More About Baptism
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 81] |
"It seems as if Mr. Rice had found a most delicious theme in my alleged illiberality. He glories in an assumed liberality. I desire no invidious comparisons. Still I hesitate not to say, that, truly and sincerely, on the proper meaning of the word, were our respective views, feelings, and actions thoroughly dissected, I am incomparably more liberal than he: for I suppose there are many conscientious, religious, moral and Christian Presbyterians; and that, although our Savior has no Presbyterian church in heaven, or earth, yet I doubt not but that he has had many, very many, that loved and honored him in that worldly church, whom he will honor in the world to come."
The foregoing is a statement by Alexander Campbell in his debate with N. L. Rice on the design of baptism. It will serve to show how we have forsaken the ideals of the restoration fathers, and have crystallized into a sectarian establishment which today would exclude even Alexander Campbell from the communion of the saints who compose it. Indeed, our brethren have posthumously withdrawn themselves from every one of the original restoration leaders and cast them into the particular perdition which has been invented to receive all of what are ignorantly referred to as "apostates." These "prophets" were rejected by the world while they lived and by their heirs after death.
Last month I dealt at length with questions related to baptism and answered a goodly number of queries which I encounter in almost every place where I go in these days to spread the gospel of peace on earth to men of good-will. I did not get through with those questions and in this issue we will resume where we left off. It is almost imperative that you read what was written in the paper last month in order to get a proper clue to the reasoning which will be employed in the copy you now hold in your hand.
Again, it must be made clear that I do not gauge my love for others upon their agreement with me. I want you to sincerely study the revealed word for yourself and to formulate your own convictions. I shall love you if you cannot concur with what I write. I intend to be accountable only to God for what I believe and I allow all of my readers to occupy that same ground. I shall be dealing with some pretty "sticky" questions among the believers who generally read this paper and I want you to be free from any pressure.
In the first place, I think it should be clearly understood that the fellowship with God and Christ is not something we can extend or withdraw, but something in which we share through divine grace. It is a state or condition into which we
[Page 82] |
The fellowship is the fellowship of the Spirit, and there is only one Spirit. All in whom he abides are in the fellowship. So it would not affect one's standing with God whether I accept him or not, but it might affect my standing if I reject one whom God accepts. However, I presume you really mean to ask if I would receive into the congregation of saints with which I am associated, and recognize as a brother in the Lord, one who had been immersed under the influence and teaching of members of the Baptist Church.
This may be rather plain, but I would be as much inclined to receive one on the basis of "Baptist baptism" as I would "Church of Christ baptism" or any other exclusivistic partisan baptism. I am not interested in either one. When baptism is made a sectarian rite it is prostituted from its original and divine purpose, and made to serve a selfish end for which it was not ordained.
It would be rather incongruous for a group to seek to get control of the universal birth process and copyright it, and insist that those who entered the world through the ministrations of one who was not an authorized obstetrician was not a child and should not be accepted as a member of the human race or family. I doubt there is such a thing as "Baptist baptism." One is either baptized or he is not, and whether it is a Baptist who immerses him has little significance. The validity of baptism depends upon the heart of the believer and not upon the theological slant of the administrator.
I must confess that I have never met a person who confessed that he was immersed with "Baptist baptism." I suspect this is a term originated by enemies of the Baptist position, and applied by them to people who would disavow it. Having had some little experience with folk who credit views to me which I do not espouse I am a little reluctant to put words in the mouths of others or to state their views in language which they would not personally indulge.
We are not called upon to receive anyone as a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian, but we are called upon to receive all who are Christians. If a Christian has previously been identified with some religious party and expresses a desire to be just a Christian and a Christian only, we are not obligated to receive him as a partisan, but as a Christian. His obedience to the good news made him a Christian, and he does not have to cancel that obedience and go through the process again to become a Christian.
I recall the remarks of E. G. Sewell, an editor of Gospel Advocate, in association with David Lipscomb. "I have been preaching for sixty-two years, and have never had any one to come forward to unite with the church of Christ that said he had been baptized into the Baptist Church...But I have found a number of people that said that when they were baptized they did it in submission to the will of God, and they were encouraged to take their stand at once among those who are simply Christians and to live the Christian life as the word of God directs. So I am in no dilemma in regard to the questions you ask. But those that require all those that have been baptized to do God's will to be baptized again, 'having it in view that baptism is for the remission of sins,' are the ones that are in the ditch, there being no authority in the word of God for any such procedure."
