“Baptism and Remission.”
by
James W. Willmarth
Originally published in
The Baptist Quarterly
(July, 1877): 296-321
Reprint ed.; Introduction by
J. W. Shepherd;
Electronic edition prepared July 23, 2005
by
202 W. Commerce
Send corrections to rockywhitely@hotmail.com.
Note: Greek characters in Symbol font/all diacritical marks removed
Additional
note by
James W. Willmarth’s article is very relevant regarding forgiveness as the purpose of baptism according to Acts 2:38. However, Mr. Willmarth reverted to his Baptist/Calvinistic doctrine in the last three pages of the article. The power of our salvation is the blood shed by Jesus. The divine “When” of salvation, that is, when I benefit from the death of Jesus is my immersion, that time when my faith in Jesus takes me in to the water. In each of the following Scriptures, God says that the blessings of salvation come after one’s faith obeys in baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-11; Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21). If one obeys God in baptism, he receives much more than the assurance that he has been forgiven; he receives forgiveness. If one chooses not obey God in baptism, then his judgment is in God’s hands.
INTRODUCTION.
By J. W. Shepherd.
James W. Willmarth, the author of
the following pages, was born of American parents in
When preparing
my “Handbook on Baptism,” I wrote a letter to George D. Boardman,
“Roxborough,
“Dear Sir: Yours to Dr. Boardman was sent by him to Mr. Henry E. Lincoln, and by him referred to me. I have been the pastor of the following Baptist churches:
Metamora,
Woodford County, Ill.; Amenia, N. Y.; Wakefield, Mass.; Pemberton, N. J., eight
and one-half years; Roxborough, Philadelphia, since April 1, 1878 (nearly
fifteen years), where I still am. I was editor of the Advanced Quarterly
and other publications on the International Sunday School Lessons of the
American Baptist Publication Society in 1882-1883…. Have been moderator of the
West New Jersey and of the Philadelphia Associations, of the
These positions
of distinction and honor show that he was held in high esteem by the Baptists,
not only in
As to Mr.
Willmarth’s standing among the Baptists, William Cathcart in his voluminous
Baptist Encyclopedia, published in
He is a writer of great power, and he uses a prolific pen. His articles on ‘The Future Life’ and ‘Baptism and Remission,’ in the Baptist Quarterly, showed much originality, and produced a profound impression upon cultured men of God.
“No one stands higher in the estimation of his friends, and all that know him may be reckoned among that number. His position on any subject is very decided; he knows nothing of half-heartedness; his thoughts are as transparent as a sunbeam. He shuns no responsibility in defending any truth; he avoids no sacrifice in assisting a friend. He is an able preacher, with a noble intellect, ardent piety, and a bright earthly future, if his slender frame will permit him to stay on earth a few years.” (Page 1256.)
Since he has received such encomiums from his learned brethren who know him best, and is now old and decrepit and stands on the brink of the eternal world, It is exceedingly unkind—yea, cruel—for those moved by a partisan spirit to try to break the force of his logical and masterly presentation of the scriptural teaching so the relation of baptism to the remission of sins by trying to make it appear that he has never been esteemed by his own brethren.
The article as here given was set directly from the Baptist Quarterly of July, 1877, and is verbatim in every respect. Even the pages are numbered the same as they are in the quarterly. I own the original, which can be examined by any one who calls in question the accuracy of this reprint.
BAPTISM AND REMISSION.
By Baptism is meant the immersion in water of a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. By Remission is meant the forgiveness of sins, necessarily connected with the favor of God and the gift of Eternal Life.
There are several passages in the New Testament which assume or teach a connection or relation between Baptism and Remission. Perhaps the most important and striking example is to be found in Acts ii. 38: Repent and be each one of you baptized upon [not “in,” but epi, “upon”][1] the name of Jesus Christ for [eiV] remission of sins. The relation, whatever it is, is here expressed by the preposition eiV. A careful examination of the meaning of eiV is therefore the first step to be taken.
Meaning of EiV.
EiV belongs to a group of three related Greek prepositions, a comparative view of which will be advantageous.
EN signifies in the space within. General English equivalent In.
EK or EX signifies out of the space within. General English equivalent, From.
