THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 7, 1878

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

ONE BAPTISM OR THREE BAPTISMS.

There are those who affirm that three immersions (“trine immersion”) are necessary to the full consummation of the ordinance; and they are accustomed to refer, with great confidence, to the practice of certain people or churches, as proving the correctness of their views. We have no regard whatever for the practice of churches, except wherein they conform to the specified requirements of the sacred word. Neither age nor popular consent gives warrant to error. Our inquiry is not, What has been practiced? but, What is truth? We care nothing for what people have done, but for what they ought to have done. We know that many grievous errors were brought into the church at a very early age. But we have no more confidence in, or respect for, a practice or an institution which can be traced to the darkness of the third century, than if it could be traced only to the fifteenth century. “What say the Scriptures?” is our sole inquiry.

But it is urged thus, “The Greek Church practice trine immersion, and we ought to give place to them in the understanding of their own language.” We reply to this, There is no mention of trine immersion in the Greek of the New Testament. There is a commandment to be baptized (βαπτισθῆναι), and the Greeks in obedience to this precept are immersed. So far we safely trust their knowledge of the Greek tongue. But the Greek also says, Eph. 4:5, there is one baptism (ἐν βάπτισμα), and if they depart from this and practice three baptisms, then they depart from the text of their own language, and we may not follow them. For trine immersion is nothing else but three baptisms, as the following will show:

1. They who practice trine immersion never sprinkle; they agree with us that the Greek word is properly translated immerse; and therefore we are agreed that baptism is equivalent to immersion. Hence, if Eph. 4:5 were translated throughout, it would read, “One Lord, one faith, one immersion.” Therefore their system is clearly contrary to this scripture; for they really have three baptisms. To reply, as they always do, that they have one baptism with three immersions, is only to contradict their own avowed faith, that baptism is immersion. For if baptism is properly translated immersion, then the expression “one baptism with three immersions,” is as much of a paradox as if they said, one baptism with three baptisms, or one immersion with three immersions. This is certainly so, unless we admit that baptism is not identical with immersion. But if we do this we concede the entire ground, and the question of mode has yet to be settled; that is, it will remain to be proved that immersion, and that only, is baptism.

2. It does not appear reasonable that three baptisms are required because there are three names given in the commission. That view involves too much separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even in commercial transactions, anything done by an agent for a firm of three parties is done once for them all; as a debt of one thousand dollars could not be collected three times, once for each one of the firm, if one thousand were the sum specified. But the union of a firm in business comes far short of representing the unity existing between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and one baptism is the specified requirement.

3. It is not correct to claim that the ellipses of the language of the commission can only be supplied by the reading, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and baptizing them in the name of the Son, and baptizing them in the name of the Holy Ghost.” It is against the facts of Scripture and the analogies of language. Separately baptizing in each name is three baptisms, and it cannot be denied. As to analogy, we read that Jesus will come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and in that of the holy angels. Their method of argument would make it read thus: When he shall come (once) in his own glory, and come (twice) in the glory of his Father, and come (three times coming) in the glory of the holy angels. But that is not the truth. It is but one coming in the three-fold glory.

There is full better reason to affirm on Ex. 3:6 that there are three Gods,—“the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” There is a just difference between the use and the abuse of language, and all should recognize it.

4. But, again, their practice is not consistent with their theory. They insist that three immersions are necessary to one baptism. Then if we read the commission as they do, and apply the definition of baptism as they claim it, it will stand thus: baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Father, and baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Son, and baptizing them (thrice immersing) in the name of the Holy Ghost. And thus nine immersions are necessary to fulfill the commission! They cannot possibly avoid this conclusion unless they acknowledge that they properly and truly baptize in each name by one immersion in each name, which is to say that one baptism is truly administered by one immersion, which is fatal to their theory.

5. Heb. 6:2 is quoted by them (“doctrine of baptisms”) as proof that there is a plurality of baptisms. But if this is proof in point, why do they deny that they practice three baptisms? and what is the necessity for their inventing the paradoxical expression of “one baptism of three immersions?” The text quoted is truth, but not in the sense in which they take it. The Scriptures speak of one baptism of water and

one baptism of the Spirit. To admit of three of one kind most surely contradicts Eph. 4:5. Whether Eph. 4:5 speaks of the baptism of water or of the Spirit, it certainly proves that there is but one of the kind of which it speaks.

6. Paul, in Rom. 6:3, says we are baptized into the death of Christ, or planted in the likeness of his death. 1 Cor. 15:3, 5 says Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. This is the order. And that it is this to which the apostle refers in Rom. 6:1–3 is plain, for he gives our baptism or burial as proof that we are dead; he makes death (very properly) precede the burial. We inquire, then, Did Christ die three times? We insist that he died as often as he was buried. And if we are buried three times, we are not planted in the likeness of his death; for he died and was buried but once. This is decisive on the subject.

