|
|
|
Collections
Database |
BAGBY-TRICE DISCUSSION
ON
The Design and Action of Baptism
Nashville, Tenn. McQuiddy Printing Company 1914
PREFATORY NOTE.
In offering another book to the reading public, we propose to make therefor no apology whatever. The fact that there are many books before the people, and that the greater part perhaps touches some phase of the great theme of religion, we deem of insufficient purport to preclude the offering of this one. The publishers entertain sanguine hopes that a more thorough study of the issues of the following pages may serve to dispense greater Bible knowledge, and that the cause of our Master may be honored by this humble contribution to religious literature.
The occasion leading to the publication of this debate may be noted in the following facts: In February of 1913 Mr. W. H. Trice, of Union City, Tenn., who was at that time editor and publisher of Truth and Freedom, a small monthly religious journal, wrote and published an article entitled " Relics of Rome," in which he argued that sprinkling for baptism together with a number of other religious practices, were traceable, in point of authority, to the Roman Catholic Church. This article fell into the hands of Mr. J. T. Bagby, who was at that time pastor of the Methodist Church at Obion, Tenn. Failing to agree with Mr. Trice, he wrote him a letter, in which he offered some criticisms on the position occupied by him in the article. This led to a rather lengthy correspondence on the action of baptism, which was printed in the above-mentioned journal. Mr. Trice suggested the publication of their correspondence in tract form for distribution, to which idea Mr. Bagby did not incline, but suggested a fuller discussion of both the action and design of baptism which Mr. Trice agreed, and to which covenant the following pages attest their fidelity.
Having had an opportunity to examine a part of this debate while it was under discussion, I unhesitatingly pronounce it worthy of consideration at the hands of all who may have opportunity to read it. I consider both disputants sufficiently able to conduct a discussion on the above-mentioned issues to the end that the reader will be intellectually and spiritually benefited.
With open Bible and heart, accompanied with a prayer for truth, let us "study to shew thyself [ourselves] approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." We commend it to you, dear reader, with a prayer.
T. B. THOMPSON,
Campbell, Mo.
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
PROPOSITION: "The Bible teaches that baptism in water is a condition of salvation to a penitent believer." W. Halliday Trice affirms: J. T. Bagby denies.
TRICE'S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE.
I am profoundly convinced that one of the best and most scriptural ways to expose error and elicit truth is in joint discussion. The apostle Paul conducted a daily debate in the school of Tyrannus for "the space of two years." (Acts 19: 10.) " The Prince of Peace " disputed with Sadducees, Pharisees, and Herodians. (Matt. 22.) If properly conducted, a religious debate is not a personal fight to gain worldly fame, but it is a faithful study and friendly comparison of honest differences to the end that man may be benefited and God glorified. In this age of broad-mindedness (?) and extreme liberality (?) in religious matters it is refreshing to find a man who has the courage to "earnestly contend" (Jude 3) for that which he believes and practices, and I certainly admire the person who is willing to have his positions tested in the fires of controversy; hence I hail with delight the privilege of discussing these important issues with my worthy opponent.
I firmly believe that baptism is one of the conditions of salvation, otherwise I would not affirm this proposition; but if I am mistaken and my opponent is correct in his contention, my position is unquestionably safe. If God forgives the "penitent believer" before baptism, since he has commanded man to be baptized, surely he will not condemn him for submitting to the requirement; hence it is manifestly safe to be baptized. On the other hand, if my affirmation is true and a person fails to be baptized, thinking, as my opponent does, that he will be saved without it, he may be lost eternally. In temporal affairs we do our best to always be on the safe side of every disputed question. Why not pursue the same course with reference to eternal issues?
I shall now define the terms in the proposition, so that the precise point at issue will be perfectly clear. " The Bible "—the word of God. " Teaches "—to enlighten by express statements or necessary inference. " Baptism in water"—an immersion into the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I shall not make an argument on the action Of baptism at this time, as that will come up in the next proposition; but I desire to ask my opponent the following question: Is the immersion of a proper subject baptism? "A condition of salvation "—not the
6 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
prime or meritorious CAUSE but it is one of the STIPULATIONS of the Lord to which man must submit before he is forgiven of his alien sins. " It is God that iustifieth " ( Rom. 8: 33 ); but in the Christian dispensation, faith, repentance, and baptism are conditions of justification. God healed Naaman of the leprosy (2 Kings 5: 1-14), but not till he "dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God." There was no curative power in the waters of the Jordan; but God required him to dip himself, and he vas not healed until he obeyed. God cured the Israelites of snake bite, but they were commanded to look upon " the serpent of brass " before he healed them. (Num. 21: 4-9.) No one thinks that there was virtue in the brass snake to counteract the poisonous effects of the fiery serpents, but we all believe that God healed them when they complied with the condition named by him. These examples enable us to see the point now under study. Man is saved by the grace of God (Eph. 2: 8-10), and he is justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5: 9); but in order to enjoy the favor of God and get the benefits of the blood of Christ he must comply with the conditions imposed by the Lord. I contend that baptism is one of the conditions of salvation to the alien sinner. "A penitent believer"—one who believes on Christ with all his heart and has determined to forsake sin and serve the Lord.
Before submitting my arguments, I want to call attention to a very important truth. In order to find the terms of salvation in this age of the world we must go to Christ after his coronation. The Lord said: " This is my beloved Son: hear him." (Mark 9: 7.) Again: " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, HATH TN THESE LAST DAYS SPOKEN UNTO US BY HIS SON." (Heb. 1: 1, 2.) There was a time when God spake to the people by the prophets, but he now speaks to us by his Son. Where do we find the sayings of the Son? In the New Testament, to be sure. The Old Testament is the word of God, but the New contains the words of Jesus, to which we must submit in order to be saved. The next question is: When was all power given unto Jesus, and when was his last will and testament made effective? Let the Book answer: "Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matt. 28: 18.) "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. FOR WHERE A TESTIMONY IS, THERE MUST ALSO OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. FOR A TESTAMENT IS OF FORCE AFTER MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVETH." (Heb. 9: 15-17.) These scriptures show, beyond all doubt, that the covenant under which we are was not " of force " until Christ, the testator, was slain, and that he was not given " all power " until he was raised from the dead. It is useless to go to his personal
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 7
ministry for a case of conversion. Should you find one, it would not be an example for us, as it would be before the death of Christ.
I shall now present some specific arguments and state them syllogistically.
1. The first is based upon the great commission as given by Mark. After Christ had been raised from the dead and all power in heaven and on earth had been delegated unto him, he said: " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16: 15, 16.) Christ declares that some one shall be saved. ' He shall be saved " is the principal clause. What " he? " Just any " he? " No. " He that believeth " only? No. But " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The Savior joined faith and baptism by the coordinate conjunction 'and," which connects clauses of equal rank; hence they both look to the same end (a) Faith is a condition of salvation. (b) Baptism is for the same purpose. (c) Therefore baptism is a condition of salvation.
2. The next argument is based upon Acts 2: 36-38. The Holy Spirit, speaking through the apostle Peter, said to those persons who asked, " "Men and brethren, what shall be do? " " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Repentance and baptism are joined by the coordinate conjunction " and," and " for " cannot have two meanings in the same place and at the same time; hence whatever repentance is for, baptism is also. (a) Repentance is in order to the remission of sins. (b) Baptism is for the same purpose. ( c ) Therefore baptism is a condition of salvation.
3. My third argument is deduced from the study of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Jesus appeared unto him and said: " Go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." (Acts 9: 6.) Ananias, whom Jesus sent to Saul, said unto him: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22: 16.) Therefore to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins was what he MUST DO. (a) Whatever is necessary to the forgiveness of sins is a condition of salvation. ( b ) Baptism in the case of Saul was necessary to the remission of sins. (c) Therefore baptism is a condition of salvation.
4. My last argument for this article is based upon the truth that forgiveness of sins is in Christ, and that we are baptized into him. " In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1.: 14.) ' For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. FOR AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST HAVE PUT ON CHRIST. (Gal 3: 26, 27.) (a) Forgiveness of sins is in Christ. (b) Baptism puts one into Christ (e) Therefore baptism is a condition of salvation or forgiveness of sins.
Before I close this address I desire to ask some questions which I
8 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
think will bring out some vital points and serve to eliminate much unnecessary discussion. Please give them your attention in your first reply, as they are very important.
1. Can a man be saved who willfully refuses to be baptized? 2. Is baptism a Christian duty? 3. Do not all Christian duties recur? 4. Does the word ''baptism " in Gal. 3: 27 mean water baptism? 5. Is baptism an act of faith? 6. Is baptism a work of man? 7. Are men justified by faith or by faith only?
This ends my first article. If my arguments are fallacious and unscriptural, I urge my opponent to make it plain to our readers.
