Confession
· Baptism
· The
Meaning Of Baptism · The
Baptism Of John · Christian
Baptism · Baptism
And Repentance · Baptism
And Faith · The
Embodiment Of Faith
The
Design Of Baptism
We have
just learned that repentance and faith are natural prerequisites of salvation.
These are natural conditions of salvation because of the nature of salvation
and of the atonement for sins. Salvation involves freedom from both the guilt
and the practice of sin. Hence the necessity of repentance. The determination
to quit sinning and to do right, the dying to sin and being made alive to
righteousness, all stand naturally between the sinner and salvation. And
inasmuch as salvation is based upon the merits of the atonement of Christ,
faith becomes the natural method of accepting the Savior. These two conditions
of salvation, then, are demanded naturally. Reason, aside from revelation, sees
the propriety of repentance and faith as conditions of salvation.
But what of confession and baptism? In the first
place, are they conditions of salvation? If so, what are their meanings? If
conditions of salvation, are they natural conditions such as faith and
repentance, or do they have a place because of a special divine arrangement?
What saith the Scriptures?
In the first place, what is meant by confession?
What is to be confessed? Man should stand ready to confess God, Christ, the
Holy Spirit, as well as all truth. But are all these things included in the
confession here contemplated? The confession that is "unto salvation"
must necessarily relate to that which procures salvation. But Jesus Christ is
the Savior of men. Hence, the confession here meant must relate to him. It must
not only relate to Christ, but it must relate to him as Savior. Faith that
stops short of accepting Christ and him crucified as man's redeemer cannot
save. Confession, then, must relate to Christ crucified for man's sins. But let
us note what the Scriptures say:
Because if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth
unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom.
10:9, 10.)
In this passage confession is made, by divine
arrangement, the accompaniment of faith. "If thou shalt confess, . . . and
believe." Thus associated with faith it is made a condition of salvation.
Man believes "unto righteousness" and confesses "unto
salvation." We learn, also, that the object of confession is the object of
saving faith. We must confess "Jesus as Lord."
With these facts in hand, let us see what can be
learned concerning confession. Inasmuch as confession is an accompaniment of
faith and the object of confession is the object of faith, we naturally
conclude that faith and confession are not mere accompaniments, but are
essentially related as to meaning. This conclusion is demanded, not only by the
context, but by the fact that faith, in the sense of trust, is the only proper
response to the blood of Christ. Now, if confession has a meaning different
from faith, if it introduces a new significance, then another cause than the blood
of Christ is required in order to salvation. Faith accepts all that grace
offers. If, then, confession has not the meaning of faith, it cannot relate to
grace, and would consequently be ruled out as a condition of salvation. Rather
let us say it would never have been given a place as a condition of salvation,
for certainly God would not have joined to faith something incompatible with
faith. Confession is an accompaniment meet for faith. It is, as to
meaning, faith. It is a statement in words of the belief of the heart.
Confession, therefore, is faith spoken.
The significance of confession must, therefore,
be derived from faith. Apart from faith it could not be. There would be nothing
to confess that relates to salvation. Hence, with Paul, confession is
comprehended in faith. Note that in the above passage both confession and faith
are named as conditions of salvation. Then immediately each is named as a
condition reaching salvation, apparently as though the other were unnecessary.
Faith is said to be "unto righteousness." This is equivalent to
saying that faith reaches salvation. (The idea that "unto
righteousness" means only in the direction of, but not attaining,
righteousness is unfounded and would make void the argument of the apostle. If
"unto righteousness" means that righteousness is approached, but not
reached, then "unto the remission of . . . sins" in Acts 2:38
signifies that remission of sin is only approached, but not reached. This point
will have special attention later.) Confession is "unto
salvation"--that is, confession saves. Moffatt translates Rom. 9:10 thus:
For with his heart man
believes and is justified, with his mouth he confesses and is saved.
To be justified is to be saved. Hence, the two
expressions are equivalent. Is man, therefore, saved twice? No, if faith and
confession have the same meaning; yes, if they do not have the same meaning. If
faith differs in significance from confession and yet reaches salvation, and
confession differs from faith and yet reaches justification, then there are two
salvations, or, what would be as unreasonable, two methods of reaching
salvation. The apostle most certainly considers faith and the confession two
aspects of the same thing. That this is true, note the proof offered by him
that faith and confession save. Immediately after having asserted that
"with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation," Paul appeals to the prophet Isaiah for
proof of his statement thus:
For the scripture saith,
Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. (Rom. 10:11.)
That is, when the prophet said the believer
should not be put to shame, Paul had proof that both faith and confession are
conditions of salvation. But how did he have proof if confession has not the
same significance as faith? What amounts to this conclusion is conceded by
almost every one. While admitting that confession is a condition of salvation,
almost every one sometimes omits confession in naming the conditions.
Now, these facts involve an important principle.
It is admitted on all hands that salvation is by faith; yet we have just seen
that salvation by faith does not forbid confession as also a condition. Now, if
confession be admitted as a condition of justification, might not something
else be admitted also?
The answer to the above question will be
postponed until we find out what baptism is. Nor do we consider it necessary to
say much on this point. "Baptism" is a word of a definite meaning
which the lexicographers have not tried to hide. Thayer, and he is as good as
the best, says the word baptidzo means: "To dip repeatedly, to
immerse, submerge." The scholarship of the world says the word means to
dip, to submerge. The word does not mean to sprinkle or pour, and no one so
contended until the Catholic Church substituted sprinkling and pouring for
baptism. Even the Catholics did not contend that the Greek word baptidzo
means to sprinkle or to pour, but simply took the matter into their own hands,
as they claim they have the right to do, and substituted these acts for
immersion. At first sprinkling or pouring was admitted only to the sick. Not
even infants were at first sprinkled, but immersed. Finally sprinkling or pouring
for baptism was admitted to all.
