Baptism

[Iosias]

By S. M. Anglin

It is well to remember that this is a time of confusion and difficulty, when much that at the beginning was clearly understood, is not now so readily apprehended, but often involves the giving up of many long-cherished thoughts and beliefs which have been instilled into the mind perhaps from childhood.

Besides this there is ever a tendency to go to extremes; and on discovering that men have perverted and misapplied what God has given, to go to an opposite extreme, and give up what is right in itself, though connected in the systems of men with what is wrong. This no doubts accounts for much of the difficulty felt by many as to baptism.

The only safe way is to take up the Scriptures without seeking to uphold what we prefer, or may have been holding, perhaps very tenaciously, and to ascertain what is there set forth in reference to baptism. In the first place, then, let us enquire –What Baptism Is, and Who Should Be Baptized

Baptism Brings on to Christian Ground
We shall see as we go on that it is not the obedience of a Christian to a command. How often one hears it said: "We have the plain command of Scripture, 'Believe and be baptized' "; this is the stronghold of many, and yet there is no such expression in the Word, nor indeed any command to be baptized.The command in Matthew 28 is to the apostles, to "disciple all nations, baptizing them" etc., and in Mark 16: 10 to "preach the gospel to every creature", and then a statement by the Lord as to the consequences to all who heard it. This is very different from a command to be baptized; being the Lord's instructions to His apostles: though at the same time establishing baptism on His authority.

I would add here, that to set forth baptism as being a command to one already a Christian, in the manner referred to, is both unscriptural, and destroys the true idea of baptism altogether. It is bringing into Christianity the legal principle of obedience to ordinances, and genders to bondage; it is, in fact, entirely opposed to the spirit of Christianity. Again, baptism is not a sign of public confession that we are already dead and risen with Christ; Scripture nowhere says so, nor does it anywhere state that baptism is a sign or symbol of something previously true of the person baptized.


Jews Brought on to Christian Ground – Acts 2
Turning now to what it is, we find, in the first place, that Scripture presents it to us as reception on to Christian ground, or position on earth, from amongst Jews or Gentiles. It constitutes the person baptized a Christian as to his position here on earth, and introduces him thereby into the outward privileges of Christianity. Note: I do not speak of John's baptism here, which was quite distinct from Christian baptism, though in principle much the same. That was connected with, and constituted, a professedly repentant Remnant inside Judaism; this, with those separated by it from Judaism, to which others from amongst the Gentiles were afterwards added, and by it marked off as Christians.

The 2nd of Acts proves this clearly, and we will now consider it. The Apostle, by the Holy Ghost, had just been bringing home to the Jews their guilt in the murder of their Messiah. They had rejected the One in whom all the promises and blessings were centred, and now, instead of being in a position of privilege, are proved to be under guilt and condemnation. As this is brought vividly before them, many of them are truly convicted, and cry out "What shall we do?" From Peter's reply we may plainly gather the meaning and purpose of baptism. First he says "repent", i.e., to judge themselves and the guilty position they occupied before God as identified with the apostate nation, and next, be received into an entirely new position; and this evidently by baptism, as he adds, "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".

To quote this as a proof that baptism is a command is to propound the error that a sinner receives forgiveness by obedience to an ordinance, which is false doctrine, for the apostle was addressing convicted sinners.

We must remember that in their minds judgment and blessing were associated with God's government on earth; and what they were awakened to was, that their position was no longer one of favour and blessing, but of guilt and condemnation, and they desired to escape from it. But how were they to do so, and to what new position could they be brought?

Two chief points in Peter's discourse make this clear, namely, the exaltation of Christ and the coming down of the Holy Ghost. He says, in verse 36, "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ". There was no longer to be forgiveness of sins in connection with their sacrifices, nor was the Holy Spirit to be given to the Jews as such.All this was outside them completely, for their Messiah had been rejected and crucified by them, but raised up and made Lord of all. The only way for a Jew now to escape being identified with the nation in its guilt and sharing its judgment was by being received into Christianity. Peter urges, in verse 40, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation". Notice what they are here told to save themselves from. Notice also verse 39, which is closely connected with verse 38, and indeed forms part of Peter's reply to their inquiry: "What shall we do?"

It may be well to remark that chapter 3 presents a different character of blessing to chapter 2, and, as it helps to the understanding of both to notice this difference, we will briefly refer to it. There, too, the guilt of the nation is pressed on them, but they are addressed as a nation, and called to repent as such, and told that God would send Jesus, etc.; whereas in chapter 2 it is that the Holy Ghost had been given, and Jesus exalted on high, and made both Lord and Christ; a new order of things, as we have already noticed, outside the nation as such, and in connection with which we have repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and also the exhortation, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation".


Gentiles Brought on to Christian Ground – Acts 10
But it may be said that baptism is only thus used in connection with the Jews and their special guilt; we will therefore now consider the case of Cornelius and his company (Acts 10), who were Gentiles, and we can hardly fail to see that it is used with the same thought and for the same purpose, namely, receiving ostensibly into the circle of Christian privileges those who were outside it;and the means of reception is the same for the Gentile as for the Jew. It is not a question of nationality, nor age, but of the object of baptism, and where it brings those who are the subject of it.

Cornelius and his friends had received the Holy Ghost (and were therefore, as to the state of their souls, in a very different condition from those in Acts 2), and it is because Peter sees this that he cannot refuse their admission to the position and privileges of Christianity. This is the force of his remark to his companions of the circumcision, "Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized?", etc.

Clearly baptism was connected with privilege in his mind, or else his words have no meaning; but it was not admission to the privileges of Judaism, or he would have said: "Can anyone forbid circumcision?" Thus, I may say, baptism supersedes circumcision, as Christianity supersedes Judaism.

Here, again, it is not the obedience to a command by those baptized, but the reception of persons whom Peter saw ought to be received. God had already owned them and given them the greatest gift, making no difference between them and the circumcision, and thus the way to their reception was clear; Peter owns it, and says in substance to those with him (for his remarks and directions are addressed to his companions of the circumcision), bring them in, they ought not to be kept outside'; and this they did by baptizing themNote: In the case of Cornelius and those with him, being the first Gentiles received into Christianity, we find God acting sovereignly and giving the Holy Spirit first, fully convincing Peter thereby, and overcoming his national prejudice.

In these instances it is quite clear there was no thought of giving a public or private testimony that they were dead and risen with Christ; for who would say it was true of those in Acts 2? And what did Cornelius and his friends know of this truth, which was only taught by Paul long afterwards?


Unto Christ, Unto His Death, Putting on Christ

Unto Christ – 1 Corinthians 10

But again, baptism is "unto Christ" [Gal. 3: 27] – not Christ as Messiah on earth, but exalted after going into death. God has made Him Lord and Christ, and this is owned by baptism. This owning of Christ as Lord is only done in connection with the profession of Christianity during this present dispensation or period of His absence. The Jews rejected and reject Him still; the Gentiles were outside everything positionally and sunk in idolatry; both were enemies to God and guilty before Him; both, too, had united in rejecting and crucifying Christ; but God had raised Him up and glorified Him, and sent down the Holy Ghost to witness of Him.Thus Jesus is Lord of all, and baptism is always to Him as Lord (see 1 Cor. 10: 2, "baptized to Moses"), and the one baptized is brought where His authority is acknowledged, and, as baptized to Him, is responsible to own it practically.

Where there is no work in the soul, there will not be loyalty to Him; that, however, is not the point we are now considering, but what baptism is and does for those who are the subjects of it. It is "unto Christ".

