The Word Abused …

THE REBAPTIZED CHURCH OF CHRIST

There is, unfortunately, more than one way to abuse the scriptures. It is done through twisting and warping what is actually said, as we are noticing in this series. It is also done through neglect of the context or through misapplication, which makes scriptures mean what it was never intended to convey, however right or wrong the points may be. Still another way is through underemphasis or overemphasis, which either makes too little or too much of what the scriptures say. One might accept a scriptural truth and give it the right interpretation, but err in a failure to give it proper significance. All scripture may well be true and of course the word of God, but not all truths are equally important. We can abuse the word in failing to recognize this.

Our purpose in this installment, however, is to notice an instance of making too much of what is written. Anything can be warped by stretching as well as by shrinking. Any truth can be overworked to the point of distortion. The Pharisees did this with fasting and Sabbath-keeping, and some of the early Christians did this with circumcision and dietary rules. Any external act is vulnerable to this kind of treatment — both ways perhaps — with some making too little of it because it is external and others making too much of it because it is an ordinance of God.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that many of us in the Churches of Christ have abused the scriptures in this way in reference to baptism. The charge that we preach baptism rather than Jesus may be unfair, but there is some truth to it. We often leave the impression that baptism is the point of the gospel, and we have stressed it to the degree that it stands apart from the Cross as an arbitrary command, not unlike the Judaizers did circumcision: We often seem embarrassed by the doctrine of salvation by grace apart from works, so evident in the scriptures, as if there is indeed “a work of righteousness” whereby we are saved.

We have failed to relate baptism to the love and mercy of God, and folk really believe that we are saved only by the grace of God. We have left the impression that baptism is, after all, a work that we do in order to become righteous, thus denying the apostolic insistence that salvation is “not by works of righteousness which we have done ourselves” (Tit. 3:5), and so we have invited those endless debates on baptism that could have been avoided, for the most part, if we had always related baptism to the Cross. In depicting it as the response of faith, or as “the cultivation of grace,” to use Campbell’s expression, rather than as arbitrarily “essential,” the religious world would have been more impressed. Not only have we hammered away at the “something you have to do” bit, but we have made a big deal out of one’s proper understanding of the import of the act. which makes not only the act essential but a certain indoctrination as well.

This abuse of baptism is evident in the widespread practice of reimmersing people who are already immersed believers. This reaches the extremity of rebaptizing our own people in the Churches of Christ! Hordes of our folk are reimmersed because they “want to be sure,” or because they think they were too young the first time or didn’t understand enough about what they were doing. It is odd to see one immersed allover again after being a Christian for many years, but it is a frequent event in our churches. Oftentimes it is because one wants to make sure that he is baptized for the remission of sins, as if this depended upon him as much as upon God.

This questionable practice hangs heavy upon many churches, underscoring once again the insidious divisions that plague us. Anglicans and Roman Catholics often rebaptize each other, to the agony of their leaders with ecumenical concerns. We are wont to reimmerse all Baptists that come our way, and they, because of the old Landmark controversy, which saw baptism in terms of an authentic succession, will rebaptize the Church of Christ folk that go to them. The Mormons go even further in being repeatedly immersed in behalf of the deceased, due to the interpretation they place upon 1 Cor. 15:29.

Our people often resort to Acts 19, where Paul immerses twelve men who had already been immersed, as grounds for rebaptizing immersed believers, but an examination of the context reveals that this text no more justifies what we do than does 1 Cor. 15:29 justifies what the Mormons practice.

Those disciples at Ephesus were reimmersed true enough, but this fact alone hardly allows for the condition that 1 am calling into question, where many of our people get immersed again and again “just to make sure.” Those Ephesians were not baptized in the name of Jesus to start with, but rather “into John’s baptism.” John’s baptism had its initiatory or preparatory role, and for this reason we are not to suppose that his disciples had to be reimmersed, that is, up until Pentecost. To say that all those John baptized had to be reimmersed later in the name of Christ is to undo the work of the harbinger. For this reason I conclude that on Pentecost all those that John had prepared for the Messiah were initiated into the Body of Christ sort of ex officio and without further baptism.