In the course of time even Protestants came to
practice sprinkling and pouring for baptism. The highest authority that either
Catholics or Protestants have for substituting these acts for baptism is the
Pope. This fact is a matter of history, and can be verified by any one who
wishes to do so.
Not only does the word baptidzo signify
to immerse, but the circumstances surrounding the ordinance as mentioned in the
New Testament necessarily imply immersion. For example, John the Baptist
performed the act of baptism in the river Jordan.
Then went out unto him
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan; and they
were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. (Matt. 3:5,
6.)
When we remember that John, a preacher sent of
God, would not have done the ridiculous thing of getting into a river to
sprinkle a little water on people, we have good circumstantial evidence that
baptism is immersion. When Luke was recording the baptism of the eunuch (Acts
8:38, 39), he said of the baptizer and the one to be baptized that "they
both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized
him." When the act of baptism was completed, Luke said "they came up
out of the water." Nothing about the whole transaction remotely suggests
that Philip sprinkled water on the eunuch. Some have strangely imagined that
Philip could not have immersed the eunuch because of a scarcity of water, for
Luke says of the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: "The same
is desert." (Acts 8:26.) Yet Luke says both Philip and the eunuch
"went down into the water." But the word "desert" has
nothing directly to do with water, little or much. The word primarily means
desolate, solitary, uninhabited. The road from Jerusalem to Gaza led through an
uninhabited region, and, hence, as Moffatt says, the road was the "desert
route." The word "desert" came to be applied to rainless
regions--not to signify their lack of rainfall, but to describe their solitary
and uninhabited state. Since rainless regions are usually uninhabited, the idea
of a lack of rainfall attached itself to the word "desert." The word
translated "wilderness" in Matt. 3:1 is the word for "desert."
Moffatt translates the passage thus:
In those days John the
Baptist came on the scene, preaching in the desert of Judea.
Yet the river Jordan ran through this
"desert" and John baptized in it. Philip could have had as much water
for immersion as did John, so far as the word "desert" is concerned.
The country where John preached and baptized was a "wilderness" or
"desert" because it was in the country where people did not live, as
opposed to the cities where the people made their homes. And just so with Philip.
The route he took from Jerusalem to Gaza led through an uninhabited region.
Hence, it was called a "desert." To confirm this meaning of the word
"desert," notice Mark's use of it. (Mark 6:31-39.) After a busy day's
work among the multitudes, Christ said to his disciples: "Come ye
yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while." Mark explains:
"For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as
to eat." Yes, a desert place is a good place to rest. It is
not, however, if "desert" means a dry, hot place. But note the mode
of travel to this desert place. I can imagine some one thinks he sees Jesus
mounted on a camel. But not so. Hear Mark: "And they went away in the boat
to a desert place apart." Enough water in this "desert" to float
a boat! Then why not enough water in a desert place to immerse a man? But more.
Mark states that the people learned where Christ and his disciples were going:
"And they ran together on foot from all the cities, and outwent
them." So when Christ and his disciples landed they found a great
multitude of people. But the people failed to bring food. This is the occasion
of Christ's feeding the five thousand. In arranging the people for the meal,
Christ ordered "that all should sit down by companies upon the green
grass." Yes, green grass in the desert! The river Jordan in the desert!
Only a lack of information causes one to think there is not enough water in a
"desert" for immersion.
The meaning of baptism excludes the idea of
sprinkling or pouring. Baptism pictures the burial and resurrection of Christ.
This, affusion cannot do.
We were buried therefore
with him through baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the
dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
(Rom. 6:4.)
Having been buried with him
in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working
of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col. 2:12.)
The scholarship of the world says the baptism of
these verses is water baptism. If baptism is a burial and a resurrection, then
only immersion is baptism.
To a stranger to Christianity it would seem
unreasonable that baptism should have a place in religion at all. What does
baptism have to do with saving one from sin? Does not the blood of Christ do
that? And are not the benefits of the blood accepted by faith? If baptism can
neither procure salvation nor accept it, how can it have a place under Christ?
In other words, what does baptism signify? What is its meaning? We propose to
answer these questions in the fear of God.
In the first place, we have seen that baptism is
immersion, and that it pictures the burial and resurrection of Christ. Here is
a good beginning. Baptism, then, relates to Christ. Now, since Christ is Savior
and baptism relates to him, it can rightfully have a place under Christianity.
Now, baptism refers not simply to Christ, but to him in his saving capacity. It
concerns Christ's death, burial, and resurrection for the sins of the world.
Here, then, is a still better reason why baptism can have a place in the
salvation of man.
Now, since baptism relates to Christ, even to
Christ in his saving capacity, what is the meaning of this reference? Perhaps
something can be ascertained concerning its significance by noting its
accompaniments. If a piece of machinery is joined to the motor of a car, it is
evident that it has nothing to do with the wheels of the machine. The
presumption is that it has a work that relates to the motor. Its place
necessarily suggests this much. Now, with what is baptism associated? From the
following Scriptures we see that it is connected with repentance and faith:
John came, who baptized in
the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto the remission of
sin. (Mark 1:4.)
Repent ye, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins.
(Acts 2:38.)
He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16.)