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
297 |
EIS signifies into the space within. General English equivalent, Into.[2]
The
conception common to them all is that of a space (literal or metaphorical)
defined by limits. The state of being within it is expressed by en. Motion from the within into the without by motion from the without
into the within by ek. “The prepositions,” remarks
It does not, indeed, follow that we can always translate a Greek preposition by a uniform English equivalent. The reason is, not that the preposition has changed its radical signification, but that the thoughts and conceptions of men, in different ages and countries, run in different channels, are cast in different molds. Consequently arise peculiar forms of speech and use of words, which we call idioms. Sometimes patient thought is required to ascertain what exact form of conception is expressed by the use of a Greek preposition; but when ascertained, we find that the preposition is used in harmony, strictly so, with its distinctive meaning. We may be obliged to translate it by an English preposition of different meaning, or to alter essentially the form of expression, in order to bring out the meaning of the whole sentence in our idiom. But it remains true that the Greek preposition retains its radical signification; and that the Greek idiom, in which it is used in harmony with that signification, is capable of being reproduced in English by a paraphrase. These observations are made to settle, in the outset, the right mode of dealing with Greek prepositions. They are fixed, not variable
|
298 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
quantities. They are blocks of granite, not masses of soapstone which we may hew into any shape supposed to be required by exegetic or dogmatic necessity.[5]
The radical signification of eiV is into the space within. It is used to express motion or movement from without, terminating and resting within and also, naturally, to express simple tendency towards, but towards the within, although the motion may be arrested. It is used of place, primarily; then, by analogy, of time, number, purpose, result, etc.; but always with the idea of motion or tendency, literal or figurative, from without to within. E.g., of reaching a number, or point of time; of entering into a relation or condition; of the direction of the mind or of discourse towards an object of thought. Its general English equivalent is, into. But unto, in, order to, for, until, and other English prepositions, translate it better in certain cases, owing to difference of idiom.[6]
EiV is often used to denote the purpose of actions. In this case the conception is that the act or acts move towards a certain result
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
299 |
in which they terminate or are intended to terminate. And as this “movement” is purposed and willed by the actor, whether the end in view is actually reached or not, eiV expresses the purpose of actions, or the motive by which men are moved to act, or from which they are urged or exhorted by others to act.
EiV in Matthew xxvi. 28.
A remarkable example of the use of eiV to denote the purpose of actions, and that, too, in connection with the Remission of sins, occurs in Matt. xxvi. 28. Instituting the Holy Communion, our Lord said, in giving the cup to his disciples, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for [peri, in behalf of] many, for [eiV, in order to] remission of sins. EiV here expresses the purpose, not of the Jews in murdering our Saviour, but of Jesus himself, in “laying down his life.” He “gave his life a ransom for many.”[7] The Remission of sins was the end toward which his action was directed, so far as this statement is concerned. In that end the act terminated, the purpose was accomplished.[8]
In what sense Remission is procured by the shedding of the Blood is not determined by the word eiV. That marks the motive or purpose in the mind of Christ and of God. Other Scriptural statements leave us in no doubt on this point. The Blood of Christ (or his Atonement, which is the same thing) furnishes the ground or reason on account of which God can and does forgive sinners in righteous-
|
300 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
ness.[9]
With one accord the
No difference of opinion as to the meaning of eiV in this passage exists, so far as we know, among believing men.
Meaning of EiV in Acts ii. 38.
With this example in mind let us examine Acts ii. 38. Peter had just been charging home upon the consciences of his Jewish hearers the enormous guilt which they had incurred by rejecting and murdering the Lord Jesus. The Holy Spirit, in his converting power, accompanied the word. Very many, pricked in their heart, or more properly, pierced to the heart, cried out: Men and brethren, what shall we do? Peter, answering these perishing and self-condemned sinners, replied: Repent and be each one of you baptized upon the name of Jesus. Christ for (eiV) remission of sins.
What is the force of eiV here?
First. These words are Peter’s answer to unsaved, but awakened sinners, forced by pungent conviction of guilt and danger to ask, What shall we do? i.e., of course, do in order to secure forgiveness of their great sin. It is natural to suppose that Peter told them what to do in order to secure that end. And he uses the very same phrase used in Matt. xxvi. 28: eiV afesin amartiwn, unto remission of sins. Is it possible to doubt that is eiVhere marks the relation of certain actions to the end sought and purposed, namely the Remission of sins?
Second. Note carefully Peter’s directions in detail, embracing as they do, three things. In the order of his statement these are—(a) Repentance, (b) Immersion, (c) Faith in the Lord Jesus. For this last is necessarily implied in the phrase upon (epi) the name of Jesus Christ. Here is expressed the ground or foundation upon which they were to act in being baptized, viz.: the name, i.e., the revealed character and work of Jesus Christ. In other words they were to be baptized in the exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus.[10] Hence it follows that they must believe before being baptized. Therefore in the order of logic and of time,[11] these three things would stand thus: (a) Repentance, (b) Faith, (c) Immersion.
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
301 |
Third. EiV here marks the relation of Baptism to the Remission of sins, but not of Baptism alone. The people cried out, What shall we do? Peter replies, in substance, Repent, believe and be baptized—all three things—eiV afesin amartiwn—unto remission of sins—their sins, of course.
Fourth. The meaning of eiV in Matt. xxvi. 28, beyond all question is in order to. Christ shed his blood in order to the remission of the sins of others—“the many.” What but in order to can it possibly mean here? In order to the remission of sins—their own sins? In answer to earnest inquiry Peter points out a course of action which will tend towards, and result in, the forgiveness which they desire; he directs them to take that course for that purpose. He assures them of other blessings besides remission, if they obey; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (vs. 38). He encourages them to obedience by precious promises (vs. 39), and solemnly warns them of the peril of disobedience (vs. 40). Three thousand gladly received his word, were baptized, were added to the church, and rejoiced in the assurance of forgiveness and the hope of eternal life. Everything unites to render a mistake as to the force of eiV almost impossible. Everything compels us to assign to it its obvious, natural, distinctive meaning, as used to denote the purpose of actions. It here marks the purpose for which, the object in order to which, the inquirers of Pentecost were to repent, believe and be baptized.
