HOW I FOUND CHRIST'S CHURCH
SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.
One of the chief things that led me to identify myself with the people
working for Christian union, was my experience with regard to baptism.
Indeed, I am more and more convinced that baptism is the main key to
the question of Christian union. We can differ on questions of
theoretical theology and still work together in harmony in practical
Christian activities. But if we differ on the question of baptism, we
cannot take the first step in preaching the gospel and in leading souls
to Christ, in the New Testament way, without getting into conflict. The
only way that union meetings of different denominations have been at
all possible, has been by ignoring the plain teaching and practice of
the Apostles on the question of baptism. We never can have Christian
union in the authority of Christ, which is the only union which will
satisfy his prayer and demand, until we agree on the two simple
ordinances which are the forms in which the gospel embodies itself to
bless our souls. And, fortunately, these are the easiest things to
unite on. When free from prejudice, there is no question on which
Christians can more easily agree than that of baptism, as the testimony
of the scholars and churches that follow in this chapter abundantly
demonstrate. The consummation of Christian union will have to patiently
wait until inherited and acquired prejudices become sufficiently
allayed so that all Christians can look at the question of baptism
dispassionately. Then it will be discovered that we all agree on this
question and the main barrier to Christian union will be removed. In
our weakness we want to procure Christian union without giving up our
sectarian ideas that have been superadded to the New Testament
teaching, and that have caused our division. And so we try to
compromise by "agreeing to disagree" or by ignoring the teachings of
the New Testament. But such efforts must be futile and disappointing.
We can never unite on the gospel until we agree in the gospel teaching.
We can never unite in obeying the Master until we unite in our opinions
as to what the Master has commanded us to do. But, thank God, the field
is rapidly ripening for this agreement and consequent union.
As is usually the case, I received my early ideas on baptism by
heredity and environment, so far as I had any ideas on the subject. The
religious people with whom I was associated in my early life taught and
practiced sprinkling and infant baptism, and, of course, I assumed that
they must be right in the matter. Although I read the Bible through
several times, I did not see its teaching on this subject, as I was not
particularly interested in it. For reasons explained in previous
chapters—that we look through colored glasses—multitudes of people
daily read their Bible who never see what is in it; but imagine, as a
matter of course, that it teaches what they bring to it through
hereditary and preconceived ideas.
As already stated, I was first led to think on this subject while I
studied New Testament Greek under President Cary, of the Meadville
Theological School. When we came to the word baptizoo, Dr. Cary told
the class that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of the
word in the mouth of Jesus was to immerse. This statement was a great
surprise to me, and I decided to discover for myself whether this was
the fact or not. This was the beginning of my investigation of the
subject of baptism. I found that Dr. Cary was correct in his statement.
What influenced me greatly was the fact that the German rationalists,
who are recognized as among the best scholars of the world, and who are
perfectly impartial on this subject, as they do not care what the Bible
teaches about baptism, all say that baptism is immersion, without ever
hinting at a possibility for difference of opinion. I investigated the
matter for several years, as I found opportunity, until there was not
the shadow of a doubt left in my mind that immersion is New Testament
baptism.
While a student at Oberlin Theological Seminary, I found that all the
authorities they used in New Testament Greek, taught immersion, while
their churches practise sprinkling. In studying Hebrews in the Greek,
we used Dr. Westcott's commentary. When we came to Heb. 10:22, "having
our bodies washed with pure water," Dr. Westcott said this referred to
the "laver of regeneration" or the primitive practice of immersion.
When we studied Romans in Greek, we used Dr. Sanday's International
Critical Commentary. The professor told us it was the very best and
probably would be for years to come. When we came to Rom. 6:4, "buried
with him through baptism," Dr. Sanday never raised a doubt about the
meaning, but in eloquent words spoke about the beautiful representation
of burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism. This astonished me
very much, as Drs. Westcott and Sanday were noted Episcopalian
scholars, and the Episcopal churches practise sprinkling. We used Dr.
Thayer's New Testament Greek lexicon, which the professor informed us
was the very best in the English language. This lexicon defined
baptizoo as meaning to dip, and never hinted that sprinkling or
pouring might be its meaning. As I said above, I found Dr. Cary correct
in claiming that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of
the word in the mouth of Jesus was to immerse, and I have never been
able to get hold of a single New Testament lexicon that defines
baptizoo as ever meaning to sprinkle or pour.