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE 9
BAGBY'S FIRST REPLY.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Brother Trice in affirming this proposition, but I do doubt the safety of his position if mine is true. Brother Trice leads an alien sinner to believe that salvation hinges on immersion; that a man may have everything else except immersion, and yet he is not saved; or, at least, he has no promise of salvation until he is immersed. This leads the sinner to think that immersion is the meritorious cause of salvation, and thus he neglects to " repent " from the bottom of his heart, and thereby becomes an unconverted church member without salvation. I know whereof I speak. I heard the gospel, believed it (gave it my assent), repented of my sins (as I thought and as many think), and was baptized into Christ, as Brother Trice would say; and I had no religion at all. One day I realized my lost condition, and, by the grace of God, cast myself wholly on the mercy of God in Christ, and was saved from all past sins. So, you see, it is not safe to teach that immersion is necessary for pardon; for many, like I was, will be deceived.
The Bible, the word of God, the Old and New Testaments, is the criterion by which we are to determine the controversy, according to the proposition; and we are, therefore, at liberty to go to the " personal ministry " of Christ " for a case of conversion," or to any book of the Bible, so far as that is concerned; and every case of conversion we find either in the Old or the New Testament will be germane to the argument, because it is in the Bible, which is the term of the proposition, and I am surprised at my good brother s attempt to limit the term of the proposition, which plainly says the Bible. Besides, Trice does not understand Heb. 9: 16-17. In the Septuagint the word " diatheke " is used to translate the Hebrew word " berith," which means a. covenant and does not signify a will or testament. If Trice's argument were true that Jesus made his last will and testament and gave it validity by his death, then it is apparent that his resurrection three days later rendered it null and void; and if you are right in your opinion, now we have no new testament at all. See? So in Heb. 9 it is not two testaments, or wills, but two covenants, or agreements; and the death is not the death of a " testator," but the death of the sacrifice, which was offered after the ancient custom of sprinkling blood over the covenanting parties to seal the sacred covenant, which was of no force until the sacrifice was slain. The first covenant was sealed with the blood of calves and goats; the second covenant, with the blood of the Son of God, who was not only the mediator of the new covenant,
10 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
but also the sacrifice which sealed it, all types combining in him. (Heb.9: 15-26; 13: 20; 20; 24: 4-8; Gen. 15: 8-18; Mark 14: 24.)
You ask: " Is the immersion of a proper subject baptism? " There is no authority for it in the Bible; yet reverence for the formula and charity toward the sincere lead me to recognize it as baptism.
You have given us some syllogisms, and claim through them to have proven the proposition. But I want you to bear in mind that logic has nothing to do with a proposition by itself. It is only in converting or transmuting certain propositions into certain others that the work of logic consists, and the truth of the conclusion is only so far in question as it follows from the truth of the premises. Now, in your first argument I find fault with your making your minor premise general when it should be particular, as that is the only place in the Bible where faith and baptism and salvation are mentioned together; and so you have violated the laws of the syllogism in reaching a general conclusion with a particular minor premise. Besides, this does not cover your case at all, because it says nothing about immersion, and that is the proposition you are affirming and the one thus far you are making a dismal effort to prove. Brother Trice, remember that baptism in water is the proposition you are trying to prove, and something more is requisite to constitute immersion than a passage of scripture in which the word " baptize" occurs. Baptism is not under consideration; but baptism in water is, and there is a great distinction; and if you will keep this in mind, it will " serve to eliminate much unnecessary discussion." Since you failed to show that baptism in Mark 16: 16 means water baptism, much less immersion, I take pleasure in showing that it is spiritual baptism. Notice that the belief spoken of is a saving belief; and as baptism is joined to it by the coordinate conjunction " and," it, too, must be an act that the Bible puts emphasis on, and one that will put us in Christ. Keep this in mind also. A man believes with his heart. (Rom. 10: 10.) It is the soul that sins (Ezek. 18: 29) and needs conversion. (Ps. 19: 7.) Therefore, as it is an inward thing that believes, sins, and needs conversion; as that "which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3: 6); as by " one Spirit [not a middleman or carnal priest] we are all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12: 13); as God (not man) has "set the members every one of them in the body " (1 Cor. 12: 18); and as the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith (Gal. 3: 2), we conclude that the baptism in Mark 16: 16 is spiritual. With this the Bible agrees, for it says: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." The Bible says of Jesus: " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 3: 11.) Jesus, therefore, baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Faith is the condition on which the Spirit is received. Therefore, without any violence to reason or revelation, we can read: " He that believeth and is [in the act of believing!
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 11
baptized with the Holy Ghost] shall be saved " from past sins. All common sense ought to satisfy us that if it is the soul that sins and needs conversion, then it must be Spirit baptism that is to be received on " the hearing of faith."
I want to call your attention to this truth: When leading words in the general vocabulary of the Bible become so mixed up with other words as to make their meaning uncertain, there is always found some text where the passage seems to be original and independent and uttered on purpose to meet the desideratum. So when we find " faith" and " baptism " mixed up so as to lead Brother Trice to think baptism in water is necessary to pardon, we turn to those passages that are original and independent and that tell us exactly how one is pardoned. Here are some of them: "Thy faith hath made thee whole " (Matt. 9: 22); " Thy faith hath saved thee " (Luke 7: 50; 18: 42); they that receive him are the children of God, even " them that believe on. his name " (John 1: 12); " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life " (John 3: 36); " To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10: 43); "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved " (Acts 16: 31). Now, if these passages do not teach that a man is saved by faith without immersion, then I am blind in my seeing department.
Brother Trice's position is against the plain word of God. We read: 'There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." ( 1 Tim. 2: 5. ) Now, the Book says there is one mediator, and his theory makes three—namely Christ, water, and the administrator of immersion. Such a theory puts the penitent sinner's salvation in men and water as much as in Christ, and is contrary to the Bible plan, which says that Jesus alone saves (Acts 4: 2); and it does not matter if he does not teach that there is virtue in the water, it amounts to the same thing; for if a sinner cannot be saved without immersion, it follows that he cannot be saved without water and the administrator of immersion; and it does not matter which does the saving, the saving act cannot be done without all three being present. Therefore his position is plainly contradicted by the Bible.
Brother Trice, your second argument (Acts 2: 36-38) does not fit your case at all. They were Jews, church members. He charges them with being the murderers of Christ. They denied that he was the Christ—called him an " impostor " and a " malefactor." They were not only under the old covenant, but they had crucified the Mediator of the new covenant. Thus they had a double duty to perform—to repent of their sins and to make a public atonement for the murder of Christ. Having publicly denied that he was Christ at the bar of Pilate, they must now publicly acknowledge him as the true Christ by being baptized in his name. This was all the atonement they could make for crucifying him, and so it was required of them. As they
12 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
were under the old covenant, the same as Moses was, and as Moses sprinkled " all the people," telling them that God had enjoined it upon them (Heb. 9: 19, 20),the inference is that they were sprinkled; and IF they were not, it yet remains for you to make it plain to our readers that they were immersed, for as yet you have not done so. See?
I find fault with your third argument, because it does not teach what you say that it does. The Greek implies: " Standing, he was baptized, having washed away his sins in calling on the name of the Lord." Six English versions translate it " in calling on the name of the Lord." So his baptism was not immersion and was not for remission of sins. See?
Answers to questions: 1. If he refuses to be immersed, yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. No. 5. No, it is the sign and seal of faith. 6. Water baptism is. 7. "By faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3: 28.)
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 13
TRICE'S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE.
I appreciate the kindly disposition exhibited by my worthy opponent in his reply. All discussions should be conducted in this spirit, and I feel sure this one will be. I shall now examine his address and show that it does not refute my arguments.
You say my position is unsafe, because it "leads the sinner to think that immersion is the meritorious cause of salvation." You are badly mistaken. I have shown that baptism is NOT " the meritorious cause of salvation," but that it is one of the conditions of salvation just as Faith and repentance are terms of pardon. When you teach that " he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16: 16), does that lead the sinner to think that THAT is " the meritorious cause of salvation? " When Jesus said, " Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13: 3), did he lead sinners to think that repentance is " the meritorious cause of salvation?" Certainly not. Then why does teaching that baptism is a condition of pardon lead one to so think?
You refer to your experience, and confess that you did not really believe and truly repent, but state that you were deceived and " had no religion at all." It is possible that you were deceived about this important matter, and I do not think such a one is a " penitent believer;" but since numbers of persons who contend as you do have thought they were saved and afterwards decided they were not, I am sure this does not militate against the position that baptism is a condition of salvation. I insist that genuine faith and repentance " from the bottom of the heart " are prerequisites to baptism, while you contend that such a person is already saved. This is the reason my position is safe and yours is dangerous. If a man is saved the very moment he believes, as you think, a penitent believer certainly has remission of sins; and unless you can show that God will damn a person for being baptized, my position is unquestionably safe. But if I am correct and you are wrong, the person who fails to obey the Savior in baptism is in great danger. In all of my teaching and practice I endeavor to be scriptural, and at the same time occupy a safe position if I should be mistaken; and yet there are some who say such is a "dangerous doctrine." Before passing from this I desire to ask some questions on the subject of religion: (1) What do you mean by the expression, " I had no religion at all? " (2) Is it something man can get?
