00B.23 Chapter 16--Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies--No. 8

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

No. 8 The editor of the Methodist Herald continues his ravages upon the word of God. It has never before been our lot to see a man in such high position who used such reckless disregard for facts in handling the Scriptures. We had thought that we would not give any further attention to his efforts until he begins to offer reasons for baptizing babies, but some of our readers insist that he should be followed to the end and exposed. We will, therefore, only touch the high points of what he uses in three editorials at this time. In his issue of August 19 he takes up the case of Philip and the eunuch and attempts to show that there was no immersion there. It should be noticed by all readers that the editor has never yet offered any scriptural proof for sprinkling, nor has he endeavored to make an affirmative argument upon the Scriptures that he has introduced. Each time he takes a negative attitude and tries to show that this is not immersion. This does not say thus and so. Suppose he should show that immersion is not authorized, we would still be left to learn what baptism is. He has not shown us. He seems to assume that if he could show that immersion is not baptism, then it would follow, therefore, that sprin­kling or pouring is baptism, which, of course, is not true. His efforts to show that the eunuch was not immersed deserve only small notice. First, he says the country through which they passed was a desert. But a little later in the same editorial he says there was a spout spring running out of the side of the mountain. Of course, any reader knows that mountains and spout springs and deserts do not go together. There has been a question among Bible scholars as to whether the word "desert" refers to Gaza or to the road, or way. But there has never been any dispute about what the word "desert" here means. It does not mean barren waste, as there was not and never had been any barren waste between Jerusalem and Gaza. It means "un­populated." The same word is found in Matthew 14:15-21; Mark 6:35-39; and John 6:10. These references tell us that Jesus went out to a desert place, and yet we find that in that "desert" he had the people sit down upon the green grass. This shows that the word meant unpopulated, and not barren waste. No one knows at just what point on the road the eunuch was baptized; but we know that there were springs along the way, and there have recently been discovered remains of artificial pools, and there was a brook in the valley of Elah through which this road ran, and this brook is the one David crossed when he went out to slay Goliath. (1 Samuel 17:40.) While this was only a brook, we all know that small brooks wear out holes at different points suffi­ciently large for baptizing. But this same road also crosses a much larger stream in the plain of the Philistines. This stream is called Wady elHasy. The editor’s next effort is to show that Philip and the eunuch did not go down into the water, but only down to the water, and then, instead of coming up out o f the water, came away from the water. This is the way he says it should read. But this is not the way it does read; and if the Greek should be so translated, it is strange that there is not one translation among the many hundreds of English translations extant that renders it as the editor says it should be rendered. The old, old story would be appropriate—viz., if "into" means "near by," then the swine only ran down to the sea. and not into the sea, and were drowned on dry land; for the same word "into" is used in that case, both in the Greek and in the English.

Again the editor makes the old claim that the eunuch was reading from Isaiah, and that in Isaiah 52:15 it is said that he shall "sprinkle many nations," and he says that the eunuch had learned about sprinkling from the passage he was reading. Anyone who will take the pains to read the Scriptures in question will see that this man was not reading from the fifty-second chapter of Isaiah, but from the fifty-third chapter. But, what is a more complete refuta­tion of the editor’s claim, the word "sprinkle" in the passage not only does not refer to baptism, but it does not even mean "sprinkle." The scholarship of the whole world admits that the word in this passage means "startle" or "astonish" and not "sprinkle," and even an English reader who will read the passage can see that that is the meaning. It says: "As many were astonished at thee;" so, or in like manner, shall he "sprinkle" or startle or astonish many nations. "Kings shall shut their mouths at him," etc. The meaning even in the King James translation can easily be seen. Baptism is not in the Old Testament, and the eunuch knew nothing about it, except what Philip had told him in preach­ing unto him Jesus. In the issue of August 26 the editor attempts to show that "buried with him in baptism" does not mean immer­sion. Again the editor only makes negative points. He attempts to prove nothing for Methodist practice. In order that our readers may see just how farfetched and absurd are his points on this expression, we quote the following from the editorial: In Romans 6:4 we read: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death." And in Colossians 2:12 we read again: "Buried with him in baptism." In these passages we find the strongholds of our immersionist friends. Neither passage has a drop of water in it. Paul, the apostle, who wrote these, was not sent to baptize, and though he was baptized in a house in Damascus, the Bible says "he arose and was baptized," or another translation reads, "rising up, he was baptized." It is "buried into death" and not into water. Both passages mean the same. In Colossians 2:12, in the same verse as above, we see that the soul is raised through "the operation of God." It is not that our bodies are raised out of water by the physical strength of a man. These passages signify the deepest work of grace—separation from sin and made alive to God. The central thought of the apostle is sin and salvation, death and life. What a pity that so many see only water in these passages, when it is only the work of grace! These passages are figurative language. They have no more literal meaning of being put under water than the other passages of Scripture, such as "crucified with Christ" means that we are to be nailed to a literal cross of wood or that "resur­rection" and "raised up from the dead" in Romans 6:4-5 mean a literal resurrection of the body. Paul says: "We are buried with Christ," not that we were buried in water. The baptism Paul is speaking of here is the same as that spoken of in Luke 12:50, which is the baptism of suffering and death. Jesus had already been bap­tized by John when he uttered these words.

