Why the Baptist name

Introduction

The discussion contained in this volume originated in this way: Mr. J. F. Dew, assistant pastor of the Central Baptist Church, of this city, sent a copy of Dr. Lofton's tract, "Why the Baptist Name," to the Gospel Advocate, accompanied by a note requesting that a notice he given of it. Being office editor of the Gospel Advocate at that time, I submitted the tract to Brother F. W. Smith, requesting him to give it such attention as he deemed proper. In response to the request, he wrote seven articles in review, which were published. After their appearance in print, Dr. Lofton and Brother Smith entered into a mutual agreement to publish a book of three hundred and twenty pages, containing the original tract, Smith's reviews, and Dr. Lofton's replies, the space to be divided equally between them.

The arrangement differs from the ordinary published debate, which is due to the fact that Dr. Lofton replied to the articles as they appeared in the Advocate, Smith reviewed these, then further replies were made by Dr. Lofton. When this was paged, it was found that Smith still lacked forty pages of filling his space, while Dr. Lofton lacked ten. But as it had been mutually agreed that Dr. Lofton should have the final rejoinder, Mr. Smith gave the doctor four of his pages and allowed him to fill four extra pages besides.

The gentlemen engaged in the discussion are men of recognized ability and their bearing toward each other is dignified and courteous, and they have produced a very readable book, covering in a large measure the differences between the Baptists and disciples. J. W. Shepherd.

Nashville, Tenn., August 10, 1912.

DR. LOFTON'S TRACT.

The first man who baptized " was sent from God," and his baptism was " of heaven." His name was John, and he was called " the Baptist," because he baptized " in Jordan " (Mark 1: 9); and we find that he was a Baptist not only in practice, but in the fundamental principles of the Baptists. In order to his baptism, he demanded repentance for sin and faith in Christ, who should come after him (Acts 19: 4); and also in order to baptism he demanded "fruits worthy of repentance" (Matt. 3: 8); or, as Josephus says (Ant. 18, 5, 2), John's baptism required that "the soul beforehand had already been purified through righteousness." This is sound Baptist doctrine: The sinner warned to "flee from the wrath to come;" repentance and faith in view of "the kingdom of heaven at hand;" the soul purified already through righteousness, and beforehand, in order to baptism! It included "remission of sins" following repentance as symbolized by baptism; and it involved justification and regeneration to all of John's disciples who believed in the coming Redeemer.

In this connection John established two great fundamental Baptist principles:

1. Believers' Baptism as Opposed to Infant Baptism.

When the Pharisees and Sadducees came to John's baptism, he demanded of them repentance and fruits worthy thereof, which involved faith in the coming Messiah (Matt. 3: 7-9); and he clearly implied that they could not receive his baptism upon the ground that they were "' the children of Abraham." Parental relationship which secured the infant rite under the circumcision or Abrahamic covenant had no place or analogy in the baptism of John; and henceforth, as held by Christ and his apostles, repentance and faith, individually professed, were the only credentials by which to enter the covenant of grace and the kingdom of heaven, visibly symbolized by baptism. The gospel "ax" was laid by John at the root of the old Judaistic tree grounded in circumcision. The " new wine " of the gospel could not be put into the " old bottles " of circumcision by substituting baptism in its place. Abrahamic fatherhood could not put any Jew into the waters of John's baptism. So of any other than the Fatherhood of God; and thus the principle of believers' baptism, as opposed to infant baptism, was set up for the gospel dispensation.

Baptism does not substitute circumcision under another or milder form of the Abrahamic covenant, which was only a carnal shadow of the covenant of grace, the covenant of grace being ratified only by the circumcision of the heart, without hands. The spiritual children of Abraham, subject to baptism, are all the children of God by faith in Christ, "according to promise;" and the children of believing parents, or of any other parents, have no relation to the covenant of grace until they ratify it by faith which is the circumcision of the heart, to which, under the old covenant, the circumcision of the flesh pointed the Jewish race in the promised Redeemer — all by grace, through faith, and not by any work or ceremony of the law or of the gospel. Under the covenant of grace the provisional atonement of Christ covers the sin of the human race until the years of accountability, at or after which time the atonement is ratified by faith or rejected by unbelief; and if one die in infancy, or irresponsibility, he is saved by the blood of the covenant, irrespective of faith on his own part or on the part of parent, good or bad. Infancy is provisionally safe under the kingdom of God, but not saved into the kingdom of God unless it die. Hence, under the covenant of grace, infant baptism has no significance at all, unless it regenerates, which is the arch heresy of Antichrist in all ages. Baptism is a retrospective gospel ordinance which symbolizes the remission of sins, the regeneration of the heart, as a work already accomplished in the believer, and it points forward to nothing to be secured by covenant relationship or to be produced by its own efficacy in the salvation of the soul.

