RESTORATION PREACHERS ON BAPTISM AND REBAPTISM
 Dallas Burdette

Few people today are aware of how or when the rediscovery of baptism for the remission of sins took place or on what positions the pioneers of the Movement took toward it. The general assumption seems to be that baptism for the remission of sins has been insisted upon from the beginning of the Restoration Movement. However, the historical facts speak otherwise.

In 1807, three years after “The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery”, Barton W. Stone’s unsuccessful defense of infant sprinkling (to a colleague who seemed to be in danger of defecting to the Baptists) resulted in his acceptance of the immersion of believers as scriptural baptism. Only after Stone and his fellow Christian preachers had immersed one another did he conclude that baptism was for the remission of sins. Even then, his attempts to offer an invitation based on Acts 2:38 were not well received and he continued to use the “mourner’s bench” system until at least 1825. Stone commented later concerning this period:

The subject of baptism now engaged the attention of the people very generally. and some, with myself, began to conclude that it was ordained for the remission of sins. . . .Into the spirit of the doctrine I was never fully led, until it was revived by Brother Campbell, some years later. (Biography, 29-31)

Alexander Campbell was led to make a thorough investigation of the subject of infant baptism following the birth of his first child in 1812, some two and one-half years after Thomas Campbell had broken with Presbyterianism, formed the Christian Association of Washington, and published the “Declaration and Address.” Campbell had the following to say concerning that June day when he and his father and five others were immersed as believers:

I was immersed by a Regular Baptist, but not in a Regular Baptist way. I stipulated with Matthias Luce that I should be immersed on the profession of the one fact, or proposition, that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God, when I solicited his attendance with me on that occasion. He replied that it was not usual for the Baptist to immerse simply on that profession; but that he believed it to be scriptural. Fearing, however, to be called to account for it by some of his brethren, he solicited the attendance of Henry Spears, a very worthy brother, for whose undissembled piety I always cherish the highest regard, to accompany him and to hear the half of the censure which might fall upon him for this great aberration from the good old Baptist way. Brother Spears accompanied him, and on this profession alone I was immersed; nor have I ever immersed any person but upon the same profession which I made myself. (Mill. Harb., 1832, 319)

Neither Stone nor the Campbells were ever reimmersed after discovering that baptism was intended for the remission of sins. Robert Richardson, in his monumental biography of A. Campbell, mentioned other preachers who had not been baptized with the understanding that their baptism was for the remission of sins:

Mr. Scott, Elder Bentley, and some others of the prominent preachers, were indeed aware that Mr. Campbell had spoken of it at the McCalla debate as a pledge of pardon, but in this point of view it was, as yet, contemplated only theoretically, none of them having so understood it when they were themselves baptized, and being yet unable properly and practically to realize or apprehend its importance in this respect. (Vol. 2, 207)

It was not until eleven years later that Campbell discovered the relation of baptism to remission of sins as he developed arguments against infant baptism in preparation for his debate with McCalla. But even four years after this he left it to Walter Scott to pioneer preaching of the doctrine and putting it into practice. Campbell, in his Extra on Remission of Sins in 1830, wrote:

We can sympathize with those who have this doctrine in their own creeds unregarded, and unheeded in its import and utility; for we exhibited it fully in our debate with Mr. McCalla, 1823, without feeling its great importance, and without beginning to practice upon its tendencies for sometime afterwards. (Mill. Harb., 1830, 50)

It was in 1827 that Walter Scott, having been hired by the Mahoning Baptist Association as its evangelist, first began preaching baptism for the remission of sins. Quoting Acts 2:38 as his proof, he had astounding success and baptized hundreds. Scott’s teaching is a landmark, not because it was the first time this understanding of baptism had been set forth in the Restoration Movement, but because it marked the turning point in public teaching on the subject. Robert Richardson wrote:

The people were filled with bewilderment at the strange truths brought to their ears, and now exemplified before their eyes in the baptism of a penitent for a purpose which now, on the 18th of November, 1827, for the first time since the primitive ages was fully and practically realized. (Memoirs, Vol 2, 212)

In his dialogue on reimmersion, Alexander Campbell addresses the following argument to a fictitious opponent who championed the rebaptism position.

