p. 294 | Meaning of Baptism by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 29, 1882

Meaning of Baptism.

By Editor

The Advance takes the Independent to task for conceding so much to the Baptists in its article on the American Bible Society, which was published in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES some weeks since. In its remarks the Advance says:—

"The Greeks, having no such thing as Christian Baptism, had no word to signify that. Our Lord and his apostles, therefore, (because the ordinance was, doubtless, in that warm latitude, generally administered by immersion) adopting a word that carried the raw, crude idea of plunging into water, put into it altogether a new signification."

That our Lord and his apostles put a new meaning into the word "baptism" we have often heard asserted, but never yet have seen any proof offered to sustain the assertion. If it exists we would like to have it produced. That the Greeks had a word signifying "Christian baptism" no reasonable person would affirm; and he who denies it takes upon himself an unnecessary task.

Is there now, or was there ever, in the world a language which has a single word signifying "Christian baptism"? But we can inform the Advance what the Greeks certainly had. They had a word which signified immersion, and they had another word which signified sprinkling. And the meanings of these words were so well defined, they were so distinct in their significations, that they could not be used indiscriminately; one could not possibly be used where the other was intended. And they differed so widely that to use one excluded the other. And "our Lord and his apostles," in their frequent mentions of baptism, always used the first—never the other. Has this any bearing on the question, What is baptism?

The word "Christian" is altogether an addition to the word "baptism," in the phrase "Christian baptism." It gives direction to the word, and indicates that the baptism referred to is that enjoined by Christ in the gospel. But alone, the word baptism indicates no such thing. We have read of "the baptism of John," of "Christian baptism," and of Jewish or "proselyte baptism." Will some one inform us to which of these the word "baptism," simple or disconnected, refers? We say it specifies neither. It must have an adjunct to give it direction to make it specify either. The specifying power, then, is altogether in the adjunct, and not at all in the word baptism.

This being so, for we safely challenge a denial of it, we further ask, In the three phrases mentioned above, is there any difference of action indicated by the word baptism? That is, does the expression, "proselyte baptism," indicate one method of action, the "baptism of John," another form of action, and "Christian baptism" still another form of action? We do not ask whether our Lord and his apostles, when they commanded baptism, referred to it purely as a Christian or gospel ordinance, to be administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We know they did. But we challenge the proof that they gave a new meaning to the word baptize, so that it thenceforth signified a form of action in the ordinance which it did not signify out of the ordinance.

Granting that the ordinance was entirely new, that fact does not indicate that new significations were given to the terms in which the duty is set forth. Let us illustrate by another ordinance. The Lord instituted a supper, and told them to eat of the bread and drink of the cup because they represented his body and his blood. In this ordinance an entirely new direction is given to the idea of eating the bread and drinking the cup. Now question: Inasmuch as the Greeks had no word to signify the Lord's supper, the idea of such an institution never having entered their minds, is it not reasonable to suppose that the words eat and drink, in this ordinance, indicate actions entirely distinct and different from the ordinary actions of eating and drinking? In this supper they did not eat and drink in a worldly or secular sense, but in an ecclesiastical or Christian sense; and, of course, according to Pedo-Baptist logic, they "put into these words altogether new significations!" What these new significations of eat and drink are it may be as difficult to tell, as to tell what is that new signification of the word which always and only meant immerse.

It always had meant immerse, and immerse only; and it is very clear that it continued to have that meaning after it was adopted into the gospel to define a Christian rite. 1. There is no intimation in the Scriptures that the meaning of the word baptizein was changed in the least particular by its being used by our Lord and his apostles. If there were a change made by them, who shall determine what that change is, inasmuch as they said nothing about it? 2. That it continued to bear its ordinary meaning of immerse is evident from the usage and practice of the early church, in which baptism was uniformly administered by immersion. It was only when the gospel was corrupted or perverted by human innovations, that a change or substitution in the ordinance was brought in; and reasons were given for the change which are by no means justified by the Scriptures.

3. That baptizo continued to bear its one only signification of immerse is shown both by Scripture examples and Scripture symbols or illustrations. It is recorded of the act of baptizing that "they both went down into the water," which never is and was never done when sprinkling only was practiced. We say "sprinkling only," for it is a fact that sprinkling was not at first substituted for baptism or immersion, but connected with it; afterward, for reasons altogether outside of the Scriptures, it supplanted immersion. Again, baptism is presented as a symbol of the burial and resurrection of Christ, Rom. 6:1-5; Col. 2:12, and 3:1; wherein it is said they were "buried with Christ," and "risen with Christ." Customs may change as the humor or fancy of men may dictate; but the Scriptures do not change—the word of the Lord is "yea, and amen." That idea which these words carried to the Romans and to the Colossians, they carry to us; and that is the idea of a burial, an immersion, as the word signified then, and signifies still.

The Advance does injustice to the facts of Scripture, of history, and of philology, when it intimates that the early church immersed because it was "in that warm latitude." Do the Presbyterians of our Southern States immerse because they are in a warm latitude? They are in a warm latitude, but they do not immerse. Why not? Because their practice conforms to the significations which they attach to the terms used. They place another meaning upon the word baptizo, and in their practice they conform to that meaning. And so it was with the early church. They knew the word only in its meaning of immerse, and in their practice they conformed to the known meaning of the word. They who affirm that the word had another meaning at that time are bound to give the proof. When will they produce it? They ought to do this or cease to reiterate the affirmation.