WATER BAPTISM
There is a beautiful simplicity in those ordinances the Lord has provided for the New Testament Church. “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward,” 2 Cor. 1:12. Under the Law of Moses there was such a long list of sacrifices, and feasts, and ceremonies, that you have to wonder how they managed to keep them all straight. Every observance differed from all the others, and it had its own list of minute details, and conditions, to be observed.
The Lord has provided the New Testament Church with just two ordinances—water baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. He has also provided feetwashing as an example (not actually an ordinance), which it is the great joy of his church to observe in connection with the Lord’s Supper. Those services are very simple, and very clear, in the purpose for which they were intended, and in the lessons they teach. They are the property of the Lord’s church. He has given them for our benefit, and we ought to guard them, and protect them to the very best of our ability. It is our great joy, not only to claim those ordinances as the property of his church, but to observe them, and preserve them, through the ages, and to learn all we can from the simple lessons they teach.
The Purpose of Baptism: Baptism by immersion in water, upon a profession of faith in Christ Jesus, is the manner God requires in which for his obedient children to publicly profess our faith in him. He created us, and saved us by his grace, and he has a right to expect us to publicly profess our faith in him. Baptism by immersion in water is the manner he requires for that public profession.
Not only does he require baptism of his children; he has set water baptism as the boundary line between gospel disobedience and disobedience. When Peter says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ,” Acts 2:38, he was not giving an invitation; and we make a mistake when call it an invitation. He was telling us what we must do in order to follow Christ in gospel obedience. The call to be baptized is not an invitation; it is a commandment.
A person may be baptized and still not be obedient to God’s commandments; but nobody can be obedient to his command- ents without being baptized.
Water baptism has nothing to do with eternal salvation. The failure to be baptized will not interfere with God’s purpose to save his redeemed, and to house them with him in eternal heaven; but it has everything to do with our gospel obedience, and our enjoyment of the blessings of God in this life. In order to enjoy those benefits that are available to the child of God in gospel obedience a person must be baptized in water. Once a born again person is taught his duty with regard to baptism, his failure to be baptized is simply rebellion against God’s command, and no one can expect to enjoy the blessings of God while he is in a state of rebellion.
The language is clear and to the point; we are commanded to be baptized. Notice that when Christ referred to the baptism of John he uses John’s baptism to draw a clear and distinct boundary line between those who justified God and those who rejected the counsel of God against themselves, and he shows that boundary line to be water baptism.
Luke 7:29,30, “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.” He does not leave us an option; we are commanded to be baptized.
Notice that they justified God by being baptized. To justify signifies to declare to be just; that is, by being baptized, they declared that God is just in all he says and does. He is just in delivering us from our sins, and he is just in requiring us to indicate our hope in him by being baptized.
The opposite of justify is condemn. If we justify God by being baptized, it follows that we condemn him by refusing to be baptized. You cannot acknowledge the one without the other.
By being baptized we declare that God is just in all he says and does; he is just in what he requires of us. By refusing to be baptized we declare that he is unjust; especially, we indicate that he is unjust in requiring us to be baptized. We indicate that he has no right to make such a demand.
Indeed, baptism in water has nothing to do with our eternal salvation, but it is, nonetheless, a serious matter for any person who has a hope of heaven to refuse to be baptized.
Qualifications for Baptism: On the one hand, the command-ment is, “Repent and be baptized every one of you.” On the other hand, there are some qualifications for baptism. Not everybody is a proper subject for baptism.
Unbelievers are not to be baptized. The Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip, What doth hinder me to be baptized?” Acts 8:36. There are some things that do hinder baptism, and when those hindrances are in the way, the minister cannot proceed with the baptism. Philip answered, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest,” (vs 37). If a person clearly does not have faith in Christ and his redemptive work on behalf of his people, he is not to be baptized. It is by baptism that a person publicly professes faith in Christ, and gains membership in the church. The church is an assembly of baptized believers. It is not an assembly of unbelievers. No assembly could claim to be a church if it was made up of unbelievers. It might be a social club; but it is not a church.
Infants are not to be baptized. This same text is the death knell to infant baptism. Philip says clearly enough, “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.” In other words, one who does not believe cannot be baptized, and little babies are not capable of believing. They may come to believe later, and that will be soon enough to baptize them, but until that day the Bible is clear enough; they cannot be baptized.