The following chart and facts will help us to get at the truth about
the meaning of the Greek word baptizoo without quoting from a long
list of lexicons:
[Illustration: A STUDY IN MEANING OF WORDS.]
You notice in the chart that we have three separate and distinct words
in the Greek for immersion, sprinkling and pouring; and these words
have their primary or proper, secondary or tropical meanings, all of
which must be differentiated. The primary or proper meaning has
reference to specific acts, the secondary meaning refers to things done
by means of these specific acts, while the tropical or metaphorical
meaning departs from the specific meaning of the words and therefore
cannot have reference to the specific outward acts indicated by the
words. For this reason it is a law of language, recognized by all
scholars, that you must give a word its primary or proper meaning when
it is employed in commanding an outward act, unless the context demands
another meaning.
Notice the English words shoot, hang and poison. These express
specific outward acts; and, then, in their secondary meaning, they mean
to kill, but always to kill in the way indicated by the primary meaning
of the word. A man can be hung, shot or poisoned without being killed;
but if it is reported that he was hung, shot or poisoned, we would all
understand that he was killed. However, you cannot conceive of words so
changing their meaning, that when it is said a man was hung, it means
that he was shot, or when it is said he was poisoned, it means he was
hung. No more is it conceivable that when the Greek word baptizoo (to
immerse) was used, it meant to cleanse by sprinkling (rantizoo), or
when the word rantizoo (to sprinkle) was used, it meant to cleanse by
immersing (baptizoo). These words refer primarily to separate and
distinct outward acts. It is true they may meet in their secondary
meaning in the idea to cleanse; but they always refer to cleansing in
the way indicated by the primary meaning of the word used. When they
travel so far from their primary or proper meaning, which has reference
to specific outward acts, that their meaning is said to be tropical or
metaphorical, they lose their specific idea and have no longer any
reference to the specific acts denoted by the words.
It is true that words can and do often change or enlarge their meaning.
But this is always to supply a need created by the lack of a proper
word to express an associated idea. Now, both the specific and general
ideas with reference to the application of water are so copiously
supplied with words in the Greek, that they preclude the necessity of
changing the meaning of a word like baptizoo to supply such a need.
We have louoo, to wash or bathe the body; niptoo, to wash a part of
the body, as the hands, feet, face, etc.; plunoo, to wash clothes;
brechoo, to wet, to rain; katharizoo, to cleanse; ekcheoo, to
pour; rantizoo, to sprinkle; baptizoo, to immerse, etc.
Thus we have a threefold guard to keep baptizoo to its primary or
proper meaning of to dip or immerse. First, an abundance of Greek
words to express every general and specific idea about the application
of water, except that of immersion; second, the fact that a tropical
meaning of a word cannot refer to the specific outward act indicated by
the word; and third, the law of interpretation which demands that a
word be given its primary or proper meaning in commandments, or plain
narrative, unless the context expressly demands a different meaning.
The above definitions of the word baptizoo are taken from Dr.
Thayer's "New Testament Greek Lexicon." In reply to letters inquiring
about Dr. Thayer's "New Testament Greek Lexicon," the following
answers-were received. It is the "best" (Professor Hodge, of
Princeton); it is the "very best" (Dr. Alexander, of Vanderbilt
University); "nothing can compare with it" (Dr Hersman, president of
the Southwestern Presbyterian University). This opinion is practically
made unanimous from the fact that Dr. Thayer's Lexicon is used at all
of the leading schools in the country.
A request for an authoritative lexicon that gives "sprinkle" or "pour"
as a meaning of baptizoo, elicited the following answers: "There is
no such lexicon" (Professor Humphreys, of the University of Virginia,
and Professor D'ooge, of Colby University); "I know of none" (Professor
Flagg, of Cornell); "I do not know of any" (Professor Tyler, of
Amherst). "Baptizoo means to immerse. All lexicographers and
critics of any note are agreed in this."—Dr. Moses Stuart.
Thus we learn, through the testimony of experts, without consulting all
the numerous Greek lexicons, that they define the word baptizoo as
meaning to immerse and that none of them say it means to sprinkle
or to pour.
The great mass of Christians know nothing about the Greek experts who
make the lexicons, but are much better acquainted with and influenced
by the great church leaders and church standards. Therefore we present
the following quotations:
Scholars and Churches Admit that Christ Taught Immersion.
