Dallas Burdette

September 20, 1999

 

 

                    When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day (Acts 2:37-41).[1]

 

INTRODUCTION

Is one’s baptism valid if one does not specifically understand at the time of his/her baptism that it is “for the forgiveness of your sins”? If one misinterprets the precise moment that sins are remitted, does this mistake of the intellect invalidate baptism? Is baptism not legitimate if one does not believe that it is specifically “for the forgiveness of your sins”? Or is baptism authentic because one believes that Jesus is the Messiah?  What makes baptism true or false?  How does one determine what is or is not scriptural baptism?  These are questions the reformers had to face.  These are also questions that Christians must face today.  Is it ever correct to rebaptize someone? Is the demand for rebaptism on par with the command by Paul for rebaptism among the Ephesians?  If not, why not?

 

One’s beliefs concerning this issue of rebaptism will determine one’s reaction to others who do not understand at the time of their baptism that it is “for the forgiveness of your sins.” The crucial question is: Is one a Christian if he/she is not baptized with the specific understanding that baptism is “for the forgiveness of your sins”?  If one is baptized to obey God, is his/her baptism solid?  Is baptism for just one item, and nothing else? If baptism is not performed purposely “for the forgiveness of your sins,” should one be rebaptized?  Alexander Campbell met this controversy with strong opposition.[2]  Not only did Campbell reject rebaptism, but David Lipscomb also responded with negative reaction against those who advocated rebaptism exclusively “for the forgiveness of your sins.”[3]

 

ACTS 2:38 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

In the initial stage of the Stone/Campbell reformation Movement, “forgiveness of sins” was not associated with baptism.[4]  In order to understand the implications of Acts 2:38, the reformers had to wrestle with the details of this Scripture.  What does a literary reading of this verse set forth? In other words, what are the commands and what are the promises in Acts 2:38? Does this passage contain two or four commands? Or are there two commands and two blessings in this verse? Are “remission of sins”[5] and the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (KJV) blessings or commands? Are repentance and baptism commands or blessings? These are problems that challenged the early reformers. One of the many objectives of this essay is to search the primary sources of the early reformers to determine their reaction to rebaptism—for and against the practice.

 

Baptism and Forgiveness of Sins

 

                        The perception of rebaptism “for the forgiveness of your sins” is not something new for believers today. This practice of rebaptism entered the Stone/Campbell Movement early in its origin.[6]  One of the most hotly debated and possibly the most misunderstood Scriptures in the New Testament is Acts 2:38.  This passage is still utilized by many well-meaning believers to demand rebaptism and to separate themselves from other believers who were not baptized with the view to remission of sins, that is to say, remission after baptism, not before baptism.[7]  Acts 2:38 is employed by some members of the Churches of Christ to substantiate their belief that they and they alone belong to Christ.  In other words, anyone who was not immersed with the understanding that baptism is specifically “for the remission of your sins” is not a part of God’s community.

 

                        Thus, according to many Christians, a proper understanding of this blessing is the criterion by which one determines if one is or is not a child of God.  To state more clearly, salvation is based upon an intellectual assent to this dogma of “for the forgiveness of your sins.” This philosophy is saying, salvation hinges upon one’s belief of two objects: (1) belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and (2) belief in baptism “for the forgiveness of your sins.” Belief in number one is not sufficient for salvation without a belief in number two, so many advocate.

 

                        As a result of this conviction, many believers have concluded that those who practice immersion, but not precisely “for the forgiveness of your sins” have not been added to the Christian ekklesia. If one is baptized to obey God, this motive of obedience alone, according to some, is not sufficient to validate baptism if one does not know the precise moment God remits sins.[8] If one is only baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), then, according to many Christians, this immersion into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not sufficient for right baptism.  If one does not understand at the time of his/her baptism that it is “for the forgiveness of your sins,” then one’s baptism is null and void. It is feared that if one accepts other believers without a proper understanding of Acts 2:38, this will open the flood gate to acceptance of other believers as Christians.  Consequently, as a result of this mind-set, many reason that Baptists are not Christians.

 

            It is not uncommon for some members within the Churches of Christ to refuse to recognize believers in other denominations.[9] But this denial of acceptance was not the reaction of many of the forefathers within the Reformation Movement of the Churches of Christ. In fact, a large number held to the view that there were Christians within other denominations. Many of the early reformers accepted the Baptist as disciples of Christ.[10]  For this reason, they objected to reimmersion of those who wanted to identify with the Reformation Movement initiated by the Campbells to bring about renovation within the Christian Church.

