Adventures of the Early Church …

BAPTISM BY IMMERSION: A TEST OF FELLOWSHIP?

My opinion is that immersion only is baptism. But shall I therefore make my opinion a term of Christian fellowship? If in this case I thus act, where shall I cease from making my opinions terms of fellowship? Barton W. Stone, Christian Messenger, Vol. 5 (1831), p. 19.

I cannot, therefore, make anyone duty the standard of the Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and in my heart regard all that have been sprinkled in infancy without their knowledge and consent, as aliens from Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven. - Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, 1837, p. 412.

Whatever conclusion is reached in this article, it is evident at the outset that our two leading pioneers did not take a hard-line view of immersion, even though they were staunch immersionists.

And this is an affirmation I will make early on, that I too, like Stone and Campbell, am a staunch immersionist in that I was myself immersed and I teach others that this is the mode of baptism as revealed in the Scriptures, as I understand it.

There is what might be called “a divine order” of faith, repentance, and baptism (immersion) in the New Testament. It is evident in Mk. 16:16: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” —faith, repentance (implied), and baptism. And in acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” —faith (implied), repentance, baptism. This passage further reveals that remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit follow baptism. And so the “order” could be made to read: faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This conclusion is supported by numerous passages, such as Acts 18:8 “Many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized,” the story of the eunuch in Acts 8, who when he became a believer was baptized, the going down into the water implying immersion (verse 38), and Acts 22:16, which may be the most persuasive reference of all: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” The order in the case of Paul’s response was faith, repentance, baptism, which we may conclude was by immersion, especially in the light of Rom. 6:4, where he includes his own experience: “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death.”

The “order” or “plan” that our people have pointed to since the time of Walter Scott, faith, repentance, baptism, forgiveness of sins, Holy Spirit, can be defended as usually the way it is in Scripture. But this may be one reason why many of us have been dogmatic on this subject when the likes of Stone and Campbell were not. We have taken the usual instances of Scripture and made an unbending rule of them.

It appears, for instance, that Paul received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. See Acts 9:17-19. It is clear that in the case of Cornelius the order is different, for they received the Spirit so gloriously (before being baptized) that there was some question as to whether they needed baptism. See Acts 10:47-48. This example is an important testimonial to the significance of baptism since an apostle goes on to command baptism. But still the order changes to faith, Holy Spirit, baptism. The case of the Samaritans is still different, for they believed and were baptized but did not receive the Spirit, not at least until further apostolic action. See Acts 8:14-17.

Surely we have to concede that one is a Christian if he has received the Holy Spirit. Paul is willing to define the Christian on this basis, one who has the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9). And yet some in the New Testament received the Spirit before they were baptized, which would make them Christians before they were baptized.

It is risky, in the light of Scripture, to make immersion absolutely necessary to becoming a Christian. We can contend with good reason that believers were usually immersed and then received the gift of the Holy Spirit, but we must allow for exceptions. It should be enough to urge people to become Christians in the manner usually set forth in the New Testament, particularly in the book of Acts. We can grant that there are exceptions while contending for “the usual order.”

With this more balanced view we, too, can glory in the salvation of the thief on the cross, and we don’t have to argue with the Baptists that he may have already been baptized (as I was taught back in my college days) or that he did not have to be since he lived before Christ died on the cross and the beginning of the New Covenant.

Why can’t we just admit - gloriously! - that of course the thief was saved without baptism and died a Christian unimmersed? His Was not the usual way one became a disciple (or Christian) even before Christ died on the cross. John the Baptist had preached baptism (immersion) unto repentance for the remission of sins (see Mk. 1:4), and he and his disciples, as well as the disciples of Jesus, were continually baptizing before Jesus died on the cross (Jn. 4:1-2). Those who became believers were baptized of John’s baptism, and those who rejected that baptism rejected the will of God, according to Lk. 7:29-30.

Ordinarily a believer like the thief would have been baptized, like all the others, but he couldn’t be baptized. He was nailed to a cross! But still he became a Christian and died a Christian.

So, if our friends point to the thief as an excuse for not being baptized, we can assure them that God is a God of love and mercy who does not expect anyone to do what is impossible, and that if they are nailed to a cross God does not expect them to be baptized, just as with the thief. But we can implore them to follow the “usual” course of becoming a Christian. Ordinarily sinners are not nailed to a cross and are free to make a faithful response to baptism. But if they are somehow confined and cannot be baptized, then of course the Lord does not expect it.

We must be cautious about drawing hard and fast lines as to precisely when one becomes a Christian. The safest definition of a Christian seems to be a follower of Christ, which would make disciple of Christ and Christian synonymous, which I believe to be the teaching of Scripture. Nor can we say there were no Christians until Pentecost, for wherever you have a disciple of Christ, one determined to take up his cross and follow Jesus (Lk. 9:23), you have a Christian.

The twelve apostles could say to Jesus “We have left all and followed you” (Lk. 18:28), which is as good a definition for a disciple of Christ or a Christian as you will find. By the way, do we know those twelve apostles were ever baptized (immersed)? It might be one’s opinion, a good opinion, that they were baptized of John’s baptism, but we can’t prove it. But we do know that those who became followers of Christ, even before Pentecost, were usually baptized. But not always. The apostles, due to their special call, may not have been. Since we don’t know we should avoid being dogmatists on the relationship between discipleship and baptism. Again, it should be enough to show that Christians or disciples, whether before or after Pentecost, were usually baptized.

