00B.18 Chapter 11--Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies--No. 3

XI. "Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies"

No. 3

Editor Swift, of the Methodist Herald, is still at it. For several weeks he has been trying to tell his readers "why Methodists baptize by pouring and baptize babies." Fearing that his arguments will not be sufficiently convincing and conclusive, he accompanies each article with a picture of a man pouring water upon the head of another man. He tells his readers that this is a picture of John the Baptist baptiz­ing Jesus. We cannot overcome the temptation to ask the editor how often he thinks his readers will have to see this picture before it will convince them. This may be an im­pertinent question, but it just keeps coming up in our minds. Perhaps he believes that this picture will have the same psychological effect that the poet Pope said vice has:

Seen too often, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace. In the issue of June 24 of the Herald the editor writes a brief editorial, to accompany the picture, on the "Wrong Emphasis Placed on Water Baptism." But this was only the subheading. The full-page headline above the article and the picture was the one that has been running for many weeks—namely, "Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies." In this issue the editor does not even at­tempt to assign any reason at all for the practice of Meth­odists. He uses all his space in trying to show that some people put too much stress upon water baptism. He mini­mizes the ordinance and again intimates that the apostles were not baptized. This is his answer to the question in his headline. Surely the readers can see the logic of this. It is this: Methodists baptize by pouring and baptize babies because baptism is of no consequence. It is unimportant, a matter of indifference! We are forced to conclude, there­fore, that if baptism were shown to be important the Method­ists would have to abandon pouring and begin to baptize— immerse—people!

What does the question of the importance or the un­importance of baptism have to do with what that ordinance is? If we should grant that baptism is not important, we would still be left to learn from the Scriptures how this unimportant (?) act was performed in Bible times. The editor knows that even ignorant people who read the Bible will learn that baptism is a burial, an immersion, and he knows that the only way he can keep them from wanting to follow the teaching of the Scripture is to convince them that baptism is not important; that it matters not if they are never baptized in or with water. Then, when they are satisfied to dispense with and forego baptism altogether, they will submit to "pouring" in accordance with the "usage of the Methodist Church."

Why does the editor of the Herald not cite one command or one example for pouring or for infant baptism and stop so much illogical circumlocution? The reason is apparent. In the Herald of July 1 the editor uses as his subhead, "Bible Traditions, Jewish Customs, and Baptism Before Christ." He writes of customs, traditions, the catacombs, relics, and his picture, which again occupies a prominent place in the center of the page. H e does not cite one Bible passage to answer the question of his full-page headline! In a later issue of the Gospel Advocate we may have some­thing to say about the catacombs and their works of art, but just now we shall confine ourselves to an examination of what Bible arguments the Herald attempts to offer. In the issue of July 8 the editor of the Herald again attempts to prove that baptism was well known among the Jews from the days of Moses down to Christ. He refers to the sprinklings of the law. He says Moses never heard of immersion as a ceremonial rite! He tells us that Paul (Hebrews 9:10) refers to these sprinklings of the Old Testament and calls them "divers baptisms." (The English of Hebrews 9:10 says "divers washings")

Now, what are the facts? There were about twenty different sprinklings in the Old Testament, but in none of these was water only —unmixed water—sprinkled upon any­one or anything. Only eight of these sprinklings have water in them, and then the water was mixed with blood, ashes, etc. None of these sprinklings is ever called "baptism." They are not referred to as "divers baptisms" or "washings."

There were about eighteen washings under the law in which the whole body was washed or bathed in water. These Paul called "divers washings," or, in the Greek, dia- phoros baptismos. But the editor of the Herald reaches the climax of Scrip­ture perversion when he argues that Christ was baptized to induct him into his priestly office. We shall here let our readers see what he says on this point. Read the following:

John the Baptist baptized Christ; so let us examine the Mosaic law, under which he lived that he came to fulfill. What did the law require? It required circumcision. (See Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3.) Christ was circumcised at eight days of age according to the law. (See Luke 2:21.) It required presentation of the child in the tem­ple. He was presented. (See Luke 2:22.) It required becoming subject to the law at twelve years of age. This is why he was found in the temple at twelve with his parents. (See Luke 2:42.) It required priests to be dedicated at thirty years of age and upward. (See Numbers 4:3; Luke 3:23.)

Christ was a priest, but not a Roman Catholic priest. Read Hebrews 3:1 : "Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." "Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest." "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck." Jesus said when he came to John to be dedicated: "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."

John the Baptist had been instructed in the law and knew it. He knew that a priest was never immersed. He dedicated Jesus for his priestly work. How was it done? According to the law, by pouring. How could honest reason come to any other conclusion? When Jesus came to John for baptism, he hesitated, but Jesus urged the demands of the law. What were the demands of the law? Priests had to be thirty years of age when dedicated to this office. (See Numbers 4:47.) How was this done? By sprinkling or pouring water. When Jesus cleansed the temple and the Jews asked by what authority he did it, he referred to his baptism by John clothing him with the authority of a priest to minister about the temple.