I trust that you will bear with me if I seem to speak at length in answer to your question. I know of nothing else so fraught with the possibility of subtle error as this question. I do not impeach your integrity or impugn your motives for I used to ask the same question in the same way and for the same purpose. I asked it with the sincerity and the same eagerness to be right that you manifest. I
[Page 83] |
First of all, forgiveness of sins is not man's design for baptism but God's design for those who are baptized. Forgiveness of sins is a judicial act. It is an executive act of pardon. It takes place in heaven in the mind of God. It is not something to be secured by purchase or barter. One does not obtain it by trading off or swapping any act or deed. It is not, therefore, the exclusive design of baptism and may not be the most important motivation.
Secondly, there are at least nine "designs" for baptism set forth in the new covenant scriptures and the selection of one of these as the specific or superlative design which must be understood and recognized to establish the validity of obedience, to the exclusion or ignoring of the others, does not speak well for those who profess to revere all that the Spirit has spoken.
The primary design or motivation for baptism is the desire to unquestioningly "conform in this way with all that God requires" (Matthew 3:15). It is unthinkable that Jesus would be immersed in water purely for a secondary or inferior purpose, and this is the reason he gave when insisting that John immerse him in the waters of the Jordan.
The highest form of obedience of authority does not question or enquire what reward will be received for obedience, or what favor will be granted. It is prompted by reverence and respect for the will of the one whose requirements are met. It is not obedience to receive something but to honor the requirements of the one obeyed. It is upon that basis that our Lord set the example for us. Small wonder that, at the time, a voice from heaven declared, "This is my Son, my beloved, on whom my favor rests."
I am inclined to agree with David Lipscomb in his expressed view that few, if any, who have been immersed have obeyed this divine requirement because their sins have been forgiven. There is not a sufficient motivation about such an idea to prompt anyone to be baptized. No logical or rational explanation can be given for such a procedure. Here is the statement by Lipscomb:
"I do not think any one was ever baptized because his sins were remitted. They may have believed their sins were remitted before they were baptized, but the remission of sins was not the moving cause. There is nothing in remission of sins as a motive to prompt one to be baptized. They may have thought, inasmuch as God had forgiven their sins, they ought to obey his command to be baptized; but in that case the desire to obey God is the moving cause. When a man is baptized to obey God, he is led by a proper motive; and I believe when he does this to obey him, God will forgive his sins, whether he knows the act in which God forgives or not. Man cannot be led by a holier or more acceptable motive than the desire to obey God and so 'fulfill all righteousness.' It is a dangerous thing to require more than God requires."
Men may be told that they were justified and forgiven upon the basis of personal faith and at the very moment of trustful surrender. They may accept it as factual and rely upon it, but there is nothing in this to motivate them to be immersed. Intellectually and philosophically, those who are immersed, believing their sins have been forgiven, are led to obedience for another reason. When sifted down it will generally be found that their desire is to obey God, to do his will, or to follow the example of Jesus.
They may be mistaken about the time when the forgiveness of God was accorded and when the pardon was decreed. They may be the victims of theological error in that respect, but such a mistake will not cancel God's gracious promise. It is not conditioned upon being correct about every theological point at the time of obedience. I do not serve the kind of God who bestows his love only upon those who have an intellectual key honed down until it fits every slot in the keyhole of mental correctness. This would deny grace, which, I suspect, is the real problem of all too many of us.
[Page 84] |
When a man from the Baptist tradition tells me he was immersed to obey God or follow his will I do not catechize him about how many wrong ideas he had at the time. I have immersed some people in my time who had some pretty scrambled notions but who sincerely sought to obey the Father in humble submission. I did not try to straighten out all of their hang-ups before I assisted them in their obedience to my Lord.
It will help you to remember that "unto the remission of sins" is not a part of the command Peter gave to conscience-stricken enquirers on the day of Pentecost. When they cried aloud asking what to do they were told to do two things, "Reform your lives and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ." "For the remission of sins" does not express what we do for God but what he does for us. This is just as true of the Holy Spirit which is bestowed as a gift.
When any person reforms his conduct and is immersed upon the basis that he believes in Jesus Christ, he has done all that is required to receive the forgiveness of his sins. He may be incorrect in his information as to when God accords amnesty or bestows pardon, but this no more invalidates the promise than a mistake as to when the bank credits your interest wipes out your deposit.
Let me anticipate your next question. Certainly I have brothers in the Baptist party. In that respect I am just like Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Walter Scott, Tolbert Fanning, Benjamin Franklin, David Lipscomb, and the great majority of restoration leaders. Not one of these would have dreamed of insisting upon "re-baptism" as essential to entering the fellowship of the Lord, unless the one seeking to be re-baptized positively stated that he did not believe in Jesus at the time of his immersion. I want to share with you a lengthy quote from the pen of Alexander Campbell which needs to be studied and considered by every person in our list of readers today.