But when they believed
Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of
Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. And Simon also himself
believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip. (Acts 8:12, 13.)
And many of the Corinthians
hearing believed, and were baptized. (Acts 18:8.)
For ye are all sons of God,
through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ
did put on Christ. (Gal. 3:26, 27.)
In some way, then, baptism, being associated
with repentance and faith, must share in their meaning. Let us study first
John's work was to lead the people to
repentance, thus preparing them for Christ. Hence, Matthew writes:
And in those days cometh
John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Repent ye; for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matt 3:1, 2.)
Mark wrote of John:
John came, who baptized in
the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.
(Mark 1:4.)
It was John's business, then, to preach the
message of repentance. It was the duty of the people to repent and reform their
lives. What the people did, therefore, in response, to John's preaching was
repentance or signified repentance. But John preached not simply repentance,
but the baptism of repentance. The baptism the people received was, therefore,
a baptism that concerned repentance. What did baptism under the preaching of
John mean?
The meaning of John's baptism is to be
determined from its accompaniment, repentance. It was a "baptism of
repentance." Such a baptism is one based on repentance, not one simply preceded
by it. It is a baptism signifying or embodying repentance--that is, the baptism
of the people stood for their repentance. No one was to be baptized who had not
repented, and every one who repented was to be baptized. Baptism and repentance
were, therefore, according to a divine arrangement, inseparable. Neither was to
be considered apart from the other. Baptism apart from repentance would have
been meaningless, and repentance without baptism would have been without its
God-ordained manifestation. Hence, John preached--not baptism, but a
"baptism of repentance." He preached not simply repentance, but
repentance embodied in baptism. John was sent to preach both, and God did not
contemplate one apart from the other. Neither should we.
The meaning of John's baptism was repentance.
One acquainted with John's mission of leading people to repentance would know
that one had repented on seeing him baptized. The response to the preaching of
repentance is repentance. But the people responded, outwardly, by accepting
John's baptism. Their baptism, then, meant repentance. It introduced no meaning
not found in repentance. It lacked no meaning found therein.
Now, the design of John's baptism can easily be
learned. Since it meant repentance and was not to be separated from it; since
repentance was outwardly embodied in baptism, the purpose of one is the purpose
of the other. They can no more be separated in meaning than in practice.
Something that John preached was "unto the remission of sins." What
was it? Was it repentance? No, not just that. Was it baptism? And not just
baptism. (The Bible nowhere contemplates immersion per se. It must have
an accompaniment that gives to it a significance.) The thing that was
"unto the remission of sins" was not repentance simply or baptism.
Nor did John preach repentance and baptism "unto the remission of
sins." But he preached "the baptism of repentance unto the remission
of sins."
A part of the final message of Jesus to his
disciples was:
Go ye therefore, and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19.)
What, now, does Christian baptism signify? As to
what constitutes baptism we have already seen. Baptism, as to the act, is the
same under Christ as anywhere else. Its meaning, however, may not always be the
same. Under John we found that baptism, by divine arrangement, meant
repentance. Does it signify repentance under Christ? If so, what else?
While baptism under Christ has a more extended
meaning than it did under John, it will be found that it still relates to
repentance. Now, it is the peculiar work of repentance to change one's attitude
toward sin and righteousness. In this work it has no substitute. Neither faith
nor baptism can do the work of repentance. In repentance one ceases to love sin
and begins his love for righteousness. To use a Bible figure, in repentance one
dies to sin and is raised to righteousness. There is no neutral ground. As soon
as one hates sin he loves righteousness. Repentance not only turns one away
from Satan, but turns him toward God. Hence, it is appropriately considered a
death with respect to sin and a resurrection with respect to righteousness.
Now, under Christ it is the work of baptism to
represent this change of mind toward sin and righteousness. Baptism cannot
effect this change, but it can and does represent or symbolize it. And thus
does Paul speak of it:
Or are ye ignorant that all
we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were
buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was
raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in
newness of life. (Rom. 6:3, 4.)
Thus Paul answered in replying to the question:
"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" The Christian
cannot continue in sin, for the evident reason that in becoming a child of God
he died unto sin. One cannot live in that unto which he has died. Hence, Paul
reminded those who asked the question that at the time of their conversion they
died unto sin, and that their baptism represented this death to sin as well as
their resurrection to righteousness. Every one, he said, who is "baptized
into Christ Jesus" was thereby "baptized into his death." The
burial in baptism implies a previous death, as the resurrection in baptism
signifies a new life. Keep in mind that Paul is here speaking of man's
attitude toward sin and righteousness, not of God's attitude toward the sinner.
The "likeness of his death"' (Rom. 6:5) is our death to sin, and the
"likeness of his resurrection" is our resurrection to righteousness
in repentance, represented by the burial and the resurrection in baptism,
respectively. In repentance the "old man was crucified with him" and
signified by the burial in baptism. The death of Christ related to sin, while
his life relates to God.
For the death that he died,
he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (Rom.
6:10.)
Just so in our repentance two changes take
place. First, like Christ and with him, we die unto sin. Second, like Christ
and with him, we are raised to live unto God. But these changes are represented
by Paul as taking place in baptism. "We were buried therefore with him
through baptism into death," and we were raised from baptism to "walk
in newness of life." Now, Paul cannot mean that, baptism effects repentance;
that one dies to sin and is raised to righteousness in the act of baptism. This
would be to ascribe to baptism a miraculous power. Repentance would then be a
gift of baptism, not an act of man. Paul certainly means that baptism signifies
repentance--the burial standing for death to sin, the emersion representing a
resurrection to righteousness.