"He that believeth and is baptized" (Mark 16: 15) is the only law on the subject ever enacted by Jesus Christ. Infant baptism is legalism — the arch heresy of pedobaptism and wholly antigospel. The pedobaptist theory that baptism comes in the place of circumcision is simply the transfer of the legal to the gospel dispensation, confounding the new and the old covenant; and if the logic of " infant baptism" could prevail, it reduces the freeborn church of Christ to the bondage and despotism of the old theocracy, governed by an ecclesiastical hierarchy and developed through organism and drill to whatever degree of faith and spirituality available under a legalistic system. This, under different forms, is the papal, the prelatical, and the presbyterial ideal of the church built upon " infant baptism " as substituting circumcision — involuntary submission to legalistic compulsion. This is not the evangelical ideal of the church built upon believers' baptism, the open door to regenerate organism and voluntary government, as set up by Christ and his apostles and anticipated by John the Baptist. The only " infant baptism " of John and Jesus is that of the newborn bale in Christ, the believer; and this baptism was not a legal and typical sprinkling in the place of circumcision, but a gospel dipping, an all-over washing of the body in water, symbolizing an all-over washing of the soul in blood — a burial and resurrection likeness — in token of remission and regeneration. The babe is never washed until he is born; so of the child born of God and baptized in water. John and Jesus were Baptists, not pedobaptists ; they were evangelical democrats, not legalistic theocrats or oligarchs.

2. Believers' Baptism as Opposed to Baptismal Remission or Regeneration.

Matthew (3: 11) says that John baptized "in water unto repentance " — that is, not in order to repentance, but on account of repentance, and to so declare the fact by baptism. In other words, John's baptism implied previous repentance; and I suppose that not even the Campbellites would urge that baptism produced repentance, but that repentance must precede baptism; and they must agree here that John baptized his converts (eis metanoian) because of repentance, with reference to and not in order to repentance.

Again, Mark (1: 4) and Luke (3: 3) assert that John preached " the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins" (eis aphesin hamartion). Now, if John's baptism, as above, presupposes repentance, then his baptism presupposes " remission of sins " following repentance, unto and inseparable from remission, in the order of grammatical construction. Baptism can produce neither repentance nor remission of sins, but baptism does certify or declare both. If John's disciples brought forth fruit in proof of repentance — if they were " purified through righteousness " of soul " already " and " beforehand " — then their sins were remitted before baptism administered in view of remission, with reference to and not in order to remission.

This is precisely the case (Acts 2: 38) when Peter said: " Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins [eis aphesin hamartion}; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." " Remission of sins " here follows " the name of Jesus Christ," the sole ground of faith, involving prior repentance, upon which remission was based, and so declared by baptism. As of the Jews at Pentecost, so of the Gentiles at Csesarea, to whom Peter said (Acts 10: 43): "To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins; " and while Peter spake these very " words whereby Cornelius and all his house should be saved" (Acts 11: 14), they believed unto the remission of sins, they were converted, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, they spake with new tongues, magnifying God, and, in token of the fact, they were afterwards baptized in water (Acts 10: 43-48). Notice in both instances (Acts 2: 38 and 10: 43) that "through the name of Jesus," believed upon, is the remission of sin (always implying repentance) ; and while baptism is not mentioned in Acts 10: 43 as in Acts 2: 38, yet we see the place and province of baptism the same in both cases — the declarative symbol of a preceding fact, testified to by the gift of the Holy Ghost which was bestowed, in the latter case, before baptism. Peter clearly agrees with the order of John the Baptist as to repentance and faith; and also as to baptism subsequent to and because of the remission of sins, and not " in order to " the fact thus declared. John and Peter were both Baptists and not Campbellites, who combine a rationalistic faith with a ritualistic baptism. They knew nothing of ritualism or rationalism, combined or apart. Jerusalem and Cassarea were perfectly parallel instances of salvation by grace — of sins remitted through repentance and faith and certified by baptism. More than this, Csesarea was a later and clearer enactment of Christ's law of baptism with reference to the remission of sins than that of Pentecost.

