The idea of baptism being the confession of, or witness to a state in which the baptized is already, never enters the thought of Scripture (although the state may be there in the baptized all the while through real faith). The thought of those who hold the baptism of believers as such, is — that because the person possesses a certain condition of soul he is to be baptized as witnessing to that state. Now with reference to these or like views it will be found that Scripture will not support them. I admit fully that the state of soul may be, and doubtless was there, in many cases of those baptized, in the cases of Scripture. Still, it never enters into the thought of Scripture that baptism is the witness to or confession of this state. That is, because he is a believer, therefore he is to be baptized. For instance, when Peter preaches to the Jews at Pentecost, he says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins.” It plainly was not because they had been already forgiven, but “for” or “unto (εις) remission of sins.” Again, “and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”; not because ye have received the Holy Spirit already. It was the administration of the House of God carried out by the Apostle and those with him.
The cases of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian in Acts 8 come next. Philip announces the glad tidings in Samaria, and receives all who come by baptism. In the case of the Ethiopian, it is now pretty widely known that verse 37 is not authentic Scripture: verses 36 and 38 read consecutively. All well in its place; but here it is perhaps a well-meant but human addition to the Word of God.
As to Cornelius and his house (Acts 10), there is no controversy. God had so plainly marked His call of the Gentiles into the Church by giving them the Holy Spirit that Peter appeals to the brethren who came with him, “can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:4747Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:47)). Even a Jew could not forbid their reception by baptism. God had so plainly set His mark on the Gentiles. “And he commanded them to be baptized.” Now this was not commanding them to go and have themselves baptized, but that those who were with him should receive them through baptism. To cite a case: suppose a king commanded a traitor to be beheaded. This is not telling him to behead himself, for no one could do this — no more could any one baptize himself; it must be the act of another. Those present with Peter received them through baptism.
In Paul’s case in Acts 22:1616And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16), Ananias says, “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,” etc. This plainly was not a witness that they had been already washed away. Ananias was about to receive Paul into the House of God (of which more again (see below)), and baptism signified what he was administratively receiving. It was not a witness to that which he had already, although such blessing might be there all the while. In Romans 6:33Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3), “so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized unto His death.” “We are buried with Him by baptism to death,” not because you were dead already. Every true Christian is dead— dead with Christ. If a person was “baptized unto death,” it could not be said of him that he was “dead” already, and that baptism only witnessed it was so; if so, it would have said, “so many of you as were baptized unto Christ were baptized because you were dead already,” as Christians. This also shows that it was administratively a sign of that into which the person was entering, not a witness of a state in which he was already. Again in Galatians 3:2727For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27), “as many of you as have been baptized to Christ have put on Christ.” It was the sign of what they were putting on. It says in 1 Peter 3:2121The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:21), “In like figure whereunto baptism doth now save us,” not “is a witness that you are saved already.”
Then as to its being an act of obedience in the baptized, it never enters the thought as to baptism in Scripture. When the Ethiopian says, “see here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?” it was plainly not an act of obedience in his mind, but a sign of some privilege he was about to receive, for you cannot say what doth hinder, in a case of obedience. The same way in Acts 10 when Peter says, “can any man forbid water?” You could not forbid obedience, if it were such. Those present could not deny admission to those whom God had so plainly marked by His reception, admission into the privileged place where the Holy Spirit dwells.
Here I would note the different manner of Peter with the Jews (Acts 2) and the Gentiles (Acts 10). In the case of the Jew, he insists on baptism, which in its evident meaning was to a Jew an intolerable thing; because it threw him completely out of all he valued as one of the elect nation of God. Hence, at Pentecost Peters word was, after charging them with crucifying their Messiah, “Repent and be baptized every one of you,” etc. He insists on it with them. Yet, when we come to the case of the Gentiles, they were losing nothing, surrendering nothing, but receiving a favor from God. So it was not insisting, as in the case of the Jew, on that which threw him out of everything he prized; but “can any man forbid,” etc., as if to say “we cannot refuse to admit them to the place of privilege which we occupy ourselves.”
I now come to look at its import as being an administrative act of reception to privilege by those inside, acting under the Lord.
The Holy Spirit had descended at Pentecost to dwell in the Church, taking up His abode in and with the disciples who were gathered together on that day (Acts 1:22Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: (Acts 1:2)); thus constituting them collectively “the House of God,” a “Habitation of God through the Ghost.”
There was no revelation at this time of the unity of the body of Christ. Paul was not converted yet and the first intimation we receive of it was at his conversion (Acts 9:44And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (Acts 9:4)), though it was formed at the day of Pentecost. The disciples collectively were thus “the house of God,” built in the name of the Lord Jesus who had gone up on high.
