THE DOCTRINE
OF BAPTISM
T.P. Simmons
Baptism is perhaps the most controverted
subject in the Bible. For centuries it has been a theological battleground, and
on it many noble soldiers of the cross have fought, bled,
and died. Perhaps more martyr-blood has been shed over baptism than over any
other thing. Controversy has raged mainly around four aspects of baptism. Our
discussion, therefore, will deal with these four aspects.
I.
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Does it make any difference
who the administrator of baptism is? Some say that it does not. They reason that
baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the one being baptized, and that
the administrator is of no moment. But can those that take this position
imagine that it would have been the same in the eyes of God if the people in the days of John the Baptist had received baptism
from some Pharisee or Sadducee instead of receiving it from John? God bad a
divinely appointed administrator in that day, and our Lord walked a great
distance to receive baptism at his hands. If God had a divinely appointed administrator
in that day, is it not likely that He has one today? We believe He does. Let us
note:
1.
BAPTISM IS A CHURCH ORDINANCE
In proof of this we offer the
following Scriptures:
In the above place, as is well
known, we have Matthew's report of the last commission of Christ, commonly
called the great commission.
To whom was
Christ speaking when He uttered His last commission? The promise which is
attached to it shows that He was not speaking to the apostles as individuals.
He promised His presence to the end of the age. Certainly He did not think that
the apostles would live that long. Then He must have addressed them in some
official or corporate capacity. Did He address them as an apostolic teaching
body that was to be perpetuated? We hardly think so, since
nothing is said about the perpetuation of the apostolic office. To be a member
of the original twelve, it was necessary that one should have companied with
the others from baptism of John and must have been a witness of the
resurrection (Acts 1:21, 22). Paul was an apostle in a slightly broader sense,
in that he had a personal commission from Christ, who appeared to him and commissioned him on the Damascus road. In a still broader sense
others are called apostles. But not a hint is given of the perpetuity of the
office down to the end of the age. Neither is there a hint that the office
could be transmitted from one to another.
We believe Christ spoke to the
apostles as constituting the church. This we believe because-
A. The Church is the Body of
Christ.
It is thus represented too
often to make it necessary to mention any Scripture reference.
Since the head always performs its work through the body, we believe Christ
committed His work to His body.
B. The Church is the Temple of
the Holy Spirit.
Cf. 1 Cor.
3:16. In this Scripture Paul was not speaking of the human body of the
believer, which is elsewhere called the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.
6:19). He was plainly speaking of the church. This chapter deals with church
building.
Since the church is the temple
of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is here to direct the work
of Christ, it appears that it is through the church that He will do His work,
and hence that it was to the church that Christ gave the great commission.
C. The Church is the Pillar
and Ground of the Truth.
Cf. 1 Tim.
3:15. The whole of the truth is compassed in the great commission. Since the
church is the pillar and ground of the truth, the commission must have been
entrusted to it.
(2) 1 Cor. 12:13.
This Scripture reads: "In
one Spirit were we all baptized into one body." Some hold that this
passage refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit, but there is no scriptural ground
for such a notion. There is no hint in Scripture that each believer receives
Spirit baptism either in or after regeneration. This is an assumption pure and simple.
This passage means that being
in or under the power of the Holy Spirit we were all brought by the Lord to
baptism, and thus were made members of His body, the local church. Thus baptism
is the ceremonial door into the church.
This being true, and it also
being true that the church is a democratic body, it follows that it has charge
of its own door; Or, in other words, the church has the authority to receive
members. This is implied in the exclusion of the sinful and the reception of
them again if and when they repent (1 Cor. 5:1-7; 2 Cor. 2:6-8). And it is also implied in Paul's injunction to the church at Rome,
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye" (Rom. 14:1). Thus baptism
is a church ordinance.
2.
BAPTISM, THEN, CAN BE ADMINISTERED ONLY BY THOSE WHOM THE CHURCH AUTHORIZES
Of course the church as a
whole cannot baptize. It must perform the ordinance through those whom it
authorizes, just as Jesus baptized through the apostles (John 4:1, 2).
It is on
this basis that sound Baptist churches reject the immersion administered by
groups which they cannot consistently recognize as New Testament churches. The
name Baptist, is derived, as we have seen, from Anabaptist; and this name was
applied to various groups because they rejected the immersion administered by
false churches. The acceptance of alien immersion threatens the very existence
of true churches. It puts them on a par with man-made
organizations. This leads toward open communion, unionism and exchange of
letters. And all of these lead toward destruction.
II.
THE SUBJECT
What are the qualifications,
if any, that must be possessed by the subject before baptism can be
administered properly? The position of some is that the only qualification
demanded of adults is "a desire to flee from the wrath to come and to be
saved from their sins" (Wesley).* Others teach that a mere intellectual
belief in the deity of Jesus Christ qualifies one for
baptism, holding also that baptism has saving efficacy. For a discussion of the
Scriptures that are relied on to teach that gospel faith is a mere intellectual
belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God see chapter on Repentance and Faith.
