Thoughts on Baptism by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 11, 1878

Thoughts on Baptism.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

THE ORDER OF BAPTISM.—CONTINUED.

Having now fairly introduced this relation, we will go back to notice the instruction previously given by Christ and his apostles.

In our Lord’s sermon on the mount he fully announced the nature and object of his mission: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.” The law to which he there referred was not a new law; not one which was yet to be introduced. It was a law then in existence; which was known to his hearers, and which was connected with the teachings of the prophets. He also said that whosoever shall do and teach the commandments of this law shall be great in the kingdom of Heaven.

The “golden rule” was enforced on the authority of the law. “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.” The law guards all our rights and all our relations in respect to life, chastity, property, reputation, &c. All that we have, together with ourselves, is protected by the law; and as we desire to have our rights respected, so should we respect the rights of others. This is the law, and this is the golden rule. The law which forbids our doing any injury to our neighbor, guards our own rights with equal care. He who breaks down the authority of law, breaks down the safeguard of his own rights, and makes a wreck of his own privileges. To give a warrant to lawlessness is to open the gates to a flood which is sure to overwhelm us. There is no higher morality than that contained in the law of God. The very essence of the gospel—glory to God, and peace and good will to man—is the object and spirit of the law.

We do not here refer to the law of types; to those shadows which find their antitype in Christ. We know that these were nailed to his cross, and done away in him. We are speaking in defense of the law of ten commandments, which God spake with his own voice, and wrote with his own finger on tables of stone; which was deposited in the ark, over which the high priest sprinkled the blood of expiation. This is preeminently “the will of God.” It is identified as such in Rom. 2:17–23, as follows:— “Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God?”

This is a decisive vindication of the ten commandments as the will of God, through breaking which God is dishonored. And this casts light on other texts. Jesus said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” John 7:16, 17. Here a distinction is made between the will of the Father, and the doctrines of the Son; the same as between “the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus,” Rev. 14:12; or the distinction between the law and the gospel. As Jesus was sent of God, he could do and teach nothing contrary to the revealed will of God. If any man teach a gospel contrary to the will or law of God, we may be assured it is not from Heaven; it is from beneath. It is not the doctrine or gospel of Christ; for he came to do the will of his Father, and to lead men to cease their warfare against the will and authority of his Father. And so he said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven.”

The first sermon preached under the Lord’s great commission, that on the day of Pentecost, leads us to the same conclusion. After laying before his hearers the facts of the gospel system, and convicting them of their guilt, Peter proceeded to declare the duties of the convicted sinner. The first is to repent; the second, to be baptized for the remission of sin. In this our day, the antinomian view is largely believed that all law, the ten commandments as well as the ceremonial law, was abolished at the death of Christ. But it was then true, as it is now, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” and “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” If all law had then been abolished, then there could be no conviction of guilt, for there could be no imputation of sin; how, then, could the duty lie upon them to repent, and to be baptized for the remission of sin? It is easy to see that the antinomian view involves an absurdity; we are surprised that men of apparent intelligence and judgment should ever be found to advocate it.

Where moral relations exist, law must exist. To destroy one is to destroy the other. The declaration is no more scriptural than it is reasonable, that “sin is not imputed when there is no law;” for “where no law is, there is no transgression.” Rom. 4:15. But sin was imputed on the day of Pentecost, and without this, baptism would have been a nullity. Therefore the law then existed; by it they were condemned as transgressors.

If, then, “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” as the apostle says, we are proved to be sinners as long as we continue to transgress the law. He who fails to do the will of the Father, has no interest in the kingdom of Heaven, no matter how earnestly he calls Jesus Lord. Character is determined by relation to law, and not by profession. The transgressor of the law is a sinner, whether he is in or out of a church. And this brings us to the subject introduced in Rom. 6. He who is a transgressor of the law, no matter what his profession may be, is living in sin, and he has no reason to show why he should be buried in baptism.

The condition or relation here brought to view is indispensable to Christian life, for no one can rise to walk in newness of life if the old life of sin still continues. “If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” Being planted in the likeness of his death can have respect only to the form and order of our burial with him, or our baptism into his death. “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; . . . he was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.” 1 Cor. 15:1–3. These are the facts as they occurred, and they present the pattern of duty in the gospel: 1. Die to sin; 2. Be buried in baptism; 3. Rise to walk in newness of life. This is “the likeness of his resurrection;” for “in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:10, 11.