 

EARLY REFORMERS’ VIEWS OVER REBAPTISM

 WITHIN THE REFORMATION MOVEMENT

WITHIN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST

 

Some of the early pioneers—Thomas Campbell (1763-1854), Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), Barton Stone (1772-1844), Walter Scott (1796-1861), David Lipscomb (1831-1917), Elisha G. Sewell (1830-1924), James A. Harding (1848-1922)—maintained that they were bringing about reform within the existing church of Christ, not restoration, but reformation.[11] According to the early pioneers of the Stone/Campbell Movement, the church did not cease to exist; thus, the freethinkers did not wish to bury living persons by rebaptizing them.  They reasoned that it was against the law to bury a breathing human being.  If  someone had been baptized to obey God, then, that individual was alive in Jesus.  According to the reformers, meeting under a denominational name did not prevent one from belonging to God’s community of believers.  In fact, the denominations spoke of themselves as the churches of Christ.

 

Few Christians today are aware of how or when the practice of rebaptism “for the forgiveness of your sins” began, or even what position(s) the pioneers of the Stone/Campbell Movement took toward this practice of rebaptism of believers.  The general assumption seems to be that baptism “for the forgiveness of your sins” has been insisted upon from the beginning of the Reformation Movement as one of its hallmarks. However, the historical facts dealing with rebaptism speak otherwise.  To illustrate this fact of negative response to rebaptism by the reformers, then, it is necessary to cite original sources to discover their feelings and practice about this peculiar procedure that is promoted by many Christians today. One such example is one of the first reformers, namely, Barton W. Stone.

 

Barton W. Stone

 

                        In 1807, three years after The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, Barton W. Stone sought to defend infant sprinkling, but his unsuccessful attempt resulted in his acceptance of immersion of believers as scriptural baptism.  Following this concept of believers’ baptism, Stone and his fellow Christian preachers immersed one another.  At the time of these baptisms, neither Stone nor his fellow ministers associated “for the forgiveness of your sins” with baptism. But upon the discovery of this truth, Stone extended an invitation to accept Jesus based upon Acts 2:38; yet, this doctrine was not well received, and, as a result of this coolness, he continued to employ the use of the “Mourner’s bench” until 1825.  Stone commented upon this thumbs down attitude over Acts 2:38 in his graphic description:

 

The subject of baptism now engaged the attention of the people very generally, and some, with myself, began to conclude that it was ordained for the remission of sins. . . . Into the spirit of the doctrine I was never fully led, until it was revived by Brother Campbell, some years later.[12]

 

Alexander Campbell

 

                        Another early harbinger, Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), also questioned the “mode” of baptism—immersion or sprinkling, which?  Upon the birth of his fist child in 1812, he made a thorough investigation on the subject of infant baptism.[13] And, as a result of his research, he came to the conclusion that baptism is “immersion,” not “sprinkling,” and that baptism is for believers only.[14] Also, Campbell decided that Christian baptism could be performed upon a simple profession of faith, not just upon a “religious experience,” as so many Christians practiced.[15]  Following this inquiry, he, his father (Thomas 1763-1864), and five others were immersed (June 1812).[16]

 

                        In 1812, Campbell recorded his thoughts about the baptisms that took place in 1812.  It is significant that “remission of sins” was not a part of the baptismal ceremony as is the practice among many Churches of Christ today.  Campbell later reflected upon that momentous occasion by recalling his conversation with Matthias Luce (Luce was the one who did the baptizing in June of 1812.).

 

I was immersed by a Regular Baptist, but not in a Regular Baptist way. I stipulated with Matthias Luce that I should be immersed on the profession of the one fact, or proposition, that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God, when I solicited his attendance with me on that occasion.  He replied that it was not usual for the Baptist to immerse simply on that profession; but that he believed it to be scriptural.  Fearing, however, to be called to account for it by some of his brethren, he solicited the attendance of Henry Spears, a very worthy brother, for whose undissemble piety I always cherish the highest regard, to accompany him and to hear the half of the censure which might fall upon him for this great aberration from the good old Baptist way.  Brother Spears accompanied him, and on this profession alone I was immersed; nor have I ever immersed any person but upon the same profession which I made myself (emphasis mine—R.D.B).[17]

 

