The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

Introduction to the Didache

The early Christian work known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles was widely recognized in the early church. It was known to Eusebius, the early historian, who felt it necessary to comment that it was not genuine (Church History 3.25). The Didache, as this work is often referred to today, was lost for centuries to Christians. It was recovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios and published in 1883 [1]. The Didache has provoked an enormous amount of scholarly interest, not only with reference to it the text but to its preservation of traditions from the first century on Christian faith and practice.

The document was not written by the apostles themselves. Rather it seems that the author(s) intention was to give a brief summary of Christian doctrine for new converts and to provide instruction in life. Quasten believes the Didache is the oldest source of ecclesiastical law which we posses [2]. The argument for the Didache being quite early is summarized well by J. B. Lightfoot. He offers four lines of evidence:

1) itinerant prophecy has not yet been totally supplanted by permanent localized ministry
2) the episcopacy is not yet on the horizon [3]
3) the Agape feast appears to be part of the Eucharist
4) the archaic simplicity of its practical suggestions is consistent with the infancy of the church [4]

Schaff believes the document can be dated as early as AD 70 but prefers 90 to 100 [5]. Mitchell has argued that the Didache reflects stages of growth or development. Stage One, chapters 1-6, are the earliest dating as early as AD 50 but no later than AD 70. Stage Two, chapters 7-15, the liturgical section dates from AD 80 to 100. Stage Three, chapter 16, does not receive a date as near as I can tell. The final form for the document, however, is no later that AD 100 [6]. The date proposed by Schaff over a hundred years ago seems to be a near consensus though some scholars, as we noted, argue for a slightly earlier date [7]. Thus apostolic in authorship or not the Didache is a witness to first century Christianity.

Along with the date, the make up of the community that produced the Didache has been of particular interest down through the years. What kind of church or congregation produced and used the Didache? What kind of theological ideas found a home in that congregation? If it is possible to answer these questions then that will help us toward establishing a context from which to understand such important texts as chapter 7 about baptism.

I tend to agree with those that see the Didache as preserving the witness of a congregation that has Jewish roots or perhaps a congregation though non-Jewish has not shunned its Jewish roots yet. To me even a casual reading of Didache 1-5 reveals a group consciousness that has strong Jewish grounding and connections with Judaism. This congregation adheres to the validity of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus - the Law has not been cast off (6.2) [8]. There is abundant evidence even in the New Testament itself of Jews embracing Jesus as the Messiah yet remained culturally Jewish.

The Structure of the Didache

Because the Didache is so ancient, and at the very least preserves first century ideas and practices, it is important to understand the document and its teaching. The document is divided into sixteen short chapters that seem to be divided between preparing a candidate for baptism (ch's 1-10) and then church order material (ch's 11-15)[9]. Chapters 1-6 are dominated by the figure of the "Two Ways." For instance we read,

"Two ways there are, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the Two Ways. Now the Way of Life is this: first, love the God who made you; secondly your neighbor as yourself" (1.1-2)

The description of the Way of Death begins the fifth chapter,

"But the Way of Death is this: first of all it is wicked and altogether accursed: murderers, adulteries, lustful desires, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magical arts, sorceries, robberies, false testimonies, hypocrisy, duplicity, fraud, pride, malice, surliness, covetousness, foul talk, jealousy, rashness, haughtiness, false pretension, the lack of the fear of God" (5.1)[10]

The Two Ways section of the Didache contains little explicit Christian teaching. By that we mean little on the person, work, mission of Jesus the Messiah. Rather it is material that is common moral teaching of both Judaism and Christianity. The Two Ways motif was common in the ancient world being used by Jews, Greeks and Jewish Christians [11]. The Epistle of Barnabas also constructs his understanding of discipleship as "the Way of Light" and the "Way of Darkness" (18.1). In the Didache the Two Ways becomes the basic way of confronting the candidate for baptism with a fundamental choice: which path will he or she follow, baptism is the Way of Life and refusing is the Way of Darkness.

In the "plot" of the Didache, after the candidate is instructed in the Two Ways he or she is presented with baptism as if to say "choose life" (cf. Deut 30.19). Within the pages of the Didache there are only two sacraments attested to, baptism and the Lord's Supper. As Schaff noted a century or so ago the document knows nothing of infant baptism. Indeed the Two Ways militates against it [12]. The "normal" mode of baptism was that of adult believers by immersion in water. However, the Didache did allow for effusion in emergency situations such as water simply not being available [13].

Christology and Baptism in the Didache

Christianity, in the Didache, is a moral and holy life rooted in the teaching of Jesus summed up in the law to love God and our neighbor. The picture is more that of Epistle of James than the book of Romans. Because of its emphasis on holiness and a lack of Christological reflection the Didache has been said to be theologically anemic. Schaff writes "compared with the New Testament, the Didache is very poor and meagre"[14]. Such a judgment seems unfair, however, when individual writings of the NT can be compared with our document itself. At any rate some feel the author does not develop or stress a doctrine of Christ like Paul's then the community did not stress faith IN Jesus. Hartman for example characterizes the community of the Didache as "believers who think of themselves first as Jews, and who perhaps did not yet believe IN Jesus" [15]. George Buchman uses the term "apostolic christology" to describe such a position,

"Jews, like Samaritans, both before and after the time of Christ, believed that Moses was an apostle who mediated between Israelites and their heavenly Father. According to the rabbis, a man's apostle or agent was like himself, not physically but legally. The apostle had the power of attorney and could act in behalf of the one who sent him just as authoritatively as the sender himself. With this understanding, the author of Hebrews called Jesus the high priest and apostle of God (Heb 3.1) ... Apostolic identity which belongs to the sphere of prophets and courts, adequately explains Jesus' identity with God in the NT, and it is quite likely that Jewish-Christians held the same belief. The belief in God as Father who had a human agent, and was manifest through the Holy Spirit, was characteristic of Jewish concepts in pre-Christian times" [16]

The christology of the Didache may be rooted in this perspective on the relationship between Jesus' activity and God's reign. These believers saw in Jesus a signal that God's reign was in fact arriving in both word and deed. In the struggle of Jesus with the evil powers, God fights them and makes the divine power known. Thus Jesus' act of preaching and healing, with the associated demand of repentance, announce the advent of the kingdom. The appropriate response is conversion or faith. That is recognition that in Jesus' ministry God exercised victory over evil. Jesus' way of bring sinners into the kingdom is to pronounce forgiveness. But this forgiveness is understood in eschatological categories: the past reign of Satan was taken away and the arrival of God's presence among his people takes its place [17]. The christology of the community of the Didache might be summarized as a community that sees itself as continuing the preaching ministry of Jesus [18].

But we must be careful of not reading too much in the lack of Christological reflection of the Didache. As Schaff noted silence neither implies opposition nor ignorance [19]. Even Buchanan's "apostolic christology" does not necessarily mean that Jesus was not believed to be more. It seems hard to imagine a mere apostle being put on equal footing with his Sender and being baptized into "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (5.1) and "those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord" (9.5). Jesus is called the "Son" and "Lord" several times throughout our text implying that this community saw Jesus as something more than just another Moses. In reflecting on the Eucharistic prayers one scholar writes insightfully that the Didache community could have a "demonstrably Christian prayer reenacting the ministry of Jesus ... without any explicit Christological references" [20].

Whatever the actual content of the christological beliefs of the Didache community it is what is omitted about baptism that draws the attention of most scholars. The Pauline doctrine of the sinners immersion into death and burial with Christ (Romans 6.1-11) is never mentioned, just as Didache 9-10 never links the Eucharist to the proclamation of Jesus death (1 Corinthians 11.26). Nothing is said about renouncing Satan and adhering to Christ (though this is surely implied in the teaching on the Two Ways). Nor are any of baptism's theological effects mentioned: forgiveness of sins, membership into one body, bestowal of the Spirit [21]. In short none of the "classic" themes from the New Testamant are explicit in Didache 7.

The Baptismal Liturgy of Didache

"As for baptism baptise this way. Having said all this before hand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. If you do not have running water, however, baptize in another kind of water; if you cannot do so in cold water, then do so in warm water. But if you have neither, pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the person baptizing and the person being baptized -- and others who are able -- fast; tell the one being bapitized to fast one or two days before" (Didache 7).