Unto His Death – Romans 6: 3
It is also "unto His death", Rom. 6: 3. Not into His death, but unto it. It is only by His death we can have what is presented and enjoyed in Christianity. Therefore the apostle goes on, in Romans 6, to say,

"We are buried with Him by baptism unto death".Thus (we are learning from Scripture) baptism is burial to death – not a figure that I have been buried, but "buried with Him by baptism". It does not say risen by baptism, but "buried … unto death"; Colossians 2 says the same, but, inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is there setting forth the believer as dead and risen with Christ, he adds "in which (or, in whom) also ye are risen with Him through faith of the working of God, who raised Him from among the dead". Here we have faith in the operation of God, and being raised through it, but burial by baptism.

Romans does not look at believers as risen with Christ at all; so that to quote Romans 6, as is so often done, as a proof that baptism is a symbol of being dead and risen with Christ shows entire misapprehension of the teaching and application of the chapter...

 

[Iosias]

Putting on Christ – Galatians 3: 27
Next, baptism is "putting on Christ". Galatians 3: 27 states this definitely. It is not by faith, but by baptism that Christ is put on. The previous verse puts faith in its proper connection, "Ye are all", etc; and these two verses must not be confounded, as though they conveyed one and the same idea, or else the point and force of both are destroyed. When rightly understood they help much to a proper conception of what baptism is, and its Scriptural idea and place, and prove further what has already been advanced – that baptism is connected with our outward place on earth; while faith has to do with the state of soul before God, and our relationship to Him and to heaven – to what is unseen and eternal.With these baptism has nothing whatever to do. Note: Those who trust in religious ordinances instead of in Christ will have their children baptized in view of their death, so that they may thereby be fit for heaven. An intelligent believer has his family baptized in view of their living here on earth, and, as responsible to bring them up in the faith of Christ, outwardly separating them to Him by baptism.

The Galatians were going back to law, which was only again bringing them into bondage – into the place of servants; the Holy Ghost, therefore, presses on them that they are sons – not servants, "Ye are all the sons" (not children here) "of God by faith in Jesus Christ", not by baptism nor in any way connected with it.You are sons by faith, why then want to be servants?' is the force of the apostle's reasoning. He then refers to their baptism, and says, as it were, You have put on Christ by your baptism (as many as were baptized), why put on Moses?' They were outwardly identified with Christ by their baptism – had put Him on. Just as of old Israel were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All were baptized to him – men, women, and children – and therefore outwardly connected with him, and under his authority. How they might act afterwards was another thing, and whether they had faith or not remained for the wilderness to prove.

This epistle is written to those who had faith, but the point now before us is not whether they had faith or not when baptized, but what their baptism expressed – putting on Christ', not a sign they had put Him on previously.

In Romans 13 we have, "put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ", which is quite another thing. It is what those at Rome are exhorted to do, though they had been baptized previously and therefore had "put on Christ" according to Galatians 3: 27. But in Romans 13 it is the practical manifestation of Him (hence His full name) in our walk here on earth.

A person may have put on the regimentals [military uniform] and be a traitor at heart, and opposed to the spirit of the captain; but he is always responsible as one who has put them on, and stands on a different ground from those who were never professedly put under subjection to the king.

In connection with this, I would refer to 1 Cor. 15: 29, a verse perplexing to many. The figure here used is of an army exposed to the attack of the enemy, being cut down – killed; yet others constantly stepping in and filling up their places in the ranks. The apostle asks, as it were, What would be the gain as regards Christianity of enduring persecution – even to death in some cases – if there be no resurrection?' Better not be identified with Christianity, better not put on the regimentals at all, but enjoy the world – "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die". But the verse proves that their baptism put them in this place – connected them with Christ, and separated them professedly from the world – they had put on Christ. We shall see afterwards how this applies to families of Christians...

Saves Us – 1 Peter 3: 21
I now go onto 1 Peter 3: 21, where it is said "baptism doth now save us", and this requires our careful examination.

We must remember that here, as elsewhere, we are not getting an exposition by the apostle of what baptism is, but it is brought in by the way in connection with the subject before him, because it relates to that subject..We must first see what the subject is where the reference occurs, or else we shall be making it of private interpretation.

In Peter's epistles the government of God, the various effects of that government, and the subjects of it are brought before us.

In the 1st epistle it is His government in connection with the righteous, and in the 2nd as regards the wicked. We have not there the truth of the believer being dead and risen with Christ, though the above passage has sometimes been quoted to justify this view, but we have to be careful to see that our views are formed by the Scriptures, and avoid seeking in any way to conform Scripture to preconceived ideas or thoughts.

The epistle is written to believing Jews, whose minds were formed by God's known ways in government on the earth, who were familiar with them, and were accustomed to look for blessing, peace, and deliverance on earth as the portion of the righteous – of those who acted with a good conscience. Now they had become Christians with a good conscience, in the full confidence that it was God's mind that they should treat Judaism as apostate and condemned, no longer subject to His favour, but with His wrath hanging over those still in it; that is, wrath on earth under His government, of which we have an example in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus.It was a national thing, involving their families as well as themselves, even as they had said – "His blood be on us, and on our children".

But though, as Peter says, "Baptism doth now save us", this was not so apparent to them, as they were enduring persecution and suffering from their own nation and others; hence they were perplexed, and their good conscience demanded the explanation – Why is this? Note here the difference between a good conscience and a purged conscience, a most necessary distinction for understanding this Scripture.

In chapter 3, Peter alludes to these sufferings, and then refers to their baptism, which had separated them outwardly from the nation, and saved them from the governmental wrath and judgment to which we have alluded, bringing them into the place where the forgiveness of sins was known, and the power of the Holy Ghost was manifest.

He then seeks to encourage them in this position, and shows them how the circumstances they were in were consistent with their present place and connection with Christ, during the time in which God was waiting in long-suffering with the unrepentant; for, though judgment was sure for those who remained so, yet God was now showing his long-suffering through them.While God was thus waiting, these righteous ones (though going through suffering under God's governmental ways) need not fear being overwhelmed by judgment, as though they were suffering through God's wrath; for this was not so, but, as in the case of Noah, who in his day passed through the Flood, and was finally brought beyond it all, so they, though now suffering in the government of God, had the assurance in and by the resurrection of Christ of complete deliverance out of all they were then passing through, which had come upon them since their separation from Judaism, by baptism.

They had escaped, and been saved from, the wrath and judgment of the nation, and had been identified with Him, who, having passed through suffering and death, had been raised up from the dead, and all power given to Him.

The case of the Flood is thus brought in as an instance, both of the long-suffering of God, when the spirit of Christ (by Noah) preached to those whose spirits are now in prison; and as exhibiting God's wrath and judgment on the unrepentant, as also the salvation of the righteous (and of his family in the government of God). But these were saved through water, which was the instrument of ruin and death to others.

In that case, the water of the Flood came on all at the same time and Noah was saved through it.

In the time when Peter was writing, while the principles of God's government were the same, yet the righteous were going through the trial before the judgment fell on the ungodly, and during the time of His long-suffering with these; but, though thus suffering and tried, they need not fear as though it were wrath from God; they might rest assured of full and final deliverance from all; even as Noah was saved through water, "the like figure, whereunto baptism doth also now save us … by the resurrection of Christ". I read the intermediate words in this verse as a parenthesis, in which he gives the negative and positive as to baptism, and I connect "the resurrection of Christ", etc., as given above.