                        It is generally taught that Alexander Campbell was immersed exclusively “for the remission of sins.” Mistakenly, some believers still postulate that Campbell was immersed expressly “for the remission of sins” by Matthias Luce, but the historical facts do not corroborate this belief. The truth of the matter is, he was immersed “on the profession of the one fact, or proposition, namely, that Jesus was the Messiah the Son of God,” nothing else.  Twelve years after his baptism (1824), Campbell expresses concisely the same foundation of hope for the believer that he expressed in 1812:

 

But the grandeur, sublimity, and beauty of the foundation of hope, and of ecclesiastical or social union, established by the author and founder of Christianity, consisted in this, that THE BELIEF OF ONE FACT, and that upon the best evidence in the world, is all that is requisite, as far as faith goes, to salvation. The belief of this ONE FACT, and submission to ONE INSTITUTION expressive of it is all that is required of Heaven to admission into the church.  A Christian, as defined, not by Doctor Johnson, nor any creed-maker, but by one taught of Heaven, and in Heaven, is one that believes this one fact, and has submitted to one institution, and whose deportment accords with the morality and virtue taught by the great Prophet.  The one fact is, that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah.[18]

 

                        Well-grounded baptism, according to Campbell, hinged upon “The belief of one fact” (Jesus is the Messiah) and “submission to one institution expressive of it” (baptism). Campbell’s stress was not upon “remission of sins,”[19] but upon the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  Since Campbell did not understand “for remission of sins” at the time of his baptism, was he still a Christian or a child of Satan?  Was Campbell a member of God’s community (church) on earth? If he was a Christian, then, one must accept Campbell’s baptism as valid, based upon his belief that “Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah.” If one accepts Campbell’s baptism, how can Christians reject the baptisms of other believers as invalid?

 

                        Baptism “for the remission of sins” gradually developed in Campbell’s thinking.  But, in the earlier stages of his development of Christian baptism, Campbell’s theology of baptism did not include “remission of sins” with immersion until he developed his arguments against infant baptism with McCalla (1823). It is significant that Campbell did not associate “for the remission of sins” with baptism until this debate.  It is also noteworthy that eleven years transpired between Campbell’s baptism and this debate. Even though Campbell introduced this concept in the McCalla debate, it was Walter Scott (1796-1861)—four years after the debate—who pioneered this doctrine of “for the remission of sins” and put this concept into his preaching, not Alexander Campbell.[20]  Campbell later sympathized with those who did not understand its great importance.  He composed his feelings by saying:

 

We can sympathize with those who have this doctrine in their own creeds unregarded, and unheeded in its import and utility; for we exhibited it fully in our debate with Mr. McCalla, 1823, without feeling its great importance, and without beginning to practice upon its tendencies for sometime afterwards.[21]

 

                        Neither Barton Stone (1772-1844) nor the Campbells were reimmersed after discovering another blessing inherent in baptism; namely, “remission of sins.” This is not only true of these men, but there were others who responded to the “good news” of God that did not understand “remission of sins” as one of the blessings bestowed through immersion.  For example, Robert Richardson (1806-1876) mentions Walter Scott, Elder Bently, and others who did not comprehend “for remission of sins” (KJV) at the time of their immersion. Richardson authored the following comments:

 

Mr. Scott, Elder Bentley, and some others of the prominent preachers, were indeed aware that Mr. Campbell had spoken of it at the McCalla debate as a pledge of pardon, but in this point of view it was, as yet, contemplated only theoretically, none of them having so understood it when they were themselves baptized, and being yet unable properly and practically to realize or apprehend its importance in this respect.[22]

 

                        Walter Scott first began preaching baptism “for the remission of sins” in 1827.[23] He had astounding success and baptized hundreds “for the remission of sins” as he cited Acts 2:38 in support of his new found truth.  Scott’s teaching is a landmark, not because it was the first time this understanding of baptism had been set forth in the Reformation Movement, but because it marked the turning point in preaching on this subject of baptism.  Even though Campbell had previously related “remission of sins” with immersion (1823), nevertheless, Walter Scott deserves the credit for making an explicit and pragmatic application of immersion related to “remission of sins.”  Richardson wrote:

 

It was, however, reserved for Walter Scott, a few years later, to make a direct and practical application of the doctrine, and to secure for it the conspicuous place it has since occupied among the chief points urged in the Reformation.[24]

 