Under Christ, then, baptism is connected with
repentance as a symbol of it. In this case it must share with repentance its
meaning. Hence, Paul could find in baptism a reason for the Roman Christians'
not continuing in sin. If baptism does not have the significance of repentance,
why did Paul represent it as the dividing line between a life of sin and a life
of righteousness?
Just as baptism is associated with repentance,
it is found accompanying faith.
He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16.)
But when they believed
Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of
Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. And Simon also himself
believed: and being baptized, he continued with Philip. (Acts 8:12, 13.)
And many of the Corinthians
hearing believed, and were baptized. (Acts 18:8.)
For ye are all sons of God,
through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ
did put on Christ. (Gal. 3:26, 27.)
Now, what relation does baptism sustain to
faith? Is their association accidental or incidental? Is baptism simply
something added to faith, but having no special reference to it? One can
scarcely read thoughtfully the above passages without concluding that baptism
is essentially related to faith in meaning. And remember that the meaning of
things under Christ is of the very greatest importance. Baptism or anything
else would not have been commanded without a purpose. Mere obedience under
Christ has no place, but obedience with a meaning does have. It is, perhaps,
impossible to imagine a more meaningless act than baptism in water unless it is
associated with something that gives it significance. Certainly the Lord would
not have imposed this obligation upon man simply to have him doing something.
And a failure to see the true significance of baptism has led some to consider
it of no special importance, while others exalt it to a place of first
importance, making even repentance and faith do service for it.
Let it be remembered here what has been said
about repentance and faith. These two things comprehend in principle everything
required of the sinner in coming to God through Christ. God will not save the
impenitent or him who will not accept by faith the atonement made for his sins.
Repentance and faith are naturally required in view of the nature of salvation
and the atonement. Salvation from both the guilt and practice is a matter of
impossibility apart from repentance. And grace is accepted by faith--that is,
Christ and him crucified, the all-sufficient sacrifice for sins, must be relied
upon to do what God intended--namely, save man from his sins. This reliance
upon the blood of Christ is faith or trust in him. "Repentance toward God
and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" represent in principle all that is
necessary in order to salvation; for what is required but to repent of the sins
committed and then to accept the remedy for sin, Jesus Christ?
So, then, if baptism, or anything else, is given
a place as a condition of salvation, it must have the significance of either
repentance or faith, or both. But we have already seen that baptism is related
to repentance by way of picturing it. In repentance one dies to sin. This death
is symbolized in baptism. Baptism, then, has, by virtue of its connection with repentance,
the significance of repentance. And just so it is given the meaning of faith.
This principle of seeing in acts of obedience repentance or faith, or both, is
nothing unusual in the Bible. Indeed, why does God require obedience? He needs
not our service. But man needs God. Since God must save, man needs to exercise
reliance upon God. Let us see about the principle just mentioned.
Matthew (8:5-13) records the healing by Christ
of a centurion's servant. Through others this centurion besought Christ to heal
a sick servant. When Christ offered to go to the centurion's house, the
centurion objected because he felt unworthy to receive the Lord. "Only say
the word, and my servant shall be healed," insisted the centurion. Here
was unusual faith, and the Lord marveled, saying: "I have not found so
great faith, no, not in Israel." Finally the Lord said to this unusual
Gentile: "Go thy way; as thou hast believed, so be it done unto
thee." Now, that which, in this Gentile, appealed to Christ was his faith.
The distance covered to get to Christ, the appeal in behalf of a sick servant,
Christ interpreted to mean faith in himself. And when Christ finally bestowed
the favor asked for, he did it on the condition of the man's faith. "As thou
hast believed, so be it done unto thee." All the acts of the centurion
that related to Christ had the meaning of faith.
Once a woman who had a wasting disease of twelve
years' standing, and who had spent all her living upon physicians without being
cured, heard of Christ and decided he could heal her. In her weakened condition
she traveled some distance and made her way through a thronging crowd of
curious people to reach the Savior. "If I touch but his garments,"
she thought, "I shall be made whole." And having touched him,
"straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her
body that she was healed of her plague." Though thronged by the curious
multitude, Christ knew that he felt an unusual touch. Power from him had gone forth
to some trusting person. He asked who had touched him. The people wondered at
such a question under the circumstances, but the poor healed woman understood.
Fearing that possibly she had not done the right thing, she "came and fell
down before him, and told him all the truth." Jesus said to her:
"Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of
thy plague." (Read Mark 5:25-34.)
As usual, Jesus saw in all the woman did faith
in himself. Her weary journey along the road, pushing her way through the crowd
to reach Christ, and touching his garments had but one significance--faith; and
when Jesus spoke words of commendation to the woman, he gave her faith the
credit.
Wherever the Savior went, he was thronged with
the sick, the blind, and the maimed seeking his mercy. Once he was teaching in
Capernaum. The house where he was was filled to overflowing. All room about the
door was taken. Four men bearing on a couch a man sick of the palsy appeared at
the door. They had brought the man to Christ to be healed. But they could not
enter. Not defeated, they uncovered the roof of the flat-topped house and let
the sick man down immediately in front of the Lord as he was teaching. The
historian is brief in his account of this scene. He merely says: "And
Jesus seeing their faith, saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are
forgiven." As in the other examples cited, so in this, Jesus interpreted
the acts of those who sought his mercy as faith. Faith is of the heart and
cannot be known except as it is expressed through action or word; but the word
or act has an appeal to Christ only because it expresses faith in him. Here,
then, are acts done by men at their own impulse denominated by the Savior as
"faith."