But now you may ask whether they became Christians before or after baptism. Do we have to draw the line that hard and fast? It is enough to say that sinners became disciples of Christ by believing, repenting, and being baptized —in that order —usually!

Going back to the founding fathers of the Stone-Campbell Movement, it is apparent that they were aware of the problems I have raised, and so they were reluctant to make immersion absolutely essential to being a Christian and to being accepted into Christian fellowship.

Notice how they defined a Christian:

Barton W. Stone: “Let us still acknowledge all to be our brethren, who believe in the Lord Jesus, and humbly and honestly obey him, as far as they know his will, and their duty.” (Chris. Mess., Vol. 5 (1831), p. 21).

Alexander Campbell: “Who is a Christian? I answer, Everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys him in all things according to his measure of’ knowledge of his will.” (Mill. Harb., 1837, p. 411).

Even though these two men championed the doctrine of baptism by immersion for remission of sins, they stopped short of including it as an absolute in their definition of a Christian. Yet they immersed their thousands and tens of thousands. While Stone never preached baptism as an absolute, he could nonetheless say that “There is not one in 500 among us who has not been immersed.” While Campbell was sprinkled a Presbyterian and considered himself a Christian all the years of his youth before he was immersed, he nonetheless, when he was convinced that baptism should be by immersion, submitted to that ordinance at about age 25.

I am convinced that our position today should be what theirs was then, for this reflects the balance that we find in Scripture. We ourselves should submit to baptism by immersion and urge this upon others as the apostolic way of becoming a Christian, as we understand it. But we must realize that all through the centuries there has been much confusion and misunderstanding on this subject. You will observe that Stone, in the opening quotation, accepted his position on baptism as an opinion. We may make baptism itself a matter of faith for all, but the church has been so divided over the design and mode of baptism that we would do well to follow Stone and accept our position as our opinion or our interpretation, and thus recognize that devout, intelligent Christians differ with us.

This means that we should not make our understanding of baptism a test of fellowship or church membership. We should not because the New Testament does not. Nor did the early church. While immersion was almost certainly the practice in all the New Testament churches (since they did not have the problem with this subject that we have had since apostolic times), it was not baptism that was the basis of their unity and fellowship. The basis of union was the Spirit of Christ, which was reflected in their devotion to Jesus as Lord.

In referring to one of the great promises Jesus would say to them, “You who have followed me …” (Mt. 19:28). This is the essence of being a Christian. You who have followed me! should be our only test of fellowship, or loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord. This is what Campbell was saying in seeing the Christian as one who believes in Christ and obeys him insofar as he understands.

The ideal of “leaving our nets and following Christ” will give us a loftier basis for fellowship than baptism, for we may well have churches full of folk who have been baptized who are not followers of Jesus Christ. As old Isaac Errett put it, another of our pioneers, let Christlikeness be the test.

This was the greatest adventure of all to the early church, to follow Jesus Christ as Lord. This was their confession and their only creed, Jesus is Lord! It was a confession that sometimes led to martyrdom. It stood in contrast to the cry of rejection sometimes heard from a Jewish synagogue, Jesus is cursed! (which in Corinth seemed to have been next door to where Christians met, Acts 18:7). Paul explains in 1 Cor. 12:3 that no one can utter such a disclaimer of faith by the Spirit of God, but if one sincerely proclaims that Jesus is Lord it means that he has the Holy Spirit.

This cannot of course be a mere profession of the lips, but when one is a loyal disciple and confesses, perhaps even at the pain of death, that Jesus is Lord, this confirms that he is a faithful Christian and that the Holy Spirit inspires his faith. This confession is referred to also in Rom. 10:9 where the apostle expresses certitude that anyone who confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes that God raised him from the dead will be saved. While this takes nothing away from the importance of baptism, it shows what they considered crucial. If there were exceptions to baptism, there was none to this grand confession of the early church.

When I meet one who loves Jesus Christ and is following him the best he knows how, allowing for the weaknesses of the flesh (an allowance we reserve for ourselves!), I have met a Christian or a disciple. I should accept him as such, including a place at our side at church as my brother in the Lord, unconditionally.

In our ongoing acceptance of each other, we will help each other to grow closer and closer to the Lord. We will share all truth together, compromising at no point, but neither of us will call for parity in understanding or obedience in our common walk in the Lord. If his obedience is imperfect, he will make it right as he grows in the Lord. I am to give him room and time and not be pushy. If I find myself overly concerned about the fact that he has not yet been immersed, I am to remember that it is loyalty to Christ, in reference to where one is at any given point, that is the essence of being a Christian, and not immersion. And I should remember that while I may be thinking of the norm in reference to baptism, that even in the New Testament there are exceptions, as we have seen. I cannot therefore afford to conclude that only the immersed have received the Spirit of Christ.

If we have this more workable, more reasonable, more balanced, more scriptural, and certainly less sectarian and less legalistic view of baptism by immersion, we are likely to immerse more people, not fewer. It seemed to have worked that way with Barton Stone. But most of all we will be more Christian and we will have a position that will make possible an effective plea for the unity of all believers in Christ. —the Editor