                        Also, Richardson chronicles the first person to be immersed in the Stone/Campbell Reformation Movement “for the remission of sins.” He informs his readers that that man was Mr. William Amend. He then tells his readers that Mr. Amend responded to the preaching of Scott on November 18, 1827; he was the first person to be baptized specifically for this reason. Richardson elaborates on this scene:

 

The people were filled with bewilderment at this strange truth brought to their ears, and now exemplified before their eyes in the baptism of a penitent for a purpose which now, on the 18th of November, 1827, for the first time since the primitive ages was fully and practically realized.[25]

 

                        With the introduction of “for the remission of sins” as an element of baptism, needless to say, this idea created uneasiness on the part of many who did not understand this blessing at the time of their baptism.  This controversy over the design of baptism “for the remission of sins” created doubts in the minds of many believers concerning the validity of their own baptism prior to this discovery. Should they be rebaptized?  This question was the “big question” in the minds of so many who wanted to be true to the Word of God.  Alexander Campbell responds to the question of rebaptism by saying, “No.”  In fact, in 1832, Campbell addresses the following argument to a fictitious opponent who championed the rebaptism position.

 

Why on all your definitions of the kingdom, supposing, as you do, that he that is not formally and understandingly immersed for the remission of his sins cannot enter into this kingdom of heaven; and it being a fact that before the year 1823, since the fifth century, baptism for the remission of sins was not preached, and not until the year 1827 were many immersed with this apprehension of the subject. The dilemma in which your assumption fairly places you is this—either the promise of God has failed, or such persons as were baptized as you were the first time, are in the kingdom.[26]

 

                        Campbell’s argument is that if “for remission of sins” must be known at the time of immersion in order for baptism to be accurate, then the church of Christ ceased to exist for several hundred years. He surmised that that which makes baptism legitimate is not that you believe it is “for the remission of sins,” but rather that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He rationalized correctly that “for remission of sins” is not a command, but rather an executive act of pardon that takes place in the mind of God. Repentance and baptism demonstrates man’s response to God’s favor extended to him in the sending of His Son for man’s atonement.

 

                        Campbell also understood Acts 2:38 as containing two commands and two blessings—not four commands. In other words, when one responds to repentance and baptism, God showers the respondent with two gifts: (1) “remission of sins,” and (2) “gift of the Holy Spirit” (KJV). In Acts 2:38, one discovers two commands (repentance and baptism) and two blessings (forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit).  One cannot do the latter (these are promises), only the former (these are commands). In other words, men and women react through repentance and baptism; on the other hand, God awards through forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit.[27]

 

Twenty Years After Campbell’s Baptism

 

                        Approximately twenty years after Campbell’s baptism, he still preferred not to add “for the remission of sins” to the formula in baptism.  Richardson has an insightful comment on Campbell’s procedure in baptism (The following quotation appears above, but this insight concerning Campbell’s procedure is worthy of double notice):

 

Mr. Campbell greatly disapproved the practice of making such issues, and of using such strong and unguarded expressions as the “power of remitting sins” and “washing away sins in baptism.” “These,” said he, “have been most prejudicial to the cause of truth and have given a pretext to the opposition for their hard speeches against the pleadings of Reformers.” The habitual use of such expressions he thought also calculated to lead men to overlook or disparage that faith in the sacrifice of Christ from which alone baptism derived its efficacy. On this account, in baptizing persons, he used only the simple formula, “Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and forbore adding to it, like Mr. Scott and others, the expression “for the remission of sins.” “When any doctrine,” said he (Mil. Harb. For 1832, p. 299), “is professed and taught by many, when any matter gets into many hands, some will misuse, abuse and pervert it. This is unavoidable. We have always feared abuses and extremes.”[28]

 

David Lipscomb and Rebaptism

 

Even with Campbell’s arguments, the rebaptism controversy continued to strain the Christian community. Several years later, David Lipscomb (1831-1917) addresses this same issue of rebaptism.  Sincerity existed on both sides of the point in question. The preposition “for” created the difficulty. The rebaptism debate centered on the meaning of this preposition in Acts 2:38. Lipscomb’s lengthy article on “Rebaptism Reviewed” is extremely helpful in understanding the mind-set on both sides of the matter of contention.[29] One cannot demonstrate this point of baptism more clearly than by quoting at length from Lipscomb:

 

