No. 34, January 1999
Our
people in Churches of Christ and in the Restoration Movement generally have always
emphasized Acts 2:38 as teaching that baptism is for the remission of sins. It is, after
all, a straightforward passage: "Repent and be baptized for the remission of
sins." But we have had some difficulty in harmonizing this verse with other equally clear passages, such as "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). There are many such passages, such as "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life" (Jn. 3:36). We answer this by saying that one is to consider all the verses related to salvation, and when one does this he will come up with some such order as faith, repentance, baptism, salvation. While this has merit, we are to realize that in the early church, or when these documents were first read, the people had no way of turning from one book/letter to another, as we can do, for the documents circulated separately. Reading about faith in John and then turning to Acts to read about baptism just didn't happen. In fact they didn't read at all, not for a long time, for they didn't have copies of the New Testament as we have. They heard the books/letters read in assembly as they began to circulate. When those in Rome, believers and unbelievers alike, heard Romans 10:9-10 read ("If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved") would they not have concluded that those who believe in and confess Christ are saved. To put it another way, those who heard Paul preach to the jailer in Phillipi ("Believe") had no way of knowing what Peter had said on Pentecost ("Repent and be baptized"). There was no such thing in the early church as "Now turn to Acts 2:38." They had nothing to turn! We may rightly wonder why the New Testament writers did not line it all up the way we do, such as Paul in Rom. 10:9-10, especially since he was there giving the essence of what is involved in being saved: "The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart, the word which we have preached to you." Then he tells them who are saved: those that believe and confess. Had we been in Paul's place would we not have included baptism? Are people saved when they believe or when they are baptized? Yes! We can say both if the apostles used "saved" in different senses. The difference may be stated this way: One is really saved (by the blood of Christ) when he believes; he is formally saved when he is baptized. Alexander Campbell made this distinction when he began debating about baptism: "Paul was actually pardoned when he believed, and formally pardoned when he was baptized." It is a distinction, if valid, that could free us of our sometime "ultraist" view of baptism, again one of Campbell's words. I've searched for an illustration for this. Perhaps Richard Nixon's pardon will do. He was actually pardoned when President Ford issued the executive order, but he was formally pardoned when he signed the official papers. Before Nixon ever signed it was a done deal—he was pardoned!—but it was not formalized, certified, or legalized until he signed. He had to sign! If you recall, Nixon said that signing the pardon was the hardest thing he ever did. In saying Paul was really saved when he believed and formally saved when he was baptized, Campbell too searched out illustrations. The marriage ceremony was his favorite. The couple is really one when they give their hearts to each other, but they are not legally or formally one until the ceremony. The ceremony does not change their love and commitment to each other, but it does change their legal status. Naturalization was another Campbell illustration. The foreigner loves his adopted country no more once he takes the oath of allegiance, and in his heart he is already a "citizen." But an "ordinance" is needed to formalize or legalize his status. That is the oath he takes before the proper official, who in turn certifies his citizenship. Baptism is like that, Campbell says. One is really saved by grace when he believes and commits his life to Jesus Christ. He is formally, legally saved when he is baptized. It is here that Campbell sought to correct an error about baptism on the part many of his own people: baptism is not a procuring act but a certifying act. Have not we too left the impression that people procure or obtain pardon in baptism? Nixon did not procure his pardon by signing (baptism). It was procured solely by the president's (or the nation's) grace. It was certified by his signing (baptism). A married couple does not procure matrimony by going through a ceremony. It is solely by grace. But the ceremony (baptism) certifies it. Just so a foreigner doesn't gain, procure, or merit citizenship by taking an oath. It is all by grace. But the oath (baptism) certifies it. In making this distinction Campbell used still other metaphors: "Baptism is a solemn pledge and a formal assurance (his emphasis) on the part of our Father, that he has forgiven all our offenses" (McCalla Debate, p.256). In the same debate Campbell refers to 1 Pet. 3:21 ("baptism now saves us") and says that baptism is both a "sign" and "seal" of remission of sins. He adds: "In this sense only does 'baptism now save us. "One is actually saved at the point of faith, but it is not signed