After Israel's deliverance from Egypt, they were
kept in the wilderness for forty years. During this time they grew weary and
repeatedly rebelled against God. This people and their conduct become to us
examples. We are warned not to do as they did, for because of their sins they
failed to enter Canaan. Our own sins may prevent our entering the heavenly
Canaan. The writer of the book of Hebrews has this to say of the Israelites:
And to whom sware he that
they should not enter into his rest, but to them that were disobedient? And we
see that they were not able to enter in because of unbelief. (Heb. 3:18, 19.)
God saw in the disobedience of the Jews unbelief
in himself. This is the real significance of all disobedience, as obedience
really signifies faith in God. All sins of the Jews were simply unbelief.
Now, if conduct in general, especially when not
commanded of God, may appropriately be called "faith," why not some
act commanded of God also have the meaning of faith? Now, that baptism may, upon
the above principle, have the significance of faith is an easy possibility; and
this possibility becomes a probability when it is remembered that baptism is
associated with faith in many passages. Then when we remember also that baptism
is a burial and a resurrection, symbolizing the burial and resurrection of
Christ, the probability becomes a reasonable certainty. Baptism, then, has the
significance of faith. Faith is inward; baptism, outward. And both mean trust
in Christ.
But baptism is not simply an act of faith. It is
a special act ordained of God to represent or embody faith. Feeding the hungry
might be, in a general way, an act of faith; but feeding the hungry does not,
and cannot, picture one's faith in Christ buried and raised for his justification.
Many benevolent persons who are unbelievers feed the poor, but no unbeliever in
Christ will sincerely be baptized. And while having mercy upon the hungry does
not necessarily imply faith in Christ at all, being baptized "in the name
of Christ" not only implies faith, but in a special way pictures it. In
other words, God's design in giving baptism was to represent one's faith in the
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. No other act is ordained of God thus
to picture faith.
We are, therefore, more than justified in giving
to baptism the meaning of faith or trust in Christ. And apart from the office
of representing repentance and faith, baptism would be as incongruous an
element in Christianity as one could easily imagine. Let us, with this
conception of baptism "in the name of Christ" study again the
passages in which are found both faith and baptism.
Our risen Lord said to his disciples:
Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned (Mark 16:15, 16.)
Now, the gospel is the glad tidings of Christ's
death, burial, and resurrection for our sins. (1 Cor. 15:1-4.) The death of
Christ is God's remedy for our sins to be received by faith. It is the grace of
God by which we are saved through faith. (Eph. 2:8.) The proper response to the
gospel is faith, the improper response is disbelief. Man's faith receives God's
grace. Then why is some other act than faith made a condition of salvation?
Where is the place for it? What can it do? Has chaos joined hands with order?
Have the compatible and the incompatible found fellowship? Why not something be
added to grace as the procuring cause of man's salvation if faith is to have an
accompaniment? The apostle wrote:
For by grace have ye been
saved through faith.
"Grace" and "faith" are
correlative terms. They are, so to speak, equations. If something is added to
faith, does not the equation cease? Four equals four, but four does not equal
four plus one. Grace calls for faith, but grace does not call for faith plus.
If a "quantity" is added to faith, an equal "quantity" must
be added to grace, or the equation ceases to be an equation. But Jesus has said
(and can a mistake be ascribed to him?): "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved." Something apparently has been added to faith;
but has something possessing an extra meaning been added? Most certainly not!
To think so is extremely unreasonable. Might as well claim that four equals
four plus one. It cannot be made to do it. Neither are grace and faith plus
possible. Grace would then cease to be grace, for faith had ceased to be just
faith. Baptism, then, must possess the meaning of faith. Faith simply means the
rejection of self and human righteousness and the acceptance of Christ and
divine righteousness. And so does baptism "in the name of Jesus
Christ." It cannot possibly be made to mean something different. A
different meaning would be meaningless here. Just as being baptized under John
meant the reception of John's preaching of repentance, so baptism under Christ
means the reception of God's grace. But the reception of grace means faith. So,
then, baptism means faith.
The very form of Christ's statement, "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall
be condemned," confirms this meaning of baptism. Faith and baptism in the
first sentence are made to balance, so to speak, disbelief in the second
sentence--that is, disbelief is the exact opposite of belief. But disbelief is,
in this passage, made the opposite of both belief and baptism. Hence, belief
and baptism are simply belief--that is, both have the same significance, that
of trust in Christ. Baptism is faith embodied in an outward act.
And not only does the form of the statements
signify that faith and baptism mean simply faith, but the consequences of
obedience on the one hand and disobedience on the other signify as much.
Salvation follows belief and baptism, while condemnation follows disbelief.
Now, salvation and condemnation are exact opposites; but condemnation is the
consequent of disbelief. Hence, disbelief signifies the exact opposite of the
conditions of salvation; but the conditions of salvation are belief and
baptism. It follows that disbelief is the exact opposite of belief and baptism;
but disbelief is the exact opposite of belief. Hence, belief and baptism equal
belief.
Now, some one who looks merely at the surface of
things may insist that I have made four equal four plus one. Only apparently,
not in reality, have I done so. I have simply shown that so far as baptism
having a meaning extra to faith, it is zero, or nothing. Baptism has a meaning
that signifies faith, or it has a meaning different from faith, or it has no
meaning at all. It is folly to ascribe to it no meaning at all. It is to
associate things incompatible to assign baptism a meaning different to faith.
It is both sensible and necessary to give to it the significance of faith.