In this view we are supported by Dr. Hackett, in his unrivaled Commentary on the Acts. He translates the phrase in question, in order to the forgiveness of sins. He refers to Matt. xxvi. 28 (blood... shed for remission) and also to Luke iii. 3 (the baptism of repentance for [eiV] remission) as passages illustrating the meaning and construction here. He adds: “We connect naturally”—the words eiV afesin amartiwn—“with both the preceding verbs [metanohsate, repent, and baptisqhtw, be baptized.] This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, and not one part of it to the exclusion of the other.” He mentions no other interpretation as possible.
Dr. Hackett’s interpretation was nothing new among Baptists. Dr. Henry J. Ripley, a very cautious and conservative commentator, gives a similar explanation, of the passage in his “Notes on the Acts.” But his remarks are too extended and diffuse to be quoted here.[12]
But here, as in Matt. xxvi. 28, eiV does not determine in what
|
302 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
[13]sense or upon what principle the action or actions named procure or secure Remission. It only shows that such action or actions were performed or commanded in order to, for the purpose of reaching, the desired result, namely, Remission.
That this is the obvious and natural meaning we think no scholar will question. That the best authorities concur in holding that it actually is the meaning, is also true as far as we have been able to consult them. But there is an explanation of eiV in this passage, current in oral and newspaper polemics, which it is necessary to notice. Connected with the idea of symbolizing Remission or with the shadowy concept of an “immersion into a profession of remission,”[14] it makes eiV here equivalent to on account of, and represents Peter as meaning: Be baptized... [not in order to, but] on account of remission of sins. That is, because your sins have been remitted. To this view there are insuperable objections.
First. It puts an unauthorized sense upon the preposition eiV. “On account of” is not one of the recognized meanings of eiV. No Greek would have employed the phrase here used to express the idea of on account of an [accomplished] remission. Another preposition would have been used, dia, or peri, for example. If eiV were followed by some word signifying profession or declaration, then we might translate: in order to the profession or declaration of remission. When Paul wished to convey an idea very similar he did not say eiV dikaiosunhn autou but he used words enough to express what he meant
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
303 |
—eiV endeixin thV dikaiosunhV autou, in order to the exhibition of his righteousness.[15] If Peter had meant in order to declare or profess remission, he would have said so. As he did not, what right have we to insert here a word or an idea of which there is not the slightest trace in his language? It is true that eiV is sometimes equivalent to “with reference to”; but even then it would here mean the reference of purpose or aim. “In order to declare [or symbolize]” would be a monstrous translation of eiV; and if it ever means “with reference to” in the sense of a retrospective and commemorative reference to a past event, we have failed to find an example.
Second. This interpretation compels us either to do violence to the construction, or to throw the argument or course of thought in the context into complete confusion. Indeed we can hardly escape the latter alternative, even if we choose the former.
(a) For those who contend for the interpretation “on account of remission,” will hardly be willing to admit that Peter said “repent” as well as “be baptized on account of remission of sins.” This is too great an inversion of natural sequence. Yet to escape it we must violently dissever “repent” and “be baptized,” and deny that eiV expresses the relation of metanohsate as well as of baptisqhtw to afesin amartiwn. But the natural construction connects the latter with both the preceding verbs. It “enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other,” as Hackett says.
(b) If we shrink from this violence to the construction, what becomes of the context? Peter is directing inquiring sinners. They ask “What shall we do?” i.e., in order to be forgiven. He replies by telling them to repent and to be baptized [believing] upon the name of Jesus Christ, not in order to reach pardon, the desired result: but to do all these things, to exercise Repentance and Faith (inward acts of the mind) as well as to be baptized, in order to signify or declare that their sins were already forgiven! He directs unconverted men to repent, believe and be baptized, not in order to be forgiven, but to set forth by this whole process, mental and physical, and to profess by it, a remission which had not taken place! This only needs to be stated to show its naked absurdity.
(c) And if we recoil from this we shall yet not wholly escape it by preferring the alternative of doing violence to the construction. For (1) Peter did not tell his hearers to repent and believe in order to
|
304 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
Remission, and then to signify or declare Remission in Baptism, but (on this hypothesis) he told them to repent without any statement whatever as to the purpose or result, and also directed them to “be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ” in order to profess the remission they were seeking! And (2) Faith in Christ, the very central part of Gospel obedience, being here indissolubly linked with Baptism, Peter directed terrified sinners to declare, as an accomplished fact, the very Remission which they had not received, but were at that moment seeking; and to declare this, too, by Believing, as well as by Baptism!
Third. This interpretation was doubtless suggested, and is now defended, on purely dogmatic grounds. It is feared that if we give to eiV its natural and obvious meaning, undue importance will be ascribed to Baptism, the Atonement will, be undervalued, and the work of the Holy Spirit disparaged. Especially is it asserted that here is the vital issue between Baptists and Campbellites.[16] We are gravely told that if we render eiV in Acts ii. 38 in order to, we give up the battle, and must forthwith become Campbellites; whereas if we translate it on account of, or in token of, it will yet be possible for us to remain Baptists.