NOTE.—These quotations are taken from a tract of mine on baptism.
I. Council of Toledo, 633 (Catholic): "We observe a single immersion
in baptism."
2. Council of Cologne, 1280 (Catholic): "That he who baptizes when he
immerses the candidate in water," etc.
3. Martini (Roman Catholic): "In all of the pontificals and rituals I
have seen (except that of Madeleine de Beulieu), and I have seen many,
ancient as well as more recent, immersion is prescribed."
4. Dollinger (Roman Catholic): "Baptism was administered by an entire
immersion in water." (Chu. History, vol. 2, p. 294.) "A mere pouring or
sprinkling was never thought of." (First Age of Chu., p. 318.) "Baptism
by immersion continued to be the prevailing practice of the church as
late as the fourteenth century." (Hist. Ch., vol. 2, p. 295.)
5. Ritual of Greek Catholic Church: "The priest immerses him, saying
the servant of God is immersed, in the name of the Father," etc.
6. Russian Catechism (Greek Catholic): "This they hold to be a point
necessary, that no part of the child be undipped in water," etc.
7. Alex. De Stourdza (native Greek): "The verb baptize, immergo,
has, in fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies, literally and
always, to plunge. Baptism and immersion are, therefore, identical, and
to say baptism is by aspersion is as if one should say, immersion by
aspersion, or any other absurdity of the same nature." (Con. sur LaDoc.
et L'Esprit, p. 87.)
8. Dr. Kyriasko, of University of Athens, Greece: "The verb baptize
in the Greek language never has the meaning of to pour or to sprinkle,
but invariably that of to dip." (Letter to C. G. Jones, Lynchburg, Va.)
9. Syrian Ritual (Nestorians): "The priest immerses him in water,
saying such a one is baptized in the name of the Father," etc.
10. Martin Luther: "Baptism is a Greek word. In Latin it can be
translated immersion, as when we plunge something into water, that it
may be completely covered with water; they ought to have been
completely immersed." (The Sacrament of Baptism.)
11. Lutheran Catechism, p. 216: "In what did this act (baptism)
consist?" Answer: "The one to be baptized was first immersed in water,
signifying death, and then he was drawn out again and was dressed with
a new dress, as if he now were a different new being."
12. John Calvin (Presbyterian): "The word baptize signifies to
immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by
the ancient church." (Inst. Book 4, c. 15.)
13. Richard Baxter (Presbyterian): "It is commonly confessed by us to
the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the Apostles'
time the baptized were dipped over head in the water." (Dis. Right to
Sac., p. 70.)
14. Dr. W. D. Powell, while in Athens, Greece, wrote: "I found that
all churches in Greece—the Presbyterian included—are compelled to
immerse candidates for baptism, for, as one of the professors remarked,
'the commonest day laborer understands nothing else for baptizoo but
immersion.'"
15. Zwingle (Reformed): "When ye were immersed into the water of
baptism, ye wrere engrafted into the death of Christ." (Com. Rom. 6:3.)
16. John Wesley (Methodist): "We are buried with him, alluding to the
ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." (Notes on N. T., Rom. 6:4.)
"Baptized according to the custom of the first church and the rule of
the Church of England, by immersion." (Journal, vol. I, p. 20.) In
Savannah, Ga., Sept., 1737, Wesley was found guilty of breaking the
laws of the realm, among other things "by refusing to baptize Mr.
Parker's child otherwise than by dipping." (Jour., vol. I, pp. 42, 43.)
17. The Methodist Discipline of 1846, and the old Discipline compiled
by Wesley himself, assert that "Jesus was baptized in the river of
Jordan, and that the sixth of Romans means simply a burial in water."
18. Adam Clark (Methodist): "As they received baptism as an emblem of
death, in voluntarily going under the water, so they received it as an
emblem of the resurrection into eternal life, in coming up out of the
water." (Com., vol. 4, N. T.)
19. Prayer Book (Church of England): "The priest shall dip him in the
water, discreetly and warily."
20. Conybeare and Howson (Episcopalians): "It is needless to add that
baptism was administered by immersion, the convert being plunged
beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of
sin, then raised from this momentary burial to represent his
resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of
regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism
has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important
passages of Scripture." (Life of St. Paul.)
