42 CAMPBELLISM on Baptism, S. A. Paine Let us remember the issue between our friends and myself does not involve all the elements constituting scriptural baptism. We agree as to what the elements are, but differ as to what constitutes some of those elements. Baptism, if scriptural, requires:
1. A proper subject.
2. A proper administrator.
3. A proper mode.
4. A proper design.
Upon the 3rd item we all perfectly agree that immersion or burial of the subject is the only mode, hence no issue there, and for that reason we will eliminate that item from the discussion.
On the second item we agree that the administrator must be a member of the church of Jesus Christ, but differ as to where the church is. These people are more consistent on that point than some others who claim to be the church and at the same time receive baptism at the hands of other
orders. But if I were to go to my friends and say, while I was baptized by Elder J. G. Webb, a Baptist preacher, yet I had remission of sins in view of the act, they would overwhelmingly take me in. That shows, after all their boast of administratorship, that they attach no importance to that, further than it is associated with design upon the part of the candidate. They care nothing really for any item, only the design, which they say is to save the lost.
The first and fourth items bring war when mentioned. There we can find the real vital difference.
1st. A proper subject.
Now, we will agree just as far as we can. We agree that it is a believer who has repented of his sins, and confessed Christ before men. But we very materially differ as to the condition of a penitent believer. I claim that all such are born again, but our friends contend that all such in an unbaptized state are alien sinners and must be born again. There is the issue. Now to prove that the believer is in a saved state we refer you to a list of proofs in our treatise on faith. 1 John 5:24; Acts 13:39; John 3:18. These texts show, in the order given, that a believer is “born of God,” “has everlasting life,” “justified from al things,” and “not condemned.” We, in those quotations, have the believer (whom we both agree is a proper subject) described; but the description by no means favors Campbellism. If a believer is “justified from all things” baptism cannot be a means of justification. If a believer is “born of God,” baptism, a subsequent act, cannot be a means of the birth.
No man on earth can admit that faith in Christ is a qualification for baptism and make any start to prove water baptismal regeneration. The limb breaks behind him and lets him down, and that very abruptly.
Water baptism had its beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist. By a brief review of his ministry we might find some fact that would break some light on the question as to who is a proper subject for baptism. But before we do that, we wish to deny or rather subvert that old Campbellite dogma, or phantom—that John’s baptism was not gospel baptism. To deny the validity of John’s baptism is to surrender the claim of having this solemn example in the person of Jesus, for he was baptized by John. If Christ was baptized by John, for us to follow him, must we not be baptized with the same baptism that he was? If John’s ministry was under the law, before the gospel, and Christ was baptized under the law, could we who are under the gospel and baptized by church authority be consistent in claiming Christian baptism. i.e. we must be baptized like Christ was baptized.
John’s ministry, was not under the law, for he preached saying, Repent. He did not say repent after awhile, but repent now, present tense. “Repent for the Kingdom is at hand.” He came to make people ready, and readiness consisted in repentance, turning from the law and its ceremonies, for the “Kingdom is at hand.” Do you suppose John could have material ready for Christ by encouraging them in the law? That is too absurd to deserve more than a passing notice. “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the Kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it,” Luke 16:16.
Notice the “law and prophets were until John.” The law did not embrace John, but was until John. John came to condemn the law service, and to introduce the Christian service “Since that time the Kingdom is preached.” Since what time? Since “until John,” not since the close of John’s ministry, but since its commencement. Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If Christ was baptized under the law, and our friends are baptized under the gospel, it is conclusive proof that they have not Christian baptism; or if Christ was baptized under the law, and they are baptized like Christ, they are baptized under the law, and they, therefore, have not gospel baptism.
Their own contentions declare them destitute of Christian baptism. But if Christ was baptized under the gospel (which he was), and we are baptized like Christ, then we both have Christian and gospel baptism. The very introduction of his administration shows to any fair minded person that he was not under the direction of the law, for under the law, its blessings flowed to its subjects, primarily as the lineage of Abraham. Being the seed of Abraham entitled them to all the blessings of the law, when honored by them. But when the Pharisees, who, no doubt, like Campbellites, thought John was an officer of the law, and went to John demanding baptism, and basing that demand upon their lineage to Abraham, he renounced them as a “generation of vipers,” saying “who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits, meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
John here shows conclusively that he positively disclaims any connection with the law, as a guide in his ministry, for he eliminates in his demands the very basis of the law, which was inheritance by natural descent; and preaches the miraculous power of God in preparing material for the ordinances of his ministry to his reference to God’s ability to convert stones into children of Abraham. To be an heir under the law, was to be the literal seed of Abraham, but now under the gospel and reign of grace, “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” Just as those under the law had to be the children of Abraham to share of the law, so it is under the gospel, that one must be Christ’s to share with the “saints in light.” As the observing ordinances and ceremonies under the law did not produce a child of Abraham, so it is that, under the gospel the observing of ordinances and ceremonies does not produce a child of God.