Doctrinally, spiritually, practically, John was a thorough Baptist preacher. Pilled with the Holy Ghost, he fearlessly warned men to " flee from the wrath to come," proclaiming Christ and the kingdom of heaven at hand; and when the people came to his " baptism of repentance," he taught them benevolence and charity; the publicans, honesty in office; the soldiers, truth and contentment — " fruits meet for repentance " and " righteousness " of " soul " essential to faith. After his baptism of the Son of God, he pointed his followers to him (John 1: 29) and said, " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;" and in this utterance he gave the keynote of the gospel for all ages, showing the way of the world's redemption through the blood atonement of the coming cross. Christ and his apostles took up the slogan of John the Baptist, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; " and the majestic work of Paul and other New Testament writers was the theological development of John's all-comprehensive text and proclamation : " Behold the Lamb of God," etc.; "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." From this text and proclamation Baptists have never varied, and through all their history have maintained that salvation comes at faith in a crucified Redeemer, based upon the Baptist maxim: "Blood before water, Christ before church, the Holy Spirit with the Word before all, in all, and through all."

That John's baptism was immersion in the river Jordan is as certain as that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, or that he was the Son of God, or that he atoned for sin, or that he rose from the dead, all of which has been controverted and perverted with the same skill of casuistry and sophistry as that by which baptism has been proven to be " sprinkling " or " pouring." The universal testimony of scholarship is that the primary meaning of oaptizo is " to dip," " to immerse," " to overwhelm," etc. ; and scores of the best scholars of every denomination have written that this is the meaning of the ordinance called " baptism " in the New Testament. The meaning of the word, the prepositions connected with it, the places of its administration, the conditions and circumstances which imply it and explain it, demonstrate that as certain as that John preached "m the wilderness" {en tee ereemo), he dipped his disciples "in water" {en hiidati), or "into the Jordan" (eis ton Jordaneen), or in the river Jordan (en to Jordanee potamo) (Matt. 3: 3-6; Mark 1: 9); and it is equally certain that Christ commanded, and that his apostles practiced, the ordinance by the same word and in the same way that " the Baptist " administered it.

The name " Baptist " would never have been known if baptism had not been immersion. It had been "John the Rhantist," if sprinkling had been the performance. Bapt means dipt; the very sound corresponds to the sense. Baptist means dipper.

John the Baptist was the prototype of all Baptists, in name, character, martyr spirit, in doctrine and practice. His baptized or Baptist disciples followed the baptized or Baptist Savior; and the first churches were baptized or Baptist churches, constituted with Christ as Head and Lawgiver, but practicing John's baptism and holding to the fundamental principles upon which that baptism was administered: repentance toward God and faith in Christ. The first disciples and churches were not called " Baptist," but they were Baptist all the same. They were designated as "disciples," "saints," "churches," "churches of God," "churches of Christ," or of locality; and these designations were scripturally given AFTER the name " Christian " originated at Antioch. The New Testament writers never applied the name " Christian " to disciples or church; and yet this name, "Christian," has become the characteristic and universal appellation of all that is true or claimed for Christ, as contradistinguished from the names of all other religions. All true disciples, churches, institutions, creeds, theologies, philosophies, and theories, involving the religion of Christ, are Christian.

Why, then, not drop the name " Baptist," and take the name "Christian?" Baptists claim to be Christians, the followers of Christ and his teachings, in the widest and deepest significance of the term. We are Christian Baptists — Baptist Christians — the Baptist people and churches of Christ; but for several reasons we cannot give up the name of " Baptist."

1. As we have seen, it is the name of our prototype, John the Baptist; and, as we have seen, he was a Baptist, and so called by reason of the ordinance he administered, which was " of heaven " and not " of men''' and himself " sent from God." Not only so, but, under God, he revealed the fundamental principles and practices which now distinguish Baptists from all other people; and we can no more give up the name than the principles of our Baptist prototype.

2. The name "Baptist" (from the word "baptism") is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection ideal of salvation by grace. (1 Cor. 15: 1-4.) Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again for our justification; and when he was baptized by John in Jordan (Matt. 3: 15), he thus fulfilled " all righteousness " in the symbolic representation of this great threefold fact in the work of our redemption. Not only so; but when we are baptized we symbolize, in Jesus Christ, our death to sin, the burial of the old man from sight, and our resurrection to newness of life. (Rom. 6: 3-5; Col. 2: 12.) The Baptists according to their name are a death, burial, and resurrection people, believing a death, burial, and resurrection gospel, and practicing a death, burial, and resurrection baptism; and there are no other people who can properly administer baptism in accord with the death, burial, and resurrection significance of the ordinance. It would be impossible, therefore, for us to effectively sustain our historic and characteristic attitude toward this gospel ideal and give up the name of " Baptist."

