00B.26 Chapter 19--Why Methodists Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies--No. 11

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

No. 11 PASSAGES PERVERTED FOR THE SAKE OF A DOGMA

We have several times resolved to leave Editor Swift to his own devices in his contention for pouring as a substitute for baptism, as he is not making any arguments for his prac­tice that deserve or even need any reply. But our readers insist that his perversions of the Scriptures should be ex­posed. Even though he does not prove his point by the passages he uses, he so perverts these Scriptures as to leave his readers confused about them. It is thought by many that the passages should be cleared of the rubbish of false interpretation and their language clearly set forth so that all will see the meaning.

Yielding to this suggestion, we shall in this article notice two passages that have been miserably misused by the editor of the Methodist Herald. And this is made the more important since this same false interpretation is often used by others. Let us therefore study the passages prayerfully.

John 3:5 The first of the two passages that we are to study is John 3:5. This is the language of our Savior to Nicodemus. The expression, "born of water and the Spirit," is the whole cause of the trouble. The Methodist Herald disposes of the passage in the following manner:

"BORN OF WATER" The above words are found in John 3:5, when Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This is a stronghold of some of our immersionist friends, and yet there is not a drop of water in it, as far as it concerns water baptism. There are not three births mentioned in this conversation of Jesus—only two. If there had been three births, then the sentence should have read, "Except a man be born twice more," etc. "Born again" means another time. "Born of water" is a delicate phrase for the natural birth. In the birth of a child, when it is not "born of water," otherwise called a "dry birth," it is almost death to a mother. Physicians comprehend the meaning here. Nicodemus asked Jesus two questions: "How can a man be born when he is old?" and "Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" Jesus immediately answered in these words: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Then, to more fully explain what he meant, he added: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." In other words, "that which is born of the flesh," woman or womb, is flesh. Cannot an ordinary reader understand this, and why should it be hard for a theologian? This language may have been used to show the impor­tance or the design of baptism, but we were not aware that it is a favorite text in the pouring-immersion controversy. In fact, there are many immersionists—the Baptists—who pervert this language in the same way that Editor Swift has and make "water" mean something other than hudor, aqua, water. And, on the other hand, there are many affu- sionists who say that this refers to baptism. We shall quote from some of these; but first let us notice the editor’s ex­planation. He says that "water" means flesh, and that this refers to the natural birth. Thus he uses the word in both a figurative and a literal sense at the same time. Figura­tively, it means the birth of the body, the flesh, from the body or flesh of the natural parents. Literally, it refers to the literal, actual water that is present in the natural birth. This is such an obvious misuse of language, to say nothing of the ludicrous turn it gives the Scripture, that it seems that a thinking man would be ashamed to put it forth. But the editor says that if we do not make this refer to the natural birth we will have three births —one of the flesh, one of water, and one of the Spirit! Christ should have said, "Except a man be born twice more," the editor avows. But this is only one of his characteristic quibbles. The language does not read "of water" and "of the Spirit," as though it were two births of different elements. But it says "of water and the Spirit"—one birth of two elements. There are two births here contrasted. One birth was of the flesh, and it was the body or the flesh part of man that was born then. The second birth is of water and the Spirit, and it is the soul or spirit part of man that is born in this birth. The water is an element in this new birth, the second birth, which is contrasted with the first or natural birth.

If we should eliminate all allusion to baptism in this passage, what would we do with the other passages that clearly show that baptism is connected with regeneration. or the new birth? Paul speaks of the "washing of regenera­tion." (Titus 3:5.) The word for "regeneration" is the same word that is used for born, or birth, in John 3:5. There is something in this birth called a washing. (See, also, 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Hebrews 10:22; Acts 22:16.) Paul him­self had his sins washed away when he was converted, or regenerated, and his washing was done in baptism. The scholarship of the world understands that the water in John 3:5 refers to baptism. John Wesley says: "Except a man b e born o f the water and the Spirit —except he ex­perience that great inward change by the Spirit, and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it." ("Wesley’s Notes.") In the Methodist ritual the preacher who is about to administer baptism is told to say: "Dearly beloved, foras­much as all men are conceived and born in sin . . . and that our Savior Christ saith, ’Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’; I be­seech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant to these persons that which by nature they cannot have: that they may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ’s holy church, and be lively mem­bers of the same." (Methodist "Discipline"—old edition— formula for baptism.) As a Scripture reading for a baptismal service, the "Dis­cipline" gives John 3:1-8. If there is no allusion to baptism in this passage, why read it at a baptismal service? In his "Commentary on the Ritual of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South," which is endorsed and published and distributed by the Methodist Episcopal Church, Dr. Thomas O. Summers says that this passage refers to baptism. The following is his comment: To be born of water is to be baptized with water. Symbolical regeneration by baptism introduces a man into the kingdom of God externally considered, as spiritual regeneration by the Holy Ghost introduces a man into the kingdom of God spiritually considered. The analogy obtained under the old dispensation, in regard to the "circumcision which is outward in the flesh," and the "circumcision of the heart, in the spirit." (Romans 2:28-29.) By not recognizing this distinction, and to escape the absurd and dangerous error of "baptismal regeneration," so called, some have forced another inter­pretation upon this passage by hendiadys—as if it meant "born of water, even of the Spirit"—the water being the Spirit. But this is harsh, and the structure (literally of "water and Spirit") will not allow it. There is not only no necessity on dogmatic grounds, but no possibility on grammatical and other considerations, of repudiating the common view, which has been held by nearly all interpreters, ancient and modern.

