And is it so?  I shall be like Thy Son!
Is this the grace which He for me has won?
Father of glory! Thought beyond all thought;
In glory to His Own blest likeness brought.

O Jesus, Lord: who loved me like to Thee?
Fruit of Thy work!  With Thee too, there to see
Thy glory, Lord, while endless ages roll,
Myself the prize and travail of Thy soul.

Yet it must be!  Thy love had not its rest,
Were Thy redeemed not with Thee fully blest;
That love that gives not as the world, but shares
All it possesses, with its loved co-heirs!

Nor I alone; Thy loved ones all, complete
In glory around Thee, with joy shall meet!
All like Thee: for Thy glory like Thee, Lord!
Object supreme of all, by all adored!

And yet it must be so!  A perfect state,
To meet Christ’s perfect love__what we await;
The Spirit’s hopes, desires, in us inwrought,
Our present joy__with living blessings fraught.

The heart is satisfied; can ask no more;
All thought of self is now for ever o’or:
Christ, its unmingled Object, fills the heart
In blest adoring love__its endless part.

Father of mercies, in Thy Presence bright
All this shall be unfolded in the light;
Thy children, all,  with joy Thy counsels know
Fulfilled; patient in hope, while here below.
There are two causes which, as we are taught in the
book of Job, bring trial on the saint.  FIRST, God shows
the transgressions in which man has exceeded, that is,
positive faults.  SECONDLY, He withdraws man from
his purpose, and hides pride from him (Job33:16,17;
36:7-9).  This book gives us full divine instruction as to
God’s ways in trying the righteous.  There we learn
another truth, important to exercised souls, who often
dwell on secondary causes___that God is the cause
and moves in all these exercises.   The origin of all Job’s
trials was not Satan’s accusation, but God’s word,
“Hast thou considered my servant Job?”  God had,
and saw that he needed this.   The instruments were
wicked, or disasters caused by Satan;  but God had
considered His servant, tried the righteous, but
measured exactly the trial__Stayed His rough wind
in the day of the east wind [“in measure debate with”]
and when He had done His own work (which Satan could
not do at all), and shown Job to himself, blessed him
abundantly.

He humbles us and proves us, that we may know what
is in our heart__ feeds us with the bread of faith; but it
is to do us good in our latter end.

When the trial is met in the truth and power of spiritual
life, it develops and brings out much more softness and
maturity of grace__ a spirit more separated from the
world to God, and more acquainted with God.  Where
it is met by of meets the flesh, the will of this__its
rebellion__is brought to light, the conscience becomes
sensible of it before God, and, by the discipline itself,
the self-will is, even insensibly, destroyed.

Do you know that if you’re saved, blood bought, through faith in the
finished work of Christ, you are a worshipper and priest, able to offer up spiritual
sacrifices to the Lord? There’s more….

IS GOD RECEIVING THE WORSHIP

DUE UNTO HIS NAME?

PSALM 29 :2 ,”GIVE UNTO THE LORD

THE GLORY DUE UNTO HIS NAME; WORSHIP THE

LORD IN THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.”

I have visited several bible-teaching churches and have found
confusion.

They call a certain service,a worship service but the pastor gives
a gospel

message for the unsaved or he ministers to the believers. Now,

is this w worship? No, it is not. Then what is worship you might
say.

WORSHIP IS THE FRUIT OF OUR LIPS GIVING
THANKS TO HIS

NAME. (Hebrews 13:15). Worship is
praise from us to God, while ministry

is from God to us. There is a difference between a worship service,

a gospel service and a ministry service.

IN JOHN 4:23 “THE FATHER SEEKETH
WORSHIPPERS TO WORSHIP

HIM”. Fellow Christians, please
don’t forget that. The Father is seeking

something. There is a lot going on today. There is a lot of work
and far be

it from me to ever minimize the importance of Christian service,
but it

doesn’t say here the Father seeketh servants to serve Him. It says
here,

THE FATHER SEEKETH WORSHIPPERS, TO WORSHIP
HIM

That’s what He would have-His redeemed people fulfilling this

character of worship which was in His mind from eternity.THINK OF
IT

–REDEEMED CREATURES, PURCHASED AT SUCH A COST BOWING

DOWN BEFORE HIM AND POURING OUT A FULL HEART IN

APPRECIATION FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE.

WORSHIP IS THE HEARTS OVERFLOW TO GOD IN PRAISE AND

THANKSGIVING. (REV. 4:10,11).

Because of His grace, we have the privilege of all being able to
fulfill

the place where God has put us. There is no joy greater than the
place

where God has put us. There is no joy greater than the joy of a
worshipper of

God. Why? Because the soul is occupied with the Divine Being upon

whom our very life depends. There is no really enjoying life unless
you

are a worshipper of God.

WHO CAN WORSHIP?

Now in order to worship Him you must

KNOW HIM. No proper worship can

be rendered to Him unless you know Him. The basis of worship is

redemption. (Rev. 5:8-10) An unsaved person cannot worship God.

“THE SACRIFICE OF THE WICKED IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE

LORD” (PROV. 15:8) “BE YE NOT UNEQUALLY YOKED TOGETHER

WITH UNBELIEVERS; FOR WHAT FELLOWSHIP HATH RIGHTEOUSNESS

WITH UNRIGHTEOUSNESS? AND WHAT COMMUNION HATH LIGHT

WITH DARKNESS?”(2COR.6:14) . Now, I’m not saying if any
unsaved

person should come to a worship

service you should force him to leave, but

his place would be only to observe believers worshipping the Lord,

not as a partaker. So, who can worship the Lord?

BELIEVERS!

And all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5
says, “YE ALSO, AS LIVING STONES,

ARE BUILT UP A SPIRITUAL HOUSE, AN HOLY
PRIESTHOOD, TO

OFFER UP SPIRITUAL SACRIFICES, ACCEPTABLE TO
GOD BY

JESUS CHRIST”. When an assembly
of Christians are gathered together for

the purpose of worship, any brother led by the Spirit may be the
mouthpiece

for the assembly in praising the Lord, leading in a hymn, or
reading a portion of

scripture recalling what our precious Lord has done for us. If
there is a

separate class of men set apart by human appointment for this, it
would

deny the priesthood of all. It wou ld not be a sister’s place to be
the vocal

instrument for the assembly. (1Cor. 14:34) Yet her meditations of
praise in

her heart are of great importance to the Lord, also. Israel’s
worship was a

formal worship-an outward worship-only certain ones could
participate in it

directly-the priestly household. It was restricted. Yet, God had
intended in

the Old Testament all were to be priests, a holy nation but they
forfeited this

place by worshipping the golden calf. (Exodus 19:5,6)

OUR OBJECT OF WORSHIP

God the Father (John 4:23) and God the Son (John 5:23) are the
objects

of worship but not God the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13,14). It is only
fitting

during a time of worship that we have the breaking of bread. (Acts
2:42)

The Father and the Son are

the objects of our thoughts and mediations

during this time. This meeting is especially for united praise and
worship

as we remember our Lord . The purpose of the Breaking of Bread
meeting is

“THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF
ME”(1 Cor. 11:26) and “ANNOUNCE

HIS DEATH” (1 Cor. 11:26) and on
“FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK ” (Acts 20:7)

Who administers it?

Any brother led by Spirit to do so. (1 Peter 2:5, 1 Cor.11:25).

How long do we do this? “UNTIL HE COMES” (1 Cor. 11:26).

The Lord’s Supper is instituted in Luke 22:19, expounded in 1 Cor.
11:23-34,

and celebrated in Acts 20:7.

OUR POWER OF WORSHIP

Our power of worship is the Holy Spirit. (Eph. 2:18, Phil. 3:3).
Any ritual

or preplanned order of service denies the power of worship. The
Holy Spirit

has power. “YE ARE THE CIRCUMCISION
WHICH WORSHIP GOD

BY THE SPIRIT, REJOICE IN CHRIST JESUS, AND
HAVE NO CONFIDENCE

IN THE FLESH”. The power for worship is the Spirit of God. He
is quite

competent to furnish every bit of

leadership that is necessary apart from

any precedent of men, or any formal appointment. The Spirit of God
is quite

sufficient. But, dear friends, if you are going to worship the
Father-if I am-it

must be in truth and thus how we need to know the truth about His

person and made known in the Person of Christ. “FOR NO MAN

KNOWETH THE FATHER SAVE THE SON AND HE TO
WHOMSOEVER

THE SON SHALL REVEAL HIM”.

We must know Him in order to know

what is suitable to Him. We must know what our relationship is to
Him, in

order to worship in spirit and truth. If we are not enjoying Christ
and the things

of God the spring of worship will be dried up. You may go on
serving, but I’ll tell

you it’s a lot easier to preach than it is to worship, it’s much
more simple

to teach than it is to worship. But the Father seeks worshippers
and whatever

is of concern of God should be of vital interest to us. And without
exception

every child of God is part of that priestly family and should be
engaged

in worship both individually and collectively.

OUR MATERIAL FOR WORSHIP

Our material for worship is “IN SPIRIT”
and “IN TRUTH”. “In
Spirit” we

can see the contrast with Judaism (2 Chron. 5:12-14) with the New
Testament

scriptures (1 Cor. 14:15, Eph. 5:19, and Col. 3:16). “In
Truth” means we

worship God according to the truth of who He is as revealed in the
Word. (John 14:9)

Worship today is only to be in Spirit and truth.

And so, God does not in that

respect use physical things. Instruments and choirs deny the
material

for worship. It’s a question of the reality of the heart, that
which comes

forth from the heart. I venture to say that you will search in vain
for anything

in the New Testament scriptures that will give you anything formal
and

detailed as to how you should proceed in a Christian service. We
don’t even

read of what the Lord Jesus said when He gave thanks at the time of

the institution of the Lord’s Supper. If we knew, we ‘d all be
repeating is as a

prayer, wouldn’t we? We don’t know a single prayer that the
apostles made

when they gathered together with the Lord’s people to the Lord’s
name. Why?

You see it isn’t constricted within the narrow limits of a formal
system

–IT’S IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH.

WHERE DO WE WORSHIP

When our Lord talked with the woman at the well she said “OUR FATHERS

WORSHIPPED IN THIS MOUNTAIN; AND YE SAY, THAT
IN JERUSALEM

IS THE PLACE WHERE MEN OUGHT TO
WORSHIP”. She knows God should

be worshipped. Now she glories in her fathers. She glories in
antiquity.

Most people follow in what they are brought up in.

But dear friends, just following

what you are brought up in isn’t enough. She doesn’t say a single

word about what was the right place to

worship. All she says is “Ye say that

in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Are you and I
concerned

about the place where God wants you to worship? It’s not a question
of what

you say or I say or anybody else says.

The whole question is what the

Word of God says. The Word of God is plain. Certainly she could
find no text

of Scripture to indicate that they should have been worshipping in
Mount

Gerizim–the place where Samaritans worshipped..

Oh, you see, how antiquity,that which is ancient,

that which has been handed down from one to another

may get a grip on our hearts. I believe that under similar
circumstances today

you can almost see people using these same words.

Oh, I know that they wouldn’t talk about Mount Geriaim

but they would talk about this

establishment or that establishment -that’s the way I was brought
up and I don’t

intend to change. In all solemnity, God has a place where He wants
men to

worship and His word shows what that place is. Are you concerned
about

the place that He has chosen? Are we sufficiently concerned to
learn what

pleases Him to stay ignorant no longer ? You see there is a guilty
ignorance.

But nevertheless, our God is very gracious and He unquestionably

recognizes all sincerity of heart. OUR PLACE OF WORSHIP IS THE
PRESENCE

OF GOD (HEB. 9:24, HEB. 10:19) NOT IN ANY CONSECRATED BUILDINGS

OR ALTERS.

We are to “WORSHIP THE LORD IN
THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS”

If God is to be worshipped,

He must be worshipped in the beauty of holiness.

He cannot change those terms. It’s absolutely essential to the
nature of

His being that He be worshipped in holiness

Unjudged sin can

find no place in His presence. And what is holiness as far as we

are concerned. It’s the knowledge of sin and refusal of it. In Psalm 99:9

it says, “EXALT THE LORD OUR GOD, AND
WORSH IP AT HIS HOLY HILL,

FOR THE LORD OUR GOD IS HOLY” He
tells us here not only what the

character of God is, which must be met if we are to worship Him–HE
IS TO

BE WORSHIPPED IN THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS. You see, God

has left some choices up to us–that is the choice of Where He is
to be

worshipped, He has not. Where are divine worshippers, where is the
place

of worship? In the heavenlies, within the veil. “LET US DRAW NEAR WITH

A TRUE HEART” That’s one of the
most important exhortations in the

New Testament, “LET US DRAW NEAR’ and “IF WE DRAW NIGH
UNTO

GOD, HE WILL DRAW NIGH UNTO US” . And so He would have His
people,

purged worshippers appearing before Him in the heavenlies,
worshipping in His

sphere. But you want to know what earthly place you should go to?
It’s very

striking the Lord never gives any indication in the New Testament
of a physical

location. In Matthew 18:20 He says, “FOR
WHERE TWO OR THREE ARE

GATHERED UNTO MY NAME,THERE AM I IN THE MIDST
OF

THEM”. Dear friends, the only
place that you and I will find out where we

should be worshippers together with the Lord’s people is to follow
Him, according

to the Word. And it should be a place where there is no human
precedence

for worship, a place where the Holy Spirit is free to use
whomsoever He will,

to offer up the praise of His people or to give opportunity for all
to join

unitely in a song of praise, those songs which we are privileged to
sing already

but which will ring throughout eternity, throughout heaven. It will
be the wonder

of the universe, “UNTO HIM THAT LOVETH
US,THAT LOOSED US FROM

OUR SIN,IN HIS OWN BLOOD’.

This is true worship, begun, now and

continued forever. (Rev.5:10)

“GIVING UNTO THE LORD THE GLORY DUE UNTO
HIS NAME”. Are

you doing that? Am I? “THE GLORY DUE UNTO HIS NAME” Oh
what glory

is due to His name! You know He has a glorious Name, a Name beyond
all

competition. Now He says, “GIVE UNTO HIM THE GLORY DUE UNTO
HIS

NAME”. May I say it again? You are not, dear friend,
fulfilling the purpose

of your being here unless you are GIVING UNTO THE LORD THE

GLORY DUE TO HIS NAME!