It is held also by some that the infant children of believers may properly
receive baptism.
But what saith the Scriptures?
The Scriptures are clear and unmistakable in their teaching that-
1.
PERSONAL SAVING FAITH IS A PREREQUISITE TO BAPTISM
Saving faith is trust in and reliance
on Jesus Christ as one's personal and all-sufficient Saviour. For further
discussion of this see chapter referred to above.
(1) There is no indication in
the Scripture that any person was ever baptized without faith.
A. Where the details are given
the faith of the subject is clearly indicated.
For instances of this, see
Acts 2:41; 8:12, 37; 18:8; 19:4. Two of these passages (Acts 8:37
and 19:4) are sufficient to show that the connection of faith with baptism in these
passages is neither incidental nor accidental. In Acts 8:37 we have the virtual
declaration of Philip that the eunuch could not be baptized except he believed.
And in Acts 19:4 it is plain that Paul baptized the twelve men at Ephesus
because they had not properly understood John's preaching of faith in the
coming Messiah (that preaching having been imperfectly
transmitted to them by Apollos, perhaps), and hence had not believed; thus
making their prior baptism invalid.
B. In other passages where the
details are not made explicit the faith of the subjects is implied.
___________
*"What the Adult
Applicant for Church Membership Should Know" (Tate), published by the
Board of Managers of Tract and Evangelistic Literature, Methodist
Episcopal Church, South.
___________
See Matt. 3:1, 2, 6; Matt.
28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 9:17, 13; 10:47; 16:30-33. John preached
repentance and demanded fruits meet for repentance of those he baptized.
And repentance and faith are synchronous, inseparable graces. In the great
commission Jesus coupled faith with baptism (Mark 16:16) and put the making of
disciples before the baptizing of them (Matt. 28: 19). The Revised Version
rightly translates this passage to read, "Make disciples of all
nations," instead of "Teach all nation"; for the word translated
"teaching" in the next verse is different from
the word in the nineteenth verse that is translated "teaching" in the
common version. That disciples are not to be made by baptism is evident from
John 4:1, which indicates that both John and Jesus "made and baptized
disciples." Disciples in New Testament times were first made and then
baptized. And Mark's version of the great commission shows that disciples were
made through the preaching of the gospel and the believing
of it. The alleged baptism of unaccountable infants in the case of household
baptisms will be cared for when we come to deal with infant baptism.
(2) The symbolism of the
ordinance demands faith upon the part of the subject.
The symbolism of baptism is
clearly set forth in Rom. 6:2-5; Col. 2:12. It signifies our death to sin and
resurrection to walk in newness of life. Such an experience can come only
through faith. The passage from Colossians informs us that it comes
"through faith in the working of God."*
2.
HENCE WE ARE TO BAPTIZE ONLY SAVED PEOPLE
If the faith demanded as a
prerequisite of baptism is saving faith, then only saved people are to be
baptized. That this faith is saving faith is made evident by the fact that salvation is conditioned on faith and the believer is
said to possess eternal life. See Acts 16:31; Eph. 2:8-10; John 5:24. We are
not to baptize people in order to save them, nor because they want to be saved,
but only because they are already saved. The symbolism of the
*These passages manifestly
refer to water baptism. And such an understanding of them cannot be
consistently objected to by those, such as Methodists, who say that baptism is
"a sign of regeneration, or the new birth." See "The Doctrines
and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
1930," p. 24.
_________
ordinance further proves this.
When one is baptized without having died to sin through the regenerating power
of the Holy Spirit, which is the only way that one can die
to sin, he professes a falsehood to the world.
3.
INFANT BAPTISM, THEREFORE, IS FORBIDDEN
Infant baptism is left without
any authority or ground in the Scripture. Faith as a prerequisite
of baptism is indicated, implied, or demanded by every passage of Scripture
that touches the question. Barring the alleged baptism of infants in household
baptisms, which we shall dispose of presently, there is not in the Scripture
the least semblance of a hint that infants were ever baptized. It has been
strikingly said that the passages that are used by the advocates of infant
baptism fall into three classes. One class mention baptism,
but do not mention infants. Another class mention infants, but do not mention
baptism. And a third class mention neither infants nor baptism.
Some pedobaptists, under the
weight of evidence against them, have gravitated to the
position of regarding the baptism of infants as little more than a dedication
of them to the Lord just as we dedicate buildings. W. A. Swift, in a series of
articles in The Methodist Herald (now extinct), of Jackson, Tenn., on "Why
Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies" thus argues. He says:
"Why dedicate a church building to God? Why dedicate a ship, a stone
monument, or anything else? Are not children of more value
than stones and buildings?" And he relates the account of a service in a
Baptist church in Chicago in which two mothers dedicated their children to God
as Hannah did Samuel, but without the use of water, and he adds: "What
does it hurt to use water?" Such an argument surrenders the idea that
baptism is "a sign of regeneration, or the new birth." Yet Methodists
still so declare.*
And in the face of the
foregoing scriptural facts most pedobaptist scholars will not attempt to
maintain that infant baptism was an apostolic institution. This we shall see in
noting-
(1) The testimony of
pedobaptist scholars on infant baptism.
