J. M. Frost - 1916
J. M. Frost. Baptist and Reflector, Nashville, Tenn., Dec. 23, 1915.
”Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water he saw the heavens rent asunder.” - Mark 1:9.
”Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” - Matt. 28:19.
”They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.” - Acts 8:38, 39.
”All we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were buried, therefore, with him through baptism into death” (Romans 6:3, 4). . . . ”Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead. ... If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God.” - Col. 2 :12; 3:1.
WILL something else - sprinkling, for example - answer as a substitute for baptism? Taking these scriptures in their plain meaning and in their oneness of emphasis for immersion as the prescribed form of baptism, will some ”other mode” do as well ? The question, though incongruous and well-nigh impossible as it may seem, must be treated with genuine courtesy and due consideration. For sprinkling is much honored as a ”mode of baptism,” and is largely followed with sincerity and devoutness. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith, one of the most remarkable deliverances in Christian history, says: ”Dipping of the person into water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.”
Furthermore, the Roman Catholics throughout the world have for centuries maintained sprinkling as their ”mode in the sacrament of baptism.” And many, many thousands of people who honored our Lord, who blessed the world in their Christian character and service, have lived and died in the practice of sprinkling, counting it a suitable ”mode” for administering the great ordinance. Many thousands today, their successors in belief, stand in the same practice and make the same claim.
All this, however worthy it may be of kindly consideration, does not in any wise change the issue, cannot answer the question which confronts us, can hardly be a legitimate factor in its settlement, and yet it adds to the gravity of the discussion and makes more urgent the demand for its righteous adjustment. The opinions and practices of others, however honored and influential, does not relieve one from personal obligation either to know for himself or act for himself. The question is one of personal duty, as personal as eating and sleeping. It must be answered by the New Testament, and the New Testament is an open book in its pattern of belief and life. Everyone must give account for himself unto God, - in baptism as in every other Christian duty, now as well as in the judgment at the last great day. Baptism is a personal privilege, the answer of a good conscience. If others fail and come short in duty or privilege, that is no excuse for us. We must answer the question for ourselves - each one for himself-will sprinkling do as well for baptism as immersion?
This is not a question of mere form or ”mode.” It goes deeper than that, much further back, and is of vital importance. It concerns the great ordinance in its whole nature and meaning. It makes an issue between ”sprinkling as a mode of baptism” and the New Testament, which represents Christianity in the making and is the embodiment of what was required in those first years. The New Testament must be supreme in this matter, and we must not hesitate to follow where it leads. There may be difference of interpretation but not in the question of its supremacy in all matters of Christian belief and practice. Do we find sprinkling in the New Testament as baptism? That is the simplest form of the question and points the way for its settlement. It cannot be determined by personal preference or convenience, nor by what good people have done in the past and are doing in the present, nor by what Roman Catholics may claim in the way of authority.
Baptism-the baptism for the followers of Christ-started with John the Baptist. God sent him to baptize. His baptism was an immersion, as shown by all the circumstances both physical and spiritual. The people came confessing their sins and were immersed. There was no sprinkling as a ”mode” of baptism, and it cannot be substituted now as something which will do as well as that baptism which was from heaven and not of men.
Christ’s baptism as he set the example in the great ordinance, was an immersion. It had the approval of his Father, was magnified in solemn and august way by the Holy Spirit appearing in dove-like form, and had the additional emphasis of his own words : ”Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” Even were there many ”modes” of baptism, surely the devout heart would choose that form in which our Lord was baptized. There is scarcely a difference of opinion among either learned scholars or the uneducated readers of the English Scriptures about the baptism of Jesus. Shall we follow him in his choice of immersion, or substitute sprinkling as something that will do as well?