Let me once more say, that the only thing which can justify re-immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a confession on the part of the candidate that he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God--that he died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, at the time of his first immersion--that he now believes the testimony of the Apostles concerning him, and desires to be buried and rise with Christ in faith of a resurrection to eternal life. The instant that re-baptism is preached and practiced on any other ground than that now stated--such as deficient knowledge, weak faith, a change of views--then have we contradicted in some way and made void the word of the Lord, "he who will believe and be immersed shall be saved"--then have we abandoned the principles of thepresent reformation, instituted experience meetings, committees for examining candidates, changed the bond of union, and made something else than the belief of the gospel facts the faith of the gospel.
[Page 85]
As if this assessment of our condition were not enough, Campbell goes on to predict exactly what has transpired as a result of our legalistic approach and sectarian emphasis. Read his next paragraph and you will see what I mean!
A scene of confusion, such as was never excelled in any community, will obtain in our churches: persons with whom we communed at the Lord's table for seven or ten years, will occasionally take it into their heads that they did not understand baptism at the time of their immersion, that they were hypocrites all the while, and must now get up from the Lord's table and go to the water, confess the Lord, and be immersed. Thus all confidence will be destroyed; and these twice and thrice immersed persons, fond of making converts to their practice, will be agitating the minds of other brethren, urging the weak and credulous to be baptized as a substitute (in fact) for walking more closely with God: for every member of a church who thinks of improving his experience, or increasing his enjoyments by going to the water of baptism, has been living in disobedience or wilful neglect of his duty, not coming daily and constantly to the throne of grace, not walking with God, not keeping his commandments. Reformation, and not immersion, is wanting in all such cases.
If someone reared in the Baptist tradition tells me that he was immersed primarily and solely to become a member of the Baptist sect (and no one ever has) I will urge upon him that he has not really been immersed at all in the scriptural context, or for a scriptural reason. Baptism is not a partisan door. It is not a sectarian passport. When led by the Spirit, we are all baptized into one body and every person who has been baptized at the prompting of the Spirit through the good news is in that body.
A man does not become my brother by coming out of the Baptist party but by coming into Christ. I do not receive men because they are Baptists, Mennonites, or any other kinds of "ists" or "ites," but because they are children of God. If I received one because he was a Baptist I would have to reject all who were not Baptists. But if I receive men because they are children of God I am free to receive all of God's children.
Certainly, I would prefer that we were not partitioned off and divided into separate corrals. It would be great if all of the walls were knocked down and we could roam the great pasture and eat the provisions of love with no cross-fences, but it is not that way, and until it is I am going to love my brothers where they are. I do not think you can argue or debate the fences down. I do believe they can be melted down by the warmth of love. God's love is a blowtorch when directed against steely barriers.
I can summarize by repeating that I do not recall meeting anyone who was baptized because his sins had been forgiven. I have met a lot of people who thought their sins were forgiven before they were baptized, and my thought is, of course, that they were mistaken about it. But they did not give that as the reason for their baptism. I do not consider that their immersion was invalidated by their mistaken view as to something else, and neither do I think they have to have a clear view of the matter before they can obey the Father.
A lot of our preaching brethren who live in mortal fear and tremble at the thought that somebody may not be clear about when God's grace becomes efficacious, intone over a candidate, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins." But they do not know if they are baptizing one for the forgiveness of sins or not, because they cannot read his heart. They do not know his thoughts or intents, and cannot guarantee that what they are doing is at all acceptable with God. We borrow a leaf from our Catholic neighbors when we assume that we can, by pronouncing a certain formula, place God in a position where he cannot deny our action.
[Page 86] |
No, and he cannot be baptized into Christ upon the basis of a right doctrine, either. It is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ on the basis of the gospel, the good news about deliverance from our sins, through his death, burial and resurrection, which saves us and brings us into him.
The gospel was fully proclaimed upon Pentecost. Not one word was ever added to it. Not one apostolic letter is a part of the gospel. The gospel is a message to the whole world, the apostolic letters were written to the saints. No letter contained in the new covenant scriptures was addressed to aliens to persuade them to be baptized. All were written to disciples to remind them they had obeyed the gospel and were in Christ. The apostolic letters were not to be proclaimed to the whole world. The world was not to be saved from sin through doctrine but by the gospel.
