"He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved." [Mark 16:15, 16]
1. The
subjects. From what the Bible says of households, an effort has been made to
prove that infants are proper
subjects of this ordinance. But of the three household baptisms brought forward
to prove this we have evidence that two at
least were believing households:
for the jailor
"rejoiced, believing in
God with all his house"; and the household of Stephanas "addicted themselves to the ministry
of the saints." Acts 16:32, 34; [1 Corinthians 1:16; 16:15]
To prove that Lydia's household contained an infant we
should have to take four things for granted which
the Scripture is silent upon; that
she was a married woman; that she had at least one child; that it was an infant; that it was with her at
Philippi, and not at her home, which seems
to have been in Thyatira,
about 200 miles away. If a household may be spoken of as "believing."
although containing an
unbelieving infant, why may it not by the same license of speech be spoken of
as baptized," although
containing an unbaptized infant? Many things can be said of a family or
household to the exclusion
of its infants; as, when we speak of "family prayer," no one imagines
that the little infant in the
cradle engages in it.
"The man Elkanah and all his house" went to
Shiloh to offer sacrifice, but the infant of the
house
was left at home with its mother. [1
Samuel 1:21, 22] "All the city was moved, saying, who is this?" But although the city must have contained many households with infants, you would not
suppose that every one of them
stood up in its mother's lap and said,
"Who is this?" [Matthew
21:10] "He that comes to God must believe" [Hebrews 11:6], but
infants cannot come to him in
that sense, being not yet
capable of believing; and hence I think Jesus used the word “come” in its ordinary or
local sense of motion towards a person in whose
presence you may be standing, when he said
"Suffer the little children to come unto me." It is not said that he baptized them but took them up and
"blessed them." [Mark 10:16] It was towards the close of His ministry, and if he and John had for years been in the habit
of baptizing infants, would not the
disciples have rather encouraged than rebuked the parents for bringing their
children? Certainly, the officers
of a modern infant-sprinkling church would feel it their duty to encourage
them. If they had been
brought for baptizing, I think the Saviour would have said, "Carry them to
my disciples," instead of
"Suffer them to come unto me" for "Jesus
himself baptized not" His disciples did that. [John 4:2]
So, this
incident serves rather to refute than prove infant baptism. All Christians are
the children of Abraham
(his multitudinous "seed"), but the new principle on which they are
made his children, in the true
and gospel sense, is faith followed by baptism; not mere natural birth, for "they which are of faith, the same
are the children of Abraham. . . As many of you as have been baptized into the Messiah have put on the Messiah. …and if you be the Messiah's then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." [Galatians 3:7, 27, 29]
A Gentile infant is therefore neither a child of Abraham by
natural birth nor by the process of adoption just
described. If deceased infants are to be saved when the Lord conies, and I
truly hope they will;
if it be his good
pleasure, I say amen to it with all my heart. They will not be saved, however,
by a present exercise of faith, for they are
incapable of believing. If saved, then, I suppose it will be through the same abounding merits of the atonement, as the inanimate earth itself
will be regenerated,
and,
as it were, resurrected into eternal glory
and beauty. But the gospel and its ordinances are for those who have arrived at years of
accountability, which means ability to give account; and unless all such persons believe and obey that gospel, they
will have to suffer the penalties. If baptism is for infants, why not the Lord's supper also? Was not
that feast given for all the members of the called-out Assembly of God when
the Master said, "This do in remembrance
of me. . . Drink all you of
it"? The "all" means all the members, not the wine; accordingly, Mark says,
"They all drank of it." [Matthew
26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:19]
We have neither command nor example for infant sprinkling.
Indeed, the
commission forbids it by
requiring two kinds of teaching, one before and one after baptism, which would
of course be impracticable in
baptizing infants. Here is the language of the commission:
"Go you
therefore and teach ‘mathetueo’ all nations, baptizing them into ‘eis’ the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, teaching ‘didasko’ them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you." [Matthew 28:19, 20]
This commission is obeyed by none but those who give the
two kinds of instruction;
before baptism, the
gospel of the kingdom; and after baptism "all things" that pertain to
the duties of a Christian life. Matthew's
record is confirmed in Mark's, "He that believes and is baptized," not he
that is first baptized and afterwards
believes, if
he should live long enough.
And as the commands of Scripture are opposed to infant
sprinkling, so are its examples. It tells us
that
"both men and women" were baptized, not men,
women and infants. [Acts 8:12]
They were capable of
"confessing
their sins," which infants are not. [Matthew 3:12]
They
"gladly received the word" before baptism. [Acts 2:41]
"Many Corinthians hearing, believed, and were
baptized." [Acts 18:8]
Here are the three steps exactly expressed "after the
due order": (1st) hearing; (2nd) belief; (3rd) baptism.