26. Prof. L. L. Paine (Congregational): "It may be honestly asked by
some, Was immersion the primitive form of baptism? As to the question
of fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. It is a point on which
ancient, medieval and modern historians alike, Catholic and Protestant,
Lutheran and Calvinist, have no controversy. No historian who cares for
his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of
the name would wish to."
27. Dr. George Campbell (Presbyterian): "I have heard a disputant of
this stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word
rendered in the N. T. baptize means more properly to sprinkle than to
plunge. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of
knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though in respect
to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as arguments,
sometimes better, yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of a
falsehood even in support of the truth." (Lect. on Pul. El. Lect, 10,
pp. 294, 295.)
28. Philip Schaff (Un. Theo. Sem.): "The baptism of Christ in the
river Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the N. T., are
all in favor of immersion rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted
by the best exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, English and German.
Nothing can be gained by an unnatural exegesis." (Teaching of Apostles,
pp. 55,56.)
29. Paul: "We are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so
we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4.)
30. Peter says our bodies are washed in baptism, (1 Pet. I:23.)
31. Mark: "Jesus—was baptized in [Marg., Greek, into] the Jordan"
(Mark 1:9, A. R. V.). He could not have been baptized into the water
without being immersed.
Churches Have Changed Immersion to Sprinkling.
1. The first record of sprinkling for baptism is that of Novatian, A.
D. 250. It was thought he was dying and, as he could not be immersed,
they sprinkled water on him. Thus originated what was called clinic
or death-bed baptism. Its introduction was vigorously opposed for
centuries and clinics were not admitted to sacred orders, many doubting
their baptism.
2. Pope Stephen III. In 754 the monks of Cressy asked Stephen III.:
"Is it lawful, in case of necessity, occasioned by sickness, to baptize
an infant by pouring water on its head from a cup or the hands?" The
Pope replied: "Such a baptism, performed in such a case of necessity,
shall be accounted valid." Basnage says: "This was accounted the first
law against immersion."
3. The Council of Ravenna, 1311, decreed: "Baptism is to be
administered by trine aspersion or immersion." This was the first
authority for sprinkling except in case of sickness.
4. Cardinal Gibbons (R. Catholic): "Since the twelfth century the
practice of baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church,
as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by
immersion." (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 275.)
5. Bishop of Bossuet (R. Catholic): "The case (communion under one
kind) was much the same as that of baptism by immersion, as clearly
grounded on Scripture as communion under both kinds could be, and
which, nevertheless, had been changed into infusion, with as much ease
and as little contradiction as communion under one kind was
established, so that the same reason stood for retaining one as the
other. It is a fact most certainly avowed in the Reformation, although
some will cavil at it, that baptism was instituted by immersing the
whole body in water. This fact, I say, is unanimously acknowledged by
all the divines of the Reformation: by Luther, by Melancthon, by
Calvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, by all the rest." (Varia. Protest.,
vol. 2, p. 370.)
6. Archbishop Kenrick (R. Catholic): "The change of discipline which
has taken place as to baptism should not surprise us, for, although the
church is but the dispenser of the sacraments which her Divine Spouse
instituted, she rightfully exercises a discretionary power as to the
manner of their adminstration. Immersion was well suited to the Eastern
nations, whose habits and climate prepared them for it, and was,
therefore, practiced in the commencement, whenever necessity did not
prevent it. Cases, which at first were exceptional, gradually
multiplied, so that, at length, the ordinary mode of baptism was by
affusion. The church wisely sanctioned that which, although less
solemn, is equally effectual. The power of binding and loosing, which
she received from Christ, warrants this exercise of governing wisdom.
It is not for the individuals to question a right which has been at all
times claimed and exercised by those to whom the dispensation of the
mysteries is divinely intrusted." (Kenrick on Bap., p. 174.)
7. Haydock, Endorsed by Pope Pius IX.: "The church, which cannot
change the least article of faith, is not so tied up in matters of
discipline and ceremony. Not only the Catholic Church, but also the
pretended reformed churches, have altered the primitive custom in
giving the sacrament of baptism and now allow of baptisms by sprinkling
and pouring water upon the person baptized." (Notes on Douay Bible,
Matt. 3:16.)
8. Lutheran Catechism, p. 208: "What is baptism?" Answer: "To dip
under water." "Do we still baptize in that way?" Answer: "No; because
of the rough climate, the subject now is only sprinkled."