Such methods of interpretation are unworthy of Christian scholars. It is our business, simply and honestly, to ascertain the exact meaning of the inspired originals, as the sacred penmen intended to convey it to the mind of the contemporary reader. Away with the question—”What ought Peter to have said in the interest of orthodoxy?” The real question is, “What did Peter say, and what did he mean, when he spoke on the Day of Pentecost, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?”
But having entered this caveat, as a lawyer might say, it may do no harm to show that dogmatic dangers here exist only in imagination. The natural and obvious interpretation cannot give undue importance to Baptism, for Baptism is here united with Repentance and Faith. It cannot undervalue the Atonement, for the Baptism is one resting upon, and deriving all its value from, the name of the Lamb of God; and this is distinctly understood by the person baptized, who submits to the rite as a believer in that name. It cannot disparage the work of the Spirit, since he alone effectually calls men to Repentance and Faith; and it is by (Greek en, in, within the influence of) one Spirit that we were all baptized into one body, i.e.,
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
305 |
the Spirit leads the penitent believer to Baptism and blesses the rite.[17] And as to Campbellism, that spectre which haunts many good men and terrifies them into a good deal of bad interpretation, shall we gain anything by maintaining a false translation and allowing the Campbellites to be champions of the true, with the world’s scholarship on their side, as against us? Whoever carries the weight of our controversy with the Campbellites upon the eiV will break through—there is no footing there for the evolutions of the theological skater. Shall we never learn that Truth has nothing to fear from a true interpretation of any part of God’s word, and nothing to gain by a false one?
The truth will suffer nothing by giving to eiV its true signification. When the Campbellites translate in order to in Acts ii. 38, they translate correctly. Is a translation false because Campbellites endorse it?
In reality, the chasm which yawns between us and them is something more than a crevasse in the eiV, or even than a difference of theory as to the design of Baptism. It is indeed somewhat difficult to define their doctrinal position. They have no Creed. The writings of their great Master contain apparent inconsistencies, if not contradictions. Their current literature is kaleidoscopic in the variety of its hues; churchly and anarchical by turns; now breathing an evangelical fervor, and now benumbed by a semi-Arian atmosphere. Still, judging this chameleon-like literature as a whole, and noting the general contents and tone of Campbellite preaching, we are forced to conclude that their system is, to say the least, more extreme and bald Arminianism than Methodism itself. Repentance and Faith are self-determined acts of the human will. There is no eternal election nor even effectual calling. The personal agency of the Spirit on the mind does not begin till after Baptism. Man wins the battle for himself; then, perhaps, the Divine Helper comes to be his guest, but not to remain if the man “falls away,” nor necessarily, to prevent his falling away. Thus spiritual religion is vitiated in its very sources. All Campbellites do not thus believe; there are excellent and evangelical men among them; but if it is possible to understand the system called Campbellism, we think we have not misrepresented it. Now is it not childish to assert that the difference between such a theology and ours is measured by the interpretation of in Acts ii. 38? When the Campbellites shall adopt Calvinistic sentiments, when they shall believe in and pray for the converting power of the
|
306 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
Holy Spirit, when they shall practice strict communion (as of all people in the world they are logically bound to do), and when they shall be willing to write down in plain words the faith which they hold, neither eiV or water will separate them and us. Meantime, let us go about the business of correctly interpreting Scripture and logically formulating the doctrinal teachings of the Bible, like men and scholars, unterrified by the bugbear of Campbellism. If that schism has led us to take any untenable positions, or has revealed any traditional errors of the Baptists, let us retire from the former and correct the latter. Beyond this, and a respectful attention to what Campbellite scholars advance, such as we give to all scholars, there is no reason why we may not go serenely on our way in the search for Biblical truth, just as if Campbellism had no existence.
Fourth. Finally, suppose we force eiV in Acts ii. 38 to bear the unnatural and unauthorized meaning of “on account of.” After all we have gained nothing. Other passages there are which cannot be explained away. Thus our Saviour said, just before he ascended the heavens: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. We shall hardly dare to tamper with his royal word and make it run, He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized. And unless we do thus change his saying, we have, by the highest authority, an importance attributed to Baptism certainly not less than that given to it in Acts ii. 38, translated according to its obvious meaning. What then is the advantage of violently torturing eiV, the construction and the context?
We conclude without hesitation, and in accordance with such authorities as Hackett, Winer, Meyer, etc., that the proper rendering of eiV afesin amartiwn in Acts ii. 38, as in Matthew xxvi. 28, is unto, for, i.e., in order to, Remission of Sins.
Acts ii. 38 is a very important passage—the key-note of the New Testament teaching as to obedience to the Gospel. For the first time inquiring sinners throng the inspired Twelve with the question, What shall we do? on their lips; and the answer is invested with the great significance of the first formal direction given by the apostles to inquirers. The occasion was striking and wonderful; and here we may well believe was furnished a precedent which all the primitive preachers of the Gospel were sure substantially to follow. This much is clear from the passage before us: that there is a relation between Baptism and Remission; and such a relation as warranted and required Peter to use the language which he did. He meant what he said.
