CHAPTER VI
Questions Frequently Asked About Matters of Baptism
On what Scriptural grounds dare we affirm that
infants are safe under the blood without B. R?-Does Ezekiel 36:25, "I will sprinkle
clean water upon you;' justify sprinkling of children?-Is not pouring a Biblical mode of
baptism since the baptism of the Spirit was by pouring? -If you have been baptized unto B.
R. is not that sufficient baptism for young or old?-If I do not believe in B. R. what
shall I do about belonging to an organization that stands for it?-If B. R. is wrong, how
did Luther happen to overlook it?
On What Spiritual Grounds Dare We Affirm That Infants Are Safe Under The Blood
Without Baptismal Regeneration?
Millions of parents ponder
over this question. It seems impossible for them to think of God condemning to
hell an unconscious infant. That, however, is not the question . If God did
that, it would still be just, whether we understood it or not. We do not seek to
reason out God's way. We seek but to find what is spoken in His word.
From Romans 5:12 we read: "Death
passed unto all men, for that all sinned." The child is, therefore, born
under sin, that is, he inherits from the first Adam a sinful nature. All that is
true. But note in verse 14: Adam, "who is a figure of Him who was to
come," or Christ. Adam after the fall is then a type of the Old Man of sin.
God put Adam under the blood, as we see in Genesis, chapter three, He provided a
covering. This is the Old Testament word for atonement. Now this was before Adam
and Eve had any children. Thus we see their children born under a double
inheritance: One from Adam as a figure of the Old Man; one from Adam as a figure
of Christ. Both of the inheritances were involuntary on the child's part.
Turn now to the 18th verse: "So
then as through the one trespass, (Adam's), the judgment came unto all men,
(same as "all men' in verse 12. It means the whole world), to condemnation;
even so, (that is in the same involuntary manner), through one act of
righteousness, (Christ's work for us on Calvary), the free gift came unto all
men to justification of life." The child had no choice as to his parents,
nor had he any choice as to being born under sin. All this came to him without
his willing anything. Note, then, the Scriptures very plainly tell us that in
the same INVOLUNTARY manner in which he came under the curse of the first Adam,
so in the same INVOLUNTARY manner he came under the blessing of the second Adam,
or Christ.
The advocates of Baptismal
Regeneration, driven by the force of common reason to admit that unbaptized
infants do not go to hell–for there is scarcely a responsible teacher today
who affirms that unbaptized infants go lost–say, there ought to be, there
might be, some help for such infants, but it is not revealed. How Satan must
rejoice in such teaching. Thus the blood on behalf of the infant is denied. This
is the gravest issue in Baptismal Regeneration. The fancied need of Baptismal
Regeneration for infants flatly denies the power of Jesus' blood for them, and
that is Satan's subtle thrust at the redemptive work of Jesus. Every time an
infant is so baptized, that congregation as a body openly testifies by word and
deed that the blood of Christ avails not for the child, unless they bring it to
the altar of Jereboam's Golden Calf. They close their eyes dead-shut to the fact
that if baptism is necessary to make the blood available for infants, they have
the 4,000-year testimony of the Old Testament against them. It is a sad gospel
that logically finds the Lake of Fire to be the only heaven open to the millions
of infants who died before baptism came to open to them heaven's door. This is
typical Papal theology.
Consider now that Jesus says of the,
children, Matthew 19:14, "Suffer the little children." Consider again
Matthew 18:10, speaking of the little ones Jesus says: "For I say unto you,
that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in
heaven." Here it is stated very clearly that each infant has a guardian
angel who has direct access to God on behalf of the infant. When we read this in
the light of Hebrews 1: 14, "Are they not ministering spirits, sent forth
to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?", then we
see again that God recognizes them as heirs of salvation. If God put the infants
under the blood in Christ; if He was so solicitous on their behalf that He gave
each one a guardian angel who seems always on the alert to minister to the needs
of the child, then the author is perfectly at ease in entrusting them to the
blessed care of a gracious God, in preference to deliberately taking them out of
God's care and entrusting their precious souls to the care of a Pagan idol,
assisted by sponsors. These sponsors who, though unable to care for their own
sins, still presume to care for the sins of the child. Miserable helpers they
are. Miserable sponsors, miserable intermediators they are. Did they suffer and
die for the infant? Were they raised for the child's justification? Do they
presume to live, that the child may live? Are they coming again to take the
child to its heavenly home? What are these sponsors but deceptive impostors?
Yes, what is this proxy religion but hollow mockery, which, when seen in its
true light, makes one shudder! When a perfect Saviour-the Son of God, who has
all power in heaven and earth, shall be replaced as surety, by a bankrupt sinner
whose credit is worthless on his own behalf (yet he shall offer it for others),
then it is time to protest, and protest we will!
That these sponsors may minister to
the child's welfare in an outward manner, no one will deny, but when it comes to
accepting them as surety for the child's soul, I would rather take the child to
an asylum and leave him in the care of insane people. All these sponsors can do
is to hide the true sponsor, our Lord Jesus Christ, who died that the infant
might live.