and sealed until one is baptized. Campbell emphasizes the "assurance" that baptism brings. God ordained an act that provides assurance of pardon. Baptism is the assurance or "the answer of a good conscience" (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism does not actually wash away sins, or "it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," as the apostle Peter puts it, for only the blood of Christ does that. It is a sign, a seal, an assurance of what has already occurred. Baptism is the assurance of pardon. It is a neglected concept. It reminds me of Luther's complaint: "The pope can't talk about me that way, for I've been baptized just as he has." He didn't say "I believe in Christ just as he." Baptism is the act that assures one he is a Christian. Then is Campbell (and I) saying that baptism is necessary? Yes, of course, as necessary as signing a pardon, having a wedding ceremony, or taking the oath for naturalization. But in what sense necessary? Certainly not in an absolute sense. Baptism is necessary as a sign, seal, and assurance of remission of sins. There is actual remission when one believes, formal remission when one is baptized. It is not unlike Abraham's circumcision. He was reckoned as justified when he believed and before he was circumcised. But the circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant, and it was necessary. This harmonizes the passages on faith and baptism. Is one saved when he believes? Yes, of course. Is one saved when he is baptized? Yes, of course. Again, as Campbell put it in his great defense of baptism: "Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the water of baptism." This should have been our answer to the old trick question: "Suppose a man believes in Christ, but on his way to be baptized a limb falls on him and kills him will he be saved?" That we've had to confront such a question shows that we've left the wrong impression about baptism—what Campbell warned against—that it is a procuring act instead of a certifying act. The man on whom the limb fell was really saved when he believed, so of course he died saved. That he was on his way to be baptized evidences his obedient heart, and in the act of baptism, which is ordained of God, he would have enjoyed the sign, seal, and assurance of his salvation. That he did not live to see his pardon sealed does not take away the reality of the pardon. Nixon again. Had he died of a heart attack before he signed the pardon, he would have died a pardoned man. Grace! So, turn to Acts 2:38. Is baptism for the remission of sins? Yes, in a very important sense, but not in an absolute sense. If it were in an absolute sense, then no one could be in heaven except the baptized. And none of us can really believe that. This more balanced view will save us from two extremes. One extreme is often heard from fundamentalist preachers (but not the scholars), that baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Jesus would never have said "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16) and Paul would never have been told "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16) if baptism has nothing to do with being saved. The other extreme is an absolutist or ultraist view of baptism that concludes that salvation is procured by being baptized. Or that it is absolutely necessary for going to heaven. The more balanced view recognizes that one is saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), and that baptism is a faithful response to that grace (Col. 2:12) "a work of grace" (not our work), to quote Campbell again. When one is baptized she has the assurance that she has been saved by grace through faith. Just as she has the assurance that she's married when she receives her "Certificate of Matrimony" from the county clerk, signed and certified. She even frames it and hangs it in her den! That's what Luther was doing when he argued with the pope. He was showing the pope his baptismal certificate! It was his assurance that he was as much a Christian as the pope. —Leroy
I point out in my history that our churches had both organs and societies a full generation before anyone saw them as a cause for division. It wasn't the organ that divided us, I assert, but men, Editor Bishops in particular. The organ was often given as the reason, but it was not the real reason. This is confirmed in the history of the Movement in my home town of Denton, Texas. When the First Christian Church celebrated its 125th anniversary in 1993, it reviewed its history back to 1868. Drawing upon C.C. Yancey's history of the congregation, it told of how in 1893 "a portion of the membership formed the Pearl St. Church of Christ." You might think that the Church of Christ would celebrate its 100th while the Christian Church was celebrating its 125th, but both churches trace their origin to 1 868. And with good reason in that for a quarter of a century they were the same church. And why did they divide? The organ, of course. No. Yancey points out that the congregation, then simply called the Christian Church, had been using the organ for several years prior to 1893. Moreover, the vote to use it had been unanimous. No problem. Denton became one more of our churches that opted to use the organ since the first one