In regard to what you say about the Bible being the criterion, I have this to say: I believe the entire Bible; hence I believe that God " hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son." (Heb. 1: 2.) Is it not
14 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
true that the sayings of Christ are in the New Testament? Do you not know that baptism is a New Testament ordinance, and that it is performed in the name of Christ? (Matt. 28: 19, 20.) Then why fill a lot of space expressing wonderment that I go to the New Testament to study the subject of baptism?
Possibly I do not understand Heb. 9: 16-17; but suppose it should read " covenant," was it of force before Christ died? When was " all power" given unto him ? You certainly know that it was after his resurrection; and if you rightly divide and properly apply the word of God, you will come this side of the cross to find the terms of admission into the new covenant.
I am astonished to hear you say there is no authority in the Bible for immersion, and still say you "recognize it as baptism;" but as we will need that on the next proposition, I will pass it by for the present.
You next come to my first argument and take some very unusual positions in your different efforts to refute it. You first say the syllogism is fallacious, because the minor premise is particular and the conclusion is general. Your reason for so contending is, this is " the only place in the Bible where faith and baptism and salvation are mentioned together." You must admit that in this case salvation is promised after baptism; and unless you can find an example of salvation before baptism under the new covenant, you are the one who has the premises mixed.
But after this you admit that baptism, being connected with faith by the coordinate conjunction " and," is " an act that the Bible puts emphasis on, and one that will put us in Christ." What has become of the " particular premise " and " general conclusion? " The only difference between us is, you say the baptism here mentioned is baptism of the Spirit, while I contend that it is water baptism performed in the name of the Spirit. I shall now show that your contention is wrong, and that my argument is proven by the Bible and approved by you. In giving his account of this same commission, Matthew says: " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28. 19.) This shows beyond question that the baptism of the commission was administered by men into the name of the Spirit. My opponent uses this formula when he baptizes people, I am sure. You correctly say: (a) Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost. (b) The baptism of Mark 16: 16 is performed by men. (c) Therefore it is not the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Again: (a) The measure of the Spirit called a baptism was a promise to be enjoyed. (Joel 2: 28; Matt. 3: 11.) (b) The baptism of the commission is a command to be obeyed. (c) Therefore this is not the baptism in or with the Spirit. To show still more conclusively that you are mistaken about persons being baptized in the Holy Spirit in this age, I will name several other reasons: (11 There are only two recorded accounts of the baptism in the Holy Spirit
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 15
(Acts 2 and 10), but the baptism of the commission is for every creature. (2) The baptism in the Spirit was attended by miraculous manifestations, and the days of miracles are past. (3) "All flesh," which means all nations—Jews and Gentiles—were to receive the baptismal measure of the Spirit. (Joel 2: 28.) The Jews received him at Pentecost and the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius; hence he came upon " all flesh." Therefore that promise was fulfilled about A.D. 41, and there has not been such a miraculous manifestation of the Spirit since. (4) Paul says there is " one baptism." (Eph 4: 5.) Brother Bagby affirms that the sprinkling of water upon a proper subject is baptism. Therefore one of three things is true: (1) Bagby and all others who practice water baptism are sinning; (2) two equals one; (3) or people are not baptized in the Holy Spirit in this age.
But you quote: " By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12: 13.) I believe the passage, but it does not teach that the Spirit is the element in which the baptism is performed; but the baptizing is done by the authority or instruction of the Spirit. Suppose I should say twenty persons were baptized by J. T. Bagby into the Methodist Church; would you think Bagby was the element in which or with which the baptisms were performed, or would you think he was the agent that did the work? When the Spirit through Peter told the Pentecostians to repent and be baptized, and they obeyed him, they were baptized by the Spirit. This certainly explodes your theory of Holy-Spirit baptism, which necessitates a miracle every time a person is converted.
But still being dissatisfied with his attempt, he quotes a number of passages which mention faith and salvation, and concludes (? ) that baptism is not a condition of salvation! Had you answered question No. 7, "Are men justified by faith or BY FAITH ONLY?" you would not now be filling space with such irrelevant scriptures. Here is his answer: " By faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3: 28.) If that is not an evasion, I never saw one. I believe your statement with all my heart, and I also believe that persons are justified by faith; out for the following reason I do not believe that they are justified by FAITH ONLY: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY." (James 2: 24.) Will you please answer that question in your next reply ?
The passages you cite neither disproved my position nor prove your contention; but that all may see your efforts, I will examine them. " Thy faith hath made thee whole." Why did you not read the connection? Let us read it, and I think the reason will be apparent: "And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: for she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, "Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole."
16 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
(Matt. 9: 20-22.) Why did you quote this? You started to " tell us exactly how one is pardoned." The casual reader can see that this refers to the healing of a physical ailment and does not " tell exactly how one is pardoned of sins. You next cite Luke 7: 50 and 18: 42, neither of which sustains the doctrine of salvation by faith only. The first tells of the woman who washed the Savior's feet and wiped them with her hair. Is that a case of salvation by faith only? The second tells of the blind beggar who said to Jesus: " Lord, that I may receive my sight." Jesus said: " Receive thy sight, thy faith hath saved thee." Brother Bagby, is this another case that tells us exactly how one is pardoned? " You next say: " They that receive him are the children of God, 'even to them that believe on his name.'" Let us read it and see if he has given the correct idea: " He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he POWER TO BECOME THE SONS OF GOD, EVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE ON HIS NAME." (John 1: 11, 12.) You say the believer is a child of God; the Bible says he has the POWER OR RIGHT TO BECOME ONE. I like the Bible better. " "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life " (John 3: 36) you quote next. Do you mean that every person who believes on Christ, and that only, hath eternal life? " Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8: 31, 32.) Are these already FREE and children of God, Brother Bagby? Jesus says: " Ye are of your father the devil." (Verse 44.) Therefore a believer on Christ is not necessarily a child of God, and you have not told us yet " exactly how one is pardoned." In order to see that John does not mean one who believes only, but the obedient believer, let us read the verse in the Revision: " He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life.'' " To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43.) Who received the remission of sins? The one who believes only? No, but he that gets into or through the name of Christ. Men are baptized into his name. (Matt. 28: 19.) Therefore the baptized believer receives remission of sins. I thank you for suggesting my fifth argument.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." (Acts 16: 30. ) Why did you not read the connection ? Was Paul laboring under the great commission, or did he mean to contradict the Savior? Here are two statements: " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved; " " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Do they contradict? According to Bagby, they do; but according to the Bible, they do not. Paul did not say, " Believe only, and thou shalt be saved;" but, as the context shows, he taught the same doctrine that Jesus preached: " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord,
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 17
and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." The passages to which you refer mention faith, but do not mention baptism; therefore you conclude: " Now, if these passages do not teach that man is saved by faith without immersion, then I am blind in my seeing department." Wonderful logic! Repentance is not mentioned in those passages; hence if man is not saved by faith without repentance, you are blind in Your seeing department'
You say: " Now, the Book says there is one mediator, and his theory makes three—namely, Christ, water, and the administrator of immersion." (1 Tim. 2: 5.) In precisely the same way your theory makes six mediators-—namely, Christ, faith, repentance, prayer, hearing, and the preacher; for " how shall they hear without a preacher? " (Rom. 10: 14. ) With all my heart I believe there is one mediator between God and man; but that does not keep me from believing that faith, repentance, and baptism are conditions of salvation.
Your answer (?) to my second argument is rather to be pitied than censured, and really needs no mention from me. The Pentecostians were Jews and proselytes; but Peter was laboring under the world-wide commission, and said: " The promise is unto you, and to your children. and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." (Acts 2: 39.)
The third argument stands undisturbed. Why did you not rule it out on the same ground as the Pentecostians? Saul was a Jew, was he not? But you complain at the translations, and say the Greek "implies" so and so. I do not feel able to make a new version of the Bible, but I do know that the Greek does not imply what you say.
You did not mention my fourth argument; but as it is before the readers, I will pass on.
I shall now refer to the question and close. You miss the point in the first. We will discuss immersion in the next proposition. Please answer this question: Can a man be saved who willfully refuses to be baptized? Do not hide behind "immersion," but put your own construction on the word "baptize." You say that baptism is a Christian duty, and that all Christian duties recur. Should baptism be repeated weekly, monthly, or yearly? Since baptism is not an act of faith, and as it is impossible to please God without faith (Heb. 11: 6), do you not sin when you baptize folks? You say water baptism is a work of man. I deny it, and demand the proof.