“I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” Phil. 4:11.

This is the language of one who knew God as a loving and wise Father who ever has in mind the best interests of His children–those who have been born into the family of the redeemed through faith in that gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe. Since God has given His Son for our salvation, how can we doubt His goodness and so fret against circumstances which He has ordained for our blessing. We are to give thanks always for all things, knowing that all things work together for the good of those who love God.

From the beginning of Scripture history, two great facts, forming the basis of all God’s dealings with men, have been apparent. First, God is absolutely sovereign. Second, man is an intelligent creature with moral faculties and responsible to his Creator.

But these two facts, the sovereignty of God on the one hand, the responsibility of man on the other, have always presented a difficulty to certain minds, particularly when it is a question of the practical work of preaching the Gospel, and of the reception of it by the sinner. Between the sovereignty of God expressing itself in the election of some for blessing, and the free offer of grace that addresses itself to all, there seems to be some contradiction which it is difficult to avoid, some discrepancy not easily explained.

Of course, if we are at liberty to discard one of these facts in favour of the other, and throw ourselves into the arms of either a hard hyper- Calvinism, or a weak Arminianism, as the case may be, the difficulty may vanish. But this would mean the sacrifice of truth. Since we are not at liberty to do this, but have to accept both these facts (for both plainly lie on the surface of Scripture), we must humbly seek the divine solution, assured that the only real difficulty is the littleness of our minds, and of their ability to grasp the thoughts of God.

We have but to open our Bibles at the beginning to find both these truths. ” In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1: 1). Here is declared the one truth. “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion” (Gen. 1: 26). Here is declared the other. Man was made in God’s image, i.e., as God’s representative in creation. He was after God’s likeness, inasmuch as he was originally a free, intelligent, moral a gent. And though no longer sinless but fallen, his responsibility remains.

It would be difficult to find a finer confession of the sovereignty of God than that made by Nebuchadnezzar, the great Gentile monarch in whom human sovereignty reached its highest expression. He said, “He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?” (Dan. 4: 35).

Nor can we point to a more striking unfolding of the responsibility of man in his fallen estate than that given by Paul in his powerful argument (Rom. 1: 18 to 3: 19) to prove the complete ruin of the race. If sin and degradation destroyed a man’s responsibility there would be every excuse for his condition, but the most degraded heathen is shown to be ” without excuse,” as is also the polished idolater and the religious Jew.

Thus far all seems plain. The difficulty occurs when we begin to apply these truths. Believers are addressed as “chosen in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1: 4), as “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Peter 1: 2). To His disciples the Lord Jesus distinctly said, “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you” ( John 15: 16); and again, “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (John 6: 44). Shall we reason from these scriptures that since the choice is God’s and no one comes to Christ unless drawn of the Father, therefore all effort in connection with the Gospel is useless; that, in fact, to preach to any except those chosen of God is waste of time?

On the other hand, Peter urged his hearers, when pricked in their heart, ” Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2: 40). To careless and rebellious sinners he said, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted” ( Acts 3: 19). Paul tells us that he testified to both Jews and Greeks ” repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20: 21).

Shall we disregard these apostolic utterances? Ought they rather to have run something after this fashion: “Men and brethren, you can do absolutely nothing. You are spiritually dead and therefore you must simply wait the pleasure of God. If He has elected you, you will be saved. If not, you will be lost”? Or shall we adopt the opposite view, and do our best to explain away these reference’s to God’s sovereign work in connection with conversion, saying that they only mean that God, being omniscient, knows the end from the beginning, that He has no particular will as regards anybody, that man is an absolutely free agent, quite capable of choosing the right if put before him in a sufficiently attractive way, and that therefore we ought to do everything possible to make the Gospel palatable and win men?

To incline to either set of scriptures at the expense of the other would be, indeed, to expose ourselves to the keen edge of those searching words, ” O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” ( Luke 24: 25).

Any difficulties we may have as to these things would, we believe, largely vanish if we better understood the true character of the ruin of man and the grace of God.

In what does the ruin of man consist? By sinning he has placed himself under a burden of guilt and has rendered himself liable to judgment. There is more than this, however. He has also become possessed of a fallen nature utterly and incorrigibly bad, with a heart “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17: 9). But even this is not all. Sin has acted like a subtle poison in his veins and has so stupefied and perverted his reason, will and judgment, that “there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3: 11). Even in the presence of grace and the sweet pleadings of the Gospel men reject the Saviour provided, and with perverse unanimity prefer the empty follies of the world. Like the “great herd of swine” they rush madly to destruction, and hence the only hope is a sovereign interposition of God.

The parable of the “great supper” (Luke 14) illustrates this. The well- laden supper-table represents the spiritual blessings resulting from the death of Christ. At great cost all is ready, and yet all seems to have been provided in vain. Something else is needed: the mission of the Holy Spirit, pictured by the errand of “the servant.” Things were brought to a successful issue, and the house was filled, only because of His ” compelling” operations.

If we once realize the full extent of that ruin into which sin has plunged us, we shall be delivered from the “Arminian” extreme, and shall recognize that the sovereign action of God in choosing us and drawing us by the compelling power of His Spirit was our only hope. Instead of quarrelling with this side of the truth, it will bow our hearts in grateful worship before Him.

Poor fallen, self-destroyed man is still, however, a responsible creature. Reason, will, and judgment may be perverted, but they are not destroyed. Hence the largeness of the grace of God.

What is grace? Is it the particular goodness which visits and saves the souls of the elect? No. That is mercy. In Romans 9 and Romans 11, where election is the great subject, mercy is mentioned again and again. Grace is the mighty outflow of the heart of God towards the utterly sinful and undeserving. It shows no partiality. It knows no restrictions. It is a wide and deep sea. “All men” (1 Tim. 2: 3- 6) are its only boundaries, and ” where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom. 5: 20) is the only measure of its depth.

We hear the accents of grace in the last great commission of the risen Christ to His disciples, “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24: 47). How akin were these instructions to those given by the King in that other parable of a feast, recorded in Matthew 22: “Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.” In this parable we have not “the servant,” as in Luke, but “the servants.” It is not the Spirit of God in His sovereign and secret activities, but saved men who, without knowing aught of these secret things, simply do the King’s business. Do they find anyone in the broad highways of the world? Then without raising questions as to their character, or as to whether chosen or not, they give the invitation. All who listen are gathered in, both bad and good: and the wedding is “furnished with guests.”

Is there any great difficulty in this? Surely not. Knowing that it pleases God “by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” the evangelist proclaims the glad tidings far and wide. When men believe his message; he attributes that work to the Spirit of God, and rejoices over them, knowing their election of God (1 Thess. 1: 4).

Nor is there anything to stumble the seeking sinner. The very fact that he is seeking indicates that he is being drawn of the Father. The idea that a sinner may be even in an agony of seeking for the Saviour in this day of grace, and yet be unheard because not elected, is a hideous distortion of truth. The words of the Lord Jesus are as true as ever: “Seek and ye shall find” (Matt. 7: 7).

The fact is, election has nothing to do with the sinner as such. No hint of it is breathed in any recorded preaching of the apostles, though it is frequently referred to, to establish the faith of believers. As a rule, it is only when unbalanced preachers of extreme views take it from its setting in Scripture and thrust it upon their unconverted hearers that it creates difficulty in their minds.

Can it be shown that “election” does really mean anything more than that God knows everything, and therefore knows from the beginning who will believe and who will not?

Most assuredly. In 1 Peter 1: 2 we read, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Election, then, is distinct from foreknowledge, though based upon it. God’s election or choice is not a blind, fatalistic casting of the lot. That is a purely heathen conception. There is some such legend in connection with Buddha. When men were created it is said that he cast a lot saying, “These to heaven, and I care not; these to hell and I care not.” But our God and Father does not act like this. He chooses in the full light of His foreknowledge. Hence no sinner, who ever really wants to be saved, finds the door shut against him because he is not one of the elect. His very desire is the fruit of the Spirit’s work. And God’s choice, as in the case of Esau and Jacob, is always justified by results. (Compare Rom. 9: 12, 13 with Mal. 1: 2, 3).

If God must elect at all, why did He not elect everybody?

How can I tell you that? Is it likely that God will tell us, who are but His creatures, the motives that underlie His decrees? If He did explain, would our finite minds be able to grasp the explanation? We may rest assured that all His decrees are in perfect harmony with the fact that ” God is light” and “God is love.” For the rest, if any man be contentious we content ourselves with quoting the inspired words: “Behold . . . I will answer thee, God is greater than man. Why cost thou strive against Him? for He giveth not account of any of His matters” (Job 33: 12, 13). After all, being God, why should He?

If man be morally incapable of going or choosing right, how can he be really responsible?

Let me answer by an analogy. If, in the case of that poor creature making her 201st appearance before the magistrates on the old charge, “drunk and disorderly,” the plea were raised that since she was so degraded as to be morally incapable of resisting alcohol or choosing a better life, she was no longer responsible, or amenable to punishment, would it avail? Of course not. No sane person imagines that one has only to sink low enough into crime to be absolved from responsibility.

Alas! who can measure the depths of perversity and incapacity into which man has plunged himself by sin? Nevertheless his responsibility remains.

Does “free grace” mean that salvation is ours simply by a choice which lies in the exercise of our own free will?

It does not. It means that as far as the intentions of God’s Gospel are concerned, all are embraced. Christ died for all (1 Tim. 2: 4, 6). To all the Gospel is sent, just as freely as if it were certain that all would as naturally receive it, as, alas! they naturally reject it. Multitudes, however, do receive it, and then the righteousness of God which is “unto all” in its intention is “upon all them that believe” in its actual effect ( Rom. 3: 22-24). Such are saved by grace, through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God (Eph. 2: 8). Their blessing is of God from first to last, and they are entitled to regard themselves as chosen of Him.

Has the sinner to choose Christ?

If we wish to speak with scriptural accuracy, the answer must be, No. He has to receive. Christ; but that is a somewhat different matter. Choose is a word with active force. It implies certain powers of discrimination and selection. To speak of a sinner choosing Christ supposes that he has powers which he does not possess.

Receive is passive rather than active in force. It implies that instead of exercising his powers, the sinner simply falls into line with God’s offer. It is the word Scripture uses.

The children of God are said to be “as many as received” Christ (John 1: 12), and this receiving was the result not of their freewill, but of God’s gracious operation; they were “born . . . of God” (v. 13).

Are we right in urging sinners to repent and believe?

Certainly. Our blessed Lord Himself did so (Mark 1: 15). So did Peter ( Acts 3: 19), and Paul (Acts 16: 31; Acts 20: 21; Acts 26: 20). We have not only to proclaim that faith is the principle on which God justifies the sinner, but we have to urge men to believe. The fact that faith is the result of God’s work in the soul and that all spiritual enlargement for the believer is through the operation of God’s Spirit, in no way militates against the servant of God being much in earnest and persuading men.

Paul preached at Thessalonica “with much contention” (1 Thess. 2: 2)-“with much earnest striving” the New Translation renders it. He speaks of ” persuading men” ( 2 Cor. 5: 11), and with Barnabas he persuaded certain converts “to continue in the grace of God” (Acts 13: 43).

These examples are enough to outweigh any amount of reasoning to the contrary.

How would you answer a person who says, “I can’t believe until God gives me the power”?

I would remark that both repentance and faith are things which do not require power so much as weakness. To repent, is to own the truth as to yourself; to believe, is to lean your poor shattered soul on Christ.

Again I would point out that God’s command is man’s enabling. The man with a withered hand its a case in point (Luke 6: 6-10). The power was there instantly the word was spoken.

Does a sinner wish to insinuate that he is very anxious to believe, but that God will not give him ability to do so because of certain fatalistic decrees? Tell him plainly it is not true. He is leaving sober fact for the nightmare of fallen reason. Never does the smallest bit of desire toward Christ spring up in a sinner’s heart but there is a grace to bring it to fruition in definite faith. Probably the questioner would prove to be a trifler bent on quibbling, in which case we should have to leave him. A really perplexed and anxious soul I would urge (instead of occupying himself about questions as to God’s sovereignty, which are, and must be, above the ken of finite man) to rest with simple confidence in the Saviour, and to give heed to those great verities, which are so plainly declared that “the way-faring men, though fools, shall not err therein.”

“Never let what you do not know disturb what you do know,” said a wise and good man.

Never forget that He who said “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me,” immediately added: ” and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6: 37).

SOVEREIGNTY AND RESPONSIBILITY

F. B. HOLE

(Extracted from Scripture Truth Vol. 40, 1959-61, page 4.)

That God is sovereign and that man, though fallen, is a responsible creature, are two facts that stand out clearly in the Scriptures. It is when we study these two facts in their implications that we run into intellectual difficulties. It is easy to lay such stress on the one as almost completely to ignore the other. The two extremes are known as Hyper- Calvinism and Arminianism.

Hyper-Calvinism is that system of religious thought that sees little else in Scripture than God’s sovereignty in election. The responsibility of man is so little thought of, if not denied, that he is reduced to a mere puppet. He is a plaything in the hand of fate. If he is elect, he must be saved, come what may; if he is not, he must be damned, and there’s an end of it.

Arminianism, on the contrary, sees little else than the fact of man’s responsibility, often to the total exclusion of God’s sovereign and gracious work by His Spirit in the souls of men. Man is a free and unfettered being in the exercise of his own will: hence anything is lawful that will persuade him to exert the force of his will in the right direction.

The Hyper-Calvinistic spirit is fatal to all zeal and energy in the work of the Gospel. Those who possess it necessarily and logically decry such energy in every possible way. Men are spiritually dead: why preach to dead men? Why say, “Repent!” to men who can’t repent? or “Believe!” to men who can’t believe? Moreover, is not God able to look after His affairs? Does He require our busy interference in the saving of His elect? Supposing we compass sea and land in our zeal for souls, not one more than the elect will be saved; and if we fold our hands and do nothing, not one less than the elect will be saved. Masterly inactivity is then the only possible policy, and all the energy of the servants of the Lord is only so much unprofitable waste of time and breath.