Thus, Dr. Summers not only says that baptism is here alluded to, but he says that this is the view held by nearly all interpreters. He answers the quibble that says "water" means "Spirit." He probably never thought that a Methodist editor would ever contend that the water is the flesh birth and the Spirit is the new birth! But then very little of what Editor Swift says would be endorsed by the scholars of his own church. 1 Peter 3:20-21 The second passage that has been so woefully misused is 1 Peter 3:20-21. The following quotation from the Methodist Herald will show our readers what the editor did for that passage: This to many is a difficult passage, yet it is clear when we get the right viewpoint. How anyone can get immersion out of this statement is strange indeed. The antediluvians (wicked people) were the ones drowned or immersed. The "eight souls were saved" by keeping out of the water. If they got any water on them at all, it must have been rained on them—sprinkled or poured. This is A clear case. "The like figure whereunto," Greek scholars say, should be translated "the antitype to which." The world was wicked, defiled, and steeped in sin, but was cleansed by water. Water was poured on the world. Sinners like those in the Red Sea were immersed and drowned. The antediluvians would not obey the Lord and were drowned. Noah and his family came into the ark and were saved—had a clear conscience. If we repent and do like Noah and his family—come into the ark—the Holy Ghost gives wit­ness to a clear conscience that we are saved. Hebrews 10:22 says: "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Water baptism is a sign of Holy Ghost cleansing. How was that done? Read again:"Havingour hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." Noah and his family were not immersed. Even a child can understand such a thing. Besides, A child can see that water was sprinkled or poured upon them—ark and all. "Were saved by water." By means of an ark being built that floated on water. By this method they were saved, not in A flood or being immersed. Noah believed in God and obeyed God, and on the water and not going under it was saved. If we come into the ark, Christ Jesus, and live true to the sign administered— baptism by pouring, sign of the Holy Ghost cleansing—we shall have a "good conscience toward God." "The like figure"—"baptism doth also now save us." The Old Testament starts with sprinkling and pouring as a sign of the Holy Ghost cleansing from sin, and the New Testament ends with the same figure. No one ever claimed that Noah and his family were bap­tized by any method or mode. The Bible does not say that they were baptized. The passage says that their salvation —not their baptism—was a figure or type of our salvation. They were saved b y water —not by being sprinkled with it or by being immersed in it, but by being borne up by it and by floating on it. In true antitype we are saved by baptism, says Peter. The water of the flood by which they were saved is analogous to baptism, by which we are saved. Of course Noah’s faith and obedience is what saved him; the water was only an element in the salvation which his faith obtained. In like manner we are saved by faith and obedi­ence, and baptism is only an act that expresses our faith and submission. Water is only an element in this obedience of faith. This passage in Peter certainly cannot give any comfort to affusionists. Peter says that baptism is not an ablution, not a bath for cleansing the body, or, as he expresses it, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh." Peter was afraid some uninformed persons might think that baptism was intended as a bath or a cleansing of the body instead of affecting the conscience, soul or spirit, and he made the point clear that baptism has a spiritual and not a physical significance. Now, if baptism in Peter’s day had been per­formed by sprinkling a few drops of water upon a person’s head, no heathen would ever have imagined that it was done for a washing or a cleansing of the body! The nature of baptism might have caused some heathen to suppose that it was intended as an ablution. This accounts for the apostle’s parenthetical explanation. Neither sprinkling nor pouring is or ever was baptism.

Scholars could be quoted on this passage, but we deem not necessary.