|
 A
letter from Pennsylvania asks if one must understand that baptism is for
the remission of sins before he can scripturally baptized.
It
was in 1823, eleven years after his baptism, that Alexander Campbell
concluded that baptism was for the remission of sins. Austin McGary
established the Firm Foundation in 1884 with the intention of discussing
this subject. His firm "yes" caused many to think him an
extremist; and he and D. Lipscomb (who answered with the then popular
"No") engaged in journalistic cross-fire on the subject for
several years (Search For Anc. Order, West; Vol. 2, p.405-f.). Which
proves nothing scriptural, but may prompt a more objective look at
matters.
Many
denominations teach that somewhere along the line of hearing the gospel,
learning, believing and obeying, we have remission of sins. Now ask,
"At what point along the line?" and let the scriptures
answer They affirm (it is not our purpose here to argue the case) it is
at the point of baptism (ACT.2:38, 22:16). This is when forgiveness does
take place, regardless of what Campbell, McGary or anyone else thought
about it.
Must
the candidate know that he must be baptized? Must implies
submission to authority and suggests an adverse effect should we fail to
comply. And the scriptures say the Lord is that authority — not some
"church regulation" or accepted social practice. Frequently
people equate the "doctrine of the church" with the teaching
of the Lord — when in reality they may have little in common. If ones
allegiance and hence ones submission is actually "to
|
|
the church" — having little or no
knowledge of the teaching of Christ -- I do not see how their
baptism could be "to obey the Lord." (I am fully aware
that many candidates have put their trust in a sectarian concept of
"The Church of Christ" and I will repeat for emphasis, I
do not see how their baptism could be "to obey the Lord.")
Try
honestly considering the passages that would teach you that you must
be baptized, and see if you can avoid the WHY? "Fulfill
righteousness’" lest you "reject the council of
God" against yourself, "shall be saved" "make
disciples, baptizing" "for the remission of sins"
"wash away thy sins" etc. The details, the fine and
technical points, might easily be missed — but by the time one
learned that he must be baptized, I believe he would have learned
enough of the reason to make baptism valid.
The
point IS NOT that someone other than a gospel preacher "did the
baptizing" or that "the right words" (whatever they
are) were not uttered at the time of the baptizing; or that "it
was not Church of Christ baptism" (whatever that is); or,
etc.,etc. The matter hinges on — was the subject properly taught,
so that he/she came to Christ, as a result of being taught, hearing
and learning Christ This is the only valid way. (JOH.6:45)
The
subject’s understanding, not the preacher’s, is the key. Often
the years dim or change one’s concept of what his
understanding was at the time of baptism, but he must face God with
his conscience, not mine.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