Those who show no signs of repentance are not to be baptized. Or to put it another way, those who have never seen themselves as sinners, cannot be baptized. That is the Bible pattern. When those proud, arrogant Pharisees and Sadducees came to John the Baptist to be baptized, John refused, and he refused in no uncertain terms. He called them a generation of vipers, a family of snakes (Matt.3:7), and told them that in order for him to baptize them they must bring forth fruits meet for repentance (vs 8). It is penitent believers who are to be baptized; and proud, arrogant, self righteous individuals are not really believers, no matter how much they may protest to the contrary. A self- righteous attitude indicates that one has not seen himself for the sinner he is, nor the Lord for the Savior he is. One who has seen something of his own unworthiness is filled with self-loathing, and he falls humbly before the feet of Jesus. He presents himself for baptism in humble submission to the command of his Lord. He does not request baptism as something he has the right to demand.
Again, there are those whose lives, or whose living conditions, prevent them from being baptized. 1 Cor. 6:9,10, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, no adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” It is by being baptized upon a public profession of faith in Christ that a person gains membership in the Lord’s church. In this passage Paul provides a list of those who cannot have membership in the Lord’s church— those who cannot be baptized.
There is repentance available for any sin a person can repent of, and turn from, and Paul shows in the next verse that some of the members of the church at Corinth had, indeed, been guilty of some of those sins, and had turned from them; but so long as they were in those conditions, or were involved in those kinds of conduct, they could not inherit the kingdom of God. “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God,” (vs. 11).
We have no right to complain about those requirements the Lord has laid down for membership in the church. It is his church and he has the right to say who will be its members.
The mode of Baptism: Baptize is a transliteration of the Greek word Baptizo. By transliterate we mean the word was not translated; it was simply transposed into the English language by substituting the English letters for the corresponding Greek letters. The final o (omicron) in the Greek became the English letter e. The Greek word is baptizo and that word came from bapto. It means to plunge, to dip, to immerse. Baptism is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is also a symbol that this child of God is dead to sin—and to the law—and that he has risen to walk in newness of life with his Lord.
If to baptize means to plunge, dip, or immerse, then baptism must be a plunging, dipping, or immersing. Baptism symbol-izes the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in order to be a clear symbol it must involve a symbolic burial. Rom. 6:4, “Therefore we are buried (literally, completely buried) with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Any form that does not involve the complete immersing of the body in water does not constitute a burying; it does not constitute baptism.
Baptism by immersion in water is a very clear symbol. When a person is baptized, he closes his eyes, folds his hands over his chest, momentarily ceases to breathe, becomes completely passive, yields himself into the hands of the minister, is low-ered beneath the surface of the water, is then raised up from the water, usually shakes his head, opens his eyes, and again begins to breathe and manifest signs of life.
It is impossible for human ingenuity to devise a clearer symbol of death, burial, and resurrection than God has provided for us in baptism by immersion in water.
John the Baptist was the first to baptize, and he baptized by immersion in water. John 3:23, “And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there.” It does not take much water to sprinkle a few drops on somebody’s head, but it takes a lot of water to immerse him. John baptized in the river of Jordan, because it takes a lot of water to baptize somebody. It takes a lot of water to bury him. Mark 1:4,5, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” He baptized them in the river, that is, he plunged them in the river.—he immersed them.
This has been the doctrine of our people all through the ages. Perhaps, a few quotes from some of our ablest ministers from the past will illustrate the point.
C.H. Cayce: “We do no violence to language if we take a word out of a sentence and put another word in its place that means the same thing as the word taken out. If we do this we are doing no violence, and are not changing the meaning of the sentence. The word sprinkle means “to scatter in drops or small particles.” Now try the language, “And were all bap-tized of him in the river of Jordan.” The sentence reads alright that way, and is found in Mark 1:5. Remember, we do no violence by removing or taking a word out, and placing the true meaning of the word in the place of it. So, “and were all dipped of him in the river of Jordan.” The sentence still reads all right. “And were all immersed of him in the river of Jordan.” It is alright yet. “And were all scattered in drops or small particles of him in the river of Jordan.” The sentence is all wrong now. Why? Because baptism is not sprinkling; it is dipping, immersing. Read the account of the baptism of the eunuch in the eighth chapter of Acts and apply the same rule, and you will have it that Philip scattered the eunuch about in drops or small particles. He did not do this, but ‘they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,’ and Philip baptized him, dipped him, immersed him.”
