<441047> Acts 10:47 ? ?Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?? <450602>Romans 6:2-5 ? ?We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection?; <480326>Galatians 3:26, 27 ? ?For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ?
As marriage should never be solemnized except between persons who are already joined in heart and with whom the outward ceremony is only the sign of an existing love, so baptism should never be administered, except in the case of those who are already joined to Christ and who signify, in the ordinance their union with him in his death and resurrection. See Dean Stanley on Baptism, 24 ? ?In the apostolic age and in the three centuries which followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism, came in full age of their own deliberate choice. The liturgical service of baptism was framed for full grown converts and is only by considerable adaptation applied to the case of infants?; Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists. 93; Robins, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 136-159.
B. Inferences from the fact that only persons giving evidence of being regenerate are proper subjects of baptism:
(a) Since only those who give credible evidence of regeneration are proper subjects of baptism, baptism cannot be the means of regeneration. It is the appointed sign, but is never the condition of the forgiveness of sins.
Passages like <400311>Matthew 3:11; <410104>Mark 1:4; 16:16; <430305>John 3:5; <440238>Acts 2:38; 22:16; <490526>Ephesians 5:26; <560305>Titus 3:5; and <581022>Hebrews 10:22, are to be explained as particular instances ?of the general fact that, in Scripture language, a single part of a complex action and even that part of it, which is most obvious to the senses, is often mentioned for the whole of it. Thus, in this case, the whole of the solemn transaction is designated by the external symbol.? In other words, the entire change, internal and external, spiritual and ritual, is referred to in language belonging strictly only to the outward aspect of it. So, the other ordinance is referred to, simply by naming the visible ?breaking of bread.? The whole transaction of the
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?