The Ohio Independent Baptist, September 1960

T,,l 'rlll~ C Ill ~~_.;:._:..:..:;,__ E I T B R IN IN B ISM? I11~tall11,t1,t 111 tt1 o,1r rc,·1,,, of <l ttll1 ra11 bo l{, S·1i1)tt1r,,l BRlJl1s n1, JJttlJl1~h d lJy Vantage- Press, Inc ., 12 W. 31~l t ., N \V ork ) I ·, st 111011 t l1 ,, "'011s1d<'t t'd t 11 ' r111l t11· passn~e~ ll1a t 1 1 l't1r;.,, .. ~<,1·r,1, ..,,,, ,, ttsl'd to p t 0, 1 tl1( t tl1 Lt1ll1 ra11 doc– tr111 of l)a1.1t 1s111 1s B1l)ltc<1 l \V cot1ld 1 ot di cuss t l1osc l a:::- .. ~,c: , ,, 1tl1ot1t 1L)ft1ti11g tl1 sacrar,1 "t1ta l , ·1 ''\V tl1at bapli<5 111 "1" ,, si' 011 t l1at 011,·('~·s grace to n1a11 ." So w 11 cd not 1..',1 t ,f, 1 11,· 1·t:,' lt..:\\ 111~ ntt(1itionnl .. ctio11 on Baptis1n and Re– gc 11crn t 011, 111 ,, l11cl1 11 ,1,lnre: c:; on hi cla i1n tl1at baptism d s i11d c d r gcncrc,t . Btt l ,,·e 1nu c: t as Bible Christians fact th t,, o additio11al ,·erses tl1al l1e us s to prove l1is case, 11n111 1, Jol,11 3:5 a11d Titt1s 3:5. J st1 said, "E.~c pt a man be born of '\vater and of the pirit, 11~ ca1111ot nt r tl1e ki11gdon1. of God.' Dr. Saarni- ,·aara cl(.l1n1 tl1at Joh11 3:23 is part of the contest and proves that Jc tl n1eant tl1e ,vater of bapti~m. H e should know tl1at our cl1apter di, 1 i ions ,verc put in long after the Bible \\'a ,,·rilt 11 and do not indicate context n ecessarily. John 3:22 110,\ 1 that there was a com"'1lete ch ange of context, fron1 J rusalem to Aenon, from J esu s to John and from icodemu to some unnamed J ews, and so the 23rd v er se ha 11othing to do with the interpretation of the 5th. He also claims that tl1e Je,,rs said that Gen t ile converts were born again in proselyte baptism, and so Nicodemus mus t have kno,vn that "born of water, meant baptism. The 4th v erse make it e,,ident that Nicodemu s did not think of baptism but of physical birth. Since it cannot be proven that water in John 3:5 means baptism , h e has lost his case. We will admit that w e cannot prove from John 15:3 or I P eter 1:23 that J esu s used wat er metaphorically for the Word of God, much as we may believe it· but we would suggest that there · is anoth er explanation that is all the more compelling when we study Titus 3:5. The Greek word kai (and) is often u sed with the sense of "even." Acts 23:6, Men and brethren, is a clear case of it, and so is "grace and apostle~hip" in Rom. 1:5. J esus says first we are born of ,vater, which is evidently symbolical, and then takes three more verses to ex plain that we are born of the Spirit. Since Jesu s clearly u sed water as a symbol of the Holy Spirit in J ohn 7 :37 - 39 why not translate it this way: ' Except a man be born of water, even the Spirit, h e cannot enter the king– dom of God ? That is reasonable and in harmony with the spiritual nature of the new birth· but the idea that a spirit– ual change must be wrought by two agents, one material and the other spiritual is so s tran ge that Dr. Saarnivaara has to define i he new b irth as twofold: "A change in our relation to God and status before Him, and a change of our inward condition, mind 2nd heart" p. 46. H e holds that baptism works the outward change and the Spirit the inner. We believe that the new birth is only an inward change, bu t one that brings about many other changed re– lations both with God and man. On Titu s 3:5 Dr. Saarnivaara says , 'The 'washing of regeneration of which Paul speak s in Titus is the 'washing from sin,' or forgiveness of sins, that t ak es place in r e – generation. Actu ally it takes place by the blood of Christ ... but this blood can be applied to a per son .. . either by baptism , connected with the word, or by the word alone. This application ordinarily takes place the first time in baptism" p. 46. Then , since infants do not experience the work of the Holy Spirit until later, he says, "These two gifts make up the new birth. But when God saves m en H e does not always give the whole salvation in one bunch" pp. 46, 47. Talk about the evils of "second-blessing-ism!" This is ,verse! Where do we r ead that salvation comes in two bunches? How can t aptism regenera ·e a child without fully saving him? Since h e admits that m an y of them n ever get the second bunch of salvation, how can h e talk about bap– tismal regeneration? What does "the washing of r egen eration" in Titus 3:5 mean? Let u s read the whole verse as it is in the Greek: "Not by works of rightousness which we have done , but according to his mercy h e saved u s, by washing of re– generation and renewing of the Holy Ghost." It cannot mean that we are half way saved by a human work like taptism, for we are told that it is not by our works but by the mercy or gr·ace of God. "Washing of regeneration," without the definite article in the Greek , should also t ell us that Paul does not mean a literal, well