But in proceeding to examine the question—
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
307 |
What is the Relation of Baptism and Remission?
we ought not to confine our attention to a single text, however important, but make a full and fair induction from all the teachings of the New Testament which bear upon the subject, whether positive statements, clear implications, or practical precedents. This we shall now attempt as far as our limits will permit.
First of all, however, let us prepare ourselves to look at the matter from a purely New Testament point of view. For this something more is necessary than ability to read the record in English or in Greek; something more than honesty of purpose. We must be able to free ourselves from the domination of the present, and guard against unconsciously carrying back its opinions and customs into the past. Without this precaution we shall see everything in false light, and misunderstand the plainest facts. The exegete must have the true historical spirit, perfect candor, and the ability to reproduce in imagination the circumstances and the thoughts of other times and other lands.
Those were early days. There were no elaborate creeds or theologies, no rival churches and disagreeing commentators, no denominational differences—the outgrowth of centuries. The Apostles taught by inspiration, being infallibly “guided into all the truth;” and miracles attested their authority to speak for God. If men accepted the new Gospel at all, there was no room for error or mistake as to what was required in order to discipleship. Thus no question existed, or could exist among Christians, as to Baptism—its form, subjects, design or divine authority. The catechumenical system was yet unknown. “Anxious seats,” “rising for prayers,” and all modern “revivalistic” methods, good and bad, were unheard of. The Gospel was preached as a practical thing—a divine message to be at once obeyed. Those who received it were made the subjects of no spiritual diagnosis; but their profession of faith in the Lord Jesus was accepted, and they were immediately baptized. By that act the convert crossed the great gulf which separated the Church from Jews and Pagans; and rendered himself liable to persecution, perhaps, to death. Everything was in solemn earnest; sensationalism and fanaticism were not yet introduced, and hypocrisy was rare.
This brief statement is made for one simple purpose. It is no part of our present task to inquire how far in later, or in present times, change of circumstances justifies change of methods, provided the Gospel be preserved intact; nor how far Christianity has been corrupted by departure from Apostolic ways. But it is essential that
|
308 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
we enter into the spirit of primitive times, in order that we may see the teaching and the example of the Apostles in a true light.
Scripture Testimony as to Baptism and Remission
The first mention of Baptism is in connection with the mission of John; the forerunner of Christ. He came preaching the baptism of repentance unto [eiV] i.e., in order to, remission of sins.[18] This his father, Zachariah, had predicted, explaining how he “should go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways, in order to give knowledge of salvation to his people, in remission of their sins.”[19] “Confessing their sins” and being baptized,[20] sincere penitents were sure of Remission.[21] That Baptism, as commanded and administered by John, was not an emblem of Remission previously granted, but (with Repentance) a condition of Remission promised, is clear, not only from the use of eiV, but from John’s own words to certain hypocrites, Pharisees and Sadducees: “Who hath warned you to flee from the coming wrath?”[22] and also from our Lord’s words, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God concerning themselves, not being baptized by him?”[23] And in refusing Baptism they refused everything.
Christ himself, in his early Judaean ministry, “made and baptized
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
309 |
disciples.”[24]
His preaching, at the outset, was of similar purport with that of John.[25] It is natural to suppose that his
Baptism (in connection with Repentance and Faith) was, like John’s, in order to
Remission. We are confirmed in this by our Saviour’s words to Nicodemus, who
came to him during that early period to learn more fully, no doubt, of the
kingdom which Christ and John were preaching. Christ said to him: Except a
man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the
In giving the “Great Commission” to his Apostles, the risen Lord commanded: Go ye therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit [27]... He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.[28] Here Faith and Baptism are unified as conditions, to the fulfillment of which is affixed his royal promise of salvation, including, of course, Remission. The circumstances invest this declaration with peculiar solemnity. It is a part of the Fundamental Law of Christianity, ordained by the great Founder himself, in his last hours on earth. It is a part of the Prime Article in the Charter of the Christian ministry. It is the last direction and promise to lost sinners, that fell from our Redeemer’s lips ere he ascended to the right hand of God.
We
learn from the Book of Acts how the Apostles and “apostolic men” understood and
obeyed their Commission. The first Pentecost after the Ascension was most
memorable not only for what it was in itself, but as model and precedent under
the dispensation of the Spirit. What was then taught in regard to Baptism and
Remission has already been elaborately examined. In accordance with the example
there set Baptism was always closely associated with Repentance and Faith. The
Samaritans,[29]
the Eunuch,[30]
the jailer at
|
310 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
and others, must have been instructed as to its necessity in order to discipleship; for we find that being taught the “word of the Lord,” i.e., the Gospel, they were forthwith baptized. In one case, and one only, God seemed to have anticipated the complete obedience by bestowing miraculous gifts before Baptism.[32] Yet even in this abnormal case the full requirement of the Gospel must be exactly carried out, by express command of Peter. And Ananias divinely sent to Saul of Tarsus blind, penitent and prayerful, thus instructed him: And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins,[33] calling upon the name of the Lord. The washing away refers to Remission; the last clause requires the exercise of faith in Christ.
