Thoughts on Baptism by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 28, 1878

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 13.

Read the full edition

Thoughts on Baptism.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.—CONTINUED.

We will now present an argument, which, we think, is justified by reason and the Scriptures.

As no person is answerable for the sins of another, so no person can repent of the sins of another. We may, indeed, be sorry that others have sinned. I am sorry that Adam sinned; sorry that my parents sinned; yes, sorry that you, reader, have sinned; but I am not required to repent of their sins or of yours. I cannot do it. I can repent of my own sins only. And as baptism is so intimately connected with repentance, I was baptized for my own sins, and for no others. However much Adam may have sinned, I should not have been required to be baptized if I had not sinned. It is as unscriptural and unreasonable to be baptized for the sins of another, as it is impossible to repent of the sins of another.

The Scripture says, “In Adam all die.” Adam, because of his sin, was shut away from the tree of life, lest he should eat, and live forever; Gen. 3:22, 23; and thus mortality was settled upon him because of sin; for “The wages of sin is death.” Of course his children, and so all his posterity, received from him a nature no higher than his own; with him all were shut out from the tree of life, all became subject to death, all returned to the dust. This death, which we variously call natural death or temporal death, and the first death in distinction from eternal death, or “the second death,” was a penalty inflicted upon Adam for his sin; and it was the penalty of that sin only. As he only was the transgressor, he only could bear the penalty; for “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” To his posterity it is a consequence of their relation to him, and not a penalty. The “second death” is the penalty for the personal sins of Adam’s posterity. When sentence was pronounced upon Adam, a new probation was given to man through “the seed of the woman.” Through a promise of the Son of God, who should become a son of man, the gospel scheme was opened to the race; and as the race was already involved by the fall of Adam, shut out from the tree of life, and doomed to return to the dust, or to die, another death was placed before Adam’s race as the penalty for personal sin; for it is true, under all conditions and dispensations, that “The wages of sin is death.”

That the death which the race has fallen under ever since the fall of Adam is not the penalty of our personal sins, is proved by the following considerations: They who accept the gospel of Christ are justified through faith in him, and receive pardon of their sins; yet they die “in Adam,” as the unjustified die. But no one can believe that sin is pardoned and punished also. The remission of sin is the remission of its penalty. The individual who is pardoned by the gospel escapes the penalty of personal sin; “on such the second death hath no power.” Rev. 20:6. But they who are not pardoned,—are not justified by faith in Christ,—shall fall under the second death. This is proof sufficient that the second death is the penalty of personal sin.

Repentance, faith, remission, all combined, will not remove the consequence of Adam’s transgression. We still die “in Adam,” saints as well as sinners; and therefore this death is not the penalty of personal sin. The gospel may bring from it, as a benefaction; but it does not save from it by means of remission. It is remitted to nobody.

As in the case of the saints,—the justified,—so in the case of infants. They have no sins for which to answer. They cannot fall under a penalty, because they are innocent. Yet they die; of course not as sinners condemned, but as mortal creatures cut off from the tree of life by the action of Adam. His sin brought condemnation to himself, and it was deserved; but it brings no condemnation to these innocent ones; they do not deserve it, and “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.”

What, then, it may be asked, does the gospel actually offer in the case of infants? We answer, life; it offers them a resurrection from the dead. “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Infants die because of their connection with Adam, not on account of any sin of their own; and they are made alive in Christ, not because of their obedience, but as members of the race for whom he died. What they lost in the first Adam is restored to them by the second Adam. See a promise of a resurrection to children, in Jer. 31:15–17. This is positive, tangible; it stands on no uncertain inference.

There will be three classes in the resurrection. One, of sinners condemned, who have never accepted the gospel nor received pardon through Christ. The second death claims them as its own. Another, the saints; those who have had their sins washed away by the blood of the Redeemer. Being justified, the law has no claim against their lives. “On such the second death hath no power.” The third, infants, who have never sinned. Of course they are not condemned; they have done no wrong; on no principle of justice can they be condemned. Through Christ they are brought up from death, of course to die no more. They stand related to the law as the saints do; not as the saints, pardoned, but as innocents, against whom no charge can be brought. Having no sin upon them, they will die no more. That life they get through Christ as truly as do the saints. Hence they can join the everlasting song of redemption, with all the saints in glory. Had it not been for Christ they would have remained dead. For eternal life, its joys and its glory, they are as truly indebted to divine love and favor in the gospel as David, or Peter, or Paul. Thus it is easy to see that infants are saved by the gospel, but not by means of faith, repentance, and baptism. These are for sinners, not for innocents.