One may be wrong about a lot of facets of apostolic doctrine and still obey the gospel. He need not be right about the millennium, the perseverance of the saints, circumcision, eating of meats, or observation of days. In fact, which ever position he takes upon these issues will not affect his relationship to Jesus. "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision) but a new creation" (Galatians 6:15). Of course, what you are really getting at is whether a man can be wrong about some facet of "Baptist theology" as the world (and the Baptists) express it, and still be saved. The answer is that he may be if he obeys the gospel. It is faith in Jesus, implicit trust in and surrender to him, which is the determinant factor. If one has to be right about partisan doctrinal emphasis before he can be received into the fold of the Good Shepherd he is in real trouble. There are at least two dozen different "Churches of Christ" with different points of stress, and every single one of them regards its doctrinal peculiarities as of sufficient importance to cleave and split the body of God's Son over them. I know what I am talking about, because I used to hold the cloaks of brethren who "stoned" our fellows because they could not agree with us over some point.
Which one of these myriad views must one have before he can be born again? Upon which one does the efficacy of his baptism depend? If one can become a child of God and be wrong about any of them, can he continue as a child of God in the same condition as he became one? If not, how long can he remain before being blacklisted and drummed out of the regiment of the loyal? Who is to set the date and limit the time?
The truth is that forgiveness of the sin which has alienated us from God depends upon none of these things. God does not forgive us because we have learned a lot of good things. Forgiveness is not on a canteen basis where you drop in enough correct views until you trip the mechanism and get the prize. You can quote scriptures to sustain your position on a lot of things and never be forgiven at all. Forgiveness is not conditioned upon knowing the Bible by heart but in knowing Jesus from the heart.
We are justified freely by God's grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his sacrificial death, effective through faith. The question is not, "What think ye of the millennium?" but "What think ye of Christ, whose son is he?" If a person believes that Jesus is
[Page 87] |
In the congregation at Corinth there were actually some brethren who did not have a clear conviction that heathen deities were not real. The apostle acknowledges that "A false god has no existence in the real world. There is no god but one." He also writes, "But not everyone knows this. There are some who have been so accustomed to idolatry that even now they eat this food with a sense of its heathen consecration, and their conscience being weak, is polluted by the eating."
He argues that the superior knowledge of some who have such a clear concept of deity may be "utter disaster to the weak, the brother for whom Christ died." And to sin against such a brother is to sin against Christ. In the same congregation there were some who said there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul even wrote; "There are some who know nothing of God; to your own shame I say it." If people could be in the church of God as a result of apostolic proclamation and have such hangups certainly they will not be debarred because of some of the little sectarian ideas they have inherited and have not shaken.
I challenge my brethren to restore a concept of the community of the saints where brethren with a superior knowledge do not destroy those who are uninformed. If we want to capture again the primitive order of things, let us bring back a community where even those who are misinformed about the existence of other deities are still received and nurtured and trained in love until they realize the majestic truth that there is but one God.
If I hound my brother out or destroy him because of his doctrinal opinions I sin against Christ. Christ died for the brethren regardless of what views they may hold about the millennium, the activity of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, missionary programs, or all the rest of the divisive bit. Our brethren ought to be ashamed to live and afraid to die, who think so little of the cleansing blood of the Lamb of God that they will negate its effect and wipe out the relationship it created over such trivia as have divided us.
What a sense of values one must have who will undo the plan of the ages and render the very purpose of God ineffective over such a question as to whether the saints can separate into classes to study the precious word. I absolutely refuse to be the cause of the downfall of my brothers in Christ. I love my brothers more than I do my scriptural knowledge. Knowledge breeds conceit; it is love that builds. So says the apostle, and so I believe! Deliver me from the kind of supercilious arrogance which would cast out even the apostles if they were here and showed the love and concern they did while on earth. We are afflicted today with an outbreak of Diotrephesian rash. "And not content with that (putting himself first), he refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church."
I said there were at least nine. There may be more. My list is not necessarily complete or exclusive. But I will provide them for your notice with scriptural documentation. However, I think I should speak a word of caution. Actually, there is but one primary motivation. The others are secondary and subsidiary. They accrue from it. They tend to express blessings which result from obedience and thus offer an incentive, but the highest and noblest design is simply to obey the will of God.
I have already documented this as the design for the baptism of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 3:15. The desire and eagerness to fulfill all righteousness should prompt our every action and any other reason should be subsidiary to it For
[Page 88] |
The second design I shall mention is the securing of or returning the answer of a clear conscience. In 1 Peter 3:21, the apostle, who has just been writing about the flood, asserts, "The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us (not putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
But what does this mean? It occurs in a context of which William Barclay says, "This is not only one of the most difficult passages in Peter's letter; it is one of the most difficult passages in the whole New Testament." While Barclay is referring primarily to the preaching to the spirits in prison, it is also true that the expression "the answer of a good conscience" is not without its problems. This will be recognized when one compares the various renderings. Here are a few samples.