“Suppose some of your dear friends or near relatives were to die, and some person should carry their body to the cemetery and pour or sprinkle a little dirt on their head, and then say we have buried your relative or friend. Would you consider the people to be your friends who would do this? No; you would consider them as your enemies. Now read Romans 6:4, ‘Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.’ The apostle here plainly says we are ‘buried with him by baptism.’ If we are buried by baptism, then baptism must be a burial—it must be an immersion. Anything short of a burial, therefore, is not baptism, for we are buried by it. Then as baptism is a burial, how can we claim to be Christ’s friends when we say we baptize his friends who are dead to sin by sprinkling or pouring a little water on their heads? Let us prove our faith by our works. We have faith that Christ died, was buried, and rose again. Let us show that faith by being buried with him by baptism, and arising to walk in newness of life.” (C.H. Cayce vol. 1 pg. 46)
Authority to Baptize Baptism is Christ’s ordinance. It belongs to him, and he calls, appoints, and sends out those whom he will have to administer it. They were first, baptized, and ordained, and then sent out. John 15:16, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” That was the pattern when the Lord called his own disciples, and the pattern is the same today. In order for any minister to have authority to baptize he must be (1) called by the Lord to preach, and (2) ordained under the authority of the church. Acts 13:2,3, “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” Notice that the Holy Ghost says I have called them. The ordination was performed by the presbytery, under the authority of the church, and by the direction of the Holy Spirit, but the calling was from God. If a man has not been called of God to preach the gospel, he is not to be ordained, and he has no authority to baptize.
Sylvester Hassell: “Question: ‘Was John’s baptism Christian baptism, and were the baptisms practiced by the disciples of Christ previous to his crucifixion identical with those prac-ticed by his apostles after his ascension? And did John bap-tize in any name, and, if in the name of Christ, was Christ baptized in his own name?”
Answer: “John’s baptism was from heaven, and he therefore baptized by the authority or in the name of God. He baptized Christ, although Christ was sinless, to fulfill all righteousness; that is, to do the righteous will of God, to point forward to Christ’s atoning death for our sins and his resurrection for our justification, and to show the example that we are to follow. Though Christ had no sin of his own, he was the represen-tative of his sinful people. He was a real man, as well as the real God, and he was baptized and labored and suffered and bled and died and rose as a man. Some of John’s disciples whom he had baptized followed Christ, and were not baptized in water again, so far as we are told in the Scriptures. The baptisms performed by Christ’s disciples before his crucifix-ion were undoubtedly in the name, or by the authority, of God (Christ is God), and did not have to be repeated, and were therefore substantially the same as those performed by his apostles after his ascension, though the form of words used was not probably the same; the Scriptures do not tell us the form of words used in the baptisms performed by John, or in those performed by the disciples of Christ before his crucifix-ion, and it is, therefore, not necessary for us to know that form of words. An attempt to be wise above what is written, and speculation upon things that the Lord has not revealed to us, are not only unprofitable, but injurious to the people of God, tending, not to edify and unite, but to confuse and divide them.”
The Symbolism of Marriage in Baptism Baptism is the ceremony by which the Lord’s obedient children, the bride of Christ, are married to the Lord. We were by nature married to the Law, but Christ has fulfilled every requirement of the Law on our behalf, and the law cannot require anything more of us. The law required perfect obedience, and on our behalf he provided perfect obedience. The Law called for the death of sinners, and in our room and stead he died. When Christ died and went to the grave on our behalf, every requirement of the law went there with him. By his suffering and death we are dead to the Law, and the Law is dead to us. The marriage ceremony states that the union is binding until death do us part. Now that Christ has suffered and died in order to satisfy every demand of the law, our first husband, the Law, is now dead. Our first husband being dead we are free to be married to another—to be married, that is, to Christ.
Rom. 7:4, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”
Question: In baptism, does the subject become married to Christ, or does he actually become married to the church. Answer: Both. The Bible says it both ways.
Isa. 62:5, “For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.”
The text in Romans talks about our being married “to him that is raised from the dead,” in other words, to Christ. The text in Isaiah talks about our being married to the virgin bride of Christ, the church. Christ is the bridegroom; the church is his bride. As the young man, the subject of baptism, is married to the church, he becomes a part of the bride of Christ, hence, married to him.
S.A. Payne: “In Mal. 3:1, same verse referred to, it is said, ‘And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in; behold he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.’”
“Who is this, but the Savior coming to John on the bank of Jordan? And in coming to him he comes to, or confronts those whom John has made ready. He calls this, coming to his temple. Here is where the marriage occurs.”
“We hear John exclaiming, ‘Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.’ Here is the midnight cry, ‘Behold the Bride-groom cometh, go ye out to meet him.’ “Those who were ready, who were prepared in heart, and had obeyed the teaching of John, were admitted to the marriage.”
“Hence, Christ suddenly came to his temple, ‘even the messenger of the covenant ‘whom ye delight in.’ This was fulfilled in Jesus’s approach to John, and those whom he had baptized, here the union of the Bride and Bridegroom was effected, and the church, there began in its incipiency—began to be builded.”
Rebaptism : The question is often asked, “If I have been baptized before, why must I be baptized again in order to join your church?” If your husbands dies and you take a new husband, you need a new marriage ceremony. If you have become dead to the law as it is taught by the denominational churches, and made alive to the gospel as it is taught by the true church, it is your place to be married to Christ in baptism.
Sylvester Hassell on Infant Baptism: “It is claimed that Irenaeus was born A.D. 97, and that he makes one allusion to infant baptism. The fact is that both the date and place of Irenaeus’s birth and death are unknown. The ablest scholars believe that he was born between A.D. 120 and 140; and some suppose that he died A.D. 202. His book against Heresies was composed, says Mr. Schaff, between the years 177 and 192. In that book he says that ‘our Lord came in order that through himself he might save all men, infants, and little ones, and children and youths and elders, even all who through him are born again unto God.’ The expression ‘born again’ is said, in the early so-called ‘Father,’ habitually to mean ‘baptized;’ but it remains to be proved that it always has that meaning, and that it has that meaning in the sentence just quoted from Irenaeus. The phrase ‘through him,’ instead of ‘through water,’ militates emphatically against the idea of baptismal regeneration in this passage—so admit the German scholars. The earliest undoubted reference to child baptism is by Tertullian of North Africa (born 160 A.D., died between 220 and 240—converted about A.D. 190), and he earnestly opposes it. Certainly then, child baptism must have been, not of apostolic, but of recent origin, when Tertullian wrote. Bunsen shows that Tertullian was not arguing against infant baptism at all, then unknown, but against the baptism of little growing children from six years old, who could go down with the other catechumens into the baptismal bath, but were not yet in a state to make the proper responses. This custom was coming into fashion, but Tertullian rejects it. From boys of ten, who might possibly sometimes give evidence of sincere piety, the clergy advanced to take in those of six or seven responded for by others, though able to descend into the water, unaided with the adult catechumens. Then those of three or four, when just able to repeat a few of the sacred words, as Gregory Nazianzen recommends, were, by a further corruption, brought by baptism into the fold of the ‘church’ From this very circumstance would arise the strongest argu-ment for going a step further. For since in these very young children baptism could not be a profession of personal faith, it could only lead the masses to suppose that it acted as a charm, and that the child was more safe in case of death, a view carefully cherished by the clergy. Thus arose the belief that all even infants, dying without baptism, would be lost; and hence followed the baptism of babes eight days old, and even those of a day. The first known instance of this last was A.D. 256, in North Africa, and these ideas slowly and gradually pervaded the ‘church’ as Neander has shown. A host of authorities fully sustain this view of the origin of infant baptism.’ ‘The Catholic practice of pretending to make even infants catechumens, or rudimentally instructed in Christian-ity, before baptism, is an undesigned proof of the correctness of the above explanation, and of the truth of Baptist principles.’— . F. Curtis. Dean Stanley says that there is but one known instance of infant baptism in the third century, though he defends the practice as being ‘a standing testimony to the truth, value, and eternal significance of natural religion,’ and as showing that, ‘in every child of Adam, whilst there is much evil, there is more good.”