The baptism which he commanded in the commission, so far as concerns the physical act, is an immersion, as shown by the meaning of the word, and has tremendous emphasis and the highest possible honor by its vital relation to the Person of the Godhead. That perhaps is the most august setting the great ordinance has throughout the Scriptures. The one word, baptizing, which always means immerse and is the only word ever used to name the ordinance-makes the form an act of immersion. It is a holy act of obedience, and of worship, and of glorifying the eternal Godhead. The keeping of it sacred and in its integrity even to its form, involves the sovereignty and authority of Jesus. Someone has said: ”It is a heroic obedience to obey the laws of God, simply because they are God’s laws and not because he has promised to reward the obedience of them.” A true and noble sentiment, indeed, and yet it is loftier and nobler, when one, out of the fullness of his heart, puts love and loyalty into his obedience. This is the supreme service, and no word from Rome, even when followed by others however good and great, can undo the commission and displace immersion by sprinkling as a ”mode of baptism which will do as well.”
Philip’s baptism of the man from Ethiopia was an immersion, the angel of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord attending in the way which went down to Gaza. It was a simple roadside act in itself, as the high official left his chariot for the distinguished service of obeying his Lord and following him in baptism. And yet there was greatness in the act. It repeated so nearly the wonderful scene at the Jordan, it was in harmony with the august setting of the ordinance in the corn- mission, and stands as a commanding type of how baptism was administered in the New Testament period. Let any one read the simple story for himself: ”They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip” - will sprinkling do as well as matching this New Testament example, and can it meet the circumstances of the occasion and fill out the wonderful significance of its meaning in figure and symbol?
Furthermore, the baptism spoken of by Paul in Romans and Colossians, is manifestly an immersion as to its physical act, and symbolizes in a wonderful way burial and resurrection; first, the burial and resurrection of Jesus, then the believer’s spiritual resurrection with Christ and his risen life in him, and then the final resurrection of the dead, when the end shall come and the Son of man shall speak the word for them to live again. Sprinkling has no word for these mighty events in the world’s history already passed and yet to come, and would utterly destroy the spiritual meaning and symbolic import of the great ordinance.
In addition to all this, sprinkling and pouring, like infant baptism, their companion in origin but more direful in effects, are not once mentioned in the New Testament, either as baptism or as having any sort of connection with baptism. They are out of keeping and in many ways contravene its spirit and form, its express purpose and spiritual meaning. They cannot be traced in their history to Christ or his apostles in word or practice. We must set the New Testament aside if either sprinkling or pouring is to be followed for baptism instead of immersion. They had their origin as ”mode of baptism” with Rome when Rome ruled the Christian world with a rod of iron, and were enforced by prison and sword and burning at the stake, until their practice with infant baptism made the darkest and bloodiest stain in the course of Christian history. From the imperial city they were injected into the cleanest and best the world ever saw, until the whole became almost the foulest of the foul.
They are our heritage from ”the dark ages” and have been wrought into modern Christianity as a residue of those far-off times, and have been fastened on the Christian world of today. They came through Rome as substitutes for immersion, as ”modes of baptism that will do as well,” and Rome’s decree has taken the place of the New Testament and set aside the authority of our Lord himself. Even when traced beyond Romanized Christianity, pouring and sprinkling lead not to Christ and his word, but come of pagan customs and conditions. This is all a matter of history, and can be easily verified, concerning pouring, and sprinkling, and the practice of baptizing infants. The course of history concerning these things cannot be undone, and they cannot be put in the place of New Testament baptism, whether as then decreed by Rome or as practiced now by better people with better intent. An error in the hands and even hearts of good people is still error, as poison in the hands of a child is still poison, and will surely do its deadly work.
Pouring and sprinkling for baptism, though somewhat modified by modern conditions, will ever remain the mark of Romanism in its worst days. Their practice indicates almost inevitably historical connection with Rome, even when they are found among good people who have no sympathy with Rome but rather make vigorous protest against the Catholics. Indeed, Roman Catholics make the charge that ”their baptism has been taken by Protestants” and incorporated-more properly retained-in Protestant systems of belief and practice. Whatever may be said of the charge, certain it is that historically among Protestants, pouring is of Rome, sprinkling is of Rome, infant baptism is of Rome-all came from the city of the Caesars, and are of Roman thought and invention. They are not of the New Testament, are not of Christ, and have gone far afield of what he commanded and practiced in the way of Christian baptism. (See pp. 37-39.)