There can be little doubt, in the opinion of most contemporary scholars, that the material in chapters 1-6 is aimed at catechumens [22]. The Two Ways invite decision: the hearer must decided whether to become a disciple or not. The choice to become a disciple is exercised through baptism in the "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and seems to mean to an eschatological way of life. The Way of Life means to live as Jesus lived and the Way of Death means judgment and ultimate destruction [23].

In the liturgy of baptism the candidate is required to fast prior to immersion (7.4). It is stated that the baptizer must fast and suggested that the community join the fast. The catechumen seeks to be cleansed from past sins while the community gives support [24]. The "living water" which is the preferred location for baptism in the Didache 7.1 is a Hebraism for fresh, flowing water, from a spring. This seems to reflect traditional Jewish concerns for ritual purity (Lev 14.5ff; 14.50ff also envisions "living water" for ritual purification). The movement in 7.2-3 is from good water for baptism to less suitable water for baptism.

When insufficient water was available for immersion the community allowed pouring over the head three times in the name of the Triune God, apparently with little or no second thoughts. Schaff states that threefold aspersion on the head was the nearest substitute since the head is the chief part of man. "There can be no Baptism without baptizing the head; but there may be valid Baptism without baptizing the rest of the body" [25]. Here in the Didache, at the end of the first century, we have the oldest extent testimony for the validity of baptism by pouring. Schaff, always the ecumenist, states that Christians have a right to infer that at the end of the first century there was no rigid uniformity in regard to the mode of baptism though immersion was the norm. What Schaff does is infer that is this freedom (in exceptional cases) existed in the apostolic period as well. He says, "It cannot be supposed that the Twelve Apostles were less liberal than the writer of the Didache, who wrote as it were in their name" [26]. It remains true, however, that pouring was seen as less desirable than immersion.

The most critical part of the liturgy of baptism in the Didache must be the baptismal formula. Willy Rordorf has argued that the formula actually has three variants with the Didache

7.1c into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
7.3 into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit
9.5 in the name of the Lord

Rordorf believes that 9.5 preserves the most ancient of the formulas reflecting usage in such places as Acts 2.38. The formulas all point to the same reality however, and one should not makes razor sharp distinctions between them.

The formula that is given in 7.1 is is a nearly verbatim reproduction of Matthew 28.19. The wording is identical except the spelling of baptism. Schaff beleived that the author was quoting the Gospel of Matthew [28] and the evidence is, in my opinion, convincing. The question rather is does the formulae tell us anything about the Christology or trinitarian beliefs about the community of believers? Hartman has argued that "into the name (of Jesus, or of the Lord)" may have been "a definition, a phrase which mentioned the fundamental reference of Christian baptism which distinguished it from other rites," a formula which "delimited Christian baptism from that of John" [29]. The formula was not primarily negative however or lacking Christological content. Rather as soon as baptism was performed "into the name of Jesus," it must have been combined with a message, and this message not only continued Jesus own preaching ... but ... was also preached with 'reference to Jesus,' which implies some sort of Christology too" [30]. Though Mitchell rejects this reasoning arguing that such reasoning is not demanded by the Didache, however it fits quite well in my view even if it is not "demanded" [31]. With the added weight of the uses of "Son of God" (9.2-3; 10.1, 3) it seems likely that this body of believers invested baptism with Christological significance: Jesus is God's Son. This theme just did not find development in the Didache.

Baptism and Table Fellowship in the Didache

James D. G. Dunn has argued that Jewish practice regarding table fellowship with gentiles was not uniform during the first century [32]. He makes the case that there were ongoing debates between Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes with regard to the acceptable limits of table fellowship. Pharisaic influence put pressure on devout Jews to observe strict limits in the matter of who ate with whom, since the Pharisees believed that even outside the temple the laws governing ritual purity were obligatory. The Sadducees, on the other hand, held that the laws were not applicable beyond the temple precincts. The Essenes out did even the Pharisees. But for our purposes it is more important to note that the Pharisees believed in degrees of ritual purity in the practice of temple holiness. In practice one with a more strict view could not eat with one with a less strict discipline [33].

For early Jewish Christians from a Pharisaic persuasion would have been concerned about the acceptable limits of table fellowship. In large Diaspora communities like Antioch, Jews and Gentiles would have considerable social contact, especially those who were attracted to the Jewish faith as "God-fearers" [34]. As Dunn writes specifically in regard to table fellowship:

[T]here was a broad range of attachments to Judaism and Jewish ways wherever Diaspora settlements had made any impact on the surrounding community -- from occasional visits to the synagogue, to total commitment apart from circumcision, with such matters as the sabbath and dietary laws being observed in varying degrees in between. Pari passu there would be a broad range of social intercourse between faithful Jew and God-fearing Gentile, with strict Jews avoiding table fellowship as far as possible, and those less scrupulous in matters of tithing and purity willingly extending and accepting invitations to meals where such Gentiles would be present [35].

Willi Rodorf, among others, sees some significance to the fact that it is precisely these concerns about ritual purity with respect to foods (6.3) that surface immediately before the Didache's description of baptism. The significance is heightened because 6.3-7.1 are thought to be a literary unit [36]. In effect what the Didache would be outlining is the minimum conditions and limits of acceptable table fellowship between these Jewish disciples and Gentiles disciples. Mitchell argues that both 6.2 ("the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect, but if you cannot, do what you can") and 6.3 ("bear what you can, but be on guard against food offered to idols") shows the influence of the Pharisaic belief in degrees of ritual purity. The implication for community of the Didache would be that torah observant Jewish Christians should associate only with God-fearing Gentile converts who are willing to maintain at least a minimum of the ritual law. As Mitchell notes this obliterates Paul's egalitarian emphasis that all barriers have been removed by baptism [37]. Not only is the Table fenced but the baptismal pool as well.

Conclusion

Baptism int he Didache is a rite of eschatological import though not devoid of Christological meaning. The theology of being immersed with Christ in death is not explicit. Baptism brings one into the community of faith where God's holy Presence is enjoyed. The community is, seemingly, committed to minimum levels of ritual purity which focuses upon the Table and Baptism. Some scholars argue that the Didache is actually trying to take a middle road between extremes as they were perceived at the time: Refusing to follow the libertine Paul and also the hardliners who have gone back to the synagogue.

NOTES:

[1] Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manuel Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 9-10.

[2] Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, MCMLXII), 30.

[3] Clayton N. Jefford, "Presbyters in the Community of the Didache," Studia Patristica (1987), p. 126. Jefford's points out that the Didache is a "witness to a ministry in transition" from prophecy to local elders that would later develop into the monarchical bishop.

[4] J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 121-122.

[5] Schaff, The Oldest Church Manuel, 119-122.

[6] Nathan Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," in The Didache in Context: Essays on its Text, History, and Transmission, ed. Clayton N. Jefford (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 227-230.

[7] Robert A. Kraft, "Didache," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2: 197.

[8] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," p. 232.

[9] Quasten, Patrology, 30

[10] Aelred Cody, "The Didache: An English Translation, " The Didache in Context, ed. Clayton N. Jefford, pp. 3-14.

[11] Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 59-63 for an extended discussion of the adoption of the Two Ways by our author.

[12] Schaff, Church Manual, 22. See also Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 201-206.

[13] Schaff, 31-32, Quasten, Patrology, 31, statest "This is the sole reference from the first or second centuries regarding baptism by effusion."

[14] Schaff, Church Manual, 22.

[15] L. Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus' and Early Christology," Studia theologica 28 (1974), 44.

[16] G. W. Buchanan, "Worship, Feasts and Ceremonies in the Early Jewish-Christian Church," New Testament Studies 26 (1979-80), 280-281.

[17] Hartman, "Baptism," 34.

[18] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 233.

[19] Schaff, Church Manual, 23.

[20] J. W. Riggs, "From Gracious Table to Sacramental Elements: The Tradition History of Didache 9-10," Second Century 4 (1984), 95.

[21] Willy Rodorf, "Baptism According to the Didache," in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 212-222.

[22] Niederwimmer, Didache: A Commentary, 88.

[23] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 251.

[24] Niederwimmer, Didache: A Commentary, 127.

[25] Schaff, Church Manual, 33.

[26] ibid., 34.

[28] Schaff, Church Manual, 184. There are good reasons to believe the author and community knew the Gospel of Matthew. The Lord's Prayer in ch. 8 is virtually the same as in Matthew 6.9-13 and the logion in 9.5 is verbatim Matthew 7.6. However in each of these cases Niederwimmer consistently has an allergy to allowing the Didache to have knowledge of the canonical Gospel, Didache: A Commentary, pp. 127-127; 135-137; 153.

