When the plain teaching of the New Testament is presented, all sorts of difficulties
arise in the minds of people, and these are suggested by the character of their
environment and training. Paul's teaching on unity and the oneness of the church is
shocking to one who has been taught that "one church is as good as another" and that
church membership should be considered merely a matter of preference.
Winds of doctrine blow about the world in currents directed "by the
sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error," (Eph. 4:14 ASV), and
even the taught must beware of them. A man must be rooted and established in the
faith to resist them. Delightful people, cultured in general ways, can accept the
most absurd delusions in religion. The sudden light of truth has a dazing effect on
some of them, and when they ask questions they often betray an almost unbelievable
ignorance of the simplest facts of truth.
Such questions, however, often furnish a cue to the gospel preacher and
enable him to remove popular difficulties that discourage obedience to God. The
problems of religion are not to be settled by human experience or a resort to human
reason, but by revelation. A lack of confidence in the word of God and a tendency to
substitute "I think so" for "God says so" keeps the seal of Satan freshened up on
many a soul.
It is a great help to a preacher to know what people are thinking about. If
they become interested enough to ask questions, he readily finds out. In a recent
meeting, two very intelligent and cultured young women jointly submitted some
questions. It is true that the questions do not reveal much familiarity with the New
Testament teaching, but, then, be it remembered that some rather brilliant men in
Athens called Paul "this babbler" and mocked at his teaching on the subject of the
resurrection (Acts 17:16-32). Such questions from such a source only emphasize
the importance of sticking to "first principles." It is safe to assume that few, even
of the educated, know much about the gospel. I here submit some of the questions with
some suggestions and answers:
- "What church lets babies 'join' the church?" Catholics, Methodists, and
Presbyterians are among popular bodies in this country who practice so-called "infant
church membership." The New Testament teaches only believer's baptism. The command of
Jesus was to teach them and baptize those who accepted the teaching (Matt. 28:19-
20; Mk. 16:15-16). So it is said that "many of the Corinthians hearing
believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18:8). "But when they believed Phillip preaching
the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were
baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12).
There is no command or example in the New Testament even pointing in the
direction of infant baptism. The modern practice of sprinkling water on infants is
wrong on two counts. The act is wrong because baptism in the New Testament is
immersion, and the infant is not a proper subject. He is incapable of faith and needs
no repentance, for he is not responsible, not a sinner.
The origin of the practice is interesting. Baptism was originally for the
remission of sins and was so considered after the heresy of total hereditary
depravity took root in religious thinking. It was thought that the depraved little
fellows needed baptism to keep them from going to torment. The modern practice is
just a hang-over from this ancient superstition. It is utterly without scriptural
warrant. It is tragic that thousands of devout people seem willing to accept
something done to them when they were babes in arms as a substitute for their
personal obedience to God. Baptism is a command of God to be obeyed from a believing
and trusting heart.
- "Where is the Scripture (or Scriptures) that says Christ was buried in
baptism?" (One says He came 'up out of the water.') What proof can you give that the
application of water in any form can help the soul? Is baptism the main point, or is
it the salvation of the soul?"
The question betrays a too common aversion toward immersion as baptism, or
that baptism can possibly be a condition of remission of sins. The New Testament
clearly teaches both. The fact that the term "buried" is not used in connection with
the baptism of Jesus extends no assurance to the effusionist.
It is said that Jesus "was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway
coming up out of the water..." (Mk. 1:9-10). The marginal reading is into
the Jordan. The term "baptized" as used by Mark certainly signifies that Jesus was
immersed. An appeal to any standard Greek-English dictionary shows this. It was Paul
who referred to the baptism of himself and those to whom he wrote as a burial.
"Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death..." (Rom. 6:4). John
Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, said that this referred to "the ancient
custom of baptizing by immersion." The word itself and all the circumstances of its
observance point infallibly to the specific act of immersion.
Sprinkling and pouring for baptism did not arise out of any scriptural
demands. By a process of reasoning, the conclusion was reached that baptism could not
"help the soul," that it was a non-essential and that changing the form of its
administration could do no harm. Scriptural baptism demands immersion. The authority
for sprinkling and pouring is definitely and solely human. Jesus did not
command, nor did the apostles practice anything of the kind. The Lord commanded
immersion. Men authorize something else or nothing. Better obey the Lord.
The salvation of the soul is certainly the main point. Jesus died "for
our sins." He is the Great Physician and certainly knows what the soul needs. His
prescription is found in the New Testament. What does a man know about the
soul and what it needs? To rely on human wisdom or reasoning will prove fatal. How do
we know that faith can "help the soul" apart from what the Lord says about it?
The Lord says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." (Mk.
16:16). People on Pentecost who cried out what to do were told to repent and be
baptized for remission of sins (Acts 2:38). They would not have received
remission of sins had they reasoned that baptism could not "help the soul" and
refused to obey the Lord. He is Lord and has authority to specify conditions upon
which He can and is willing to pardon sinners.
A man who refuses to obey is a rebel, whatever his reasons may be.
Naaman did not understand how water could help leprosy, but he had to dip in Jordan
to be healed (2 Ki. 5). The Israelites might not have understood how marching
around the walls of Jericho could cause the walls to fall down (Josh. 6). They
fell down by faith (Heb. 11:30). Faith in God leads to obedience.
Obedience consists of doing what the Lord says. He commands baptism and promises
forgiveness. We have no proof whatever "that the application of water in any form can
help the soul" of an unbeliever. When his trusting, penitent heart leads a man to be
baptized, he is baptized into Christ Jesus, into His death (Rom. 6:3-4). It
certainly helps the soul to come into Christ. There is no proof that a man can come
into Christ without being baptized.
|