It was a violation of the law for anyone to assume the office and duties of a high priest until he was dedicated. Do you recall his silent years at Nazareth? Jesus never preached a sermon, chose his disciples, uttered a parable, healed the sick, or did anything else of the kind, until after he was dedicated; for he absolutely tracked the law, that of the Old Testament, Mosaic law. Jesus said to his blinded disciples: "All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms concerning me." How anyone can reason out that Christ was immersed, when there was no law for it, is beyond the poor imagination of this writer. Our editor is entirely too modest in speaking of his "poor imagination." He has a marvelous imagination. He imagines "vain things," indeed. Witness this statement: "Priests had to be thirty years of age when dedicated to this office. (See Numbers 4:47.) How was this done? By sprinkling or pouring water." Why did he not cite the reference to show where water was sprinkled or poured upon a priest or any other person to dedicate him, or for any other purpose? Because that was born in the editor’s "poor imagination." They poured oil upon the sons of Aaron to sanctify them. But this ruins the editor’s argument, for he knows John did not pour oil upon Christ when he baptized him i n the Jordan River, after which Christ, "came u p out of the water."

Again the editor used his "poor imagination" when he said: "When Jesus cleansed the temple and the Jews asked by what authority he did it, he referred to his baptism by John clothing him with the authority of a priest to minister about the temple."

My, what a perversion! If Jesus had claimed to be priest, those Jews could justly have stoned him to death. He did not even belong to the priestly tribe. He was not a Levite. He belonged to the tribe of Judah, and Paul says that he could not be a priest while on earth. (Read Hebrews 7:14; Hebrews 8:4.)

Jesus did not refer to the baptism of John as giving him authority for anything. He emphatically said: "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." Editor Swift said he told them that he did it by the authority of a priest, and indicated that John made him a priest when he baptized him! But Christ refused to tell them his authority. He did it by the authority of the Son of God; but had he told them that, they would have accused him of blasphemy. Hence, he put them into a dilemma by asking them a question about John’s baptism, and when they would not answer him, he refused to answer them. (Matthew 21:25-27; Mark 11:30.) The editor’s points on what particulars Christ fulfilled the law do not help his case. Christ did fulfill the law. All that was written in the law of Moses, in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Christ was fulfilled. But—and here is where the editor’s playhouse falls down and disappears like chaff from the summer’s threshing floor—there was not one syllable in the law or the prophets or the Psalms about Christ becoming or being a priest on earth! He could not be a priest according to the law. He is now our High Priest —yes; but he is not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 7:11.)

Let us just see how many plain statements of Scripture the editor contradicts or grossly perverts when he claims that Jesus was made a priest by the baptism of John, and all for the purpose of inferring that, since the priests had oil poured on their heads, John must have poured water on the head of Christ in the Jordan.’

• Christ was not a priest after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 7:11.)

• Christ did not belong to the priestly tribe. "For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests." (Hebrews 7:13-14.) Yet the editor of the Methodist Herald said he was made a priest by John.

• Christ could not be a priest on earth. "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law" (Hebrews 8:4)—the Levites.

• Christ was not made a priest by the law or according to the law, which required the pouring of oil, but he was made priest by an eternal oath which was since the law. "And what we say is yet more abundantly evident, if after the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal com­mandment, but after the power of an endless life: for it is witnessed of him, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. . . . And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith of him, The Lord sware and will not repent himself, Thou art a priest for ever). . . . For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore." (Hebrews 7:15-28; read all the chapter.)

Jesus did not begin his public ministry until after his baptism because he was not manifested until then. That was the purpose of John’s baptism — to manifest the Savior. (John 1:31.)

How any man can reason that Jesus was a Levitical priest, when he did not belong to the tribe of Levi; or that he was a priest after the order of Aaron, when the word of inspira­tion says he was not after the order of Aaron; or that he was made a priest according to the law, when the record says he was not made a priest b y the law, but by an oath; or that he officiated as a priest on earth, when the Book says he could not be a priest o n earth; or that he was made a priest under the law and according to the law, when God says he was made a priest b y the oath after the law was disannulled (Hebrews 7:18; Hebrews 7:28), is "beyond the poor imagination of this writer," especially since he could not show from the law where any priest ever had water sprinkled or poured upon him, even if Christ were a priest under the law. But he was not. The editor has told us that he was once tremendously disturbed on the question of baptism and that he has studied the question for forty years. It would take a man at least forty years to get as badly confused on the word of God as he is. He could have obeyed the will of heaven in fifteen minutes forty years ago when he became disturbed by seeing that the teaching of the Bible and the practice of the Method­ists were in conflict. Why will men spend forty years trying to learn so to manipulate the word of God as to teach or justify a false doctrine?