[29] L. Hartman, "Into the Name of Jesus," New Testament Studies 20 (1974), 440.

[30] Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus and Early Christology," 36.

[31] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 253.

[32] James D. G. Dunn, "The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11-18)," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 18 (1983), 12-25.

[33] ibid., 17.

[34] ibid., 21f.

[35] ibid., 23.

[36] Rordorf, "Baptism according to the Didache," 215f.

[37] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 239-240.

Read More

The Ethics of Baptism - Col 3.1-17

The following is part of a seminar I did for a congregation in the midwest a few years ago on the Epistle to the Colossians. Prior to this lesson I reviewed our lessons on chapter 1 & 2. I offer it here in the prayer that it may bring a blessing. When reading this remember it was an oral presentation.

------------

Briefly review how Paul moves from the Supreme Savior in ch. 1 and the Sufficient Savior in ch.2 to how we are to respond in our lives: we become Selfless Servants. That is we live out the meaning of baptism each and every day.

I. A WORLD OF DEADNESS! (3.5-11)

”Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient. These are the ways you also once followed, when you were living that life. But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator. In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!” (NRSV)


In 3.5-11 Paul reminds us of our unredeemed nature or as the NIV calls it the "sinful nature.” That is the part of us that is in rebellion or at odds with God. He is talking about us as we once were in our state of deadness. He is speaking of the “life” before our redemption by the Sufficient Savior's blood. He is saying that some of us are still living in the old world, living our lives as if we have never been converted -- an impossibility according to Paul . . . or should be!

Paul says in v.5 we are to "kill" the earthly nature that keeps rearing its ugly head. Listen to him, "Kill off, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil, lust, evil desires and greed which is idolatry." Most of us assembled here will quickly, and defensively, distance ourselves from any such activity and declare before all: "That is not me! I am innocent of that kind of life!"

Perhaps we should slow down though and take serious stock?? Are we not often a greedy people? We Christians, often, pride themselves that we don't fornicate and have never had a drop of beer. However, what about our anger? Fits of rage? Our malice towards one another? What of our slander of one another? and what of the coarse language that frequents our lips (v.8)? These things: anger, slander and lying, are evidence we have surrendered to the sinful nature we claim to have cast off in the name of the Christ at our baptism.

Every time I have known of a church split (and having lived through one I speak of experience here) it really had more to do with some brother's or sister's anger or malice (animosity) toward a fellow Christian as any doctrinal issue. If our lives are characterized by these things, Paul says, we lied to God when we came to be baptized into Jesus' name.

II. "IN" THE SELFLESS SAVIOR, BECOMING SELFLESS SERVANTS! (3.1-4,
12-17)

”So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory.”

I have mentioned baptism several times now because the Apostle has been discussing, I believe, "post-baptismal" life or what might be called "resurrection life" in Christ since 3.1. All the things in 3.5-11 are things that are contrary to the life of one who has undergone baptism in the Lord's name. Beloved, living as a citizen of the Kingdom of God is more than joining a church, attending worship services, placing money in the collection, or going to Bible class. It is even more than making sure our "doctrine" is perfect (and we know that it never will be for God alone is perfect). No! Living in the Kingdom is to undergo conversion. It is to undergo transformation. It is to go From death To life!

Let me see if I can illustrate what Paul is talking about here in 3.1-4. Ernst Gordon wrote an engrossing work titled THROUGH THE VALLEY OF THE KWAI. It is a saga relating his ordeal of three years being held prisoner by the Japanese in World War II. It is a good commentary on religious experience as I see it. At first many in the camp turn to God and were confident of rescue. There were pious affirmations of faith. But as time passed, with harsh and brutal treatment, the rescue did not materialize. They turned on each other. They fought, stole from each other, and refused to care for the sick and dying among them. They were according to Gordon the "living dead."

But something happened in that camp. A few moved past shallow faith in God as a quick fix artist and began to live a mature faith. They stopped bickering and practiced sacrificial love. Gordon himself was nursed back to health by fellow prisoners who refused to eat so he could have their meager rations. In fact one inmate actually starved to death so Gordon could live. One underwent an undeserved execution in order to keep the whole group from being killed. Some even found ways to be kind to their captors.

Gordon says "selfishness, hatred, jealousy, greed were all found by us to be ANTI-LIFE! Love, self-sacrifice, mercy and creative faith were the ESSENCE of life. These were the gifts of God to men." Brothers and sisters is that not what Paul is talking about: the old way of life with its anger, malice, slander, and selfishness is ANTI-LIFE. But Gordon and his fellows underwent conversion of sorts. It was a life altering and mind changing event and process -- that is what Paul says has happened to us. That mind altering and life changing occurrence was baptism.

Notice carefully v.1ff "Since you have been raised with Christ . . . For you died and your life is now hidden with Christ in God . . . Christ IS your life" (vv. 1-4). These anti-life things cannot be part of the Christian because the old dead person that was full of anti-life was killed, buried and raised by God up. God raised us up and brought us to LIFE in Christ. The life of a Christian, post-baptismal life is resurrection life. It is life free from the dominance of sin and death. Paul is reminding us of the language he used already in 2.21:

"having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."

Here in these verses then Paul is making clear what the life of a baptized person should look like. What the life of one who confess Christ to be the Supreme and Sufficient Savior is to be a Selfless Servant. He says in essence baptism is not just an ending of the old sinful person but it is the beginning of the new person. It is entering the New Creation. In baptism we underwent a transformation so radical -- more radical than that of Gordon's -- we experienced CONVERSION! Conversion from one who acted and thought like an enemy of God to one whose life is so much like Christ's that it is said to be "hidden in Christ."

If we understand that we were once dead but are now alive IN the Savior, then we know we have no life of our own for "Christ is our life." We are to by like him. If Christ is my life then how can I let anger,
slander and other anti-life situations dominate my life ... these were killed and buried in the watery grave! We learned in ch.1 and 2 that Christ has defeated those "powers" at the place of victory, his Cross. Paul says this cannot be for one who has experienced being resurrected from the dead by the power of God in baptism.

This point is so important and I have struggled on how to illustrate it. This is not perfect but maybe it will help. I have something, in my pocket, that was alive but now it is dead. I plan to bring it back to life before your very eyes. This is a parable of sorts on Paul's point of coming to life in the Savior. Here it is. It is a genuine leather glove. It once had life as a cow. But the cow died and became someone's steak and my glove. I cannot bring this glove back to life as a cow -- but I can give the glove life. Let's see if it can be done by commands (this is how some think life is imparted): GLOVE, LIVE! Nothing is happening. Let's try threats: Glove, come alive or I will throw you into the fire! Nothing. The Glove is DEAD. Its motionless and lifeless. How can a dead thing, whether a glove or a human being, respond to a command or a threat? It cannot! The point here is that one cannot live as God would want . . . no matter how hard they try (and Paul seems to think we prefer to go our own way).

I want to try a radically different approach. One that demonstrates the difference between man's effort and God's power and grace. Watch carefully as I place my LIVING HAND INSIDE THE DEAD GLOVE. It responds now. It moves. It does productive things. My mind and the glove are connected and it “obeys” even without my verbalizing a command. But its life is not the old life of "cowness" but the new life of "handness." Life flows into the glove from without . . . from me.

Do you see any connection to Paul? The old, dead person cannot change her status. Commands nor threats will do it. Only by being filled with Christ the Supreme and Sufficient Savior will do it. Only then can we have life because then and only then “Christ is your life." Paul says if we have faith in the Crucified One that will bring us to the baptismal waters and there God will crucify the death that reigns in our bodies and then he will raise us from the dead to a new life just as he did Christ. Like the glove we will come ALIVE when we are clothed, filled and hidden in Christ. It is a life full of grace. It is a life full of peace. It is a life that forgives each and every fault we see in others, with no strings attached, as Paul says:

“As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony”

You see if we cloth or "glove" ourselves with Christ, we will start to look and act like the Savior we claim to follow when we enter the waters of baptism.