My book, The Moral Dignity of Baptism (pp. 220, 225) enforces this point in the following way:
”Indeed, Christ never used the word sprinkle for any purpose. He commanded baptism but did not command sprinkling. The two words cannot take the place of each other; they stand ever apart each in its own sphere, having its own meaning and service. Sprinkling cannot be a ’mode of baptism’ as it cannot be a mode of immersion. . . . ’Sprinkling as a form of baptism’ (1) is not like the baptism of Jesus, (2) does not commemorate in picture his burial and resurrection, (3) cannot show in emblem the believer’s union with his Lord in those mighty events of tragedy and triumph, (4) nor does sprinkling show the believer’s being dead to sin and buried, nor his risen life in Christ, (5) nor can sprinkling foretoken in form the final resurrection. Nothing but immersion can fill this high office or give this exceptional service. Design or purpose is more important than form, and yet is inseparable from its form.”
Without its form of immersion there can be no baptism, however much one may retain its proper spirit and exercise in himself good intentions. Those who practice sprinkling are most forward in speaking of the great ordinance as ”mere rite,” ”mere ceremony,” and some go so far as to call it ”only a command.” The reason is easy to see. Having abandoned the New Testament form of the ordinance, they have lost also the New Testament meaning, and failed to discern its exalted character. And so the great ordinance means little to them as they see it only in sprinkling. Its wonderful spiritual meaning, its symbolic beauty and didactic power so largely in its form, are not seen by them, for these things have no expression except in immersion. For this reason those who practice sprinkling also, more than others, are ready with the word - ”it makes no difference,” ”a little water will do as well as much,” and so on to the end of minifying. They see no meaning in the ordinance, giving it but little concern, count ”one mode as good as another,” but always preferring to set aside immersion and substitute sprinkling. And so the New Testament baptism disappears so far as they are concerned.
But this question, so lightly disposed of by them, lies at the very heart of the question of Christian Union, so much talked of and so greatly desired. For baptism, while not at the first either the cause or occasion for division among Christians, has in later years become largely both cause and occasion for the division being continued. It is more deeply rooted than any other one doctrine of divergence, and marks the most pronounced and acute stage of separation. And yet there must be adjustment here in the matter of baptism if Christian Union is ever to be more than idle talk and sentimental dreaming. Our Lord prayed for oneness among those who are his, but surely he did not contemplate the setting aside of great matters of doctrine, and least of all would he have us disregard this great ordinance which he commanded and in which he promised his presence and blessing.
So sprinkling, viewed from any standpoint, is sadly inadequate as a mode of baptism, is unscriptural, of unsavory origin and invention, and a grievous divisive among the people of God. Over against sprinkling stands immersion in a triumphant way, as the scriptural form of baptism with its wonderful history. Christ walked in that way, commanded us to follow his example, and there must be no substituting of something else as being just as good. Immersion alone, as the form of baptism, tells in figure and symbol the story of his burial and resurrection, and to set it aside is to hush its wonderful story of the empty sepulchre. Taken in conjunction baptism and the Memorial Supper, having been set together in the divine purpose and plan, tell of death and burial, of resurrection and the risen life, of defeat and disaster, but also of conquest and triumphant consummation.
They voice in symbolic form that wonderful word of our Lord spoken on Patmos; I am he that liveth, and was dead; behold I am alive for evermore, and have the keys of hell and of death. Surely this gives great meaning to these ceremonial rites, a meaning such as the world finds nowhere else in figure and symbol, such a meaning as sweeps the heart with music sweeter than the music of the spheres. Herein Christ is preached-in a way almost more powerfully than in words - Christ who died but is not dead, a Saviour who died but is not dead, a King who died but is not dead, the Lord who died but is not dead, the one unconquered conqueror who died but is not dead, having overthrown death and ascended on high, having the keys of hell and of death as the trophy of his conquest.