And
Paul afterwards charged the same church to keep the ordinances "as"
he delivered them. [1
Corinthians 11:2] Uzzah, no doubt, meant well, but his act
was not "after the due order," and so
he was not excused for ignorance or sincerity, but smitten dead, which things
are "for our admonition."
[1 Chronicles 13:10; 15:2-15; 1 Corinthians 10:11] I hope I have now said enough on this branch of the subject to convince all
with whom Holy Scripture has more weight than human tradition.
2. The
nature of baptism. We prove baptism to be immersion by three lines of argument:
1st, The lexical definition of the Greek verb
baptizo; 2nd, The symbols under which it is illustrated; 3d,
The literal phrases used in describing the
act.
Greenfield's Lexicon says it means "to immerse, immerge,
submerge;"
Liddell and Scott's, "to dip under, to bathe." It is a significant
fact that although it occurs about
eighty times in the Greek New Testament the translators have not once dared to
render it "sprinkle" or
"pour." And in the Old Testament where the Greek version has ‘baptizo’ the translators have "dipped"; "Then went
he down and dipped ‘baptizo’ himself seven times in Jordan." [2 Kings 5:14] Though some talk as if pouring, dipping, and sprinkling were the
same in a ceremonial way, yet the Bible
carefully discriminates between them thus, "The priest shall take some of
the log of oil, and pour ‘eheo’ it into the palm of his own left hand.
And the priest shall dip ‘bapto’ his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand and shall
sprinkle ‘raino’ of the oil with his finger seven times
before Yehovah." [Leviticus
14:15, 16] Carson, renowned for his work on baptism,
says, "Some have alleged
that the termination ‘zo’ makes ‘baptizo’ a diminutive; but utterly without
countenance from the practice
of the language. Others have erred as far on the other side, and equally
without authority make ‘baptizo’ a frequentative. “But the symbols in which the act of baptism is
pictured to us gives it a fixedness of meaning by showing that it
cannot mean less than immersion, nor more than one immersion. Burial, resurrection, planting, and birth
are four symbols which teach immersion so plainly as to render comment nearly superfluous.
"We are buried with him by baptism." [Romans 4:4]
On land we bury a body by putting it under the ground, at
sea by putting it under the water; never by merely
sprinkling a few particles of dust or water upon it. The burial of a person is an open attestation to friends and foes that such an one is
dead to the life which was formerly
led. So, in
the baptismal burial we throw a great
mountain across the path we have come, leaving no
way
open for turning back or
" looking back" for we are determined henceforth to "press
forward." Thus, we
show to sinners whom
we leave, and to Christians whom we join that we are "dead to sin" “and dead to self,” and should not
"live any longer herein." Sin itself is personified to Christians as
an "old man " who has been "crucified, that henceforth we should
not serve sin" or be in
bondage to him; for when a master is dead his
servant no longer owes him any service. And this freedom is doubly secure for
not only is the master
dead to the servant, but the servant to the master, and "he (the servant)
that died is freed from sin"
or as Paul elsewhere says
"The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the
world." — [Romans
6:6, 7; Galatians 6:14]
Burial is a solemn thing; so also, is baptism; but instead
of the tears of sorrow at a grave we often see
tears
of joy at a baptism.
"Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
with Him." [Colossians
2:12] Rising "out
of the water" to walk in newness of life is a beautiful emblem of coming
forth from the grave at the resurrection to walk in endless life and
glory in the kingdom of God. As in baptism we
"wash
away" our sins and "put on the
Messiah,"
so "in the resurrection at the last day" we are freed from "this vile body" and are
"clothed upon” with the shining and spotless robe of immortality. As one
raised from the dead and exulting in all the joy of a blissful immortality will not desire
to return to the former
mortal fallible and suffering life, so neither should one raised from the
baptismal grave desire to return
to his former habits of worldliness and sin. By the baptismal act we show our
faith in the death, burial,
and resurrection of the Messiah, and in his power to raise us from the dead, for he says, "Because I live you shall live also." Will there be joy
unspeakable as the glorified redeemed clasp hands in the resurrection? I have witnessed what seemed
to me a foretaste of such joy when believers of the gospel of the kingdom have come up out of the
baptismal wave. Often have I beheld, on such occasions, an overflowing joy that could find no
expression but in tears. How impressive the solemn scene! People of the world are
encouraged to follow the holy example, and Christians reminded of the day of
their own espousals when they
went after the Saviour, as in the wilderness; and they are led to think of
their own solemn engagements, and
in what manner they have been fulfilled.