9. John Calvin (Presbyterian): "Wherefore the church did grant
liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat,
excepting the substance. It is of no consequence at all whether the
person that is baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely
sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to
the churches in different regions."
10. Westminster Assembly (Presbyterian), 1643: "In the Assembly of
Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether
immersion or sprinkling should be adopted; 25 voted for sprinkling, and
24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the
earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in
that assembly." (Edinburgh Ency., vol. 3, p. 236.)
11. Dr. Wall (Episcopalian): "One would have thought that the cold
countries should have been the first that should have changed the
custom from dipping to affusion. But by history it appears that the
cold climates held the custom of dipping as long as any; for England,
which is one of the coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this
alteration of the ordinary way. . . . The offices or liturgies for
public baptism in the Church of England did all along, so far as I can
learn, enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling.
The Prayer Book, printed in 1549, adds: 'And if the child be weak, it
shall suffice to pour water upon it'" (Wall's Hist. Inft. Bap., vol. 3,
pp. 575,579.)
12. Dean Stanley (Episcopalian): In speaking of immersion, he says:
"The cold climate of Russia has not been found an obstacle to its
continuance throughout that vast empire. Even in the Church of England
it is still observed in theory. The Rubric in the public baptism for
infants enjoins that, unless for special causes, they are to be dipped,
not sprinkled." (Institutes, pp. 18,19.) The Church of England has
changed to sprinkling, but its creed teaches immersion.
13. Sir John Floyer: "I have now given what testimony I could find in
our English authors, to prove the practice of immersion from the time
the Britons and Saxons were baptized, till King James' days, when the
people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and through the love
of novelty and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty,
they laid aside immersion." (History of Cold Bathing, p. 61.)
14. Bishop A. C. Coxe, editor of Ante-Nicene Fathers (Episcopalian):
"The word (baptizo) means to dip. In the Church of England dipping is
even now the primary rule. But it is not the ordinary custom. It
survived far down into Queen Elizabeth's time, but seems to have died
out early in the seventeenth century. I ought to add that in France
(unreformed) the custom of dipping became obsolete long before it was
disused in England. But for this bad example, my own opinion is, that
dipping would still prevail among Anglicans. I wish that all Christians
would restore the primitive practice." (In a letter to J. T. Christian.)
Thus we have the testimony of all the scholars in all the churches, who
are recognized as Greek experts outside of their own party, that the
New Testament teaches immersion and that it has been changed to
sprinkling and pouring by human authority. We do not believe that this
change was made with a bad motive. It was evidently done in sincerity
and in the honest belief that it was the right thing to do. We must
accept the honest testimony of these scholarly experts that the New
Testament teaches immersion, but we certainly believe they were
mistaken in taking the liberty to change Christ's command. If we take
such liberties, all of the commandments of Christ will soon be set
aside and confusion will be worse confounded. Indeed, it is this very
liberty of substituting what men thought best for the things revealed
in the New Testament, that has caused our present sectarian divisions
by adding human names, creeds, customs, etc., to the primitive gospel.
Scriptures to Show It is Wrong to Change Christ's Commands.
"They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the
everlasting covenant" (Isa. 24:5).
"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold
the tradition of men. Ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep
your own tradition. Making the word of God of none effect through your
tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things ye do"
(Mark 7:7-9, 13).
"Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man
disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3: 15).
"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat
of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is
as iniquity and idolatry" (I Sam. 15:22,23).
"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer
shall be abomination" (Prov. 28:9).
"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken
him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And every one
that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be
likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and
the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it" (Matt.
7:24, 26,27).
"If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my commandments and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. If a man love me, he will keep
my words. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you" (John
14: 15,21,23; 15:14). "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things
which I say" (Luke 6:46).
"And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God,
being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers
rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of
him" (Luke 7:29,30.)
"And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,
and the truth is not in him" (I John 2: 3,4).
But, after all, the very best way for ordinary people to learn the
meaning of baptism, is to go to the English Bible. Although human
authority and prejudice have hindered the translators from translating
the Greek word, and thus telling us what it means in English, the
contexts and sidelights on the subject make its meaning so plain that
all can readily see it if divested of prejudice and preconceived ideas.
By reading the introduction to the English Revised Bible, you will
learn that the translators of the Authorized Version were forbidden to
translate the word. Other translators have followed their example; so
that it is neither translated to sprinkle, to pour nor to immerse
in our standard English Bibles. The Greek word baptisma has simply
had the last letter dropped and been carried over into English bodily.
