FOR THE
CHILDREN:
Baptism For Remission
BELIEVERS WITH SINS ALREADY REMITTED
ARE COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38.)
For more than a thousand years before Alexander Campbell mismated the Baptist
doctrine of believers immersion with the Catholic doctrine of so-called
baptismal regeneration, most of the heretics of Christendom were perverting this
text and a few others in supposed support of the delusion that remission of sins
may be obtained through the waters of baptism, or through the waters of pouring
or sprinkling as substitutes for baptism. The idea did not originate with
Campbell: he was wise enough to recognize that Baptists were right in their
insistence on immersion of believers; but with his Presbyterian background he
was foolish enough to stay with the Catholic tradition that baptism (or, for
most Catholics in recent centuries, affusion) is necessary to salvation.
The Problem
Were it not for this widespread heresy of long standing, comparatively few readers would misunderstand our text, or other texts that have been given a perverted interpretation by advocates of baptismal regeneration; and any such misunderstanding would be quickly cleared up as the reader examined the text in light of context. But when readers bring preconceived heresies to their reading, it is harder for them to see the simple truth. Surely it is obvious enough to any open mind that if this text teaches the Catholic-Campbellite doctrine that baptism is a condition precedent to the remission of sins, then the Bible is in hopeless contradiction with itself and we have no reliable textbook from which to derive Christian doctrine. If the Bible is a book of contradictions, we have no reasonable ground of Young s concordance lists a dozen different translations of eis in the King James version, then adds "etc." The good English bishops, whose creed teaches baptismal regeneration, avoided the translation "because of," but it fits excellently in several passages. Three times in Matt. 10:41, 42 eis is rendered in~~ in the name." Obviously this means "because of the name"; in fact it is so explained in Mark 9:41, though there the preposition used is en. Ninevites "repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas" (Matt. 12:4 1); that is, of course, because of the preaching of Jonas.
"Wherefore didst thou doubt?" asked Jesus in Matt. 14:31.
"Wherefore," meaning "why," is the King James rendering of
two Greek words, eis ti, which could be translated literally, "Because of
what?" So it is evident that "because of is a legitimate translation
of eis if it can be justified from context, and the New Testament context makes
this the best possible translation in Acts 2:38.
John's Baptism
From John 1:40-42 and Acts 1:20-22 it is clear that Peter was thoroughly
familiar with the baptism and doctrine of John the Baptist. There is no reason
to imagine that the apostle would suddenly announce a new and revolutionary
doctrine of baptism, and especially in such ambiguous language. John s baptism
manifestly was not announced as a means of obtaining remission of sins. On the
contrary, John demanded that candidates for his baptism whose sincerity he
doubted bring forth "fruits worthy of repentance." (Lu. 3:8.) He
baptized "in water unto (eis) repentance" (Mat. 3:11); that is,
because of repentance already exercised and proved by worthy fruits, as appears
in the preceding verses. Mark tells us that John preached "the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins." (1:4.) This means that the baptism
was the result of repentance. If we relate "for (eis) the remission of
sins" to the word "repentance," then "for" may mean
"in order to"; if we relate the phrase to the word
"baptism," then "for" must mean "because of to
harmonize with context. No honest reader, surely, will accuse the first Baptist
of being a ritualist. Peter had learned of John through Andrew to follow Jesus (Jn.
1:35-42), and we can be sure that they have the same doctrine of baptism.
Christ s Baptism
John s baptism was Christ s baptism. This truth is so important that it is
recorded in all four gospels. (Mat. 3:13-17; Mk. 1:9-11; Lu. 3:21, 22; Jn.
1:29-34.) To say that John s baptism was not Christian baptism is to say that
Christ did not have Christian baptism. How ridiculous can you get? When Christ
received baptism from John the Baptist, He demonstrated once for all that
baptism is not in order to the remission of sins, since Christ had no sins to be
remitted. But "thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."
(Mat. 3:15.) That is, baptism is a picture of the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ; and in that death, burial and resurrection all
righteousness is fulfilled.
Apostolic Agreement
Moreover, the apostles continued the practice of baptism according to the original order, for we read, "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)." (Jn. 4:1, 2.) That is, it was through the ministry of His disciples that He "made and baptized more disciples than John." Notice: they made disciples first, and then they baptized them. This is always the scriptural order.
Read I Cor. 1:12-17 to see how completely the apostle Paul subordinated the ordinance of baptism to the preaching of the gospel. Though baptism symbolizes the gospel, it is in itself no part of the gospel, as appears in the words "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."
Paul likewise identified his baptism with that of John the Baptist when he
found at Ephesus a dozen disciples who claimed, no doubt sincerely, that they
had John s baptism, but who had never heard John's message. Of course, a mere
form of baptism, administered by unauthorized persons who lack the scriptural
message conveyed in true baptism, is of no value. When Paul informed these
imperfectly taught disciples of John's true message, they proved their faith by
being baptized "in the name," that is, by the authority, "of the
Lord Jesus." (See Acts 19:1-7.)
Let Peter Interpret
If there are readers who might imagine that Peter s doctrine of baptism could
have been different from that of John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul, it would
seem to be worth while to find out whether Peter himself stated his doctrine any
more clearly on other occasions. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted,
that your sins may be blotted out," said Peter, with no mention of baptism,
in Acts 3:19. But if he had considered baptism to be necessary to salvation, his
language here would have been criminally misleading. Again, to the household of
Cornelius, Peter declared concerning Christ: "To him give all the prophets
witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive
remission of sins." (Acts 10:43.) Either Peter was a true apostle or he was
not; and if he told the truth to Cornelius, then his language in Acts 2:38 must
not be misinterpreted so as to contradict his plain statement here. With no
reference to baptism, Peter affirms explicitly that the new birth is by virtue
of "the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," and that it is
"not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God."
(I Pe. 1:3, 23.) Peter s only mention of baptism in his two epistles is in I Pe.
3:21, and there he is careful to declare that baptism is NOT a "putting
away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer" (or, asking) "of a
good conscience toward God." Common honesty demands that we let Peter
interpret himself, and thus it becomes perfectly clear that in Acts 2:38 he was
commanding each of his hearers who repented, and no others, to be baptized
because of remission of sins remission already obtained through repentance
(which in a scriptural sense includes faith). That this was his meaning, and
that he was so understood, is obvious also in verse 41, where we read that only
"they that gladly received his word were baptized."
Christ's Commission
Alexander Campbell felt free to "restore" a "primitive Christianity" far removed from the faith once for all delivered to the saints far removed from true New Testament Christianity. But true Christians must recognize Christ and Christ alone as our Lord, as the Author and Finisher of our faith. (He. 12:2.) Never did the Lord Jesus condition His salvation upon the outward act of baptism. His commission to His church was first to make disciples, then to baptize them, and finally to teach them to observe all His commandments. (Mat. 28:18-20.) In Mark 16:16 He assumes that true believers will generally be baptized, but according to Jesus the damning failure of sinners is not failure to be baptized, but failure to believe the gospel. So He taught always. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (Jn. 3:18.)