"Planted together in the likeness of His death." [Romans
6:5]
As a seed is covered up in
the
earth when planted in the ground, and afterwards springs forth to bloom and
blossom into beauty, fragrance
and fruitful ness, even so the believer is covered up in the baptismal wave,
and emerges "a new
creature," to "worship the Lord in the beauties of holiness," to
shed forth the fragrance of Christian
life, and, as a good tree, to become "filled with the fruits of
righteousness which are by Jesus the
Messiah,
unto the glory and praise of God."
"Born of water." [John 3:5] As
when born of the flesh we enter the world, so when believers of the gospel of the kingdom are born of water,
they enter the called-out
Assembly of God "as newborn babes "who afterwards " grow in grace and in the
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Messiah."
This is not the only
text in which natural birth is made a symbol of baptism, for the same is done
in calling it "the washing
of regeneration," i.e., of
the "new birth," (as ‘paliggenesia’ denotes); and in those texts which represent persons just baptized as
"new creations"
or "newborn babes." [Titus 3:5] In
the phrases "born of the
flesh" and born of water," the preposition is ek, which means
"out of," and is so translated in
Acts 8:39.
How then can a man be born of water without first being in the water? This
proves the necessity of immersion
too plainly to need further comment. It is not said "born of the Spirit and of water," but the water is put
first.
A believer is born of water at baptism, and afterwards born
of the Spirit when by the Spirit "his mortal body" is
quickened – made alive and
brought forth ("born from among the
dead") at the resurrection.
[Colossians 1:18; Romans 8:11] Such a body, though substantial, may be
called "spirit" as to
its nature, because it is no longer "a natural body" but "a spiritual
body" “physically"
partaking of the divine nature,' and
is fashioned like unto the glorious body of the risen Saviour who is called
"a quickening – life giving Spirit" [1 Corinthians 15:45] although he had a substantial and
tangible body in which could
be felt the prints of the nails that pierced his hands on the cross. Thus, the birth of
water at baptism and the birth of the Spirit at the
resurrection may be called
the great law of naturalization necessary to take place on a man before he can obtain
the immortal citizenship in the kingdom of God; a kingdom which flesh, and blood cannot
inherit. [1
Corinthians 15:50]
The literal terms used in describing the act of baptism
also prove it to be immersion. How can "having
our bodies washed with pure water" mean five drops of it sprinkled on the
crown of the head? [Hebrews
10:22] John baptized "in the river,"
and selected a particular place for it "because there was much water there." [Matthew
3:6; Mark 1:5; John 3:23] If John had offered his hearers their choice of three ways, occasionally [after
the modern fashion]
preaching a long tirade against immersion, think you that any of his
hearers would have been immersed? Would they not all have chosen sprinkling or pouring as more
convenient? And then we should never have read of their being "in the river." Such expressions
as "went down into the water," and "came up out of the
water," teach immersion
too plainly to need comment. [Mark 1:10; Acts 8:38, 39]
Some silly
critic has said that
"into the water" may mean only at or near by the water! How then
about Noah's going into the ark"; does this mean that he only got
at or near by it, and saw it float off leaving himself and family to perish in the flood? [Genesis 7:1] Daniel
was cast "into the den of lions"; does that mean that he only went at or near by it, to get a safe
view of them? [Daniel
6:16-18. Those who do His commandments will enter the
city," would that critic dare to tell us that they will only get at or near by it, so as to just faintly hear the
singing? [Revelation
22:14] Those
not found written in the book
of life will be "cast into the lake of fire," and does this mean only
at or near by it, so as to merely be
comfortably warm? It is the same preposition, ‘eis’, in the Greek of all these places. Has
that preposition strength enough to take one
into the consuming lake of fire but not enough to take him into the delightful waters of baptism? I hope I
will be excused for answering that silly critic as I have done, for it seems to me that his extremely absurd criticism deserves only
to be "fried in its own gravy," as the
saying is. In a careless manner some say that a drop of water is as good as an
ocean; but they would not
say so if they wanted to quench a parching thirst. Hagar and her son wandered
thirsty in the wilderness, and as she
laid him down to die, and turned away and wept, Yehovah showed her a whole well of water; one drop would not have
saved those two lives. As in the Lord's supper, there must be enough bread and wine to constitute eating
and drinking, so in baptism there must be at least enough water to cconstitute immersion. If immersion is right,
it ought not to be preached against, and if wrong it ought not to be practiced; but some
preachers do both, for after a long sermon against it they have gone to the water and immersed people!