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 re-immersion. 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 of 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” in the sentence, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” in the sentence, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” is a 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 on this 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.” It cannot be the promise as a result of the obedience and 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 a 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 out, so that there may come seasons of refreshing 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 the 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 he 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 the application of it. (Acts 2:38) 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 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 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: “God 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 on man? Does the obligation of man end with being baptized, and is 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?” There is no command in the 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 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 into the name of Christ, into the remission of sins. 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 the 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 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 must be ruling, controlling, ever-present motive 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. “Whatever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col. 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 of the Son and of 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 person 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 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 things 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 were 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 had 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 the 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 worshipped 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 in 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 “for the remission of sins” was present and controlling motive in his baptism? The very same Peter that told the bloody-handed murderers to be baptized “for the remission of your 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 the Lord Jesus,” as prescribed in the commission. 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 in 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 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 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 antitype of Abraham’s offerings of his son was God offering 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 best 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.[30]

 

                        In addition to Lipscomb, there were others who also wrote against the practice of rebaptizing for the specific purpose of  “for remission of sins.” For example, E. G. Swell (1830-1924), James A. Harding (1848-1922), John F. Rowe (1827-1897), F. B. Srygley (1859-1940), F. W. Smith (1858-1930), and J. C. McQuiddy (1858-1924).[31] This cloud of witnesses did not  make “remission of sins” the criterion whereby they determined if one’s baptism was authentic.  This controversy still continues to rage like wild fire. Allen also refers to two other outstanding contemporary Church of Christ preachers—B. C. Goodpasture (1895-1977) and C. A. Norred (1888-1969)—in this century that did not make a conscious understanding of “remission of sins” a prerequisite for sound baptism. In other words, they accepted those who had not been immersed expressly for this purpose.[32]

 

Campbell’s Dialogue on Re-immersion

 

                        Returning to the rebaptism controversy in 1832, Campbell develops forceful arguments against the procedure of rebaptism.[33] In order to expose what he considered fallacies in the arguments in favor of reimmersion, he sets up a dialogue on reimmersion between two fictitious characters—Alexander (A) and Rufus (R). Rufus argues for rebaptism and Alexander argues against rebaptism.  In this dialogue, Campbell fights against rebaptizing individuals who were baptized upon the confession of faith in Jesus the Messiah, even though they may have labored under the impression that their sins were remitted six months before they were baptized. The following is Campbell’s scenario in which he represents two individuals (Alexander and Rufus) discussing the subject of rebaptism:

 

A.     Have you really been baptized?

 

R.     Not re-baptized in my sense of the word; for I regard my former baptism as nothing better than infant sprinkling.

 

A.     If no better than infant sprinkling, you certainly ought to have been baptized. But you must mistake the meaning of that essay, if you suppose it regarded infant sprinkling as Christian immersion. It applies not to such a hypothesis. What I designate re-immersion, is the immersion of one a second time, who had voluntarily and understandingly confessed Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God; and as such cheerfully submitted to him, and was immersed into his name as Mediator, as Prophet, Priest, and King. Were you not immersed upon such a profession some ten years ago?

 

R.     I was about that time immersed without understanding the meaning of it, and had no respect to the immersion of my sins in immersion: for I believed that I was forgiven six months before my immersion, through faith in the blood of Jesus.

 

A.     You had faith, then, in the blood of Jesus, and consequently regarded him as the Messiah.

 

R.     Yes: I had faith in him, indeed: but I was not immersed for the remission of my sins. I was immersed because Jesus was immersed in the Jordan, and because he commanded all believers to be immersed.

 

A.     And such a baptism as this you now say is no better than no baptism or than infant sprinkling. Does an infant act at all, does its understanding, will, affections, or conscience feel or act in reference to the example, authority, command, or promise of Jesus Christ? Surely you confound things that differ, the breath and length of heaven.

 

R.     Oh! There is some difference, indeed! But as touching the remission of sins, an infant as much expected it in its sprinkling, as I in my first immersion.

 

A.     That may be, for you say that you thought; nay, were assured, that your sins were remitted six months before you were immersed. But this, in my judgment, constitutes no reason why you should, after ten years citizenship in the kingdom of Christ, be again immersed. When I was naturalized a citizen of these United States, there were certain immunities and privileges attached to citizenship which I had not in my mind at that time, nor were they any inducement to me to be naturalized, any more than to that child now sleeping in the arms of its mother. But did that circumstance annul my naturalization and leave me an alien?

 

R.     I dare not say there was no church of Christ, no kingdom of God all this time. But I will say the church was in the wilderness.