Whether a person should be buried face downward, as the trine immersionists baptize, may be, perhaps, a matter of taste, but we think no such method of burial was ever known. One author says we cannot safely appeal to custom in this matter, because the Romans cremated or burned the dead, instead of burying them! But the Saviour was not cremated, nor was this a custom with the Jews. Could it be shown that Jesus was laid in the grave face downward, there would be some show of reason for that practice. But we do not think he was; nor do we think burial in that manner is at all seemly, and we shall ever follow that which appears to be a more proper way.

Tertullian mentioned three immersions, by which we learn that such a practice was introduced as early as his day. But Prof. Stuart quotes him as saying on this subject:—

“Thence we are thrice immersed, answering, i. e., fulfilling, somewhat more than the Lord has decreed in the gospel.”—De Corona Militis, § 3.

If we can rely upon the language of the gospel, Tertullian was right in thus saying. Three immersions were never decreed by our Lord in the gospel. To the contrary, by specifying “one immersion,” the other practice is positively forbidden.

But one more point we will notice, to show somewhat the nature of the proof on which they rely. One of their prominent authors affects to find trine immersion in the supposed fact that the Jewish nation were three times baptized, once at the Red Sea, once by John, and once in the gospel commission. Weak, indeed, is that cause which must put forth such arguments to support itself. We will examine this briefly.

1. The assertion which it contains is not true. The same individuals were not baptized in the Red Sea and by John; nor was the Jewish nation baptized under the gospel commission. Individuals of that nation were baptized in the gospel, but in doing this they renounced all that separated them from the Gentiles. See Rom. 2 and Eph. 2.

2. If they were three times baptized, then again the claim is put forth in favor of three baptisms. But this they deny.

3. If there is no true baptism without three immersions, as they claim, then, inasmuch as Paul says they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, they must have been immersed three times in the cloud and in the sea. But they were not; and this again proves that one immersion is baptism, according to the Scriptures.

4. If we apply to this text the rule of language which they apply to the commission in Matt. 28, it would read, they were all baptized (once) in the cloud and (once more) in the sea; one baptism for each. But they were not; as it took both the cloud and the sea to inclose them or surround them once. Here, again, their rule is shown to be erroneous.

5. Once more, applying both their rule and their definition to this instance, namely, one baptism for each, and three immersions for one baptism, and we then have them baptized (thrice immersed) in the cloud, and baptized (thrice immersed) in the sea—six immersions at the passage of the Red Sea. To deny either branch of this conclusion is fatal to their theory.

While we dismiss the theory as one hedged in on every side by its own absurdities, we cheerfully acknowledge our respect for the German Baptists (Dunkers) who teach and practice trine immersion. They are generally found to be a quiet, orderly people. But this should not prevent our exposing the error into which they have fallen. To the contrary, our regard for them, our interest in them, increase our desire to see them set right on this important subject.

NON-BAPTISM OF THE FRIENDS, OR QUAKERS.

While noticing prevailing errors on the subject of baptism, we must briefly notice that of the Friends, who ignore the rite altogether. This error is not so much founded on a misconstruction or false exhibition of particular texts, as on the adoption of a false principle, which is applied, professedly, to all that pertains to Christianity. We say professedly, for actually they come far short of uniformly applying the principle.

They profess to believe that all true worship is internal, and that the only baptism required is that of the Spirit. Outward forms or externals they regard as being vain, or as carnal substitutes for the internal and the true. Therefore they entirely discard the Sabbath, the Lord’s supper, and baptism. They might, we think, with equal propriety, discard public assemblies for worship, and audible prayer. While they reject that which is plainly commanded because it is outward and seen, with a strange inconsistency they attach great importance to a particular phraseology of speech, and even to the cut of a coat or the fashion of a bonnet. They chide us (kindly, it is true) for not using the same forms of speech used by the Saviour, as thee instead of you, seeming not to understand that neither of these forms was used by the Saviour, because he did not speak the English language. And they invariably use the objective, thee, for the nominative, thou; a misconstruction of language for which the Greek of the New Testament gives no warrant.

Their common form of address, using thee as second person, nominative, as “Does thee hear?” is exactly as if we used the third person thus, “Does him hear?” They aim to use the English according to the usage of three centuries ago; but really conform to no correct usage at all. A correct translation into any language at a certain time is a translation according to the proper usage of that language at that time. The present method of speaking the English language gives as correct a rendering from the Greek as the form used two or three centuries ago. For a people to plead for either in preference to the other, while they discard explicit precepts given by the Saviour, is like tithing mint and cummin, and omitting the weightier matters of the law.