"And, corresponding to that figure, the water of baptism now saves you, not the washing off of material defilement, but the craving of a good conscience after God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (Weymouth).
"A counterpart of that water, the rite of immersion, not the removal of physical dirt but the request to God for a clear conscience, now preserves you also by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (Schonfield).
"The representation of which, baptism, is now saving you also (not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, but the enquiry of a good conscience to God." (Concordant Literal New Testament).
"Baptism is not the washing away of bodily pollution, but the appeal made to God by a good conscience; and it brings salvation through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (The New English Bible New Testament).
"And water, of which this is a figure, now saves you, that is, baptism; not as the washing away of dirt from the body, but as the prayer of a good conscience before God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (Charles Kingsley Williams).
"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (Revised Standard Version).
The reason that the translators differ in their rendering of the word which the King James Version designates as "answer" is because the term originally meant a question or enquiry, and later, the reply to such an enquiry. Thus, it came to mean the queries proposed during an examination, and the answers given to them, and finally, the whole process of scrutiny or examination. Does baptism secure a clear conscience from God because of divine cleansing action, or does the person who is being immersed have a clear conscience as the result of his action?
To put it another way, is baptism an appeal for a clear conscience, or is it the response of a conscience that is clear? It will help to remember that the Greek word is eperotema, and this was a legal term. It was used in making business contracts or drawing up legal agreements. If a firm decided to accept a junior partner or executive, he was asked if he properly understood and agreed to the conditions proposed, and if he would faithfully carry out the responsibility of the new relationship. His answer in the affirmative made it legal and binding from that time forward.
If a man desired to enlist in the army he was asked if he would pledge allegiance. Publicly he was confronted with the question as to whether he would forsake all other interests and devote himself without quibble to the duties devolving upon a soldier. When he made a solemn response in the form of an oath to give himself unstintingly to the new calling he was accepted and sworn in.
Those who come to Jesus are regarded as being invited to a partnership in which they must devote their energies to the advancement of the cause. They are looked
[Page 89] |
Baptism is not a physical rite intended to produce external cleansing. It is a bath of regeneration and not for the purpose of cleansing bodily defilement. It rather cleanses from the guilt of sin and thus purges the conscience from the stain of transgression making possible access to God.
The third design of baptism is to bring us into relationship with the Godhood. The term "Godhead" in the King James Version is not a good rendering. It is intended to embrace all that is recognized as deity and for this, the word I have chosen is better adapted. Just as priesthood signifies all that pertains to the relationship of the priests, and brotherhood indicates all that is embraced by the relationship of brethren, so Godhood indicates all that is known as God.
Deity is revealed or manifested in the form of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we are baptized into the state or relationship embraced by the name of these three, as shown by Matthew 28:19. Again, the King James Version is incorrect in rendering eis to onoma by "in the name." The Greek eis signifies action from without to within. It is not that we are baptized "in the name," but into the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The word name means more than a mere designation or title. It relates to the character and attributes of those under consideration, and it here implies that we are immersed into a state where we share the divine nature, that is, eternal life, the life of God. Certainly Jesus is not giving a formula to announce in immersing a candidate for citizenship. There is no such formula. He is not telling us what to say, but into what we induct men and women by baptism.
If I may be allowed a little freedom in ^paraphrasing, what he meant was, "Go and enroll students from all of the nations, and bring them into the new relationship by immersing them into that state involved in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." One who sincerely believes that Jesus is the Messiah and God's Son is as scripturally baptized if the administrator says nothing as if he pronounces in clerical tones a ritualistic statement. It is not the ritual of a doctor which makes birth possible or valid, nor is it the words spoken by the mortician which constitutes burial.
We have been trapped into traditional modes which become official methods and I always feel sorry for those poor souls who question the baptism of a sincere person because a cleric did not utter the approved or recognized epigram while burying him in water. It is Romanism which teaches that a prescribed sequence of words must be pronounced in exactitude or else the ordinance is of no avail, and some of us are a lot closer to Rome than we are to Jerusalem. In any event, it is a design of baptism to introduce us into that glorious state in which we enjoy fellowship with the divine.
The fourth point which I will mention is that baptism is to enable us to receive the Holy Spirit, to indwell us as God's wonderful gift (Acts 2:38). This passage promises the Spirit to those believers who reform their lives and are immersed, and Acts 5:32 shows that the Spirit was given to all who obey. It is tragic that men today often confuse the Spirit with the word, which is his instrument, but on Pentecost they received the word and were then baptized, and they were baptized and then received the Spirit as a gift. Receiving the word precedes baptism and receiving the Spirit as a seal succeeds baptism.
This does not argue that the Spirit does not operate upon the heart of an alien through the gospel, for it is the gospel which is God's dynamic to salvation. Certainly the Holy Spirit is in the Word to make it living and vital, just as he is in me to provide the more abundant life and in the body of Christ to make it a living entity in this world. But this no more argues that the Spirit and the word
[Page 90] |
The argument that Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Holy Spirit prior to being commanded to be immersed in water, cannot be urged as an objection to what I have said for the simple reason that this household was chosen to initiate the non-Jews into a state of fellowship with Jews and thus clarify the divine mystery which had been concealed from previous ages. The secret was "that through the gospel the Gentiles were made joint heirs with the Jews, part of the same body, sharers together in the promise made in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 3:6). The purpose of the prior baptism of the Spirit was to convince the Jews that this was God's will. "And God who can read men's hearts showed his approval of them by giving the Holy Spirit to them as to us" (Acts 15:8).
When Jew and Greek became one body there was no further need of this unique phenomenon of the Spirit, and there is no indication in the scriptures that there was ever a repetition of it. Indeed, a constant occurrence of the experience would have lessened the effect rather than enhancing it. Today, one does not become an heir because he has received the Spirit, but he receives the Spirit because he has become an heir. The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.
The fifth design of baptism is to bring us into an organic relationship in the one body of Christ. Paul argues, "For Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one body, even though it is made up of many parts." He affirms, "In the same way, all of us, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free men, have been baptized into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink" (1 Cor. 12:13).
In this instance the Spirit is not the element in which we are baptized, but the divine agent who prompts or motivates us through the good news to be baptized, and who guarantees that all who are obedient to the heavenly proclamation enter the one body and become an organ or functioning part in it. There are two opinions as to the meaning of this passage with which I cannot concur. One is that the baptism under consideration is a baptism in the Spirit, in which case the Spirit cannot be the agent or administrator, since only Jesus can baptize in the Spirit as an element or a medium.
The other position, created by our unfortunate sectarian stance today is, that many who are baptized under the influence of the Spirit through the good news are not brought into the one body at all. This always occurs when partisan adherents arrogantly assume that they constitute the one body, to the exclusion of all others, and that one must belong with them to belong to Christ. I hold that when a humble penitent believer is baptized on the basis of his faith in Jesus that he is brought into the one body in spite of either the ignorance or arrogance of those who immerse him. The purpose and action of the Spirit will not become a failure because of the presumption of a faction of finite folk.
The Holy Spirit sustains two relations to the body. The first is preliminary and leads to baptism by motivation effected through the gospel; the second is subsequent and intended to sustain those in the new relationship. The same Spirit who prompts us to initial obedience is given us to drink, that is, to satisfy our thirst and preserve us. One provision makes us members and the other supports us as such. But I think that the baptism which brings us into the relationship is immersion in water of the humble penitent who turns to Jesus.
The sixth design is to enable us to share in a likeness of the death of Christ (Rom. 6:3). It is obvious that there must be two crosses and two deaths involved in my salvation. Christ died for the sins of all men, but all men must die to sin for the sacrifice to become effective unto them. I must be crucified unto the world and the world must be crucified unto me, for only then can I be dead and Christ live in me. Actually, of course, there are not really two crosses and two deaths, for
[Page 91] |
Just as Christ died, was buried and rose again according to the old covenant scriptures, so I must die, be buried, and rise again according to the new covenant scriptures. Thus, the apostle writes, "For surely you know this: when we were baptized into union with Christ Jesus, we were baptized into union with his death. By our baptism then, we were buried with him and shared his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from death by the glorious power of the Father, so also we might live a new life. For if we became one with him in dying as he did, in the same way we shall be one with him by being raised to life as he was" (Romans 6:3-5).
To get the full impact of this statement one needs to underline the words "with" and "into." With Christ Jesus and with his death! It is thus we become one with him. Note that in baptism we "shared his death" and "in the same way." Paul knows that every person in the community of saints has been immersed. His argument would be ridiculous and absurd otherwise. In view of this, it is a little bit silly for someone to quote what Paul has to say about faith in order to offset what he here says about baptism.
Even the casual and careless reader of this passage must conclude that every person in the community of the reconciled at Rome had been immersed. And the very design of baptism as here enunciated was to make it possible to become identified with Jesus in his death, and in his life. What Jesus did for all men that they might be saved, each man must do for Jesus that he may be saved.
The seventh design of baptism is to enable us to put on Christ as a garment (Gal. 3:27). It is one thing to identify with Jesus in his resurrection, but it is a wholly different thing to wear him so that the shame of our nakedness do not appear. The New English Bible translates the passage, "For through faith you are all sons of God in union with Christ Jesus. Baptized into union with him you have all put on Christ as a garment."