There are two parties in the world: one claiming that either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion
is right; the other that immersion only is right. Thus, neither party
disputes the correctness of immersion. In all candor then, does not common prudence
commend immersion to you as the safest way?
3. The design of baptism. It is designed to change our
state or relationship, conducting a believer "into the name," ‘eis to onoma’, of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit. [Matthew 28:19.
The common version has elsewhere rendered ‘eis’, "into” with reference to this
ordinance, as "baptized into ‘eis’ one body," [1 Corinthians 12:13];
"baptized into ‘eis’ the Messiah," [Galatians 3:27]; "baptized into ‘eis’ His death," [Romans 6:3]
Bullion's Greek grammar says that ‘eis’ is used to
express
motion from without to within; and that ‘en’ is used with the idea of rest or being
contained within. You were
standing without but walked into the house and were seated in the house. After
Noah went "into ‘eis’ the ark;" he was said to be "in
‘en’ the ark" and all perished except
those in the ark. [Genesis 7:7, 23] After one believes the gospel of the
kingdom and is "baptized into the
Messiah"
he is declared to be in "the Messiah; "and "if any man
be in the Messiah, he is
a new creation."
And as all in the ark were
safe, so all in the Messiah are safe, provided they hold fast faithfully; for "there is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in the Messiah Jesus, who walk not after the
flesh but after the Spirit." [Galatians
5:27, 28; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 8:1]
Suppose as Noah was entering the ark, some strong swimmer had said, "I'm just as
good as some of that family; Noah is too exclusive and uncharitable in saying that nobody but he
and those with him in the ark will be saved; I'll take my chances outside;" would such a course
have saved that swimmer? No, nor will it save the modern scoffer who says he is as good as some in
the called-out Assembly of
God,
refuses to be baptized into the
Messiah,
and trusts to his self-righteousness
as the swimmer did to his own strength. I have spoken of a change of state or relationship. This is more than a mere
change of the feelings. Let me illustrate this fact.
Suppose two young
ladies, on a very slight acquaintance with a young gentleman, have a strong
aversion to him; but afterwards,
on a warm aacquaintance, they
both change their minds to such an extent as to cherish profound respect and affection for him;
and shortly after, one of them, by the ceremony of marriage becomes his wife. They both changed their
feelings, but only one changed her relationship to him. Two English gentlemen may be great
enemies of this government and its principles: but afterwards change their minds, and become
great lovers of it, insomuch that one of them, by submitting to the ceremony of naturalization, becomes
an American citizen. Though both changed their feelings, only one changed his relationship towards
this government, the other remained an alien still. So, the sinner may change his feelings concerning
religion, and may very much admire and love the Christian life, but still remains an alien until he dies to self and submits to the ceremonial of
being "baptized into the
Messiah."
In the act of baptism, the believer passes from a
state of condemnation to a state of pardon, which implies the remission of his sins that are past, and
his becoming "a new creation."
Hence baptism is expressly declared
to be "for the REMISSION of sins;" and Paul was told to "be
baptized and wash away his sins."
If Paul, as the language implies, did not get rid of his past sins until baptism
why think to get rid of
yours before baptism? [Acts 2:38; 22:16] "For the remission of your
sins" does not mean "because
your sins are remitted," any more than a man would take medicine for a
sickness because he was
already well of it. When Naaman had the leprosy, a type of sin, did he baptize
himself in Jordan for the
cure of it because he was already cured, or did he get cured in the act? Certainly, in the act of dipping.
4. The importance of baptism. The fact that it is for the
remission of sins proves it essential, for you
must admit that we cannot be saved without that remission. The same phrase
which denotes the object
of baptism denotes the object for
which the precious blood of the
Messiah
was shed "for the remission of
sins," ‘eis
aphesin hamartiōn’.
