THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 4, 1878

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.—CONTINUED.

It remains to notice but one more line of argument on this subject. It is that of the baptism of households. The texts referring to such instances are few in number, and require but little time or space in this examination.

1. The house of Lydia. Acts 16:13–15. In this case there is such general consent of pedo-baptist authors that there were no infants in the household, that it is unnecessary to add words to their admissions. Thus Dr. Clarke:—

“She attended unto the things; she believed them, and received them as the doctrines of God; and in this faith she was joined by her whole family; and in it they were all baptized.”

Lydia was nearly three hundred miles from Thyatira, by sea and land, doing business in Philippi. That there were children in her household, or that she had a husband, is not stated in the text. Certain it is that all her household were believers, and verse 40 strongly intimates that they were “brethren;” for there is no account of any other believers there at that time except those of the house of the jailer, whose house Paul and Silas left to go to that of Lydia, where they saw the brethren before they departed from the city.

2. The house of the jailer. Acts 16:31–34. On this text there is very slight chance for controversy. They preached to him and to all that were in his house; and all were baptized. And he “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” This is both plain and positive. Dr. Clarke says:—

“It appears that he and his whole family, who were capable of receiving instructions, embraced this doctrine, and showed the sincerity of their faith by immediately receiving baptism.”

But the scripture says they who thus were instructed, and believed, were “all his house;” yet in the face of this declaration the Doctor thinks the inference is allowable that “all his” included his infant also! What an inference.

3. The household of Stephanas. 1 Cor. 1:16. Paul says, “I baptized also the household of Stephanas.” In chap. 16:15 he speaks again of them thus: “Ye know the house of Stephanas, . . . that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.”

That being the case, no one will dispute that they were all proper subjects of baptism. All had manifested a personal interest in the work of the gospel.

Another text may well be noticed in this connection, which, though it does not speak of baptism, gives further evidence on the use of the term house. Acts 18:8 says, “Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house.” Paul says he baptized Crispus, but does not speak of baptizing his household; but doubtless they were all baptized, for his words prove that they were all proper subjects of baptism, all being believers.

In the case of the jailer it is expressly stated that they spoke the word of the Lord “to all that were in his house,” and that he believed, “with all his house.” Dr. Clarke, on this text, as above quoted, says: “All who were capable of receiving instructions, embraced this doctrine.” Granting what the Doctor infers, though it is not in proof, that there were some in the house too young to receive instructions in the doctrines of the gospel, it follows that the expressions, “all his house” and “all that were in his house,” do not include these little ones. But what, then, do they gain for infant baptism, by inferring the presence of infantile members of the household? The commission, and its fulfillment in Acts 2, &c., confine baptism to those who believe the gospel and repent of their sins. If (as Dr. Clarke claims, and with him all who infer infant membership in the households), the believing of a household does not include the younger members who cannot receive instruction, does not the baptizing of a household, under the commission, exclude the younger members who are unable to exercise the faith required in the commission? Or, in brief, if there may be unbelieving infants in a believing household, may there not also be unbaptized infants in a baptized household? And if not, why not? We do not ask that such an exception shall be made. We are willing to accept the statement as it stands in the sacred record, that all the household heard, all believed, and all were baptized. They who claim that there were infants of days in the households, find a necessity for exceptions to the general statements that the whole households believed. If the exceptions exist, then we claim, on the authority of the commission, that they extend to baptism as well as to faith; for unbelievers were never required to be baptized.

We will give a brief summary of the points in evidence on this subject.

1. Baptism does not take the place of circumcision; and therefore it is not allowable to argue from circumcision in the Old Testament to baptism in the New, as is so frequently done.

2. Preaching the word comes before baptism; a candidate for the ordinance must first understand his relation to the divine government, as a sinner.

3. Faith comes before baptism, according to the terms of the great commission. We must have faith in the name of Christ before we can be baptized into his name.

4. Repentance comes before baptism. This also is in the order laid down by Inspiration. As baptism is for the remission of sin, and is the pledge of a new life, repentance is necessary; for without this there can be no assurance of future obedience.

5. The same is shown further in that baptism is a burial; and death precedes burial. This death is a death to sin; but there is no death to sin without conviction by the law of God, and repentance. Without these there is no walking in “newness of life.”

6. Baptism is commanded, and the commandment requires obedience on the part of all who can understand a precept. No others can obey it.