________
*"The
Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, South" (1930), P. 4.
________
LUTHER-
"It
cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by
Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles."
ERASMUS-
"It
is nowhere expressed in apostolic writings that they baptized children."
OLSHAUSEN-
"There is altogether
wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children,
in the age of the apostles, nor can any necessity for it be deduced from the
nature of baptism."
GEORGE EDUARD
STEITZ,--SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCY.—Art. Bapt.-
"There
is no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament."
A. T. BLEDSOE, LL. D.-
"It is an article of our
faith (Methodist Episcopal), that the baptism of young children
(infants) is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable to the
institution of Christ. But yet, with all our searching, we have been unable to
find in the New Testament a single express declaration or word in favor of
infant baptism" (Southern Review, Vol. 14). And this same writer says:
"Hundreds of learned pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion,
especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a
closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly
practiced by controversialists."
H. A. W. MEYER, Th. D. (called
"the prince of exegetes").-
"The
baptism of the children, of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is
not to be held as an apostolic ordinance . . ."
NEANDER-
"Baptism,
at first, was administered only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive
of baptism and faith as strictly connected. There does not appear any reason
for deriving infant baptism from an apostolic institution; and the recognition
of it, which followed somewhat later, as an apostolic tradition, serves to
confirm this hypothesis" (Church History).
GEORGE HODGES-
"The recipients of
baptism seem originally to have been persons of mature life. The command, 'Go,
teach all nations, and baptize them,' and the two conditions, 'Repent and be baptized,' and 'He that believeth and is baptized,'
indicate adults" (The Episcopal Church, It's Faith and Order, p. 51).
A. C. MCGIFFERT-
"Whether
infants were baptized in the apostolic age, we have no means of
determining" (History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, p. 54').
ROBERT RAINY, in treating the
period A. D. 98-180-
"Baptism
presupposed some Christian instruction, and was preceded by fasting. It
signified the forgiveness of past sins, and was a visible point of departure of
the new life under Christian influences and with the inspiration of Christian
purposes and aims" (Ancient Catholic Church, p. 75).
HARNACK,
in dealing with the post-apostolic period-
"There is no sure trace
of infant-baptism in the epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition"
(History of Dogma, Vol. 1, p. 20).
"We have good evidence
that infant-baptism is no direct institution either of the Lord Himself or of
His apostles. There is no trace of it in the New Testament" (Early Church
History to 313, Vol. 1, p. 250).
Space forbids that we continue.
These quotations show the majority position of pedobaptist scholars.
But, notwithstanding, in the
face of a that has been said, there are some who make a determined
effort to prove the apostles practiced infant baptism. Hence we notice-
(2) Arguments for Infant
Baptism Answered,
A. The boldest attempt that
has been made to justify infant baptism is by seeking to prove
that the child is saved. "The babe and the converted person are both in a
state answering to regeneration. If one is entitled to baptism, so is the
other. If it is necessary to baptize a converted adult, then for the same
reason it is necessary to baptize an infant . . . We can never be sure that the
adult is saved when we baptize him, but concerning the children there is no possibility
of mistake."* And the ceremony used by the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, in administering "baptism" to infants, reads
in part as follows: "Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men, though fallen
in Adam, are born into this world in Christ the Redeemer, heirs of life eternal
and subjects of the saving grace of the Holy Spirit, etc."
There are
two passages that are used to prove that infants are saved. One of them is
mentioned by the Methodist discipline quoted above just following the words
quoted. This passage is found in Matt. 19:14; Mark 10: 14; and Luke 18:16. In
it, in speaking of children, Jesus said: "Of such is the kingdom of
God," or "to such belongeth the kingdom of God." The following
quotations show the truth of this passage:
"'Such' certainly means
childlike persons, and apparently does not mean children at all. So the
Memphitic, 'for persons of this sort, theirs is the kingdom of heaven.' And the
Peshito takes great pains, 'for those who are like them, theirs is the kingdom
of heaven.' All the Greek commentators explain it as
meaning the childlike, none of them mentioning children as included, and
several expressly stating the contrary. Nor does any Greek commentator, so far
as we can find, mention infant baptism in connection with this passage, though
they all practiced that rite" (Broadus, on Matthew).
"Not little children, but
men of childlike disposition" (Meyer).
"Of that reference to
infant baptism which it is so common to seek in this narrative, there is
clearly not the slightest trace to be found. The Saviour sets the children
___________
*Methodism, by Ethalmore V.
Cox, published by the Board of Managers of Christian Literature, Methodist
Episcopal Church, South.
The Doctrines and Discipline
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1930.
___________
before the
apostles as symbols of spiritual regeneration, and of the simple childlike
feeling therein imparted" (Olshausen).