 

A.     That helps you not. It was still a church, although it was in the wilderness; and this destroys your assumption. I admit that he who understands not fully the Lord’s day, the Lord’s supper, and Christian immersion, cannot fully enjoy the blessings of the gospel of Christ, and that it makes all the difference between the wilderness and the fruitful field to understand fully these institutions: but yet there are degrees both in faith and knowledge; and he that lives in the wilderness still lives.

 

R.     I am candid to confess that I did not foresee this impediment in my way. But, come, does this greatly detract from the importance which you and others attach to the discovery of the capital item of the ancient gospel—baptism for the remission of sins? This indeed is the only item which obtains for the ancient gospel the eminence which it claims.

 

A.     Not in the least. It stands true that this is its proper meaning. The not understanding of this institution has prevented many Christians from enjoying its benefits; but the not understanding it does not make them aliens from the kingdom of Jesus.[34]

 

Dr. John Thomas’ Controversy and Rebaptism

 

                        The rebaptism debate, in part, began with Dr. John Thomas (1805-1871). The rediscovery of “remission of sins” associated with baptism was bound to lead, sooner or later, to someone’s questioning whether baptism could be accurately administered to a person who did not understand that particular aspect of the ordinance. In the early stages of the Stone/Campbell Movement, Dr. Thomas was apparently the first person to emphasize rebaptizing those who did not understand “for the remission of sins” at the time of their baptism. Alexander Campbell quoted from the Religious Herald, a journal hostile to the Stone/Campbell Movement, which was eager to point out the differences between Campbell and Thomas on rebaptism. The article quickly points out Campbell’s objection to Dr. Thomas’ views and practice on rebaptism:

 

Progress of the Reformation—re-baptism—We understand that Mrs. Dr. Thomas was recently re-baptized for the remission of sins. Mrs. T. had previously been baptized on a profession of her faith, as we understand, by Mr. Burnet the Reformer. Recently her mind had become disquieted as to the validity of her baptism. Being confined to her room, and yet anxious to have the ordinance readministered, a bathing-tub was procured, carried into her room, filled with warm water, and Mrs. T. immersed for the remission of her sins, by Mr. Joseph Woodson, one of the members of the Sycamore church. Mr. Campbell objects to this amendment of his new theory—but who shall decide when Doctors disagree?[35]

 

                        Campbell’s “Extra” for December 1837 analyzed a number of opinions of Dr. Thomas that he regarded as discordant inclinations. One of these heretical trends was reimmersion of immersed believers. Campbell penned:

 

His re-immersion for the Baptist, and his no prayer system of preaching the word together with his representing all those immersed among the Baptists as immersed antichrist, are strong indications of the schismatical drift of our Apostolic Advocate.[36]

 

This statement of Campbell concerning the Baptists is not a well-known fact, at least as far as I can detect in my conversations with various believers with a Church of Christ background.[37] Campbell entertained the notion, contrary to many Churches of Christ in the 20th century, that the Baptist were Christians. He opposed referring to the Baptist as “immersed antichrist.” But, in the very beginning of the Stone/Campbell Movement, the reformers considered all baptized believers as members of the church of Christ. As one reads the primary sources, this acceptance of “other believers” in other denominations is self-evident.

 

ESCALATION OF THE REBAPTISM CONTROVERSY

                        The rebaptism issue grew into the third most significant controversy to plague the Church of Christ.[38]  The other two thorns were the missionary societies and the mechanical instruments of music.[39] This particular controversy over baptism “for the remission of sins” reached its zenith with Austin McGary (1846-1928). McGary established the Firm Foundation (September 1884) for the purpose of advocating rebaptism for those who did not understand “for the remission of sins” at the time of their baptism.[40] He contended that when a man believed in Jesus, repented of his sins, and was baptized in order to “obey God,” still, this obedience was not sufficient to become a child of God. One is not a child of God until he/she was baptized “for the remission of sins,”[41] according to McGary.  Lipscomb responds to this position by writing:

 

To take one truth or one motive out of a number given by God and say, “This one shall be understood, and the others need not be,” is to do violence to the order of God, and is to crystallize a sect around a truth, wrested from its God-given place, ignoring other truths just as important. This is to form a sect.[42]

 

            The battle rages over the practice of rebaptism, Lipscomb receives a letter of inquiry concerning the purpose of baptism: “Brother Lipscomb: What is baptism for, and what does John 3:5 mean?”[43] To this he replies:

 

The leading purpose of baptism is to bury the man dead through faith and repentance to the world out of himself and raise him in Christ Jesus. “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them [eis] in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit puts them into the enjoyment of all the blessings to be received in Christ, the blood of Christ, the remission of sins, the fellowship of God, Jesus Christ, and all the intelligences of the universe that are in fellowship with God.[44]

 

Again, Lipscomb receives another question related to baptism:

 

Brother Lipscomb: Please answer in the columns of the Gospel Advocate if you do, or ever did, take the position that if a person came to you and said he believed that God for Christ’s sake had pardoned his sins, you would try to teach him better, but, if you could not, that you would take and baptize him in that condition, believing that he was already saved. Please answer, as you are accused by several brethren of taking that position several years ago. I am a little over a year old in the gospel.[45]

 

To this question Lipscomb answers:

I have never found where God has ever suspended the acceptability of man’s service on man’s knowing the moment God rewarded the service, or the time and reason of a blessing. If he has done this, I do not see who can be saved. The highest type of faith is that of Abraham. He did God’s commands, left all and followed him, “not knowing whither he went. . . .” God made many promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of blessing, and how and when the blessing would come. They, through having their spiritual vision clouded by their surroundings, failed to understand the nature or special time of the divine promises; yet God never withheld the promise when in obedience to him they came to the appointed place. Christ so often and so plainly told the apostles that he would be crucified and raised from the dead the third day; yet their minds were so preoccupied with other views that they did not see or understand or believe it. They failed to believe it because they did not see it. They had confidence in Jesus and faith in the truth of his teaching, but the preoccupation of their minds with the idea of a temporal kingdom and earthly glory hindered their seeing the truth then. Jesus did not reject their service because they failed to see this, the most important item in his teaching. He knew, if led on to obey truly other truths they did see, that they would come to see the fullness of this truth.

 

Peter on Pentecost preached: “The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off.” Yet he was slow to understand and believe the promise was to the Gentiles, because his prejudices were in the way. These prejudices were so blind when they were aroused, after he had opened the door to the Gentiles, they led him to refuse to eat with them as brethren. Yet his service was accepted. God makes allowance for human ignorance and human weakness, and accepts service despite much blindness and many errors, or we are all lost. It is only weak man, who imagines that he knows all truth, that makes service depend upon a perfect understanding of God’s purpose and times. . . .

 

The truth is, there are different motives given in the Bible to lead men to obedience. The highest, holiest motive to obedience is that which led Jesus—the desire to fulfill all righteousness—to do the will of God. I would fear much to meet Christ at the judgment seat of God if I rejected him who did what God commanded him, led by the motive that led Jesus Christ to obey him. When a man trusts God and honors him from the desire of obeying him, he acts from the motive that is more pleasing to God than any other. . . .

 

Jesus said: “Though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” (John 10:38) If they could not believe through the words of Jesus, yet could believe through his works, he was willing to accept them. Take this as an example: A man is born and reared in a Presbyterian family. From childhood he is taught to believe that infant sprinkling and all the practices of the Presbyterian Church are right. He lives in all good conscience and tries to do the will of God. In reading the Bible, he sees that God requires men to believe, then be baptized. He sees that baptism is a burial. In his anxiety to do the will of God, he is baptized, before his attention has ever been directed to the fact that is “for the remission of sins”; but he is moved by the same motive that led Jesus to be baptized—a desire to fulfill all righteousness. Who will say that man’s baptism is not acceptable to God? Who will say he ought to defer a duty that he knows God requires at his hands until he learns all the blessings God will bestow, and just where and when each blessing will come in, and why it is bestowed? If that is necessary, no man can ever tell when he should be baptized. Such a contention arises from a very mistaken ides of God’s character and of the ground of his mercy to man. The ground of God’s mercy to man is not that man understands and knows how God works or the point when and where he bestows his blessing; but it is that man is weak, sinful, helpless, willing to trust God and follow him, not knowing whither he leads. . . .  It is not necessary to understand all truth before he obeys what he does understand.[46]

 

Lipscomb Versus McGary

 