3. It is impossible, now, for us to surrender the name " Baptist," because that name properly distinguishes us from those who call themselves and their churches Christian, and yet who preach and practice unchristian errors and heresies, as Baptists see them — even some who practice immersion as we do. The denial of the Holy Spirit in conversion through repentance and faith; the claim that the Spirit enters the penitent believer only in water; baptismal remission or regeneration; priestly mediation between the soul and the Mediator; infant baptism; sprinkling and pouring for baptism; transubstantiation ; apostasy from grace; papal, prelatical, and presbyterial forms of church government; union of church and state; ministerial or magisterial interference with conscience; Christian Science (so called) ; all forms of rationalistic Christianity which exclude the Deity of Christ, sin atonement, the final judgment and eternal hell — all this and more is called "Christian;" and the only denominational word which fully differentiates the religious world along all these lines is " Baptist." The worst-abused word in history is the word " Christian," none of so uncertain sound; and while Baptists claim that sacred name, we should lose our historic and characteristic identity as a people, and sacrifice our specific mission for the truth of God and the good of the world, if we gave up our symbolic name for that of " Christian " alone.

It may be asked: When and where did Baptists take their name? For centuries they were called Anabaptists, Antipedobaptists, and usually designated, in different countries and periods, by the name of some great leader, or body, holding Baptist principles or peculiarities; but it was not until the seventeenth century, in England, when, after centuries of struggle and blood, "the woman in the wilderness" came finally and fully into the open and took the general denominational name of Baptist as we now have it. Occasionally writers had referred to the Anabaptists as Baptistid, Taufer, Dooper, Doopsgezinden (dippers), and the like; but the name Baptist never became denominationally crystallized until our people became comparatively free to assert their principles and to manifest their practice before the world, as in the days of John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostolic age. Even then the name grew upon them, as it did upon John the Baptist, by force of doctrine and practice which differentiated them from the heretical and the unbaptized; and from that day till this the differentiation has widened and deepened until the Baptist principle and practice have given religious liberty to the world and largely modified its theological errors and denominational heresies. Baptist history would have been impossible without the Baptist name; and Baptists cannot give up their name and meet the responsibility which the name implies — namely, to evangelize the world and set it free, in cooperation with all the good we find in others, according to gospel doctrine, order, and practice.

Baptist principle and practice, symbolized by the Baptist name, signify the following peculiarities which, when taken as a whole, distinguish Baptists from all others at some given point of difference: The Deity and incarnation of Christ as the second Person of the Trinity; the sin atonement of Christ as a satisfaction to divine holiness; salvation by grace, justification through faith, alone; the Holy Spirit, with the "Word, essential to the conviction and conversion of the sinner and to the sanctification of the saint; immersion of the believer in water, the only baptism, and prerequisite to church membership and communion of the Lord's Supper; local church independency, with the bishops and the deacons, in the government of God's people ; Christ as the sole Head, the gospel as the sole rule of faith and practice, and the Holy Spirit as the sole Guide and Interpreter of truth, in the administration of the kingdom; cooperation of churches, without federation, through general bodies for the promotion of missions, education, and benevolence; absolute freedom of conscience; organic separation of church and state; all this and more. The word "Baptist " is the synonym of a people who hold to the " strict construction" of the gospel as the inspired word of God; and the name has become crystallized through a martyr spirit and a persistent orthodoxy, which, in the light of the Scriptures, reflect the character, the principles, and the practice of our ancient prototype, John the Baptist, and those like him in all ages. The Baptist name is denominational by force of differentiation from all others, but it is not sectarian. It is symbolical of a whole-truth theology which comprehends the death, burial, and resurrection significance of salvation by grace through faith alone and certified by baptism.

I. " Why John Was Called The Baptist."

Mr. Smith's First Review.

The foregoing is an effort to justify the denominational name " Baptist," but it would have been more in harmony with logical sequence if the author had first established the scriptural right for the existence of the denomination itself. If it could be shown by the word of God that the name " Baptist " could be scripturally applied to a religious organization, the Doctor would be put to the necessity of proving that his denomination is a lawful inheritor of that name. Children are not usually named before they are born, and for this reason, if for none other, he should first identify his denomination as scriptural in all essential features. Most certainly it would be out of order to apply a scriptural name to an unscriptural thing, which the author has undoubtedly done in the present case, provided the word " Baptist " is scriptural. I am aware that it would be entailing upon Brother Lofton an impossibility to require him to show that the Baptist Church is of divine origin, hence there is nothing left for me to do but deal with his effort on the name " Baptist " and such other matters as he has introduced.