When we come to Christ we "put off the old man of sin," that is, we remove, lay aside, or hang up the tattered garment furnished by unregenerate human nature. We divest ourselves of the fabric woven of the evil ways of this present age and manufactured at the loom of the commander of the spiritual powers of the air. But it is not God's purpose that we be naked or exposed. We put on Christ as our covering or protection from the weak and beggarly elements. The word for put on is enduo. It literally means to clothe with a garment. A good example of its several occurrences is found in the treatment of Jesus by the soldiers, "Finally, when the mockery was over, they took off the mantle and dressed him in his own clothes" (Matt. 27:31).
The baptistery is God's dressing-room. Before an actor comes out upon the stage to take his part in the drama, he divests himself of his old clothing and dons the costume adapted to his part. And before we can step into our role upon the stage of life we must lay off the old garments and put on the vesture furnished by the One who wrote the drama and whose invitation to participate in it we accepted.
Ragnar Bring, whose Commentary on Galatians, is so thorough, as is characteristic of the Scandinavian school of thought, writes: "When Paul says that those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, he uses the verb enduo, 'to put on.' This verb means also 'to cover oneself with,' 'to penetrate,' 'to submerge oneself in,' 'to dive into.' The baptized person had become completely united with Christ and one with him. We may also think of putting on the heavenly robes of baptism for which the baptized person was destined."
If you want to read something really interesting on the passage in Galatians, you should read what William Barclay has to say in his Daily Study Bible Series. Here is a taste of it to whet your appetite. "Baptism was no mere outward form and ceremony; it was a real union with Christ. Paul goes on to say that they had put on Christ. There may be here a reference to a custom which certainly existed later.
[Page 92] |
The eighth design of baptism is to bring us into a state of wholeness, that is of salvation. We must never forget that wholeness and holiness were not too far apart in Jewish thought. In Mark 16:16, we read, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that does not believe will be condemned." The word sozo, save, is also rendered heal 3 times, make whole 9, and preserve 1. Jesus used this very word when he told the woman who had suffered from hemorrhages for twelve years, "Your faith has made you whole." One who is in sin is deformed. He is crippled and abnormal. He must be restored to the state of normalcy, by being rescued or saved from his condition.
Nothing is sillier than for someone to excuse sin by saying of the transgressor, "He is just acting naturally, he is perfectly normal." The devil has conned us into warping the abnormal into normal, and vice versa. In the case of the long-suffering woman her faith prompted her to touch Jesus, and it was a faith so great as to overcome her timidity and make the contact which enabled her to be restored, made whole, or be healed. Baptism is the touching of Jesus prompted by faith. It is contacting his person in a demonstration of utter trust, and it is the ordained response to the grace that heals.
To change the figure and bring the metaphor up to modern standards, faith is the electric eye which opens the door for one who approaches the storehouse of grace, while baptism is the door that makes possible the access. It is a sad thing indeed when one becomes so enamored of the unseen power which operates the door that he simply stands there admiring it and bragging about his having discovered it, without ever going through the door. But it is a tragedy when someone who ought to know better brainwashes and befuddles him until he thinks that one is as well off standing out under the portico as he would be if he entered.
It was J. W. McGarvey, in dealing with this passage, who said, "When the apostles went out to preach under this commission, they knew only from its terms to whom they should promise pardon, and consequently they never encouraged anyone to hope for it previous to baptism, nor gave any unbaptized person reason to think that his sins were already forgiven. If any of the unbaptized therefore, are pardoned, it is because God has granted to them more than he has promised. This he may unquestionably do, if the circumstances of individuals shall make it right in his eyes to do so, but of these circumstances he alone can judge, who knows all things and whose judgments are guided by infinite wisdom."
The ninth design, and the final one which I shall discuss here, is the remission, or forgiveness of sins. It is not my intention, by suggesting these other designs, to make it appear that this one is inferior to the others, or in any way insignificant. I have not listed the designs in the order of their importance, for no intentional design of God can ever be unimportant.
The conscience-stricken hearers on Pentecost, asked what they must do, having been guilty of slaying the one who had since risen from the dead to be made both Messiah and Lord. It is interesting to note that they did not ask what to think, believe or acknowledge. They knew that lordship created a master-servant relationship and entailed doing the will of the Lord. Accordingly, they asked what they must do to implement their faith in his lordship.