18 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE
BAGBY'S SECOND REPLY.
I appreciate beyond my power of expression the kind words of my opponent respecting the manner in which I reply, and I assure him I reciprocate the kind feeling from the depths of my soul. I have the tenderest regards for him, and am trying to teach him the truth that he may teach others the truth as " it is in Jesus."
After the smoke of battle has cleared away from my brother's second affirmative, I find my rebuttal arguments standing unmoved, still able to withstand the attacks of my opponent. They cannot be overthrown, because they are founded on the Bible, and Brother Trice cannot explain away the word of the Almighty God. But for the sake of my readers I will examine the errors of his second affirmative. I deny that you have "shown that baptism in water is one of the conditions of salvation," or that you have shown baptism in water at all. Every passage of scripture you cited in which "baptize" occurs the baptism would have been exactly convenient without adding to or taking from the Bible account one letter, syllable, or word, if it had been done by sprinkling. Sprinkling is the mode of the Old Testament; and if the New ever changed it, there is no record of it. Now, I will show that water baptism in the Bible is not immersion. Eph. 5: 25, 26: "As Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing [cleansing] of water by the word." Now, let us see what this proves. What is done to effect the washing ("loutron") here? Two words are used—(1) "sanctify," (2) "cleanse." Notice the word " sanctify." How did they ritualistically sanctify the church or people? Heb. 9: 13, 19 and Num. 19: 13, 18 tells us it is done by sprinkling the water. "Cleanse." How did they cleanse them? Num. 8: 7: " Thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them." Ezek. 36: 25 refers to this cleansing and names only the sprinkling of water as affecting it: " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean "—cleansed. There is no doubt that this mode is sprinkling.
All immersionists say that Heb. 10: 22 refers to "Christian baptism," and Moses and Ezekiel say that the washing was done by sprinkling purifying water or clean water upon the parties. The word translated " body " in this text is used elsewhere to denote only a part of the body. See John 13: 8, 9, 10; Matt. 26: 7, "poured it on his head;" verse 12, " on my body;" verse 10, " upon me." So when any part of the body is sprinkled, it is called in the Bible " washing " or " cleansing " the body, and that is Christian baptism. Then " the
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 19
washing of regeneration" is that "which he shed [poured out] upon us abundantly," which is a metaphorical use of words based on the actual pouring out of water on the subjects baptized, symbolizing the Spirit. (Isa. 44: 3.) Now, this washing or cleansing is called by Paul in Heb. 9: 10 " baptism," and he uses the same word ("baptismois") that Christ used in the commission, and in verse 13 he tells how the baptism was done: "Sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.'' Now, l have shown that sprinkle is baptism, and that it ritualistically cleanses and purifies, But Brother Trice was to affirm that immersion is baptism, and that it is essential to pardon; but so far he has produced no argument at all to prove immersion; and when I have asked him to do so, he strokes his chin and remains painfully silent. Your argument that baptism in water is for the remission of sins has been perfectly refuted.
I am sorry for any man who does not know what having religion is. The very fact that you ask about it is proof positive that your position is dangerous. I mean when I had no religion I was out of harmony with God and was not regenerated or born again; but when I was born again, from that time on I have a personal experience, which gives rest to my soul, and I am now living in a conscious relation with God, and the Spirit of God dwells in me (1 Cor. 6: 19), and God has given me his Spirit, as he gave him unto the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 4: 8) and as he has given him to all who obey him (Acts 5: 32 ). Brother Trice, have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?
No, I do not know that "all power " was given unto Christ " after his resurrection;" for John says: "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1: 3.) I like John better than Trice. Certainly the sayings of Christ are in the New Testament, but very few of his sayings are recorded after his resurrection. No, I do not know that baptism is a New Testament ordinance. Baptism, according to the Bible, was instituted at the Red Sea, and administered by God himself nearly sixteen hundred years before there was a New Testament, and Paul says he would not have us ignorant about it. ( 1 Cor. 10: 1. ) This is pure water baptism: and if you will read Ex. 14: 22, 29; 1 Cor. 10: 1; Ps. 77: 16, 20, you will find that the mode was pouring rain from the clouds. As usual, you are wrong again. So you see that I have much room for surprise when you go to the New Testament to study the subject of baptism when it was instituted in the Old. Brother Trice, if I were to "come this side of the cross to find the terms of admission into the new covenant," I would cut out Pentecost; for Peter took his text from the Old Testament, from the prophets, and he explained and expounded as he went along, and occasionally he would read a selection from Moses Brother Trice, you seen, to think that John the Baptist and Christ and the apostles each had a Morocco-bound, gilt-edge copy of
2 0 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
the New Testament and carried it around with him for more than fifty years before it was written. The simple truth is, John had been dead something about one hundred and fifty years before the New Testament writings were adopted by the church as a part of the Bible. So the Old Testament is the one under which John baptized, the one out of which Christ preached and to which he appealed on all occasions. It is the only Bible out of which the apostles preached, and in keeping with which all the usages of the New Testament were planned. So if I were to come this side of the cross to find the terms of the new covenant, I would tear the New Testament all to pieces and cut out every conversion for they all happened before the New Testament was written. How many more times are you going to try to tear up the Bible?
Brother Trice, all that were admitted into the new covenant, as I have shown, in the Bible, were admitted under the Old Testament, which is called " the scripture of truth." (Dan. 10: 21 )
Again, Paul tells us as plainly as words can tell that the gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3: 8), and that Abraham received the gospel covenant in Jesus Christ, and that he was saved by faith. Brother Trice, if you are saved, you are saved by the gospel covenant in Jesus Christ, and Abraham was saved the same way. Is that not enough? But I will yet give you a few passages to show that Christ existed in a real scriptural sense as the Redeemer and Savior from before the foundation of the world, and not " after his resurrection:" 1 Pet. 1: 16-20; 2 Tim. 1: 8, 9. Even the atonement is older than the race. It is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13: 8), who is the Savior of mankind. So we may truly have " hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." (Tit. 1: 2.)
You need not be astonished at my saying there was no authority for immersion. If there is, give it.
I plainly refuted your position in your first argument, and showed by the Bible that the baptism in Mark 16: 16 is spiritual; but you cite Matt. 28: 19 to show that my contention that it is spiritual is wrong; but it does not refute my argument. The man part of the commission is only the sign and seal of the baptism of the Spirit. The Spirit is the agent by which we get into Christ (1 Cor. 12: 13), the result of which is salvation; and since proselytes were always baptized to let the public know they had changed faiths, the command is: " Go, . . . teach [make proselytes of] all nations, baptizing them [or, as the Greek has it, " having baptized them"] in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Examine the meaning and order of the words as given by Christ: "Teach ["matheteusate "—i. e., take under tutelage] all nations, baptizing [" baptisantes "—or, " having baptized "] them: . . . teaching [ "didaskontes"] them to observe," etc. This shows that after they had taken all nations under
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 21
tutelage and had made proselytes of them, after that they gave them the badge of citizenship, or baptized them; and then they taught them. This only shows that they were baptized after they had enlisted as pupils in the school of Christ, which they did by faith; and then in the act of faith, being baptized by the Holy Ghost and saved from Sill, they were to take the sign and seal of this enlistment by being baptized with water. So your position is false, and is not " proved by the Bible." Of course the Holy Spirit was promised; and when any one is baptized by him, certainly he can enjoy him; but that does not prove that he does not do the work in the commission as I said he did and as I have proved by the Bible. So there is no immersion here, and the man part of the baptism is only a sign of the faith and is not for the remission of sins.
Speaking about arguments that are "rather to be pitied than censured," I think your statement, "There are only two recorded accounts of the baptism" of the Holy Spirit, double discounts them all. But, Brother Trice, the Bible says no such thing. In Acts 8: 17 we read that Peter and John went down to Samaria and prayed for those who " had received the word of God," and laid " their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 19: 6: "When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them." Acts 4: 31: "And when they had prayed; . . . they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." Acts 13: 52: " The disciples were filled with joy, and with the I Holy Ghost." Deacons were full of the Holy Ghost. ( Acts 6: 3. ) The Ephesians are commanded to be filled with the Holy Ghost (Eph. 5: 18); and Acts 5: 32 says that the Holy Ghost as a witness is given to all that obey God. So you see that there have been many " such miraculous manifestations of the Spirit since." The fourth thing that God has set in the church is ''miracles.'' Will you give me your authority for setting them out? God set them in. (1 Cor. 12: 28.) Again you are wrong.