The Epistles, addressed to Christians, are more distinctively doctrinal than the historical narrative of the Acts, yet are intensely practical. They contain many references to Baptism. It is represented as a burial with Christ and a being raised together with him “to walk in newness of life,”[34] which necessitates Remission. We are said to be baptized INTO (eiV) Jesus Christ[35] i.e., so as to come to be IN Christ. Also to be baptized unto Christ, as the context seems to indicate direction of mind in the act, the result being stated, ye have put on Christ,[36] clothed yourselves with Christ (so to speak), involving the ideas of unity and conformity. And this is mentioned (as the “for” shows) to confirm the preceding statement, “Ye are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Here, then, Faith and Baptism are united (as elsewhere), and united in their relation to adoption, which results from union with Christ. All this, of course, implies Remission. We read, according to his mercy he saved us, by [or through] the washing [bathing] of regeneration and
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
311 |
renewing of the Holy Spirit.[37] Also, of Christ cleansing (from sin) his Bride, the Church, by the washing [bathing] of water in the word;[38] i.e., within the sphere of the Gospel, in obedience to it; “cleansing,” of course, in a spiritual sense. We read of One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism,[39] this rite being mentioned among the precious Unities of Christianity. Also, of Jewish and Gentile Christians as all baptized into one body by (Greek en, in) one Spirit,[40] a passage already noted.
One more example from the Epistles must not be passed by, written by the same inspired teacher who directed the inquirers on the Day of Pentecost. Which [water] in an antitype, baptism, doth now save us also (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh [i.e., not a ceremonial lustration for ceremonial defilement] but the requirement of a good conscience toward God [here repentance is necessarily implied]) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.[41] This last can be only as we are “baptized upon the name” of the Risen One, and so faith also is assumed. In this remarkable passage it is positively asserted that, in some sense, baptism saves us; and in that same sense it must, of course, be related to the Remission of our sins.
Impression Produced by the Scripture Testimony.
Certainly, it would seem that Baptism must be very important, intimately connected with Remission and Salvation. How can an unprejudiced mind survey this testimony and then relegate Baptism to the realm of mere Emblem, Symbol and Profession? However they are to be explained, the facts from the record are these. Our Lord before his departure commanded that those who would be his disciples should be baptized; and united Baptism with Faith in the promise of Salvation. The apostles and their co-laborers directed inquirers to repent, believe and be immersed in order to Remission. Baptism is often alluded to in the Epistles in harmony with this view of it, and also as related to other important things in Christian life and hope. The Apostles seem never to have conceived of the possibility of a penitent believer refusing to be baptized; but if one professing this character had refused Baptism, is it possible to doubt,
|
312 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
with this record before us, that they would have warned him of the guilt and danger of “rejecting the counsel of God concerning” himself? If these are the facts, and that they are is obvious, the Scriptures do teach that Baptism is a part of what is meant by “obedience to the Gospel,”[42] which has the promise of Remission of sins and of Eternal Life.
Indeed, some of these passages look at first sight like Remission solely conditioned on the act of Baptism, or even like “Baptismal Regeneration.” But a careful examination will show that however easy or plausible the perversion, it is a perversion. In every case where Baptism is represented as related to Remission or Salvation, it is always joined with Repentance and Faith in terms, or by necessary implication. This is clear in the seven strong passages—Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 38, and xxii. 16; John iii. 5; Eph. v. 26; Titus iii. 5, and 1 Peter iii. 21, 22. For Repentance and Faith are both present, in germ at least, where one of them is; and both are sure to result from the life-giving work of the Spirit. We may be certain, then, that the Apostles never thought of inviting a sinner to Baptism in order to regeneration—in any sense in which Baptists are accustomed to use the word; nor in order to Remission, save as the complement of Repentance and Faith. This is the practical view; before considering the theory of this relation we must look at—
Some Teachings of Scripture alleged to be Inconsistent with the Obvious Teaching as to Remission and Baptism.
First. The alleged undervaluing of Baptism by Paul in 1 Cor. i. 10-17.
But
Paul’s thankfulness that he baptized so few at
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
313 |
bearing of this passage on the subject in hand is exactly opposite to the inference drawn from it. It is this: Baptism was such an important thing in the view of the early Christians, that Paul congratulated himself in having baptized so few at Corinth, lest some should say that he “baptized in his own name”—lest the faith and reverence due to Christ might be “divided”—and a part transferred to the distinguished administrator. How could this have been, if Baptism had been a mere symbol of no vital consequence?
Second. The frequent omission of Baptism in the teaching of Christ and his Apostles.
We at once admit that there was no set form of words always used; and that the terms of the Gospel Salvation were not always explicitly and fully stated. It is to be observed here, (1) that negative testimony cannot invalidate positive testimony. We know what the Commission was, and are bound to believe that the Apostles were faithful to it. (2) By this mode of reasoning it may be shown that Repentance is not a condition of Salvation and Remission;[43] that Faith is not;[44] that neither of them is![45] (3) In many cases Baptism is not named because there is no occasion for it. Thus in Acts iii. 19 Paul is addressing the unbelieving rulers, and it is quite sufficient to exhort them to “repent and turn.” Had they taken the position of inquirers, we know what directions he would have given. (4) In other cases a mere summary statement is made—a part for the whole. So in the case of the Philippian jailer. As soon as there was opportunity, full instruction was given, including Baptism, as is apparent from what followed.[46] (5) After the death of John the Baptist it seems very probable that Baptism ceased to be administered until the day of Pentecost; which will account for the Saviour’s silence as to Baptism during his Galilean and later Judaean ministry.