CONCLUSION

Beloved, Paul has been talking about the radical nature of conversion. His question to each of us is this: "have I been truly converted?" Have I been transformed? Did I undergo a change of life? Have I gone from Death to Life?" Baptism is far more than getting our sins forgiven, though it certainly involves that. Baptism is where God recreates us in his Son. In baptism I claim to give God control of my life. Baptism, the great reformer John Calvin wrote, takes only a moment to do but takes a lifetime to live. What an insightful thought. Our Christian life is a bapitsmal life, a resurrection life hidden in Christ. The goal is to be as responsive to the Savior as the glove is to my hand. That means we, like Gordon, must go through a life altering and heart changing experience through the power of God in baptism. Through his living in us we can be all he wants us to be -- when we choose to follow him and live out our baptism.

Offer Invitation

"by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them." (Col 2.14-15)

Read More

David Lipscomb, Proper Translation & Rebaptism

The following article, “The Revised Testament and Rebaptism,” appeared in the Gospel Advocate near the end of David Lipscomb’s career. It is significant in showing the continuity of his rejection of rebaptism throughout his life. I will place in parenthesis () when the text moves onto p. 922. The brackets [] are in the original article. The "Common Version" is the KJV, the Revised Version is the 1881 revision, the American edition is known as the American Standard Version 1901. The American Bible Union was an organization that sought to replace the faulty KJV. Campbell, and many others were deeply involved in this organization. [sic] means that is the way it appears in the article. I have previously shared Lipscomb's more systematic debunking of the "rebaptist" error here: Rebaptism Reviewed.

DAVID LIPSCOMB, "THE REVISED TESTAMENT AND REBAPTISM," Gospel Advocate 55 (September 25, 1913): 921-922.

"The expression 'for the remission of sins' is used in the Common Version of the Scriptures. Of the cup he said: 'This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.' (Matt. 26:28). 'John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.' (Mark 1:4) Luke 3:3 gives the same. 'And thou, child [John the Baptist], shalt . . . go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins.' (Luke 1: 76,77). 'Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.' (Luke 24:46, 47). 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Chirst [sic] for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' (Acts 2: 38). 'Whom [Jesus] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." (Rom. 3:25). "Without shedding of blood is no remission.' (Heb. 9:22).

Baptism is said to be 'for the remission of sins' in the Common Version. 'John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.' (Mark 1:4). Luke 3:3 gives the same. Peter told the people: 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In the Revised Version, the expression, "Be baptized [or anything else man can do] for the remission of sins,' is not found. In that version the participles, prepositions, and other secondary words have been more carefully translated, and the American Revised Version is regarded by those competent to judge, the best version or translation [p.922] in the language. The Revised Version translates 'for the remission of sins,' in each of these cases, 'unto the remission of sins.' The difference in the meaning is, 'for the remission of sins' suggests the idea that the baptism is to pay for remitting the sins as a man pays for a horse. It is giving value received; that we are entitled to if for the service rendered. The human heart is prone to run to this extreme. The proneness to run to this extreme has caused God to especially guard against permitting it in any of his dealings with man. Even Moses, the meekest of men, was uplifted with personal pride, took to himself the honor of giving blessings which belonged only to God and forfeited an entrance in the land of Canaan. (Ex. 17:1) In Deut. 9:4, God through Moses, gives the Jews the terrible warning that he does not give them the land of Canaan on account of their merits, but on account of the wickedness of those he drove out. It is such a sin to assume to merit the blessings God bestows that no encouragement to the position in doubtful translation should be given.

To be baptized into Christ, into the name of Christ, teaches plainly and truly that in entering into Christ we come to and enjoy the remission of sins: because of and by virtue of our entrance and union with Christ, we become children of God. This is the expressive
declaration that we are saved by the blood of Christ, and not because we have been baptized for the remission of sins -- a selfish end. To be baptized into Christ is an expressive declaration that baptism is the step, the last step a man takes in entering Christ. So when he is baptized, he is entitled to all the privileges of a child of God -- to all the blessings that oneness with Christ, our Lord, brings. The only sense in which baptism is 'for the remission of sins' is, it is the act appointed by God to test our faith, and the act that puts one into Christ, in whom we enjoy all the blessings and favors of the redeeming and purifying Son of God. The English Version of the revised text gives the same translation of the word that the American Revision does. The expression, 'for the remission of sins,' as connected with what man does or can do, is not found in the book. The translation made by the Bible Union in 1879 agrees with these. This translation forbids the idea that man pays for or purchases the remission of sins. It harmonizes with and carries out the idea that we come into union with Christ, are made one with him, and in and by him we are justified.

Take it from the standpoint that the leading thought is, we are baptized into Christ and made a member of his body, explains things that need explanation. Our rebaptist friends maintain, rightly, that the belief of the things not true in connection wit h the mission of Christ could not secure the forgiveness of sins. To this we heartily agree, and say the belief of the errors we all (rebaptists and others) hold could not secure the remission of sins. We must be in a state or condition that we will be saved in spite of the evil influences of our many mistakes and errors. What is that state or condition? Our rebaptist brethren practically say, to believe and understand that baptism is for the remission of sins cures the evil of ignorance and doubt.

There is a ground on which we may believe God accepts us and gives us assurance of richest blessings despite the darkness and mistakes of our hearts. That ground is, we become members of the body of Christ and are one with him, enter into Christ, appropriate the blood of Christ, and thankfully receive him, who can cleanse and bless and save us. Our service puts us into a partnership with Jesus, by which he becomes as one of us, and appropriates and cleanses us from all sins, despite a thousand errors that on subsidiary questions we may hold. On the one side, it is Jesus Christ, with his blood covering the many mistakes and errors by us; one with the power on his side of pardon and union and peace with God. On the same side there is the sinner baptized into Jesus Christ, clothed with his name, mistaking the point at which God promises to forgive sins, just as a man going from Kentucky from Tennessee may mistake the time and place of crossing the line. The mistake does not affect his rights after he has entered the State.

There is but one example of rebaptism given to us in the Bible. That was not to teach us baptism is into the remission of sins, but to teach us we must be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In him is pardon and peace to the sinner. I had much prefer following the example of Paul and rebaptize those who had not understandingly been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 'And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.' (Acts 19:5). When a man is baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he has a strong Brother and helper in the Lord that can rescue him from man errors and mistakes."

Read More

Books for Loving God with our Minds and our Hearts

On my way back from Pepperdine I had several hours in the dark by myself. During those dark hours I listened to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. This Pulitzer Prize winner is a fascinating attempt to understand the incredible economic and technological disparity that has existed between various segments of humanity. Or to put it differently "Why did Europe come to dominate the modern world?" Digging (and thinking) deeply into such realities as how geography and even food production has impacted human development since 11,000 B.C. I confess that I do not buy into all of Diamond's interpretations but this is a book that really helps us wrestle with the reality of just "why" the world is the way it is.

I recently purchased two books on baptism and is history. Daniel Keeran's Ancient and Medieval Baptismal Fonts and Everett Ferguson's Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Keeran's is a small book consisting basically of photographs baptismal fonts in Israel, Italy, and other Mediterranean cultures. Christianity has left more than literary remains and Keeran has shared an important slice of Christian history by looking at the "archeology" of baptism so to speak. This book will ... without even saying so ... deepen our appreciation for the practice of baptism in the early church. One baptismal basin is illustrated on pages 18 and 19. It dates to the 4th and 5th centuries and is located about 25 miles southwest of Beersheba. It is so interesting because it is in the shape of a cross and vividly illustrates such texts as Romans 6 or Colossians 2.12.

Ferguson's book is massive! I have only surveyed this work so far and I cannot wait to sink my "teeth" into it. More soon ...

Read More

Rebaptism Reviewed ... David Lipscomb

What follows below is a reproduction of David Lipscomb's article "Rebaptism Reviewed." The article is a response to "Brother Chism" who defended rebaptism. This is one of Lipscomb's fullest discussions of the subject. He takes us on a tour of the examples of baptism in the Book of Acts following a thorough examination of Acts 2.38 and the Great Commission. I think this article is significant enough to simply reproduce it in toto and Lipscomb explain the rational (exegetical and theological) for rejecting rebaptism.


Rebaptism Reviewed
David Lipscomb
Gospel Advocate, December 12, 1907, pp. 992- 793

I am glad to have this article from Brother Chism. He presents the points in a clear and tangible form so they can be understood. I believe the question ought to and can be settled with all who desire to follow the will of the Lord and are willing to study and abide by his teachings.