What encouragement and assurance there was for these suffering Jewish believers in all this! The righteous were saved through the trials and sufferings of God's governmental ways (which is the meaning of the expression – "if the righteous be scarcely saved"), but when all this was over, and their deliverance out of all the difficulties was accomplished, "Where should the ungodly and sinners appear?" While God's ways in government may change, the principles of His government abide the same.

They had these principles set before them for their guidance and assurance, though now "judgment must first begin at the House of God"; but the end of God's dealings is the same. The waters of death in Noah's day only lifted him above all, and brought him into a typically new creation; and now for them Christ is raised, and not only so, but "gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him". What then need they fear? Here is the answer to every demand of a good conscience – a demand or enquiry resulting from their baptism, which brought them into the place of the suffering about which they were perplexed and required an explanation. Resurrection is the answer to every demand or question.

Before leaving this I would again notice that the epistle is addressed to true believers, who were "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father ", etc., and therefore the resurrection was to them more than the witness of mere deliverance from the judgment of the nation on the earth; faith looks beyond that and waits for blessing hereafter; they looked for this, for "a salvation ready to be revealed",but needed to be prepared for, and encouraged in the path of suffering here; suffering because of being identified with Christ, and suffering for righteousness' sake Note: There are various characters of suffering considered in the epistle.during the time of God's long-suffering with the ungodly; all ending in the salvation of the righteous and the judgment of the wicked; the seal of the former was the resurrection of Christ and His present glory. The seal of the latter they had in God's past judgment – as in Noah's day.But these Christians had nothing to fear, here or hereafter; they were not only baptized but were righteous – being believers, and it is important to bear this in mind, and that their baptism is only brought in by the way.

The question as to who should be baptized is not raised, nor is it intimated in the passage directly. We have not yet come to that question, but only what baptism is, and does, for those who are the subjects of it.

Washes Away Sins – Acts 22: 16
I now go on to Acts 22: 16. Here we find baptism is washing – the washing away of sins. Clearly this is not a case of conscience being purged or the soul being saved, or the person being accepted in Christ and His finished work. All this is through faith in His blood: "The blood … cleanses from all sin". I do not wash myself but He washes me. See Rev. 1: 5 and 1 Cor. 6: 11, etc.This is all blessedly true and simple, but the other (Acts 22) is true also; and it is no thought of washing in figure; nor a sign, or figure or confession of being already washed, as so many quote and explain it. We do not wash a thing as a figure that it is clean, or to confess that it is clean, but to cleanse it.

Saul of Tarsus was a Jew – a bitter enemy of Christ and His people – sharing in the guilt of murdering Stephen, etc. In his blind zeal for Judaism he was a leading opponent of Christianity; but grace overabounded and brought him down at the feet of Jesus of Nazareth. He revealed Himself in glory to Saul, who was to be a chosen vessel thenceforth. This was God's purpose and He had wrought repentance in him. Ananias is sent to him that he may receive his sight, and the Holy Ghost; but not as a Jew. He must first be brought to where forgiveness of sins was known and the Holy Ghost was dwelling. He must clear himself of identification with the guilt that was his as a Jew, and a persecutor of Christ, and be brought on to Christian ground – become a Christian as to his place; and this by baptism.

Until baptized, the guilt and sins that were his accrued to him as to his place on earth, and in that sense he was – until baptized – unwashed and unforgiven. Hence baptism, which is a symbol of Christ's death, is that which washes in a governmental way.

It was when Paul gave the account of his conversion before the Jews that he relates the above direction by Ananias; intimating that cleansings and washings connected with their system were no longer of any avail, and that the true course for anyone who wished to be a vessel for God here, was to get clear of that position altogether, owning the lordship of Christ, which is done only in Christianity professed at present as previously stated, and by baptism first of all as that which brings a person on to that ground...

 

[Iosias]

Review of What Baptism Is
We have now gone over what baptism is, namely, reception into Christianity from either Judaism or Paganism, to the sphere where Christ's authority is owned, and to the responsibility connected with this place.Note: By Paganism is meant all outside Judaism and Christianity; all who are neither circumcised or baptized. See Gal. 3: 8; 1 Cor. 10: 32.It is therefore "unto Christ", but if to Him to His death, and is a symbol of it. It is burial to His death; Romans 6 states this, it does not say already dead and therefore buried by baptism, but "buried . . . unto death". And following it is responsibility to walk in newness of life. It is owning His death, as owning that all we are in the flesh must go from before God, as only evil in his sight.

Next it is putting on Christ, which is connected with His lordship and authority; and with positional identification with Him on earth; for baptism relates entirely to our position on earth under God's government; and Peter, when speaking of that government, says to those to whom he wrote, "baptism also now saves us … by the resurrection of Christ".

In the same connection baptism is the washing away of sins on earth; for whatever a person may be by faith in Christ, and according to the purpose of God in grace (and where there is faith there is everything for eternity), yet as to God's government on earth he is neither washed nor saved till baptized. He is not a Christian at all as to his ostensible place on earth – but either Jew or Gentile; the former of whom had forfeited all their privileges, and the latter had never acquired any.

The government of God is a subject about which it is very important to be clear; and the principles involved in it, when apprehended, help much to understanding rightly the question of baptism, and indeed much else in Scripture.

But we must now consider

Who are the Proper Subjects for Baptism.
In connection with this it will be well to notice that, in the cases recorded in Scripture, those who were baptized were often in very different circumstances and very different states of soul.


We find Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles are all baptized under different circumstances and conditions. No fixed standard is given to be attained by all alike beforehand. No special confession is demanded (for Acts 8: 37 is omitted as spurious in the best translations).In Acts 2 convicted sinners are exhorted to be baptized. In chapter 8 the Samaritans believe the preaching of Philip, and are then baptized, but do not receive the Holy Ghost till some time after, and so, though brought on to the ground of Christianity by being baptized to Christ, yet were not in the "body of Christ", which could not be till they received the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 12: 13).Again we have Gentiles, in Acts 10, receiving the Holy Ghost prior to baptism (the only instance of it). Saul of Tarsus is first converted, and three days after is baptized and has his sins washed away governmentally, calling on the name of the Lord.


Lydia and her House – Acts 16: 13-15
Then we have Lydia – whose heart the Lord opened to the Word – baptized, and not only so, but her house baptized with her, though no such fact is recorded of them that their hearts were opened; but if this had been true in their case, the Holy Ghost could just as easily have linked them up with her in reference to the work of the Lord in her soul, as in reference to her baptism.Faith is wrought in her soul first; this is the Lord's faithfulness to her. Now she will be baptized, and her whole house with her; all are to be put under the authority of the lordship of Christ; this is her faithfulness to Him; for the verse evidently connects faithfulness on her part with her and their baptism, as it says, "when she was baptized and her house, she said", etc.


Lydia is not only brought on to the ground of Christianity herself, but has her house also brought with her, which was no light thing in that day, when surrounded by enemies of Christianity – both Jews and Gentiles. It was faithfulness to the Lord on her part.


Lydia's house is a distinct case of baptism without the slightest intimation of any confession on their part, or work of God in them, and had these things been true of them as of her, surely it would have been mentioned, and, besides, verse 15 shows it was Lydia's act so to speak, that is, done on her responsibility. It is household baptism, clearly and simply set forth by Scripture, connected with the responsibility and faithfulness (as far as it went) of the head of the house – though a woman.