One wonders sometimes why this kind of argument seems to be only used against evangelistic effort. If valid at all, it is just as valid against all forms of Christian service. Is not God able to care for the souls of His elect without our endeavours to edify them? Will not the sovereign work of the Spirit in building up their souls progress without the labours of pastors and teachers, or such small efforts as producing this magazine? The exponents of such ideas seem blind to the fact that they are cutting the ground from beneath their own feet.

At the present time the Arminian extreme is perhaps the more frequently held by truly Christian people. They feel the need of sinners and rejoice in the glad tidings of forgiveness through the crucified and risen Saviour. The great question for them now is, “how best to get at sinners and persuade them into a definite act of their own will, in accepting Christ and choosing life”. The more in earnest such Christians are, the greater the danger of their using questionable or even unscriptural methods. The great end which they feel they must reach, is considered by them to sanctify the means employed.

The practical results of this are very different from those of the other extreme. There all is stagnation: here all is movement and apparent success at the beginning. We are concerned however with the ultimate results. At the close of a large mission in London, a good many years ago, the pastor of a large chapel had over 50 names given to him of people who professed conversion. The pastor was a warm-hearted, evangelical man, but a year or so after he sadly confessed he could only regard one as truly converted. Thank God for the one! But how sad that nearly fifty should be led on to a wrong road in order to direct one into the right.

Let us by the grace of God maintain firmly both these great facts- God is sovereign in His gracious actings: man, though fallen, is a responsible creature and addressed as such. The truth of Divine sovereignty is plainly stated in Scripture. Read such passages as John 6: 37-44; Romans 9: 10-24; Ephesians 1: 4; 1 Peter 1: 2. Equally plain is man’s responsibility Read such passages as John 3: 16-18; Romans 2: 6-16; 1 Peter 4: 5-6, Let us then accept both, even if as yet we do not see far enough to discern exactly how they fit in with each other.

We may however discern this that man’s will, if he is left to himself never turns toward God. The fall has given it a permanent twist away from Him. This is definitely stated in Romans 3: 10-12. It is stated first of all that “there is NONE righteous;” that is, none “right with God.” Yes, we might say, that is true, but surely some people are more sincere and understanding than others, and so these get converted. Not so, for there is “NONE that understandeth.” This makes man’s plight much worse-nobody right, and nobody understands their desperate position. But again we might say, Yes, but surely some will have an innate sense-a kind of intuition- that they need God, and so begin to seek after Him. But once more, not so, for, “there is NONE that seeketh after God.”

This word, “NONE,” thrice repeated, closes every avenue of deliverance if man is just left to himself. God must intervene. In other words, God must exercise His sovereign action on a man’s behalf. He must work by His Spirit in the hearts of men’ if any are to seek after Him and His salvation. This He does, as pleases Him, when the Gospel is faithfully preached, since it pleases God, “by the foolishness off preaching to save them that believe (1 Cor. 1: 21).

If any would say to us, If God in His electing mercy is pleased to save this one and that one, why should He not elect and save all? – we have no answer to give. What lies behind His decisions is not revealed to us, who are but His creatures; but He has revealed Himself to us in Christ, and so we are sure that what He decides is right, and ultimately all will see how right it has been.

Instead of seeking to probe into the secret of the Divine decisions and acts, which are beyond us, let us more diligently and fervently publish abroad the Gospel, since He has revealed that through this He is pleased to save those that believe, as the result of the work of the Spirit of God in their hearts.

I feel constrained to raise my protest against the increasing trend toward intellectuality as “almost necessary” for usefulness in the ministry of God’s Word as we hear of it even among those who seek to live and serve in Christian simplicity.

What is intellectualism? The dictionary defines it as the “theory that knowledge comes wholly from pure reason, without aid from the senses.” Now as long as this is confined to search and research in purely natural and material realms, we’re content to let the intellectual have it his way, but when it intrudes into the realm of spiritual and eternal realities, then intellectualism may become a positive menace and an affront to the God Who hath spoken. To say, or to act, that knowledge in divine things comes wholly from human reason is to deny the truth of divine revelation; it suggests the denial of the authority of the Word of God; it substitutes human reason for divine faith. It results in the sad fact that, when human reason runs counter to God’s truth (and it nearly always does), then God’s Word is discarded and denied.

Most isms have a malodorous aroma, whether it be Socialism, Communism, or Catholicism, or even intellectualism: all isms suggest a particular view or creed or class; and it is practically true that, whenever something becomes an ism, it arraigns itself against God and truth. The believer in Jesus needs to fortify himself against their subtle conceits and deceits. Thank God, we can look forward to that glorious day when all “isms” shall be “wasms”, and God’s Word shall still stand fast. The many hammers will all be beaten and marred, but the divine “Anvil” shall stand unmoved.

Reading the writings of some of the modern intellectualists one gets the impression not, as Job said, “that wisdom will die with them,” but rather that wisdom was born with them. However, as in the case of every other ism, there is nothing new in intellectualism either. It is as old as the hills. If you want an accurate description of the present-day higher critical intellectualism, you can find it in that great verse – 2 Cor. 10:5, which reads: “Casting down imaginations, (the Greek word is “reasoning logical argumentations-) and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” Apparently, there were plenty of the intelligentsia in Paul’s day; all the brains weren’t passed out in the twentieth century. Paul encountered some of them when he visited Athens. Those philosophers spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. And Paul, who preached the story of man’s guilt and the remedy therefore in a crucified and resurrected Savior was just a babbler. Acts 17:18. And that’s the opinion today of the intellectualist in regard to anyone who preaches the simple story of the gospel.

According to the text just quoted- 2 Cor. 10:5- human reasoning exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The vast majority of intellectuals deny that the Bible is the authoritative Word of the living God, The reason for this is plain, for the Bible states plainly that the truth of God can only be understood as the Holy Spirit reveals it, and that, of course, goes against the grain for the man with brains.

In the above striking verse, Paul, by the Spirit, insists that human reasoning must be cast down. There is an interesting picture in this verse of Scripture. Man’s own thoughts are likened to so many soldiers which constitute the garrison inside a mighty fortress that has high walls and strong redoubts: all bent on keeping the Lord Jesus Christ on the outside. That’s intellectualism in a nutshell. Those walls, those human thoughts must be broken and conquered Christ must enter this strong fortress which is rebellious man. Every thought, like many defeated soldiers, must be captured and be brought into subjection to Chris: Human thoughts are arraigned against God. Says the Scripture: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him return unto the Lord . . . for as the heavens are higher than the earth. so are . . . My thoughts higher than your thoughts-” Isa 55:7,9.

The truth of the matter is that God does not countenance human thoughts except when in conformity with, and in submission to His thoughts, as expressed in His Word. The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. God knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain- 1 Cor. 3:19.20. “Can man by searching find out God?” Job 11:7. “Every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil continually”- Gen. 6:5. “Out of the heart of man proceed evil thoughts…”- Mark 7:21

Whenever the natural, unconverted man thinks, in relation to spiritual matters, he thinks wrong. There are a number of examples of this in the O.T. Scriptures, with their spiritual application to us today. There is Naaman, who comes seeking a cure for his leprosy; said he: “Behold, I thought he will surely come out to me”- 2 Kings 5: 11, but he thought wrong. In Esther 6:6 we read: Now Haman thought in his heart, “To whom would the king delight to do honor more than to myself,” but he was wrong. The rich man in Luke 12:17 thought within himself saying “what shall I do?”, but he thought wrong too. The great apostle Paul (and if there ever was an intellectual he was it) said in those days of his blindness: “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth”- Acts 26:9, but oh, how wrong he was! You see why these were all off the track, don’t you? It was because they had themselves in the center of their thoughts. To me, said Naaman; to myself, said Haman; the rich farmer thought within himself, and Paul thought I ought to. All these were wrong because human thought exalts itself and dethrones Christ; it sits in judgment upon the Word of God, instead of vice-versa. Hear what the Bible has to say to the intellectual then and now: “The preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness.” Four tremendous ideas are embodied in this pregnant statement:

1. The Cross. It wipes out all human reasoning. Christ was crucified at Calvary-the place of a “skull”. Thus the cross is the death knell of all mere human wisdom, for “after that the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe”- I Cor. 1:21, to the intent that no flesh should glory in His presence- I Cor. 1:29. The Cross proves man’s fearful guilt in that it required the Son of God to die for him as the only possible remedy for his sin. The Cross being reared at the place of a skull (where human brains are OUT) tells the story that man’s wisdom is foolishness.
2. The cross is preached. This eliminates all human reasoning. The gospel is not to be proven, but to be preached. It is a divine proclamation, which leaves no room for argument or reasoning. Let a young fellow receive a notice to report for army induction, it allows no discussion. It is a proclamation, not an invitation for his opinion. You just obey it or else. Even so God’s truth is preached for the obedience of faith. Rom. 16:26. There is no place for human reasoning.
3. The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to many. The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to the intellectualist, while on the contrary man’s wisdom is foolishness with God- 1 Cor. 1:20. You can have your choice. You can have what man thinks is foolish, or what God says is foolish,. Not many wise men after the flesh are called- I Cor. 1:27, simply because they are wise in their own conceits. God has hid these things from the wise and prudent and has revealed them unto babes.
4. The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to them that perish. If anyone rejects the summons the gospel proclaims, then it proves such an one is perishing. Foolish in their wisdom they perish, but to believers, called by divine grace, Christ (crucified and risen) is the power of God and the wisdom of God- I Cor. 1: 18 – I. Cor. 1:24.
It is a sad fact that intellectualism often gives rise to conceit and snobbery. “Knowledge puffs us”, says God- I Cor. 8:1. The philosopher is often vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind- Col. 2:18. Eph. 4:17-18 gives solemn description of the reasoner who usually rejects divine revelation, saying he walks in the vanity of his mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in him, because of the blindness of his heart.” “Such are proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife. Railings, evil surmising, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, supposing that gain is godliness” I Tim. 6:4-5. To the believer who knows the truth their vaporings often are utterly ridiculous, yet so tragic.

Jude speaks of these types of men when he says: “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit”- Jude 19. They put themselves in a class apart above the ordinary garden-variety of folks. But don’t be deceived or impressed by their bluff. God’s Word says that, in the realm of spiritual verities, they know nothing, for “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”- I Cot. 2:14 They think they know, but “if any man think he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know”- 1 Cor. 8:2

No man perhaps ever matched the apostle Paul in power of intellect, nevertheless, many of his contemporaries sneered at him because he did not make a display of his tremendous capacities, but he lived, spoke and wrote in humble self-effacement. His preaching was not with “enticing words of man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and power”- I Cor. 2:4.

Of our blessed Lord Himself the Jewish leaders said: “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?”- John 7:15. On another occasion the Jews remarked: “From whence hath this Man these things, and what wisdom is this which is given unto Him that even such mighty works are wrought by His hands; is not this the carpenter?”- Mark 6:2,3. On what possible basis could a carpenter know as much, yea more of the Scriptures than a university graduate or post-graduate? As a matter of fact, Jesus (or a believer in Jesus also) knows more about spiritual things than any unconverted intellectual, no matter if that paragon had as many degrees back of his name as a thermometer has degrees. No unsaved soul knows anything at all of God’s truth; that’s what the Scriptures tell us.

God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; He hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty”- 1 Cor. 1:27. Of Jesus they enquired: “How knows this Man letters, having never learned?” They meant that He had never been to college; He never had had any formal education. so how could He know? Yes, how did He know? He knew, of course, because He was God. But when He became Man. He did what all men do – from birth on He began to learn. How did He know having never learned? The answer is that He did learn, not in a university or seminary, but in God’s school which is the ideal one and open to every Christian. Isa. 50:4-5 tells us about it: “The Lord hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary. He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth Mine ear to hear as the learner. The Lord God hath opened Mine ear I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.” That’s how He knew. He did two things- He listened and obeyed. That same avenue is open to you and me, without having to go for special religious or academic training. Each morning Christ fed on the Word and, having learned, He obeyed its precepts. He was not rebellious. The reason the intellectual does not understand the Bible is that he is not willing to submit himself to its searching demands- he is rebellious; that’s why he fumbles and stumbles around in the dark.

Furthermore, Christ learned not merely for the sake of knowing, nor to display His vast knowledge, nor to dazzle people with His wide-ranging vocabulary. No, but to speak a word in season to the weary and the heavy-laden. That’s an additional reason why higher religious education can be a menace, for it feeds spiritual pride; it is so apt to magnify man rather than exalt the Person of Christ, or meet the need of sinner or saint.

In Acts 4:13, we read: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned (they hadn’t been to the seminary either) and ignorant men (that was altogether too gratuitous a conclusion for the ignorance was on the part of their persecutors; not on the part of those apostles), they marveled and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.” That’s it, they had not been to college but they had been with Jesus. They astonished their hearers with their knowledge of the Scriptures and their boldness in declaring the truth. And they recognized the explanation consisted in that they had been with Jesus. One may spend many years in acquiring the highest possible training but yet know nothing whatever of the things of God but let one come as a humble disciple and learn in the school of Christ and the world will still be astounded and stirred. There is no substitute for learning in His school. If seminary teaching makes the Word of God more precious and makes one more of a humble servant of Christ, well and good, but the risk isn’t worth the dubious advantage, in my sober judgment.

Our Lord did not use His knowledge to hold theological controversies with His adversaries. When they raised their “how can’s?”, as in John 6:52 when they said: “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” Jesus did not go into a lengthy argument to prove the logic of this profound statement, but He merely reiterated it, saying: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood ye have no life in you.” This was not an explanation of His original statement but an emphatic repetition of it. The truth of God is not given for the purpose of convincing unbelievers, but for convicting them; not to give their minds some gymnastic exercise, but to bring their wills into subjection to God’s will. But the natural man loves to reason; it feeds his pride.