Some object to the name “rebaptism.” It is a reimmersion. The twelve at Ephesus were rebaptized, I believe persons ought to be rebaptized sometimes, and I call it “rebaptism.” I am glad of Brother Chism’s article because it places the practice on a ground that does not savor of infidelity. I feel shocked when professed Christians ask where the Bible says we must be baptized to obey God. It shows how little they know the Bible or how ready they are to sacrifice the fundamental principles of the Bible to sustain a pet theory or a party.

Brother Chism justifies the rebaptism practice on the ground that “for the remission of sins” is in the sentence, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” is part of the command, and this seems to be the chief ground on which he bases the practice. I believe “into” is preferable to “for,” but he seems to prefer “for.” But if “eis” or “for” here is a part of the command, what becomes of the argument that it means “in order to obtain,” that Brother Chism and others make on the design of baptism with the sects? If it is a reward for obedience to the command, it cannot be a part of the command. That argument or his position is all wrong. It cannot be at once a part of the command and a reward for obedience to the command. Webster defines “for:” “the antecedent cause or occasion of an action; the motive or inducement leading to an action.” It cannot be the antecedent cause of an action and the action itself. It cannot be the promise as a result of the obedience and the obedience itself. It is a promise to lead to obedience, and not the obedience itself. I believe it should be “into” indicating a result flowing from the act, so only indirectly a motive leading to it. There is certainly nothing in the sentence that demands it should be part of the command.

If there is uncertainty about it, let us test in another safe way. Let us interpret it by other similar scriptures. Take Acts 3:19: “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted from the presence of the Lord.” No one would say “that your sins may be blotted out” is a part of the command. It is a result to which obedience to the command leads. It is the same as “for remission of sins” in Acts 2:38. “That your sins may be blotted out,” or remitted, or forgiven, mean the same. The forgiveness is the act of God, and man cannot obey or do God’s part in any work. He can only “repent and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ;” and leave God to forgive his sins when has complied with God’s requirements.

These suggestions are a full reply to Brother Chism’s points. But I examine further. He says the command, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” is the exact equivalent of the commission given by the Lord. This is wrong. It is the application of that general law to one special case, and it is a mistake to interpret and restrict the general law by one special application of it. Numbers of our rebaptist friends ignore the commission altogether and find the law only in this application of it. (Acts 2:28). God first gave the law and then the application of it. Brother Chism reverses God’s order, passes by the general law, begins with one special application of it, and then restricts the law to this one application. This is as if a lawyer were to find a man tried for stealing a horse. The general law against stealing is applied by the court to this one of horse stealing, and the lawyer ever afterwards restricts the law against stealing to this one case and insists that the law is not violated unless a horse is stolen. Brother Chism finds the first application of the law was to sinners guilty of the blood of the Son of God, and in their guilt they ask if pardon is possible, and they are told: “Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and your sins shall be remitted.” To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be baptized as Christ directs – “into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” for in them remission of sins, which they so earnestly sought, would be found. But is that the only blessing that is to be found in these names that can or should move men to seek God?

But Acts 2:38 is the commission applied to that particular case. Mark (16:15,16) says: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” Is “shall be saved” a part of the command in this case? Is it an obligation imposed upon man? Does not the obligation on man end with being baptized, and is not his being saved the work of God? Is it not a promise to man to encourage him, in his weakness and infirmity, to believe and be baptized? Brother Chism will not contradict this. Does not “be saved” correspond exactly to “for [or into”] the remission of sins?” (Acts 2:38) There is no command in remission of sins to men, but a promise of what God will do.

The commission by Matthew is: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” This is applied in Acts 2:38 to the condition of those present. The people were taught, believed, were commanded to be baptized in the name of Christ, into the remission of sins. To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be baptized “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” because that is the only baptism Christ authorized. When they are baptized into these names, they are baptized into the remission of sins. Into these names, embracing remission of sins in common with all spiritual blessings, are results flowing from the obedience and constitute no part of obedience. These different promises mean the same and cannot be a part of the obedience.

I think Brother Chism must agree to these points so far, and own “for remission” is a promise to lead to obedience. It is not the only promise. Other promises in Christ may lead as well as this one.

We both agree that remission of sins is a motive to lead to obedience. He seems to think it is the only motive, or at least the leading and essential motive to lead to baptism, and without this as the leading and controlling motive the baptism is not acceptable to God. I do not believe this. I believe there is one motive that in all service to God, without which no service is acceptable to him. That is, we must do the service in the name of Jesus, the Lord. “Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Gal. 3:17) All Jesus did in heaven and on earth was done to please his Father. Nothing can be done in his name that is not controlled by the same desire. The law was: Be baptized “into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This is frequently expressed by “in” or “into” “the name of the Lord Jesus.” To be in one of these names or persons is to be in all. In Christ are many blessings: no human being can know all. God has revealed a few that appeal to our conditions here. Some blessings appeal to one person, another to another, owing to the conditions of the persons. Acts 2:38 is not the only application of this commission to the conditions of man.

Take the case of the Samaritans. They had been wicked: the Jews despised them and refused to let them worship with them; but despite their surroundings, they were willing to obey God. The heart of the Almighty is very tender toward those unfortunately situated but willing to obey him. Those who fail to see this are ill fitted to understand and obey God. God sent his servant to the Samaritans. “When they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” In the name of Jesus remission of sins was enjoyed but in his name and kingdom are many other precious blessings.

Then there is the Ethiopian eunuch. He was a God-fearing man. He hade come several hundred miles to worship God according to his appointments. He was studying God’s word. God was so well pleased with him that he sent his servant to teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly. He preached Jesus to him. He asked and was baptized into Christ. I do not think “for remission of sins” was made prominent in this conversion, because he was serving God according to the best light he had and was guilty of no great sin.

Then Cornelius was a Gentile, a good man according to the light he had. He worshiped God. Peter said he feared God and worked righteousness; that commended him to the favor of God, who sent his angel to him. His alms and his prayers were treasured as a memorial before God. Peter told him he was out of Christ, out of God, and he was “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Was much stress laid on “the remission of sins” in this case? He was baptized in the name of Christ, to obey God. Brother Chism, if you had been there, could you have objected to receiving Cornelius unless “remission of sins” was the present and controlling motive in his baptism? The very same Peter that told the bloody handed murderers to be baptized “for remission of sins” tells Cornelius to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ,” and said nothing of remission of sins. Why the difference?

Then those at Ephesus. (Acts 19:1-7) They were serving God according to the best light they had, had been baptized into John’s baptism, “for the remission of sins.” They had not learned that John’s baptism had been superseded by baptism into the name of Christ. When they heard these things, “they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.”

No emphasis was laid on “for remission” in these cases, but great emphasis on “into the name of the Lord Jesus,” as prescribed by the commission. The law was applied to suit the condition of the person. The apostles did not believe that stealing a horse was the only stealing that could be done nor that remission of sins is the only motive to lead men to obey God. Why are not all these applications of the case as much for our instruction as Acts 2:38? Why is not the command to be baptized into Christ, into the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, as much the command of God as “for remission of sins?” Why is it not as important that men understand baptism is into Christ as to understand it is for the remission of sins? If we follow the Bible up, we find that in the writings to the churches and to Christians the emphasis is laid on having been baptized into Christ, having put on Christ, and living, dying and being raised in Christ.

There are now cases corresponding in state to these cases of conversion in Acts. I could mention many. The girl mentioned by Brother Holt that had likely, like Timothy, known the Scriptures from a child, wished to obey Christ, but not oppressed with the guilt of sin, she had not studied that point. Would the Father reject her because she wanted to follow Christ in her innocency [sic] and her youth?

While man is to love and trust God because God is good and blesses those that do his will, the idea that we must know what we are to get for and in each service, and that our service is acceptable only as we understand and render the obedience for the blessings we are to get, is repulsive to God. Abraham was the great model of faith for all future generations of the world. He followed God from his father’s home not knowing whither he went or what he would receive. In the service that was most pleasing to God, the offering of his son as a sacrifice, which secured the promise, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Abraham obeyed without a promise whether any blessing would be received. The obedience seemed to defeat the promise that God would of his son make a mighty nation. The anti-type of Abraham’s offering of his son was God offered his only Son to die for the world. This is continually held up as the great example given to man to follow. It places the truth beyond all controversy that God is pleased with the service that is rendered him at great sacrifice, from love of him, without any promise of blessing. Job said: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” That is the service God loves. We have other thoughts along this line we wish to offer.