When strong men endeavor to maintain their theories by weak assumptions or flimsy arguments, it often becomes strong evidence of the erroneousness of their theories. They will do the best they can under their circumstances. We are led to these reflections by reading remarks on baptism, by Dr. Lightfoot, copied and approved by Dr. Clarke. He says:—

“To the objection, it is not commanded to baptize infants, therefore they are not to be baptized,” I answer, It is not forbidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized.”

This is one of the strangest arguments ever put forth by anybody. It is as much as to say, Anything which is not expressly forbidden may be properly maintained as a part of the gospel! That the Doctors should think the absence of a prohibition is equal in weight to the absence of a commandment, does not argue well for their acumen in matters of duty. Under such a rule, the wildest vagaries and most gross innovations may be maintained as of authority in the church of Christ.

Nor does the reason assigned help the case. They assume that the rite was well known to and practiced by the Jews in and before the days of John, and was passed over into the gospel without the necessity of a precept. Why, then, was adult baptism so specifically required and so often mentioned? This might have stood on exactly the same ground. But there are two difficulties in his way: 1. If proselyte baptism existed among the Jews at that time, there is no evidence, not an intimation, that the Christian or gospel ordinance was the continuance of it. Certainly not, according to Dr. Clarke, for he argues that baptism takes the place of circumcision, which was ever distinct from proselyte baptism. 2. There is no proof that proselyte baptism existed among the Jews at that time. Many authors think it did, but the proof is far from clear. Prof. Stuart went into a thorough examination of the case, both of Scripture and history, and he sums up as follows:—

“It is a matter of no little interest, so far as our question is concerned, to inquire whether Christian baptism had its origin from the proselyte baptism of the Jews. This we have now done, and have come to this result, viz., that there is no certainty that such was the case, but that the probability on the ground of evidence is strong against it.”

The reason for this conclusion is found in such remarks as the following:—

“We are destitute of any early testimony to the practice of proselyte baptism antecedently to the Christian era. The original institution of admitting Jews to the covenant, and strangers to the same, prescribed no other rite than that of circumcision. No account of any other is found in the Old Testament; none in the Apocrypha, New Testament, Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, Joseph the Blind, or in the work of any other Targumist, excepting Pseudo Jonathan, whose work belongs to the seventh or eighth century. No evidence is found in Philo, Josephus, or any of the early Christian writers. How could an allusion to such a rite have escaped them all if it were as common and as much required by usage as circumcision?”

He thinks, and not without reason, that the Jews in time adopted the baptism of proselytes in imitation of John’s baptism; and that the idea that John borrowed his baptism from the Jews is a mere supposition without foundation in any facts of proof. He admits, also, that the proselyte baptism of the Jews affords an argument in favor of immersion, for no one disputes that their baptism was immersion.

Another ground taken by Dr. Lightfoot, indorsed by Dr. Clarke, is equally faulty. He says:—

“Our Lord says to his disciples, Matt. 28:19, ‘Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them,’ &c. matheteusate that is, make disciples; bring them in by baptism that they may be taught. They are very much out who, from these words, cry down infant baptism; and assert that it is necessary for those that are to be baptized to be taught before they are baptized. 1. Observe the words here, make disciples, and then after, teaching, in the 20th verse. 2. Among the Jews, and also with us, and in all nations, those are made disciples that they may be taught. A certain heathen came to the great Hillel, and said, Make me a proselyte that thou mayest teach me. He was first to be proselyted and then taught. Thus, first, make them disciples, by baptism; and then, ‘teach them to observe all things,’ &c.”

When learned and able men resort to such pleadings to maintain their theories, it may well excite our pity. The fact is entirely overlooked that they were to “preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15, 16. Then follows the promise, “He that believeth”—the preaching—“and is baptized, shall be saved.” The argument of the wise doctors is on the supposition that all the instruction given is after baptism. If so, Peter was certainly mistaken in regard to his commission. Acts 2. He should first have baptized them, and then preached the gospel to them! And the record says, “They that gladly received the word were baptized.” This was all out of order, if the Doctors are right. They should first have been baptized, and then received the word.