I know that efforts have been made to explain away the force of this instance of household baptism, that suppositions have been raised, and conclusions arrived at without any ground for them; generally to the effect that Lydia had no house at all, in the sense in which the word "house" is here used, which usually means family or descendants, as we shall see by looking at the case of the jailer, following this in the same chapter. Note: To say that "the brethren" in verse 40 [of Acts 16] refers to Lydia's household is simply absurd – a futile effort to set aside this clear and definite case of household baptism.


The Jailer and his House – Acts 16: 25-34
The apostle in answer to his inquiry, "What must I do to be saved?" at once links his house up with him (see also chapter 11: 14). We then have the word of the Lord spoken "to all that were in his house", a term including more than "his house" in the previous verse. In the next verse baptism comes in, and it is himself and "all his" (not all that were in his house) who are said to be baptized; the distinction between the two is very clear and important.


The jailer would be responsible for the baptism of his house – "all his", but not for others who might be in his house at the time – other jailers, servants, etc. "All his" would only include only those for who he was responsible on account of their relationship to himself, and would, therefore, take in the very youngest child. It may be said there is no proof he had any children, or, at least, young children. I answer, this does not at all affect the point, which is, that "all his" were connected with him in outward blessing and privilege, and therefore were baptized, and what is insisted on is that this principle includes the very youngest child.It was, as we have already shown, an instance of admitting the house, with the head of it, into the place of privilege. Are they entitled to this on account of their relationship? And if so, they assuredly ought to be baptized; and whether they are adults or infants is not the question, provided they are living in the house, and by relationship under the authority of the head of it.


The rendering of verse 34 in the Authorized Version is not quite correct. It is, in the original, "he rejoiced with all his house, he having believed in God".


Note: The words "having believed in God" are in the singular number, and apply to the jailer only, and this is very important to note.It was a happy household now that he was saved, and turned from idols to serve the living and true God.

Of course, in that day, if persons to whom the gospel was preached did not receive it, they would not be baptized. If they refused Christianity they refused baptism, and if they accepted it, it was by baptism, outwardly.God alone could see the heart, as to whether there was faith, or (as in the case of Simon Magus) mere profession; if only the latter, there could be no receiving the Holy Ghost, only the being received into the place where He dwelt, and thus a witness and partaker of His operations (see Hebrews 6).


The Baptism of Children
Principles re the Baptism of Children
Nobody amongst us, that I know of, contends for infant baptism as such, that is, that infants ought to be baptized because they are infants; those, therefore who are opposing this are combating an imaginary error of their own devising. That some infants ought to be baptized I have no doubt, not because they are infants, but because they are the children of believing parents; and that believing parents ought to have their children baptized I am equally assured of; but as this is the chief point of dissent with many we will go into it more fully.


We find two principles throughout Scripture which bear directly on this; one, already alluded to, is that the household is always linked up with the head of it in privilege, in the government of God; the other, which is closely connected with this, is, that the head is responsible for the household. Noah is a striking instance of the former, Eli of the latter...

 

[Iosias]

The House is Always Linked with the Head


Noah's house went into the Ark with him, because they were his house, and because he was righteous (see Gen. 7: 1). If one had been an infant surely he had as much privilege as the oldest, not because of being an infant, but because one of Noah's family.


The Flood was part of God's governmental dealings with the earth, and it was in connection with these that they were thus privileged; but neither their privilege to enter, nor their relationship to Noah would have availed if he had not taken them into the Ark. Nor again, did being in the Ark affect their state of soul, nor give them faith; as we have each taken up afterwards as to their individual state, Shem being blessed and Ham cursed.


Again, the case of the Israelites is a witness to this principle. All were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea, when it was not a question of individual faith, but of outward blessing and privilege, and of human relationship which gave the title, and circumcision which introduced into those privileges in God's way; for He had given circumcision in connection with this outward place of privilege before Him.


Abraham acted on this, in his day, and in doing so made no distinction between Ishmael and Isaac. There was a very great distinction in other ways, as regarded personal faith, etc., but not in this. The point was that they belonged to Abraham – formed part of his house, and it was his responsibility – his act – flowing from what God had given and made known to him. He does not wait till Isaac grows up first to see how he will turn out, nor does he refuse Ishmael because he had no faith. Household baptism goes on the same principle.


In Abraham's case it took the form of a command, as afterwards connected with the legal system, but this does not touch the principle, which is just as clearly established in the New Testament. The Lord says of Zaccheus, "This day is salvation come to this house". Peter says, in Acts 2, "The promise is to you and to your children". Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house". Note: Peter refers to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying, "And saved righteous Lot", 2 Peter 2: 7. There is no indication at all that his family were righteous too, but the angels brought Lot's family out of Sodom to safety with him – although his wife turned back and came under judgment. See Gen. 19: 12-16. G.A.R.


The Head is Responsible for his Household
Along with this we find the other principle we have alluded to, viz., that the head of the house is responsible for the household. God says of Abraham, "I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him", etc. Eli, on the other hand, receives the most withering reproof and judgment from God because he had failed to rule his house according to their position and privileges. Circumcised no doubt they were, and thus brought into what they were entitled to by birth, but now, being there, he was responsible to train them according to the place they were in. He was wrong, not in circumcising them first, but in not training them afterwards.


This principle we have also in the New Testament. In Ephesians 6 we read, "Fathers … bring them (your children) up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord". The father is responsible to do this.


Eli was responsible for his sons; he was judged for their sins; they were judged, but he was also. Christian parents need to weigh this solemnly; they say sometimes, I teach my children about Christ, and put the gospel before them, and set them a good example, and what more can I do?' Was this enough in Eli's case? If they had not been his children, sharing a place of privilege through their connection with him, it would be enough; and so with a Christian as regards the world; it is all he can do, and is responsible to do in connection with it. But this is not the place he must give his children; this is not bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, for we do not bring the world up in these.

Eli, as we know, did much; he set his sons a good example, he taught them, and even reproved them; but he did not, for all that, bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and God held him responsible for their wickedness. He might plead, as so many are ready to do, I cannot give my children a new nature, nor create in them desires for what is right and good; I must leave them with God to do that'; I answer, God holds each father responsible, as under the authority of Christ, and subject to Him, and in separation from the world.


The whole house must be separated to Christ, and subject to Him.The wilderness might not appear to be such a pleasant place for the young ones who were baptized to Moses, as Egypt was;that was not the question, but their connection with God and with Moses, to whom He had given authority, and their complete separation from Egypt and its rulers. But let us bear in mind that, however attractive Egypt might appear as a place of self-gratification, it was the place of death. It represents the world in its independence of God and under His judgment – a place too of cruel bondage to God's people until delivered from its power.


The children of believing parents ought therefore to be in a distinct place from the world, to be trained up in the fear of the Lord, and, what is of primary importance in each case, full and unqualified obedience and subjection to their parents in everything The parents are then fully entitled to count upon God for their salvation, and to look and watch for the manifestation of divine life, and faith in Christ, in their children.


The children should form part of a Christian household, and baptism is the admission to the place of a Christian outwardly, as well as owning the lordship of Christ in the act. Is not the head of the house then responsible to own the authority of Christ as to every member of his house? Should he not put them on the ground where it is owned, and in the way that God has set forth? To refuse to do so, is either in effect saying that they are not different from the world, or else, to act on the principle of Cain, though unwittingly, in presenting something to God apart from death; that is, to act as though sin were not in the world, and children were not by nature sinful and at a distance from God.