D. L.

Read More

Alexander Campbell, Rebaptism & Sectarianism

The immersion of Alexander Campbell in 1812 by Baptist preacher Mathias Luce has been long been a troublesome issue for some heirs of the Stone-Campbell Movement. For some like Austin McGary, the founder of the Firm Foundation, Campbell's baptism was downright embarrassing. The cause of that embarrassment is rooted in two historical facts: 1) Alexander (and his father Thomas) was baptized by a Baptist and 2) Campbell did not understand baptism's role in the remission of sin -- and would not for quite some time after. This presented such a problem for McGary that he even suggested that Campbell was secretly rebaptized -- a notion that David Lipscomb rightly dismissed as highly dubious. Even as late as 1999 a brother wrote an article concerning "Alexander Campbell's Baptism"[1] that was another stretched attempt to remove this apparent black eye from Campbell.

The debate over Campbell is important. At the center of the debate is how much of the NT teaching concerning baptism a person must grasp before she can obey the Great Commission. Is one saved by submissive faith or precise knowledge? It is a critical question. Even those who demand that one must absolutely know that baptism is the POINT that one obtains remission are reticent to condemn Campbell to hell. Some even try to force Campbell into the rebaptist camp -- a great irony.

For example, the aforementioned article attempted to show that Campbell did indeed understand that baptism was for the remission of sins in 1812. The evidence from Robert Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell is dismissed. Attempts are made to buttress the rebaptist position with a quotation from Selina Campbell that comes second hand from a debate that H. C. Harper had in 1917.

Alexander Campbell himself is quoted from his 1844 Debate with N. L. Rice and from Campbell's 1853 book on Baptism. These quotes have zero relevance, however, because Campbell is not discussing what he knew or what anyone must know about baptism at the time of their immersion. Selina's "evidence" (she was not even married to him at the time -- they were married 16 years later) there is simply no evidence to support the position that Campbell understood the "design" of baptism [2]. There is no reason to doubt Richardson in the Memoirs.

Pertinent to our discussion here would be Campbell's understanding of baptism exhibited in his 1820 Debate with the Presbyterian John Walker. It is critical to remember that this discussion took place eight years after his immersion. Campbell affirmed in this debate that baptism confers spiritual blessings only "figuratively" [3]. Campbell argued that the phrase "the renewing of the Holy Ghost" in Titus 3.5 is used figuratively with respect to baptism and not in reality [4]. Campbell then explicitly places the new birth PRIOR to baptism. In his own words:

"Hence "THE RENEWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT," is a phrase that denotes the influence of the Holy Spirit, exerted on the whole soul of man; and implies a death unto sin, and a new life unto righteousness . . . Which leads the subject on his gracious work to submit to 'be buried with Christ' . . . The outward rite [i.e. baptism], then must bear an analogy to the doctrine exhibited in and by it. Hence immersion in water is a beautiful and striking representation of our faith in the death and burial of Christ" [5].

This "outward rite," according to Campbell in 1820, is a "representation" of a reality that has already been accomplished by the Holy Spirit. In fact, Campbell makes this point crystal clear earlier in his Debate with Walker, "THE CALLED, cannot mean those whom every preacher invites to Baptism, but those whom the Lord calls by his grace or Spirit"[6]. Quotations of this nature can be multiplied from the Walker-Campbell Debate but such is needless. It is clear, though, that in 1820 Alexander Campbell did not have a doctrine of baptism that would be embraced by many of his descendants -- he clearly did not think baptism was "necessary" or for the remission of sins.

Campbell testified in 1838 that he had not given the special meaning of baptism much thought prior to 1820. In the winter of 1821-1822 Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell discussed a tract on the specific import of baptism by a Scotch Baptist minister named Henry Errett (later to be the father of Isaac Errett). It was from this tract that both Campbell and Scott learned of a deeper meaning involved in baptism. Even with this significant discovery, Campbell, says he was "engaged so much in other inquiries, it was put on file for further consideration" [7]. The wider paragraph from Campbell is significant,

"In 1820 the Editor had a debate with Mr. Walker on the SUBJECT [sic] and ACTION [sic] of Christian baptism. He had not then turned his thoughts to the special MEANING [sic] or design of that ordinance. Either during that discussion or in transcribing it for the press, an impression was made on his mind that baptism had a very important meaning and was some way connected with remission of sins; but engaged so much in other inquiries, it was put on file for further consideration ..."

Campbell then goes on to say "Immediately on receiving a challenge from Mr. Wm. L. M'Calla, of Kentucky, dated May 17, 1823, I resolved to settle the true meaning of baptism before I ever debated the subject again" [7].

Campbell's debate with William MacCalla was in 1823. Even with this public pronouncement of the notion of remission of sins it was largely just theory rather not practice. It was left to Walter Scott's famous tour of the Western Reserve (Ohio) in 1827 to not only put this theory in practice but to invent the five-finger plan of salvation as well.

The mature Campbell’s views on baptism are more complicated than ours. Campbell’s theology of baptism certainly affirmed the rite was for remission, though he strongly denied that cognitive comprehension of that fact was required by God -- only submissive faith that was obedient. He thus never made specific knowledge of remission the litmus test of biblical baptism. On the contrary he believed such a position was sectarian to the core and a denial of the principles of the restoration movement itself. Campbell even opposed adding the phrase "for the remission of sins" to the "name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" of Matthew 28.19 when immersing a candidate [8]. When Campbell reflected upon his own immersion in a "Dialogue on Reimmersion" he remembered that he simply confessed his faith that Jesus was the Messiah. Then Campbell adds, "Nor have I ever immersed any person but upon the same profession which I made myself" [9].

Alexander Campbell responded in 1831 to a question about rebaptism put forward by Andrew Broaddus, a prominent Baptist minister. Campbell (who addresses Broaddus as "brother") says that though baptism is associated with remission that is not the total New Testament witness concerning the subject. He says,

"Remission of sins is, indeed, connected with baptism; but so is adoption, sanctification, and all the blessings of the new institution." Campbell goes on to comment, "To be baptized for the remission of sins exclusively, is not what is meant by putting on Christ, or by being immersed into Christ . . . I know some will say the candidates which they immersed a second time did not rightly understand baptism the first time. Well, I am persuaded they did not understand it the second time; and shall they be baptized a third time!"[10]

Rebaptism could not be justified simply because a person did not grasp the specific "design" of baptism but rather that they were really unbelievers at the time of the first immersion. He writes:

"Let me once more say, that the only thing which can justify reimmersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is a confession on the part of the candidate that he did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God -- that he died for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day, at that time of the first immersion -- that he now BELIEVES the testimony of the apostles concerning him . . . The instant that rebaptism is preached and practised [sic!] on any other ground than now stated -- such as deficient knowledge, weak faith, change of views -- then have we contradicted in some way and made void the word of the Lord, "He who believes and be immersed shall be saved" -- then have we abandoned the principles of the present reformation" [11].

The simple fact is that Campbell taught that if a person would believe One Fact (i.e. that Jesus is the Christ) and submit to One Act that reflects that Fact (baptism into his name) that person has been inducted by the authority of God into the Kingdom [12]. On this point Alexander never wavered.

Those who have been ardent supporters of nonsectarian Christianity have consistently held the same ground as brother Campbell. The great names, virtually synonymous with the Gospel Advocate for 150 years have held the same ground as the great Reformer. David Lipscomb militantly opposed as sectarian and digressive the notion that one must have a clear grasp of the doctrine of remission of sins in order to receive biblical baptism. Lipscomb always pointed to the priority of the Great Commission as Jesus gave it in Matthew 28 [12]. E. G. Sewell, Lipscomb¹s long time co-editor of the GA was nearly as vocal in his opposition. Probably none, though, opposed the sectarian doctrine more than co-founder of the Nashville Bible School (David Lipscomb University) James A. Harding. Harding debated the issue twice, once in 1888 with Austin McGary and in 1901 with J.D. Tant. Harding wrote, "It is manifestly wrong to call remission of sins the design of baptism and insist that it shall be understood." Harding "doubt[ed] if there ever was a man who fully understood the design of the ordinance at the time of his baptism since Christ gave the commission." Because this is so, the question to be asked is not, according to Harding, "What did you believe about baptism?" Rather, the proper question is, "Did you believe wit h your whole heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and did you confess him as Lord?" [13]. Giants like Walter Scott, Moses Lard, J.W. McGarvey, Benjamin Franklin, James F. Rowe, F. D. Srygley, M.C. Kurfees, J. C. McQuiddy, B.C. Goodpasture, J. N. Armstrong, George Benson, J. M Powell, Jimmy Allen all held this same ground because of a commitment to biblical nonsectarian Christianity. Even Daniel Sommer opposed Austin McGary on this one!