Does Not Ezekiel 36:25 Justify Sprinkling as a Correct Mode of Baptism?
"And I will sprinkle clean water
upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your
idols, will I cleanse you."
The sprinkling referred to here
pertains to Israel upon her restoration to her own land. "For I will take
you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring
you into your own land." This, then, is a promise of restoration to Israel
at the second coming of Christ. It is not a promise to the Gentiles, and does in
no way pertain to this church age. It is not a prophecy about baptism. It has
nothing to do with baptism at all.
What is in mind by this sprinkling is
this: In the Old Testament Israel had many ceremonial laws. According to Numbers
8:6-7: "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse
them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of
purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their
clothes, and so make themselves clean."
In connection with this sprinkling
they were also to shave all their flesh, and to wash all their clothes.
According to Numbers 19:11-22 we see this sprinkling was to be done on the third
day and on the seventh day, and was to be sprinkled upon the tent, and upon all
the vessels. From this it must be seen that it could in no way be a type of
baptism. There is no shaving of the body, washing of clothes, nor sprinkling of
tents and vessels in connection with baptism.
Clean water here does not mean just
simply pure water. It refers to water that has been made ceremonially clean by
the addition of the ashes of a burnt red heifer. Numbers 19:17.
That this does not refer to baptism
can be seen from the order of this service. Israel was first to be regathered
and sprinkled, and then given a new heart. Now the order in baptism is, first we
get a new heart in conversion and then we are baptized.
Is Not Pouring a Biblical Mode of Baptism Since the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Was
by Pouring?
In Acts 2:16-18 we read the
following quotation from Joel: "I will pour forth of my Spirit upon
all flesh." Now in Acts 2:2 we read "And suddenly there came
from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it FILLED
all the house where they were sitting." How could the entire house
have been completely filled by the Holy Spirit without also completely
covering the disciples? Now, in just the same way people could be
baptized in water by pouring if enough water were poured on them to
completely cover them. Have we not often stood beside the open grave and
seen how the deceased was buried as the soil was literally poured back
upon it, shovel by shovel. It takes no stretch of the imagination to see
how the pouring out of the Holy Spirit was baptism.
If You have Been Baptized Unto Regeneration, Is Not That Sufficient Baptism for
Young or Old?
In passing through his
experiences, the author sought to avoid the issue of his own baptism. As
it had no saving power, he sought to consider it a non-essential. The
argument that moved the author to be baptized properly was this: He had
testified against Baptismal Regeneration with the mouth. However, because
he still remained in his baptism, he was testifying for Baptismal
Regeneration with his life. If it was good enough baptism to stand in,
then it must be good baptism-then why speak against it? Since he had
already come to a conclusion that it was not good baptism, he had to get
the testimony of his lips and his life into harmony, or else be guilty of
regarding baptism as of no consequence at all. This he knew was wrong, so
he finally saw that in order to really condemn Baptismal Regeneration he
had to repudiate it by accepting what he knew to be a right baptism. This
he did, and the witness borne by the Holy Spirit gave him full and
absolute assurance that he had done God's will. He has been happy about it
since, and is happy about it today. It will make any troubled soul feel
the same way.
The real issue for every father
and mother to determine is, do you want Jesus to protect your child by His
blood, or do you want to entrust the safety of your child to a sinful
sponsor who cannot care for his own sins? Do you want to set Jesus aside
and put the idol in His place?
Note, the pastor asks:
"Dost thou believe in God?" et cetera. The sponsor assures him
that the child does believe. How can they answer so, making both
confessions and professions on the child's behalf? Then the infant is
asked if he would be "baptized into this Christian faith." They
reply for the child, "I will." Now, the unconscious babe is
perhaps sleeping through the whole service. What knows he of all their
professions and confessions? How can he "will" to be baptized
when he knows nothing about it? The infant has willed nothing. That such
deception could be practiced on people during the dark ages when men were
just emerging from the darkness of popery, can be understood, but how
otherwise gracious and godly people can stand before God at the baptismal
font telling lies, and so insult Him whose blood was shed for the infant's
protection, is hard to understand. By making these false promises and
untruthful vows, they become a party to casting a shadow upon the blood of
Christ, by declaring that greater power is found in the magic touch of a
moistened hand, than is found in the blood of Christ. No! Untruthful vows
and false promises can pretend to convey such great blessings only when
truth is wholly on the scaffold and error on the throne. Is it not time to
let the precious truth concerning the power of Jesus' blood on behalf of
the infant shine out, and all truth-loving children of God rise up and
smite this idol who has slain millions of souls and who, even today, is
holding millions more in bondage? Truly, it means great suffering and
painful separation, but was there not painful separation and suffering for
Jesus when he wrought our salvation?
If I Do Not Believe In Baptismal Regeneration, What Shall I Do About Belonging to
an Organization That Stands for it?