But another insists that repentance and faith
are associated, and this does not prove that they are identical as to meaning.
No, and for a good reason that does not obtain with reference to faith and
baptism. As we have shown before, repentance is a natural requirement of
salvation. Repentance has naturally a meaning. It is the determination to quit
sinning and to do right. Repentance, then, by an inherent right has a place as
a condition of salvation. But immersion in water per se is wholly
without meaning under Christ. Its meaning must be assigned it by divine decree.
The meaning of baptism, unlike repentance, is dependent on something else.
Repentance has a fundamental and spiritual idea inhering in the word, while baptism
must depend upon circumstances for its signification. Here is a vital
difference. But let us study another Scripture
But when they believed
Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of
Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12.)
Now, here is something done following faith and
done because of faith. Why be baptized simply because one has believed on
Christ? There can be no reason for it except baptism is designed to express
faith. That faith is a mere prerequisite of baptism, which has a different
meaning and a separate design to faith, is a notion that betrays a lack of
understanding of Christianity. These Samaritans, who believed simply, embodied
their faith in an act specially ordained of God for this purpose; and just so
did the baptism of the jailer at Philippi follow his faith. (Acts 16:31-33.)
Paul's reference to baptism in his letter to the
Galatians (Gal. 3:26, 27) is significant:
For ye are all sons of God,
through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ
did put on Christ.
Sonship is reached through faith--that is, faith
appropriates the atonement made by Christ Jesus. Now, sonship means salvation.
Hence, faith saves. But the apostle represents baptism as the means whereby
Christ is reached. Is man saved twice--once by baptism and once by faith?
Certainly not. Or does faith merely take care of the preliminary matters and
baptism really do the work? That is, does the sinner merely approach Christ by
faith and enter him by baptism? Is faith only a means to an end, and that end
baptism? Paul asserts that we are sons of God" by faith. To be sons is to
be saved. Yet our writer speaks as though baptism did again what had been
accomplished by faith. What is the explanation?
Reread the Scripture carefully. We are
"sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus." Now note the first
word: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ Jesus did
put on Christ." The "for" looks back to being made sons by
faith. If baptism does not relate to previous faith as to its results, why
mention it at all? Baptism relates to Christ; it is "in the name of Jesus
Christ." But we are sons through faith in him. Baptism, then, expresses
faith. Or how can baptism into Christ confirm sonship by faith? In this
passage, as in others already studied, baptism has the meaning of faith. Verse
27 states in other words what was asserted in verse 26.
Luke, recording the work of Paul at Corinth,
wrote:
And Crispus, the ruler of
the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of the
Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. (Acts 18:8.)
Now, this language necessarily implies that what
was done by Crispus was also done by "many of the Corinthians."
Crispus "believed in the Lord." The Corinthians "believed and
were baptized." Hence, to believe and be baptized is simply to
"believe in the Lord." Thus baptism is again seen to have the meaning
of faith in Christ.
But not only does this Scripture imply that what
was true of Crispus was also true of the Corinthians, but it just as certainly
implies that what was true of the Corinthians was also true of Crispus. But the
Corinthians were baptized. Hence, it is implied that Crispus also was baptized.
Read again carefully: "And Crispus believed . . ." Well, did Crispus
alone believe? Paul continues: "And many of the Corinthians hearing believed,
and were baptized." Just as other Corinthians believed, so was Crispus
baptized. But we are not left to inference, even necessary inference,
concerning whether Crispus received baptism. When Paul wrote his first letter
to the Corinthians, he found a spirit of division in the church occasioned by
its teachers. He found some holding to him seemingly because he had baptized
them. Hence, he wrote them:
I thank God that I baptized
none of you, save Crispus and Gaius. (1 Cor. 1:14.)
Now, Luke said that Crispus "believed in
the Lord." His baptism is not mentioned specifically. The baptism of other
Corinthians is mentioned, however, and it is implied that what was true of them
was also true of Crispus, as we have seen. Thus Luke used the word
"believe" to comprehend its manifestation--baptism. And this use of
belief signifies that the meaning of baptism is faith.
Having shown that baptism is intended to picture
repentance and faith, it is hardly necessary to inquire as to its purpose. If
baptism means repentance and faith, then it is for the same purpose or purposes
as repentance and faith. Of course, baptism has no purpose apart from faith or
repentance, just like it has no meaning apart from these things. The so-called
baptism of infants is without meaning, and so without purpose. In this case
there is no repentance or faith to picture. Hence, baptism would have to be
considered apart from these and alone. It, therefore, is not only meaningless,
but purposeless. The truth is, the Bible nowhere contemplates the baptism of
infants. Hence, the purpose of baptism is determined by its meaning; and
meaning repentance and faith, it must look to them for its design. But
remission of sins is promised to those who repent and believe upon Christ.
And that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations. (Luke
24:47.)
Repent ye therefore, and
turn again, that your sins may be blotted out. (Acts 3:19.)
To him bear all the prophets
witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive
remission of sins. (Acts 10:43.)
And by him every one that
believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by
the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39.)
We conclude, therefore, that baptism, meaning
repentance and faith, must be a condition of the remission of sins.
And just so do the Scriptures plainly represent
it. Peter, when asked, "What shall we do?" by those convicted of
their sins, replied:
Repent ye, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins.
(Acts 2:38.)