We notice that the Doctors do not confine these remarks to infants. Their rule applies to adults; they so apply it themselves. A certain man wished to be proselyted (baptized) in order that he might be instructed; which, as they view it, supposes there was no instruction previous to baptism. Was it so in the house of Cornelius? in the house of the jailor? or in the case of the eunuch? or in any case recorded in the Scriptures? It is the very opposite in every instance. We scarcely know at which to be most astonished, the folly or the presumption of learned men in thus setting themselves so directly against the truths of the divine record.

In the above extract there seems to be manifested an entire misapprehension of the meaning and correct use of the term disciple. Webster says, to disciple (verb) is to convert to doctrines or principles; and a disciple is “one who receives instruction,” or “one who accepts the instruction of another.” Greenfield gives the meaning of “a follower.” These definitions are in harmony with all the facts of Scripture. They first became disciples by accepting the doctrines of the cross; they “gladly received the word.” Then they were baptized. Of course instruction did not cease with their baptism; they were to be taught—they were to learn—the truths of God and of the Christian life as long as their discipleship continued, which was as long

as they lived. Every instance in the Scriptures is according to this order.

The records of the giving of the commission, in Matthew and Mark, sufficiently refute the error into which the Doctors have fallen on this subject. Matthew records the words of the Saviour thus: “Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them,” &c. Mark records them thus: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized,” &c. Discipling all nations, in one record, is exactly equivalent to preaching the gospel to every creature, in the other; and in both records, baptizing follows the discipling, or the preaching, and is to be administered to those who become disciples, or who believe the preaching. In frankness we must confess our belief, that, were men as careful to follow strictly the order of the divine injunctions as they are strenuous to maintain preconceived theories, there would be no stumbling over so plain a record as is given to us in the commission of our Lord to his ministers.

To further test the correctness of the position assumed in the above quotation, let us take the case of an infant, allowing that he is baptized, but who, as he grows up, persistently rejects the offers of the gospel; never becomes a follower of Christ; never believes his doctrines. And such cases are not rare. In what sense is he a disciple of Christ? In no sense whatever. To call one who never believed in Christ, who never accepted the gospel or followed the Saviour, a disciple of Christ, is to abuse the term, and to lower the standard of discipleship to a level with the world.

The Old Testament is in harmony with the New on this view of the subject. The word disciple, Isa. 8:16, is derived from the verb lah-mad, to teach, or to train; discipline. Neither in the Scriptures nor in the lexicons can a warrant be found for such a use of the term disciple as is found in the above quotation.

Once more Dr. Clarke gives the views of another eminent man, whose name (not given), he says, would do honor to his work. His strongest point, and which he considers sufficient of itself to prove his position, is based on Eph. 6:1, as follows:—

“Let the address of St. Paul to the Ephesian children be specially noticed. Children, says he, obey your parents en Kurio. How could they obey en Kurio, if they themselves were not en Kurio? In every instance, this expression marks incorporation into the Christian body.” “Respecting the ages of the persons designated (Eph. 6:1) by the term ta tekna, there can be no question; as a subsequent verse distinctly states them to be such children as were subjects of discipline and mental instruction.”

We thought to pass over the questions of criticism of the text, but are constrained to copy the following from Clarke’s comment on Eph. 6:1:—

“In the Lord] This clause is wanting in several reputable MSS. and in some versions. In the Lord may mean on account of the commandment of the Lord, or as far as the parents’ commands are according to the will and word of God.”

This comment robs the argument of all force, and shows that the claim of its author is not just, though he says, “This single passage, even if it stood alone, ought to set the tedious and troublesome controversy respecting infant baptism forever at rest.”

But what has he proved in regard to this text? Two important points are presented: 1. The children, ta tekna, are commanded to obey their parents; 2. This author says “respecting the ages of the persons designated,” they were “such children as were subjects of discipline and mental instruction.” In a word, they were “such children” as were capable of obeying a commandment, and of being under discipline and receiving mental instruction. But what has all that to do with infant baptism? Infants neither obey nor receive “mental instruction” before or at their baptism. We fully believe in the baptism of “such children” as conscientiously obey the instruction given in Eph. 1. But that argues nothing whatever for infant baptism. We can but express our surprise that any man, much less one “highly intelligent and learned,” should choose this text to settle the controversy in favor of infant baptism; but such are the arguments, if they can be called so, by which this doctrine is upheld.

(To be Continued.)