It is another principle, that we cannot be in relationship to God apart from death – from that which sets forth Christ's death of which circumcision under law and baptism under Christianity are the symbols or figures – more fully expressed by baptism, as Christianity is above and beyond Judaism: one being a command as connected with a legal system, the other of grace, and connected with a dispensation of grace flowing from the death of Christ...

 

[Iosias]

No Command to Baptize Children ?
There are some who content themselves with asserting that there is no command in the Scriptures for baptizing the children of a believer, as though this settled the matter. Note: Such persons seem to overlook the fact that there is also no record of a child of a Christian being baptized as a believer. G.A.R.But this is not the Scriptural way of considering it, and does not in the least affect the proofs that a person is acting consistently with Scriptural teaching in baptizing his household; for it is not a matter of command, but of acting according to the principles which Scripture makes known and establishes. We must remember that principles are not deductions or suppositions; they form an important part of the Word of God, and are for our guidance.

We have before seen that there is no command to be baptized, and we have also shown that Scripture lays down no rules as to who should be baptized, but we have Scriptural teaching, principles, and practice to guide us.

If any will go in for command, there is only one, and that possibly is too comprehensive for them, namely, Matthew 28: 19-20, which I will quote: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you" (correct translation). I am aware this has nothing to do with the church or assembly, which is a gathering out from the nations; but still here is baptism extending beyond the church period altogether. We are now, however, considering it in connection with Christianity, or the present dispensation.

What we have seen is that baptism puts a person on the ground of Christianity, and that the children of Christian parents should be there, as they are to be brought up in subjection to Christ; and that a believer in baptizing his house is acting Scripturally, according to the principles and teaching of Scripture.

How a Believer Should Regard his Children
If a believer regards his children as mere sinners like the rest of the world, and therefore refuses to baptize them, it is in opposition to the principle we have just considered of "thou and thy house", as connected with governmental blessing;and if he says he can bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord without baptizing them, it is setting aside the other principle we have noticed, that, as children of Adam, we cannot be put in a position of even outward relationship to God apart from death. Hence, "we are buried with Him (Christ) by baptism unto death".Not only so; we have seen that baptism is the boundary line between Christianity and the world; and a Christian should never admit the thought of his children growing up for the world, or becoming ungodly; if they do, is he not responsible?

In Ephesians 4 we have further instruction regarding this subject, and the consideration of it may be helpful.

We have three things in verse 4 which are inseparably connected: "One Body", "One Spirit", "One Hope". These cannot be separated, they must go together. Then in verse 5 we have a larger circle, and three things again connected there, and must not be separated; they go together: "One Lord", "One Faith", "One Baptism". The fourth verse takes in all who have the Holy Spirit, and are therefore in the Body of Christ; the fifth takes in all who are under the authority of Christ professedly. A Christian should (as most will admit) bring up his children in the faith of Christ, and teach them to own His authority, and, as we have seen, this is just where baptism comes in, and not in connection with the Body and the Hope.

But it has been said: You ought then to reverse the order of the verse, and put baptism first.' I answer: No! There is no force in such a remark, for if there were no such thing as the lordship of Christ and the Christian faith, there would be no meaning in baptism; but when you have a Lord and a Christ to baptize them to, and you mean to bring them up in the faith of Christ, there is an evident meaning in baptizing them without reversing the order of the verse.

People may reason about it, and explain away what is clear enough in itself, or, as is sometimes done, point to the failure afterwards with regards to their children, of those who have had them baptized, and to the bad behaviour of those children who have been baptized; and thus keep themselves in darkness and confusion as to these things;but the after failure, on the part of those who have practised what is right, does not make right wrong, nor alter the Scriptural truth as to this in the least, any more than the failure of Eli should furnish a reason why Israelites should not circumcise their children till they first saw how they would grow up.

If it were a question of something pertaining to this life, or worldly gain, they would not so reason or act. If a parent knew some worldly advantage could be obtained for his child, he would be quick enough to secure it, without waiting till the child first grew up to see if he were worthy or deserving of it, or willing to accept it.

But some say, What advantage is there in baptizing them? What good are their privileges to them if they should turn out ungodly? In what respect are your children better than mine?', etc. I again answer, a Christian parent should never allow such a thought as that his children will grow up ungodly; he is responsible that it should not be so; but anyhow, privileges are privileges for all that; how they may be used does not alter the fact that they are real and valuable. What did Israel do with their privileges? – abused them most shamefully. "What advantage then hath a Jew, or what profit is there in circumcision? Much every way", says Scripture (Rom. 3: 1-2).

Some may be slow to apprehend the nature and value of these privileges; and in a day like the present we need patience and forbearance with each other; but those who do know them are responsible to value them. It is well, too, that those who insist that household baptism is wrong, and that baptism must always follow conversion and faith in Christ, should know that not only have they no Scripture for the latter, but that, as to the former, they are opposed to the teaching, principles, and practice of Scripture; for there we get persons baptized, without the slightest warrant for saying they first believed.

In that day persons understood very well that when baptized they were thus made Christians outwardly – that is, they took that ground, and brought their household there too. If they did not baptize them (the household) these still remained on Jewish or pagan ground, but the moment they too were baptized, they were cut off from their former connections, and shared the persecution of their parents. They, too, were brought out of the rebel camp, and put under the authority of Christ; and might be cut down by the enemy; might be "baptized for the dead", as some were in that day. Note: All were not baptized "for the dead". The apostle did not say the Corinthians were, but asks them: "What shall those do who were … if the dead rise not?" The Corinthians were not undergoing persecution.

People say, how can children "put on Christ", or be "baptized for the dead "? But let me ask, if not baptized where were they? If a Jew was converted and baptized, but not his children, where were they? Why, on Jewish ground, of course; in the rebel camp – identified with the rebels; it would then be a case of faithfulness to the Lord, as with Lydia, to bring them out of it; and they, when baptized, would be brought out of Judaism, and disowned by their friends in it. When a Jew was thus awakened (as in Acts 2) would he be content to escape from the apostate condemned place himself and leave his family there? Surely not; but, as in Egypt of old, would say "not a hoof shall be left behind". He would not wait till they grew up leaving them to choose between Judaism and Christianity for themselves.

We have now noticed most of the cases of baptism and passages where it occurs.

Of course where anyone insists that baptism must necessarily follow conversion, and is not the reception to Christian ground, there will be no apprehension of the value of household baptism, though, as we have seen, it was practised in the beginning, and the principles which justify a Christian in baptizing his house are taught plainly in the Word; and by a Christian's house is meant, those for whom he (or she) is responsible before God, or as expressed in the case of the jailer, "all his"...

 

[Iosias]

Responsibility for BaptismThe Responsibility of the Baptizer
Outside a believer's house there is no warrant for baptizing any unless there be professed repentance first; still, the responsibility is with the one who baptizes in all cases, and though, as is often the case in the present day, neither baptizer nor baptized, nor the parents of the baptized, may be true believers, yet the one is acting as Christ's servant and baptizing to Him and in His name, and the one baptized is baptized to Him and brought into the place of privilege connected with Him, outwardly, on earth,and the act cannot be cancelled nor made null.

The one baptized will have to give account of his work as a servant of Christ – having taken that place – the other will have to give account as one brought on the ground of Christianity. This is not mere supposition; Scripture proves it. We find the Assembly of Sardis addressed in Revelation 3 as responsible because on Christian ground; yet the Lord says they are dead; but they are taken up on the ground of being an Assembly, and have the "name to live". It is generally admitted that the Assembly at Sardis sets forth Protestantism in its general character and condition.But we know that almost every denomination (and certainly the Establishment [Church of England] ) practises baptism when the subjects of it are young; but whether old or young, we find them in Revelation 3 addressed on assembly ground; they were brought there only by baptism.

This has always been the object of it in the professing church (and so far they have been right); indeed, this is the only way anyone ever was, or could be, brought truly on the professed ground of Christianity; but we find that these lifeless professors (baptized for the most part in infancy) are addressed as responsible because on assembly ground. This clearly shows that their baptism was recognized and incurred the responsibility before God of answering to the privileges into which it introduced them.

Again, we find that there are those in the New Testament, in connection with Christianity, who are taken up as servants of Christ, both in His house and in the world, who are not converted at all (Matt. 24: 48; 25: 26). How did they get there? How came they to be judged as servants of Christ, and their work gone into by Him as His servants? This again proves that there is this outward place connected with Christ's name and authority on earth, apart altogether from having spiritual life, and shows the folly of what is called re-baptizing, because the first baptizer was not converted. The baptism holds good before God as we have seen, and if such a person were to go through the form of baptism – or be re-baptized, again or many times – it does not alter anything or add anything further to the person baptized, but whoever attempts to thus re-baptize is simply stepping into the place of a judge, pronouncing on the work of a fellow-servant, judging before the time, and practically saying that he can do the work better.

The Responsibility of Unconverted Parents

The same principles apply to unconverted parents who have their children baptized; they are responsible together with the baptizer, as we have seen, as they own Christ professedly, and put their children under His authority.

It is a day of confusion and formality and we are called to walk in separation from all that is not of God and real before Him; yet we should have Scriptural thoughts on all these things, that we may not ourselves be confused nor misled by them. We must not give up what God has given because men have perverted and abused it.

Christians sometimes say, Well, but unconverted people have their children baptized, and we must not do as they'. As well might one say, They have the Lord's Supper in the various systems of men, and in some cases connected with deadly error, and, therefore we had better give it up altogether'. We shall never get clear thoughts by reasoning from the confusion around, nor by taking certain supposed cases or examples to throw a difficulty in the way. We have Scriptural principles and practice, and our wisdom is to hold to them, and act on them, however much they may militate against our previous thoughts.

Examination of Passages Often Quoted
I will now briefly refer to one or two passages that are often quoted in connection with baptism. Mark 16: 16 is a favourite passage with those who oppose household baptism, but it proves too much, for according to it a person is not saved till baptized; but these say you must be saved first and baptized after.

The fact is, the Lord is there looking at salvation in its full sense, connected with the time we are here on earth as well as with eternity, and for this two things are necessary. The vital and by far the most important one is put first, viz. faith, and the other is baptism; it is not a question of which comes first in point of time, but both must be true of the person before he is saved in the sense spoken of there.

We need hardly say that a person is fit for the glory – for heaven – the moment he believes, and, like the thief on the cross, could go straight to Paradise through virtue of Christ's work, but when one remains on earth, it is another thing; there is a place where Christ is professedly owned and the faith of Christ is acknowledged, and if not there previously, such an one should then be brought there.If previously there, of course he cannot be brought there, though not saved till he believes; and if not there when he believes he is not saved (as to his place on earth) till baptized, and thus brought there;and, if the head of a family, it is his privilege to bring his children there also, and train them up in the faith of Christ, counting upon God to give life and faith to them also. When this latter takes place they too are saved, as the two things are true of them – they are believers and are baptized; this is what Mark 16 teaches; but it is not faith to say, I will wait first and make sure that my children have faith and divine life, and baptize them then'; though, of course, if not baptized before they ought to be so then on the ground of professed repentance and faith.The verse, however, is in full keeping with household baptism, as, surely, one part of Scripture must be with another.

I just notice the case of the eunuch in Acts 8, only to say that verse 37 is regarded by many good authorities as spurious, and therefore misleading to those who do not know this. The verse is omitted in the best translations, as previously stated.

Acts 19 gives an interesting and instructive case: we learn there that John's baptism was then a thing of the past, and in no way connected with Christian baptism; (John's was to repentance on the ground of a Messiah coming to the earth);so these disciples were not on Christian ground at all, and are therefore baptized to the name of the Lord Jesus Note: This instance should be sufficient to convince any thoughtful Christian that a person should not be received at the Lord's Supper until baptized. The Lord's Supper being the expression of the communion [fellowship] of Christians, and, it being the Lord's Table, only those who are on Christian ground, and who are put under His authority outwardly, should be there; though much more than this is also necessary.then Paul lays his hands on them and they receive the Holy Ghost. Notice the question he puts to them in verse 3, "to what then were ye baptized?" He at once assumed they were baptized because they were disciples, as they would not be disciples unless baptized, but "to what?" he asks them; for if to Christ, they would be on Christian ground, where the Holy Ghost dwelt.They are then received by baptism (being baptized to Christ), and afterwards receive the Holy Ghost...

 

[Iosias]

The Mode of Baptism
There is another point in connection with this subject to which we must refer. The question is sometimes asked, Is sprinkling baptism?' It was not, I judge, the Scriptural mode of baptizing; but the question really is, Does God recognize it? We have seen that He does from Revelation 3, where Sardis comes in, and we know that for the most part with Protestantism sprinkling is the custom, and has been for hundreds of years. Did then all that go for nothing? Was it nothing before God and Christ? Was it not meant in good faith to be baptism?

But again, were not Israel, young and old, baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea? Yet how many of them went under the water? Note: The Egyptians were immersed but not baptized, while the Israelites were baptized but not immersed.Baptism is not necessarily immersion, though probably the Scriptural mode. Scripture, as we have seen gives no command concerning it, either as to who are to be baptized or how it is to be done; only we know from Scripture that water was the agent used, and that going into it appears to have been the general custom, and we should seek to keep to the Scriptural mode for ourselves,but as to others – "Where there is no law there is no transgression". They baptize the person to Christ by water, owning Him thus. The act is bona fide before Him, and who are we to set it aside or pronounce upon its merits?However, the proof we have adduced from Revelation 3 alone is quite sufficient to satisfy any honest mind, for we see there that Christ addressed them as on Christian ground – on assembly ground – though they had not life at all, and were for the most part baptized by sprinkling, and when young.

1 Corinthians 1: 13-17 must be noticed. Here again the question raised by Paul is – to whose name they had been baptized. Not to Paul's own name, even in the case of those baptized by him; but lest they should say he baptized to his own name, he is thankful he had baptized so few of them, adding that his commission was not to baptize but to preach the gospel, which was infinitely more important.

Had some obscure person baptized the Corinthians there would not be the same danger of carnal minds using his name for party purposes and boasts, as that of the apostle Paul. But there is another thing we find here – that besides the two mentioned by name, he had baptized the house of Stephanas, and this seems to be referred to in a way distinguishing them from the two others mentioned.

We find "the house of Stephanas" again spoken of in chapter 16, where a different Greek word is used from the first chapter, which latter is the same as in Acts 16, and generally (if not always) in Scripture meaning family or descendants when applied to persons. Whether all or any of them were converted or believers when baptized we are not told; and what is said in chapter 16 does not at all preclude the thought of children being there and being baptized.

Illustrations of the Principles
I will now briefly refer to a few Scriptures which, though not alluding to baptism, illustrate the principles connected with the baptism of a believer's household, and the importance of it.

There are those who treat baptism as though it were a matter of no importance when a person is baptized, or whether baptized at all or not. It is well for them that they are not under law but under grace, though that is no excuse for carelessness.

How often one hears of persons being at the Lord's Supper some time, and then baptized when they think fit; others kept waiting till a public ceremony can take place, on the basis that it is a public confession of being dead and risen with Christ. It is true we are under grace and called to liberty, but it is liberty to do God's will, to understand His mind, and act on it for ourselves and our families, walking and acting on the principle of faith, and not of law, and this in baptism as well as in everything else.

The first Scripture I will instance is Exodus 4: 24, where we have in the case of Moses on his way to Egypt a striking example of the importance of recognizing what God has given, and the difference between His purposes and counsels in grace, and His ways</U> in government.

Moses had been shortly before in the presence of Jehovah, and He had communicated His purpose respecting Israel to him; but now He seeks to kill him because he had neglected to circumcise his child – influenced evidently by his wife; but he was responsible as head of the house, and God would not allow this slighting of what He had given. Moses must apply this significant act to His own house, given as it was to Abraham in connection with the very thing for which Moses was sent to Egypt – the blessing of the seed of Abraham in Canaan. It was the sign of the covenant between Him and Abraham, and the uncircumcised child was to be "cut off" (see Gen. 17: 14).

It was therefore serious for the child, as well as for the parent, to neglect it; and yet Christians ask, What difference does it make to a little child whether baptized or not?' and others, again, contend that a believer's child is by birth brought into all the privileges of Christianity, quoting 1 Cor. 7, "now are they holy". So was the Hebrew child, it was holy (that is relatively holy, or holy as to its place and relationship) by birth; but let the parents neglect to circumcise it, and what God were its advantages and privileges? It must be "cut off".

But, again, we have instances in Scripture, and connected in the same way with the government of God, of how the faith of one is owned for the blessing of another, and these instances give us principles that apply to the baptism of a believer's house.

In the first part of Matthew 9 we have the man with the palsy getting governmental forgiveness, and as a consequence perfect restoration to health, through the act of faith in others. It says, "Jesus seeing their faith. Clearly it was their act which manifested their faith, and the man is blessed. Another case is Acts 3, where the lame man is cured by Peter. In verse 16 Peter explains how it was effected. He says, "His (Christ's) name through faith in His name hath made this man strong", etc.; but where was the "faith in His name"? Not in the man, but in Peter.It may have resulted in faith on the part of the man afterwards, but this is not said directly, and certainly his</U> faith is not the ground of his being made whole. It was Christ's name, and faith in His name on the part of Peter; and the blessing received related to God's governmental ways. Administrative forgiveness, as in Matthew 9, goes on the same principle (see James 5: 15).While we hold with a firm hand the blessed truth of God's sovereign grace and electing love, manifested in His actings towards us, who had no claim upon Him, yet on the other hand we must hold fast the principles of His government of this world, as manifested in His ways in the past, and recorded in Scripture for our admonition; and while we delight in His grace and love – the source of all our blessedness, we must own His government, while we wait for the glory, the blessed end of all His ways in grace and government as regards His own.

 

[Terral]

Hi AV:

I feel compelled to write on these words from Anglin, not because of what he has said, but because of what he fails to say. The primary difference between our baptism by the ‘one Spirit,’ and John’s Baptism is that ours is of the Spirit (1Cor. 12:13) , and John’s is in water (Acts 1:5). Anglin talks all around the topic of each, but fails to nail down the truth pertaining to either of these baptisms from Scripture. He uses the term ‘water’ only once, in reference to Cornelius, and the term ‘Spirit’ in regard to the Holy Spirit, except to say, “spirit of Christianity.” He errors in making statements like this:

Anglin >> The only safe way is to take up the Scriptures without seeking to uphold what we prefer, or may have been holding, perhaps very tenaciously, and to ascertain what is there set forth in reference to baptism. In the first place, then, let us enquire –What Baptism Is, and Who Should Be Baptized

By referring to ‘What Baptism is, and Who should be Baptized,’ he is tying together the concept of the water ritual and people in general. Since our ‘one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) is performed by the ‘one Spirit’ (1Cor. 12:13), then ‘Who’ should be baptized is a most redundant question indeed. Every believer is baptized by the one Spirit upon believing the gospel. (Eph. 1:13+14; ‘hearing with Faith;’ Gal. 3:2) “Who should be baptized?” cannot be an inference to our baptism of the Spirit. And, this whole paragraph below is an exercise in circular reasoning that goes nowhere.

Anglin >> Baptism Brings on to Christian Ground
We shall see as we go on that it is not the obedience of a Christian to a command. How often one hears it said: "We have the plain command of Scripture, 'Believe and be baptized' "; this is the stronghold of many, and yet there is no such expression in the Word, nor indeed any command to be baptized. The command in Matthew 28 is to the apostles, to "disciple all nations, baptizing them" etc., and in Mark 16:10* to "preach the gospel to every creature", and then a statement by the Lord as to the consequences to all who heard it. This is very different from a command to be baptized; being the Lord's instructions to His apostles: though at the same time establishing baptism on His authority.

Of course, his reference* is inaccurate, as Christ gives those commands in Mark 16:15+16. He says, “This is very different from a command to be baptized,” but he never gives an inkling of how one interprets Christ’s words to say something else or hold some other mysterious meaning. Christ did command that every convert to the Kingdom be baptized here in Mark, and in Matthew 28:19. “ . . . baptizing them . . .” means just that. What Anglin failed to do is recognize that this ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) is a totally different ‘gospel’ message from that of Paul who would follow after them. God’s commands to Gentile members of the body of Christ are through Paul (Rom. 11:13, Eph. 3:1-3), while Peter is baptizing members of the Kingdom of God here on earth, under a totally different Administration. That being said, his statements here are 100 percent accurate:

Anglin >> I would add here, that to set forth baptism as being a command to one already a Christian, in the manner referred to, is both unscriptural, and destroys the true idea of baptism altogether. It is bringing into Christianity the legal principle of obedience to ordinances, and genders to bondage; it is, in fact, entirely opposed to the spirit of Christianity. Again, baptism is not a sign of public confession that we are already dead and risen with Christ; Scripture nowhere says so, nor does it anywhere state that baptism is a sign or symbol of something previously true of the person baptized.

His context here pertains to Christ’s commands to the Apostles about water baptism and how those commands are directed to Christians today. Therefore, his entire approach in opening his work this way is flawed. Every single word of Christ’s commands to the Twelve pertained to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14), and commands to water baptize (Mark 16:15+16). Those commands apply to anyone preaching the Kingdom, and not to those in this ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2). Therefore, his work should contain statements that separate the precepts of doctrine that pertain to both Administrations, instead of meandering around and mixing together the precepts.

In Christ,

Terral



End Part 1

 

[Terral]

Greetings:

Anglin >> . . . Note: I do not speak of John's baptism here, which was quite distinct from Christian baptism, though in principle much the same. That was connected with, and constituted, a professedly repentant Remnant inside Judaism; this, with those separated by it from Judaism, to which others from amongst the Gentiles were afterwards added, and by it marked off as Christians.

Our ‘one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) by the ‘one Spirit’ (1Cor.12:13) has nothing at all to do with John’s Baptism in water in principle or anything else. Instead of ‘rightly dividing’ these precepts of doctrine, he appears to be mixing them together, by saying that they are much the same.