But we are so often referred to Acts 19 to prove that John’s baptism was repudiated. But when we turn and read, we find no such intimation. We do find some people, who, no doubt, had been baptized by a man (Apollos) who, like the Campbellites, knew only the baptism of John i.e. knew nothing but water baptism. Acts 18:25. He, like some of our friends, was “mighty in the scriptures” (the letter of them with no scriptural understanding of them.) Acts 18:25.
This man was at Ephesus just before Paul, teaching water baptism only. Acts 18:24,25.
When Aquilla and Priscilla heard him, they expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly, and he departed into Achaia. Acts 18:26,27.
Paul came to Ephesus, where Apollos had been, and found certain disciples. Acts 19:1.
Who could doubt for a moment that these were Apollos’s disciples. Acts 19:1. Such circumstantial evidence pointing to a crime would convict any man in our courts of justice.
Remember now that these people had only been taught the baptism of John; as a consequence, when Paul asked if they had received the Holy Ghost; the answer was, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” That was a new word to them. They had heard nothing under that name.
Well, says one, that proves they had never been baptized by the Holy Ghost, or they would know something of it. They did not know it by name, but did know it in its effect. Just as well say that a heathen that never heard the word electricity, when suddenly brought in contact with a battery and thoroughly shocked, if he could not name the power that shocked him, that it would not be proof he was not shocked. Do you suppose that if that man never heard of electricity, and someone were to ask him if he was electrified, that he could honestly and intelligently answer yes? Certainly he would not be like the untaught disciples at Ephesus, they would not as much as know whether there be any electricity. But would that prove they were never shocked?
Those people were children of God and needed to be taught and baptized by one properly authorized. One who knew something of Holy Ghost baptism as well as John’s baptism. Paul told them that, “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ.” In regard to the one that should come after him, John had before said that, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” Matt. 3:11.
Where is the proof that in the baptizing of these people that Apollos had baptized, that John’s baptism was repudiated? They were not baptized again, because they were baptized unto John’s baptism, but because they were not baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost.
We will now return and further demonstrate that John baptized only those who were born again. If he had been a Campbellite preacher, instead of renouncing these Pharisaic vipers, he would have said, come on boys, and let me baptize you, and all the viper disposition or nature will be gone; but John says, “Bring forth fruits, meet for repentance.” Prove to me that God has prepared you for this solemn duty, for I have come to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” God never sent his ministry into the world to doctor snakes, but to feed the sheep. But our friends have the science of snakeology down so perfectly that they by their skillful treatment, can convert a snake into a sheep.
When John shrank at the thought of baptizing the Savior, Jesus said unto him, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness,” Matt. 3:15.
I introduce this to prove that baptism is an act of righteousness. It takes a righteous person to do an act of righteousness. “Little children, let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous,” 1 John 3:7.
Our friends declare that the unrighteous (sinner) must do righteousness (be baptized) in order to become righteous. Those who believe their teaching on this are deceived, says John, and he commands us, “Let no man deceive you.”
If, as the Savior says, baptism is a righteous act; and as John says, those who do righteousness are righteous, it follows conclusively that only the righteous are to be baptized. If it is righteous to be baptized, baptism makes no one righteous and Campbellism fails.
Read 1 John 2:29. “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that everyone that doeth righteousness is born of him.”
Question: Is God righteous? If yes, the text says just as true is it that those who do righteousness are born of him. If that is true, just that certain is Campbellism false. If Campbellism is true, God is unrighteous according to the text; but if God is righteous, Campbellism is false. Which, friendly reader, do you prefer to believe?
If, as the Savior says, baptism is a righteous act, and those who do righteousness are born of God, it follows that only those who are born of God should be baptized. If only those who are born of God are subjects for baptism, it forever paralyzes the idea that alien sinners are baptized in order to be born of God.
