1.4 - What is Baptism for?

What is Baptism for? But in looking at the third question, "What is baptism for?" we must shake hands and part company with the Baptists, and fall more into line with some of the more popular bodies. In looking at this aspect of the subject, we ask your particular attention, for though we as a body speak plainly on this subject, we are constantly misrepresented by those from whom you would expect better things. For example, it is no rare thing to hear preachers say that we put the water where the blood should be. There ought to come a time when we should not be asked to call this a mistake. I think we have corrected it about often enough to call it a lie now. We ought to be allowed to call a spade a spade sometime, surely.

Let me give a sample of what I complain of. A preacher had stated publicly that we put water instead of blood. I was informed of it. Some time after, he and some of his religious friends were passing my door. I stepped out and asked them to stop. I told him what I had heard. He said, "I know you do not believe that, but some of the members of your church do." "Well," I said, "if you will give me the name of one man that so believes, I pledge myself before these witnesses that I will either have him expelled or leave myself." He could not give the name of one such man, of course, for the good reason that there was no such man. I then said to him, "I will treat this as a mistake, though I hardly think I should, but if I get you at like work again, remember I will not then call it a mistake." This is only a sample of what is done by men who profess to be born again.

We say that the baptism of a penitent believer is for the remission of sins, but in doing so we do not put water instead of blood; we place no merit in the water; we place the merit in the death of Christ for us, as other people do, but instead of saying that man has only to believe, as some people do, we say that the Scriptures teach that he has also to repent and be baptized; we attach no more merit to baptism than other people do to faith. The Baptists say that you are saved when you believe, and you have to be baptized as a Christian duty, but the Scriptures do not say so. Look at Mark 16:16 : "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." To suit our Baptist friends this would have read, "Preach the gospel to every creature, and ’he that believes and is saved ought to get baptized.’ " But it does not so read, and it is as daring to alter the arrangement of a passage as to deny it altogether. Salvation comes behind baptism in that passage, not before it. God can forgive as He pleases, and here it has pleased him to say, "Believe, and be baptized, and be saved." The Baptists have no consistent place for baptism. They say that their motive in being baptized is to obey Christ. It is true that baptism is obedience to Christ, and this is a high and scriptural motive, but that is true of every command of His in general, and, therefore, means nothing in particular. In Breaking Bread we obey the Lord, but that does not hinder it from being for the purpose of remembering Him till He comes again. So, baptism is obedience, but that does not hinder it from being a condition of pardon. The Baptists say you are saved the moment you believe, yet in a great many of their churches they refuse to have fellowship with believers who are unbaptized. They say that these people are saved and fit for heaven but not fit for their fellowship. We make baptism a condition of fellowship, because the Scriptures have made it a condition of pardon. Our conditions of fellowship and our conditions of pardon are the same, which is both scriptural and consistent. In placing baptism at the door of the church as we do, and not inside it as the Baptists do, I have said we part company with the Baptists and fall into line with the popular bodies; yet these same bodies blame us sometimes for making too much of baptism. Many of you teach your children the Shorter Catechism. What does it say? In answer to the question, "What is baptism?" it says: "Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s." Fancy all that said about an infant, and then blame us for making too much of water. We only baptize after faith in Christ, and after repentance, and, therefore, after you would say the person is saved, but you say all this about an infant where there is no faith, and where the water alone is in view. It is really too bad. How can you talk about baptism signifying and sealing an infant’s engrafting into Christ, partaking of the benefits of the new covenant, and engagement to be the Lord’s, and then talk about anybody making too much of baptism. Especially how can you blame those who do not baptize till after faith and repentance for making too much of it?

Take the Episcopal Catechism now. When a young person is brought before the bishop to be confirmed, he or she is thus questioned:

Question: "What is your name?"

Answer: "N. or M."

Question: "Who gave you this name?"

Answer: "My godfathers and godmothers in my baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven." That says as much about water baptism to an infant as we say about the Gospel of Christ and all its requirements. If we put too much on baptism, what do the people do who believe this? They say as much about water alone as we say about the whole plan of salvation.

We have looked at the Commission by Mark, let us now look at an instance in which this Commission was applied, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38). Peter had been preaching Christ; the people became anxious and asked what they must do, and here you have the answer. The people already believed, or they would not have been anxious. In addition to faith they are commanded to repent and be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Here we have baptism connected with remission of sins in a fashion that cannot be got over - not the baptism of an infant, of course, but of penitent believers. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit at this time, and spake as the Spirit gave him utterance, and the other apostles were present, and they also were filled with the Holy Spirit. This answer to anxious enquirers then must be right, and yet you seldom hear it given.

