What Must One Know About Baptism for It to Be Valid (2)?
[Editor's Note: In examining Campbell's answer on baptism to a woman in Lunenburg, Virginia, we are looking at his claim that a person "greatly errs if he thinks that only the immersed are Christians." We continue with our criticism of that statement.]
The alternative is that those who have never been immersed are Christians. In other words, those who were sprinkled as children are saved if they believe and repent as adults. This position is approximate to that held today by Max Lucado who, in a speech given at the 1995 Pepperdine Bible Lectures, said:
For that reason we must say with utter confidence that when we see one who with pure heart calls God father [sic], the one who with pure heart calls Jesus savior [sic], we see a brother or sister. We don't have a vote! (applause)
Why did Campbell reverse his position? Louis Cochran, who wrote a biography of him, attributed the reversal to divisive attitudes that Truth was engendering among those professing to be Christians. Fictionalizing Campbell's thoughts, Cochran records:
... Alexander found his reactions undergoing a subtle change. He no longer felt the compulsion to dip his pen in vitriol and lash out at his tormentors. All were brothers in the Lord.
One of Campbell's initial goals had been to unite believers; he may have felt that Truth was leading them in a different and unproductive direction. It should have been no surprise, however, to discover that standing for Jesus and the Truth He delivered (John 14:6) causes division among people: Jesus had taught as much (Matt. 10:34). A second reason for the change is suggested by Campbell's view of the broader picture. If his view of baptism was correct, then all of those who professed Christ throughout the "Dark Ages" were not saved; furthermore, the church did not exist during that era. Here is the first paragraph from his response to the woman in Lunenburg, Virginia.
In reply to this conscientious sister, I observe, that if there be no Christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none among the Romanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans; and therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus. Therefore, for many centuries there has been no church of Christ, no Christians in the world; and the promises concerning the everlasting kingdom of Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell have prevailed against his church! This cannot be; and therefore there are Christians among the sects.
Whether or not the church existed on earth (it could never cease to exist, period) should not be the criterion for determining the validity of Bible doctrines. Truth cannot be proven true or false by people's willingness to obey or disobey it; consider the attitude of the world at the time of the flood or of God's own people prior to the Babylonian captivity.
The third reason for Campbell's retreat may well have involved a disposition of mind with respect to a separate but related issue, often termed the reimmersion or the rebaptism issue. A decision had to be made regarding the genuineness of the baptism of those who came from denominations, desiring to be part of the church. Many had been immersed (though not for the forgiveness of sins); should they be baptized again, or was their first baptism sufficient? Campbell, on the basis of their piety and good character (in other words, sincerity), determined to accept them.
The problem with using sincerity as the main criterion for determining another's salvation is that it becomes increasingly difficult, in the final analysis, to exclude anyone. Protestants are sincere, charismatics are sincere, Catholics are sincere, Muslims are sincere, Buddhists are sincere, even atheists are sincere. But how many of them are walking in the light, according to the teachings of the Word of God? It was not out of Divine idleness that God linked together sincerity and truth so many times in the Scriptures (Joshua 24:14, 1 Sam. 12:24, John 4:23-24, Rom. 6:17-18).
The spirit of this age may be "multi-culturalism," in which all things (including various religions) are equalized, but Jesus did not come to this earth to be accommodative to mankind. He did not praise the scribes and Pharisees as sincere religious folk, and He did not idolize "getting along" as the highest priority. Christians will be far more pleasing to God when they realize that Jesus was exclusivistic. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Not only is He the only way to the Father, but He must take precedence over all earthly relationships (Luke 14:26-27). He must also be obeyed (Luke 6:46); furthermore, He must be obeyed in all things (Matt. 7:21-27). Those who never obey the gospel are excluded from His fellowship (2 The. 1:7-9), as are those who fail to follow His teachings (whether in morality—1 Cor. 5, doctrine—2 John 9-11, or zeal—Rev. 2:5-6 and 3:14-20). The only difference is that the former group never had His fellowship while the latter lost it.