But, regardless of the meaning
of this passage, it does not authorize infant baptism. The purpose of the
bringing of children to Him is stated explicitly, and the objection of the disciples shows clearly that this was even unusual. So
the passage is dead against infant baptism, no matter what interpretation is
put upon the words "of such is the kingdom of God."
The other passage used to
probe that infants are saved is 1 Cor. 7:14-"For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by
the husband; else were your children unclean but now are they holy."
But, first of all, it needs to
be noted that this passage proves too much for pedobaptists according to their
use of it. If it proves that children of a union between a
believer and unbeliever are entitled to baptism by virtue of their connection
with the believing parent, then the unbelieving parent is also entitled to it,
without further qualifications; for the same holiness that is imparted to the
children of such a union is imparted to the unbelieving member.
The
holiness mentioned in this passage is clearly not moral holiness, but only an
outward sanctification making the association in the home lawful for the saved
member. "The pertinence of Paul's argument may be more obvious, if it is
borne in mind that a Judaising influence was already working powerfully in the
church. It is, therefore, probable that these Christians who had come under
this influence, and who had unbelieving husbands or wives,
were in fear of ritual contamination by conjugal intercourse with the
unbelievers. This, however, Paul declares to be a groundless fear; for, as
every kind of food is hallowed by prayer (1 Tim. 4:5), so that a Christian may
receive it without ritual contamination, every lawful associate or companion in
life is hallowed to the Christian" (Alvah Hovey).
And this passage really proves
the falsity of the contention that infants are saved. If infants are saved,
then all are holy; and Paul's argument would be inapposite.
Furthermore this idea of
infant salvation denies the universal necessity of regeneration.
When correctly translated, the words of Jesus to Nicodemus about the new birth
are not, "Except a man," etc., as though they apply to adults only;
but they are, "Except one," etc. Roman Catholics use this passage to
prove that infants must be born again to be saved, and thus, because they
wrongfully believe that baptism is necessary to regeneration, find ground for
infant baptism. If they were right in their view of
baptism, then they would be wholly right in their whole view of this passage.
This passage does teach that all, not excepting infants, must be born again in
order to be saved. When infants that die receive regeneration is not revealed
in the Bible. But it is plain that they are not born saved, and it is plain
that they must be regenerated to be saved. Our opinion is that regeneration in
dying infants takes place the moment of the separation of
the soul from the body. We have dealt at length with the salvation of those
dying in infancy in the chapter on Human Responsibility.
B. There is likewise no scriptural
warrant whatsoever for the assertion that baptism came in
the room of circumcision. Not a hint of such a thing appears anywhere in the
New Testament, not even in the discussion at the conference over circumcision
in Jerusalem. In fact, this conference clearly proved that circumcision did not
give way to baptism; otherwise the question at issue could have been settled
promptly by simply saying that the Gentiles were not to be required to be
circumcised because baptism had taken the place of circumcision.
A pedobaptist would have been sure to propose that solution if he had been
there. And that, by the way, is proof that there were no pedobaptists there.
Jewish believers continued to practice both circumcision and baptism without a
hint from the apostles to the contrary.
C. The
next argument for infant baptism that we shall take up is based on Acts 2:39.
It has been stated thus: "Peter, addressing a multitude of Jews on the day
of Pentecost, said (Acts 2-39): 'For the promise is unto you and to your children.'
Can you comprehend this statement? These Jews had been taught to receive
children and give them the token of the Abrahamic covenant. There is no doubt
with us about children being baptized on the day of
Pentecost."
But this statement very tactfully
omits the last part of the passage quoted, according to the usual tactics of
pedobaptists.
This last
part explains the passage; and, if properly considered, will show that any
children baptized on Pentecost, or at any other time in the New Testament age,
were only such as were called of the Lord. This necessitates their being old
enough to receive the gospel and act upon it. The part of the passage we refer
to reads: "Even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him." We
shall be happy to baptize all the children that the Lord
our God calls, but not more; for we have no ground for baptizing those whose
baptism God has not authorized.
D. The next and last argument
for infant baptism that we shall notice is based upon the household baptisms
mentioned in the New Testament.
(a) Such an argument assumes
two things for which there is no proof: (1) That there were infants in these
households. (2) That these infants were baptized, and that in direct opposition
to everything revealed in the Bible about the meaning of baptism and the
qualifications of the recipients of it.
From Knapp's Theology (Knapp
was a pedobaptist) we read: "It may be objected against those passages
where the baptism of the whole families is mentioned, viz., Acts 10:42-48;
16:15-33; 1 Cor. 1:16, that it is doubtful whether there were any infants in
those families, and if there were, whether they were then baptized."
(b) An inspection of the five
household baptisms recorded in the New Testament leaves no proof whatsoever of
infant baptism, but rather, in most cases, it furnishes conclusive proof to the
contrary.