The intellectual reasoner should do what the wise men did at the birth of Christ. These came from the East (the East was famous for its boasted wisdom- 1 Kings 4:30). But those magi turned their backs on the East and came and knelt at the feet of a little Babe, in whom were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. They worshipped Him (not His mother, of course). The wise religious leaders of the Jews of that day knew the Scriptures (They could tell the wise men where the King was to be born and give scripture and verse for it), but they knew not Him. It was to the lowly, uneducated shepherds that the angelic messengers announced the coming of the Saviour into the world; it is such who saw Him and worshipped. The wise may know much, but generally the humble know Him. God reveals Himself to babes.

Intellectualism loves the use of big words. When you read many of their writings you need a dictionary handy. This again is nothing new; it has always been the hallmark of highbrowism to razzle-dazzle with big words; it sounds so impressive to the ignorant. Such use is really a confession of inferiority on the part of the one using them. He feels he has said so little that he has to throw in a few big words to make up for the lack of thought.

The use of big words is of course un sparingly condemned in God’s Word, both by precept and by example. Hear what Peter says: “They speak great swelling words of vanity”- 2 Peter 2:18; or Jude 16: “These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage”. You see that the use of many-syllable words is nothing modern; the intellectuals were there 20 centuries ago.

The apostle Paul, God’s specially chosen servant, has not a good word to say for this display of human knowledge. Says he: “Christ sent me . . . to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect” I Cor. 1:17. He did not use words similar to these, which I recently came across; such as “existentialism”, or “world esuriency”, or (how do you like this one?) the “thaumaturgic Christ”. This fad for polysyllabic bombastic verbosity (please forgive) is laughable were it not so pitiable.

“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God . . . And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God”- 1 Cor. 2:1,4,5. And again he says: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God, we have had our conduct in the world and more abundantly to you-ward”- 2 Cor. 1:12.

A mark of true intelligence and education is to preach or teach the Word of God in simple, every-day language, so that even a child can understand. Many may not use the jawbreakers we mentioned a while back but may yet fail to speak simply. I was told long ago that when you want to say spade, say spade. Don’t say “a long instrument employed in the pursuit of agriculture.” We read in Acts 11: 19 that the early believers, scattered by the persecution that then raged, went everywhere preaching the Word. That verb “preach” (Greek-laleo) means ordinary talk; it is the common word in the New Testament translated “speak”. Notice in how simple words Paul speaks. Read his sermons, for instance, in Acts 13 or in Acts 17, or his defense before the Jews in Acts 22, or before King Agrippa in Acts 26. Even a child can grasp what he is saying. Read his epistles and be thrilled by cadences like these: “For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.” Or as in I Tim. 1:15: “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”

Listen to the sublime discourses uttered by our blessed Lord; listen to the words of Him Who spake as never man spake; the words of Him in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Here is a sample: “For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”- Luke 19: 10. Sixteen one-syllable words, yet telling forth the most amazing truths. Read that matchless record the apostle John gives us of Christ’s works and words. He treats of the highest possible themes in the simplest possible language. Here is a style worth imitating.

Are we against higher education; an education for Christians that shall furnish greater capacity for handling the Word of God aright? Indeed, we are not.  Who were more highly educated than our blessed Lord or than his humble servant, Paul? But they used their tremendous capacities, not for display or for theological discussions, but to stoop down to the lowly who needed their ministry of grace. If higher education leads to lower thoughts of self, to a readyness to self-effacement, to humbleness and meekness that Christ may be glorified, more power to such so blessed. But my experience in life has been, I am sorry to say, that with rare exceptions, superior knowledge leads to a superiority complex; leads to class-consciousness even among believers. This the Scripture itself declares when it says that “knowledge puffs up”. Even with true believers, unless knowledge is gained in the school of Christ and is balanced by an ever-deepening sense of one’s own nothingness, it is very apt to lead to spiritual pride. The tenor of Scripture is that growth in knowledge should be preceded by growth in grace- 2 Pet. 3:18. It has been argued that many of our early brethren were highly educated men, and that we need more of those now in order to be able to meet the intellectual on an even keel. Praise God, some of those pioneers were men of learning, but they did not acquire their education in order to be useful in His service, but having great knowledge, they humbly relinquished all earthly glory and prestige and identified themselves with a despised crowd of ordinary humble believers. Of one such the story is told that when someone he wailed the fact that he had associated himself with such an insignificant group of believers when he might have had such a prominent position in the world, he quietly said: “Which world?”

One of our Lord’s glorious titles is the “Logos- the Word.” He, Himself is the Logic; He is “It”. Let Christ Himself be before the soul; let our purpose be to know Him, to exalt Him, and then intelligence cannot become a danger; otherwise it will.

The Scriptures themselves were the argument our Lord Himself ever used. Read His talk with Nicodemus. In that chapter that tells of Nicodemus’ conversation with Christ, we are told that the cause of man’s blindness is not that the Word of God is difficult to understand (and needs a college graduate to make it plain), but that men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. Said He on another occasion: Ye will not come to me (not: ye cannot). “How can ye believe which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?”-John 5:44. When walking with the two to Emmaus He said: “Oh fools and slow of heart to believe all that prophets have spoken; ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself”- Luke 24:25-27. And again in verse 44 of this same chapter: “These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you. that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning Me.” No wonder those two who walked with Him that day could say afterwards: “Did not our hearts burn within us, while He talked with us by the way and while He opened to us the Scriptures?” Their hearts burned; not their heads throbbed, God would fain reach the heart, while man loves to exercise his mind. In 2 Cor. 4:4, we read that the devil blinds the minds of them who believe not, but in verse 6 we find that God shines into our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Let me briefly sum up what has been said thus far:

The Bible plainly teaches that the unbeliever cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. Therefore, there is no sense in trying to prove the truth of the Bible to a sinner, it is to be preached, not to be proven. Man loves to argue but when the proud intellectual wants to argue and use human reasoning in divine things, it is wrong to accommodate him, for he knows nothing about it. To reason with him is to pay him a misleading compliment for it suggests he can understand, when the Bible positively states he cannot. It is true we find on several occasions that Paul reasoned with the Jews, but he did not reason about the Scriptures, but out of the Scriptures- Acts 17:2. He wasted not one breath to prove the Bible is the Word of God. In Acts 26, when speaking before King Agrippa, he told this ruler that he had witnessed both to small and great, saying none other things but those which the prophets and Moses did say should come, “that Christ should suffer and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead.” etc.- Acts 26:22-23. Paul preached the Word, accepting its absolute authority and expecting others to do so.

Now, as to the need for higher academic education or religious seminary training in order to make one a more capable minister of God’s Word, I fail to find any warrant for such an idea in the Scriptures; nay, rather the reverse. Moses had had a superior education at the court of Egypt, but he was sent to the backside of the desert to learn to know God; as has been well said: “For forty years in Egypt, he learned to be somebody. and then for forty years in the sticks he had to learn to be nobody,” for those are the kind of ministers God uses. The great apostle Paul had all the degrees going, but he retired to the shadows for many years to get rid of his knowledge and to acquire the knowledge of God. Both these men and many others needed to know self-effacement and to acquire spiritual power; and neither of these are attained in universities, but only in the school of Christ. If one wants the ability to meet the intellectual (who is usually an unbeliever) on his grounds, he is prostituting whatever gift he may have. It has been urged we should be able to meet the college graduate on his own level; to mc that is altogether too low a level; even the humblest Christian lives and knows on a higher plane.

Many will agree that the least educated Christian can understand the Word of God, but it takes some measure of education to enable one to make it known intelligibly. but this too the Bible flatly refutes. God delights to use weak, human vessels that so the excellency of the power may be of Him and not of us. In this connection, I recently came across this gem in a book called “John Bunyan”. It is a comment by a John Burton, a contemporary of John Bunyan and it was written even before John Bunyan wrote his world-famous “Pilgrim’s Progress”. This man writes in 1656 concerning John Bunyan: “This man is not chosen out of an earthly but out of the heavenly university, the Church of Christ, therefore receive this word . . . not as the word of man, but as the Word of God … and be not offended because Christ holds forth the glorious treasure of the gospel to thee in a poor, earthen vessel by one who hath neither the greatness nor the wisdom of this world to commend him to thee . . . through grace he hath received the teaching of God, and the learning of the Spirit of Christ, .which is the thing that makes the man both Christian and a minister of the gospel. He hath, through grace, taken these three heavenly degrees to wit: UNION WITH CHRIST, THE ANOINTING OF THE SPIRIT AND THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TEMPTATIONS OF SATAN, which do more to fit a man for that mighty work of preaching the gospel than all the university learning and degrees that may be had” … I say “Amen” to this with all my heart, Here is a man who had not one whit of formal education, whom God yet used in such amazing fashion. He has been read more than any author in the world’s history.

Preach the Word out of a deep experience of fellowship with the Lord, and God will bless it. Man’s reasonings, philosophies and hypotheses are so much rubbish. The Bible is God’s revelation, and once something is made known it calls for no special mental capacity to understand; just a submissive will to believe and obey. The gospel is preached for the obedience of faith; not for the rational consent of the mind. When Paul left Ephesus he did not commend to the elders a course in mental development, but he commended them to God and to the Word of His grace- Acts 20:32.

It is also being advocated by some that if we are to meet the educated class we must needs study theology, comparative beliefs, philosophies, etc. In other words, we must sample all the poisons being peddled by ignorant or bigoted quacks, in order to be able to refute them. But that’s a risky business, for while some are smart enough maybe to taste and then spit out the stuff before swallowing, others are not so dexterous, and sad experience bears witness that many young Christians have been doped and duped by Satan’s potions and have had their faith wrecked. Personally. I know quite a few younger men who have lost their faith while in institutions of learning. One brokenhearted father told me how his son had gone astray and abused his father because he had only taught him the great truths of the Bible; now he found out that the atheist was right. Said his father to him: “Why don’t you bawl your mother out. too?” “What for?” said the boy. “For giving you pancakes and syrup. and bacon and eggs for breakfast and not garbage once in a while. You want good food for your body, but swill for your soul.”

Don’t waste your time and risk your soul reading up on what Jehovah Witnesses. or Mormons or Christian Scientists believe. Just listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd as it comes to you through His Word, and you’ll instantly know the growl of the wolf when he comes around. If you study the Word in His presence, you can meet every argument Satan may put up.

While the unbeliever cannot understand the truth, on the other hand, the believer often fails to use the capacity God hath given him. Believers – often, young men, waste a lot of time that could and should be given to the serious study of God’s Word. There are many books and commentaries to enable one to grow in a sound knowledge of the great truths of the Scriptures.

There are no classes among believers. Every child of God is perfectly capable of understanding even the deep things of God, while no unbeliever is. And the ability to understand does not depend on mental power or higher education. Unbelievers’ minds are darkened, blinded by the Devil and ignorant – Eph. 4:18. But when a soul gets saved through God’s matchless grace, a mighty transformation takes place. The mind is completely renovated, for the believer gets a “renewed mind”- Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23. This miracle is wrought within by the Spirit of God, as we read in Titus 3:5. The Christian, an entirely new man, is now vividly, mentally and spiritually alive and capable of understanding the deep things of God-1 Cor. 2:10; Col. 3:10. Please notice that this is said indiscriminately of all believers, and in addition to this spiritual renewing of the believer’s mind, there is something even more wonderful and which sets the believer apart and above every unsaved person, no matter how great he may be. This lifts the believer to the highest level of true intelligence, enabling him to grasp, appreciate and communicate God’s truth. I refer to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who not only has made God’s Word a living power by His inspiration, and Who not only furnishes the believer the illumination he needs but the power of its interpretation as well.

See how this shines out in Acts 4. The Jewish leaders marveled at the apostles and they recognized they had been with Jesus. But that was not the only reason that these men could speak with such power and boldness. They showed no such strength when they walked with the Lord. It was the indwelling and anointing with the Holy Spirit that made them so fearless and empowered them to preach the Word so forcefully; yet, most of them were men of no special education. The secret of spiritual power and the ability to teach and preach Christ is, therefore, evidently not found in higher education, but in a lower estimate of self; in a life yielded to Him with Whom all things are possible. What the Church needs is not more intellectualism, but more spirituality; and colleges do not have that as part of their curriculum. Again, I say- there is not a hint in the Bible that advanced training is a requisite for usefulness in the ministry of Christ, but many statements that do show it can be a serious detriment. The educated intellectual needs the same simple message as the ignorant, uneducated one; he needs the message that a child can understand, namely, that Christ died for our sins and that without Him there is nothing but eternal doom. That’s not what he wants, of course, but that’s what he needs.

It may be true that there is a great lack of ability among us Christians, but this is not due to a lack of education, but to a lack of devotion to Christ. I am afraid of anything that fosters a special “class” among saints; it CAN BE A MENACE TO true Christianity. The only degrees the Bible mentions are degrees in spiritual development- from babes to young men to fathers; not from elementary to high school to college. In Matt. 13:15, we read: “For this people’s heart is waxed gross and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes, they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and should understand with their hearts, and should be converted and I should heal them.” But the very things hidden from those worldly-wise ones, Jesus revealed and interpreted in detail to His disciples. God hides these things from the wise and prudent and reveals them unto babes.

Ah, what we need is not education; not the storing of the mind, but the enlargement of the heart; a heart wholly in love with Christ. No matter how much a highly educated speaker might seek to exalt Christ, yet the listener will almost certainly be impressed with the orator rather than with his message. Often the speaker increases and Christ decreases, which is the reverse order. I read once that a Christian went to hear Dr. Joseph Parker speak in London- then a well-known orator and a true Christian. Upon coming out he said: “What a wonderful speaker!” The same evening he went to listen to Mr. Spurgeon and upon leaving the tabernacle he said: “What a Saviour Jesus is!”

Love to Christ- a deep appreciation of Christ’s love to us- is the great need in Christian ministry. Once one of the brains of the country came regularly to hear a famous preacher. At last, he asked permission to say a few words and went on to tell how God had made him aware of his guilt and now he was saved. After the service the famous preacher asked him what message or thought had led him to Christ. “Oh, it was nothing you said,” was the reply, “but as I left the church last Sunday night, a colored woman next to me slipped on the icy steps and would have fallen had not I grasped her and held her up. She turned to me with tears glistening in her eyes and thanked me and then said: “Does yo’ all luv’ mah Jesus?” That’s what saved me”; and it still will. I have listened to a number of educated preachers and most of them left me unmoved and untouched. Very correct, oratorical, but cold as ice, often. Education is bound to make the speaker conscious of himself; it is almost impossible to avoid this snare.