No, Brother Trice, Bagby and Paul are agreed on Eph. 4: 5. There is but one baptism; that is spiritual; and water sprinkled on a person is water baptism and symbolizes that the one baptism has taken place. So Bagby is not sinning, as you said, and people are baptized with the Holy Spirit in this age when they exercise faith. (Gal. 3: 2.) But Trice and his sect sin when they dip in creek water and falsely call it a "birth," for Spirit baptism only can baptize us into Christ; and the Spirit is the agent, and not the element, as you seem to think from your reference to being baptized into him. I answered every question you asked me. See my first reply.
You did not refute one of the passages that I gave to show that a man is saved from past sins by faith, and the connection does not alter the case at all. If faith in Christ is able to save a man from disease, it is able to save the soul from sin; and every one of the passages show that faith did the saving. Some of them refer to being saved from
22 BAGBY-TRICE E DEBATE.
sin, especially John 3: 36; Acts 10: 43; and Acts 16: 30. Paul and Jesus both say that faith saves. Bagby says so, too. Trice says not, but faith and immersion do. Therefore, Trice, and not Bagby, is wrong. Paul did not say, " Be baptized, and thou shalt be saved;" but, " Believe, and thou shalt be saved." And when he was saved, baptism did not unsave him, especially as it was a sign of his receiving the Spirit by faith.
As a man cannot by your theory be saved without immersion, I still say that it is against I Tim. 2: 5, because you have to have the middleman before any one can be saved, thus having a man and water to come between a man and his God. As a man, by my theory, can be saved without a preacher and can without any assistance from man do what I say he must do to be saved, I have only " one mediator.'' Thus I am right and you are wrong.
Pity will not refute my second argument. As you did not try to answer it, it stands unmoved.
You know that your third argument is refuted. Paul was baptized standing, and his sins were washed away " in calling on the name of the Lord." All ancient English versions before James' read: " In calling on the name of the Lord." I believe that six versions are better than one; so Paul was saved in prayer, and not in immersion. I do not know whether you feel able to make a new version of the Bible; but some of your sect have felt able to do so, and have done it. But I do know that Paul was saved " in calling on the name of the Lord;'' and he was not baptized in order to be saved, but because he was saved. Down you go again!
In regard to my not mentioning your fourth argument, I will say that I abundantly answered it in showing that " baptize " in Mark 16: 16 is spiritual. But I will notice it a little more. You cite Gal. 3: 26, 27. The Bible says that the Spirit (1 Cor. 12: 13), and not a man, is the agent by which this baptism is administered. You say man; the Bible says Spirit. I will take the Bible, for it is sure to be right. Besides, your proposition is immersion; that is Spirit poured. So you re wrong again in it being water baptism, and you have produced no argument to show that it is immersion. Brother Trice, I do not know what you will do when you deny: but l do know that you have failed to produce one argument to prove that immersion it baptism. As I have nothing else to do, having refuted all your arguments, I will give a few more objections to your theory. In 1 Cor. 1: 14-17 Paul says: " I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.
. . And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. . . . For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Notice the testimony here given: (l) Paul thanked God that he had left all the Corinthians in their sins, except two persons and one household, if baptism in water is essential to pardon; (2) Christ left out one of the essentials to pardon when he commissioned Paul to preach, if immer-
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 23
sion is necessary to pardon; for he says: " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Paul says again that the gospel " is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." (Rom. 1: 16.) See now what we have: (1) The gospel saves "every one that believeth." (2) If baptism by immersion is a part of the gospel that saves, and Paul was sent to preach that gospel, he was, of necessity, sent to baptize; but he says he "was not sent to baptize." Therefore, immersion is not essential to pardon, and there is not a single word in the Bible to warrant such an opinion; for if there was, Trice would show it, and this he has failed to do.
Brother Trice, I am disappointed in you; for I had heard that you occupied a solitary niche in the temple of fame as a debater; but instead of living up to your name, you have acted childlike and have taken for granted the very thing that you were to prove, and have presented no argument to prove immersion at all. If I were you, l would never debate again until I learned at least one argument in support of my position; and l would get me up a nobler and more effective plea, even the Bible plea Of justification by faith; and everywhere I went I would declare that true religion is an impartation of divine life in the human soul by the Spirit through faith in Christ. Then you would know what having religion is.
24 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
TRICE'S LAST AFFIRMATIVE.
I am indeed sorry that my opponent is so averse to this issue, and is so anxious to discuss the next proposition. He has spent about half of his time in his two replies combating immersion and endeavoring to show that sprinkling is baptism. I am affirming that water baptism is a condition of salvation; and if you think sprinkling is baptism, you should show that it is not a condition of pardon. At the proper time and place I will show that sprinkling is not baptism, but I do not propose to be drawn away from the design of the ordinance till we have finished this proposition. When you get in the lead on the action of baptism, I assure you that I will examine every passage you introduce and make an effort to show that they do not sustain your contention; but as we are not debating the ACTION, but the DESIGN, and as I do not want to " torment you before the time," I will pass your arguments on sprinkling for baptism and continue to discuss the issue now under study.
But in your eagerness to get away from this issue you have actually made an argument on my side of the question. You say that the people were "cleansed " and "SANCTIFIED " by sprinkling water upon them, but you contend that sprinkling is baptism; therefore, per your theory, baptism is a condition of salvation. Should you say the sprinkling cleansed the body, and not the soul, then I will show that sprinkling is not baptism." When any part of the body is sprinkled, it is called in the Bible 'washing’ or 'cleansing the body,’ and that is Christian baptism.'' (J. T. Bagby.) The apostle Peter says baptism is " not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.'' (1 Pet. 3: 21.) So Bagby is wrong, and all that he has said about sprinkling the body or flesh to " effect " its cleansing does not prove that sprinkling is baptism.
In answer to my questions on religion you ignore the main one and express sorrow for me. Since you refuse to consider the Bible definition of religion and confuse it with salvation, regeneration, and the gift of the Spirit, I am constrained to say, " Weep not for me, but for yourself " and those who follow such teaching. James says: " Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this [this what " Regeneration," " salvation," ' Spirit of God dwells in me? " No; but it IS THIS], To VISIT the FATHERLESS and WIDOWS in THEIR affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1: 27.) Do you not know that it is both unscriptural and absurd to talk of "GETTING " and "HAVING," "visiting the fatherless and widows in their
BAGBY-TRICE E DEBATE. 26
affliction, etc.?" The Bible promises the gift of the Spirit to those who obey God. ( Acts 2: 38. ) I have obeyed him, and hence claim the promise; but it displays a lack of Bible information to confuse this with religion—A THING THE SAVED SOUL SHOULD PRACTICE.
You contend that Christ had " all power " before his resurrection, because all things were e made by him in his preexisting state. What does he mean when, prior to his resurrection, he says, " I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John 6: 38); but after he was raised he says, ""ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28: 18)? Did he have "all power" all the time? The physical world was made by Christ as the Word, but he was not given the authority to name the terms of admission into the new covenant until he was raised from the tomb. It does not matter when the words of the new covenant were put in book form, or whether the apostles ever saw a " Morocco-bound " New Testament or not; since we are to hear Christ (Heb. 1: 1, 2), and the new covenant was not effective till Christ died (Heb. 9: 15-17), we certainly ought to come this side of his death to learn the terms of entrance. Your remark about cutting out Pentecost because Peter referred to the Old Testament is both amusing and absurd. Peter quoted from the prophets, to be sure; but when he told those persons what to do, he gave them the words of the Spirit, by which he was inspired. You seem to think that the apostles had to depend upon the Bible for information just as we do; but as " holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost " ( 2 Pet. 1: 21 ), you are mistaken. " The simple truth is," the Spirit gave us the New Testament through inspired men, and it does not matter when the "writings were adopted by the church," it contains the teaching of Christ and the apostles, to which we must submit. The gospel was preached unto Abraham in promise, " saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed " (Gal. 3: 8); but the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ—the facts of the gospel (1 Cor. 15: 1-4)—were not proclaimed until Christ was raised from the dead. Abraham had to believe on the coming Christ and obey the commandments of God, but to contend that we are required to express our faith in the same overt acts that he did is out of the question. On the other hand, we must believe that "Jesus Christ is COME IN THE FLESH " (1 John 4: 2), and that he HAS ACTUALLY BEEN raised from the dead ( 1 Cor. 15 : 17 ); but Abraham could not believe these things, as they were not true in his day. So it is about baptism. Jesus had not said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," in the time of Abraham; but in the Christian dispensation every responsible person is commanded to be baptized.
The passage which says Christ stood as the " Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13: 8) does not contradict the scriptures which declare that he was actually slain (Matt. 27: 35) about A l). 33; but it simply teaches that he stood slain in type and prophecy.
26 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
Peter says: " But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. (1 Pet. 1: 19, 20.)