Cornelius
is said to have been "a devout man, and on that feared God with all his
house" (Acts 10:2). And we read that "the Holy Spirit fell on them
that heard the word" (Acts 10:44), which thing was evidenced by their
speaking in tongues (v. 46). If there
were any infants in the family of Cornelius, they were not included when his
house was mentioned in its relation to God, and hence would not be baptized.
And again, if any infants were baptized on this occasion,
then they also received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues.
The strong probability is that
Lydia was not a married woman. She was a merchant woman, and at the time of her
conversion was far from her home in Thyatira. Even if she
had been a married woman, the fact that she was in business would make it
unlikely that she had infant children. Her household, no doubt, consisted of
servants and employees, as in the case of "Caesar's household" (Phil.
4:22). This expression cannot refer to or include any of Nero's children, for
certainly none of them were members of the church at Rome.
When Paul said to the jailor
at Philippi: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,
and thy house," his words mean that the other members of the jailor's
family were to be saved by their personal faith, and certainly not by the
jailor's faith; for if so, then adults in the family were to be saved without
personal faith. And it is said that the jailor
"rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God." All
of this shows that there were either no infants in the jailor's family or else
they were not taken into consideration in the things that went on that night.
Nothing is
given of the details of the conversion of the household of Stephanas. Paul
tells us that he and his household were among the few he baptized at Corinth (1
Cor. 1:16). But three or four years later Paul wrote to the church at Corinth
and spoke of the household of Stephanas as having, "set themselves to
minister unto the saints" (1 Cor. 16: 15). It is unlikely that this would
have been said if the household that was baptized a few
years previous had included infants.
In the case of Crispus, the
ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, it is distinctly said that "he believed
in God with all his house." No infants here.
So this is
the case of the household baptisms that pedobaptists depend so much upon. Not a
scintilla of evidence that there were infants in any of these households, and
far less that they would have received baptism if there had been.
We shall not waste time
answering the attempts of pedobaptists to justify infant baptism
by arguments other than those drawn from Scripture. These studies are prepared
for those who believe in following Christ and the apostles, and no argument can
induce such a countenance that which is subversive of their practices; and this
is certainly true of infant baptism.
What is the purpose or design
of baptism? Is it in order to salvation, as some maintain? Or is it, as others
contend, for the purpose of manifesting salvation, showing forth the believer's
death to sin and his resurrection to righteousness? We take the position that the latter is
true. In consideration of this position
we take-
1. THE PASSAGES WHICH SHOW THAT BAPTISM HAS NO
SAVING EFFICACY
All
passages that condition salvation on repentance and faith alone show that
baptism has no saving efficacy. Cf. John
3:16, 18; 5:24; Luke 13:3; Acts 16:31; Rom. 4:5; Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8. If baptism is essential to salvation, why
was it left out of these passages which propose to point out the way of life to
lost men? It is true that all of them
do not mention both repentance and faith, but the reason for this is that either repentance or faith is implied in the other. But this is no true of baptism.
1 John 1:7 and all similar
passages, by showing that the blood of Jesus cleanses from sin, forbid the
belief that baptism has cleansing power.
Passages
that show that baptism is not a part of the gospel, in the light of Rom. 1:16,
forbid the view that baptism is essential to salvation. In 1 Cor. 15:1-5 Paul gives a very full
account of the content of the gospel, and baptism is not mentioned. Then, in 1 Cor. 1:14-16, he thanks God that
he baptized only a few of the Corinthians (can one imagine a Campbellite
preacher's doing this?); and follows with a clear distinction
between baptism and the gospel, saying: "Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel." Moreover, in 1 Cor. 4:15, he said to the
Corinthians: "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet
have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the
gospel."
2. THE PASSAGES WHICH SOME TAKE AS GIVING TO BAPTISM SAVING
EFFICACY
There are other passages which
some take as teaching that baptism does have saving efficacy. We have already
seen that such a meaning is foreign to the Scripture as a whole,
but we shall examine these passages so that we may see fully that they are not
out of harmony with other Scripture.
(1) Mark 16:16-"He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
If this
Scripture were taken alone, it would seem to teach that salvation is conditioned
on both faith and baptism. But this cannot be true in the light of other plain
Scripture. In the light of Scripture as a whole, and this is the only sound
method of interpreting any passage, this passage can mean no more than that he
who believes and proves the genuineness of his faith by being baptized will be
saved. We need to remember that one may believe in vain (1
Cor. 15:2). One may have a mere intellectual faith, which is a dead faith (Jas.
2:20). This is the kind of faith alluded to in Matt. 13:20. Note also the force
of the latter part of this passage. It says not: "He that is not baptized
shall be damned," but "He that believeth not," etc. Thus we see
that it is faith that saves. Baptism and other acts of obedience only prove the genuineness of our faith.
(2) John 3:5-"Except a
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God."