Repentance and baptism here precede the promise
of the remission of sins. This passage seems to be parallel with Acts 20:21,
where it is reported that Paul said to the elders at Ephesus that he preached
to both Jews and Gentiles "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord
Jesus Christ." Baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" signifies
faith in Christ. To repent toward God, against whom all sins are committed, and
to receive by faith the sacrifice for sins, comprehends all that is naturally
required of the sinner. Hence, when Peter said, "Repent ye, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ," he preached just
as Paul did.
It might be well to say here that the phrase,
"in the name of Jesus Christ," in Acts 2:38, has been too much
overlooked in determining the meaning and purpose of baptism. Peter did not
mean to say that people merely had the permission of Christ to receive baptism.
Baptism "in the name of Christ" means much more than to be baptized
by his authority. John (14:26) says that God sent the Holy Spirit in the name
of Christ. This cannot mean that the Father sent the Spirit by the authority of
Christ. The context shows the Spirit was to take the place of the departed
Christ. He was to represent Christ--to stand for him. So much was the Spirit a
representative of Christ that the Savior spoke of the descent of the Spirit as
his own coming to the disciples. (John 14:28.) The Spirit, after his descent,
would operate "in the name of Christ." In this way he would become a
Comforter to the disciples, who were sorrowing over the departure of their
Savior.
Let me try to illustrate the meaning of the
phrase, "in the name of Jesus Christ." Two men, A and B, are
strangers. B desires some favor of A. He knows he cannot, with hope, appeal
directly to A, being a stranger to him. But B has a friend, C, who is also a special
friend of A. He then goes to C with the request that C send word by him to A,
recommending B as worthy of the favor and suggesting that the request be
granted. B appears before A and makes his request, stating that C recommends
that the request be granted. And so A grants B the favor, not for B's sake, but
for the sake of his friend, C. This favor can be said to be granted "in
the name of C"--that is, it was granted out of regard for C. So when the
sinner appears, as it were, before God begging for mercy, God sees nothing in
the sinner himself to cause him to extend mercy. But the sinner says:
"Father, I make my plea, not in my own name. I know I am a sinner worthy
of nothing but death. But I make my plea in the name of your beloved Son and my
best friend. For me he offered himself to you. Indeed, you set him forth as my
sin offering. I now accept him just as you set him forth. It is, then, upon the
merits of his blood that I make my plea." And thus the sinner goes to God
"in the name of Jesus Christ." He places Christ between himself and
God and begs God on behalf of Christ for mercy. So Peter told his hearers to
repent of their sins and to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ"
unto the remission of their sins. Hence, baptism here means faith or reliance
upon Christ for pardon.
The relation of baptism to salvation is seen
also from the Savior's own language:
He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16.)
As has been explained, baptism here is faith
outwardly expressed. And since baptism means trust in Christ, it can
appropriately be given a place along with faith. It is faith
objectified.
Since the design of baptism has already been
discovered in our study of its meaning, I think it unnecessary to repeat what
has been said. Suffice it to say that its place as a condition of salvation is
made possible only because it has, by divine arrangement, been made an
accompaniment of repentance and faith in order to express them outwardly.
Keeping this in mind, it would seem wholly out
of place to assign baptism a purpose separate from faith or repentance.
Certainly baptism per se has no place under Christ. Nor is baptism
merely preceded by faith and repentance. If I say that baptism to a
penitent believer is unto the remission of his sins, I have not only given it a
meaning separate from repentance and faith, but I have disassociated these from
remission of sins. Faith in Christ certainly does more than to prepare one for
baptism. Faith and repentance are as much for the remission of sins as baptism.
(See Luke 24:47; Acts 10:43; 13:39.) Yea, more, because baptism looks to them
for any meaning and purpose at all. It is only because it expresses faith or
repentance, or both, that baptism is for anything. Faith is more than a mere
principle of action that leads one to the waters of baptism. If faith is no
more than a principle of action, then man is saved upon the principle of works,
and grace is made void. Along with the notion that faith is a mere principle of
action that leads one to be baptized is the idea that the efficacy of the blood
of Christ has been transferred to water. This is sheer nonsense, and savors
more of popery than of Christianity. The power of the blood to save has not
been transferred to anything. It will never be transferred to something else.
This is only a courteous way of robbing the cross of its meaning and rendering
it of no effect. Paul gloried only in the cross; but he had not heard of this
transfer of saving power from blood to water! Such positions will do more to
turn people from baptism than to cause them to think well of it. There is no
necessity of robbing both grace and faith of their power and giving it to baptism.
Baptism is a most sacred institution, and the Lord has assigned to it a very
significant place; but he has said nothing nor authorized any man to say
something that would give baptism the significance of everything, including the
blood of Christ.
Still others imagine the power of the blood has
been transferred to a plan. This is to degenerate Christianity into a
crude legalism. Absolutely nothing is to be gained with thinking people by such
absurd positions. The Bible offers no excuse for them. Leave the power with the
blood, where God placed it and left it. Let faith mean trust in the blood to
cleanse from all sin, not a mere principle of action that leads one to an
ordinance to which has been transferred the power of the cross. Let baptism mean
faith in the blood, and not blood. Let it be faith embodied, not the embodiment
of blood.
The custom of separating repentance, faith,
confession, and baptism, and assigning each a separate and distinct office, is
begotten of a misunderstanding of Christianity. For example, faith is sometimes
stood alone and said to cleanse the heart; and this is asserted of faith even
before repentance. When Peter, at the Jerusalem conference, said God had
cleansed the hearts of the Gentiles by faith (Acts 15:9), he was not
considering the work of faith separated from repentance. This was simply
Peter's way of saying God had saved the Gentiles by faith. The idea that
the heart of the impenitent sinner is cleansed is unworthy of serious notice.