You make light of my statement that " there are only two recorded accounts of the baptism in the Holy Spirit." The manifestation of the Spirit mentioned in Acts 2 and 10 is called a " baptism;" but since you cannot find another demonstration of the Spirit called a " baptism," you are to be pitied in your search. I believe every scripture you quoted on this point, but not one of them says one word about baptism in the Spirit. Do you not know the difference between the baptismal measure and the gift of the Spirit? But the measure of the Spirit here mentioned is not promised to the man who believes ONLY, but to those that obey God. (Acts 5: 32 ) The Spirit is not given to make us sons; but " because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts" (Gal. 4: 6.) You cap the climax with these statements: " The fourth thing that God has set in the church is miracles. Will you give me your authority for setting them out? " The first thing God set in the church was " apostles," " then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12: 28.) Will you give me your authority for setting them out? Do you still have apostles in the church of which you are a member? Can you speak in unknown tongues and heal the sick? If no, why do you contend that miracles are still performed? If yes, why do you not join the Mormons?
You and Paul do not agree on Eph. 4: 5. Paul declares that there is ONE baptism; while you contend that persons are baptized in the Holy Spirit, and that the sprinkling of water upon a proper subject is baptism—not just a symbol, but the thing itself. The symbol and the thing symbolized are TWO THINGS; and if you ever agree with Paul, you will have to either give up your proposition that " sprinkling is baptism" or cease teaching that every person who is saved is miraculously baptized in the Holy Spirit, unless perchance you can prove that Paul meant TWO when he said one! As to baptism being spiritual. I agree with you; but there is a wonderful difference between that and baptism in the Spirit as the element. When we speak of Christian baptism, no one imagines that Christ is the element in which the baptism is performed; but all know that it simply means that Christ authorized it, and that it is performed in his name. So when Paul says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized" (1 Cor. 12: 13), he does not mean that the Spirit is the element, but that the Spirit directs the matter and that it is done in the name of the Spirit; hence it is spiritual. But you have surrendered the whole contention when you say: "The Spirit is the agent by which we get into Christ." If the Spirit is the agent, he cannot be the element; hence your theory of baptism IN the Spirit is exploded. Since the Spirit is the agent, will you please tell us what
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 27
the element is? In my last article I showed that when the Spirit through Peter told the Pentecostians to be baptized, and when they obeyed him, they were baptized by the Spirit. Of course the Spirit does not baptize personally; but just as Christ "baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)" (John 4: l, 2 ), so " by one Spirit we are all baptized." Christ never baptized a person with his own hands, but every person who is scripturally baptized is baptized by him. Can you see how Christ can baptize people through the instrumentality of men? Then why can you not see that a person may be baptized by the Spirit as the agent, and still see that man has a part in the matter? If you ever get your "seeing department" adjusted, you will be ashamed of this statement: "You say man, the Bible says Spirit!" Your position of the baptism of the Spirit is unique. In one breath you say the Spirit is the agent in the next you say: "Your proposition is immersion; that is Spirit poured." Pour the agent! What will you say next?
I have completely exploded your objection on the " one mediator " (1 Tim 2: 5), and do not have the time to discuss it further; but if you will find in the Bible where a person received the forgiveness of sins and the third person was not present or easily accessible, I will consider it further.
" I answered every question you asked me" I wonder! I am going to take the time and space to show just how many you answered and how you answered them.
1. " Can a man be saved who willfully refuses to be baptized? " Your answer: "If he refuses to be immersed, yes." In my reply I showed that you had missed the point, and repeated the question, following it with this statement: " Do not hide behind 'immersion,' but put your own construction on the word 'baptize.'" "But he strokes his chin and remains painfully silent," and still he has the temerity to say I answered your questions! I think you must have "smelt a mice.'' If you say a man can be saved who willfully refuses to obey the command to be baptized (Acts 10: 48), I will let John answer you:
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2: 4). If you say such a character will be lost, then away goes your "scare crows" about the man to do the baptizing and the pious unbaptized. So silence was golden. I insist that you answer it in your last.
2 " Is baptism a Christian duty? " 3. " Do not all Christian duties recur? " You say " Yes " to both of these. I then asked you: " Should baptism be repeated weekly, monthly, or yearly? " And silence was golden again; and remember, too, that he answered my questions! You are in a dilemma on this, from which escape is difficult, if not impossible. The only way out is to give up that old erroneous and unscriptural doctrine that baptism is a Christian duty. I challenge you here and now to find where Christ
28 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
ever commanded a Christian to be baptized. Will you try it? The Lord's Supper, visiting the sick, and all other Christian duties recur; and if baptism is one, you should be able to give us an example and tell us how often it should be repeated. The fact is, baptism, preceded by faith and repentance is the act by which God 'hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son" (Col. 1: 13), because we are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3: 27).
4. "Does the word 'baptism' in Gal. 3: 27 mean water baptism? " You say, " No." As I have abundantly shown that it is, I will pass on.
5. "Is baptism an act of faith?" You answer: "No, it is the sign and seal of faith." What do you mean by " the sign and seal of faith?" Please give chapter and verse for such a statement. If baptism is not an act of faith, every person who is baptized displeases God, for it is impossible to please him without faith. (Heb. 11: 6.) The truth is, baptism is an act of faith, because believers are the only ones that are commanded to be baptized. Will you please give us the passage that authorizes you to baptize persons without faith?
6. " Is baptism a work of men? " You say: "Water baptism is." I denied that and demanded the proof, but you are " painfully silent" again. Some preachers quote "not of works " and apply it to baptism; but when asked to show that baptism is a work, the demand is ignored. Brother Bagby, if your life depended upon it, you could not find a passage that even intimates that baptism is a work of man. Then why did you make the statement? You may say man submits to it. That is true; man believes also. But the Bible says faith is the work of God. (John 6: 29.) Faith, repentance, and baptism are all acts of the individual; but since God commands them, they are righteous acts of God to which man submits. (See Rom. 10: 1-4.)
7. "Are men justified by faith or by faith only?" You answer (?): " By faith," "without the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3: 28.) In my second affirmative I showed that you had evaded the question, and begged you to answer it in your reply; but again we have more "painful silence!" Bagby, I believe men are justified by faith, without the deeds of the law; but I do not believe that they are justified " BY FAITH ONLY." Do you? Will you please answer this in your next? All the scriptures that you quote that mention faith do not militate against baptism any more than they do repentance; but as they were examined in my last, I will pass on.
You claim that Paul was not commissioned to baptize, because he said, " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel " (1 Cor. 1: 17); and still we read that he did baptize some. One of two things is certain: Paul was either laboring under the great commission, which imposed baptism upon every intelligent creature (Mark 16: 15, 16), or he was in open rebellion to it, and sinned when he taught it and baptized a few. Now, to show that you do not understand the
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 29
above passage, I will show the absurdity of Your contention and shall explain the passage. Paul was ' not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel;" therefore baptism is nonessential to salvation. Let us try that logic on a similar passage. Jesus says: "I CAME NOT TO SEND PEACE, BUT A SWORD." (Matt. 10: 34.) And, according to your logic, peace is very unnecessary, if not sinful! What is the meaning? Simply that he did not bring peace only, but a sword also. So it was in the other case. Paul s mission was not simply to baptize, but to preach the gospel also. He gives his reason for mentioning this at this time in the following words: " Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." (1 Cor. 1: 15.) Then you are wrong from another consideration. You conclude that Paul did not teach baptism, and that it is nonessential, because he only baptized a few with his own hands. Christ never baptized a single person with his own hands, and still the Bible abounds with his teaching on the question. So your objection is indeed weak.
I shall now restate my arguments and close the debate on this question.
1. My first argument was based upon the commission as given by Mark: " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The Son of God connects faith and baptism by the coordinate conjunction " and;" hence they both look to the same end. (a) Faith is a condition of salvation. ( b ) Baptism is for the same purpose. ( e) Therefore baptism is a condition of salvation. You agree with the construction of the sentence, but say this is baptism in the Holy Spirit. I then showed that you were mistaken, because (1) Jesus administered Holy Spirit baptism, and the baptism of the commission was administered by man in the name of the Spirit (Matt. 28: 19); (2) the measure of the Spirit called a " baptism " was a promise to be enjoyed, while the baptism of the commission was a command to be obeyed ( Mark 16: 15, 16). Hence this argument stands unrefuted.
2. My second argument was based upon Acts 2: 36-38. I showed that repentance and baptism are connected by the coordinate conjunction " and," and that " for" cannot have two meanings in the same place at the same time; hence whatever one is " for " the other is also. ( a ) Repentance is in order to remission of sins. ( b ) Baptism is for the same purpose. (c) Therefore baptism is in order to remission of sins. Your only effort to refute it was: " They were Jews, church members." Cannot a Jew be a " penitent believer? " Nicodemus was a ruler in the Jewish church, but he had to be born of water and the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God. (John 3: 1-5.) But as I have already shown that Peter was under the great commission that included " all nations," it is useless to consider it further. Your effort on this is decidedly the weakest I ever saw. The argument stands untouched.