The reply was simple and direct. "Reform your lives and be immersed, every one of you in the name of Jesus the Messiah." Their obedience to these instructions would result in forgiveness of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit as God's gift. Repentance is a change of mind, preceded by a remorse for guilt, and succeeded by a reformation of conduct or life. A mere change of mind which does not cause one to turn away from and re-
[Page 931] |
Forgiveness of sins is a divine act. It is a judicial procedure of offended majesty, proceeding from inestimable mercy. It is made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus, his blood atoning for our guilt. God put him forward "as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith" (Romans 3:25). That is why the record says that "God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Eph. 4:32). Forgiveness cannot be earned, deserved, purchased or bargained for.
And it is here that I think many brethren need to examine anew their thinking. They have concluded that remission of sins is an integral part of the command and that the command cannot be obeyed by one who has reformed his life consistent with the life of Jesus until he understands and is baptized for this one specific purpose. But forgiveness is not a human design at all. It is the divine design. God designs to forgive those who reform their lives and are baptized to demonstrate obedient discipleship.
With many it is almost as if forgiveness was dispensed by a divine slot machine and was automatically bestowed when two items were dropped in to trigger it off automatically. In our day security is obtained behind doors and gates which can only be opened by one who has a card punched with proper apertures. And some have been betrayed into thinking that a computerized card with two properly synchronized holes will gain the prize of forgiveness. In such an arrangement there is little personal understanding or compassion, and God may be as detached in attitude as a girl selling tickets behind a bullet-proof window.
But forgiveness is not bestowed in such a routine, offhand, impersonal and systematic fashion. The one who comes to God in complete surrender, weeping over his transgressions, and humiliated by his weaknesses, may understand little about how or when he will be forgiven. He does not bring his baptism in to trade for forgiveness. His theme may be, "Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling." Like the prodigal, he may disclaim worthiness to be called a son, and in his abject state may be willing to be like a hired servant. When such a one submits to baptism, believing it to be the Father's will, God designs to forgive his past and to welcome him to a new start and a new life.
Baptism is unto forgiveness, not because it purchases, procures or produces it, but because it transfers the obedient believer from a state of alienation to one of citizenship where amnesty can be freely granted by the King to all who have received Jesus. It is the very antithesis of baptismal regeneration, although a great many of our brethren affirm that unfortunate doctrine while vociferously denying that they do so. The charge that they teach "regeneration by water" is fairly and justly made against a lot of folk, for that is exactly what they believe and advocate although they are not astute enough to know it!
It is not belief in baptism for the remission of sins, but belief in Jesus as the atonement for our sins, which really counts. We do not trust in a body of water for salvation but in Jesus who is head of the one body. And we do not trust in Jesus because we have been baptized for the remission of sins, but because we believe in Jesus we are baptized to enroll as his disciples, and God forgives our sins. It is Jesus who is made unto us wisdom, righteousness and redemption. It is not faith in the design, but faith in the designer, that makes our obedience effective. We have neither the right nor the authority to formulate a new and amended creed, and ask of those who seek refuge under the spreading wings of divine love, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that baptism is for the remission of sins?"
[Page 94] |
But it also caused the preachers to hold a "coroner's inquest" over every case of baptism not performed by one of their number. Men were actually rejected who would not submit to re-immersion in order to please the party. This was by no means the attitude of the early reformers. Tolbert Fanning wrote: "If a Baptist were to present himself to me slating that he was satisfied with his baptism, but still would be baptized again to please the church, if required, I should be certain that man was a hypocrite, or lacked the gospel knowledge and faith." Despite this, I have met numerous brethren who were baptized once to please the Lord, and baptized again to please the congregation!
The restoration fathers saw the proper relationship of baptism to Christ Jesus, and thus to salvation. A. T. Anderson, an eminent student, wrote in Christian Review: "I can never believe that God will withhold the act of pardon because I may not have understood that my sins were forgiven in the act of baptism; knowing that my whole confidence was placed in his Son, and his death for my sins, at the time of my immersion. Christ is greater than immersion. Though I believe with all my heart in Christ, and have the disposition to do whatever he bids me; yet I cannot be saved from my sins, because I have not been taught that he will forgive me just at that time. If this doctrine be carried out, it would make baptism a savior, or I know nothing of reason. This makes immersion the greater and Christ the less. This makes our salvation to depend not on our faith and obedience, nor on the faithfulness of him who promised."
When a man is motivated by any of the "designs" of baptism to obey God, then Jesus is the author of salvation to all them that obey him. There would be no more efficacy in "Church of Christ baptism" than in "Baptist baptism." Both would be for the purpose of pleasing a party. When a man is baptized to please God, or to obey a command of God, that is not party baptism at all. He has done what God requires and "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." A misunderstanding about God's part in the procedure will not negate the promise to one who has done his part as God commanded.