I could think of no better argument why those who believe and turn to Christ should instantly, unquestioningly, gladly, surrender to Christ's clear, but by men too much controverted, command to be baptized, than this beautiful spiritual lesson in the foregoing fine poem by Annie Johnson Flint on the Blind Man of John 9. The poem is copyrighted, and is used by the kind permission of Sunday School Times.--Editor. [3]

"PAUL DID NOT BAPTIZE"

      A general evangelist, and, we do not hesitate to say, the best of all we have ever heard--for he preaches more truth, more fearlessly, and with less compromise than any interdenominationals we have ever met with--said when asked why he did not preach and practice baptism, that, like Paul, he left that to others and did not consider it his mission. In proof that such was Paul's manner he cited 1 Cor. 1:17--"For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel." Paul, however, never left his converts unbaptized. He either baptized them himself, or saw that some, one of the brethren did it. So it was in the case of the Corinthians, whom Paul addressed when he wrote the epistle in which the above passage is found. "Many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized." (Acts 18:8.) And in the very context from which his supposed proof is taken, this fact stands out. When the brethren in Corinth were separating into factions, saying, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ"--Paul remonstrates with them: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" Which of course shows that every one of them had been baptized, but none into the name of Paul. "I thank God that I baptized none of you", he goes on to say, (with the emphasis on the "I")--"save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides I know not whether I baptized any other." So he did baptize some. Baptizing, therefore, came within the scope of Paul's work and mission (Matt. 28:19). Only it was not necessary that he himself should do it (for they knew nothing in those days of the theological figment of a "legal administrator") for that part of the task could as well be left to others. In Corinth, as it happened (and Paul thanked God now that it did so happen) Paul had left others to do most of it; and so no one could say that any had been baptized into Paul's name. For to baptize was not his special and exclusive task--any other brother could attend to that. But he alone could deliver the authoritative message of the gospel. And just this was the meaning of the statement in v. 17--"For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel."--Yet under his preaching none was ever left unbaptized. The record of the Divine mission of Philip [4] to the Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39) shows that the evangelist's work is not done until the convert is baptized.

REJECTING THE COUNSEL OF GOD

      The opposition (for that is what it amounts to) to baptism in some quarters, and among some very earnest and zealous people, is peculiar. It is also deplorable. It not only accounts for the general under-estimation of baptism, not to say contempt for it, but it results in many souls' going unbaptized. How serious this omission is may be gathered from Luke 7:29, 30. Those spoken of there had rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John. And that was but the baptism of John, the forerunner, whose baptism was preparatory. How much more serious must be the rejection or neglect of the baptism which the Lord Jesus Christ Himself commanded. The evil effect of this wrong attitude toward baptism also begets an opposite evil. For our poor one-sided minds easily miss the middle of the road. In reacting against an error on one side, our zeal often carries us to the other extreme. Thus in seeking to correct and combat the current false teaching which tends to make baptism a mere outward and negligible form and formality, some so emphasize and magnify it as to incline men to trust in their baptism as the ground of their salvation and acceptance with God, and almost, if not altogether, to regard it as a sort of meritorious act, in reward of which God grants us salvation. And that is as bad or worse.

THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH

      It is not so very difficult to see that a thing may be absolutely necessary toward the attainment of a promise, while yet having in itself no value or virtue to accomplish the desired end. So were most, if not all, the tests of faith which God imposed in the past. The compassing of the walls of Jericho, for example, had not the slightest efficacy toward the overthrowing of Jericho's walls. But that was the Divinely ordained test, the "obedience of faith" which God required; and unless it had been complied with those walls would never have fallen. Yet it was not by the marching around, but by faith that the walls of Jericho fell. (Heb. 11:30.) And if it was by faith it was by grace (Rom. 4:16) and excluded all boasting, Again, no one thought for a moment that the waters of Siloam had any power [5] to open blind eyes; and though the blind man of John 9 received his sight when by Jesus' word he washed there, neither the healed blind man nor anyone else gave the pool a second thought. It was Jesus, not the waters, that had opened his eyes. Nevertheless if he had not gone and washed there he would never have received his sight. It is not the efficacy of water that saves the sinner. Water has no efficacy, not even though it were some pretendedly "holy water." Nor was it the virtue or value of the act of baptism, which in itself is simply nothing. It is only faith that saves; but always the faith which takes whatever step God places before it. Yet this simple fact is what most of the "orthodox" religious world fails to recognize or refuses to see. What will the Lord say to that?

NOT THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

      A common answer to such passages as Rom. 6:3, 4 (where we read of being "baptized into Jesus Christ," and "buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised to walk in newness of life") is that this refers to the "baptism of the Holy Ghost." A little open-minded examination of the passage would show that such an interpretation is not only arbitrary (that is, unwarranted by anything in the context) but also impossible. For is the baptism here spoken of a "burial" in the Holy Spirit? And, if it were, does the one buried emerge out of the Spirit in the likeness of a resurrection? The absurdity of the thought needs not be pointed out. Furthermore, speaking of this same thing in the same chapter, verses 17, 18, the apostle refers to it as an act of obedience: "ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered." Now the "teaching" can be no other than that of 1 Cor. 15:3, 4--the death and burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ on our behalf; and which is portrayed here in its "form" in Rom. 6:4. They "obeyed" that. But the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a promise, and can only be received, not "obeyed." The baptism our Lord Jesus and His apostles commanded alone is to be obeyed. (Acts 2:38; 10:48.)

