00B.28 Chapter 21. Denominational Baptism--No. 1

XXI. Denominational Baptism No. 1 A letter of inquiry brings before us a question that has often confronted every gospel preacher and has at times been the cause of controversy between good brethren. The author of the letter wishes to know our position on the question. Our position and practice on any vital question is not a secret, and we would not hesitate to state it, if there were a need for such a statement, even if we knew that the statement would immediately involve us in a con­troversy. But in this case we believe that a fair examina­tion of the issue involved will, instead of provoking a con­troversy, show that there is no room for controversy among those of us who endeavor to teach exactly what the Scrip­tures teach on this and all other questions. It is our firm conviction that the controversies on this point in times past have been caused by a misunderstanding among brethren. In that conviction we take up the case in the hope that what we say may clarify the matter and prove helpful to the author of the letter and to all the rest who may read this. The following excerpt from the letter will state the case:

We are confronted here from time to time with the question of whether or not we should accept Baptists or other denominational people on their denominational baptism. My stand has been, and is, that we should not unless (contrary to denominational teachings) they were baptized with the understanding that it was "unto the remission of sins." The mere fact that they were satisfied with what they did, it seems to me, is not sufficient. That same thing is true of every erroneous action in religion. The command of Acts 2:38 is not simply to be baptized, but to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Jesus had said: "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." If a person, then, is baptized and does not know that it is for the remission of sins, it seems clear to me that he does not know the truth, and his baptism is not for the purpose as stated by the apostle when he delivered the truth in Acts 2:38.

We shall discuss the points here raised under the fol­lowing questions:

• Is there any room for controversy on this point?

• In what sense do we accept or reject people on their baptism or on any other condition?

• Does the fact that people are satisfied with their baptism have any weight in determining the scripturalness or unscripturalness of their baptism?

• Is the expression "for the remission of sins" a part of the command to be baptized? Docs one have to understand that baptism is for the remission of sins before one can be baptized scripturally?

A first reading of these questions may arouse the fear that we are starting out to revive a dead issue and to re­kindle a flickering flame, but a careful reading of our answers will convince the readers that there is no such pur­pose in this discussion, even if we do not convince them that there is no room for controversy—no issue between gospel preachers. If any brother insists upon misunderstanding us and in forcing an issue, he will have to do his debating alone. We will not wrangle with anyone.

We shall take up the questions in the order stated above and continue until each one is answered.

First: Is there any room for controversy on this question? We believe that none of us differ or can differ in our prac­tice, even if we should differ slightly in theory. Let us take our bearings and see what there is to dispute about, if any­thing, on this point.

Now, with these points stated, and we hope settled, we are prepared to say that from the mere statement that a man was baptized by a denomination we cannot say whether he was or was not baptized scripturally. But the fact that the denomination teaches error on baptism—teaches unscriptural baptism—justifies the presumption that his bap­tism was not scriptural. While that presumption exists it is necessary for every gospel preacher to set forth in the plainest possible terms what the Scriptures teach on baptism, and he should, when one who has been baptized by a de­nominational preacher comes forward indicating that he wishes to quit denominationalism and be a Christian only, show what the denomination teaches on baptism, and thus clearly draw the contrast between the teaching of the de­nomination and the teaching of the New Testament. When that has been well and thoroughly done, if the person in question insists that he knew and understood the New Testa­ment teaching at the time he was baptized, and that he obeyed the teaching of the New Testament and not the teaching of the denomination, then there is nothing left for a gospel preacher or a gospel church to do but to approve his step in leaving denominationalism and to offer him en­couragement and fellowship. To require more in reference to baptism would be to make a sectarian or denominational requirement of our own. If the man submitted, he would not be Quitting denominationalism at all. He would instead be quitting one denomination and joining another—quitting "his" church and joining "ours."

Having shown that the presumption is that one who was baptized by a denomination was baptized according to and in obedience to that denomination’s teaching, and was not therefore scripturally baptized, we must now say that while that is always the presumption i t is not always the fact. According to the points which we put down above as settled, we saw that it is at least a possibility for one to be baptized at the hands of a denomination with an understanding of what the New Testament teaches and without a knowledge of what the denomination teaches. The whole point, then, turns upon the individual’s attitude—his motive, his faith, his repentance, his obedience. It. is not a question of whether what the denomination teaches is true or untrue; it is a question of what the individual did, and no one can say what he did but the individual himself. He must determine the matter in the light of what he now knows God’s word to teach and with a clear memory of what he did. This being, then, a question that must be asked and answered anew every time anyone quits denominationalism, there is no such thing as settling it by controversy. And since what one individual understood and did cannot stand for what some other individual understood and did, there is no way for a preacher or an editor to say what is true or not true in any specific case, except his own. A brother cannot sit in an editor’s chair in Nashville, Tennessee, and say that a man in San Antonio, Texas, who wished to quit denominationalism and who "came forward" under the preaching of Jesse P. Sewell, had been baptized scripturally and did not therefore need to be rebaptized. Neither can a man sit in an editor’s chair in Atlanta, Georgia, and say that a man in Detroit, Michigan, who wished to quit denomina- tionalism and who "came forward" under the preaching of H. H. Adamson, had not been baptized scripturally and therefore should have been rebaptized. We will have to trust Brother Sewell and Brother Adamson to teach the word of God faithfully and to apply it according to the need of each individual case. No man can say that all who have been baptized by the Baptists or by the Adventists or by the Mormons even— for they teach that baptism is for the remission of sins— have been baptized scripturally, for that would certainly not be true.

Neither can any man say that n o one who has been baptized by the Baptists or by the Adventists or by the Mormons or by the Methodists, etc., has been baptized scrip­turally, for that would very probably not be true. The question must be settled each time upon the merit of that particular case. Then where is there any room for controversy? Can a man say what is true or not true in a case about which he knows nothing at all?

We should all always teach the whole truth and insist that people obey it. There will then be very few cases where a denominationalist will even claim to be "satisfied" with his baptism.