“The baptism of youth, it is maintained by many, began in this [fourth, ed.] century. In the year 370 the Emperor Valens sent for Basil to baptize his dying son Galetes; the ground of the request was the illness of the youth. Basil refused to do it, and it was eventually done by an Arian bishop. If an emper-or’s son must be baptized before he died, although destitute of faith, of course the next highest in authority must have the same privilege accorded him, and so on down to the lowest officer and the poorest and most obscure man in the empire. And upon similar grounds it came to be urged that if young men and youths, who were taught to ask for baptism, could receive it and thus escape eternal punishment, the same blessing ought to be conferred on poor helpless infants, who could not even speak for themselves and knew not anything. So that it was agreed eventually that they should also be baptized as soon as born or soon thereafter, so that they also, by this means, in case of death, might escape the flames of hell! And either about 256 A.D. in Africa, or 370 A.D. in Rome, is where youths’ and children’s baptism, without faith, came from; not from Christ or his apostles. Be it remem-bered, then, that 370 years after the birth of our Savior, an emperor’s child was baptized by an Arian Bishop—having been refused by one of the Athanasian or orthodox party!”
“During the first three centuries Christian congregations all over the East continued separate independent bodies, unsup-ported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were Baptist churches; and though all the ‘fathers’ of the first four ages down to Jerome were of Greece, Syria, and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not (if we except the case referred by Fidus to Cyprian, 256 A.D.) one record of the baptism of the bap-tism of a child till the year 370, when Galetes, the dying son of the Emperor Valens, was baptized by order of a monarch, who swore he would not be contradicted (see Rob. Res., p.55).” (G.H. Orchard)
Alien Baptism: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” Matt. 20:19,20.
The only people who are authorized to baptize are those whom God has called to preach, and who are teaching what he taught. The baptism any man administers is only as good as the doctrine he teaches. If any person whom God has not called to preach, or who does not preach what Christ preached, does go about to administer baptism, he has no authority to do so. He is a free lance operator—he is operating on his own. He, and perhaps his ‘church,’ have simply set up for themselves. No ‘church’ can claim to be Christ’s church which does not teach as he taught, and no minister can claim to be administering Christ’s baptism at the same time he opposes Christ’s doctrine. He may get people wet, but he cannot baptize them. He is somewhat akin to the printer, who decides to begin printing one hundred dollar bills. The product may look very much like the real thing, but the man had no authority to print them: they are counterfeit.
An assembly may look very much like a New Testament church, but if it does not advocate those principles taught in the Scriptures, it is not the Lord’s church, and any baptism administered under its authority is invalid baptism—alien baptism—and no New Testament Church can honor that baptism.
C.H. Cayce: “Baptism must be administered by one who has been set apart by the church to the work whereunto God has called him, if it be gospel baptism. ‘As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.’—Acts 13:2-4. Here we have the called ministers of Christ set apart by the church for the work whereunto the Lord had called them. It is a part of the work of the ministry to administer the ordinances. Those who are commanded to teach, as ministers of the gospel, are the same who are to baptize. ‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.’—Mat. 28:19,20. In this text the same persons who are commanded to go teach are also commanded to baptize. It is the work of the ministry to go teach the things concerning the kingdom of Christ, and it is the work of those who teach these things to baptize those who are taught. The Primitive Baptists are the only people, in our judgment, who are teaching as Christ commanded. They are teaching the true doctrine of God our Savior. Hence, the Primitive Baptist ministers are the persons who are authorized by the Savior to administer baptism. Others are not teaching the doctrine of God our Savior, are not teaching the things commanded by the Savior, so are not authorized by him to administer baptism. If they baptize, it is without the authority of Christ. Baptism administered without the authority of Christ is not gospel baptism. This is a good reason why Primitive Baptists do not receive the baptism administered by Methodists, Missionary Baptists, or other people. We do not think the doctrine or principles they hold to and teach are true, and the baptism they administer is no better than the doctrine they teach.”
