What Is The Design Of Baptism?
The plain language of the Bible on the design of baptism is so unpopular among the people that many who know and believe the truth on the subject are afraid to tell the whole truth in regard to it. Many so-called gospel preachers try in every way to refrain from emphasizing those passages in which the purpose of baptism is clearly stated; and when they in their sermons have to repeat such passages, they do it with a kind of embarrassment, which shows them to feel a regret that the Lord put such doctrine in the Bible. I actually heard one of these preachers say in Dallas, during a meeting at the Central Christian Church, that he had felt sorry that God ever taught that baptism was a condition of pardon to the alien, simply for the reason that the people seemed to hate the doctrine so much. If Paul had been so afraid of public opinion, I suppose the world today would not be in possession of that matchless argument on the resurrection of the dead given in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul could truthfully say, "In hope of the resurrection of the dead, I am called in question," and then declare, "I have taught nothing contrary to the teachings of the prophets. I have said only what Moses and the prophets did say should come."
Why be ashamed of an institution that Jesus Christ walked more than seventy miles to receive? Why should one feel embarrassed to say, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God?" Jesus said it, and he also said, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed."
Peter was not ashamed to say, "In the days of Noah, there were few, that is eight souls saved by water, and so in the anti-type baptism doth also now save us."
Paul was not ashamed to say, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature"; that all the promises of God are in him; and then as he does in Galatians 3:27: "So many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," thus showing that outside of Christ there is no remission, and the believer is baptized into Christ. Again, Paul was not ashamed to say to the church at Rome, "So many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death." (Rom. 6:1-4.) The blood of Christ was shed in his death; the believer, therefore, reaches the blood of Christ when he is baptized into his death.
After the Savior's resurrection from the dead, he gave to his disciples a commission, imposing upon them the duty of preaching the gospel to all the world. He said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:15-16.) We have the same recorded by Luke as follows, "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." Does it require the eye of a philosopher to see that our Savior here makes faith, repentance, and baptism conditions of pardon to every one to whom this message. is delivered? Would it have been any plainer and more easily understood if Christ had said, "He that believeth and submits to baptism shall obtain the forgiveness of sins?" What is the difference between that and what the Lord did say?
When Peter spoke on Pentecost he used that very expression, "remission of sins," saying, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins." When Peter preached the gospel to the Jews on this day, they heard and believed. Being pierced in their hearts, they cried out to Peter and the other apostles asking "What shall we do?" It was in answer to this question that Peter told them to "Repent and be baptized unto the remission of sins. "
I was taught when a school boy that it was the office of coordinate conjunctions to connect words and sentences of the same rank, that is, both dependent, or else both independent. I believe that is the very language of Swinton's grammar on this rule. Now repentance and baptism are here connected by the coordinate conjunction "and"; they must therefore be dependent upon the same phrase, or else both are independent of everything. But read the passage again: "Repent AND be baptized." Suppose Peter had wanted to teach these people that they had to be baptized as well as to repent in order to have their sins remitted; how would he have said it? Can you imagine what language or sentence construction he would have used? How would he have framed his phrases and clauses to express that idea? Is it not perfectly clear that he would have said exactly what he did say: "Repent AND be baptized" unto the remission of sins? Can anything be plainer than that? Do you really think it needs any explaining? Peter did not think an explanation was necessary; and those today who do think it needs some explanation have not the same spirit that Peter had. Since Peter had the spirit of Christ, it is doubtful that those who dispute Peter's words that baptism is a condition of pardon, really have the spirit of the Lord at all.
Take every case of conversion clearly made out in the Book of Acts, and you will find the three conditions of salvation which are mentioned in the Great Commission (Faith, Repentance, and Baptism), either clearly stated or unmistakably implied. There are no exceptions.