But after Pentecost it was a different matter. John’s baptism no longer had a place in God’s order, for it was superseded by Christ’s immersion. This was the case with the twelve at Ephesus. Apollos, who “knew only the baptism of John” and who needed to know the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:25-26), had discipled these men, and so Paul found their baptism inadequate. Paul’s clue that something was wrong was their reply to his question, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Their reply was that they had not so much as heard of the Holy Spirit. If this were argued as ground for rebaptizing in the Church of Christ today, we might well baptize the whole kit and caboodle, for we are a people that have virtually ignored the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, our people hardly have had the Spirit in view at baptism. But still I see no ground for reimmersing folk in our time on the basis of Acts 19, unless indeed one were void of faith in Christ at the time of baptism, in which case one would not need any precedent. It would simply be a matter of immersing one for what would really be the first time.

Rebaptized people in the primitive churches must have been virtually nonexistent. Apollos’ ministry before he was set straight was limited. There is nowhere in scripture the slightest hint of reimmersion on the grounds of “being sure” or “not being satisfied.” People were baptized in reference to their faith in Christ, and that was it. It’s highly probable that of all the characters in the New Testament and in early church history there is not one, save those twelve at Ephesus, that was baptized a second time. And yet we have in Churches of Christ this fetish for reimmersion, as if it were a major experience in the scriptures and in history. We would surely think it strange to learn that Jesus was baptized a second time, or that many of those on Pentecost went on to be immersed still again later in life “because of doubts,” or that the Ethiopian eunuch or the Philippian jailer were afterwards immersed still again.

I am convinced that these second and third immersions among us are not only unnecessary, but that they run the risk of prostituting an act made sacred by God’s own decree. It is evident that our theology of baptism has become terribly warped, for we have come to see it as something arbitrary and absolute rather than in reference to the Cross. We have so dogmatized the act, rather than treating it as within the framework of grace and mercy, that we have led our people to suppose that this is the one thing that they must get right. Our warping has taken such extremes as to insist that one must have a certain education about baptism before the act is valid. One must understand what it is for and what it does, and this is pounded into our folk year in and year out, so that we have a lot of people that keep on being baptized in order to make sure they have done it right.

If this logic is right, then there is hardly an end to the number of times one will be immersed. Must one understand that he is being baptized into Christ as Ro. 6:3 indicates? And that we are baptized into death as Ro. 6:4 shows? Must we realize that immersion is the answer of a good conscience toward God as 1 Pet. 3:21 says? And that in baptism we put on Christ as in Gal. 3:27? Must we understand “the working of God” in reference to baptism as taught in Col. 2:12, the “washing of regeneration” in Tit. 3:5, the “seasons of refreshing” in Acts 3:19, and the “remission of sins” and “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38?

If it is a matter of understanding all the implications and blessings of baptism, then where does one stop? Why say one has to realize it is “for the remission of sins” but does not have to understand that in the act he “receives the gift of the Holy Spirit,” which is in the same passage? And how about the other six or eight blessings of baptism? If this rebaptism doctrine is right, then we should be immersed every time we gain a new insight into baptism. If it is a matter of knowledge, as some of our preachers insist, rather than a matter of faith, as Jesus taught, then where is the line to be drawn on how much one must know?

Ro. 6:17 is made to mean that one must understand baptism if he correctly obeys, for it reads: “having obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.” From the heart means understanding, while form of doctrine means baptism, according to this view. But this is a very unlikely interpretation, for the context, as well as the verse itself, suggests that obeying from the heart refers to a willing response, while form of doctrine refers to the mould of Christ-likeness, or righteousness, into which the Romans had been cast by the gospel. That is, their willful, sincere obedience to the gospel moulded them into servants of righteousness rather than sin.

My position is that there is but one condition for baptism, and that is faith in Jesus. “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved,” says Jesus. It was to believers that Peter said “repent and be baptized.” No requirements are laid down about knowledge or comprehension. God will take care of all the benefits and blessings, for that is His part, not ours. Even when one supposes that some of the blessings come before baptism, the fact remains that he has believed and been immersed. All who do that are my brothers, however well or poorly be their knowledge of the theology of baptism.