“‘And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’—Luke 22:29,30. The Savior has appointed a kingdom for his people here in the world, that they may have a blessed home here on earth, that they may eat and drink at his table in his kingdom—only one. ‘There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my unde-filed is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her.’—Solomon’s Song 6:8,9. The church of Christ is but one. There are many institutions, but of all the institutions of the world, only one is the church of Christ. The Savior has never authorized the queens nor concubines nor the virgins to administer the ordinances of his house. These queens, concubines, and virgins represent the many institutions that are in the world. Jesus has never commanded that his ordi-nances be administered in these institutions. His love, his dove, his undefiled, is but one. That is his church or king-dom, which is but one. He has authorized and commanded that his ordinances be administered in this one kingdom. They cannot be administered elsewhere so that they will be recognized or approved by him. He does not approve of anything being done in a place where he has not commanded. We think the Primitive Baptist Church is the true church of Christ, the kingdom he set up while he was on earth. If it is, then, that is the place where the ordinances are to be admin-istered. This is another reason why we do not accept the baptism administered by other people. If the Primitive Baptist Church is the church of Christ, the others are not. If any of the others are the church of Christ, then the Primitive Baptist Church is not the church of Christ.”
“‘Wherefore, my brethren, ye are also become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.’—Rom. 7:4. Those who are dead to the law are those who have been born again. They are dead to the law, and they should now be married to Christ. In order that they be married to Christ the marriage ceremony must be must be performed by one who has the proper authority to perform it. If two people desire to marry, in order that they carry out the desire, they must have the ceremony performed by one who is authorized to do so. They may get a good man to pronounce the ceremony for them, but unless he has the proper authority, the marriage would not be legal. It would make no difference how good the man may be who pronounces the ceremony; his goodness and honesty, or sincerity, would not make the marriage legal. To be married to Christ, the rite must be performed by one authorized to perform it. Baptism is the ceremony, or the rite, by which God’s people are married to Christ. It is the work of the ministry who are set apart by his church to administer bap-ism, they are the persons who are authorized to administer the ordinance. They are the only ones who can perform the marriage ceremony. Others may go through the form, but it is not recognized by the Savior. The form may be alright, but a form without reality or authority is without value. So the baptism administered by others is without authority, hence without value, so far as the true church of Christ is con-erned.” (C.H. Cayce vol. 1 ppg 53-55).
Water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of the Lord’s church. They belong to him, and he delivered them to the church to administer and protect. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you,” 1 Cor. 11:2. Those services are a precious property of the church, and we ought to be ever so careful in the way we handle them. No other assembly can lay a valid claim to them. They belong to the church, the bride of Christ, and she will not share them with anyone else.
It is this claim to their exclusive right to these ordinances that has been the main bone of contention between the Lord’s church and others all through the ages. That was the sticking point between them and the Roman Catholic Church during the times of persecution. That is how our spiritual ancestors came to be called Anabaptists. The name means rebaptizers. They would not recognize the validity of Roman Catholic baptism, and they required anyone who came to them from that fellowship to be baptized by an ordained minister, working under the authority of the Lord’s church.
They did not actually call themselves Anabaptists. That name was given them by others. They insisted they did not rebaptize anybody. They insisted the Roman Catholics had no authority to baptize, and their baptism was, therefore, no baptism at all. They taught that those who came to them from the Roman Catholic Church stood in need of valid water baptism. By refusing to accept Roman Catholic baptism, they not only denied the Roman Catholic claim to be the only true church; they denied that the Roman Catholic Church was any part of the Church of Christ, or that it had any authority to administer the ordinances. That infuriated their Roman Catholic persecutors.
It was not so much the doctrine they preached, as it was their refusal to accept Roman Catholic baptism, that brought on them the fury of the Inquisition.
Because they would not compromise—because they would not accept alien baptism— they were burned at the stake; they were stretched on the rack, until their arms and legs were pulled out of joint; they were persecuted, and tortured, in the most diabolical and inhumane methods imaginable. The ordinances of the Lord’s church are a precious possession, given her by her Lord, and she will not surrender those ordinances to his enemies.
In recent years we have been hearing that there is a way to get around that obstacle. In recent years we have been told that it is alright to accept alien baptism after all—if only we can deal with an entire ‘church’ at the same time.
We are being told that a ‘church’ may be made up of people, none of whom have ever had valid gospel baptism, and if any other church should receive a single member from that ‘church,’ that church would be guilty of accepting alien baptism. We are told that other churches must then labor with the church which received that member, and if the church will not correct the matter, all other churches must raise bars against that church and have nothing to do with her.
We are also told that if any other church should dare to have any dealings with that offending church, every orderly church must, then, raise bars against that church also, until that church, and every church that dares to recognize her, is cut off from every orderly church in the land.