The danger is that seminary training first of all leads to a class-consciousness; to a subtle superiority complex. Next, it will require the giving of a degree and title, for if you know as much as Solomon, if you don’t be a Dr. or Rev., you’d still be in the class of nonentities. We see all this in the religious world in its unscriptural system of the clergy and the laity; in the giving and taking of titles. God’s Word knows nothing whatever of classes among the saints. One is your Master and all ye are brethren; One is the High Priest and all the saints are priests on the same level.

Higher training loads (and often overloads) the mind with a vast accumulation of facts, without the corresponding development of character and the deepening love for Christ that must balance knowledge, if one is not to crash over top-heavy. I have found that academic training may result in correctness of words, expression and facts, but it usually lacks in emotion and passion; it fills the mind but fails to move the soul.

If one is truly spiritual, earnestly desiring to serve the Lord, nothing can hinder such an one from being a student. Going to college does not make one a student; nor failure to go prevent one from being a student. The ideal school is God’s school. Read about it in Mark 3:14,15: “And He ordained twelve that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach and to have power” … What wonderful three-year university course under the Best Teacher that ever lived! And His school is still in business. Note the divine order: 1. First of all- to be with Him (in His presence to learn both by His words and His ways); 2. thus to be made fit to teach others; 3. as a result, to have divine power.

This method of learning to preach and serve Christ- in a personal walk with the Lord and in fellowship with believers- (as these twelve men did when they walked together during those years) cannot be exaggerated. It is God’s method of teaching and cannot be improved upon. Learning in His school, in association with humble believers in daily fellowship, that’s God’s way. In this way the preacher gets the help, encouragement and often the rebuke, criticism and letdown he needs in order to balance knowledge with humility; and if he is not humble, he is of absolutely no use to God.

One thing that is perfectly obnoxious and unbearable in a servant of Christ is conceit, and yet there is so much of this very thing. And it’s nothing new. Did you ever notice how many, many times the Lord had to rebuke His disciples for their pride and self-seeking? While He spoke of His forthcoming fearful suffering and His death, they were arguing among themselves as to who should be the greatest- read Mark 9:31-37. Read also Matt. 16:23; Matt. 20:24-27, etc. Pride is a subtle sin that no one is impervious to; least of all preachers, since such are so often patted on the back and praised.

It is almost a necessity for a young brother, if he feels the Lord has called him to be a preacher, to learn his “trade” in daily fellowship with an assembly of believers; not in a seminary. He needs criticism, wise or otherwise, from older brethren who have some experience in life. I don’t think seminaries have a course on this, and hence his education would be sadly neglected. He must not get the wrong idea that the service of Christ is a sinecure. Our Lord, in Luke 22:36- taught the twelve to pay their own way through life; not to look to others for support. Money is to have no place in Christian service. It is a path of sacrifice. Every servant of Christ, if he is to be well-balanced, needs the discipline, the trials and frictions that association and contact with fellow-believers bring; the criticism, correction and advice of older and wiser brethren. He needs to learn while he serves, even as the twelve disciples did under Christ’s tutelage. Head knowledge must be balanced with character development and growth in appreciation of the love of Christ. There is nothing glamorous in such a path and so it is not popular. We’d rather be somebody. We need more surrender to the claims of Christ. Theological training is NOT the answer to our problem, but it might well make it worse. Let each one of us learn at the feet of Him Who said: “Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.”

1. Deal with men  individually as if only speaking to one person.
2. Deal with men on the grounds of sins committed, show them what these are from the law’s prohibition of them.
3. Keep   one   leading   truth   before  the mind that all said may be round it as a sort of center.
4. Refer more to Scripture,, turning up the passages, and urging that they  are as the very words of God.
5. Urge the awful sin of rejecting Christ and show this from Scripture.
6. Pray in private as long as you speak in public.     Get alone before the meeting.
7. When flurried during speaking, stop and pray for more strength and liberty.
8. Speak more of the Person of Jesus, the joy of being with Him and His second coming. 

From Field and Work October 1909

In Reply to a Letter
EDITED

DEAR _________

Thank you for your letter of the 16th September. Our differences as to Baptism are not vital, such as truths we hold in common.

The Meaning of Baptism

The writer has long felt that the continued conflict as to who are the proper subjects of Baptism has excluded from view what is after all a more important point, viz.: the significance of Baptism itself. In the din and dust created by the controversy over Infant Baptism, people have failed to see that even the champions on either side may after all be very deficient in what is surely a primary requisite, i.e., a knowledge of what Scripture teaches upon Baptism. It may be that half our difficulties and disagreements about who should be baptised would disappear did we understand the first elementary truths concerning Baptism itself. The clamour of several centuries gathers round who is to be the subject, and what is the mode, while the meaning of the rite has become obscured, in our anxiety about the method. But the rite surely ought to stand first.

But how is it Baptism itself—i.e., as to its meaning and spiritual intention—is nearly always placed in the background? We believe the answer is twofold. First, the noise of controversy has attracted attention exclusively to the candidates, until we have come to believe that the subject begins and ends with them. Secondly—and perhaps as a consequence of the other—nearly everyone jumps to the conclusion that he or she knows all about it.

Are you, my friend, to whom this letter is specially addressed, willing to accompany me (and will any others join us?) in a brief, but unbiassed and careful, study of the principal passages where the subject is presented? Can we—specially blot from our minds all thought for the time being of its application, whether to infants or believers only, and just come with open minds to the Scripture itself to learn what it really has to say to us? If we think we already know all about the subject it cannot do us any harm already and if we don’t know, the good it will do us will be immense.

It has often been said that the first mention of any subject in Scripture generally carries with it some special intimation as to its meaning. Let us then turn to Luke iii., where we get the first mention of Baptism historically, though not, of course, as to the order of the books.

It may be well, perhaps, to say a word as to the origin and history of Baptism. These are involved in a good deal of obscurity. The word is not once used in the O.T. But “religious meanings” were early attached to washings with water, both by heathens and Jews; they were among the ordinances of the Jewish law; and it is not necessary to go beyond that law to find the origin of the custom of washing or baptizing proselytes upon their admission into the Jewish system.

Its first mention in the Scriptures, as you are aware, is in connection with John the Baptist; and the very way it is mentioned, without any introduction or explanation, seems conclusive that the rite in some form or other was already recognized and understood.

While some hold that Baptism is immersion, it is clear, however, not only that the verb means “to dip” but also has a wider meaning, viz., “to wash.” And this fact has a most important bearing upon the meaning and significance of the rite. Merely to give two instances: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ” (Acts xxii. 16), and “Except they wash” (baptize) (Mark vii. 4).

If we are to understand Baptism as set forth in Luke iii. we must carefully note John’s attitude and also his words. He addresses those who come to him as a “generation of vipers.” Yet he does not on this account refuse to baptize them, but he is very careful to tell them the responsibility that attaches to baptism and that nothing less than fruits meet for repentance will suffice. This produced certain questions from three different classes—the people, the publicans and the soldiers. And both the questions and the answers bear upon practical conduct. John answered their questions and then proceeded to baptize them. Two statements seem to indicate that he baptized them all: He says, after having baptized them, “I indeed baptize you with water,” and it is recorded “when all the people were baptized.”

From these plain facts do we not learn: 1. That the baptism signified a renunciation of their old life and a determination to live an amended one. 2. It was certainly not because they had been living an exemplary life, for John addresses them as a “generation of vipers.” Nor are we told that they were sent away to live an amended life and then come and be baptized. The narrative implies that they were baptized there and then, and verse 21 supports this view for they were all baptized before Christ. Consequently there could not have been any interval worth speaking about, if any at all.

From what we are told in this third chapter of Luke is it possible to understand what would be in the minds of John and the people with reference to Baptism? As we read of his denunciation, “O generation of vipers,” as we note his words about “amendment of life,” and as we go over the questions that were put to him, does not this, at all events, stand out with unmistakeable clearness: it meant both to baptizer and baptized a renunciation of the old standing and the old life, and the entrance upon a new.

Baptism with a view to the future

But the great and overshadowing question in it all related to the future. John’s baptism, we are told, was a “baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins.” And the one question staring us again and again in the face and that comes from every class is this: “What shall we do”? All mainly related to the future. That this was so can scarcely be questioned in the light of some other words of John the Baptist and also of what St. Paul says. In John i. 31 we read, “And I knew Him (Christ) not: but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.” And in Acts xix. 4, “John verily baptized . . . saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after Him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” So should here, at all events, we have people baptized who had not as yet lived an amended life, whose sins were not forgiven, and who had not yet believed in Christ.

In reply to this, do you affirm that this was only John’s baptism and not Christian baptism? Our answer is, we are only concerned for the moment with Baptism itself. If you think that under Christianity it assumed an altogether new significance and became altogether restricted in its application, what I propose to do is to see whether or not the teaching which follows on the subject in the Scriptures supports the view just given. You will agree, I think, that a general consensus of teaching on any subject goes far to confirm a particular view as being the right one. While some require a testimony of the life before they baptize. John baptized there and then in view of an amended life. While some say the rite appertains to no one but a believer. John the Baptist is reported as “saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him.”

Is baptism simply a looking back (something already true of the believer represented by an outward sign)? To John it was a looking forward. Is the thought of obedience limited to the act itself? John made it a committal to a life-long obedience.

Now, which of these conceptions is the correct one? Which will be favored by the general consensus of Scripture? I hope you will consider this a legitimate way of stating the matter and I will endeavor to conduct the enquiry in a fair spirit.

I would invite you to travel from Luke iii. to Acts xix.—a considerable interval. The question put by St. Paul to these men is surely important. “Unto what then were ye baptized?”

Now whether we render the first word “unto,” “into,” or “to,” matters little as far as the point before us is concerned. For surely whichever word is used it represents something taking place at the Baptism, and not the Baptism representing something that had already taken place. Notice the reply to the question. They virtually said, “We were baptized into John’s baptism.” Which means, that baptism itself stands for something.

Take the order of the words in Mark xvi. 16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Does it say “He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized”? This is not, however, what our Lord said. The order of the words here indicates that Baptism itself is in someway connected with salvation, and does not simply represent that a person is saved. To be saved, in the sense meant here, he must not only believe but be baptized. Not because he is saved but to be saved. The reason why Baptism is omitted in the second clause is easy to understand. Damnation has to do with the future. But Baptism has only to do with the present course of things, and salvation too has a present aspect.

Acts ii. 38. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” The revised version has “unto the remission of your sins,” and Weymouth translates the word for “unto” as, “with a view to.” Have we not here the same thought? Not Baptism merely retrospective, but in view of something. And this even after Christ’s ascension to glory and the coming of the Holy Ghost.

In Acts viii. we find instances of believers being baptized, and this before they had received the Holy Ghost. But further on we come across the instance of the eunuch, and Philip’s words “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest.” As to this instance, it is well known that the words last quoted are disputed. But even supposing them to be true they would not invalidate the Scriptures already referred to. They lay down no doctrine as to Baptism. They were a challenge to a heathen man as to his sincerity, a course which we would be prepared to follow. The point before us at present is not, to whom does Baptism apply, but the meaning and significance of the rite. We all admit the baptism of believers; but our view is not limited to that.

Let us pass to Acts xxii. 16, leaving any intervening passages to be considered when we come to the question of the application of the rite. We have already seen, by an allusion to this very Scripture, that Baptism is a washing. Now why do we wash? Because we are clean, or to be made clean? Surely we do not wash as a kind of public demonstration that we were clean before? Did this apply only to Saul of Tarsus because he was such an exceptional sinner. Someone has told me that this is “calling on the Name of the Lord.” But what correspondence is there between “washing” and “calling?” whereas there is a perfect correspondence between washing and water. The calling on the Name of the Lord was evidently an adjunct to the washing. And as to this statement having become obsolete because it applied to one particular case, and one only, I have yet to learn that Scripture anywhere teaches that Divine institutions have a special meaning to particular individuals, or that it anywhere says that Saul needed a special baptism. Is there a word to this effect in the Lord’s instruction to Ananias? No. It was evidently ordinary water baptism, and it was a washing away of sins.

But it may be asked, “Were not the Apostle’s sins already gone?” Yes, they were gone from before God. This was a washing away from before men and as a demonstration that he renounced his former ways and was entering upon an entirely new life. And notice particularly, it does not say, “Arise and be baptized because your sins are forgiven.”

The meaning of Romans VI

If we come now to Rom. vi. 3-4, we learn something more. The matter of the believer’s relation to sin (not sins merely) is in question. The Apostle declares they have died to sin (ver. 2). How and when? The answer in ver. 3 is by and at their baptism.

Is it not important, in this case, as in every other, to notice exactly how the truth is stated? It is not said to these believers at Rome: “You died when you believed in Christ and you were baptized as an outward and visible sign of what was already true of you.” The Apostle says nothing at all about believing, though, of course, they had believed. But in what sense does faith set forth death with Christ? There is not the slightest analogy. But Baptism has a very strong resemblance to death; and so we find the writer of this epistle grounding his whole argument upon the fact that these believers had been baptized.

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ, were baptized unto His death. Therefore we are buried with Him by BAPTISM unto death; that like as Christ was raised up front the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

May I not ask you again which view of Baptism this Scripture supports? Is Baptism treated here as if it were applied because everything was already true; is it treated as an act of obedience merely? In one word is Baptism only a backward look? It seems to me the teaching here is in perfect harmony with what we have seen it to be all through, viz.: that Baptism is in view of something, and that Baptism instead of standing in relation to faith, something like the obverse to the reverse of a coin or pattern, stands for itself and means something which faith, from the very nature of things, cannot mean. I have quoted the text as “unto” and not “into.” But whether the one or the other be the exact force of the original both are alike material to the discussion in hand. For the text does not present Baptism as an outward sign of something already done, but as doing something: “Buried with Him by Baptism.” So that we are bound (if we are to adhere to Scripture), it seems to me, to admit that Baptism is its own sign and significance, and not a mere outward sign of what is true already of one who has never been baptized. Yet this last is surely what Baptists largely make it. Thus, if language means anything, one who has not been baptized could not say he had been buried with Christ; and therefore it cannot be true that Baptism is only the outward sign that he was already buried.

We are told in Scripture that Baptism represents or stands for many things: death, burial, separation from the old life, &c., but I cannot recall one passage which asserts that it is an outward sign of a person’s faith. Does not Romans vi. bring before us that to which we are baptized; to Jesus Christ; to His death; and in view of newness of life? And therefore, again, is it not clear that Baptism is prospective, closing the door upon one condition of things, and opening it upon another?

We are said to be baptized unto Christ’s death. Consequentl^y, further down the chapter the Apostle goes on to shew the significance of that death. “For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.” And, seeing we have been baptized unto that death, he adds, “LIKEWISE RECKON YE ALSO YOURSELVES TO BE DEAD INDEED UNTO SIN, BUT ALIVE UNTO GOD THROUGH (OR IN) JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.”

This reckoning is continuous; not only on the day of my baptism, but always. As we were baptized unto Christ and unto His death, so we are to reckon ourselves constantly dead unto sin and alive unto God. In other words, I am to be true all along to my baptism. In the light of this, what a significant thing baptism becomes.

But let us pass to 1 Cor. x. 1-2. Is not this a very striking passage? Does it not teach us that the truth of Baptism is found in the Red Sea? Speaking of Israel as a nation, St. Paul says, they “were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Now what did this mean to them? Is it wrong to say the cloud was for their guidance, and the sea, while it separated them for ever from Egypt, brought them into another scene, and introduced them into a new place altogether? Did not their baptism mean that they professedly accepted the guidance of the cloud and that they had left Egypt for ever? and were not both connected with Moses ? They accepted his leadership.

We cannot fail to see at once the remarkable correspondence between this passage and the one we have just been looking at. There it was, baptized unto Christ and unto His death. Here it is, unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea. Surely the sea, in their case, did not represent something that had already happened. Is it not clear that it stood for something in itself? Could they be said to be dead to Egypt until they had crossed it?

I do not dwell longer on this passage as I may have occasion to return to it, and my object at the moment is not to give a full exposition of the subject in all its bearings, but simply to shew the meaning and significance of the rite itself. For it is surely evident that if we do not hold correct views as to this we cannot as to all that correlates with it.

What has Galatians iii. 27 to say to us on the subject? “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Baptism, here, is said to be putting on of Christ. Again it does not say it is a public confession of faith, or that Baptism is an act of obedience or represents something already true (though of course it may involve all these). But is it not important to observe that the inspired writer affirms with all the clearness conceivable that the act of Baptism itself effects something? And does not this view of it add tremendously to the significance of Baptism? The fact is as astounding as it is true, that, Baptists, with all their glorying in Baptism, have shorn it of nearly all its meaning! “Baptized unto Christ.” “Put on Christ.” Here is the grand conception of the rite the Bible presents to us. And surely the Bible knows more about Baptism than any of us. Does everything depend upon personal faith. Does everything need to be true before the rite is administered? Neither John the Baptist nor Paul confined their view to these limits, but John baptized the multitude after telling them what they ought to be ; and Paul says, ” Buried with Him (Christ) by Baptism.” “As many as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ.” If there is only one way of being in Christ and that through believing, in what way could you be Baptized into Christ; and by Baptism “put on Christ?” But if there is a recognized outward sphere of profession, then one can understand the terms.

Does not our next passage—Ephesians iv. 4-6—make plain why we are said to be “baptized into Christ?” “There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” This statement, manifestly applies only to true believers. A mere professor is not in the one body; he does not possess the Spirit; the calling spoken of is not his.

But ver. 5 is different: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” A professor can say, “Lord, Lord,” and outwardly acknowledge Christ as such. (1.) He can profess to accept the faith; and he can be baptized. These three things belong to an outer circle, compared with the first three. While ver. 6 brings us to a wider circle still. Compare 1 Cor. viii. 6; Eph. iii. 15, and Acts xvii. 28. Baptism, then, as presented here, clearly has to do with profession. And this is easy to understand, for it has to do with earth, not with heaven, and with the position a man takes publicly before men, not so much with his faith before God. When Saul washed away his sins in Baptism, it was before men, not before God. This latter had been done already.

In Colossians ii. 12 you will remember we have some important teaching on Baptism. “Buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, Who hath raised Him, from the dead.”

When were we buried, i.e. put out of sight? When we believed? The Apostle does not put it in that way; for the simple reason, it seems to me, that there is nothing in faith to represent it; but he immediately introduces Baptism. “Buried with Him in Baptism.”

 (1.) Notice, this is different from I Cor. xii. 3. The one is saying “Lord, Lord,” with the lips (see Matt. vii. 21), the other is a confession by the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Lord.

The Consistency of Scripture

Do we not see what a consistency there is in the entire teaching of Scripture on the subject? Almost every verse we have looked at presents Baptism as an act having its own meaning and as having something in view. It not merely closes the past but introduces to that which is entirely new. For I think you will agree with me that risen with Christ is in full view here.

You may reply, this verse is all against you, for it distinctly speaks of faith. I know, and have not any wish to escape from it. As I have said before in this letter, I believe in the baptism of believers as much as you do. I fully go with it. I was baptized myself as a believer. But you cannot get away from the fact that the burial with Christ is in Baptism, and moreover, it is worthy of notice that faith is connected with resurrection, and not with the being buried with Him at all. I am thinking of the way in which it is presented in this verse. Neither this passage nor any other we have looked at presents Baptism as a public declaration of a man’s faith. I am not saying it may not be so incidentally, but no verse presents Baptism in that way.

Moreover, it is not necessary that everything should be true of a person before he is eligible for an outward rite; and the same rite may be performed upon two people under quite different conditions. May I trouble you to turn to Romans iv. 11? Here we are told that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.” Does this imply that “Since circumcision was a seal of Abraham’s faith, that precludes all children of a few days old from being circumcised. There can only be believers’ circumcision”? This logic seems irresistible. But, Isaac was circumcised when only eight days old, too young by far to have the same faith as his father Abraham! So that in that day there was believers’ circumcision and the circumcision of the children of believers; and why there should not be at this day believers’ Baptism and the Baptism of their children? Is there a text that prohibits it?

That Baptism and circumcision are very closely allied, surely admits of no question. Both are outward rites, and the Apostle brings them into close juxtaposition in the very passage we are considering. Both become the formal recognition of being introduced into outward relationship with God. The outward exists today as truly as then. But this I will endeavor to shew later.

Saved by Water

I will trouble you with only one more passage at this point, but it is a remarkable one. It occurs in St. Peter’s first epistle, chap. iii. v. 21: “The 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.”

The Apostle has just affirmed that at the time of the flood “eight souls were saved by water.” This is a remarkable statement, because naturally we should have expected him to say, “eight souls were saved by the Ark.” How then was Noah saved by water? The water destroyed the old world, with all its violence and corruption, separated the occupants of the Ark entirely from it, and introduced them, at length, into a new world. Baptism is a figure of precisely the same thing. (2.) It separates me from the world, for it is a figure of death, and in the sense of Col. ii. 20, I no longer live in it, and it is in view of a new world, with which all my hopes and associations are bound up. And what a world it is—a world where Christ is, and where He is supreme: “WHO IS GONE INTO HEAVEN, AND IS ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD; ANGELS AND AUTHORITIES AND POWERS BEING MADE SUBJECT UNTO HIM” (ver. 22).

What a solemn rite is Baptism! For in it I declare that I have done with a doomed world—a world full of corruption through lust: and I am seeking another, where all is in subjection to Christ. It is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, as in Noah’s day (and here there is a difference—the world remaining as it is) but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it be asked, how can a babe have a good conscience? I have already anticipated that objection. The message to Noah was, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark”: and baptism is a like figure.

But I would now ask you a question. How do you and others find room for this view of Baptism which St. Peter presents to us? In what sense do you attach salvation to Baptism? Another question I have is does not 1 Peter iii. 21 harmonize with the other Scriptures we have considered? For it attaches some meaning and significance to Baptism itself.

(2.) It saves by bringing us into a new place.

Taking now a glance backward at the passages that have come before us, what have we learned?

We have seen that John the Baptist did not send his hearers away telling them to come when they had given sufficient proof of amendment of life, but He baptized them in view of that, We have seen again and again that certain things are predicated of those who have been baptized. They have washed away their sins; they have put on Christ; they have been buried; and all this is said to have been done by the act of Baptism. More than once, salvation is connected with the rite, (Mark xvi. 16, and 1 Pet. iii. 21). In Acts ii. 38, Baptism is said to be “for (or unto) the remission of sins,” not because their sins were forgiven.

Who that carefully and impartially considers these facts can help arriving at the following conclusions:—

1. Baptism is in view of something and not merely because of something already true: John baptized in view of an amended life, and of Christ’s coming.

2. Certain things are not properly true of us until we are baptized: “Buried with Him by Baptism.”

3. Baptism has a place and purpose of its own. Baptism doth also now save us.” It was Baptism at the Red Sea that separated Israel from Egypt and introduced them to all the privileges connected with their wilderness journey.

4. It is with a view of what shall be true, not necessarily what is true. John did not send the multitude away, he told them what they ought to do and baptized them: “Disciple all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe alt things” (Matt. xxvii. 19, JND translation). “We also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. vi. 4).

In the light of the above I would now briefly consider certain statements in your letter.

In the introduction you affirm Baptism to be “an ordinance only to be administered to those who confess their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Where have we seen this laid down as a condition in any of the foregoing passages? It never says anywhere that Baptism is only to be administered to those who confess their faith. And on your principle John the Baptist could not have baptized anyone.

On the second page of the introduction you state, “There is no case in the New Testament of an infant being baptized.” It is, I believe, true that there is no actual mention of an infant being baptized. This may mean that the thing was so in the ordinary and understood course of things that it was taken for granted. When you say, “The whole drift of Scripture teaches and favors believers’ Baptism,” I would here quote from another:

“But of one thing we may be sure: had the acceptance of Christianity involved anything so startling to the Jewish or the Gentile mind as a distinction between the religious standing of the father of a family and his children, the historian would have recorded it, or the Apostles would have found themselves called to explain and defend it. For such a distinction would have been in direct contradiction to the most deeply rooted conviction of Jew and of Gentile alike. From the time of Abraham onwards the Jew had felt it a solemn religious obligation to claim for his sons from their earliest infancy the same covenant relation with God as he himself stood in. There was sufficient parallelism between Baptism and circumcision (cf. Col. ii. 11) for the Jewish-Christian father to expect the Baptism of his children to follow his own as a matter of course. And among Gentile converts a somewhat different but equally authoritative principle, that of patria potestas would have the same result. In a home organized on this principle, which prevailed throughout the Roman Empire, it would be a thing inconceivable that the children could be severed from the father in their religious rites and duties, in the standing conferred by Baptism.

Thus it is because to the mind of Jew and Gentile alike, the Baptism of infants and children yet unable to supply the condition for themselves was so natural that St. Luke records so simply that when Lydia believed, she was baptized “with her household;” when the Philippian jailer believed he was baptized and all those belonging to him. If there were children in these households, these children were baptized on the ground of the faith of their parents.”

How you can assert that, “the whole drift of Scripture teaches and favors believers’ baptism,” I am at a loss to understand. Have you forgotten the word to Noah, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark,” with not a word said, either in the O.T. or the New, as to the faith of his sons? Do you fail to remember Abraham, and how he circumcised Isaac, and even Ishmael? In Exodus xii. at the Passover it was to be “a lamb for an house!” And immediately Christianity reaches Europe we find distinct reference to the household again. Is it true that the whole drift of the Old Testament, at least, is in favour of Household Baptism, and that if this principle had not been incorporated into Christianity, from the very nature of the case, we should have assuredly heard of it; and thus the silence of the New Testament becomes the strongest testimony to the truth of Household Baptism. The fact that the household was connected with the head of the house was ingrained upon the Jewish mind. “Thou and thy house,” runs like a thread all through their history as God’s people, and this becomes the strongest presumptive evidence in favour of Household Baptism. If this principle has been abrogated, shew us where. You seem to argue as if Christianity stood in complete isolation from all that preceded it. And you therefore claim that without a special command to baptize Christian Households, it ought not to be done. The truth is just the other way. Christianity has its roots deep in the past. Baptism itself is a proof of it, for it existed before Christianity and was incorporated into it. Paul in his epistle to the Galatians traces the gospel back to Abraham. The Messiah revealed in the New Testament was promised in the Old. The Gospel was proclaimed to the Jew first. And therefore it is perfectly lawful as well as reasonable to maintain that divine principles which operated in the old dispensation, obtain equally in the new. Where it is otherwise, the fact is plainly asserted. Now the principle as to associating children with the parent is nowhere set aside. If it is, it is easy for you to quote the text of Scripture which says so. Until you can do so, I would ask, what right have you to denounce us for maintaining a Divine institution?

The children of believers

It may be well here, while on the subject, to conclude the argument for the Baptism of the children of believers.

1. I suppose you will admit that all children who die before the age of responsibility, however young, go to heaven. If so, it follows that they are saved in virtue of Christ’s death, quite apart from their own faith. I am thinking of children who have not reached the age of responsibility. Now if the death of Christ can thus apply to children, apart from faith, is there any conceivable reason why Baptism should not? Is the water more sacred than the blood? Is the outward rite to be withheld while the efficacy of the death is not?

Infants may be baptized and afterwards grow up to be wicked men and women. Some think that this in itself is sufficient to discredit the teaching of Household Baptism.

An individual that would have been saved as an infant (saved in the sense of what we learned in 1st Peter 3:21 where baptism brings us into a new place, from the world which is judged, into the kingdom of Christ), may grow up and be lost.  But if this discredits the teaching of household baptism, then Christ’s death would be discredited also. If an individual made a profession of being saved, and was baptized, then later in life their fruits said that they were lost.  Would this throw discredit upon the death of Christ? Of course not!  The fault is found not with baptism or with salvation but with the individual in both cases.

It has been said that Infant Baptism is the cause of the worldliness and formality in Christendom, but nothing could be more contrary to the truth. It is because children have not been taught to live in accordance with their Baptism, and their parents have not true to their own children that we see around us all the evils. The real truth is that we would be saved from such evils had Baptism been understood and acted upon by the parents by counting baptism as a responsibility to disciple the child.