Many take
"born of water" to refer to baptism, and they take this passage to
teach that the new birth is accomplished in baptism. But in the light of the Scripture as a whole we cannot understand
this passage to teach baptismal regeneration. Others have understood "born
of water" to refer to the natural birth. They think of Jesus saying:
"Except a man be born of the flesh and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God." But it was needless for Jesus to
say that a man could not enter into the kingdom of God without being born of
the flesh. Nobody would suppose otherwise. And it seems manifest that the
passage refers to but one birth. It does not say: "Except a man be born of
water and also of the Spirit:: etc. We understand water here to be a symbol of
the word. In behalf of this interpretation we urge the following
considerations:
A. Regeneration is a washing.
Titus 3:5.
B. Regeneration is through the
Word. Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23
C. The Word is likened to
water in its cleansing power. Eph.
5:25, 26.
Now when these facts are all
put together we think there is nothing simpler than that "born of
water" means "born of the Word." Thus we have in John 3:5 an allusion to both the agent (the Spirit) and the instrument
(the Word) in the new birth.
(3) Acts 2:38-"Repent,
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesse Christ for the remission
of sin, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
In considering this passage
let us note.
A. The question asked in the
preceding verse is not the restricted: "What must I do to be saved?"
of Acts 16:30, but the broad- "What shall we do?" Hence it is not strange that we have here a broader answer than in Acts 16:31.
B. Repentance is placed before
baptism; and when one has repented he is already saved; and hence cannot be
baptized in order to be saved. Repentance is a complete change of mind based on
a new disposition that has been implanted by the Holy Spirit.
Repentance and faith are inseparable and simultaneous, as shown by the fact
that sometimes one and sometimes the other is mentioned alone as the means of
salvation. And when one has believed he is already a child of God. See 1 John
5:1.
C. The passage does not say:
"Be baptized for or unto the receiving of the remission of
sin," and he who affirms that this is the meaning must shoulder the burden
of proof.
D. The meaning of the passage,
as interpreted in the light of the common tenor of Bible teaching is: "Be
baptized for or unto the acknowledging, symbolizing or showing
forth of the remission of sins"
It makes no difference whether
we follow the common version and read "for" or the revision and read
"unto," the meaning is the same; and the New Testament affords
striking illustration of the meaning.
If "for" be taken as
the correct English translation of the Greek preposition "eis," then we
turn to Luke 5:12-14 for an illustration. Here a man already cleansed of
leprosy is commanded: "Show thyself to the priest, and offer FOR thy
cleansing as Moses commanded for a testimony unto them." The man was to
offer sacrifices FOR a cleansing he had received already.
In like manner we are baptized FOR the remission of sins already received. The
understood antecedent of "them" is the people in general. So baptism
is a testimony on our part to all that behold it that we are saved.
If
"unto" be regarded as the proper translation, then we have two
excellent illustrations of the meaning. The first one is found in Matt. 3:11,
where John speaks of his baptism as "unto repentance." This cannot
mean that John baptized people in order that they might repent. Baptism has
nothing in it that can produce repentance. On the other hand, John represented
repentance as a condition of baptism, and with him most men
agree. The meaning is that John baptized unto the acknowledgment of repentance.
See 1 Cor. 10:2, as treated presently, as other illustration of
"unto" with regard to baptism. In studying Acts 2:38 it is well also
to keep in mind that Peter spoke these words to Jews, who were steeped in the
language of symbolism.
(4) Acts 20:16-"And now
why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on
his name."
The washing spoken of in this
passage is figurative. It is the blood that actually cleanses
(1 John 1:7). Water cannot wash away
sin. And, as we have noticed, Peter says this is not the purpose of baptism.
(5) Rom. 6:3-"Are ye
ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ we were baptized into his
death."
The Greek for "into"
(eis) is the same word that is translated "unto" in 1 Cor. 10:2.
Baptism puts us into the same relationship to Jesus that the crossing of the
Red Sea put the Israelites in with reference to Moses. By this means the
Israelites were manifested to be the followers of Moses. Baptism manifests us
to be followers of Jesus.
(6) Gal. 3:27-"As many of
you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ."
This passage explains the
foregoing one. Baptism is a putting on of Christ. It is a public
declaration of our discipleship. It is assuming before the world the obligation
to live for Christ.
(7) Titus 3:5-"Not by
works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy
he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing
of the Holy Spirit."
The "washing of
regeneration" is the moral cleansing of the soul by the Word of God in regeneration
(Eph. 5:26; Jam. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23).
(8) 1 Pet.
3.20, 21-". . . the ark . . . wherein, few that is, eight souls, were
saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even
baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh . . ."
This passage is truly a
boomerang in the hands of those who believe that baptism has
something to do with accomplishing salvation. Because it says that baptism
saves us, these people hasten to invoke this passage; but it says too much to
be of any real service to them. The passage truly says that baptism saves, but
it tells just how and in what sense it saves, viz.,
A. Not by
"the putting away of the filth of the flesh." Only those who are more
interested in their own ideas than they are in the truth will take the absurd
position that Peter alluded to the
physical body in using "sarx" (flesh). All others will see
that such an affirmation was needless, and will understand the reference to be
the carnal nature; and thus they will see that the passage says plainly that
baptism does not literally take away sin.