It does not follow that those who hold to the same ground as these great men, believe that baptism is an empty, meaningless ritual. Rather this ground is held precisely because the belief that the action performed in baptism is GOD'S work, not ours, and he will grant the wonder of forgiveness to those who come in submissive faith to his Son. I close with the wise words of David Lipscomb:

"If we make baptism depend upon what man understands about it, its purposes and meaning, he will never know when he is baptized. It has been told of Dr. John Thomas, who when he started out to be baptized that when he learned a new truth about the purposes of baptism, that he was baptized over twenty times. . . but what we understand of the purpose of baptism is not the proper ground for being baptized. But the ground is, God has required it as an act of fealty to him, and we do it to obey him; and when we do this, we enter into him, that in him we may enjoy all the blessings and favors he gives" [14].

In a day or so I play on posting a few thoughts on how and where Walter Scott fits into all of this ...

Notes:

[1] Owen Olbricht, "Alexander Campbell's Baptism," Gospel Advocate (September 1999).

[2] I use the word "design" deliberately. Historically this word among rebaptist teachers referred exclusively to the doctrine of remission of sins.

[3] Debate on Christian Baptism Between Mr. John Walker, a Minister of the Secession and Alexander Campbell (Religious Book Service Reprint, n.d.), pp. 136-137.

[4] Ibid., p. 137.

[5] Ibid., p. 138.

[6] Ibid., p. 56 .

[7] Millennial Harbinger, 1838, p. 467-468.

[8] Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (Standard Publishing Co. 1897), Volume 2, p. 288.

[9] Millennial Harbinger, 1832, p. 319.

[10] Millennial Harbinger, 1831, p. 483.

[11] Millennial Harbinger, 1836, p. 63.

[12] Christian Baptist, April 5, 1824, p. 60.

[12] Lipscomb’s views are easily accessible in his book Salvation from Sin, pp. 215ff and Questions and Answers, ed. M.C. Kurfees, pp. 528ff.

[13] The Way, March 1900, p. 35.

[14] Gospel Advocate, November 15, 1906, p. 728

Read More

1835: Tares Among the Wheat ... Roots of Sectarianism in Churches of Christ

It seems that 1835 was, in hindsight, a pivotal year for the Stoned-Campbell Movement. By 1835 the Reformers of Campbell and the Christians of Stone had united. Campbell had been marked through the infamous Beaver Anathema (1829) ... By the mid-1830s the Movement was growing and in search of an identity. An atmosphere of "bad blood" was being cultivated between "us" and "them." Many decided they had a word for the "brotherhood" to help provide guidance.

Dr. John Thomas (1805-1871) was one such new editor. Thomas was a preacher among "us" first in Philadelphia and then Richmond, Virginia. In 1834 he began publishing his new voice in his Apostolic Advocate. By 1835 it became clear that he was promoting sectarian point of view. Stone-Campbell churches had always accepted those who had been immersed into the name of Jesus. Thomas believed this was grave error. Stoned-Campbell churches were not simply Christians they were the only Christians! And apparently many even in his own fellowship were not Christians either. Many, like Alexander Campbell himself, had been baptized at the hands of Baptist preachers never understanding the "deeper" significance of baptism until years later. Campbell vigorously opposed Thomas who eventually left the Restoration movement to form the Christadelphians.

In 1835 other extreme positions bubbled to the surface as well. Matthias Winans, Arthur Crihfield, John R. Howard, and others, promoted a theory of the Holy Spirit that so closely linked the Spirit and the Word that they became nearly indistinguishable. Crihfield would throw his hat in the editor bishop's chair in 1837 with a journal creatively titled The Heretic Detector ... its task would be to root out any and all heresy. It was in the Heretic Detector that, as far as I can determine, we encounter for the first time the "marks of the one true church." The spirit of this publication has been "reincarnated" in journals that yet remain among us.

Interestingly enough Stone, Campbell and even Robert Richardson seem to have sensed that something was afoot at the Circle-K (for those who remember Bill & Ted!). Alexander Campbell wrote a lengthy piece titled "The Crises" (Millennial Harbinger [December 1835], 595-602). Richardson published a letter in the same issue to Campbell under the heading "Reminiscences of 1835" (pp. 611-618). Campbell's last words to his readers for the year 1835 was a plea for them to reread his article and even Richardson's (p.622).

Barton W. Stone had already voiced distress over the direction of some within the movement. In the August 1835 Christian Messenger he shared some "Remarks." Since it is brief, yet powerful, I will reproduce his entire "remark."

"The scriptures [sic] will never keep together in union, and fellowship members not in the spirit of the scriptures, which spirit is love, peace, unity, forbearance, and cheerful obedience. This is the spirit of the great Head of the body. I blush for my fellows, who hold up the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship; who plead for union of all christians; yet refuse fellowship with such as dissent from their notions. Vain men! Their zeal is not according to knowledge, nor is their spirit that of Christ. There is a day not far ahead which will declare it. Such antisectarian sectarians are doing more mischief to the cause, and advancement of truth, the unity of christians, and the salvation of the world, than all the skeptics in the world. In fact, they make skeptics." (Barton W. Stone, "Remarks," [Christian Messenger August 1835], 180)

Stone did not shy from voicing his concern over the direction of some within the movement he helped spawn.

Due to the vigilance of Campbell, Stone, Richardson, and Scott most of the extreme views that began to surface in 1835 were held in check. Yet after the Civil War these uprooted tares among the wheat began to bud again. There is a direct link between the "Texas Tradition" in the Churches of Christ and John Thomas. We might explore that some more soon ... Those devoted to "truth" often have to point the search light back at their own heart. This is a legacy we can embrace from Stone, Campbell, Richardson and Scott.

Read More

Re-Baptism: Where Does the Slippery Slope End?

Where does it end? James A. Harding opined that no man since the time of Christ had understood the design of baptism when he submitted to it. Of course by design Harding meant more than Acts 2.38 ... as our recent post makes clear. All that was biblically required was submissive faith in Jesus as the Messiah the Son of God. J.W. McGarvey argued, convincingly, that God requires simply faith and repentance for biblical baptism. Because baptism "belongs to God and not man."

Some demand that a candidate must must know specifically "the remission of sins" though there is not a single text that makes such a demand. But once one starts "adding to" the list of requirements necessary for baptism where does the "slippery slope" end??

Barry Grider for example wrote in the "Forest Hill News" (vol 27.9) of the Forest Hill Church of Christ on February 27, 2001 an article called "Scriptural Baptism." If my memory serves correctly this is the home of Memphis School of Preaching. Grider makes some pretty hefty demands on the part of the candidate:

1) Must have the correct mode. That is it must be immersion under all circumstances.

2) It must be done for its one and only one scriptural purpose. "If someone is baptized for some reason other than the remission of sins, such a person has not been scripturally baptized." My emphasis.

3) Baptism must be preceded by repentance.This is applied to divorced and remarried "unbiblically" are to be refused baptism if they don't repent. "[A]n administrator of baptism should not baptize a person who refuses to repent" that is of their "adulterous relationship."

4) The candidate must not only be baptized for one and only reason (remission of
sins) this person must "understand the concept of the New Testament church." "A
few denominational churches baptize for the remission of sins, yet the individuals baptized are not added to the one true church."

I scratch my head folks! I see no such demands in the NT placed on the candidates. I hate to say it but it is sectarianism in the extreme but where does the slippery slope of adding unbiblical demands end?



There are many, not a single, biblical reasons to be baptized. And how many folks out there understood the "the concept of the New Testament church" at their baptism? I would say there is misunderstanding present in Barry's own article on this point ... he declares that the church is the kingdom and this is not so. Once we have decided to cut ourselves off of anyone else new conditions have to be added to keep us "distinct" ... so where does it end?

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Tucson, AZ

Read More

J. W. McGarvey: What is Valid Baptism?

The very mention of the name "J. W. McGarvey" inspires awe among many descendants of the Stoned-Campbell Movement. His name is synonymous with biblical scholarship among us. He courageously took on the liberals of his day in The Authorship of Deuteronomy. But he is most remembered for his Commentary on Acts. A work that some hold to this day to be the best study ever of Luke's second volume. Today he is cited in our intramural conflicts between progressives and conservatives, usually by the "conservatives." But who was McGarvey? What did he believe? He is rightly remembered for his scholarship. He is rightly honored as one who can help us understand deeper levels of the biblical text. He may not, however, if he were alive today fit snugly where some imagine he would. Let me use the issue of baptism to illustrate the point.