But we are told there is a way to get around all of that. We are told that if we could receive the entire ‘church’—and not just a single member—we can receive alien baptism, after all. We are told that if a ‘church,’ whose members have never been properly baptized, will only vote in conference that they want to be affiliated with mainstream Primitive Baptists, that will make everything alright.
But that is exactly the opposite of what the Bible teaches. There is only one text in the Bible dealing with the way the church must deal with alien baptism. That text teaches (1) that there is such a thing as alien baptism, (2) that the church cannot recognize alien baptism, (3) that the baptism a man administers is no better than the doctrine he preaches, and (4) that it makes no difference if those who have such baptism do apply as a ‘church’ body, they still must be baptized by one authorized to administer the ordinance.
That text is in Acts, chapter nineteen. “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” Acts 19:1-5.
These people had not been baptized by John, but rather “unto John’s baptism” (vs. 3). They had obviously been baptized by Apollos, before Aquila and Priscilla had taken him aside and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (ch. 18:26). Among other things, he needed to be instructed about the person and work of the Holy Ghost. His disciples had “not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” (vs. 2). And he needed to be instructed about the question of authority to administer baptism. The fact that a person may himself have been baptized by John did not mean that he had the authority, in turn, to baptize other people. At any rate, Paul would not recognize this work of Apollos as being valid gospel baptism, and he proceeded to baptize these people in the proper form, and under the proper authority.
Luke does not refer to these disciples as a church, even though they were an assembly of baptized believers. Their baptism was not valid, gospel baptism, and neither Luke nor Paul would recognize them as a duly constituted church. But the fact remains; Paul dealt with them as a group; they acted as a group; the Holy Spirit represents them as speaking in a collective capacity, and Paul stills proceeds to baptize the entire group.
This is the one text dealing with alien baptism, and it makes one thing perfectly clear. If a ‘church’ is made up of mem-bers who have never been properly baptized, receiving them as a body will not change alien baptism into valid gospel baptism. In spite of what we are being told, there is no such Bible doctrine as Retroactive Baptism, nor Retroactive Validation of Baptism. That text cannot be found.
All of that brings us to another point, and this is the point we have been aiming for all along. If you can properly receive the entire church into the fellowship of orderly Primitive Baptist churches based on the baptism of her members, then you could have received individual members from that church.
Unless you are willing to claim that you have found some kind of magic formula for converting alien baptism into valid gospel baptism, you must acknowledge that, by receiving the entire church, you are acknowledging that the church is, and has been, a true New Testament church, and her members have had proper baptism all along.
If you can properly receive the entire church, you have no right to complain if another church, especially another church at a great distance, receives a single member from that church. You have no right to go to war with another church for receiving a member you would have yourself received—on his baptism—provided he was part of a package arrangement.
We would not deny that, in any questionable situation, it is more politically expedient to receive the entire church, than it is to receive a single member from that church. You are much less likely to be criticized. And there can be no question that, over the years, for the sake of maintaining peace, good and honorable ministers have declined to receive individual members, whom they would have received if their entire church had requested recognition.
For the sake of peace, our brethren have often done more than was absolutely required. It was for the sake of peace that Paul “took and circumcised Timothy,” Acts 16:3. It was not, because he had a commandment from God to do that, but “because of the Jews which were in those quarters.” He did not wish to provoke an unnecessary war with them.
No one should object if some church declines to receive an individual member in such a situation. That is their own business, and other churches have no right insist that they must take that member. But, by the same token, that church has no right to complain, if another church does receive him. After all, they would have received him themselves, if he could have persuaded his entire church to come along.
What we must object to, however, is for anyone to take their own custom, which has never been more than a political expediency, and, on the basis of their own authority, to codify that custom into a law which must be followed by all other churches.
The vast majority of our Primitive Baptist people want to live in peace. We value the church more than anything else in this world. We love each other, and we want to visit, and worship with other churches of like faith. And when separated breth-ren are making a good faith effort to resolve differences, and heal old wounds, we do not need any self-appointed monitors laying down the law for brethren hundreds of miles away.
God has given us the ordinances of his church as a blessing; we do not need to fashion them into a club to use against our own brethren. And we do not need for the ordinances of the church to be turned into engines to fortify and perpetuate old divisions, which should never have happened in the first place.
“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteous-ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another,” Rom. 14:17-19.
THE END