not derived from revelation).
The phrase, "Believe and be baptized," doesn't reveal anything about the meaning and purpose of baptism; it doesn't tell us why people are to be baptized? Those who insist that only true believers are allowed to receive the sign of baptism, are imputing a meaning to the sign of baptism, however, in doing so they demonstrate that their theology about baptism is not derived from Scripture, but rather from an extra-Biblical source (i.e., man's mind).
Theology and Revelation
William Estep says, "baptism is viewed as a witness or testimony of regeneration, a pledge of discipleship, and the door into the visible church." (The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, p.233, 1996). He claims that baptism is a "witness or testimony of regeneration," but this is a theologically rich claim (that is, a theology of baptism), yet this claim has no Scriptural support. This theological idea about baptism being a "testimony of regeneration" is imported into the Newer Testament - it is not derived from the Newer Testament. Few, however, realize how dangerous this is, namely, if theological 'importing' is allowed here with the sign of baptism, what's to prevent others from 'importing' theological meanings with respect to other topics? Everything is then threatened - ethics, doctrine, the historicity of Scripture, etc. Nowhere in the Newer Testament do we read that water "baptism is viewed as a witness or testimony of regeneration." (emphasis added).
The Silence of the Newer Testament
The Newer Testament does not give us a theology of baptism because the authors presumed the continuity between the Testaments; continuity, that is, unless the Lord expressly revealed otherwise. What we see in Scripture is that the theology about the meaning of God's sign upon His people was revealed in the Older Testament, and that God has not revealed that He has stopped marking His visible people. The way God marked His people changed from circumcision to baptism (this is revealed), however, the meaning behind the marking remained the same and so the Newer Testament writers didn't need to give a "theology of baptism." In fact, their silence on this incredibly important topic (the theology of baptism), becomes the clearest proof that the signs are linked (circumcision and baptism).
A Dangerous Alternative
The alternative to getting our theology about the Newer Covenant sign of baptism from the Older Covenant sign of circumcision is to allow people to develop a theology of baptism without revelation, since there is no revelation in the Newer Testament about the theology of baptism. A presumed "theology" is not a sound theology.
Summary
In conclusion, those who claim that only true (regenerated) believers can be baptized have developed this "theology" of baptism without God's revelation; they have insisted that the phrase, "believe and be baptized," means that a person's baptism testifies to the fact that they have been regenerated/born-again. But this theological meaning is not derived from the Newer Testament. The Newer Testament does not explain the reason for baptism, that is, it doesn't spell out the "why" behind the command to "be baptized," it does not tell us what baptism is, what it is for, or who ought to receive it. You need a theology of baptism to answer these questions, however, the Newer Testament is silent about these things.