But the word has been translated in numerous editions in various
languages, and whenever it has been translated, it was always by the
word immerse or an equivalent term. No scholar, in any language, has
ever had the temerity to translate it to sprinkle or to pour. Even
our English translators translate it when it is not used as an
ecclesiastical term. And when they translate it, they say it means to
dip. In 2 Kings 5:14, we read of Naaman, "He went down and dipped
[baptizato] himself seven times in Jordan." We may not have a
sufficient knowledge of Greek to determine what Jesus meant when he
commanded us to be baptized. But the Apostles certainly understood him;
and if we can find out what they did when they baptized, and we do the
same thing, then we know we are right, and have done what Christ
commanded.
Let us turn to the Sacred Record and see what they did when they
baptized.
We read: "And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and
all they of Jerusalem, and they were baptized of him in the river
Jordan, confessing their sins. . . . And it came to pass in those
days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of
John in [Greek into, marg. of A. R. V.] the Jordan. And
straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened,
and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:5,9,10). "John
was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water
there" (John 3:23). "And they both went down into the water, both
Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out
of the water . . . he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:38,39). "We
are buried with him by baptism," "planted in the likeness of his
death," "and raised in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom.
6:4,5). "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our
bodies washed with pure water" (Heb. 10:22). "Except a man be born of
the water and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"
(John 3:5). The italics are mine.
The following chart summarizes our study of baptism in the English
Bible:
BAPTISM IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE
THE BIBLE AND IMMERSION SPRINKLING AND POURING
REQUIRE: REQUIRE:
1. Water. Acts 8:36; 10:47 1. Water
2. Much water. John 3:23 2. Little water
3. Going to water. Mark 1:9 3. Bringing water
4. Going into water. Acts 8:38 4. Staying out of water
5. Putting into water. Mark 1:9 5. Putting water on
(Margin of A. R. V)
6. Form of burial. Col. 2:12 6. No form of burial
7. Form of planting. Rom 6:5 7. No form of planting
8. Form of birth. John 3:5 8. No form of birth
9. Form of resurrection. 9. No form of resurrection
Rom. 6:4
10. Form of doctrine. Rom. 6:17 10. No form of doctrine
11. Bodies washed. Heb. 10:22 11. Head wet
12. Coming up out of the water. 12. No getting out
Mark 1:10
We thus learn that in being baptized they went to water, to much
water, went into the water, were put into the water, were buried
in the water, planted in the water, born out of the water, raised out
of the water, had their bodies washed and came up out of the
water. If we do these things, we are Scripturally baptized and have
been immersed.
The following passages are the only places where sprinkling and pouring
are found in the New Testament:
Sprinkling and Pouring in the New Testament.
1. Heb. 9:13.—Blood.
2. Heb. 9:19.—Blood.
3. Heb. 9:21.—Blood.
4. Heb. 10:22.—Hearts.
5. Heb. 11:28.—Blood.
6. Heb. 12:24.—Blood.
7. 1 Pet. 1:2.—Blood.
8. Matt. 26:7,12.—Ointment.
9. John 2:15.—Money.
10. Acts 10:45.—Spirit.
11. John 13:5.—Water.
12. Luke 10:34.—Oil and Wine.
13. Rev. 14:10.—Wrath.
You will notice that none of these Scriptures refer to baptism and that
none of the Scriptures that do refer to baptism hint at sprinkling or
pouring as the action. Sprinkling and pouring for baptism must come
from some other source. We have already learned whence they came.
Some people will argue against immersion for hours, and when they are
driven into their last trenches, and about to be caught, they try to
escape by saying, "Baptism doesn't amount to anything at any rate, it's
a mere form. The great thing is Holy Spirit baptism."
To begin with, Holy Spirit baptism is not baptism at all, strictly
speaking. It is only figurative baptism. It is not always called
baptism. It is called an anointing (Luke 4: 18), a drinking (1 Cor.