In McGarvey's day it was the rule, not the exception, that immersed believers from Baptist or Methodist churches were welcomed into Stoned-Campbell churches without undergoing a rebaptism. This would have covered Alexander Campbell himself. Evangelistic reports from the period frequently highlight how many were "baptized" and then how many have embraced the "plea" to be only Christians. This latter category were folks from other churches that practiced believers baptism.

Periodically some one would raise the question (as Dr. John Thomas did in the 1830s but that is another story for another time) of this practice among "us." J. W. McGarvey was faced with this question in the American Christian Review in 1862. He asked "What is Valid Immersion?" There are those, McGarvey, admits who are confused on the subject of baptism. Sometimes due to the failure of the preacher they are not fully taught on the matter and believe "error" about the "ordinance." Does the belief of the error undo the candidate's obedience? Biblically, McGarvey argued, there are two conditions for the candidate to fulfill:

1) the candidate was commanded to believe [the gospel] and

2) the candidate was commanded to repent.

These were the commands to which God required obedience for valid baptism. A false or incorrect notion about the ordinance does not undo baptism. Why? Because "it belongs to God and not man." The blessings, or gifts, of baptism are not commands to be obeyed but rather grace that flows from the hand of God. So ...

"when the conditions [belief & repentance] are complied with, he will be as good as his word, and it would be most unreasonable to suppose that he would withhold the blessing simply because I do not know that I am entitled to it. A man, therefore, cannot forfeit the blessing by mere ignorance of the promise, unless a knowledge of the promise is found to be a condition of its fulfillment, which certainly will not be assumed by any reader of the New Testament."

After declaring what constitutes valid baptism ... a candidate coming in faith in the gospel and a penitent heart ... McGarvey turns to the prevailing practice of the Stoned-Campbell churches of accepting into fellowship immersed Baptists, Methodists and others. In fact, McGarvey presents us with a concrete example ...

"[S]uppose a Baptist presents himself for membership with us, and we attempt to decide upon the validity of his immersion. We find that he was a believer [condition #1], and a penitent [condition #2], before he was immersed. He did not make the confession in express terms, but it was because he was not required to so, the preacher having become satisfied of his faith through other evidence. He believed that his sins were pardoned before he was immersed, and said so; but this was a mistake, not an omission of any duty, unless it be the duty of understanding Scripture. But this duty is not peculiarly connected with immersion, and we have seen that its omission cannot invalidate the immersion ... it is most unreasonable to suppose that his sins are still unforgiven."

Since valid baptism consists in fulfilling two conditions (faith & repentance) McGarvey believed restoration churches were completely true to the Bible in the practice of welcoming all immersed believers in Christ as members of God's family. That is as real Christians. Just to make his point emphatic and clear McGarvey stated ...

"If I were to attempt [to rebaptize the candidate], I would be making him repeat a duty which he had already fully performed ... We conclude, with all confidence that the brethren have been doing right to receive into fellowship all who have with faith and repentance have been immersed and have since led a reputable Christian life."

One wonders if McGarvey had published his thoughts in 2009 and not a hundred years ago if he would still be thought as the greatest biblical expositor in our heritage. But from what I can tell, McGarvey's understanding is in harmony with the Scriptures ...

Read More

James A. Harding & the "Design" of Baptism

I was recently asked this question during a discussion on baptism. This brother believed that unless one holds to a specific understanding of Acts 2.38 their obedience is not good enough. Here is the question: "But what about Acts 2:38 and its application/relevance today--if any? Again, baptism is what the original concern was about." I will here make an attempt to offer some insight from our Stoned-Campbell heritage on the matter ...

The question about baptism and its so called "design" has gone back and forth and I doubt it will ever be solved. According to my friend John Mark Hicks, between 1897 and 1907 there were right around TWO HUNDRED (that is 200) articles on rebaptism in the Gospel Advocate, Firm Foundation, Christian Leader & The Way, and the Octographic Review? That is a lot of ink! Many simply degenerated into rantings and name calling ... very unhelpful in any dialogue. But one article stands, in my view, above the rest for its clarity of thought, its civil tone and its tackling the issues head on.

That article comes from the pen of James A. Harding and he deals specifically with the question directed towards me. "HOU MUCH IS MEANT BY THE PHRASE, 'THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM?" was published in The Way in March 1900 covering pages 33 to 36. I will attempt to share the basic thrust of his article and supply relevant quotations from it.

Harding begins by reminding readers of The Way of his earlier article examining two theories concerning baptism 1) actual remission or a formal ceremonial cleansing. Now he will examine two more: 1) remission of sins is the design of baptism 2) remission is part of the design of baptism. Then Harding reminds his readers "the reader should remember that the text for these articles is Acts 2.38" (p. 33).

Harding then picks up the claim that "eis" denotes the design of baptism and this design is articulated in Acts 2.38. But then he lists 17x where "eis" follows the "words 'baptism,' 'baptize." These seventeen occurrences are: Mt 28.19; Ac 8.16; Ac 19.5; Rom 6.3(2x); Rom 6.4; Gal 3.27; Mk 1.4; Lk 3.3; Ac 2.38; 1 Cor 1.13; 1 Cor 1.15; Ac 19.3; 1 Cor 10.2; Mk 1.9; and 1 Cor 12.13. Harding comments on this list ...

"The idea of design is connected with, or suggested by, the word in every one of these places, it seems to me ..." (p. 34) Then he transitions to make these comments about Christian baptism.

"From these considerations it appears clear to me that to be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, into the name of the Lord Jesus, into Christ, into Christ Jesus, into death, are in effect one thing, inasmuch as to enter into one of these relationships is to enter into all of them. This was not always true, however, of baptism into remission of sins ... the inspired writers represent baptism as transferring one into thename, person, body, or death of Christ, or of the family of Christ, ten times; but only once do they represent us as being transferred into remission of sins. Is it not strange, then, that men will say remission of sins is the design..."

How did such a state of affairs come about, according to Harding? Why would preachers in the Churches of Christ make this argument then? Harding lays the blame upon the King James Version which he, and many others, had great reservations about Here are his own words on this point ...

"Moreover, in the one case (since Pentecost) in which he says we are baptized eis remission, the remission is not represented as the design of baptism, nor would any ever have supposed it was, I believe, had it not been for the incorrect translation of "eis" at this place; manifestly that which is
presented in this sentence as the object to be attained by being baptized is 'the gift of the Holy Spirit;' no one who is not utterly blinded by love for a false translation and a false interpretation can fail to see this when his attention is called to the truth."

Harding then quotes the Revised Version (1881) as the correct translation. He goes on to say "Peter did not say 'FOR [sic] the remission of sins.' The best scholarship of the world, in the best translations, has rejected 'for' as a rendering of 'eis' at this place." So what was the goal ... the end ... of being immersed in Acts 2.38?

"They were baptized unto (Greek 'into') the remission of their sins that they might receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Harding begins summarizing his inductive survey of baptism and eis by saying

"it is manifestly wrong to call remission of sins the design of baptism and insist that it shall be understood, or the baptism is of none effect, while no such requirement is made concerning the other passages where the same word ('eis') is used to show the relation or state into which the baptized is transferred."

But how would Harding handle one who comes from the "denominations" that has been immersed. Would he not ask him/her about the design of baptism. He says no!

"Because I doubt if there was ever a man who fully understood the design of the ordinance at the time of his baptism since Christ gave the commission. I am near fifty-two years of age; I have been a reader of the Bible, and have had my mind turned on this subject for the express purpose of studying it and getting ... yet I have not arrived ..."

What then is the biblical requirement for the candidate of baptism? What would Harding ask that Baptist or Methodist that had been immersed when they come to join a local congregation of the Churches of Christ?

"Did you believe with your whole heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and did you confess him as Lord?"

If the person responded in the negative they would simply need to be baptized rather than rebaptized. But if they affirm positively then they are in fact a part of the family of God.

Harding's article is a good one. He has some very thoughtful and insightful words. Maybe there is spiritual wisdom in them. I believe there is ...

Read More