7. Baptism is not a blessing which may be received without volition or obedience. To regard it as a privilege merely, and not as a precept, lays the foundation for gross errors concerning baptismal regeneration, and its necessary counterpart, the destruction of all unbaptized infants.

8. Baptism is related to remission of sin; it belongs to a remedial system, and is to be obeyed by all those who have sins to be remitted. It applies to no others.

9. Baptism is not for “original sin.” The sin of Adam brings no condemnation to his children, and baptism does not stand related to it. The gospel does not save anybody from that death which we inherit from Adam. Exceptions do not destroy the truth that “in Adam all die.” We all inherit mortality from him, but not condemnation. But the gospel saves from the second death, the penalty for personal sin.

10. Baptism does not remove natural depravity, in any case. In this respect baptized infants are no better than others. It has no power to impart “a higher life to the soul;” it is not “a saving ordinance” in any such sense. Adults are not freed from their fallen natures in baptism, but have to overcome, even to the end. Christian life is a warfare with self.

11. Infants are brought from the dead by the great Lifegiver, and die no more because they have no sin for which to answer. They are not saved by repentance, faith, and the remission of sin. The first two they could not exercise; the last they did not need.

12. In every instance recorded in the New Testament the preaching of the word preceded baptism, and they who gladly received the word were baptized.

13. The term “children” does not necessarily refer to infants, nor even to young people; and never refers to infants where duty is enjoined, as in Acts 2:38, 39, and Eph. 6:1.

14. The baptism of households affords no evidence in favor of infant baptism. While there is nothing in the statements from which an inference may justly be drawn in favor of infant baptism, a conclusion against it is justly drawn from the statements in regard to the faith and labors of the households.

An inference, to be admissible, must have the probabilities in its favor; but in this case the probabilities are decidedly against any just inference for infant baptism. The terms of the commission, the records of its fulfillment, the relations and conditions of baptism,—all lead to a conclusion against it; and the records of household baptisms are such as to shut out such an inference. An inference is necessary only when nothing else can reasonably be drawn from the text; which is not the case in any of the inferences in favor of infant baptism. And an unnecessary inference is worthless, and should not, for a moment, be entertained where questions of duty are involved.

The power of the truth in its simplicity, unalloyed by the theories of the wisdom of the world, is shown in the following incident which we copy from the Biography of Dr. Carson:—

“In the year 1807, James Haldane, after having sprinkled an infant, was accosted by his little son, a child six years of age, with the pertinent question, ‘Father, did that child believe?’ ‘No,’ said the surprised parent, ‘why do you ask me such a question?’ ‘Because, father, I have read the whole of the New Testament, and I find that all who were baptized believed. Did the child believe?’ It was enough. God’s simple truth, which had been hidden from the wise and prudent, was revealed to the babe. The strange question, ‘Did the child believe?’ haunted the mind of that father, until, after a thorough examination, he renounced his former errors, and was publicly immersed. His brother Robert soon followed his example. Whole churches saw the light of this ordinance flashing upon them; and thousands of the most devoted men of Scotland, who had taken the Bible as their sole directory, reformed their ‘Tabernacle Reformation,’ and followed the Lord fully.”

If left free from the glosses of “theology” and the obscurities of tradition, every one could find what that child found in the New Testament; that they who believed—who “gladly received the word”—were baptized. The conditions of the ordinance, the terms in which the duty is set forth, exclude all beside penitents and believers.

Though our examination of this branch of the subject has been somewhat brief, we trust such evidences have been presented as will lead the mind, unavoidably, to the truthful conclusion. We now pass from it to examine

THE ORDER OF BAPTISM.

If there is one part of the doctrine of baptism of more vital importance than another, we have that part now presented before us. We say if, for we do not wish thus to discriminate where every part is important, and where all is of divine authority. But this point is most intimately related to the most vital parts of Christian life.

Baptism has its form. Of this no active duty can be destitute. Paul thanked God that his brethren had “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine” which was delivered unto them; and this was spoken in connection with an argument relating to baptism. To change the form is to change the thing itself. It is not strictly correct to speak of “the mode of baptism,” though we often use the expression to conform to the common forms of thought on this subject. Baptism is neither more nor less than immersion; and “the mode of immersion” is an awkward expression.

Baptism has its subjects. To destroy the distinction of character in the subjects, and administer it to all without discrimination, would entirely destroy the ordinance as an institution for the followers of Christ. Therefore, it is necessary strictly to keep within the bounds of the teachings of the Scriptures as to the subjects of baptism, lest we pervert the ordinance and make it merely a means to minister to our own feelings. If we pervert it to such uses, we make it our own institution, and it is thenceforth no more the institution of our Lord.