3. I next showed that Jesus said to Saul: " Go into the city, and it
30 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE
shall be told thee what thou must do.' (Acts 3: 6.) Ananias said unto him: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22: 16.) Therefore to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins was what he must do. The only attempt my opponent has made in reply has been to complain at the translations and tell us what the Greek "implies." The James translation, as well as the English and American Revisions, give no such rendering as you mention. The literal translation follows: " Having arisen, be thou dipped and wash thyself from the sins of thee, having invoked the name of him." Any one can see that all your talk about bad translations is worthless, and that the argument stands untouched.
4. My fourth argument was based upon the truth that forgiveness of sins is in Christ (Col. 1: 14); baptism puts a person into Christ (Gal. 3: 27); therefore baptism is a condition of the forgiveness of sins. The only thing you said about this was that it was baptism in the Spirit; but as I have explained this already, the argument stands.
This ends my work on this issue. The four specific arguments stand unrefuted; and as my opponent has had the opportunity to test them in his former replies, and as the rules of debate do not allow him to introduce new arguments in his final negative, they will remain unanswered.
I pray that the honest reader may see the truth.
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 31
BAGBY'S LAST REPLY.
I am sorry that my worthy opponent is so slow of apprehension that he takes my unappeased desire for his producing some argument to prove the terms of his proposition for aversion to the "issue." Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am not "averse " to this issue, but would like for you to stick to the proposition, which is that immersion is baptism; and all the way through the discussion you have failed to bring forth any proof in support of your position. Then you were to show that immersion is a condition to pardon, and you have made a noble effort to prove that part of the proposition; but as "a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, kindreds, and people, and tongues" were in heaven, "clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands," even when John "was in the isle that is called Patmos," about eighteen hundred years before this watery theory was ever taught, it follows that your theory is contrary to the word of God; and anything that is contrary to the plain word of God cannot be proved. In regard to your tormenting me "before the time," I will say that if you do no better in replying than you have in affirming, it will be an exceedingly mild punishment.
You say, " We are not debating the action, but the design;" but that the reader may know the terms of the proposition, I refer him to the definition of the terms as given by you; and there he will find that you are to affirm that immersion is essential to salvation, and he may look all through your argument and never find where you have made any such affirmation. No, indeed, I am not "averse" to the "issue," but I have made a vain attempt to get you to affirm your proposition.
You are wrong again when you say that I have made an "argument" on your "side of the question" when I said the people were "cleansed" and "sanctified" by sprinkling. I said they were ritualistically " sanctified " by sprinkling—that is, the water was symbolic of purity. Pure first, then water symbolizes that purity. Not only so, but this is what the Bible says about it; and "he therefore that despiseth" what I have said about it " despiseth not man, but God." Therefore my position is not in contradiction to, as you seem to think, but in harmony with, the apostle Peter in 1 Pet. 3: 21, where he says: " Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer [or symbol] of a good conscience [one already good]." The word " conscience " stands for the inward moral and spiritual life of man. (See Tit. 1: 15; Heb. 9: 14.)
We are now able to see clearly what Peter means. He means that
32 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
baptism is not in order to cleanse the moral and spiritual life from sin, but to symbolize the feet that the moral and spiritual nature has already been purged from sin, through faith in Christ, " to serve the living God." Many thanks to you, Brother Trice, for suggesting this strong proof that baptism is not a condition of pardon; for here Peter adds his testimony in most positive terms that baptism is not to purge or cleanse from sin. So by your own suggestion baptism is not a condition of pardon.
No, I do not " confuse," as you say, religion and salvation. As a man has to have salvation before he is a child of God, and as the "Spirit of God dwells" in his children (Rom. 8:9) I say a man out of harmony with God, a man without regeneration, has no religion; and he cannot " keep himself unspotted from the world," for he is of the world, worldly, and is in the bondage of sin. As a man has to have a dollar before he can spend it, so a man has to have religion before he can live it. So I am in perfect agreement with James 1: 27, and it is both scriptural and wise to speak of having religion, for it is the gift of God; and when anything is given to you, you have it. Therefore, Brother Trice, I am indeed sorry for you, because you cannot say you have God's Spirit dwelling in you. I had rather " display a lack of Bible information," as you say I do, and know that I am " filled with the Holy Ghost," than to know the Bible by heart and not know that I was " filled with the Spirit." Brother Trice, if you have not received the Holy Ghost, you have not yet entered into the real Christian life, do not know the " peace which passeth understanding " (Phil. 4: 7), have in no sense " Christ in you, the hope of glory " (Col. 1: 27), and you are still " in the flesh," in your natural and carnal state. If you have not the Spirit dwelling in you, certainly you need some one to weep for you.
You failed to refute my position that Christ had just as much power in his " preexisting " state as after his resurrection. So my position is true. You asked me to tell what John 6: 38 means by saying Christ came to do God's will. It means that he had laid aside his glory, not his power, to give his life a ransom for the race, it being the will of God that none should perish; and he made known this feet by the coming of Christ to suffer, not to obtain power to save, but that his saving power could be revealed to all nations when he sealed the new covenant with his own blood. So we, like Timothy, may know the Old Testament from our youth; and it, as well as the New Testament, is " able to make thee [us] wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3: 15); for the Old is not contrary to the New. In the Old, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, just as it is in the New. Both the Old and New Testaments offer salvation by faith in Christ, as I have plainly shown. Therefore we do not have to come this side of the death of Christ to learn how to be saved; and no man in all the history of Christendom ever preached such a
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. . 33
doctrine until the year 1811, or about eighteen hundred years too late for the spiritual good of all who were converted in apostolic times, if it were so. But it being false, it does not matter, only it misleads some who are not able to reach biblical conclusions.
What I said about Pentecost is neither " amusing " nor " absurd," but plain, simple truth. Every conversion recorded in the Bible was before there was a New Testament, and the apostles and Christ preached out of the only Bible that was in existence, and that was the Old Testament.
I believe with all my heart that " holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost " (2 Pet. l: 21); for if they had not, there would have been neither an Old nor a New Testament. Whenever and wherever they spoke, it was the word of truth and in keeping with recorded truth This alone gives harmony to the Scriptures, and finally led to the writings of the evangelists and apostles being adopted as a part of the holy Scriptures, and is in keeping with my argument that the Old Testament offers salvation by faith in Christ and knocks every prop from under your theory, and down it comes! Your saying that "Abraham had to believe on the coming Christ," and that we must believe that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh," is only a distinction without a difference, since it is Christ in each instant that did the saving and on the same condition—faith in him.
1 Pet. 1: 19, 20 does not help you, but me; and I cannot see why you gave it, since it is expressly against you, for it teaches that the manifested Christ saves just like the promised Christ saved Abraham.
Certainly I made light of your statement that there " are only two recorded accounts of the baptism of the Holy Spirit," because it is a plain contradiction of God's word, as I already showed by Acts 19: 6
4: 31; Eph. 5: 18; and many other passages. But you try to make a difference between " baptismal measure and the gift of the Spirit." If there be any difference at all, it is in degree, and not kind; and those that obey God (Acts 5: 32) receive the Spirit; and having obeyed him, becoming sons in the obedience of faith, God sends his testifying Spirit into the heart ( Gal. 4: 6 ) . This is in perfect agreement with my position, but contrary to yours. Besides, in Eph. 5: 18 we are, in plain words, commanded to " be filled with the Spirit."
Whatever is meant by " baptismal measure or the gift of the Spirit " or being " filled with the Holy Ghost," it is laid upon us as our duty, or, as Trice, would put it, " a command to be obeyed." Have you obeyed
You did not answer my question about miracles. I will answer ours by saying that I have set nothing out of the church that God set in. I have left, and do leave, things just as he left them; and as he said all were not apostles and that all did not have the gifts of healing I take it for granted that God will take care of those things, and I am making no great claims, knowing that God set every member in the
34 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
church it has pleased him, and I leave it like it is; but you say the days of miracles are over, and thereby presume to put out what God put in. I do not join the Mormons because I prefer the church of Christ, which he has cleansed with his own blood.
Brother Trice, you are mistaken again about Paul's not agreeing with me. We do agree on Eph. 4: 5. He says one baptism, and so do I; and that is Holy Spirit baptism, and water is but a symbol, as Peter says (1 Pet. 3: 21), of the one spiritual baptism that gives a good conscience toward God. Therefore, I am free from any obligation of proving " that Paul meant two when he said one; " for he meant one, and that one is the miraculous baptism of the Holy Spirit—the baptism one receives in the act of believing, when he is saved from all past sins. So I shall continue teaching the one baptism that Paul, Peter, and all the inspired writers taught, and symbolize that with water.