                        As the debate continued, Lipscomb pressures McGary to deny that Alexander Campbell or Tolbert Fanning (1810-1874) or “that host of heroes” were Christians because they were not baptized purposely “for the remission of sins.” McGary boldly answers that if Campbell was not baptized “for the remission of sins,” then his baptism was null and void.[47] Undoubtedly McGary did not know that Campbell had not been baptized expressly “for the remission of sins,” since he called him “brother.” In addition to Lipscomb’s discussions, James A. Harding (1848-1922) also conducted written debates with Austin McGary and J. D. Tant (1861-1941) on the subject of rebaptism.[48]  Stephen Eckstein calls attention to the castigation of a number of well-known reformers by McGary:

 

McGary retorted that Lipscomb and others who defended Baptist baptism were Cambellites. He sarcastically asserted that such men as J. W. McGarvey, F. W. Allen, Isaac Errett, J. A. Harding and J. M. Barnes of other states, Wilmeth and Rawlins, the Clarks, Carlton, McPherson, Homan and others taught that Baptists are “in Christ” and when they die, “strict Baptist, they go to rest in Jesus.”[49]

 

Again, Eckstein writes: “The Christian Courier asserted that the church was suffering from the ‘rebaptism hobby that is being furiously ridden’ by a faction among the Disciples of Christ.”[50] Another Journal (Christian Messenger) entered the rebaptism controversy. Once more Eckstein pens: “The Christian Messenger declared that rebaptism ‘is so preposterous that it seems no man or woman with intellect to be accountable could be deceived by it. Yet this the delusion that is leading away hundreds of disciples in Texas at the present time.’”[51]

 

Tolbert Fanning

 

Tolbert Fanning (1810-1874) also objected to rebaptizing those who were satisfied with their baptism, even the Baptist. He composed the following thoughts on the subject: “We teach the Baptist the Christian religion and after understanding the great facts, if they are satisfied with their baptism, I know of no brother who would not fellowship them.”[52] The acceptance of members from the Baptist church without rebaptism was wide spread among the early Reformation preachers.  James R. Wilburn says,

 

Fanning and his associates, unlike their Baptist neighbors who commanded baptism “because of remission of sins, believed that immersion was necessary to salvation. Still, it was often the practice of preachers in the Churches of Christ to receive members into fellowship from the Baptist Church without rebaptism, even though the Baptist generally taught that salvation followed faith with baptism a subsequent event.[53]

 

Also, Wilburn quoted from the Gospel Advocate (1855—to present) and the Christian Review to substantiate this fact of not rebaptizing:

 

We received two additions from the sects without baptism, seven by baptism, one restored, and one confession [to be baptized later], or again, ‘The result of our meeting is nineteen additions to the cause of Primitive Christianity, four of whom were from the Baptist, and fifteen were immersed.[54]

 

                        Fanning delighted in the saying, “Though we are not the only Christians, we are Christians only.”[55] Wilburn further writes about Fanning’s refusal to deny that there were Christians among the denominations:

 

While Fanning continually censored division, he was not prepared to deny that there were Christians in the denominations which he saw around him. “That there are Christians in confusion,” said he, “we doubt not,” and then later he wrote, “While we could cheerfully fellowship all who are pure and of good report in the denominations, should we admit the divine origin of any sect, this fact alone would certainly afford unmistakable evidence of insincerity.”[56]

 

Harding Versus Tant

 

                        Lloyd Sears, in his biography of James A. Harding (1848-1922), describes one incident that should serve as a valuable practical example for Christians today.  As he explains:

 

On the “rebaptism” issue, which was threatening to divide the church, J. D. Tant was invited to give a series of lectures opposing the views of Harding and Lipscomb. L. S. Chambers relates that he was surprised to see Harding, after a lecture, put his arm around Tant and walk with him across the campus to Harding’s home for dinner. He learned to his astonishment and his great joy that “brethren could be brethren though they differed.”[57]

 

A lesson about brotherly love existed in their relationship to one another and to God. But this attitude did not last long among Christians. Around the turn of the century, as mentioned above in the “Lipscomb versus McGary” controversy, the rebaptism question again posed one of the greatest threats to the unity of the Spirit. With the rise of the Firm Foundation (1844—to present), this issue of contention reached its zenith—division occurred.  In the face of great turmoil, Lipscomb and Harding and Sewell (1830-1924) still objected to rebaptism. Sears wrote about these three and the Gospel Advocate staff:

 

On this issue David Lipscomb, Harding, E. G. Sewell, and the Advocate staff and readers in general held that the only requirements for baptism which are stipulated by Jesus and the apostles were a faith in Jesus as the Son of God, repentance, and confession.