I venture to say that we are the only people in Peterhead who give the same answer to anxious souls as the apostles gave. Let me illustrate what I mean. One of our brethren in America was in public debate with a D.D. During the debate our brother said that the Doctor dare not, as he valued his position, or even his membership in the church he was connected with, give the same answers to anxious souls as the apostles did. The Doctor asked if his opponent was impeaching his veracity. Our brother said he was stating a fact that should be made to ring in the ears of the people, and he would now put it to the proof. Turning to the Doctor, he asked, "If you had anxious souls before you, pricked to the heart by the truth, and crying out what must they do, dare you, as Peter did on Pentecost, tell them to repent and be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? Or, if you had an anxious penitent before you such as Saul was when Ananias came to him, dare you, as Ananias did, tell him to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling upon the name of the Lord?" Our brother paused and waited for an answer; but the Doctor answered not one word. I give this incident to illustrate what I mean. It is the same in Peterhead today; the answers given by the apostles and early preachers dare not be given by those who profess to be guided by the apostles.

Let us now look at a passage already alluded to, the last we will have time to deal with, though much more might be given. Acts 22:16 : "And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Many tell us that Saul was converted on his way to Damascus. If they look more closely they will find that though Saul believed in Christ, and was changed in heart and purpose toward Him, he was not for the next three days a bit like the man who knew the peace of sins forgiven. If his sins were forgiven on the way to Damascus, why had he, three days after that, to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord? If baptism has nothing to do with forgiveness, this passage is worse than nonsense. Please notice that we draw a distinction between forgiveness and that change of mind, heart and purpose toward God that is brought about by the Gospel of Christ and our belief therein. Change of heart takes place here, forgiveness takes place in heaven. The two things are quite distinct. The Scriptures teach that baptism has a connection with forgiveness, but they do not teach that it has anything to do with the sinner’s change of heart towards God, without which baptism is a meaningless action. That the passage under consideration shows a connection between baptism and forgiveness is proved by the fact that those who deny such connection never quote it to the anxious, as Ananias did to Saul.

I have already given one incident that helps to bring out this fact; I will give another. Some years ago I called at the house of a religious people. The husband chanced to be from home. In conversation, the wife told me that I made too much of baptism. I said that, as far as I knew, I only made what the Scriptures made of it. I then quoted Acts 2:38 : "Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," and then said, "Now, would you quote that passage to any conceivable person under any conceivable circumstance?" She said, "No, thank goodness, I know better than that." I then quoted the passage under consideration, and said, "Would you use these words that Ananias used to Saul to any person? Would you tell any conceivable person under any conceivable circumstance to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins?" She again thanked goodness that she knew better. I said it was a terrible thing for her to profess to be a believer in Christ, and at the same time say she knew better than God’s Word. I called at this house again and the husband went at me for finding fault with his wife because she would not believe in a water salvation. I said I did nothing of the kind, but I had found fault with his wife for saying that she knew better than the Word of God. This does not only show that we think that baptism in these passages has a connection with pardon, but it shows that those who oppose us think the same thing, or they would quote them under the same circumstances as the first preachers did; but they do not. Not only do they refuse to quote these passages themselves, but they find fault with us who do. How men dare to do this and at the same time believe that the Bible is God’s Word, and that it will judge them in the last day, is more than I know. It seems passing strange that we should be held as unsound in the faith for keeping close to the Book that all profess to honor.

You must not think that I was brought up in connection with the body I am now preaching for, and, therefore, had early prejudices in its favor. Nothing of the kind. I did not know that there was such a people until I was a married man. The first meeting I attended in connection with them I had conversation with one of the elders after the meeting. He questioned my claim to a scriptural knowledge of pardon. I said to him, "Do you think I do not love the Lord Jesus Christ as sincerely as you do?" He said, "I do not doubt that, young man." I then asked, "Do you think I am not as willing to follow Him as you are?" He said, "I do not doubt that either." "Then what do you mean?" I asked. He then asked, "Are you married?" "Yes." "Did you love your wife as well immediately before the marriage ceremony as you did immediately afterwards?" "Yes." "Did the marriage ceremony change your heart at all?" "No." "Did it change your state?" "Yes, it put me out of a single state into a married state." "And might not God have an ordinance that had to do with changing your state while it had nothing to do with changing your heart?" "Well," I said, "It is possible, but what about the fact?" "Here is the fact, young man," he said, and then quoted Mark 16:16 : "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." "Now salvation is a state, young man. Where does it come in that passage? After baptism or before it?"

I would have given a good deal to have got over that passage and others that the old man brought up to me, but I saw no honest road through. I had gone four miles to that meeting. The old man went a mile towards home with me. In parting he laid his hand on my shoulder and said: "Now, if we are right, come and help us, and if we are wrong, in pity come back again and let us know where." That is over thirty-four years ago. I had been converted in popular fashion over two years before that. I could not find where the old man was wrong, so I went back to help him, and have continued to do so ever since. I have seen the position presented in this discourse attacked from many a standpoint in that time and today I have the feeling of a man whose feet are upon the eternal rock of God’s Word that cannot be shaken. I stand where I do because I dare not stand anywhere else. We earnestly commend to your attention the truths we have presented. We have spoken as unto wise men, and we ask you to judge what we have said. It will soon make no difference whether the crowd be with us or against us; but whether God be with us or against us may make an eternal difference. THE END