How often we meet people, who,
though they belong to an organization which stands for Baptismal
Regeneration, say: "I don't believe that a child is born again in
baptism. I baptized my child because I felt that it was protected by Jesus'
blood." To all such I would say: Go to your leader and inquire
carefully about just what is taught and practiced. If they teach and
practice Baptismal Regeneration, then urge upon them to drop the idol and
you will stay by them. If they will not, then you must choose between two
things:
you must either he a party to
idol worship or you must get out. There is no middle ground. Jesus did the
hardest thing a man can do for you. He died for you. Shall you be unwilling
to do something hard for Jesus? Let there be no misunderstanding here: As
long as you stand in an organization that stands for an idol, you become
partakers with them in idol worship. How ashamed you will be on the day of
judgment, when the hidden things of the heart shall be revealed-when it
shall be known before God and all the angels and saints that you were living
the part of a hypocrite here on earth, just to save yourself a little
suffering. "My children, guard yourselves from idols."
How dare you argue with your
conscience in so grave a matter? Can you not see that it strikes at the very
heart of Christ to set up other saviours besides Him? Already you say that
you know that Baptismal Regeneration is an idol. Listen now to the words of
Jesus: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin:
but now they have no cloke for their sin." John 15:22. When I joined
the Lutheran Church I also subscribed to her confession of faith. In this
confession we read: "The power, work, fruit and end of baptism is to
save." The issues are clear: You must either have the idol removed from
your confession of faith. or become a party to idolatry.
The author remembers so well when
he arrived at this point of decision. He well knew the right course, but the
weakness of the flesh caused him to shrink from open separation. This was
the bitterest cup he had so far been called upon to drink, for it meant the
loss of all things. The author, considering the great suffering of Jesus and
his responsibility to souls bound by this idol, and the giving accounts to
God, when the true issues of the heart must come to light, was given grace
to separate. He has never regretted the step. True, the separation caused
much suffering and misunderstanding, but the blessings of a clear conscience
have made up for it a hundred times over. Troubled and afflicted soul, my
sympathy is with you. Ask for grace to do at least one hard thing for Jesus.
Do not put off the matter. It is dangerous. In prayer face the issue,
letting God say to you what you must do. Trust God to open a way for you and
care for you, but act, and delay not. Nothing less than the honor of the
saving power of Jesus' blood is at stake. Choose THIS DAY whom ye will
serve. TODAY if ye hear my voice, harden not your hearts.
If Baptismal Regeneration is Wrong, How Did Luther Happen to Overlook It?
In the first place, Luther did not
claim to be infallible, and especially did he urge men not to follow him, but
to follow the Bible.
Luther was a student and follower
of the great Augustine, bishop of Hippo. His views on Baptismal Regeneration
were, to begin with at least, essentially the same as those of Augustine.
Later on he enlarged his views some, without materially changing his position.
We shall now give you in quotation the basic views of Augustine and let each
one judge for himself whether there be sufficient grounds for accepting this
doctrine:
Commenting on the words: "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," Augustine says: "Now
the mystery of this believing in the case of infants is completely effected by
the response of the sureties by whom they are taken to baptism." (On the Soul, et cetera, Book II,
chapter 17). "By the answer of those through whose agency they are born
again, the Spirit of righteousness transfers to them that faith which, of
their own will they could not yet have." (Of Forgiveness, et cetera, Book III,
chapter 2). "In the case of infants, being baptized is to believe, and
being baptized is not to believe." Again, in a letter to Boniface, bishop
of Rome, written in 408, he says: "Believing is nothing else than having
faith; and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of
exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that
he has faith because of the Sacrament of Faith."
Now we know that the Scriptures
teach that "belief cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of
God." Clearly, definitely, unmistakably, Augustine says: "Now the
mystery of believing in the case of infants is completely effected by the
response of the sureties." or sponsors. Now, how often wicked and godless
men and women who so, often answer for the child, can in turn be the
instrument of saving faith for the infant, is not explained by them, and we
think it never will be. Let every man be assured in his own mind.
Luther Believes in Baptism by Immersion, and Admits That the Bible so Teaches.
Dr. Philip Schaff in his History of
the Christian Church, Vol. VI, pages 218 and 219, quotes Luther as follows:
"'Baptism,' he said, 'is dipping into water-when a minister dips the child
into the water, this signifies death; when he draws him out again, this
signifies life. Thus Paul explains the matter, (Romans 6:4)-l could wish that
the baptized should be totally immersed, according to the meaning of the word
and the signification of the mystery; not that I think it necessary to do so,
but that it would be well that so complete and perfect a thing as baptism should
also be completely and perfectly expressed in the sign," We do not wish to
appear overcritical, but inasmuch as Luther expressly affirms that, "it
would be well that so complete and perfect a thing as baptism should also be
completely and perfectly expressed in the sign," then how can it be
unnecessary to do so? God says in James 4:17: "To him therefore that
knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
email