We always hear “You can’t be taught wrong and be baptized right.” which is usually a ploy against the Baptists or somebody. The statement begs the question, for the fact is that one may hear the truth about Jesus from people who are wrong about a lot of things (like us!), and if he goes on to obey Jesus in baptism, he has obeyed the gospel like anyone else. Most all that any of us know we have learned from “people in error,” for the simple reason that there aren’t any other kind. But “people in error” are also people who have some truth, and if one believes that and is baptized, then he is a Christian — whoever be the “people in error” from whom he learned that truth. So, yes, one can be baptized right, if, along with the error, he learned the truth about Jesus.

There is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and that is not “Baptist baptism,” “Christian Church baptism,” or “Church of Christ baptism,” or any other kind of sectarian baptism, if indeed there are such baptisms. If one believes in Jesus and is immersed into him, he becomes a member of the Body, and it doesn’t matter who baptizes him or where he is baptized. Nor does it matter whether he realizes it is for the remission of sins or whether he knows he receives the Spirit or whether he understands it is the washing of regeneration. Jesus does not talk about the theology of baptism, but simply “He who believes and is baptized …”

What I am saying has been the position of Restoration leaders from the outset. Alexander Campbell was himself immersed by a Baptist, and it was not until his debate with McCalla seven years later that the import of “for the remission of sins” dawned on him. Barton Stone and his fellow Presbyterians immersed each other, and it was not until he met Campbell 20 years later that he related baptism to salvation. Numerous Restoration leaders “came over” from the Baptists, including John T. Johnson, Raccoon John Smith, Jacob Creath and William Hayden, and it never occurred to any of them to be rebaptized. Old church records of those days carry the common entry of “Received from the Baptists …” with the names following, a list always distinguished from those who were received by baptism.

Our Movement was almost a century old before anyone got the idea of reimmersing people already immersed. By reading Steve Eckstein’s History of Churches of Christ in Texas one will learn of how Austin McGary started the Firm Foundation as a kind of “rebaptism faction,” for it was the medium through which McGary and others fostered a movement to reimmerse all those who were not baptized “for the remission of sins,” meaning of course that the believer had to have an understanding of this before his baptism. David Lipscomb, editor of the Gospel Advocate, strongly opposed McGary in his contention, insisting that baptism need have but one antecedent, which is faith in Jesus as the Son of God. This was not only the beginning of Texas Church of Christism, but the origin of a feud that has long prevailed between Tennessee and Texas churches. Reimmersing Baptists became a big deal in Texas, but it was something strictly new to the Restoration Movement.

When McGary and others pressed the point upon Lipscomb that Baptists are baptized because their sins are already remitted, Uncle Dave fired back by saying that surely no one ever has been immersed because his sins are already remitted. True, he may believe his sins are already forgiven at the time of his baptism, Lipscomb conceded, but that is not why he is baptized. He is baptized in view of Christ, Uncle Dave observed, because he believes, or for obedience, or because Jesus was; but never for the reason that his sins are remitted. Lipscomb further showed that one can’t be baptized for the remission of sins anyway, as if it were by his power. The believer is to obey Jesus in being baptized, leaving it to God to bestow whatever His grace and mercy allow.

But it was Alex Campbell himself who was the most adamant against reirnmersion, and we may conclude that he would not have reimmersed one already immersed even if it were requested of him. He made but one exception. If one were void of faith in Jesus when he was immersed, then he should experience believer’s baptism, and not just get wet.

He wrote at length on this subject in the 1831 Millenial Harbinger (p. 481 f). He explains that if a preacher immerses one .who is already an immersed believer he is burying a live disciple, which is against the law! He says, “Indeed, I know not how any proclaimer of the gospel, how any intelligent disciple, can presume to bury a living disciple; it is against the law! How can he immerse a believer a second time into Christ, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? He must have received a new commission. The old apostolic commission authorizes it not.”