had been introduced in Midway, Ky. in 1859. Why then did the Denton church divide? Yancey says it was a disagreement over the choice of pastors, not over the organ. But the Pearl St. Church of Christ was non-organ from the outset, and this became the distinguishing mark of difference between the two congregations. Such was the case all across the country as the organ became "the issue." But the evidence suggests it was the improvised issue, not the real issue. Take another town that is a part of my own personal history, Henderson, Tn., which is the most renowned Church of Christ town for its size in the world. It was there that I studied under N.B. Hardeman at the college he founded and that bears his name. Brother Hardeman now and again referred to the division that resulted in two separate churches in that small town, one called the Christian Church, the other the Church of Christ. That we could see the little frame building of the Christian Church out our classroom windows, having been next to the campus all those years (It has since moved), seem to add drama to Hardeman's story. He told how he led the singing while Miss Jo (his wife) played the organ. This went on for some 17 years before an Editor Bishop came from Nashville to tell them they couldn't have an organ. As the story goes, the elders met the editor at the train station and urged him to preach the gospel and not "issues" or else return to Nashville. It was all in vain. Pray tell me how churches in Denton., Tx. and Henderson, Tn. can peacefully use the organ for years and years and then suddenly divide over its use? It is like a broken marriage. He said it was because she was always visiting her mother and was never at home, but she pointed out that she had visited her mother like that for all their 20 years of marriage and that it had been no problem. So often "the reason" is not the reason. Why did we divide? We still ask the question. I notice that reasons for our division was a subject to be discussed at a recent Restoration Forum, an annual gathering of leaders from Churches of Christ and Independent Christian Churches. My thesis that the Editor Bishops must take much of the blame may be only part of the answer. My dear friend, the late Carl Ketcherside insisted that our "problems in long division" were because we quit loving each other. Alexander Campbell was confident that the Movement would never divide so long as we were true to the unity principles he and others had put in place. Still others point to socio-economic factors. One of our deterministic historians even said, "If we hadn't divided over the organ, it would have been over something else." Maybe the reasons why we divided do not matter. What matters is that we were born to be a unity movement, and we have betrayed our heritage by becoming "a spectacle of divided unionists," as the late Disciples historian Al DeGroot charged. What are we going to do about our divisions? That is the question that matters. Our pioneers had the luxury of asking, not why they were divided, but why they were united. One Thomas Adams, writing in Barton Stone's Christian Messenger (p.282) in 1823, put it this way, "Why is it that we live in love and union, while others divide and dispute?," referring to the sects about them. He said it was because they were not a party and that they had no problem in enjoying fellowship with other believers. They communed with other churches and others communed with them. They had their doctrinal differences, he conceded, but they bore with one another in love. They asked why they were united, while we ask why we are divided! That points up what has happened to us. Perhaps we have a thing or two to learn from our pioneers, as they learned it from Scripture, such as: We are united when we forbear one another in love. - Leroy
Olin
Atwood of Morrill, Nebraska suggests that it is time for a report on Ouida's and my
health. We are pleased to oblige, especially since I recently celebrated my 80th with all
signs go. I still run two miles each a.m., do some adjunct teaching at area colleges,
travel some, visit among churches, and generally do what I have done all these years,
including some research projects. My sweetheart wife of 56 years is as beautiful as ever
and enjoys good health. She loves her home, takes daily walks, entertains somewhat, enjoys
her talkfests (studies?) with the girls, goes calling with me, travels with me some of the
time, and keeps the books. We seem to be as busy as ever, which makes us wonder how we
ever found time to teach and edit fulltime. As I write this we are into the Christmas
season. We have more than a thousand lights burning in our front yard, which is part of a
neighborhood aglow. One night we had our "Christmas Walk," an annual affair
which takes us to the homes of three of our neighbors: food at the first, more food at the
second, dessert at the third. Lots of delightful fellowship. One neighbor, who witnesses
my morning jaunts as she puts on coffee, told me that one morning she went to her husband
and said, "Jerry, you ought to be ashamed, Leroy has finished his run and you're
still in bed!" You can see that we have lots of fun, including an unknown Santa, with
whom we all have pictures made. And some of us talk about the Lord! |