Third. The doctrinal statements of Christ and his apostles concerning forgiveness and justification, where these blessings are said to be bestowed on the penitent and believing, no mention being made of Baptism; e.g., John, ch. vi; Roman, chs. iii-v.
With regard to these we observe, (1) if these statements are inconsistent with what the same teachers tell us of Baptism, they are also inconsistent with themselves. Thus there would be a contradiction between Luke xviii. 14 and Romans v. 1. (2) Christ taught either unbelieving Jews (see third and fifth observations under the last
|
314 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
head), or his own disciples, all of whom had been baptized,[47] and understood the import of Baptism; and the Epistles were addressed to Christians, every one of whom had been taught the Gospel, as Peter and Paul taught it, and had been baptized. Is it to be supposed that Christ and his Apostles intended to contradict their own instructions given at the first to inquirers? (3) Nor is there any necessary inconsistency here, even if we give to these doctrinal statements the most unrestricted latitude of meaning. If it be granted, that with God forgiveness instantly follows man’s repentance, and justification man’s faith, What then? Is it not obvious that the human heart needs and craves something tangible both as a seal of divine acceptance and as an expression of its own trust and love? Also that a test of obedience is necessary which shall reveal the genuineness of professed repentance and faith, or show their spuriousness? Is it not, furthermore, indispensable that Christ’s disciples should be separated from the world? All this Baptism accomplishes, at the lowest possible estimate of its value. Why then should not the Lord conjoin Baptism with Repentance and Faith? Why should he not proclaim the assurance of pardon and salvation not merely to the penitent believer, but to the penitent believer baptized? Are professed repentance and faith, not sincere and earnest enough, to abide the test, of any real value? Was it not well that they should be branded as insufficient to save the soul?[48] Would not genuine repentance and faith be perfected and strengthened by their outward expression? Does it nullify pardon and justification, or diminish any existing peace and joy in the believer’s soul, to have all confirmed, and assured to his mind by the ratification of an unchangeable covenant? Note also that in those early days Baptism swiftly followed that which it expressed, closely conjoined with Repentance and Faith in time as well as in teaching, so that little opportunity was given for the question, What is the status of an unbaptized believer? No one who accepted the Gospel in reality was ever known to refuse Baptism; and as to exceptional cases, such as the impossibility of receiving the ordinance,
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
315 |
be it remembered that God was then, is now, free to go before the letter of his Gospel promise, or to go beyond it, whenever, in his own sovereignty; he may see sufficient cause for so doing.
It is clear, then, that this objection is without weight. Even if we grant all that the objector claims, and take the lowest possible view of Baptism, there is no inconsistency or contradiction involved in making it one of the announced conditions which secure the Divine assurance of pardon and salvation.
Let us now proceed to formulate, in brief, the teachings of the New Testament as to the
Nature and Design of Baptism.
I. Nature.—In itself considered, Baptism is a symbol; i.e., “a sign or representation of something moral or intellectual, by the images and properties of natural things.” (Webster), Specifically, in this case, “a sign,” etc., of spiritual realities. Hence (1) its symbolical character fits it to be used, in a personal transaction between God and the soul, as a means of expression, as a covenant-seal, as the vehicle of a blessing (if so God will). And (2) this symbolism is many-sided. Infinite wisdom has chosen in this simple act one capable of shadowing forth almost every prominent fact and truth of Christianity. Of these, no doubt, it was intended to be a witness. But this function is incidental, though important. It is not dwelt upon in the New Testament; but is apparent from allusions of the sacred writers,[49] as well as from the nature of the rite itself. Strangely has this been supposed by many to be the main design of Baptism.
Symbols analogous to Baptism are found in the “anointing of oil” in the old dispensation, and the “laying on of hands” in the new, though of far less depth and breadth of meaning.
II. Design.—First. Considered as the act of the believer.
1. Baptism is an expression of faith in Christ. Baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ. We object to the common designation of Baptism as “a profession of faith.” Scripturally, profession is made with the mouth.[50] But “actions speak louder than words.” In them the sentiments of the heart find expression, and in expression, completeness. Faith in Christ is acted upon, acted out, and so consummated in Baptism.[51]
|
316 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
2. Baptism is a representative act of obedience. The requirement of a good conscience. From it, as those who have died to sin, we rise to walk in newness of life. We object to the idea that Baptism is no greater than any other act of obedience. It is a typical, comprehensive, prophetic act; one that embodies the purposes and pledges of Repentance (i.e., a change of mind), and so consummates them. It includes in germ and sample every subsequent act of obedience.
3. Baptism is an act of self-identification with Christ. He identified himself with us in his Baptism;[52] and as the Head of his people proceeded to work out for them a perfect salvation. In view of all this the penitent believer in Baptism voluntarily and solemnly identifies himself with the Lord of glory. He is buried as to his old life, is raised together with Christ, puts on Christ. He declares his acceptance of the offered union with Christ.