God wants all men to be saved from their sins, and Jesus died for that purpose, but salvation is attained by complying with God's will, not doing something one feels is more preferable, trusting that God will "understand." Fellowship with Him can only be achieved on His terms (obeying "from the heart that form of doctrine"); likewise, fellowship must be maintained on that same basis (loving obedience). God loves all mankind, but His sense of justice will not allow Him to forgive everyone carte blanche—without conditions. He therefore instituted a means by which those who genuinely love and appreciate Him could come to Him and enjoy His blessed fellowship. That plan of salvation involves 1) faith in God and in Jesus as His Son, 2) repentance of sins, 3) confession of Jesus' Deity, and 4) burial with Christ in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. The blood of Christ thereupon washes sins away (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5), and the old man is a new creation, a Christian, who now (due to the purity of his soul) has entered into fellowship with the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. [The Christian at this point has the responsibility to grow (1 Pet. 2:2) and to go "on unto perfection" (Heb. 6:1).]
If one thousand years elapsed without even one soul obeying the gospel (as described above), such a sad reality would not negate or mitigate in the slightest God's system of salvation. Truth cannot be reduced in value like an art object at an auction. People aren't being immersed anymore? Let's change the Word to include "sprinkling." Babies are being "baptized" and "confirmed" when they are older? Okay, let's still count them as Christians anyway. With this attitude of compromise, how long would it be before God noticed that people were refusing to repent any more, either? This excursion into absurdity demonstrates the reason that Campbell's "about-face" was wrong.
The fact that the majority of people professing to be Christians in the "Dark Ages" (who were sprinkled instead of being immersed) were lost does not somehow discredit baptism "for the remission of sins." If the whole world believed and practiced error, God would still have no obligation to renege on, alter, or change the Truth. God has revealed His Word and preserved it for us; we have the obligation to learn it and obey it. We must be diligent in those efforts (Heb. 11:6). For the same reason, those immersed for some purpose other than obtaining forgiveness of sins have yet to be actually baptized. This controversy is the focus of the next section.
"The Second Wave of Controversy—Reimmersion"
We must pass over this part of the material except to make some points relative to the discussion.
1. Must those being baptized know that such is for the forgiveness of sins? If a person does not know the purpose for baptism, exactly what has he been taught? Was the preaching of John ambiguous? Do not the Scriptures say: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4)? Did people come to John, saying, "We didn't understand at all the message you presented, but we want to be baptized in order to obey you"? The people understood exactly what they were doing, and "were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mark 1:5).
If John was that articulate, can we honestly imagine that Jesus made the purpose for baptism more obscure? He told Nicodemus: "Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). A new birth implies putting to death the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-7) and becoming a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). Jesus and His disciples baptized in the land of Judea (John 3:22); eventually they baptized more disciples than John (John 4:1-2). Now where is the account of someone hearing John or Jesus preach and failing to understand the purpose for baptism? And where is the example of Jesus or His disciples saying, "You don't have to know what it's for; just do it"?
When Jesus gave the great commission in Mark 16:15-16, the apostles knew exactly what He meant. And even though we have had centuries of confusion between then and the present day, the careful reader should make the connection between Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, and Luke 24:47, which omits mentioning the word baptism, but states: "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." Surely, if the three passages are considered parallel, no one could miss the fact that baptism is preached in connection with the remission of sins. How fortuitous that in the first Gospel sermon (preached on the day of Pentecost) Peter proclaims: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Saul would likewise be told years later, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).
A fair consideration of these passages should make it clear that the purpose for baptism was preached along with the command to be baptized. One must know what he is doing when he obeys the Gospel. If he does not, then either the Gospel was not presented, or it was not understood. In either case, the "baptism" was not valid. If the Gospel was not presented, how can one be said to "obey" it (2 The. 1:8)? If it was not understood, sincerity may have been present—but not Truth. Peter says that we purify our souls "in obeying the truth" (1 Pet. 1:22). We must know the purpose for baptism; absolutely nothing in the New Testament indicates otherwise.
2. Is baptism valid if one does so to obey Jesus? Again, the question must be asked, "Where is the passage of Scripture or the Biblical principle that proves this idea? Jesus also commanded that we observe His body and blood (Mat. 26:26-29). In the worship assembly sits an eight-year-old visitor. He has heard that Jesus commanded it, and he sees everyone else partaking of the bread and the cup; he joins them "to obey Jesus." Is such acceptable? He may be sincere, but he does not have the proper knowledge. That is precisely the reason that baptism "to obey Jesus" is not valid; it may be according to sincerity, but the proper knowledge is lacking.
3. Does denominational baptism result in the forgiveness of sins if one believes he is already saved when he is baptized? Can anyone imagine someone coming to John, saying, "I believe I am already saved, but go ahead and baptize me anyway"? John would probably respond, "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Mat. 3:7). Jesus could have consistently said, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick" (Mat. 9:12).