But I have had them try to evade the force of the Savior’s expression by saying that the righteousness fulfilled in baptism was only on the part of the administrator; but the Savior said, “It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.”
It becometh you and me, both of us. John was the administrator and Jesus was the subject, and the subject said to the administrator, “It becometh us.” But this is only a demonstration that a drowning man will grab at a straw. Unrestrained, these people would trample the simplest English to carry a point.
Here are some statements, in his own handwriting from C. D. Nichols in debate with me last August.
Do you baptize a child of God, or a child of the devil? Answer: Child of the devil. Isn’t that enough to make angels blush, and to make humble children of grace hang their heads in disgust?
Who did John baptize? Did our great Head and Exampler give a pattern for devils to follow? Does he say to devils, follow me? Or does he say, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do? John 8:44.
Does that ally the Savior very closely to Campbellism? Nay, but it puts his living veto to the infidelity. My brethren reprove me sometimes for my severity on the heathenish dogma, but I expect to slay the beast whenever it gets in my path as long as God gives me life and strength to do so. Some good people are ensnared by it. I love them, but abominate the web they are in.
Not only their ridiculous positions render it odious, but their ridiculous contradictions render it so.
C.R. Nichols, in answer to the same question says, “A child of the devil is a servant of the devil. He is not a child of the devil, for he has quit serving him.”
There is what Charley said about it. Coleman said the opposite, and they are representatives of the same people, both debating and defending the same crowd over here in Texas. Now they must not say that Paine has lied on them, for you know that Paine would be, under those circumstances, as amenable to the libel laws of Texas as any other man; and you know if these people had any strings to pull they would pull them. We have documentary proof of everything we shall lay to their charge.
Now, if Elder J. S. Newman, my brother and yokefellow in the ministry, were to write on paper in debate with one of our friends, that he baptized children of God, and I were to claim the opposite, to baptize children of the devil, there would be a cleaning up in camps, and ought to be.
Every text they undertake to use on baptism proves too much for them. Take, for instance, the language of Ananias to Paul, “Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized and wash away your sins.”
It is impossible to believe that command without believing that baptism washes away sins, and that Paul was to wash them away by his own act—baptism. But if the washing there is regeneration, then Paul regenerated himself, for it was he that was to wash away his sins. But they squeal at that, saying, we don’t believe that the sinner saves himself. Then you don’t need that text, for it was Paul that was to wash himself with his own act.
We get a similar example in 1 Pet. 3:21, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” They use this to prove that baptism is a condition in order to salvation, but the text says, “baptism saves.” But you will notice that Elders Bentley and Nichols both declared that baptism was not a cause of salvation, yet they say one can not be saved without baptism. The truth or Bible on the subject is that baptism saves. Acts 3:21.
Baptism is an act of ours, and hence it can appropriately be said, as on Pentecost, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” But if baptism is a figure, as Peter says it is, and baptism saves, it follows that the salvation is figurative. If it is figurative, it suggests or points to, or represents the real. So if one is in possession of the real, he can and ought to indicate it by a figure. But as there can be no figure without the real, so it is that none except those who are really saved by the blood of Christ can express it in the figure. To prove my position, Peter says, “not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” Baptism, then, is the answer or expression of a good conscience. Then the conscience is good before baptism.
The blood of Christ makes the conscience good. Heb. 9:14. Therefore, the blood of Christ, which really saves is applied before and prepares one for baptism. That is the Bible and therefore the truth of the matter, and Campbellism fails us as a struggling victim.
Those who have the experience of Paul, Cornelius, the Jailer, and the Pentecostians, we say to all such be baptized and wash away your sins (figuratively); baptism saves, baptism “remits sins.” But we never say that baptism gives life or that it regenerates.
I will now close by giving a quotation from A. Campbell. I believe they all take him as authority. The Christian System, page 207, you find the following, “Being born imparts no new life; but is simply a change of state, and introduces into a new mode of living.” Now we have the boys bottled, both with A. Campbell and the Bible. Campbell declares that the birth occurs at baptism, “born of water,” and that the birth only “introduces into a new mode of living.” Again, on page 201, he says, “A child is alive before he is born, and the act of being born only changes its state, not its life.” Now if in the plan of salvation one is born at baptism, and the child is alive before born, then it follows that the sinner is alive before baptism. If the sinner is alive before baptism, our contention in full is proven, unless as Coleman D. Nichols said, those who are begotten may never be born. (Writings of S. A. Paine; ppg 32-38)