Baptism has its order. There is a time in the experience of an individual when it may properly be administered; outside of that order it is not the institution of the gospel.

We heard a person once remark that his charity was of the largest kind: he could fellowship every one who was baptized in the name of Christ. Now this expression is very liable to be misunderstood. Not every one who is immersed in water, even after the formula given by the Saviour, is baptized in the name of Christ according to the Scripture meaning of the phrase. A hypocrite, destitute of faith and godliness, may be so immersed; yet he has not been baptized within the intention of the ordinance. The necessary conditions of the rite have not been complied with in such a case. We cannot subscribe to the sentiment of learned advocates of the baptism of non-believers, that the benefit of baptism is not lost because of the indisposition of the receiver.

There is another expression not so liable to be misconstrued as that of being baptized in the name of Christ; that is, being baptized into the death of Christ. This is necessary to Christian baptism. If this is complied with, the ordinance is administered according to its true intent.

We are very far from allowing that there is the shadow of a conflict between these two expressions. We insist that the truth is found in the harmony of Scripture testimony. When we have all that the Scriptures say on a given point, then we have the whole truth on that point. And we are free to express our opinion that if the original were more uniformly translated, and rendered into his name, as it is rendered into his death, the meaning would be more apparent to the general reader.

Paul takes up this subject in his letter to the Romans, and carries it out very thoroughly. His premises and conclusions are so clearly set forth that the expositor has little to do more than to trace the line of his argument.

There were some in the days of the apostle who had such erroneous views of the gospel as to think it allowable to do evil if the result was good! This idea has never been eradicated from the professed church of Christ. It has led into a multitude of false doctrines and wrong practices, and introduced into the church what are commonly known as “pious frauds.” According to this view, traditions and doctrines not found in the Bible, may be safely followed if they have a “pious use;” and long-established errors must be let alone for fear of weakening somebody’s faith in Christianity. But Christianity is never benefited by compromises with error, under any pretense whatever.

Said Paul, “The law entered that the offense might abound.” Rom. 5:20. Not that sin is increased by the law; but, as he said in chap. 7:13, “that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” The sinfulness of sin is increased by the increase of light. This effect was produced in the giving of the law; for “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3:20.

Again the apostle says, “For until the law sin was in the world.” This means until the law was delivered on Mount Sinai, as is shown by this reference, “Death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Rom. 5:13, 14. It has no reference to the origin of the law at that time, as some assume; for he adds, “But sin is not imputed when there is no law.” As by the law is the knowledge of sin, no one can be proved guilty in the absence of law. And if man’s knowledge of the law is imperfect, his ideas of sin will be imperfect. Thus is shown the meaning of the expression, “That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” The law does not really increase sin, more than the mirror increases the defilement of the person. It only makes the defilement manifest. It is in this sense that the law entered that the offense might abound; or, as it is expressed again in chap. 7:13, “But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good,” that is, by the law. In the same connection the apostle says the law is not death; it does not create sin. It proves the sinful nature of sin; it brings death where sin actually exists, and nowhere else.

As there is no guilt, or imputation of sin, where there is no law, so no law will prove a person guilty but that law which he has transgressed. We would not take that law which forbids blasphemy to prove a man guilty of theft. Hence that law which entered that the offense might abound or appear sin was the law which had been transgressed . It was not the making, but the renewing of the law, which took place at that time.

But where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Sin called for a special manifestation of grace, and this came through the Son of God. And as God is glorified in his Son, the question is raised, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” Some say, “Yes, we frustrate grace if we keep the law; we restrain the fullness of the gospel and thereby dishonor Christ.” Many to this day reason thus. But Paul gives the question a decided negative; he says, “God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?” Life and death are opposites. If we are living in sin, we are surely not dead to it; it is impossible to be dead to sin and to live in sin at the same time. And he gives a demonstration of this death to sin: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” This ought to be conclusive to every one. If we were not dead to sin, why were we buried? The proper time for burial is after death, not before death. The proper time for burial in baptism is when we die to sin—to the transgression of the law; for “sin is the transgression of the law.” But they who still live in violation of the law could not have been buried in this order. They were buried alive; “the body of sin” was not destroyed; the “old man” in them still lives. This is what is plainly taught in Rom. 6.

(To be Continued.)