00B.16 Chapter 9--Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies--No. 1

IX. "Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies"

No. 1 As has been mentioned on this page recently, Mr. W. A. Swift, editor of the Methodist Herald, is writing a series of editorials on baptism. In the issue of June 10 of his paper he gives his reasons for writing on this subject, and on the same page with his article he publishes the picture of John the Baptist pouring water upon the head of Jesus. He gave this picture to his readers when he announced his purpose to write on this question. He gives it to them again when he writes his apology for his promised editorials on this subject, and now he tells us that the picture shall appear each week as long as the discussion continues. No doubt he feels the need of the help the picture will give him; and when we remember that the picture is not only purely imaginary, a fiction, but that it is also a forgery, we see how extremely weak the editor’s cause is. But it is interesting to read the editor’s reasons for dis­cussing this question. His article is brief, and we give it in full below:

We are beginning a series of articles on "Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies." In the outset we are giving some reasons for doing so. When the writer was a boy, he was baptized by pouring and was perfectly satisfied with this mode. Hearing much preaching that assigned all perrons to the bad world who were not immersed, we were made to feel we would be lost if we did not change our attitude. No one can imagine the torment we endured for a time. Our preachers not believing that outward, exterior rites are necessary to salvation, they say very little upon the subject of baptism. Notwithstanding this, many of our people have been both­ered over this subject, and, more than this, hundreds of thousands in the past have left our church for no other reason than they were made to believe that pouring was not the proper mode of baptism. In our own dilemma we turned to the Bible for proof of the whole matter. We decided to settle the question solely on the word of God and not on the opinion of any man. It was soon settled in our mind, but the subject became so interesting that we have studied it more than almost any other subject outside of salvation. We were led to the conclusion, honestly and sincerely, that there is not a single passage of Scripture in the Bible that even indicates immer­sion, and in the articles to follow we propose to try to show our reasons for believing this way. We have never had a public debate on this subject and have no such intentions now. If others BELIEVE in baptism by immersion, we are not trying to change them from their views. We do not mean to waste a sheet of paper answering a letter for an argument. We merely want people to know what we do believe as Methodists and why we believe it. Could anyone object to this? Others have given their opinions almost every Sunday on what they believe. Why would not fairness and a Christian spirit accord to us such a privilege once in a lifetime?

We feel sure our people and those not of our persuasion who are fair and honest will welcome our free discussion. What would the average Methodist say were he asked, "Why do Methodists baptize by pouring and baptize babies?" He would have no reasonable an­swer at all. This, to the outsider, looks like Methodists have no reason for their attitude and that we are not honest in our contention. We do have reasons for our attitude, and this is why we are writing these articles. The word "immerse" or "immersion" is not found in the King James translation of our Bible, considered by the greatest scholars to be the best translation ever given to the world. The words "pour" and "sprinkle" are found in this same translation two hundred and four times. Can you imagine why? In the articles to follow we will try to tell you why. There is no account of the twelve apostles, men Christ called, being baptized by any mode whatever. If they did not have this rite in infancy, why did the Lord not see that they were baptized when he called them to this great work?

REMARKS Upon this article we desire to make a few observations.

1. Why Apologize? In our view of things, Editor Swift did not need to give any reasons to justify his efforts to find scriptural authority for his religious practice. The man who will not give such authority for his practice is the man to be condemned and avoided. The editor’s apology rather weakens his cause. Would a man feel it necessary to apologize for affirming that God is, or that Jesus is divine, or that morality is required of God? Do the Methodist editors and preachers apologize for writing and preaching on prohibition? No, indeed; they are all militant on that point! Why? The answer is easy: because they are right on that question. Millions of Methodists have had water sprinkled or poured upon them for baptism. Millions of other honest and intelligent people say this is not baptism at all; that this practice has absolutely no authority from the Bible, but that it is a relic of Roman Catholic presumption to change God’s laws. In view of this fact, the Methodist leaders should apologize to their people every day for not giving them a plain "Thus saith the Lord," so that they could not only feel safe and satisfy themselves, but could then answer their critics and refute the above charge.

2. Solely b y the Word o f God. The editor says that he settled this question for himself solely b y the word o f God. But when he comes to settle it for his readers he rakes up a relic of the Dark Ages, a picture which belongs among the superstitious falsehoods of Rome and which is on a par with the bones of the saints, the beard of the monks, and the milk from the breast of the "Ever Blessed Virgin" which the Catholics exhibit at Rome. And this picture must accompany and reinforce every article! Would not a plain statement from the word of God satisfy the Methodist readers?

3. Immersion Not Even Indicated! The editor says: "We were led to the conclusion, honestly and sincerely, that there is not a single passage of Scripture in the Bible that even indicates immersion." But still the Methodist "Discipline" authorizes the preachers to immerse people who prefer it! Thus the editor admits that a part of that which is author­ized by his "Discipline" is not even indicated in the Bible! Thus he admits that the practice of his church on one point does not have a single passage of Scripture to support it! It is done solely to please the whims of the people! When a man will place himself and his authorities before the world in that light, there is certainly no excuse for people who follow such a leader.

4. Will Not Argue. The editor said he would not waste a single sheet of paper in answering letters in argument. He seems to have some dark forebodings. Why did he think he would get such letters? But the editor says he does not want to change the views of anyone on this question. Then why is he writing? Why, he hopes to satisfy the consciences of those who are already committed to his view. It is easy to find Bible proof to satisfy us when we take our views with us to the word of God instead of going there to get our views. Our editor says that he is writing these articles because an "average" Methodist would have "no reasonable answer at all" to give anyone who might ask, "Why do Methodists baptize by pouring and baptize babies?" Does not the "average Methodist" have the Bible? When Editor Swift gets through with this discussion, the "average Methodist" who reads the Herald will be fully equipped for battle. He can silence his opponents by show­ing them a picture of John pouring water upon the head of our Savior! "Immerse" Not in the Bible. The editor says that the words "immerse" and "immersion" are not in the Bible, but that "sprinkle" and "pour" are in there two hundred and four times. Yes, and the word "Christian" is in the Bible only three times, but the word "devil" is in there hundreds of times! Shall we conclude, therefore, that the Bible sanctions devils much more than it does Christians? Of course not. We should learn how the Bible uses the two words. Exactly, and intelligent and honest people will see how the Bible uses "sprinkle" and "pour." Neither word is ever remotely related to baptism, and they are never used in connection with a baptismal service.

5. The Apostles Baptized. The editor says that Christ did not say anything to the apostles about being baptized when he called them, and he infers, therefore, that the apostles must have received this rite in infancy!

Baptism had never been heard of when the apostles were infants. Furthermore, Christ chose his apostles from among the disciples of John the Baptist. (See John 1:1-51) In Acts 1:1-26, when the apostles selected a man to take the place of Judas, Peter said he must be a man who had been with them from the baptism of John. The quali­fications of an apostle, therefore, required a man whose experience dated back to the baptism of John. The apostles were baptized by John in the Jordan River. The ’’average Methodist" is still waiting for a "reasonable answer."