B. But only in the same sense
that the water at the flood saved the occupants of the ark. Wherefore note: (a)
The water of the flood did not save the occupants of the ark by putting them in
the ark. They went in before the water came. If any waited, hoping
that the water would put them in the ark, they perished. In the same manner
baptism does not actually put us in Christ. (b) The water did not save the
occupants of the ark by making them any safer after it came than they were
before it came. (e) The water saved the occupants of the ark in only a
declarative or demonstrative sense. By lifting the ark and carrying it on its
bosom, the water manifested that God's favor rested on
those inside the ark. Baptism likewise manifests and declares our salvation.
IV.
THE MODE
Here it is
our purpose to inquire whether baptism can be scripturally administered by any
mode other than immersion. We maintain that it cannot, and we offer the following
proofs:
1.
THE MEANING OF "BAPTIZO."
The author has read quite
extensively in the field of controversy over the meaning of this Greek word in
the New Testament. But here it is possible, because of limits of space and
time, to give only a resume of the evidence in support of the position taken.
(1) The Testimony Of Lexicons
We cannot here begin to list
the testimony of all the lexicons, but shall give that of the three
outstanding. These three are: Liddell and Scott's, for classical Greek; Sophocles', for the Roman and Byzantine periods; and Thayer's
for New Testament Greek.
A. Liddell and Scott:
"To dip in or under water; Lat.
immergere."
B. Sophocles:
"To dip, to immerse, to
sink ... There is no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other
writers of the New Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the
Greeks."
C. Thayer:
"In
the New Testament it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first
instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ's command received by
Christians and adjusted to contents and nature of their religion... viz., an
immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered
to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the
benefits of the Messiah's kingdom."
(2) The Present Practice Of
The Greeks.
Greek Christians immerse for baptism, and De Stourdza, the
greatest modern Greek theologian, wrote that "baptizo
signifies literally and always 'to plunge.'" He also added:
"Baptism and immersion
are therefore identical, and to say 'baptism by aspersion' is as if one should
say 'immersion by aspersion' or any other absurdity of the same nature. The Greek
church maintains that the Latin church, instead of a 'baptismos,' practice a
mere 'rantismos' (sprinkling),- instead of a baptism, a mere sprinkling."
(3) The Testimonies of
Encyclopedias.
We have not space to quote the
encyclopedias, but shall merely mention the name of those which speak either of
the meaning of the Greek word of the original nature of the ordinance or both,
and which give the meaning of the word as "immersion" or speak of the
original mode of the ordinance as such, or both.
They are: Encyclopedia
Americana, Metropolitan Encyclopedia, Penny Cyclopedia, Chamber's Encyclopedia,
National Cyclopedia, Ree's Cyclopedia, Brand's Cyclopedia, Encyclopedia
Ecclesiastica.*
*Quotations on baptism from
all these may be found in "Before the Footlights" (Iams), beginning
on page 112.
________
(4) The Testimony of
Pedobaptist Scholars and Leaders.
A. Luther:
"Baptism
is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something
in water that it may be wholly covered; and, although it is almost wholly
abolished (for they do not dip the whole children, but only pour a little water
on them), they ought, nevertheless, to be wholly immersed, and then immediately
drawn out, for that the etymology of the word seems to demand."
B. Calvin:
"The very word baptize,
however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the
practice of the ancient church"-from comment on Acts 8:38.
C. Zwingli:
"Into His death. When ye
were immersed (intingere-mini) into the water of Baptism, ye were engrafted
into the death of Christ."--Anno. on Rom. 6:3.
D. Meyer:
"Immersion, which the
word in classic Greek, and in the New Testament, everywhere means"
(Comment on Mark 7:4).
E. Lightfoot: "That the baptism
of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of
unclean persons and the baptism of proselytes-was) seems to appear from these
things which are related of him; namely, that he baptized in Jordan, that he
baptized in Enon, because there was much water there," etc.
F. James Macknight, noted
Scottish Presbyterian author and leader:
"Jesus submitted to be
baptized- that is, buried under water by John, and to be raised out of it
again, as an emphasis of his future death and resurrection." Note on Rom. 6:4, 5.
G. Whitfield:
"It is certain that in
the words of our text (Rom. 6:4), there is an allusion to the manner
of baptism by immersion."
H. Augusti:
"The word 'baptism'
according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge,"
etc.
I. Lange:
"And were baptized,
immersed, in the Jordan, confessing their sins. Immersion was the
symbol of repentance." (Comment on Matt. 3:6).
J. Geo. Campbell: "The
word baptism, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to
plunge, to immerse."
"The original meaning of
the word baptism is immersion."
L. Schaff :
"Immersion, and not
sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form (of baptism). This is shown by
the very meaning of the Greek word baptidzo, baptisma, and the analogy of the
baptism of John, which was performed in the Jordan . . ."(Hist. of the
Apos. Ch., p. 568).
