00B.30 Chapter 23. Denomnational Baptism—No. 3

XXIII. Denominational Baptism No. 3 BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS In discussing the points that were suggested in a letter that was recently published on this page, we have come now to the fourth question, which is as follows: 7s the ex­pression, "for the remission of sins," a part of the command to be baptized? As we begin to discuss the point, let us allay any fears that may be aroused by saying that whatever may be the answer to this question, it will not in the least minimize the importance of baptism. Baptism is a condition of salvation; a step that must be taken before one enters into Christ, where forgiveness of sins is and where all spiritual bless­ings are. (Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 1:7; Galatians 3:27.) Sins are not remitted until the believing penitent is baptized. The question, there­fore, is important only as a scriptural exegesis. The expression eis ("for, unto remission of sins") is clear­ly the purpose for which persons are to obey the command. The command is to be baptized, and the reason for being baptized is that you may receive the remission of sins.

If this is a part of the command, then everywhere the command is given this expression would have to be found. Either that or else the command is not completely stated. It is a well-known fact that baptism is taught in the Great Commission, in the preaching of the apostles, and in the Epistles. And yet we know that at no place this side of the giving of the commission is the expression, "for the remission of sins," found with the term "baptism" except in Acts 2:38. Moreover, we have the plain statement that Peter commanded the Gentiles to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 10:48.) But the expression, "for the remission of sins," is not here found. John’s baptism was also for the remission of sins, but in only one place do we have that expression and the term "baptism" found to­gether in reference to his baptism. (Mark 1:4.)

If "for the remission of sins" is a part of the command to be baptized, it is also clearly a part of the command to repent. Any grammatical analysis of Acts 2:38 will show that repentance and baptism are connected, and that "for the remission of sins" follows both of them and is the pur­pose for which each verb in the command is to be obeyed. Moreover, in Mark 1:4, where it is said that John preached the baptism of repentance for remission of sins, it is clearly seen that both baptism and repentance are for the same purpose. Again, in Luke 24:47, where Jesus said that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem, the word "and" in this passage is from the Greek preposition eis, which is "unto" or "for the remission of sins"—the same preposition that is used in Acts 2:38; Mark 1:4, etc. Thus, Jesus clearly says that the apostles were to preach repentance for the remission of sins among all nations, beginning at Jeru­salem. Repentance is for the remission of sins in the same sense that baptism is for the remission of sins; and, there­fore, if this expression, "for the remission of sins," is a part of the command to be baptized, it is also a part of the com­mand to repent. And yet, in all of the many places that repentance is mentioned, we do not find the expression, "for the remission of sins," connected with it, except in the verses that have just been cited. The command is one thing and the blessing promised to those who obey the command is another thing. Remission of sins is the blessing promised to those who repent and are baptized. Does one have to understand that baptism is for the remission of sins in order to be scripturally baptized? It is easy to see that if one understands that baptism is a condition of salvation or a necessary step that must be taken in order to enter into Christ and to enjoy spiritual blessings, such a one will certainly have the right conception of bap­tism, whether that one ever read Acts 2:38 or not. Acts 2:38 only expresses this same truth in reference to baptism in different language. But suppose someone does not know that baptism is a condition of salvation, but, nevertheless, is baptized, would such a baptism be valid? It is difficult to see how anyone could learn enough about baptism to attempt to obey the command at all without learning the purpose of the command. If such a person has learned that baptism is required in the word of God, it is certain that that person would have learned at the same time something of the blessing promised to those who are baptized, had he not been misled by denominational teaching. Furthermore, if anyone learns that the Lord has required him to be bap­tized, and is therefore baptized in order to meet the Lord’s requirements, he certainly must have learned from the same Scriptures that salvation, remission of sins, and spiritual blessings were promised to those who obey the command, and to those only. It is hard, therefore, to see how anyone could be scripturally baptized without knowing what bap­tism is for. If he has learned about baptism from the Scriptures, he has certainly learned its purpose, unless he has been misled by false teaching. If he has been misled by false teaching, then he evidently has not obeyed the truth. If he did not learn about baptism from the Scriptures, but learned about it through the teaching of some denomination, the chances are very few that he learned the truth, and therefore obeyed the truth. Our conclusion is, therefore, that anyone who is baptized as the Scriptures teach that he should be baptized must have known that baptism was unto the remission of sins or was a condition ofsalvation. I fh e did not know this, there has been some misreading or some misleading some­where.

One extreme follows another. The Roman Church has for many centuries taught baptismal regeneration. It has taught that persons who can neither believe, repent, under­stand, nor obey can be saved by going through a process called "baptism." This puts merit in baptism, magic in a ceremony, a miracle in an ordinance. It teaches that a soul is regenerated by an external ordinance in which that soul in an unconscious and passive way participated. In com­bating this error people have gone to the extreme of saying that baptism is an absolute nonessential—that it is not nec­essary to submit to this ordinance at all. Then when we teach them that baptism is essential—that baptism is for the remission of sins—some honest souls have thought that we mean that baptism merits the remission of sins; that it secures the remission of sins in the sense of deserving such a blessing. Because of this very grievous and very general idea, some people, who have believed the Scriptures to teach that baptism is a command of the Lord which no one can refuse to obey and be saved, have at the same time denied that baptism is "for the remission of sins" when they hear us preach it. This seems like a paradoxical position for any man to occupy, but it is explained by the false idea that some people have about what we intend to convey when we teach that baptism is essential, or that it is for the re­mission of sins. In fact, some denominations put a good deal more stress on baptism and attach a good deal more importance to it when they are trying to teach those who do not believe in baptism at all than they do when they are in controversy with us. We should keep well in mind the Catholic error about baptism when we are fighting against the Baptist error about baptism. We should never allow our opponents to make any honest soul believe we are trying to teach what the Catholics teach on baptism. This explains how it is possible for some people to believe that baptism is a command of the Lord that must be obeyed and at the same time say they do not believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. They misunderstand the expression "for remission of sins."