Your ShelfYour Projects

Design of Baptism

6%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 30, 1862

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 20, No. 18.

Read the full edition

Design of Baptism

By Moses Hull

In the World's Crisis of Aug. 13, I notice an article on the design of baptism. The writer evidently has not thoroughly investigated the subject. After quoting Acts ii, 38, he commences by saying:
“Is baptism here set forth as a pre-requisite to the remission of sins? I answer in the negative. If it were, it would conflict with the general tone of revelation which makes repentance or faith reduced to action, the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins, andwould make baptism an absurdity when administered to Christ, to Cornelius, and to other holy men who had no sins to remit.”
I cannot conceive how a larger bundle of errors can be put into one paragraph than is in the one just quoted. I might with equal propriety quote the same text, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," and say, "Is repentance here set forth as a pre-requisite to the remission of sins? I answer in the negative. If it were, it would conflict with the general tone of revelation, which makes prayer the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins."
But there is one difficulty in the way of the doctrine of my paragraph, and that is, there is no Scripture to sustain it. Just so with the one above quoted from the Crisis. The Bible does command us to repent, to exercise faith, and to pray; but nowhere promises remission of sins upon complying with either of these alone, or all of them combined, unless other duties are done, one of which is, "be baptized." Now if I were to argue that prayer was not a necessary pre-requisite to the remission of sins because Christ, who had no sins to remit, prayed, or because he says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," or that faith was not necessary because Christ exercised it, would not the Crisis say, "Ye strain at a gnat and swallow a camel?" Yet it commits the same absurdity in denying "baptism for the remission of sins," because Christ, who was not a sinner, was baptized.
Where does "the tone of revelation" make "repentance or faith the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins?" Might I not as consistently say that prayer is the only pre-requisite? The Bible says, "Pray if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Acts viii, 22. But I would be answered, Prayer does not exclude repentance or faith. So I argue that the "general tone of revelation" does not exclude baptism.
When the Crisis calls upon its readers to believe that "repentance or faith is the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins," would they not be wise to consider the words of James before complying with this requirement? "Ye see then how that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." James ii, 24.
The unbelief of the Crisis upon this subject is like unbelief elsewhere. It fails to offer a definite substitute. It speaks of "repentance or faith" as "the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins."
What is the meaning of that little word, or? Is it not thrown in to avoid taking a definite position? Why not be definite enough to tell what is meant? Is it repentance alone, or is it faith alone, that the Crisis would have us believe to be "the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins?" The Bible lays down as many as eight pre-requisites to the remission of sins, and prominent among them is baptism.
The article to which I refer says that those who baptize for the remission of sins "would make baptism an absurdity when administered to Christ, to Cornelius, and to other holy men who had no sins to remit."
Had Cornelius no sins to remit? Then certainly it was unnecessary to send men to Joppa to find a man to tell him what he ought to do to be saved. Acts x, 6; xi, 14. When Peter came to the house of Cornelius he told him what to do to get the remission of sins. Acts x, 43. Hence Cornelius' sins were not yet remitted. The Holy Ghost fell on the household of Cornelius, not as an evidence that all the inmates were pardoned, but as an evidence of the Lord's willingness to save the Gentiles.
I cannot think that the Crisis would have its readers understand that John did not baptize for the remission of sins, because Christ had no sins to remit, when the Bible emphatically declares that John preached, yes, and administered, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark i, 4; Luke iii, 3. Yet such is its argument.
If it were at all necessary, we could now show that Christ was not baptized for the same purpose that others were who received baptism from the hands of John. But as no one can date the origin of Christian baptism further back than the day of Pentecost, I will not make an argument upon the design of the baptism of the Saviour.
The Crisis next serves up the antiquated objection that "if sins cannot be remitted except in baptism, a man should be baptized every time he chances to sin."
I presume no one has ever said sin could not be remitted except in baptism. Baptism neither remits, pardons, nor takes away sin. God does this. But baptism, when preceded by a proper repentance, and faith in Christ, initiates the true believer into Christ, where he is entitled to all spiritual blessings, among which is the remission of sins. Then if the Christian—the one who has been baptized—not the unbelieving sinner, sins, he has an Advocate with the Father.
Christ died, was buried, and arose again. The sinner believes this, and obeys from the heart "that form of doctrine," that is, he dies to sin, is buried in baptism, and rises to walk in newness of life. He is now made free from sin. He becomes a servant of God, and has his fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Rom. vi, 17. It is not until after obedience to the whole "form of doctrine" that freedom from sin takes place. Then if he sins, he has an Advocate with the Father.
MOSES HULL.