2. If circumcision applied to children of eight days old even, why should not Baptism? Is there anything in the   nature of Baptism to prevent it? To say that the latter is done in the Name of the Trinity is no argument, for        the other was done equally in the Name, and with the sanction, of God. That there is a very close analogy             between circumcision and Baptism is proved by Col. ii. 11. I speak of the spiritual significance of each. Both introduce into outward relationship with God and into a sphere of outward privilege. Circumcision was unto something and so is Baptism. To conclude that circumcision might apply to children, but Baptism not, is simply to do violence to the whole bearing of Scripture, and to break up its continuity.
   



3. I have just said that Baptism introduces into outward relationship with God and into a sphere of outward privilege. Some assert there is no such outward place, but I will deal with that under a separate head. I merely wish now to prove from Scripture that, if there be such a place, Baptism is the rite by which we are admitted. I ask you to look with me again at 1 Cor. x. 1-2. Here we find Baptism distinctly linked with the Old Testament. The passage of the Red Sea is said to be the baptizing of all Israel unto Moses. Yet this included children. How then can you say there is no Scripture for the Baptism of infants? So truly did the Red Sea set forth this ordinance that the Word of God unhesitatingly describes it as Baptism. And as you yourself very correctly remark, in your note to p. 7 “There are no ‘different views’ of Baptism in the Scriptures.” If     that is so then here we have the truth as to Baptism itself and to whom it applies. One often hears the argument how can you baptize children—infants—when you don’t know how they are going to turn out? If people knew what Baptism is they would never advance such a reason. Did everybody know how these children were going to turn out? As a matter of fact, many of them turned out very badly. But that was not because of their Baptism, but because they forgot it. The fact remains that they were baptized, and it is no less a person than St. Paul, the special minister of the Church, who tells us so; and this long after Christianity was established.

In this last fact we have a proof then that Christianity has not altered Baptism. Writing in the full blaze of Christianity this servant of God, more enlightened perhaps than any other, can go right back to the Exodus and say, “That is Baptism.” For as you say, there are no different views of Baptism; and that being so, on your own showing, I have done perfectly right in baptizing my children.

The Apostle adds, “Now these things were our examples.” You will object, perhaps, “but does it not say, they did all eat the same spiritual meat—children and all; and therefore, to be consistent, you ought to allow infants to partake of the Lord’s Supper.” But does the Apostle call the spiritual meat the Lord’s Supper? I do not see it. It is true, further on he refers to the Table and the Supper, but he carefully abstains from bringing in either term here. But I do see that he calls the Red Sea Baptism. But the manna is not a type, in any sense, of the other ordinance. How much we learn then from this Scripture!

We learn (1) that Christianity cannot be cut adrift from the past; (2) That Baptism is the same always, the same now as at the Red Sea ; and therefore (3) if children were baptized at the Red Sea they can be baptized today, for the Apostle does not intimate any change, either in the rite or its application; (4) If the Apostle can go back to an incident in Israel’s history, and call it Baptism, and this Baptism undoubtedly included children, then it is beyond controversy that at some period in the history of God’s people children have been baptized quite apart from their own faith. (For surely no one will try to make a point of the fact that we do not appear to have the exact ages of all the children). If it was right then, why is it so awfully wrong now? Do you reply that we have to do now with Christianity? My answer is (1) Was not St. Paul a Christian when he penned this passage? and was he not writing to Christians? and (2) you yourself say “there are no different views of Baptism in the Scriptures.”

The case of Lydia and the Jailer

But let us come to two passages of Scripture having a direct bearing upon the subject of Household Baptism, and upon which the above incident may throw some light. I refer to Acts xvi., and the cases of Lydia and the Jailer. Is it not a little remarkable that on the very threshold of Europe, when the Gospel is about to enter, you should have two cases almost at one and the same moment of households being baptized? Especially when, as we have seen already, the Romans were accustomed to associate their children with the privileges they themselves enjoyed. Bearing in mind the teaching of 1 Cor. x. all seems as clear as daylight. It tells us that Lydia was baptized and her household. Just what we should expect from Old Testament analogy. And it was so well understood that children were associated with their parents, that it would have been accounted strange for anyone to have drawn special attention to the fact that the household contained young children. The whole point is “her household” was baptized, whether there were young children or not.

So that, here we have “household” distinctly connected with Baptism. I have seen it argued that the Baptism of Households is in the Bible, but Household Baptism is not. Which is like saying that the Baptism of believers is in the Bible, but Believers’ Baptism is not. For you cannot find the expression “Believers’ Baptism.” If Households were baptized then there was certainly Household Baptism. But it does not mention children, you say. It does not mention anything. What the Bible teaches everywhere is that the “Household” is always identified with the head of the house.

Let me ask you, before passing from this point, if believers only ought to be baptized, how do you account for the repeated use of “Household” in connection with Baptism? If this rite is only administered on the ground of what is individual, the use at all of the term “Household” is not only entirely superfluous, but altogether mystifying. It would have been so easy and natural to have said a certain number of people believed and were baptized, if Believers’ Baptism was all that was known and recognized. On the other hand, does not the reiteration of “Household” reveal what was in people’s minds at that time? The way people have of expressing themselves will sometimes tell us what is in their minds as definitely as could the most clearly worded formula.

What about the case of the Philippian jailer? In the Greek, at all events, and I suppose that is to guide us? Nothing of the kind! The Authorized Version does not in this instance faithfully represent the original. No other translation to which I have referred (and I will quote three), supports it.

Ver. 32 says: “And they spake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.”
The Revised reads: “And they spake the Word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house.”
Weymouth renders it            : “As well as to all who were in his house.”
J.N.D.: “With all that were in his house,” supporting the Revised.

From this it evidently means that the whole household was present when the word was preached. The difference of translation is not unimportant, because the A.V. would almost make it appear as if St. Paul might have spoken to the household separately, or even to each individual apart. But preached unto him, with all that were in his house, would ordinarily mean when they were all together.

But the next alteration is more to the point.
Ver. 34 A.V. reads: ” . . . and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
Revised: ” . . . and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.”
Weymouth: ” . . . and was filled with gladness, with his whole household, his faith resting on God.”
J.N.D.: ” . . . and rejoiced with all his house, having believed in God.”

Now here, no less than three recognized translations (and the Englishman’s Greek N.T. supports them) agree in separating “faith” from the household and connecting it with the head of the house. Weymouth actually inserting the pronoun “his,” which the others of course imply. So that it was a genuine case of Household Baptism after all. For it is the faith of the head of the house that is alone spoken of.

In the light of these three translations (and is anyone prepared to dispute their accuracy?) the case stands thus:

St. Paul begins with the announcement “Thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Could he tell (even though an Apostle) that there would be personal faith on the part of everyone in the house before ever he had preached to them? Did he know of whom the household was composed? For as yet he had never entered it. Then the Apostle spake unto him the word of the Lord in the presence of his household, and being convinced of the man’s faith, baptized him and his household. “And was baptized, he and all his.” What an expressive term: “HE AND ALL HIS.” Here we have our warrant for Household Baptism. “He and all his” represents with a conciseness which leaves nothing to be desired, the divine and gracious principle that runs all through God’s dealings with His people. In the light of this interpretation, the words “and thine house,” become quite easy of explanation. In paragraph 7 of your introduction you wrote [How can all such teaching as “unity,” “holiness,” the “Christian position,” and “the answer of a good conscience towards God,” be thrown away” if others than believers are eligible for baptism?”] Are not children baptized in view of all that? At the opening of this same paragraph, [“the apostles base much important teaching to the saints on the fact that they had been baptized.”] If an infant of Christian parents is baptized, does it not follow that all that important teaching is for him? If important teaching is based upon baptism—as you assert, and correctly—then how can you apply it until a person is baptized. A baptized child is precisely the one to whom the teaching does apply. That Baptism is with reference to the future has been shewn from passage after passage. But take another. In  John i. 31, John the Baptist says of our Lord. “I knew Him not, but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.” In other words,” I baptize with water in view of Christ’s coming.” Could anything be more clear as to the intent of Baptism? On what possible ground, then, can there be any valid objection to children being baptized in view of becoming Christians and walking in newness of life? You will say that Baptism itself cannot effect this. No. Nor could John’s Baptism make people believe on Christ. Nevertheless he baptized all who came to him, in view of that. And as you yourself admit there are not different views of Baptism in Scripture, surely a child of Christian parents, with all its life before it, is just the one who should be baptized, and then trained accordingly. To say that a child must be trained first, and then, when everything is supposed to be true of it, baptized, is to put the cart before the horse.

It is quite true that some who had been baptized with John’s Baptism were afterwards re-baptized in the Name of the Lord, but this does not touch the question of the significance of Baptism itself. There was evidently a personal reason for Paul’s action, for, as far as we know, the Apostles and others who had submitted to the Baptism of John were never baptized a second time.

Infant and Household Baptism—some differences

On page 6 you say that Household Baptism “is Infant Baptism and something worse thrown in.” What the “worse thrown in” may be, you do not tell us. Household Baptism is far removed from the teaching of the Church of England Prayer Book as to the Baptism of infants.[3.] Though even in the Prayer Book there are certain things said of Baptism which are perfectly in keeping with God’s Word. But we do not believe that through Baptism a child is “regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church.” Baptism is never said, in the Scriptures, to confer anything inward and spiritual. But it does introduce a child outwardly to inestimable benefits, and it is an initiatory rite admitting to external privileges of which it should avail itself on coming to years. Baptism does not indicate a change of state but a change of place.

Between Baptismal Regeneration and Household Baptism there is nothing in common. The fact is, the truth as to Baptism lies between the Ritualistic standpoint and the Baptist. The former makes the rite carry more than it will bear; the latter makes it carry scarcely anything. It becomes a mere adumbration. The one makes it mean too much, the other too little. In Scripture it initiates a person into a place where Divine privileges are enjoyed; as at the Red Sea (1 Cor. x.). It becomes a burial, in view of newness of life (Rom. vi.) it washes away sins (Acts xxii.); it saves (Mark xvi. and 1 Pet. iii.). When a parent therefore baptizes his child he brings it into an outward place of privilege, and does it in view of that child’s future, and trains it in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It may be asked cannot this be done without baptizing it? Have not hundreds of parents endeavored to bring up their children under the Lord’s authority without exercising the rite? That is quite possible, but nevertheless the divine institution remains. No doubt there are those who seek to remember the Lord without partaking of bread and wine; nevertheless the Lord’s Supper is the appointed way. The same thing is true of Baptism. God ordained that everybody, children as well as grown up people, should be separated from Egypt by Baptism at the Red Sea that He might dwell among them (for the Tabernacle was in the wilderness).

On p. 7 you say that our view of Baptism introduces an intermediary class “which is not quite the world and not quite the Church.” But have you read the Scriptures for so long and never discovered that this class existed in our Lord’s Day, and in the Apostles’? The disciples we read of in John vi. who went back and walked no more with Jesus belonged to this class. Simon Magus, for the time being, belonged to it. The very term “disciple” distinguishes this class. For a disciple is not necessarily a believer. The primary meaning is simply “learner.” And a person can take the place of a learner and never come to be a genuine believer at all. And in this connection it is of all importance to notice that in Matt. xxviii. 19-20, there is not a word about believing, though, of course, it was all done with that in view. But the instructions are, “Go ye therefore and make disciples of (literally disciple) all nations, baptizing them . . . teaching them.” This is the divine order. Some read it as if the Lord had said, “Go and make genuine believers of all nations and then baptize them.” But the whole drift and wording of the commission is against such an interpretation. Our Lord uses the word disciple (learner) not believer; then He says baptize ; and then teach. A learner needs a teacher_, and a teacher needs learners; and moreover “faith cometh by teaching” (Rom. x. 17 means “teaching” as well as hearing—the Greek  word including both ideas). Evidently faith was not necessarily present when Baptism took place, so that these verses do not teach believers’ Baptism, but disciples’ Baptism.

(3.) Let it be said, that, Household Baptism and Infant Baptism are not convertible terms. The former is the baptism of infants belonging to Christian households only, and of no others.

An outward sphere of privilege

I come now to page 11 where you state, “But we have done with all ‘folds’ and circles of privilege. The only circle that the sinner needs to be in, where the grace of God may reach him, is the circle he was born in—a circle 7,000 miles wide.” (?)

Has God, then, really established nothing upon the earth? Are His children houseless and homeless; worse off than the man we read of in Luke x., for he was brought to an inn? Is there not a shelter for us on all this 7,000 (?) miles wide of earth? Why, then indeed, we are worse off than the Jews, for they had a visible dwelling place of God. We, according to you, have nothing. Somewhere in the New Testament it says that believers are “builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.” Must that not be a place of privilege?

In Rom. xi. it speaks of an olive tree and of the Gentiles having been grafted into it. Has that no reference to us? Is not the whole treatment of this subject to show that there is today an outward place of privilege? Is not a tree something to be seen? The Apostle speaks of being “grafted in,” and also of being “cut off.” Does not all this necessarily imply an outward sphere of profession and also of privilege? Who are “cut off,” and from what are they “cut off “? This cannot refer to genuine believers, cut off from Christ or deprived of their eternal salvation. The fact is, this passage has no meaning from your point of view; yet the Apostle is addressing Gentiles and using what he says as a warning to those who had professed Christianity. But if there is an outward place of privilege, and the entry to it is by the rite of Baptism, then the meaning of the passage becomes clear at once. From such privileges mere professors may be “cut off.”

St. Paul says, “take heed lest He also spare not thee.” Such words can have no meaning, if there are only the truly saved and the lost, as you teach. But if there is a place today where the Holy Ghost dwells and God’s goodness is manifest and people are in this and yet not truly affected by it—professors without being possessors—then we can understand such terms as “cut off ” and also such passages as Heb. vi. 4-8, which have profession in view.