The same idea runs through the illustration and its application in Rom. 7. The woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as her husband liveth. “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.” Her relation to the law must be changed to enable her to marry another; and this change is effected by death. But death does not change the law: it changes her relation to the law. The law remains to convince of sin, the same as before. The application he makes thus: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

The whole connection shows that becoming “dead to the law,” is to become dead to the transgression of the law; the same as “dead to sin.” The law holds us under condemnation as sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Where sin is found, death must ensue. And the law in justice presses its demand until the penalty is inflicted. Christ so honored the claims of the law in respect to its penalty that we are now permitted to die with him, be buried with him, and be raised with him, Rom. 6:8, 4; Col. 2:12, and so avert the penalty in the future,—the second death. An option is thus afforded us of dying to sin or eventually dying for sin. By dying to sin our relation to the law is so changed, through Christ, that we shall escape the curse which the law inflicts on the sinner. For “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.” Gal. 3:13. He does not redeem us from the obligation, but from the curse. In this sense we “are delivered from the law,” delivered from its condemnation, or curse. It has been unjustly inferred from the conjunction of the two expressions, “dead to sin” and “dead to the law,” that sin and the law are equivalents. No excuse can be admitted for this inference, for no one can accept this conclusion who takes the pains to read the chapter; for the apostle expressly denies it. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid.” The law is not sin: so far from it, that it condemns sin; it forbids and makes known sin. “I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” That is, he had not known the nature of his propensities or desires if the law had not enlightened him. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.”

It is sin that brings the curse of the law upon us. We must not blame the law if we find ourselves under its condemnation. Our complaint must fall upon ourselves. Had we not arrayed ourselves against the law in transgression, it would not be against us to condemn us. Sin is the cause of our trouble, and not the law. “For sin,” said the apostle, “taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.” It is true the law—and it only—convinces of sin. “For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” This is a record of an important part of his experience. His being alive without the law refers to that part of his life wherein he thought he was doing God service in persecuting the church of Christ. John 16:2. His conscience was not awakened because his mind was in darkness; he did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Tim. 1:13. “When the commandment came”—when he was enlightened by the law of God—“sin revived;” he found himself to be a murderer instead of a servant of God; he stood condemned, and as the only alternative, “I died:” —died to sin; ceased to fight against God, and found a refuge and a remedy in the blood of the cross of Christ. The commandment was never given to condemn and slay people; it “was ordained unto life;” it was given in love, to form our characters aright, and thus to fit us to enjoy the favor and presence of God. Only when sin enters, is it “found to be unto death.”

Paul, using the first person, reckons himself among those who were buried with Christ. And when was he buried? Of course when the commandment came and he died. When else should he have been buried? And when should we be buried? It becomes a very important matter for us to determine whether we have died to sin; whether we have been planted in the likeness of the Saviour’s death.

We have said there is no higher morality than that contained in the law of God. The apostle confirms this, saying, “For we know that the law is spiritual.” Rom. 7:14. And if the law is spiritual, then obedience to the law is spiritual worship. Some affect to think that it evinces a lack of spirituality to keep the law; that it is mere carnality; or, as before noticed, they say it frustrates grace and dishonors Christ and his gospel. We have seen that Paul gave a very decided negative to the idea, that we may transgress the law that grace may abound; and again we find him declaring the law is spiritual. This ought to silence every cavil against a law which is holy, just, and good. But Paul goes further: he not only vindicates the law from the charge of carnality, but he turns the charge pointedly against its originators. He says, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7. The carnal mind—literally, the minding of the flesh, or walking after the flesh—is the opposite of obedience to the law, and so it must be, as “the law is spiritual;” for spirituality and carnality cannot agree. And the high morality of the law is further shown by Paul in stating the object of the gospel: “That the righteousness of the law

might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. 8:4.

The gospel is remedial. It is a cure for sin, or for the transgression of the law. Had there been no sin there would have been no gospel; it would not have been needed. Then the righteousness of the law would have been fulfilled in every soul of man, for all would have lived in perfect obedience. It was “to put away sin” that Jesus came; to restore fallen man to obedience to the Heavenly Father. This is accomplished only in the obedient believer in Jesus; who accepts him as his sacrifice “for the remission of sins that are past,” and is reconciled to God by the death of his Son; who “keeps the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rom. 5:10; Rev. 14:12. In such, and in such only, is the righteousness of the law fulfilled and the carnal mind subdued.

One point in the apostle’s argument in Rom. 7 remains to be noticed. The woman’s relation to the law must be changed by death before she can be married to another without being called an adulteress. “My brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead.” This is a plain declaration that he who seeks such a union with Christ before death has changed his relation to the law—before he has died to sin—is guilty of spiritual adultery. And as baptism is the rite whereby we signify our union with Christ (“As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27.), this rite is illegally performed if there is such an impediment to the marriage as is spoken of in Rom. 7:1–4. And thus we find in this illustration a strong proof of the view introduced in Chap. 6, that death to the transgression of the law must precede burial in baptism. Death to the law—to its condemnation for sin—must take place before we can be united to Christ; for Christ cannot be joined to “the body of sin.”

(To be Continued.)