12: 13), an enduing (Luke 24:49), a filling (Acts 2:4), and a
sealing (Eph. 1:13). No person can be literally sprinkled or poured
with the Holy Spirit, or immersed into Him, as the Holy Spirit is a
person. The figurative meaning of baptism is to overwhelm, and to be
baptized with the Holy Spirit is to be submerged or overwhelmed in His
power, or to come completely under His control. Holy Spirit baptism is
not a command to obey, but a promise to enjoy. It can only be
administered by Christ himself (John 1:33). Therefore, whenever in the
New Testament baptism is commanded for preachers to administer or
sinners to obey, it can never refer to Holy Spirit baptism, but must
always refer to water baptism.
In the light of New Testament teaching and practise, it is marvelous
that any one who claims to follow its guidance, can make light of
baptism. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Christ walk eighty miles
to be baptized of John, and insist that it was necessary for him to be
baptized "to fulfil all righteousness"? (Matt. 3: 13-17). "Baptism a
mere form?" Then, why, in giving his commission to all gospel workers,
did Christ say, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them"? (Matt. 28: 19). Those who neglect to baptize their
converts have certainly not wholly obeyed their Lord. "Baptism a mere
form?" Then, why did Jesus say, "Go ye into all the world and preach
the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved"? (Mark 16:15, 16). Not only is every preacher commanded
to baptize every convert, but every convert is also commanded to be
baptized; and baptism is made one of the conditions of salvation with
every proper gospel subject. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Jesus
say to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God"?
(John 3:5). All church standards refer this to baptism. "Baptism a mere
form?" Then, why did Peter, on Pentecost, when he used "the keys of the
kingdom," revealed Christ's will and testament for sinners, and thus
proclaimed the conditions of salvation, or of forgiveness, to all whom
the Lord should call through the gospel, say to penitent seekers,
"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit"? (Acts 2:38). And why is it said, "They then that
received his word were baptized"? (Acts 2:41). Will not the same follow
to-day if people will receive the Word of God without any subtractions?
"Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it said of the Samaritans that
"when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both
men and women"? (Acts 8: 12). Will not the same follow to-day when
people believe the whole gospel? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it
said of the eunuch that when Philip "preached unto him Jesus," he said,
"Behold, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?"? And why
did he not go "on his way rejoicing" before he "came up out of the
water"? (Acts 8:35,39). If our converts do not ask for baptism, and we
send them away as finished products without going down into the water
with them, are we preaching and practising the same gospel as did the
primitive evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? "Baptism a
mere form?" Then, why did not even Christ himself speak peace to the
soul of Saul, but sent him to Damascus and directed Ananias to tell him
what he must do, who said to him, "And now why tarriest thou? arise,
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord"? (Acts 9: 6, 7; 22: 16). Does not the Lord send his servants
to-day with the same message to those who put off their obedience to
him in baptism? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was there a special
miraculous demonstration to avoid objections to the baptism of the
household of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts; and why did Peter
command them to be baptized with water, after they had received the
baptism of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 10:44-48). Does not this show that
Holy Spirit baptism was not to displace water baptism? "Baptism a mere
form?" Then, why was Lydia baptized as soon as she gave "heed unto the
things which were spoken by Paul"? (Acts 16: 14, 15). If properly
instructed, will not all people be baptized as soon as they are willing
to give heed unto the word of the Lord? "Baptism a mere form?" Then,
why, when the Philippian jailor was told by Paul and Silas what he
"must do to be saved," was he baptized "immediately," "the same hour of
the night"? (Acts 16: 29-33). Will not the same gospel, if preached in
the same way, have the same effect to-day? "Baptism a mere form?" Then,
why is it said that "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were
baptized"? (Acts 18:8). Will not those who hear and believe in
sincerity to-day also be baptized? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is
it said by the Holy Spirit that Priscilla and Aquila expounded unto
Apollos "the way of God more accurately," after "he was mighty in the
scriptures" and "had been instructed in the way of the Lord," and
"taught accurately the things of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of
John"? (Acts 18:24-26). If the Lord was then concerned to have
preachers set right on water baptism, even when their gospel knowledge
was accurate in every other particular, does he not have a similar
concern now? and if our hearts are in perfect accord with his, will his
concern not be our concern? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was it
Paul's first concern, when he came to Ephesus, to set the brethren
right on water baptism, even though they were called "disciples," and
had already been baptized (immersed) once? (Acts 19: 1-7). This shows
that baptism is not a mere outward act, but is important because of its
relation to the Lord Jesus, an obedient heart, and to the Holy Spirit.
