01.008. A Pedobaptist Miscellany
A Pedobaptist Miscellany.
"John’s baptism was essentially an act of consecration, preparatory to the kingdom, symbolizing by the immersion of the whole body the consecration of the whole man. But for all, except Christ, this consecration required repentance, and this change of mind, preceding baptism, is symbolized, not created, by going under and coming up out of the water."--E. E. Anderson, M.A. A brief mention ought to be made of certain miscellaneous arguments and statements put forth in The Question of Baptism, in chapters dealing with Baptist Proof-texts and Objections. We have thus to distinguish between "arguments" and "statements," for some of the latter at least would be unduly honored by the former title.
JOHNS BAPTISM. The baptism of John, which was over at the time when Jesus gave his great commission, cannot be referred to as deciding the question of the subjects of Christian baptism. But our Pedobaptists friends so often insist that the commission must be interpreted in the light of what the Jews would already know of baptism that the subjects of the earlier baptism have great importance for them. The Bible is explicit as to the people baptized by John: "Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matthew 2:5-6). The baptism was called "the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins" (Mark 1:1), manifestly because the candidates were required to repent. John Wesley’s comment on "preaching the baptism of repentance" may be accepted: "That is, preaching repentance, and baptizing as a sign and means of it."
We never heard of anyone trying to get direct support for infant baptism in the New Testament statements regarding the subjects of John’s baptism. Pedobaptists here seem to need all their skill for the attempt to break the force of the texts as against their position. In such an attempt Mr. Madsen has an interesting reference to John’s baptism of Jesus. Every believer in Christ knows that He was sinless and so could not repent. It has often been asked, Seeing that John’s was a "baptism of repentance unto remission of sins," how could the sinless One submit to the rite? In answer, we could accept two statements: the first from Mr. Madsen to the effect that "the baptism of Jesus, like his birth and death, was unique"; the second from Dummelow--"Though sinless, Jesus came to identify himself with sinners. He would be ’under the law that he might redeem those that were under the law’ (Galatians 4:4-5)." But of Jesus’ baptism, Mr. Madsen pens this remarkable sentence:
"No argument can be drawn from it as to the subjects of baptism, except, perhaps, that they should be sinless, and infants come close enough to that category, though Dr. Carson speaks of their ’sins’ (p. 63). This is delightful. But infant baptism, as we have already noticed, was early advocated on the ground that infants, as guilty of original sin, needed remission, and John Wesley himself defended it for this reason. Such advocates did not think infants "come close enough to that category." Moreover, see how the suggestion that "perhaps" we can look upon sinlessness as a condition of baptism applies to the Methodist custom of adult baptism. The Methodist Church of course practices believers’ baptism. For instance, in the tract on Should Only Believers be Baptized? is found the following passage:
"The writer was not baptized in childhood. He was converted at the age of sixteen, and, after studying the question, was baptized as a believer by the usual Methodist practice of pouring." Was sinlessness the category here? Our friends really ought to refrain from using arguments against the position of others which would tell with equal force against their own avowed practice of believers’ baptism.
Mr. Madsen calls attention to the fact that Acts 8:37 ("And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God") is an interpolation, and is omitted from the Revised Version. We do not, and should not, use the text as if it were from the pen of the inspired historian. But this is far from saying that the passage misrepresents the facts. Many Pedobaptists writers gladly agree that Acts 8:37 is in complete harmony with what must have occurred. e.g., Dummelow’s Commentary says it is "a very early and trustworthy marginal addition, which was ultimately incorporated into the text. The simplicity of the baptismal confession is a proof of its genuineness." The Expositors’ Greek Testament says the words "may well have expressed what actually happened, as the question in verse 36 evidently required an answer."
We may look at the thing from another point of view. If a man as old as the eunuch must have been were to come to Mr. Madsen, of what would the latter gentleman wish to be assured? Mr. Madsen would not baptize him if he were obviously an unbeliever. The Methodist tract speaks of one; "baptized as a believer." In my copy of the Order of Administration of the Sacraments and other Services for the use of the People called Methodists, in the section dealing with the ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years, a confession of faith is demanded of the person to be baptized. Was the eunuch a believer? If so, his case may be quoted as a warrant for our practice; and if a similar warrant by way of Biblical example is given for the baptism of an infant, we shall likewise practice infant baptism. But there is no such example.
