|
|
|
Simon the sorcerer amazed the people of Samaria by his magic (Acts 8). They thought he
was, "that power of God which is called Great." When these same people saw Philip, a man
of God, perform real miracles, sorcery was revealed to be a cheap, deceptive thing. In its very
nature, magic is deceptive. It deceives the eye and confuses the senses. The skilled magician
who removes rabbits from hats, saws live bodies in twain, and makes elephants disappear may
amuse and startle an intelligent audience by playing tricks on the senses.
It is a more serious form of magic when a skilled sophist in the field of religion plays tricks on the understanding of seekers after the truth, and so manipulates the texts of Scripture as to conceal their real meaning or make them support doctrines never intended by their author. These tricks of Satan are employed to get and keep the Truth of God out of the hearts of the people. But there is one "white elephant" in religion the doctors of this sort of magic have failed to make disappear. In spite of all their skill, he stands stubbornly in the text and trumpets defiance at them. I refer to the plain texts that clearly make baptism a condition of remission of sins. No amount of magic can alter their obvious meaning. Dr. W. Bassett tries his hand at making the elephant disappear in a recent issue of the Alabama Baptist. He approaches the problem with magic smoothness by suggesting that baptism is important and should be properly emphasized, and that Paul did not depreciate baptism when he said that Christ sent him not to baptize, but put "the emphasis where it belongs." It will then be in order to note where the Baptist doctor puts the emphasis and where Paul says "it belongs." Here are some of the doctor's "several points of emphasis concerning a New Testament baptism":
Not only does baptism imply faith and repentance, but they imply baptism so directly that it is hard to conceive that one can be a believing penitent and refuse to be baptized. To refuse baptism is to reject the counsel of God, to assume a state of rebellion which cannot be harmonized with faith and repentance. "...they that gladly received his word were baptized..." (Acts 2:41). The unbaptized were the ones who rejected the Word of God. There are no cases of deferred baptism in the New Testament. The "emphasis" that inspired preachers "placed" on baptism led believers to be baptized not only "the same hour of the day," but "immediately," which sometimes made it the same hour of the night. These facts lead some of us to believe that Baptists are guilty of placing less emphasis on baptism than did the preachers in the early church, which was never called the Baptist Church. Both the Baptist Church and Baptist doctrines are developments far this side of the New Testament. We are told that baptism "had a certain emphasis in the New Testament." We agree that it should have exactly the same emphasis today in the preaching and practice of Christians — no more and no less. Certainly those "who would give it a minor place or do away with it altogether" are in grave error. As we view the situation, Baptists are wide open for criticism here. They give it a minor place, compared with the place it occupies in the New Testament teaching, and wink at those who "do away with it altogether" by admitting and even insisting that many people are saved believers in Christ who have done that very thing. Although Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," (Mk. 16:16), Baptists affirm that, "He that believeth" is saved even if he does away with baptism "altogether." They evidently think that Jesus "would place too much emphasis on it and claim that it is necessary to salvation." We stand with Jesus and place the exact emphasis on it that He did. Baptists are wrong, because they differ from Jesus. They say, "He that believeth and is saved is expected to be baptized." Anybody can see that Jesus did not say that at all. No amount of magic can harmonize the two statements. As smooth as our theological magician is, he comes closer than close to misrepresenting some of us who "claim that it is necessary to salvation." In his eye we are "externalists" who attribute "saving efficacy" to "an outward picture of an inward change." Or possibly he has the Catholics in mind, who make baptism a "sacrament" and ascribe efficacy to the mere act. Both the Baptists and Catholics are wrong — extremists in opposite directions. We propose to take neither extreme, but place the "certain emphasis" on baptism it receives in New Testament teaching. There is no "saving efficacy" in any act of man, whether it be faith, repentance, or baptism. We associate "saving efficacy" with God and not man. The term brings to mind the grace of God, the blood of Jesus, and the power of the gospel. What man does by the appointment of God as a condition of pardon belongs to faith, which is man's means of access into God's grace. Pardoning power belongs to God. He can justly exercise it in view of the redemption purchased by the blood of Jesus, and has the right to name the conditions. He has named baptism as one of them. "It is necessary to salvation" solely because God has made it so. The man who does not have enough faith to be baptized does not have enough to be saved. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" (Rom. 6:3). We wonder if Baptist doctors think a man can be saved out of Christ and apart from His death? They do not seem to give baptism that "certain emphasis" that Paul did. We accept the fact that there are inward changes which take place in man accomplished by the power of God exercised through the gospel. Such changes are necessary to scriptural baptism and result in it. Pardon is an act of God in the sinner's behalf, and does not take place in man at all. Baptism is a command of God, an act of faith on the part of man, partakes of the nature of faith, and is meaningless without faith. It is obedience of faith. To refer to it as an external with or without saving efficacy is to miss the point of New Testament teaching. Baptists are true "externalists" on the question of baptism. Their teaching is external in relation to what the New Testament teaches about its significance. They even have to invent strange and unscriptural language to express their point of view. The elephant refuses to disappear. He is immune to magic. When the magicians have done their utmost, it still remains true that Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, directed inquiring multitudes on Pentecost to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. When men believe and do what God says, He pardons them. It is as simple as that. Pardon makes the believer a child of God. God declares that the believer is pardoned when he is baptized. The saved believer is the baptized believer. So the New Testament teaches. |