4. Baptism is a vow of allegiance to the Holy Trinity, including acceptance of the covenant of grace. In [or unto] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. [53] The name, etc., is the gracious revelation made of the character and work of the Three Persons of the Trinity. With full faith in this, and with his mind directed unto the Triune God, the penitent believer declares his acceptance of the offers of Gospel grace, and surrenders himself, soul and body, for time and eternity, to the service of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hence Baptism takes hold of the blessings of pardon, of adoption, redemption and sanctification, and is an oath of allegiance.
Second. Design of Baptism, as to what God accomplishes by it. In the Scriptures, as we have seen, Baptism as a condition of Remission, etc., never stands alone; but is always associated, in terms or by necessary implication, with Repentance and Faith. We are safe, therefore, in asserting that apart from these it has no possible spiritual efficacy; indeed, that it is a falsehood, a farce. In vain, then, should we administer to unconscious infant or to impenitent adult a spurious baptism, borrowed from the Pope of Rome; or even a real baptism, immersion; or if we would overdo the thing in spite of reason and
|
1877.] |
Baptism and Remission. |
317 |
common sense, a trine immersion. The empty rite would leave the subject where it found him, unregenerate, unsaved, unforgiven. Simon Magus, whose profession of faith was false, was pronounced by Peter himself to be “in the gall of bitterness” (unregenerate), and “in the bond of iniquity” (unforgiven), though he had been baptized. Equally clear is it, from the teachings of Scripture, that Baptism, when associated with Repentance and Faith, has a real value, and accomplishes something. If it be but a mere symbol, or object lesson, or a profession of accomplished facts, what meaning is there in language? or how shall we ever hope to understand the Gospel, as it fell from inspired lips, clothed in human words?
In speaking of what is accomplished in Baptism, we would tread with caution, not only to avoid error, but because the subject, considered with relation to the presence and operation of the Spirit, is confessedly mysterious, and in some of its aspects may baffle our poor powers of analysis and statement.
1. Without controversy, by Baptism God separates the believer from the world, and puts upon him the mark of Christ and the weight of solemn vows.
2. Baptism (with Repentance and Faith) secures the divine assurance of pardon and eternal life. The penitent believer baptized has for those blessings the word of a king who can never be “worse” (though he may be “better”) than his word. So much objectively. Can we reasonably doubt that the Holy Spirit, in Baptism, “seals the grace” of forgiveness to the believer’s soul?
3. Baptism consummates the union of the soul with Christ.[54] The Saviour accepts the believer’s act of consecration, and self-identification with him; and the union of the soul with Christ becomes an established fact. So much is implied in the expressions, “saves us... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” “Baptized into [so as to be in] Jesus Christ.” It is like the marriage ceremony which crowns and establishes the union of souls already loving. Nor can we doubt that when the believer comes in Baptism to ratify the covenant graciously tendered to him, and to identify himself with the risen Lord, he who promised his perpetual presence in the fulfillment of his own Great Commission, is a party to the transaction, and formally and fully receives him to be his own forever.
4. So Baptism incorporates the Believer into the Church, the body of Christ. Baptized into one body, that is, so as to be a member of the one body. Even Baptism, on a mistaken profession of repentance
|
318 |
The Baptist Quarterly. |
[July, |
and faith gives an outward and temporary membership in the Church, imperfect as it is, on earth. But the Baptism of the true believer makes him a living member of the body; and this membership will be eternal when the Church is perfected in the world to come.
5. Is there a special work of the Spirit on the believer’s soul in Baptism? Must there not be if he seals the pardon? Can the believer’s union with Christ be consummated, or he be ingrafted into the one body, without the operation of the Spirit of Life? At the beginning miraculous gifts followed Baptism. Did these exhaust the meaning of the promise, “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”: or did they rather mark the bestowment of a personal blessing “which God hath given to them that obey” Christ,[55] intended for all time? The Spirit has “called” to Repentance and Faith, he has led to Baptism: why may we not suppose that he now performs a further work, and takes up his permanent “abode” with the disciple for help and sanctification? Is it not significant that the believer is said in Baptism “to be raised,” as if by a power outside of himself? Does not the close connection of the Spirit’s work with Baptism in John iii. 5, and Titus iii. 5, indicate that a work is wrought upon the believer, as well as that he performs a work himself?[56] And may not this be the completion of the whole process of the “new birth” (not the impartation of life, that is antecedent—the beginning of the process), the completion of the regeneration of the man, in the Scriptural, as distinguished from the theological sense? These questions we propound without attempting to give a dogmatic answer. But if, in opposition to their drift, it should be objected that such a view is not fully corroborated by experience, it might be sufficient reply to ask: May not shallow conceptions of Baptism hinder the full blessing originally intended to be connected with it, or at least obscure the consciousness of its reception? Besides, are we, strictly speaking, conscious of the Holy Spirit’s work? The place whereon we stand is holy ground. We would equally shrink from making more of Baptism than the New Testament does, and from making less of it than a fair exegesis warrants and demands.
Independent of the point last named, we have obtained light enough to enable us to affirm the following conclusions:
Definition of the Relation of Baptism and Remission.
1. The Relation of Baptism to Remission is not that of an Emblem or a Profession of an assured fact regarded as already accomplished.