Why on all your definitions of the kingdom, supposing as you do, that he that is not formally and understandingly immersed for the remission of sins cannot enter into this kingdom of heaven; and it being a fact that before the year 1823, since the fifth century, baptism for the remission of sins was not preached, and not until the year 1827 were many immersed with this apprehension of the subject. The dilemma in which your assumption fairly places you is this—either the promise of God has failed, or such persons as were baptized as you were the first time, are in the kingdom. (Mill. Harb., 1832, 121)

The rediscovery of remission of sins as part of the design of baptism was bound to lead, sooner or later, to someone’s questioning whether baptism could be validly administered to a person who did not understand the purpose. Dr. John Thomas was apparently the first to emphasize rebaptizing those who did not understand “for remission of sins” at the time of their baptism. In the Millennial Harbinger of 1836, A. Campbell quoted from the Religious Herald, a journal hostile to the Restoration Movement, and eager to point out the difference of opinion between Campbell and Thomas on rebaptism:

Progress of the Reformation — Re-baptizing — We understand that Mrs. Dr. Thomas was recently re-baptized for the remission of sins. Mrs. T. had previously been baptized on a profession of her faith, as we understand, by Mr. Burnet the Reformer. Recently her mind had become disquieted as to the validity of her baptism. Being confined to her room, and yet anxious to have the ordinance readministered, a bathing-tub was procured, carried into her room, filled with warm water, and Mrs. T. immersed for the remission of her sins, by Mr. Joseph Woodson, one of the members of Sycamore church. Mr. Campbell objects to this amendment of his new theory — but who shall decide when Doctors disagree? (Mill. Harb., 1836, 231)

In his Extra for December, 1837, Mr. Campbell spoke out against what he regarded as the schismatical drift of Dr. Thomas.

His re-immersion for the Baptist, and his no prayer system of preaching the word together with his representing all those immersed among the Baptist as immersed antichrist, are strong indications of the schismatical drift of our Apostolic Advocate. (Mill. Harb., 1837, p. 387)

From the beginning the rebaptism issue grew into the third most significant controversy to plague the Church of Christ — after missionary societies and mechanical instruments of music. Austin McGary established the Firm Foundation in September, 1884, for the purpose of advocating rebaptism. David Lipscomb, editor of the Gospel Advocate, vigorously denied McGary’s teaching on rebaptism. He contended that when a man believed in Jesus, repented of his sins, and was baptized in order to obey God, he was then a Christian. Lipscomb, answering a question on baptism, said:

To take one truth or one motive out of a number given by God and say, “This one shall be understood, and the others need not be,” is to do violence to the order of God, and is to crystallize a sect around a truth, wrested from its God given place, ignoring other truths just as important. This is to form a sect. (Queries and Answers, 66)

Lipscomb prodded McGary to deny that A. Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, and “That host of heroes” were Christians because they had not been baptized for the remission of sins. McGary boldly answered that if Campbell was not baptized for the remission of sins, his baptism was null and void. Undoubtedly he did not know that Campbell had not been baptized for the remission of sins, as he called him “brother.” Tolbert Fanning did not advocate rebaptism, saying:

We teach the Baptists the Christian religion and after understanding the great facts, if they are satisfied with their baptism, I know of no brother who would not fellowship them. (James R. Wilburn, Hazard of the Die, 70)

Lloyd Sears, in his biography of James A. Harding, describes one incident which should serve as a valuable practical example for brethren today:

On the “rebaptism” issue, which was threatening to divide the church, J. D. Tant was invited to give a series of lectures opposing the views of Harding and Lipscomb. L. S. Chambers relates that he was surprised to see Harding, after a lecture, put his arm around Tant and walk with him across the campus to Harding’s home for dinner. He learned to his astonishment and his great joy that “brethren could be brethren though they differed.” (p. 146)

Obviously there are some instances when individuals should be reimmersed. If a person is lacking in either faith or repentance and receives baptism merely to follow the crowd, to get a handout from the church, to silence a nagging wife or husband, or to accomplish some other unworthy purpose, such a baptism could hardly be acceptable to God. Also, if a person receives baptism out of a sincere motive but has been given inadequate or false fundamental teaching concerning Jesus as the Son of God, as in the case of the disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19, his baptism is manifestly invalid. But if a person genuinely believes and repents, I do not believe that he is required to understand fully the efficacy of baptism in order to make it acceptable to God. If an individual is obedient to the gospel because of his or her faith in the Lord Jesus, that person’s baptism is valid.

This is essentially the view held by Alexander Campbell as he emphatically points out what he believes are the disastrous consequences of any other view.

Let me once more say, that the only thing which can justify reimmersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a confession on the part of the candidate that he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God—that he died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, at the time of his first immersion—that he now believes the testimony of the Apostles concerning him, and desires to be buried and rise with Christ in faith to a resurrection to eternal life. The instant that rebaptism is preached and practiced on any other ground than that now stated—such as deficient knowledge, weak faith, a change of views—then have we contradicted in some way and made void the word of the Lord — “He who will believe and be immersed shall be saved” — then have we abandoned the principles of the present reformation, instituted experience meetings, committees for examining candidates, changed the bond of union, and made something else than belief of the gospel facts the faith of the gospel. (Mill. Harb., 1836, 63)

The scriptural design of baptism is manifold; it is for salvation, for rebirth, for admission into a new relationship with God and his people, for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and for the remission of sins. Perfect understanding of the design(s) and their effects are not essential in establishing the validity of baptism. The desire to obey God is the sufficient motive.—2428 Elsmead Dr., Montgomery, AL 36111