p. 84 | QUESTION ANSWERED by James White

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 29, 1858

QUESTION ANSWERED.

By James White

QUESTION. How can baptism necessarily precede pardon or remission, when we must first die to sin and can receive the Holy Spirit through faith, and thus be members of the body of Christ without it? Acts x. 47; Eph. i, 13.

In attempting to answer the above question I shall take a wider range than will, perhaps, be considered essential to an understanding of the subject. I will commence with the positive institutions of the past dispensation.

The institutions of the gospel, like those of the Levitical law, are positive, and point to Christ. Those pointed forward to, or typified, a Messiah to come and offer himself a sacrifice; these point back to, or commemorate, the Saviour's humility, death and resurrection. This gives us the idea that their use or object is the same.

The object of the Levitical law was to show forth or teach the way of salvation by the remission of sin; the finality or center point of the system was the work of the high priest on the tenth day of the seventh month—the atonement made in the most holy place. Webster says a stone signifies, "To stand as an equivalent, to make reparation, amends, or satisfaction for an offense or crime, by which reconciliation is procured between the offended and offending parties." The law is not actually satisfied until the atonement is made, though the offended party may show favor to the offender in view of the atonement or satisfaction to be made. Thus, a debtor may promise or arrange to pay a debt, and the creditor regard him as just, (justified,) by virtue of such promise or arrangement. But should he afterwards refuse to pay, or neglect to avail himself of the means, he would (to use scripture terms) fall from the favor or grace of his creditor. But it will appear evident that if, instead of making an arrangement to pay in the future, he actually paid the debt, he would not only be justified, but falling from favor or grace would be impossible. So we find that by inspiration a man may be justified before satisfaction is really rendered.

This is most fully proved by the case of the faithful who lived before the time of Christ. "Without shedding of blood is no remission;" but they lived, sinned, repented, were justified, and died, before any blood was shed that could atone for, or take away, their sin. This we term justification by faith; but when any "depart from the faith," as we are assured many will, they lose that justifying favor, or fall from grace.

On this point much misapprehension has existed, and does exist. The imputation of righteousness by faith is often mistaken for righteousness itself. I think it is safe to presume that nine-tenths of all the professed Christians of this age firmly believe that their sins were atoned for more than eighteen hundred years ago. Let us trace such a belief to its conclusion:

If the claim of the law was satisfied more than eighteen hundred years before the offense was committed, then satisfaction was acknowledged before the sin was repented of. But if satisfaction was acknowledged in behalf of one before repentance, it must have been in behalf of all, or else God is a respecter of persons, which the Bible says he is not. This of course leads to both antinomianism and universalism.

But if the atonement was not made on Calvary, the question will be asked, How are we saved? And I answer, as they were before the advent of Christ. It was a work of faith with them, and so it is with us while we look forward to the atonement. The following facts are familiar to believers in present truth. The offering of the sacrifice is preparatory to the atonement. The atonement is made by the high priest, in the sanctuary. But Christ was not and could not be a priest on earth, nor minister in the earthly sanctuary; for the priests of the earthly sanctuary

were of the tribe of Levi, but "our Lord sprang out of Judah," and he is a priest in the Sanctuary in heaven. Heb. vii, 1-5.

Therefore his offering on Calvary was preparatory to the atonement which he was afterward to make while High Priest on the throne of his father. When the day of atonement commences, the dead may be atoned for at once, as their fate is fixed, there being no knowledge nor device where they have gone. But with the living it is different. They cannot have an atonement made for them till all their sins are repented of that they may be sealed with the seal of God, which makes it sure and final.

As we stand in the same relation to the great satisfaction to be made to the law that those did who lived under the first covenant, looking forward to the consummation of the atonement, the question arises, What shall we understand by the commandment to be baptized for the remission of sins. Of all the definitions of the word "for," given by Webster, the only one we can possibly use in this connection is, "with a view to obtain," or "in order to," &c. This will apply in all its scripture uses; and if the gift of the Spirit be taken as an evidence of justifying grace conferred, the position here taken is clear, as in the promises baptism precedes the gift. Acts ii, 38; xix, 1-6. The text referred to in the question is also proof of this; [Eph. i, 13, 14;] "After that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest [sign, token, or assurance] of our inheritance until the redemption," &c. The intent of the commandment is clearly this: Repent and be baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins, and you shall receive the earnest or sign of our inheritance, or evidence of heirship.

There is a feeling of humble confidence in God, a trusting in his promise to the penitent, which every believer has as soon as he believes and sorrows for sin after a godly sort. If this is sufficient evidence of acceptance with God for the time being, it will not justify us in neglecting the ordinances of the Lord's house. Doubtless the same feeling was enjoyed by the penitent in the past dispensation, yet no one would suppose that they were thereby excused from attending the service of the sanctuary. That service was instituted for the penitent—not for the impenitent. Jer. vi, 19, 20. And so of the institutions of the gospel. Nor is any delay justifiable in the case. Prompt obedience is the evidence that our sorrow is godly.

The above remarks are made because I think the ideas need to be considered, and it seems to be appropriate to present them here. But as to the conclusion of Bro. L. on which the question seems to be based, I am far from being satisfied that we can become members of the body of Christ without baptism. Those scriptures which speak most directly on the point seem to contradict the idea, while the texts referred to do not by any means sustain it. True, we must die to sin, and thus become dead to the law that we may be married to another, even Christ: [Rom. vi, 4;] and when dead to sin we are baptized in the name of Christ, and "into Christ," and thus we put on Christ. Gal. iii, 27.

The difficulty seems to lie in this, that no distinction is recognized between being members, and having the qualifications necessary to become members. Eph. i, 13 says they were sealed after they believed, but it does not say whether it was before or after baptism. Acts x shows that Cornelius, a devout, God-fearing Gentile was directed to send to Peter to learn what he ought to do. This was an extraordinary case; it was Peter's first message to the Gentiles; and God saw fit to display his grace in a special manner, first, by giving Peter a vision concerning his duty to the Gentiles, and second, by sending the Holy Ghost upon the hearers before baptism, which was not in the order of the promise as given in Acts ii, 38, nor according to the fulfillment of that promise as shown in Acts xix, 1-6. It may be (and has been) claimed that if God has so done, he may do so again. This I would grant. He may do so; but I am not ready to grant that we have any right to ask or expect he will do so unless we can show a promise to that effect. The divine plan as revealed and commanded is our rule, and not an isolated and extraordinary case. Sunday-keepers have been blessed of God, but it is better to keep the Sabbath notwithstanding, because it is according to the commandment and has the promise. We should "make everything according to the pattern" given.

The above (with what I have published at other times) shows my views of the true relation we sustain to the gospel of Christ before and after baptism. If I err in this, and others have more light, I would gladly receive it. And I hope especially to hear from Bro. L., that I may know whether I have apprehended the question, and answered in a manner to relieve the mind.

J. H. W.

Mount Vernon, Iowa.