These quotations could be
multiplied.
2.
THE SYMBOLISM OF THE ORDINANCE DEMANDS IMMERSION
The Scripture
alludes to baptism as a burial (Rom. 5:4; Col. 2:12). A burial requires
Immersion. The objection that these passages do not allude to water baptism,
but to Spirit baptism or to conversion in a figurative sense, is groundless,
and gives clear evidence of having been born of prejudice rather than of a fair
and impartial consideration of the passages. As long as pedobaptists refer to
baptism as a "sign of regeneration" as we have
remarked, they cannot, in consistency with themselves, eliminate from these
passages an allusion to the symbolic meaning of baptism. Nor will they ever
find this meaning in pouring and sprinkling. The only sensible way to interpret
language is to take it as having its usual sense, unless another sense is
indicated or demanded. This rule requires that baptism mean water baptism,
except where some other kind of baptism is specified or in
some way demanded. Neither is true in the case of the passages under
consideration. The retort that if these passages refer to water baptism, they
teach baptismal regeneration is groundless in the light of the fact that they
manifestly speak of baptism as to what it symbolizes and not as to what it
actually accomplishes.
3.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
INDICATE IMMERSION
(1) John baptized in the river
Jordan.
Mark 1:5. The most natural
meaning of this, and the one we must take, unless good reasons can be adduced
to the contrary, is that the rite was administered in the river as we
understand such an expression; and not merely in the vicinity of the river. V.
8 confirms this when, according to the better translation, it says, "I
baptize you in water."
"This is not negatived by
the use of the dative of instrument, as in Luke 3:16, Acts 1: 5; 1: 16. Clark
well says: "The Greek view could equally well contemplate the enveloping
element, locally, as that in which, or, instrumentally, as that with which, the dipping was effected. And while it is awkward for us to
speak of immersing a thing with water, it is simply a matter of familiarity, of
idiom; and we need only take a synonymous verb, 'to whelm,' and it is perfectly
natural for us to speak of 'whelming with water'" (Comment on Luke 3:1).
Conant, moreover, points out that the use of the instrumental dative is for the
purpose of distinguishing "the element used for
immersion in one case from that employed in another"; and adds: "The
simple dative occurs, in the New Testament, only where the material or element
used for immersing is to be thus distinguished. In all these cases, the
distinction is between the element of water and the Holy Spirit . . . ; and as
the latter could less properly be conceived as the mere instrument of an act,
it is in every such case construed with the local
preposition in . . . This is the only explanation of the use of both the simple
dative, and the dative with the preposition in the same connection and
relation" (The Meaning and Use of Baptizein, p. 100).
And the argument that the
Jordan, at the place where John is supposed to have baptized,
is too shallow or too swift to allow immersion in it has been proved false time
and time again by those who have visited it.
(2) At another time John
baptized in Enon, "because there was much water there." John 3:23.
Sprinklers and pourers try to make out that the water was needed for other purposes than baptism, as at a Methodist camp meeting.
But Hovey ably replies:
"This passage virtually
affirms that baptism could not be conveniently administered without a
considerable body of water. The plea that water was needed for other purposes than baptizing is set aside by the language of the
sacred writer. For the reason why John was baptizing there (not why he was
preaching there), was because there was much water in the place" (Comment on
John 3:23).
Literally "much
water" is, in the Greek, "many waters." But it is held by
eminent Bible scholars to mean "much water," and
is so rendered by the revisers, most of whom were pedobaptists. The reason why
this expression here is held to really amount to "much water," is
supplied by C. R. Condor (Tent Work in Palestine, I., p. 91 sq.). He tells that
at the almost certain cite of Enon "head springs are found in an open
valley, surrounded by desolate and shapeless hills. The water gushes out over a stony bed, and flows rapidly down in a fine stream
surrounded by bushes of oleander. The supply is perennial, and a continual
succession of little springs occurs along the bed of the valley, so that the
current becomes the principal western affluent of Jordan, south of the Vale of
Jezreel. The valley is open in most parts of its course, and we find the two
requisites for the scene of baptism of a huge multitude--an
open space, and abundance of water." Enon means "springs," and
three miles south of the valley described above is found a village called
Salem. The "many waters" are the "head springs" and the
"continual succession of little springs." And these "many
waters" unite in a sizable stream, thus making "much water."
3. Philip took the eunuch
"into the water" to baptize him.
Acts 8:38, 39. The Greek
preposition for "into" is eis. It can mean "unto."
But, as Hackett points out, here it cannot mean "unto the water," as
though they went only to the edge of it; but must mean "into the water,"
because it is used in contrast with "out of the water"-ek tou
hudatos, in the next verse. And Plumtre remarks: "The Greek preposition
(i. e. eis) might mean simply 'unto the water,' but the universality of
immersion in the practice of the early church supports the English
version" (Ellicott's New Test. Commentary).
It is hardly necessary to
remark that it would be unnatural for the candidate to be taken into the water
in order to be sprinkled or poured upon.