known washing or baptistry, but uses the word in a gener al sen se and lets the descriptive genitive, "of regeneration" define what h e means. Finally, regeneration and r en ewal are so nearly synonyms that it ought to be clear that Paul does not say \V are sc1vccl by two agents but 01 ly one: "Bv the wasl1- ing of regen e ra tion, ven lh r cnewi~g of tl1c IIol y Ghost." INFANT BAPTISM Baptis' s h av always said lha t it wa5 the sacra men l :11 icl n 111at led the early Christians to practice infant baptism. As early as ll1e second century baptismal regeneration began lo b.e taught , and by the third we have infant baptism be– coming common, ven though sli ll opposed. No one can ?oubt that millioi:s s til~ fear for the salva tion of unbaptized infants after r eading this book. He says "The simple mean– ing of the words of Christ is that no m an not even an infant, can be saved without being born of 'th e water and th e Spirit. If we deny them water, or baptism, they arc not born of water; and being left without the first thing that bel~ngs to .e1;t ering into the kingdom of God , they are left outside of 1t p. 54. Ye t he h esitates to say that our tabes tha t die are lost and falls back on the ~aying of Luther, "Not lack of, but contempt for, the sacrament con– demns." H e does not like to discu ss that question and a~k s that we leave it, since God has said nothing about it. Since we believe that infants have inherited Adam 's sin– ful nature and yet believe they can be saved he accuses u s of making an unwarranted assumption 1 hat 'th er e are two ways to be saved. "The adults are saved through faith and the new birth, but infants are saved without faith and without the n ew birth" p. 53. He fails to realize that h e is guilty of another assumption, that there are two kinds of faith-conscious and unconscious. Worse than that h e puts himself into the dilemma of proving infant baptism by the infants that he admitted J esu s did not baptize. His only proof that infants unconsciously believe is that Jesus said over these infants, "Of such is the kingdom of God.'' He forgets 1hat all the old Greek fathers have told us that it m eans childlike adults. Baptists have never said that infants are so innocent they do not n eed salvation, but only that the Bible does not expla in how Christ saves them. The Bible was written to save those that can understand it. To explain God's way of ~aving infants would only satisfy our adult curiosity: it "' 'ould n ot help the babes. We do read that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and n ot for ours only that can un– derstand and believe, but "also for the sins of the whole world' I John 2:2. That proves the Adarnic sin has been atoned for, and per sonal sin these infants do not have. We are willing to leave the subject there, just as Dr. Saarni– vaar a does when asked whether unbaptized infants are lost . The only difference is that h e only faintly h opes they may be sav·ed. We feel sure the Christ who loved the little ones will not let them perish. Even Dr. Saarnivaara admits that infant baptism has often led to a neglect of evangelism "and even led people to assume that they are true Christians and saved just be– e au se t h ey h ave been baptized" p. 56; and he goes so far as to say that most Lu't heran minist ers make no distinction between the [aved and lost in their congregations: "This is what most minis ters do. The right division of the word of God is r are . An unregenerate pastor may teach a formal- – ly correct doctrine, but h e will never be able to divide the word of God a right" p. 60. How sadly true! Baptize sin– ners into the churches and it won't be long until you will have unsaved pastors. As one Lutheran minister confessed to tlus r eview er : '~If I was not born again in baptism as a 1:aby, I n ever h ave been." Why not give up infant bap– t ism if it leads to su ch bad resul ts? Luther almost did reject infant baptism in the first years of his reform ac– tivity, but retained it to k eep the support of some German princes. Oh, if h e had only had faith enough to give it up! Germany might then have become the center of evan– gelical Christianity instead of the mother of Modernism. FALLING FROM GRACE Lutherans do not emphasize falling from grace the way holiness denominations do, but like all who teach baptismal r egeneration they have to make room for it, for it is so evi·– dent that many who have been sprinkled grow up to be infidels. Dr. Saarnivaara freely admits it: "It is true that the great majority of people who have been baptized in their infancy are unbelievers and travel on the broad way that leads to destruction" p. 61. Of course, he points out that about half o,f the people converted in great revivals a lso fall away. (Continued on page 16) •