BAPTISM NOT FOR THE GENTILES?

      Another turn which seems not so much a result of honest straightforward Bible study as an excuse to set baptism aside, is the argument that baptism was indeed required of the Jews that came in, but not of the Gentiles; that in the earlier days [6] of the transition period covered by the book of Acts, it was insisted on as necessary to salvation; but that it was in God's purpose that later the Gentiles come in free from all ordinance and ceremonial demands, upon simple belief. The case of Cornelius and his household upon whom came the Holy Spirit before baptism, and the Pauline gospel with its message of free grace to Gentiles, are called in to substantiate that position. Now first of all the idea of a different gospel for Jew and Gentile respectively is inadmissible. Paul's vehement declaration in Gal. 1:8, 9 settles that. The gospel to the circumcision and that to the uncircumcision are not two different gospels but one and the same, differing only in form as necessary, to adapt it to the needs and capacities of the hearers. In the second place, in so far as their lost and ruined state, their need of salvation, goes, Jew and Gentile are on exactly the same footing; and for that reason they both must be saved in the same way. As there is no distinction in their need (Rom. 3:9, 22, 23) so is there no distinction as to their salvation (Rom. 10:12). Perhaps those who make the argument referred to at the head of this paragraph have an idea that baptism is a sort of ritualistic hang-over from Judaism, afterward to be discarded. But though God actually tolerated and permitted the Jewish believers' continuance in Old Testament worship and ritual for a time, He never commanded it; but baptism never was a Jewish ordinance: it belongs to the dispensation of the Holy Spirit and is commanded to those who would come to Jesus for salvation. The case of the outpouring of the Spirit upon unbaptized Cornelius is solitary and exceptional. The record shows no such thing as ever having happened before or after; and the purpose of the solitary miracle, as the account in Acts 10 and 11 shows, was to convince the Jews of the eligibleness of Gentiles to baptism and Christian fellowship.

A MORE EXCELLENT WAY

      But why such tortuous arguments? Why all the effort to evade the necessity of baptism? Shall we not do better to discard theological theories and preconceptions, and take things as they stand in the word of God? The faithful Christian accepts whatsoever God says and all that He says, about baptism as about every Bible theme, such as faith, grace, the blood of Christ, and everything else that has to do with the [7] gospel. And there must we stand, regardless of who objects or commends, or whether they be many or few that would stand with us.

PAUL'S WORK AMONG GENTILES

      The fact that baptism was as necessary to Gentiles as to Jews is further seen in Paul's last work among the Gentiles, where baptism figures no less than in the earlier records of Acts. Though in every case the fact is not specifically mentioned, it is evident that all the converts were baptized, always and without exception. The very casual reference to Lydia's baptism (Acts 16:14, 15) shows how much a matter of course it was. The Jailor and his house were baptized the same hour of the night, immediately. (Acts 16:33.) There was a certain urgency about baptism then of which in our day we have little. In Gentile Corinth, many hearing, believed, and were baptized." In Ephesus, this last scene of Paul's free evangelistic work, he found a number of disciples, whom, for some reason not stated, he asked, "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" They had not even heard, they answered, that the Holy Spirit was given. "Into what then were ye baptized?" asked Paul--showing that there was never a question, but that if they believed they had of course been baptized. But what baptism was that, if they had not so much as heard that the Holy Spirit was given? They answered, "John's baptism." No wonder. John's was only a preparatory baptism, looking forward to the coming of a Savior. In its time it was valid for all the future if subsequently followed up by faith in Christ; but not any more if practiced after the Savior had come and the dispensation of the Spirit had been inaugurated. "And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. And when they heard this they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:1-5.) If Paul had shared the modern indifference toward baptism would be not have said--"Well, it does not matter: water is water, and nothing depends on it one way or another. Only believe now in the Savior who has come, and it will be sufficient." But no--they must be baptized aright, "into the name of the Lord Jesus." Such was the importance that Paul placed on baptism. [8]

[""Into What Then Were Ye Baptized?"." Word and Work 10 (February 1939): pp..]

      The electronic version of R. H. Boll's "Into What Then Were Ye Baptized?" (Louisville, KY: Word and Work, [1939]) has been produced from a copy of the tract in a contributor's collection. The essay (pp. 4-8) was first published as "Words in Season," The Word and Work 32 (January 1938): 1-5. The editor's note on the poem "He Went" (p. 3) first appeared in The Word and Work 26 (November 1933): 193; it was reprinted in The Word and Work 32 (March 1938): 49.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 7 February 2002.
Updated 20 June 2003.