Now none of these, including the twelve apostles, were ever baptized with Christian baptism. Having been already constituted this House by the descent of the Holy Spirit, they could not be received into it by baptism; because first, there were none to receive them; and, 2nd, they were “the house of God” already. Peter addresses the Jew in Acts 2 from the platform of God’s house, so to say. Judaism was now a judged thing. He tells them that they had slain their Messiah, but God had raised Him up again and exalted Him, and “made Him Lord and Christ.” He calls on them to repent of this sin, and be baptized every one of them, for the remission of sins, and they would receive the Holy Spirit now dwelling in the House of God, built in the name of Him they had slain. They were thus to be received by baptism —the door of entrance into this house of God.
Those who composed this house not having been baptized, and those who were received into it having to be baptized, as admitting them, shows that the act, whatever other meaning it had, was that of administrative reception to privilege, and was the act of those who received them, and not the witness of the condition of those received.
I need not repeat the cases of the Gentiles (Acts 10), Paul (Acts 22), as also receiving Lydia and her house (Acts 16), and the Gaoler (jailor) and his house (Acts 16), Crispus and Gaius, and the house of Stephanas (Acts 18; and 1 Cor. 1).
Remark here Paul’s question to the disciples of John whom he found at Ephesus (Acts 19). They were believers as far as they knew (that is, John’s baptism) who had not yet received the Holy Spirit, nor had they been yet received into the house formed by the descent of the Holy Spirit. They were received into it by Paul through baptism, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Besides all this, there is no command to baptize believers ascertained to be such, and as such. The only command was to “go and disciple the nations, baptizing them,” etc. It is not the thought of Scripture. Baptizing believers as such attaches baptism imperceptibly to the doctrine of Paul, and the body of Christ which is only composed of believers, rather than to the House of God, into which Paul was himself received by baptism, and outside of which you could not be recognized as a Christian, all in it being professedly such. Consequently, it narrows down the thought of the house and makes it and the body co-extensive terms, which was only the case at the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, after which no one could say that they were so. This idea would consequently remove, as far as the thought goes, all responsibility from the House of God as that at which judgment must begin (1 Peter 4:1717For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17)). It would make the house and the body conterminable, and therefore judgment should begin at the true thing, instead of that which outwardly bears the name of Christ, constituted of those who profess His name. The idea of re-baptizing (?) has no possible meaning whatever — that is, baptizing believers who had been received into the House of God previously by baptism.
Supposing the person had been received by baptism at any time of his life, whether as an infant or as an adult, it was a bona fide act done under the profession of Christianity and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and, unless that act can be blotted out of the category of things past, it is quite impossible that a second baptism can have any meaning and it goes for nothing. I question even the very term “second baptism” — it is not a baptism. The act was done and could not be repeated. No one could say a re-baptized person had become a Christian then; and, as Scripture plainly shows, it is not the witness of the state one is in already, although the state might still be there. The person had been admitted through the act, however informally done, and by whomsoever performed, and he cannot get outside of God’s house in order to be again received.
To put a case used by others: suppose a person had come into this room through the window, you may say he came into the room in an improper manner. True, I reply, but he did come in and the proof is that he is here; and he could not by any possibility be received now at the door, which no doubt would have been the correct way of entering. So once the act has been done it cannot be undone or re-done, there it stands. The person had been received into God’s house, and there the matter ends. It is an administrative and external reception, not a witness of a previous one. Besides this, re-baptizing persons (again I question the term, once done it could not be re-done), really calls in question the baptism of the whole house of God, as a responsible thing here on earth. It narrows up the house to those who have been baptized as believers, or gives no definite thought at all to it. Hence, if the House of God (1 Peter 4:1717For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17)) is only believers, the judgment which must begin at the House of God must have to do with them only and the whole professing body goes free!
Before leaving this section I would remark that the only formulary ever given as to baptism was “unto (εις) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:1919Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19)). Some have thought that the formulary was changed in the Acts of the Apostles. (We do not have doctrines, but history in the Acts); but when the commission was given, in Matthew 28, the Lord was present, and baptism is founded on resurrection — not on ascension. But in Acts He was absent and the point was the owning of one who was not there in person (in the period of the Acts). Hence the recognition of His name. Yet we find in nearly every case the term is changed, carefully guarding the thought of its being a formulary. In Acts 2, it is “in (ἐπι) the name of Jesus Christ.” Acts 8, “in (εισ) the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 10, “in (._) the name of the Lord.” Acts 19, “in (ἐν) the name of the Lord Jesus.” Certainly the formulary in Matthew 28 is the correct form to be employed while the recognition of the name of the Lord is added as presenting the person to Him.