Again, Christ says: "With the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized." The first quibble that we shall notice in the above edi­torial is that we are "buried into death" and not in water. As usual, the editor mixes his figurative and literal lan­guage, leaves out expressions, and perverts the word in a most unbelievable manner. The Scriptures say not "buried into death,’¹ but "buried with him b y baptism into death, " and the same passage says we are planted in the likeness o f his death. The whole thing is simply a picture, or a likeness. In commenting on Colossians 2:12, the editor says that the "soul is raised through the operation of God," and not our bodies raised out of water by the physical strength of a man. Thus he makes the rising from our burial in baptism an operation of God, and ho intends to show that the whole ceremony of baptism is a mystical, spiritual operation per­formed by God; but the great trouble with the editor here is that the Bible simply does not say what he says. The Bible does not say that the soul is raised by the operation of God. It says we are buried by baptism, wherein we are also risen with him "through faith i n the working o f God, who raised him from the dead." The operation of God was in raising Christ from the dead. We are both buried and raised in baptism through our faith i n that operation, or because of our faith in the buried and risen Christ. So, baptism is not the operation of God at all, but we are baptized and raised through faith in God’s operation in raising Christ from the dead. Can any Methodist who is honest believe that a doctrine or a practice is right when it will lead a preacher, an editor, so miserably to pervert, distort, sup­press, and juggle the Scriptures as Editor Swift does? His very efforts to prove his practice ought to drive any sincere soul in the opposite direction, if that soul will only read the passages carefully that the editor tortures each week. The editor says that as we are not literally nailed to the cross, although we are "crucified with Christ," neither are we literally buried and raised in baptism. No one claims that we are literally buried. If we were, we would have to be placed in a tomb and covered up or closed up just as Christ’s body was buried. We are not literally buried in a literal grave, but we are buried by baptism in the likeness of Christ’s death and burial. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, and all other scholars of all churches say that this alludes to "the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." But after the editor has made all the other efforts that he can to upset this teaching, he finally declares that this baptism alludes to a baptism of suffering. In this he stands alone. No other man who ever attempted to give an ex­planation of this passage took that turn. Jesus did refer to the great overwhelming deluge of suffering through which he was to pass as a baptism. He said that some of his apostles would be baptized with the same baptism, and that they would drink the same cup. Some of them did suffer martyrdom and were, therefore, baptized in this figurative sense with a baptism of suffering. But the baptism the apostle Paul referred to in Romans was the baptism that these people had submitted to in becoming Christians. It had no reference to the suffering that they endured because they were Christians: but it did refer to their conversion through obedience to the gospel or to the form of doctrine at which time they were made free from sin, and, as all scholars admit, it was the baptism commanded in the Great Commission. Wesley says this ancient manner of baptism was by immersion. Does Editor Swift repudiate John Wes­ley? Will the readers of the Methodist Herald repudiate Wesley, who was a sincere Bible student, an excellent scholar, and in some instances a sound, safe Bible exegete, and in his stead take the senseless remarks of Editor Swift? We do not believe intelligent Methodists will accept Swift’s explanation or endorse his methods, and our only hope is that many of these intelligent Methodists will be permitted to see what the Gospel Advocate is saying about Swift’s efforts. In the Herald of September 2 the editor attempts to show that the three thousand persons could not have been im­mersed on the day of Pentecost. We remind our readers that when he spoke of John’s baptizing such a great number, he himself estimated that one man could baptize three hun­dred each day. And on that basis the twelve apostles could easily have baptized throe thousand. But again the editor confuses the Scripture and tries to indicate that the pouring of the Holy Spirit was baptism, and that Ezekiel 36:25 was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and that the people had clean water sprinkled upon them, etc. The passage in Ezekiel has only to be read to be understood by anyone. It alludes to the cleansing of the Jews from their idolatry and other sins by the sprinkling of water of purification upon them, which "clean water," as we have often seen, was a mixture of water, of blood, and of ashes. This had no reference to baptism, and there is no justification what­ever for the claim that this prophecy had any reference to the day of Pentecost.

Those who tremble at the word of God will find them­selves under confused emotions of shame, surprise, grief, and pity when they follow the editor through his unreason­able and almost unthinkable perversion of the word of the living God.