Usage and association have caused us to regard the English language as it was spoken three centuries ago, as the sacred style, only because the sacred Scriptures were given to us by translation into that style. It would seem now to be quite irreverent to address the throne of grace in prayer in modern English, or in the form of speech commonly used in addressing our fellow-mortals. But if our reverence is fostered by such a discrimination in forms of address, it is proportionally decreased by addressing our fellows in the more solemn style now specially appropriated to devotion. One no more than the other gives the form used by our Saviour;

but one is, by custom or usage only, adapted to devotion, while the other, being the present form of the language, is properly used in every-day life.

We are led to make these remarks on this point as it seems necessary to understand their method of applying the principle which they have adopted.

Every principle which conflicts with the plain testimony of the divine word, is of a surety a false one. Applied to the subject of the Lord’s supper, their principle must be disapproved. The Saviour commanded his disciples to drink the fruit of the vine and eat the bread in remembrance of him. Luke 22:17–20. Paul corrected abuses of the ordinance, and further explained its use, showing that it should continue till our Lord comes again. 1 Cor. 11:23–26. A principle must be false by which a duty so plainly enjoined is rejected. No matter how much is claimed for spirituality in worship, there is neither spirituality nor worship in disobedience. As if man could better understand what is pleasing in the sight of God than we can learn from his word, which is given as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” John 17:17. Thus our Saviour prayed to his Father. The closer we cling to the word, the more perfectly we walk in the truth. The more perfect our obedience to his commandments, the greater our sanctity. 1 Peter 1:22; John 14:15; 1 John 5:3.

As in regard to the Lord’s supper, so we reason in regard to baptism. Our Saviour commanded it, and his apostles taught and practiced it. The assertion that the baptism of the Spirit is the baptism required in their teachings does not at all meet the case, for both Christ and his apostles commanded baptism. But the baptism of the Spirit is a blessing promised and to be received; while baptism in water is a duty commanded and to be obeyed. This truth is evident to every reader of the Bible. The Spirit is called “the Holy Spirit of promise,” because it is purely a matter of promise, and is distinguished, not only in this reason, but by direct Scripture proofs, from baptism in water, which is a matter of precept.

The Saviour in his commission to his disciples enjoined baptism. The first sermon under this commission, as we argue elsewhere, is recorded in Acts 2. In this sermon baptism is made a condition of the promise of the Spirit. “The gift of the Holy Ghost” is the blessing promised; repentance and baptism are the duties commanded in order to receiving the blessing of the promise. Here is a relation of the two which cannot be ignored without ignoring the commission and its fulfillment, and thereby ignoring the authority of our divine Lord.

Philip the evangelist went and joined himself to the chariot of the eunuch by special direction of the Spirit of God. Acts 8. What he said and did was by the inspiration of the Spirit. Having preached Jesus to the eunuch, on their coming to water the eunuch requested baptism. Philip must have preached baptism in the preaching of Jesus. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. And the Spirit, under whose direction Philip had baptized the eunuch, caught him away that the eunuch saw him no more; and the eunuch went his way rejoicing.

Peter, also by special direction of the Lord, went to the house of Cornelius. An angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, saying to him, “He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.” Peter preached the gospel to all those assembled, and they believed, and the Spirit fell upon them, even as it had fallen upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. Then Peter said: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In this instance the heavenly messenger referred to what Peter would tell him as something which he ought to do. And Peter commanded him to be baptized. That which he ought to do was to be baptized in water, for so Peter said, and the baptism of the Spirit they had already received. Peter, under inspiration and the direction of Heaven, did not tell them that the baptism of the Spirit was all that was necessary, but gave the receiving of this as proof of the propriety of their being baptized in water.

Paul came to Ephesus and found certain disciples who had not been properly instructed in the doctrine of the gospel, who had not received the Holy Ghost. Under his teaching and by his commandment they were baptized; and after they were baptized Paul laid his hands upon them and the Holy Ghost came upon them. Here this inspired apostle, by whose interposition the Holy Ghost came upon them, required them to be baptized before he laid his hands upon them. The order, in relation to the duty and the gift, here followed, is that laid down by Peter in Acts 2:38, 39.

We have now presented five points of Scripture, each plain and positive in its teachings, which show that the apostles, acting under the inspiration of the Spirit, taught and practiced water baptism, and Jesus commanded them so to do. They who reject baptism in water reject the counsel of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, as shown in the teachings and actions of the Lord and his apostles. The wisdom of such in this respect is not according to the word of the Lord, and therefore cannot be from above.

Of this class we say, as of the one last referred to, By a staid and quiet demeanor they have generally won the respect of their acquaintances. But no amount of pious bearing will excuse a departure from the plain requirements of the Scriptures. Our Saviour said, “In vain ye do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” No matter how great the appearance of sanctity, it is quite possible to make all our worship vain by making void the commandments of God by human traditions, or by walking according to the doctrines of men contrary to the precepts of the Scriptures.

(To be Continued.)