While this proves the importance of baptism, it does not show any conflict, but only a cooperation between
the blood and the water in the means of salvation. It is the blood which gives efficacy to the water by
divine appointment. "Baptism doth now save us by the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah," which includes the
shedding of His BLOOD on the cross. [1 Peter 3:21]
The breaking of a straw would have answered in the place of
immersion if the Lord had so appointed it. Baptism,
important as it is, will not save you without dying to self, faith, repentance, and
holiness of life; nor would all
these combined save you but for the atoning blood of the Messiah, for "without shedding
of blood is no remission." [Hebrews 9:22] Thus every truth, every duty and every
instrumentality has its proper place in the
plan of redemption. It is no valid objection to say that what I have said about
baptism makes the salvation
of one person depend upon the willingness of another to baptize him, for if an
instance could occur in which it would
be impossible to get any one to baptize him, I am sure that a believer would be saved, because God looks on the heat. Besides,
on the same principle, it might be objected that faith makes a man's salvation depend on some one
else, for "faith comes by
hearing," and "how can they hear
without a preacher?” [Romans
10:14, 17; Hebrews 11:6]
Refusing to be baptized is rejecting the ccommand of God, like some wicked ones
of old, and of course no one can be saved who rejects what God commands to be done. [Luke 7:30; Proverbs 1:24-33] Its being a divine command is enough to
prove it essential.
Cornelius, though "a devout man, and one that feared
God with all his house, which gave much aim? To
the
people, and prayed to God always," was "warned from God" to send
for Peter and hear words whereby
he might "be saved" And when Peter came, he did not excuse that
devout man from baptism, even
though he had already received the Spirit; how then can you expect to be excused?
Acts 10 and 11:6] Since it was necessary for Cornelius and even for the pure and spotless Lamb of God
to go down into the baptismal waters and come up, all dripping, from the waves, it would be
utterly preposterous to say that it is not necessary for people in these days. The fate of many
people was once decided by their dropping a letter in pronouncing a word. Let this warn us not
to call baptism a small matter. [Judges
12:6] "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter the kingdom of God." [John 3:5] Can
we need a plainer or more solemn
assurance of its importance?
Why is the birth of Spirit essential to an entrance into the kingdom? Because God has ordained
it so. And why is the birth of water also essential? For the same sovereign reason. "Even so,
Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."
The mere possibility that the ceremony which you do not
remember, and which was performed on you
in infancy, was no baptism, ought to alarm you. It is said, I know not how
truly, that on that fearful
night in Egypt when the firstborn was slain in every house which had no blood
on the doorpost, a
little girl, the firstborn of the family, was sick; and in her fever she
thought that perhaps the blood was not on
the doorpost. So, she asked her father if he was sure it was there; and her
father said "Yes, he was sure,
for he had ordered it to be done." But as it wore on towards the solemn
hour of midnight, and her fever
grew no better but rather worse, she said, "Father, take me up in your
arms and carry me to the door,
and let me see the blood." And so, the
father took her up and carried her to the door; and lo and behold! the blood was not there;
the man to whom he had given instructions had forgotten to do it! And then the father, in the sight of
his daughter, had the blood put upon the doorpost; and she laid down quiet and contented. Can you be
satisfied until you have SEEN your baptism? Those who think having been
sprinkled in infancy is enough ought to remember that under the Mosaic law
grown persons who had been both circumcised and
sprinkled were required to "bathe in water" and for neglecting
it a man had to "bear his iniquity." [Leviticus 17:15, 16; Numbers 19:7, 8, 19. Of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought
worthy who neglects the immersion which
the Messiah has commanded.
Note: The
gospel ordinances were not fully established in place of the Mosaic before the death and resurrection of the Messiah. "He takes away the first that he may establish the second." [Hebrews 10:9]
Beware of undervaluing bodily acts. Was it not a bodily act when Eve reached forth her hand and plucked and ate of the
forbidden fruit, and so brought death into the world, and all our woe? Was it not a bodily act when the Messiah, the spotless Lamb of God,
was nailed to the cross and his body
pierced for our sins? Was it not a bodily act when he arose from the dead, without which our faith would be vain? [1 Corinthians 15:17] And will not our final redemption be a
bodily act; ''waiting for
the adoption, to-wit : the redemption of our body"? [Romans 8:23; Philippians 3:21]. How infinitely more delightful to go down into the
baptismal waters and come out again, than to be cast into the lake of fire and be consumed into ashes! [Malachi 4:3];
Revelation 20:15] Oh, can you hesitate which to choose?
[From "Songs of Zion." By Wiley Jones.]
Saviour thy law we love,
Thy pure example plead.
And faith sincere, by works we prove
When in thy steps we tread.
Beneath the sacred wave
The Lord of life was laid.
And He who came to bless and save,
Did not this path evade.
He taught the solemn way.
He fixed the holy rite.
He bade us that command obey,
And keep the path of light.
May every action show
One
reverence
for thy word.
And thus, the world around shall know
We love and serve the Lord.
No comments:
Post a Comment