The "plan" is further reduced to red tape by such notions as that
faith starts one on his way to Christ, gets him so far and stops, then turns
him over to repentance. In turn, repentance takes him up and gets him still
nearer Christ, but stops short of him. And when he confesses his faith before
men, he is still seen approaching, but not reaching, salvation. And now that
faith, repentance, and confession could not reach Christ, they all turn the
sinner over to baptism, which finishes the work and gets him to Christ. This
position is based upon a misconception of the prepositions "unto" and
"into," the first being associated with faith, repentance, and
confession; the last, with baptism. Then the office of faith is to put one on
the way to salvation. It is "unto righteousness"--that is, in the
direction of righteousness! Repentance is "unto life"--that is, in
the direction of life. And so confession is "unto salvation"--still
going toward salvation, but not attaining it. Finally baptism is reached, which
puts one "into Christ."
Now, the Scriptures do say that faith is
"unto righteousness"; repentance, "unto life"; confession,
"unto salvation"; and baptism, "into Christ." But the
question is: What do "believeth unto righteousness," "repentance
unto life," "confession unto salvation," and "baptized into
Christ" mean? Does "unto" in the first three places signify
simply motion in the direction of? The fundamental principles of Christianity
are involved in this matter. Let us, then, try to discover the meaning given
"unto" by the writers of the Bible.
Let us first note what Paul has said relative to
faith and confession:
Because if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth
unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For
the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame.
(Rom. 10:9-11.)
Here are the phrases, "believeth unto righteousness"
and "confession unto salvation." Now, did Paul mean to say that faith
and confession do not save, but only put man in the direction of salvation?
Notice both verses 9 and 11. Verse 9 says whoever believes and confesses shall
be "saved." Verse 11 asserts that the believer shall "not be put
to shame." Verse 10 gives the reason for the statements in verses 9 and
11: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation." Faith saves, then, because
it is "unto righteousness." Likewise confession saves because
it is "unto salvation." The only conclusion possible is that
"unto righteousness" and "unto salvation" signify salvation
or justification. Moffatt translates verse 10 thus:
For with his heart man
believes and is justified, with his mouth he confesses and is saved.
The Twentieth Century New Testament renders
verse 10 as follows:
For with their hearts men
believe and so attain to righteousness, while with their lips they make their
profession of faith and so find salvation.
In none of these translations is the idea found
that faith and confession merely start one in the direction of salvation. Each
necessarily mean that salvation is reached by them.
Likewise when the Jews were convinced that the
Gentiles were admitted as gospel subjects they said: "Then to the Gentiles
also hath God granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18.) This was their
way of saying that God through their repentance had saved the Gentiles,
repentance, of course, being used in its comprehensive sense to include faith
in Christ. Moffatt reads: "So God has actually allowed the Gentiles to
repent and live." Repentance merely in the direction of life would have
been wholly foreign to the purpose of the Jews when they made the above
statement relative to the acceptance of the Gentiles. Both repentance and
baptism are "unto the remission of your sins." (Acts 2:38, R. V.)
Study the force of the word "unto" in
the following passages. The blood of Christ is "unto remission of
sins" (Matt. 26:28); the gospel is "unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16);
God gave the Gentiles up "unto vile passions" and "unto a
reprobate mind"; grace reigns "unto eternal life" (Rom. 5:21);
sin is "unto death" and obedience is "unto righteousness"
(Rom. 6:16); (compare with "the wages of sin is death"--Rom. 6:23);
sinful passions bring forth fruit "unto death" (Rom. 7:5); vessels of
wrath are fitted "unto destruction" (Rom. 9:22); "Christ is the
end of the law unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:4); man believes "unto
righteousness" (Rom. 10:10); he confesses "unto salvation" (Rom.
10:10); faith is "unto the saving of the soul" (Heb. 10:39); Peter
said he and others had been begotten "unto a living hope" (1 Pet.
1:3); "the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ" (Gal.
3:24); and, finally, Jesus said, "Come unto me" (Matt. 11:28). If
"unto" signifies merely in the direction of, then, according to the
examples just given, how is it possible to attain or completely reach an end?
The truth is, man is considered as either saved
or lost. An intermediate position is not contemplated in the Bible. The
conditions of salvation are considered, not separately, but as a whole. Hence,
either condition is said to reach salvation. Repentance is thus "unto
life"; confession, "unto salvation"; and baptism saves. (1 Pet.
3:21.)
Before leaving this part of our study, let us
note the relation of the conditions of salvation to the Savior. Of course the
cause of man's salvation is the blood of Christ. Certainly, then, must the
conditions of salvation relate to the blood that it be not made void.
The faith, then, that saves is faith in Christ.
Any truth, or even all truth, accepted apart from Christ cannot save. Not only
must saving faith relate to Christ, but to him crucified for our sins. Hence,
man's faith must be in his blood. (Rom. 3:25.)
Repentance is produced by means of preaching the
gospel. Man apart from a Savior is a sinner doomed to death. Sin necessitates a
sacrifice that man cannot make. God in his goodness set forth Christ as a
propitiation for our sins. Hence, for me Christ died, and sin is that which
demanded his death. A consideration of these facts on the part of the sinner
leads him to repentance. Repentance was to be preached in his name.
The confession that is "unto
salvation" is our confession of faith in Christ. (Rom. 10:9.)
And baptism is to be received "in the name
of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38)--that is, trusting in him for pardon.
Thus the divine formula, "by grace through
faith," remains.