Campbell deals with the arguments we still hear these days. Some are reimmersed because they didn’t understand it the first time, he recognizes. But neither will they understand it the second or third time, he says. Did those baptized by the apostles understand all about baptism?, he asks. He points to Ro. 6 as a sure indication that they didn’t. “Know ye not,” says Paul to them, “that as many of us who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death?” He does not instruct them to repeat the act because they didn’t know!

Others are reimmersed, Alex notes, for the peace of mind it brings them, but this is because they came to see the second time as a means of receiving that peace. But that peace is theirs in the first baptism, if they will but reflect upon it. Still others, he says, are baptized, sometimes for the third time, to receive the Holy Spirit, but this is because they are conditioned to associate the Spirit with that third time. It is theirs in the first.

He uses the analogies of marriage and naturalization to illustrate the point. At marriage one hardly understands all its blessings, but he need not go back and be married all over again as each new benefit occurs to him. In being naturalized a foreigner may understand that he can now vote, but it may never have occurred to him that he can be voted for. Now that he understands he can run for office, he does not have to go back and be renaturalized!

Campbell is especially uneasy over the notion of being baptized again since one did not understand it is “for the remission of sins.” Even if one believes he is saved before baptism, it is still his answer of a good conscience toward God, he notes. And to be reimmersed expressly “for the remission of sins” is to assume that baptism is an expiatory rite, that one goes to the laver of baptism much like the Jew went to the altar of sacrifice. “For one who has been baptized into Christ, confessing his faith in the person, character, and mission of Jesus, to be baptized a second time for the remission of sins by itself, or for the Holy Spirit by itself, or for anyone blessing, is without command, precedent, or reason from the New Testament,” he concludes.

This is why I use the term prostitution. An act can be prostituted as much as a business, a pulpit, or a person. I agree with Campbell. I would not baptize an immersed believer if it were requested of me, for it is against the law to bury live people! If one is not satisfied with his baptism, I would show him that his satisfaction is quite beside the point. He is to believe and obey. Leave the satisfaction to the Lord, for he is the one to be satisfied.

To “satisfy” people, to cause folk “to be sure,” or to zero in on some particular promise like the Spirit or remission, is to prostitute a divine ordinance.

The notion that it doesn’t hurt anything to be immersed again and again, so “if it would make you feel better, go to it,” only aggravates the prostitution, treating something holy as if it were some kind of a talisman to ward off evils or restore peace of mind. Immersion is an act to be obeyed, ordained as such by God. Its antecedent is the one fact to be believed, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. That is the way the scriptures cut it, and it is just as well that we leave it that way.

After all, baptism is not as much something that we do as something done to us. It is God’s washing, the washing of regeneration, to which we merely yield. Titus 3:5 makes it clear that we are saved “not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy.” Mercy saves us, not anything that we do, not even baptism. He goes on to show how mercy does it: “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” The action is God’s, not ours. He washes us in the laver of baptism; He renews us in the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit. We but yield to His plan for us.

The thought is the same in 1 Cor. 6:11. After showing that some of them had been thieves, drunkards, and homosexuals, Paul says, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” All these are middle voice rather than active. We don’t “get baptized” anymore than we “get sanctified,” if these are made to mean any credit at all to ourselves. In baptism God washes us in the cleansing blood of Jesus. He is the baptizer. We are the subjects who have no power whatever to perform “any deed of righteousness” that will save us or help save us. It is strictly by grace through faith, by His mercy.

Once we see immersion in this light, in the light of the Cross, rather than as some expiatory rite akin to the Jewish laver, we will no longer be led to “doubt our baptism” (as if it were the big deal!), and we will rather glory in his mercy that washes us. Once we see baptism as the response of faith to God’s grace rather than as an absolute and arbitrary command, we will not do such fiendish things as get a girl back in the water because the first time around someone saw an elbow protrude from the watery grave, an incident that has I happened twice that I know of at one of our Christian colleges.

No wonder our opponents have attacked us with such labels as “the Gospel of Water.” It has often been all. too true, but it need not be so if we always keep in mind that the glad tidings is always “the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). —the Editor