SIMON MAGUS. The record of the baptism of this man is found in Acts 8:13. The following verses tell of his subsequent terrible sin and Peter’s severe rebuke of hint. Mr. Madsen devotes several pages to the incident. It is frequently used as an objection to our position. Sometimes, a writer will say: Here is a case in which your adult baptism benefited little; see how after baptism a man can be "in. the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." Again, the passage is sometimes quoted as an indisputable instance of the baptism of an unbeliever. The question is really a very simple one. Simon was either a believer in Christ, or he was not. (1) If he were a believer, then clearly our Pedobaptists friends cannot quote his case against our practice. (2) If he were not a sincere believer, how does that fact help the Pedobaptists position? The profitless baptism of an adult fraud could not by any possibility give warrant for the baptism of a babe whose holiness or whose position in the kingdom is advanced as a reason for its baptism. There is no authority for infant baptism then on either view. Moreover, how can Simon’s case be more against our practice than it is against the Methodist practice of believers’ baptism? In the case of adults, Methodists insist as much as we do on a confession of faith; the difference is that they ask for a longer confession. So it is clear that whether Simon were a genuine believer who soon fell into sin, or a man who was a disbeliever from the beginning, his case would not help the Pedobaptists position.
Now, we may notice, on its merits, a remarkable statement which Mr. Madsen makes. He says of Simon: "Here we have an instance in which a notorious unbeliever received baptism in New Testament times" (p. 68). The only answer needed is given in Acts 8:13. Remember these are not Philip’s words, but the words of Luke, writing many years after the event: "Simon also himself believed." Mr. Madsen’s denial of the inspired historian’s words will not help his cause.
THE BAPTISM OF SAUL. The paragraph in which Mr. Madsen replies to our Baptist friends may be quoted: "Acts 22:16 : ’And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name.’ Here is Saul under conviction, but not converted. We have precisely the same reason for believing that Saul had not washed his sins away, as for believing that he had not received Christian baptism, viz., the direction to do both. The presumption is that, up to this point in his experience, he had done neither. There was no proposal to delay baptism until his sins were washed away, and this material fact dues not give support to the Baptist theory" (pp. 68, 69).
Presumably, the above was written as a kind of ad hominem argument. Its point is to convict some who quote Acts 22:16 as in favor of the baptism of believers of inconsistency in that they delay baptism until sins are forgiven. We must agree that Acts 22:16 is not a verse which can harmonize with the view that Saul’s sins were forgiven prior to his obedience in baptism. But yet it is true that the baptism enjoined in Acts 22:16 is the baptism of a believer and of a penitent. When the Lord appeared to Saul, the persecutor was led to believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Lord Christ. Acts 22:16 can be quoted as a proof text on our side because as a fact it does enjoin the baptism of a penitent believer in Christ. There is no such command in the New Testament for the baptism of a nonbeliever, be he adult or infant.
What has the Lord’s day to do with the subjects of baptism? Not very much; but our Pedobaptists friends think they can convict us of inconsistency. Mr. Madsen puts the matter thus: "The fact that infant baptism can claim a very ancient history, and the sanction of almost universal practice, is not received by the Baptists with any favor. They affirm it is based on usage alone, and not on Scripture alone and is, therefore, to be discredited. We are asked to produce a passage which commands the baptizing of infants. Here, again, we use their particular argument against their own practice. Why do they, in common with other Christians, observe the Lord’s day? The Baptists set aside a positive command in Scripture to keep holy the Sabbath Day, and regard the first day of the week--Sunday--as the Christian Sabbath, and they do it on the ground of usage alone. There is no other" (pp. 73, 74).
There are two wrong things in the above paragraph: (1) the statement that we "set aside a positive command in Scripture" when we observe the Lord’s day; and (2) the assertion that we have equal authority for infant baptism and the Lord’s day. On the first of these, we may point out that there is not in the New Covenant a command of "Sabbath" observance. Christians are "not under the law." In the New Covenant, with a change of priesthood, there is also a change in the law (Hebrews 7:12, Cf. Colossians 2:14-16). 1f anybody were because of church usage to set aside God’s commandments, he would be guilty of sin--whether that command had to do with Sabbath or baptism. The second point we may notice a little more fully. When Mr. Madsen declares that usage alone is our warrant for baptism and the Lord’s day, what kind of "usage" does he mean? Is he speaking of church usage in post-apostolic days? Then, it is not correct to say that this is our warrant for the Lord’s day. We have the day mentioned in Revelation 1:10. We also have the statement that the disciples met "upon the first day of the week" to break broad (Acts 20:7). Does Mr. Madsen mean "usage" in the New Testament church? Then, it is not correct to say that we have such in regard to infant baptism. So either Mr. Madsen is employing the word "usage" in different senses when he speaks of having in "usage" like authority for the Lord’s day and for infant baptism, or else he is making an assertion which is incorrect. In either case, his argument falls to the ground. The difference between our positions may be stated thus:
"We observe a Lord’s day, and Mr. M. observes baby-baptism. He says our authority for the one is the same that he has for the other! Let us see:--1. The Lord’s day is expressly mentioned in the New Testament--Baby-baptism is never mentioned therein. 2. The commemoration of the Lord’s death on the first day of the week has apostolic example. Infant baptism has no Bible example at all."
If Mr. Madsen will produce warrant for infant baptism such as we have given in the above for our observance of the Lord’s day, we shall be Pedobaptists within twenty-four hours of receipt of the authority.