If the Lord, through the Apostle, directed these disciples to be
baptized a second time, when they found they were not Scripturally
baptized, are not these his directions for to-day also? and should not
his preachers show people the truth if they have not been Scripturally
baptized, and, if possible, induce them to obey the Scriptural baptism,
even when they thought they had been Scripturally baptized?
It is true that Paul said to the Corinthians, "I thank God that I
baptized none of you, 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. For
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:
14-17). In the words I have placed in italics, we are told why he was
glad he baptized only a few of them. It was lest they should be his
partisans, as they were divided on human leaders. We certainly dare not
so interpret the words, "for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to
preach the gospel," as to contradict the commission of Christ and all
the numerous clear Scriptures we have just quoted. He evidently meant
that he himself did not do the baptizing, but had others do that part
of the work, while he gave his time and strength to the preaching of
the gospel. The same was true of Jesus himself, as we learn from John
4:1, 2: "When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that
Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus
himself baptized not, but his disciples)." He baptized them and he
didn't baptize them. That is, he commanded them to be baptized and had
his disciples perform the act. So evidently with Paul. If he meant that
his converts were not to be baptized, then he would certainly not have
baptized any of them.
That Paul was zealous in seeing that all his converts were baptized, is
apparent from the cases already quoted, especially the baptism of the
Ephesians. For when he discovered that their baptism was not
Scriptural, he, first of all, insisted that they be baptized again. It
is further apparent from his teaching in his Epistles. In 1 Cor. 12:13
we read, "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body … and
were all made to drink of one Spirit." In Gal. 3:26, 27, we read, "For
ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of
you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." In Rom. 6:3, 4, we
read, "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him
through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the
dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness
of life." In Col. 2: 12, we have similar language, "having been buried
with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith
in the working of God, who also raised him from the dead." In Heb.
10:22, it is said, "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience: and having our body washed with pure water." After reading
these Scriptures, no one can doubt that Paul had all his converts
baptized, and believed in baptism just as strongly as Christ and Peter.
That Peter had the same opinion about baptism near the end of his life,
as at Pentecost, is evident from his words in I Pet. 3:21: "Which also
after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting
away the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience
toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
That to refuse to be baptized after knowing that Christ has commanded
it is to disobey him and to rebel against his authority, is clear from
the words of the Holy Spirit recorded in Luke 7: 29, 30: "And all the
people when they heard, and the publicans, justified God, being
baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers
rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him."
And yet, despite all these Scriptures, many pious saints are so blinded
by their prejudices and traditions, that instead of encouraging and
exhorting people to obey this command to be baptized, that is given to
test the soul's complete surrender to Christ, and is called the
"obedience of faith" or of the gospel, they encourage people to live in
disobedience to Christ by affirming that baptism is "a mere form" or
"non-essential." If subordinates in an army or earthly kingdom act thus
and use their influence to induce others to disobey the orders of those
over them, they are punished for treason. Any army that is thoroughly
united in the authority of its commander and cheerfully and promptly
obeys his orders, is usually successful; while the largest and best
army on earth would be doomed to defeat the moment its officers and men
would disobey orders and each do as he pleases, or as he thinks best.
The reason Christ's, army on earth to-day is weak and constantly
defeated and retreating is because his orders are disregarded and the
"think so's" and traditions of men are followed instead. Implicit
obedience to the few simple commands of Christ would at once unite all
his followers into one invincible army that would enable the world to
believe and know that he is the Christ of God (John 17:20, 23).
If anything is clear, it is that Christianity is a personal matter.
That each individual must meet and accept for himself the claims of
Christ. No one can be saved by proxy. No one can go to heaven because
of the faith, obedience or prayers of a parent, wife, husband, sister
or brother. This being true, as Christ has commanded every creature to
be baptized (Mark 15: 15, 16; Acts 2: 38, etc.), it is evident that
infant baptism is not valid. The parents cannot obey for the child,
however good their intentions. The child, when it reaches the age of
accountability, must face the commandments of Christ for itself, and
either deliberately obey or disobey and reject him. If infants remained
infants, they would do no harm in the church, even if they could do no
good. But they will grow into accountability and then the church is
full of unconverted people.
May we prayerfully do all in our power to hasten the day when all of
Christ's followers will forsake the traditions, in which men have
changed Christ's teaching on baptism, and will gloriously reunite in
his will on this command which is so clearly revealed in the New
Testament.