First, then, it will be observed that Dr. Lofton assigns the reason why John was called " the Baptist " — viz., " because he baptized in Jordan (Mark 1:9)." Of course, the place in which John baptized had nothing to do with the name " Baptist," but the baptizing itself was the origin of it. Now, with this exception, the author has correctly stated the case, and in so doing he has unwittingly stripped himself of his denominational name. According to his own statement, it is most clearly seen that " Baptist " is an official and not a religious name. John derived the name from exercising the office of a baptizer. He was sent of God to perform the office from which came the name " Baptist," but his God-given name was "John." " But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: because thy supplication is heard, and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John." (Luke 1: 13.)

It would, indeed, be interesting to see how those who do not baptize come to be Baptists. If John, as Dr. Lofton asserts, became a Baptist because he baptized, would not every one entitled to the name have to be a baptizer? If not, why not? Now, inasmuch as the "lay" members of Brother Lofton's church do not baptize, will he explain by what method they became Baptists, since the only person mentioned by the name "Baptist" in the Bible obtained the name " because he baptized? " If the Doctor will so elucidate this point as to make it clear to ordinary minds, he will confer a lasting favor on many who may be laboring under a misapprehension.

But says the author: "We find that he was a Baptist not only in practice, but in the fundamental principles of the Baptists." The reader will, no doubt, be led to ask: How could John be a Baptist in anything but practice, and that of the one single act of baptizing, since Brother Lofton has told us he became a Baptist " because he baptized? " No matter what John taught on the subject of faith, repentance, or anything else, none of these things made him a Baptist. Therefore it follows most conclusively that even if the " lay " members of Doctor Lofton's church all taught exactly what John taught on faith, repentance, and everything else, this could not make them Baptists, since they did not make John a Baptist. If believing and practicing what John taught on the subject of faith and repentance made Baptists of Brother Lofton's " lay " members, how does it happen that believing and practicing the same things make Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans? Surely Dr. Lofton will not say that these other denominations do not believe and teach, the same thing on the subject of faith and repentance that Baptists do. It avails nothing for the Doctor's cause to say that because John insisted on "repentance for sin and faith in Christ," that he must, therefore, have been the same as Baptists of this age, for the same logic would show John to have been a Methodist or a Presbyterian. I insist that these items are not peculiar to the Baptist Church, but are common to almost the entire religious world, hence within themselves do not make Baptists. Neither does the doctrine of " ' remission of sins ' following repentance as symbolized by baptism" constitute a peculiarity of the Baptist Church, for Methodists, Presbyterians, and others teach the same thing. It is true that these denominations differ from the Baptists on the action, but not on the design of baptism. They put remission of sins before baptism; hence the fact that Baptists teach this does not make them Baptists.

The Doctor has drifted from the main subject and introduced another. He asserts that those whom John baptized received remission of sins before they were baptized. Now this is simply an assertion without one word of Bible proof to sustain it. It is true that he brings forward a witness, but who is it? Josephus, an infidel Jewish historian, and even he does not sustain the author. He quotes Josephus (Ant. 18, 5, 2) as follows: "The soul beforehand had already been purified through righteousness." I wonder why Brother Lofton did not think of this passage : " Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently." (1 Pet. 1: 22.) Here it is distinctly stated that the soul is purified through obedience, and the apostle Paul informs us what sinners must obey in order to be made free from sin: " But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants [Greek, " bond servants "] of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness." (Rom. 6: 17, 18.) This passage clearly teaches that the disciples in

Rome were not freed from sin or received remission of their past sins until they obeyed from the heart "that form of teaching," and the learned MacKnight, a Presbyterian commentator, says: "The apostle represents the gospel doctrine as a mold, into which the Romans were put by their baptism, in order to their being fashioned anew." ("Commentary on the Epistles.") The correctness of this exegesis is most clearly shown from the first part of the chapter (Rom. 6), which says: "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." (Verse 4.)

But back to Josephus. That witness was not quoted correctly by Brother Lofton, for he says: " Supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by right> eousness." So it transpires that the highest testimony the Doctor has offered resolves itself into a mere supposition, with not so much as a syllable of divine testimony upon which to base it. The passage reads: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1: 4.) Now the whole controversy hinges on the meaning of the preposition " for " in this sentence. I affirm that, according to the natural, grammatical, and unstrained construction of the passage, " for " can have but one meaning here, and that is " in order to " or " with the view of receiving " remission of sins. But the Baptists as a denomination, as well as many others, have two ways of dealing with this passage in an effort to show that baptism was not administered in order that those baptized might receive the forgiveness of their sins. I shall assume that since Brother Lofton has introduced Josephus, he will not object to my bringing forward the lamented J. W. McGarvey on the matter of grammatical construction. Hence I beg leave to submit the following: