The
basic principle of all obedience is understanding. "He that heareth the
word and understandeth it" -
Matt. 13:23.
"Go preach the gospel—he that believeth (the gospel) and is baptized
shall be saved" -
Mark 16:15-16.
Believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is not all that must be
understood in rendering obedience in baptism—there are other essential
principles of a gospel faith.
Institutions with design carry the necessity of understanding the
design. Example: The Lord's Supper—"Do this in memory of me." No man can
observe the Lord's Supper "in memory" of Christ without knowing it. The
proposition "for" in
Acts 2:38
is "EIS"
in the original, and the proposition "in" of
1 Cor. 11:23
is the
same "EIS" in the original. No man can take the Lord's Supper in order
to, unto or into, the memory of Christ if he does not know it, and for
the same reason no man can be baptized in order to, unto or into the
remission of sins or salvation, if he does not know it. One cannot
accidentally obey God.
If it is
not necessary to understand the purpose of baptism, why is it in every
case emphasized from the preaching of John to the last verse on the
subject in the New Testament? If it is not to be understood, then, that
part of the subject is non-essential and when we preach the design of
baptism we are preaching something not necessary to be believed,
therefore, preaching a non-essential. Why debate with a Baptist preacher
on the design of baptism if its design does not have to be believed or
understood? Why debate on a non-essential?
Is there
a single case in all the New Testament where the person baptized did not
understand the purpose of the act?
It is
sometimes said that the purpose is not a part of the command. Let us
see:
Acts 22:16 -
"Arise
and be baptized and wash away thy sins." The subject understood is
you—with the triple predicate—and fully rendered with each part supplied
it reads: You arise and be baptized and you wash away your sins. Arise
is part of the command; be baptized is a part of the command; wash away
your sins is part of the command. No man can do that who believes his
sins have already been washed away.
It is
said that "to obey God" is the main purpose of baptism. Then why is that
purpose never stated? Is it not singular that the New Testament failed
to mention the main purpose in connection with the command, but on the
other hand emphasized the non-essential purpose, or the purpose not
necessary to be believed? "Remission of sins", "into Christ", "shall be
saved," "newness of life," and all other expressions are just one design
stated in different ways. Baptism has only one design. Alexander
Campbell established this premise, and lays it down in that very
proposition, in his book on "Baptism." I mention this because so many
refer to Campbell on the subject.
We are
sometimes asked: If it is necessary to believe that baptism is for the
remission of sins then should we not make it a part of the confession
and ask every one "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
and do you also believe that baptism is for the remission of sins?" This
is dodging the issue. Try it on the other contention. If the main
purpose is "to obey God," then, the argument would require that it also
be made a part of the confession: "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God and are you being baptized to obey God?" It's a poor rule
that will not work both ways. As a matter fact, all sincere people in
religion perform every act of religious service with the general motive
to obey God. Baptism has a very specific purpose—just as does the Lord's
Supper—and the general idea that it is a command, but not essential to
salvation or that it is a duty but the duty of one already saved is a
perversion of Bible teaching. If one can be scripturally baptized with
such a belief then all our preaching on the subject is inconsistent.
To say
that a man can believe that he is saved before he is baptized, and then
be baptized to be saved, is to argue that what a man believes has
nothing to do with what he does.
It is
frequently said that if one is satisfied we have no right to question
them. Why should we hold an inquest? Paul evidently "held an inquest"
over the twelve in
Acts 19.
True, the same thing may not be wrong in the case before us—but
something was wrong there and something else just as vital may be wrong
now. Satisfaction is not salvation. Apply the argument to other things
people believe and do in religion and where would it lead to? If it can
be applied to baptism why not to everything else?
It takes
more than the right act to constitute valid baptism. The right act based
on the right belief: Error preached, error heard, error believed, is
error obeyed. Truth preached, truth heard, truth believed, is truth
obeyed.
Jesus
said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." This
cannot be made to mean "You may believe error but if in your error your
aim is to obey God, then your error will make you free, anyway." Such
apologizing for denominational error cannot advance the truth. It is
much easier to teach people to obey the gospel than to defend them in
their error.
Bible Banner - 1948
Other Articles by Foy E. Wallace
Faith and
Baptism