I come now to your statement on p. 13, that “Israel were (figuratively) a redeemed people and their little ones correspond not to literal infants in the flesh, but to newborn babes in the family of God.” If Israel are to be taken figuratively in this way then they all represented “newborn babes in the family of God,” for they had everyone of them been sheltered by blood only a few days. So that if you make such an application of their history you must include fathers as well as children, for all were sheltered at the same time (and, moreover, all sheltered by households). In the matter of redemption the children were as old as their parents. Were not actual children baptized at the Red Sea?

Having stated the truth as to Baptism from the Scriptures, and also answered the points raised in your pamphlet, the following conclusions seem to have been reached:-‑

1. THE VIEW OF SOME ALTOGETHER TOO LIMITED.

(a)     This view is almost entirely confined to that which is supposed already to have taken place. This is shown to be defective in two ways. First, it deprives Baptism of its real significance, for nothing is made to depend upon it. Second, it confines the act to a representation of something already true, or to one of obedience. The future is almost entirely lost sight of; yet in Scripture, as we have seen, the future is the prominent idea.

(b)     The Baptist position forces those who adhere to it to divorce the New Testament from the Old; isolates Christianity from all that went before; refuses the teaching of some of the types; and would have us think of one of the greatest privileges the Jews possessed as being entirely abrogated ; and this without one word in the New Testament to that effect.

(c)     We have looked in vain for any text in the Bible to tell us that Baptism is to be administered to none but believers only. If you can produce such a text, it will settle the matter.

(d)     Moreover the Baptists can find no room in their theory for quite a number of most important statements in the Bible bearing upon Baptism. Eight persons were saved by water at the Flood; and the faith of only one out of the eight is ever mentioned. Baptism is a “like figure,” we are told, and saves us. Yet Baptists rob this of all its meaning by first of all excluding all thought of children being associated with their parents, as was the case with Noah and his family; and then by affirming, not that Baptism saves, but that it only represents that a person is already saved. It is impossible, in the very nature of things, for a Baptist to give an intelligent interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 21. Nor can he explain satisfactorily Acts xxii. 16 and 1 Cor. x. 1-2. Whenever they are confronted with these Scriptures instead of explaining them, they attempt to explain them away.

2. AS TO HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM.

While the Baptist theory finds no place for much of the teaching on Baptism recorded in the Word of God, the truth of Household Baptism harmonizes and embraces it all. It emphasizes the prospective aspect of Baptism, for a child is therein committed to Christ and His death: with a view to his whole future. It maintains the Divine principle concerning parents and children—”He and all his”; so that instead of there being an utter want of continuity between God’s past and present dealings, as is the case with the Baptist theory, they are seen as one harmonious whole. For we have shown that the truth as to the “Household” is bound up with the very warp and woof of revelation; and the counterpart of Noah and his family; “a lamb for an house”; Abraham and his Household, is found in Lydia “and her household”; and the Jailer “and all his.”

While, in addition to these concrete instances, the very phraseology of the New Testament proves that the theory of the “Household” is incorporated into Christianity. The very mention of Households being baptized; of the Apostle Peter connecting Baptism with Noah and his family (eight persons); and the terms of the commission at the close of Matthew’s Gospel, prove this.

In conclusion, do these views of Baptism lower our thoughts of the rite or raise them? They are enhanced a hundredfold. How much more real and solemn Baptism would become if it were regarded from the proper point of view, viz., an act carrying with it its own meaning, and in view of the future. By that act an identification with Christ and His death; a renunciation of the world, sin and the flesh; and a walking henceforth in newness of life. And, instead of looking upon Baptism as one act of obedience, regarding it as a most solemn committal to a life-long course of obedience.

It will be seen therefore that my views of Baptism give it a scope and meaning which yours do not; and they are, I believe, far more Scriptural than yours. Can this disqualify anyone for ministering the Word, as you suggest? Surely the ban you would place upon us is as unreasonable as it is unwarranted. You seem to me to be in the position of having only half-a-loaf. Now while half-a-loaf may be better than no bread, I have yet to learn that half-a-loaf is better than a whole one.

The whole position can be put in a nutshell : (1) There is not a single text of Scripture which states that none but believers only are to be baptized; (2) There is not a single text which prohibits children being associated with their Christian parents by Baptism; (3) Had this principle of association, which runs all through the Old Testament, been set aside there must, in the very nature of things, have been some reference to it, for such an alteration involved nothing short of a revolution; the overturning of all the prevailing ideas and customs both in the Jewish and Gentile world; whereas not so much as a single sentence is penned upon the subject.

Is Household Baptism, after all, very wide of the mark?

I remain,
Yours sincerely,

RUSSELL ELLIOTT.

 

Editors Notes:

In the new testament Baptism was done immediately after one was saved (and to the Household of a believing Head). Some see that it should be done AFTER the believer sees the importance of it and is willing to be obedient by submitting to baptism. As this article brings out, the meaning and significance of baptism is that baptism should be done right away so the believer and his household can leave the old ground that they occupy for the new position of blessing in the kingdom here on earth. And as some writers have pointed out, baptism really isn’t a command to those who are to be baptized; rather, it is a command to the “baptizers” to disciple (Matthew 28:19, 20).   As a question to the reader, “Why do some people in the present time wait to be baptized, some times for years after they are saved, when souls were baptized immediately in the early church as recorded in the book of Acts?”

Hebrews 10; Hebrews 13: 9-16.

 

The power of our path — of our walk in this world, is the understanding, through the Holy Ghost, of our identification with Christ in all our ways, and our being set in the world to manifest Him, not merely to know that we have salvation, and the purging of our consciences through His most precious blood. The testimony of a Christian bears this character, he is treading in the footsteps of Christ. “To me, to live is Christ:” again, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” That puts each of us in the place of responsibility as to our ways, our habits, our feelings, and objects. Are we realizing the responsibility of living Christ? That is really what the Church of God is set in the world for — to be the expression of Christ in His absence. A Christian’s conscience often satisfies itself with handing to the unconverted man the Bible, so that he may read what Christ was; but this is not the object for which Christ has left us here. — “Ye are the epistles of Christ, known and read of all men.” Are we such an epistle as persons can read? It is not a person’s coming to me, and saying, What is your creed? What views do you hold? and the like. If I am not an expression of the ways and feelings of Christ, I am a stumbling-block, rather than otherwise. The Christian should be the living, breathing expression of Christ — of the principles, features, graces, of the character of Christ. Alas! the whole of Christianity is often made to consist in a set of opinions: one gets his place and is characterized by what opinions he holds. We are called upon necessarily to live the Christ in whom we believe; we are one with Him, and are called to show forth what He is. But the whole power, by which I am to act and to show that, is the understanding that I am one with Him.

 

There are two great stages of Christ’s path, and of the believer’s, as identified with Him, presented to us in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first ends (Heb. 10) where the soul is set in “the holiest.” Up to that the Holy Ghost is conducting us along, step by step; there He sets us down in this blessed place, “having boldness to enter into the holiest, by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh.”

 

The power of intelligent devotedness is the understanding of the perfect purging of our consciences. Many do not understand this; they are aiming at getting it, and that is a complete reversing of God’s order. I have a purged conscience; I go on, not to obtain it, but because I have it. How do I get it? Not by anything that I have done, by my frames or feelings, as a matter of attainment or experience; the Holy Ghost teaches us that it is by the blood of Jesus.

 

He shows the glory of the person of Christ, as contrasted with angels and with Moses; that of His priesthood as contrasted with Aaron’s; that of His sacrifice, as contrasted with the sacrifices under the law. And what is the result? We have a purged conscience. He has set us down within the veil. It is not what one Christian has, and what another is struggling after, but the common platform of all — we all have a purged conscience. Some suppose that the blood of Christ has put away our sins before conversion; and then, as to what becomes of those after, they are met by the priesthood of Christ; but this is not what He says: it is by the blood of Christ; we are within the holiest with a perfectly-purged conscience, with “no more conscience of sins.” It is just worthy of the sacrifice of Christ to put me in possession of this, and nothing short of it; all my sins, not some of them, blotted out. There, where the High Priest could go in once every year, and only then, the simplest believer is set down.

 

 

When one comes to deal closely with souls, one discovers what doubts, clouds, fears, and anxieties, have possession of and distress them. If the blood of Christ does anything for us, it sets us there without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. “Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus …. let us draw near,” etc. There is no difference here between apostle and others; the apostle Paul and the thief on the cross: in other words, all alike have a common place within the veil.

 

The priesthood of Christ comes in to maintain me practically where the blood of Christ has set me. As in the expression in the Epistle of John, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous [Jesus Christ is at God’s right hand on all principles of righteousness], and He is the propitiation [the mercy-seat] for our sins.” “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” It is a much easier thing for a child to ask for pardon for some fault than to confess it. We may be asking for pardon for any special sin, and we have no Scripture warrant to know that it is put away; but when we confess it, it is a matter of faith to know that it is put away. I am speaking now of a believer: were it the question of an unconverted person, the blood of Christ meets that. God is “faithful and just (not gracious and merciful merely), to forgive us our sins,” etc. The moment I have judged myself about it, I am entitled to know that it is gone.

 

What a very wondrous place to set the believer in at the very outset of his course of discipleship! — washed from his sins, his conscience purged, set down in the unclouded sense of the light of God’s own countenance! But what to do? to rest there? No; that is the foundation on which the superstructure of practical devotedness is based. Legalism and antinomianism are alike met. What does the system of legalism say? You must work yourself up into this place of acceptance. The gospel says, Christ has put me there. I never could get there; the law has proved that. When God gave the law, what was He doing? “You shall do this,” “You shall not do that,” brought out what man’s heart was; it was impossible he could do what God was telling him he ought to do, and impossible he should not be what God was telling him not to be: — “As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” I can never, by works of law, get into the holiest of all. I am put there as the result of what Christ has accomplished for me on the cross; and this is stated at the very outset of the epistle: “When He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high ” (Heb. 1: 3). Why does it say “sat down”? To evidence the completion of the work. Aaron never sat down; there was no seat prepared for the priest, either in the tabernacle or the temple.

 

What does antinomianism lead men to say? “I have it, I possess it all in Christ,” and there it ends. But no! the gospel puts me there, to run the blessed race that is set before me, in ardent, earnest breathing of the soul to become like Christ.

 

If the first division sets me down within the holiest, the second places me without the camp. I find Christ, as it regards my conscience, “inside the veil.” I find Christ, as it regards my heart, “outside the camp.”

 

It does not become us to take only the comfort which flows from our knowing Christ to be within the veil — the comfort His sacrifice gives us, I must seek practical identification with Him without the camp. Christ within the veil tranquillizes my  conscience. Christ outside the camp quickens, energizes my soul to run more devotedly the race set before me. “The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach” (ver. 11-13). No two points are morally more remote than inside the veil and outside the camp, and yet they are brought together here. Inside the veil was the place where the shekinah of God’s glory dwelt; outside the camp the place where the sin-offering was burned — no place gives such an idea of distance from God as that. It is blessed to know that the Holy Ghost presents to me Jesus filling up all that is between these two points. I have nothing to do whatever with the camp. The camp was the place of ostensible profession (in type, the camp of Israel; in antitype, the city of Jerusalem). Why did Christ suffer without the gate? in order to show the setting aside of the mere machinery of Israel‘s outward profession.

 

We may be clear as to the work of Christ being done for us (and God forbid there should be a cloud cast across the blessedness of that), knowing the conscience to be made perfect; but is tranquility of conscience all I want? is there no responsibility? is Christ’s voice from within the veil all? has He no voice outside the camp? It will be found that, after all, the joy, peace, liberty, flowing from our hearing Christ’s voice inside the veil, is very much dependent on our listening to His voice outside the camp. Those who know most of suffering with Him, and bearing His reproach, will know most of the blessedness of His place within the veil. Our conduct, our ways, our path through the earth, must be tested by Christ. — “Would Christ be there? would Christ do this?” The Holy Ghost must be grieved if the saint pursues a course contrary to that which Christ would have pursued; and then the soul must be lean. How can a grieved Spirit testify of Christ — how can He give the soul the comfort and joy and peace of His testimony to Him? How can I be enjoying Christ if I am not walking in company with Him? We know that we cannot enjoy the company of a person unless we are where that person is — where then is Christ? “Outside the camp.” — “Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.” This is not to go forth to men, or to opinions, to a church, or to a creed, but to Christ Himself. We are not of the world — why? Because Christ is not of the world; the measure of our separation from the world is the measure of Christ’s separation. “For here have we no continuing city;” do our hearts seek one? — some set of circumstances or the like, a something on which to lean? Are we saying, as it were, “Oh do leave me something”? like Lot pleading for Zoar, “Is it not a little one?” do not take it all away, “is it not a little one; and my soul shall live!” Lot‘s was a heart going out after a little of the world still. When the heart is filled with Christ it can give up the world, there is no difficulty in doing it then. The mere saying, “Give up this,” or “give up that,” to one loving the world, will be of no avail; what I have to do is to seek to minister to that soul more of Christ.

 

I am outside the camp, I am seeking a city that is to come, I am waiting for Him who is to come. In this condition, of dislodgement from the world and from its system, I find myself in two positions — one towards God, and the other towards man. The first, “By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name” (ver. 15). The second, the lovely development of the spirit of active benevolence of the next verse, “But to do good and to communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (ver. 16).

 

I am within the veil with Christ, — outside the camp in the world, “bearing His reproach;” and, whilst thus delivered from the profession around me, that is not of Him, I am engaged in worship and doing good to all.

 

In regard to my hope, it is not, as people say, the “holding the doctrine of the second advent,” but “waiting for God’s Son from heaven.” This is not a dead, dry doctrine. If we are really waiting for God’s Son from heaven, we shall be sitting loose to the world.

 

I have Christ for my soul’s need, and I am only “waiting for God’s Son from heaven,” for Christ to come from heaven to take His Church unto Himself, that where He is we may be also, and that may be this night. I am not looking for antichrist, for signs, for movements amongst the nations, but for this one holy, happy thing, I am waiting for God’s Son from heaven. Oh do not let us be inconsistent, do not let us contradict that —seeking to grasp Christ with one hand, and hold fast the world with the other. If we know our position “within the veil,” we must know our position “outside the camp,” reproached, it may be, scorned, hated, suspected, of all who are not outside, but in the joy of fellowship with Him. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, we also then shall appear with Him in glory.”