Anglin >> The 2nd of Acts proves this clearly, and we will now consider it. . . . To quote this as a proof that baptism is a command is to propound the error that a sinner receives forgiveness by obedience to an ordinance, which is false doctrine, for the apostle was addressing convicted sinners.

Peter was preaching the same ‘repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ as John the Baptist in Mark 1:4. The difference was that the name of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit was now part of the ‘gospel of the kingdom.’ Most of Peter’s hearers were in Jerusalem for the Feasts, and were standing here because it was the Day of Pentecost. They were from all the nations under heaven (Acts 2:5), and were in town some 50 days after the crucifixion. Are we to assume that these particular Jews were not observing Mosaic Law? How is it then that they fall into the category of convicted sinners? Again, Peter is simply preaching the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14) as instructed by Christ (Mark 16:15+16). Those are the two key elements of the gospel of the kingdom, and adding this drama to that gospel message mere speculation on Anglin’s part. That being said, I do agree with him in that these new elements of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ included a ‘change of mind’ pertaining to Christ’s true identity, and that He had just been crucified by order of the leaders of Israel. Scripture also does record that they were ‘cut to the quick’ or ‘pierced to the heart’ (Acts 2:37). However, Peter’s answer to the question of, “What shall we do” mirrors that of John the Baptist, as being repentance and baptism. Mark 1:4. Laying the sentence of ‘convicted sinners’ upon these men in Acts 2 appears to be harsh indeed.

Anglin >> ". . . Two chief points in Peter's discourse make this clear, namely, the exaltation of Christ and the coming down of the Holy Ghost. He says, in verse 36, "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ". There was no longer to be forgiveness of sins in connection with their sacrifices, nor was the Holy Spirit to be given to the Jews as such.

This statement by Agnlin is erroneous. Christ told Israel that all things would be accomplished, before one dash or dot was removed from the Law; until ‘heaven and earth pass away.’

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matt. 5:18.

Christ did not remove the requirement of blood sacrifices from Mosaic Law. That was not His intention for Israel at all. He made it so that they could not apply the blood in the TempleSacrifices out of knowledge instead of ignorance. That is why you see the references to ‘sprinkling’ the blood in Hebrews. Heb. 9:13. Note carefully the words of Daniel pertaining to the ‘regular sacrifice’ (Dan. 8:11 – 13, 11:31, 12:11) that shall be part of the coming Messianic Kingdom. Christ also refers back to Daniel and the ‘abomination of desolation’ in Matt. 24:15. The regular sacrifice cannot be ended, until it is first started again.

Anglin >> All this was outside them completely, for their Messiah had been rejected and crucified by them, but raised up and made Lord of all. The only way for a Jew now to escape being identified with the nation in its guilt and sharing its judgment was by being received into Christianity. Peter urges, in verse 40, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation". Notice what they are here told to save themselves from. Notice also verse 39, which is closely connected with verse 38, and indeed forms part of Peter's reply to their inquiry: "What shall we do?"

The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26); not here in Jerusalem. It appears that He is trying to tie Peter and his Jewish Kingdom Church (Matt. 16:16-19) to Paul’s Gentile Mystery Church (Col. 1:24). If that were true, then Christ had no reason to send Paul up to Jerusalem to submit our gospel to Peter some twenty years later (Gal. 2:2). No matter what else is said, Peter continued to preach ‘water’ for forgiveness (Acts 2:38) while Paul preaches Christ’s shed ‘blood’ for forgiveness (Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:20).

Anglin >> Gentiles Brought on to Christian Ground – Acts 10 . . . Cornelius and his friends had received the Holy Ghost (and were therefore, as to the state of their souls, in a very different condition from those in Acts 2), and it is because Peter sees this that he cannot refuse their admission to the position and privileges of Christianity. This is the force of his remark to his companions of the circumcision, "Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized?", etc. Clearly baptism was connected with privilege in his mind, or else his words have no meaning; but it was not admission to the privileges of Judaism, or he would have said: "Can anyone forbid circumcision?" Thus, I may say, baptism supersedes circumcision, as Christianity supersedes Judaism.

However, Peter was sent to preach the gospel and baptize, and not to preach the gospel of the kingdom and circumcise. Luke is writing in context to the preaching concerning the kingdom of God. Cornelius was no mere Gentile that one might meet walking down the street. He was “a devout man who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the people and prayed to God continually.” (Acts 10:2) And also, “a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews.” (Acts 10:22) Did not the angel of the Lord come in and speak with him by name? (Acts 10:3.) This represents the single example of Peter going to the Gentiles, and generations continue to make a mountain out of this mole hill. Even in this single example of Peter going to one single Gentile and his household, Peter says,

“And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.” Acts 10:28.

If this is so, then why is Peter never seen preaching the gospel of the kingdom to another Gentile in all of Scripture? Why does he, John and James fail to mention the Gentiles once in the first person in any of their Hebrew Epistles? This single Gentile experience of Peter with Cornelius is done for one reason. Peter would recount this experience at the famous meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15) with regard to Paul and the Gentiles receiving the Spirit of God (Acts 15:7-11) without water. That turned the tide in favor of Paul and everything he had told them pertaining to his gospel among the Gentiles (Acts 15:4). Then, James stood up and used Peter’s testimony to say that God was “first concerned about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name,” i.e. the ‘body of Christ.’ Eph. 4:12, Col. 1:24. Therefore, it was James who accurately interpreted the actions that took place between Peter and Cornelius as he recognized the sign the Lord God was giving them.

Anglin >> Here, again, it is not the obedience to a command by those baptized, but the reception of persons whom Peter saw ought to be received.

Baaa! Peter did not even want to be there in the house of Cornelius. That is exactly how a Jew under Mosaic Law became unclean. Peter did not go to Cornelius or any other Gentile, because of his own perceptions about anything. He went to this one Gentile on this single occasion, because of what he saw in the trance (Acts 10:10). If the Lord God had not sent those men from Cornelius, then by all accounts, Peter would have never found his way there himself.

Anglin >> God had already owned them and given them the greatest gift, making no difference between them and the circumcision, and thus the way to their reception was clear; Peter owns it, and says in substance to those with him (for his remarks and directions are addressed to his companions of the circumcision), bring them in, they ought not to be kept outside'; and this they did by baptizing them Note: In the case of Cornelius and those with him, being the first Gentiles received into Christianity, we find God acting sovereignly and giving the Holy Spirit first, fully convincing Peter thereby, and overcoming his national prejudice.

Was Cornelius saved by God’s grace through faith apart from works and justified by the imputed righteousness of God that comes by faith apart from works (Rom. 4:4-6), according to Paul’s gospel? No. Cornelius became a member of the kingdom of God on earth, according to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Matt. 24:14). If Cornelius would have been allowed to sit in this famous meeting in Jerusalem, then he would have sat on the opposite side of the table with Peter, John and James (bride side) opposing Paul and Barnabas (body side).

Anglin >> In these instances it is quite clear there was no thought of giving a public or private testimony that they were dead and risen with Christ; for who would say it was true of those in Acts 2? And what did Cornelius and his friends know of this truth, which was only taught by Paul long afterwards?

Absolutely nothing. Paul had yet to go up to Jerusalem and submit the ‘gospel I preach among the Gentiles’ (Gal. 2:2) to Peter, John and James, until Acts 15. How could Cornelius know about it here? Cornelius and his household became part of the ‘bride of Christ’ and the Messianic Kingdom Administration under Peter.

In Christ,

Terral

End Part 2