No one ever thought that Paul meant element when he said, " By one Spirit are we all baptized" (1 Cor. 12: 13), and I am just as far from believing that he meant man; but he did mean that the Spirit is the agent by whom it is done; and the effect is, the soul is " quickened " into a new life and " born of the Spirit." By comparing spiritual things with spiritual, which to the uninitiated is foolishness, it is easy to see that the Spirit can be the agent, and as such " shed forth ' his quickening power by direct contact with our souls and cleanse us from our sins. The Bible says: " But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye e are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6: 11.) Here the Spirit is the agent by whom the " washing, sanctifying, and justifying " were done. That is just what I say. So my theory of baptism by the Spirit is not " exploded," as you said it was, but is sustained by the Bible, which says again: " He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly." (Tit. 3: 5, 6 ) Trice, says the Spirit directs the matter, and that it is done in the name of the Spirit. The Bible says it is done by the Spirit. I like the Bible better, for I know that the Bible is true.
No, Brother Trice, I do not have to get my " seeing department " adjusted. I see things just as they are written in the Book and take the Book just as it is, and I can already see that dipping the body in water cannot cleanse the soul, hut it must be done by the Spirit working in us. "It is God which worketh in you." (Phil. 2: 13.) So says the Bible. " God is a Spirit." (John 4: 24.) That is what the Bible says, and that is what I say. Thus you are the one to be ashamed of your statement. You say that my " position of the baptism of the Spirit is unique." Yes, it has the peculiarity of God s word. I neither add to nor take from the precious Book. That is why I can refute your watery proposition so easily.
I hasten to confess that your having " completely exploded " my
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 35
"objection on the one mediator " produced the least effect of any explosion of which I have ever read. But, dear reader, turn to my objection and you will find that it is his position, and not my objection, that is "completely exploded."
In regard to the bombast you got off about obeying the command to be baptized (Acts 10: 48), I will say that they were not baptized in order to be saved, but were baptized with water because they had been baptized with the Holy Ghost and were already saved. ( See verses 44, 45.)
The words in 1 John 2: 4 agree with my position. I say that a man gets into God by faith; then he is saved and knows God; and to keep saved he must keep God's commandments; and if he does not do this, he is a liar in saying that he is saved and knows God. One of the plain commandments of God is, " Be filled with the Spirit " (Eph. 5: 18), and John says he who does not keep this commandment is a liar. So Peter, Paul, John, and I have agreed, as we always do, for I teach only what the apostles taught; and I have answered you, as you requested.
Most of your argument about whether or not I have answered your questions respecting Christian duties has been previously answered. That part of it that has not, I take pleasure in answering it. You say that every person who is baptized with water displeases God, if baptism is not an act of faith. No, you are mistaken about that. Paul circumcised Timothy, and he had no faith in circumcision, but did it " because of the Jews" (Acts 16: 3), and there is no record that it displeased God. I believe Heb. 11: 6 in the sense that it is used, and that is, faith brings us into a state of spiritual life that pleases God, and without this faith it is impossible to please him. But no inspired writer ever said: "Without immersion it is impossible to please God." So immersion is not necessary to please, but faith is; and the one who exercises this faith has everlasting life ( John 3: 36 ), is born of God (John 5: 1), is justified from all things (Acts 13: 38, 39), as I have proved before. Therefore, Trice's proposition goes down before the plain word of God. Yes, Brother Trice, I believe that men are justified by faith, as I have shown above.
1 Cor. 1: 17 says Paul was not sent to baptize. I only gave the Scriptures on it; so your fight is not against me, but Paul. And Matt 10: 34 does not render Paul s statement false, but confirms it. The trouble is, your explanation is false. He did not mean " peace only, but a sword.' If he had, he would have said it; for I think the Christ was capable of saying what he means. This does not mean that he never used symbolic expressions, for he did; but when he did use such expressions, somewhere near by he had used the true relation of words in their common significance. Such is not the case here. But the plain meaning of his words in Matt. 10: 34 is: " There shall be separation in the closest earthly ties (verses 35, 36); but my claims are
36 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
paramount (verses 37, 38), and on your relation to them depends everything hereafter (verse 39)." Hence the plain meaning of Paul's words is: " Baptism is not essential to salvation, but the gospel of grace is, for grace is the source and faith the condition of pardon. Therefore I am come or sent to preach the gospel of salvation." Down goes your watery proposition again!
I come now to your restating your arguments, and, to show that I have more than refuted them, I shall sum up my rebuttals. I have proved ( 1 ) that if you were right in your contention about Heb. 9: 15-18, that Christ made his last will and testament and gave it validity by his death, that his resurrection three days later rendered it null and void; and so we have no New Testament, if you were right. Therefore you are wrong. See my argument for true meaning. ( 2 ' I proved that baptism in Mark 16: 16 means spiritual baptism, because it is an inward thing that believes, sins, and needs conversion, and it takes Spirit to produce spiritual effect; that we get into Christ by Spirit baptism, and not by a middleman or carnal priest; that God, and not man, sets all the members in the true church of God, or body of Christ. Therefore it is Spirit baptism, and not water baptism. So his first argument is " completely exploded." Reader, look at my first reply for my complete argument and learn the " truth as it is in Jesus." (3) 3) I showed that Trice's theory is against the plain word of God (1 Tim. 2: 5), because he makes it impossible for the sinner to be saved without water and a man to immerse; and the Bible says there is one mediator, and that does not mean three. Therefore, immersion is not in order to pardon. (4) I proved that his second argument was false, because Peter's sermon could not have been addressed to any other congregation than that to which it was addressed; that these Jews had rejected Christ, had " crucified and slain " him and would have nothing to do with him and would not accept him as Christ. So Peter commands them to make atonement for their crime as far as they could. So he says, " Repent "—that is, "alter at once the thing you have been; and though you cannot alter the thing you have done in crucifying the Christ, yet you can show that you are willing to make atonement as far as possible. Therefore you must accept him as your Savior by being 'baptized every one of you' in the name of the one whom you rejected and crucified, and thereby acknowledge that you are bounder to him for 'the remission of sins.'" As the sermon was addressed to those who had killed Christ, and to them alone, Trice's position is false. See my full argument for the mode. (5) I proved his third argument false, because Paul's sins were washed away in prayer, and not in baptism, as six translations of the English Bible show. But Trice says that the literal is, " Having arisen, be thou dipped and wash thyself from the sins of thee, having invoked the name of him," all of which is not so. Paul was in "the house of Judas;" Ananias "entered into the house;" Paul received his sight, and "standing up
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 37
was baptized." Reader, do you not think that was a funny dip? Did you ever before hear of a fellow standing in a dwelling place, where people live, and being dipped in the house? Such an idea is absurd. Down goes this argument also! (6) I proved that his fourth argument is false, because it is Spirit baptism that puts one in Christ (1 Cor. 12: 13) and the Spirit is received by faith (Gal. 3: 2, 3), which shows that when a person breaks off from sin and by faith surrenders his soul to God and believing, he is at once received into the kingdom of God and filled with the Spirit; and since the Spirit is received when one exercises living faith, it follows that one gets into Christ by Spirit baptism, and not by water. Therefore, Trice's fourth argument is "completely exploded."
I have refuted every argument that he made, my dear reader. I ask you to carefully read the discussion and see the facts as presented. I appeal to you to accept the argument that is sustained with the greatest evidence of fact.
Now, Brother Trice, we have found by a close study of the word that Abraham was saved by faith. "He believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness; " and we are saved in the same way, for faith is the fundamental principle of salvation. It is Christ that saves in the two dispensations, both in the old and the new; for it cannot be otherwise, since we believers " are blessed with [not apart from] faithful Abraham." (Gal. 3: 9.) Paul shows how Abraham had the heirship, the sonship, the kingdom, the glory, on the ground of the promise; and, of course, he did not receive the promise only for his children; for if we were to take the promise of the Spirit from Abraham, we would also take it from ourselves. We cannot exclude the father of the family and admit only the children. So the way of salvation is the same in both dispensations, as I have proved. The Old Testament saints were saved exactly like New Testament saints—by faith in " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Since we are all saved by faith in Christ, we conclude that baptism is not in order to be saved, but a beautiful symbol of a heart cleansed from Sill by the Holy Spirit.
All of your effort to prove that immersion is in order to pardon has been in vain. You could have done it if it could have been done, for in this part of the country your dogma has no more venerable name than W. Halliday Trice; but even Trice, a debater of enviable fame, cannot prove a doctrine that is contrary to the word of God.
Now I have done. This is my first experience in real debating; but since I have the word of Almighty God on my side, I am not afraid of the most learned teacher in the school and learning of the doctrine that Brother Trice proclaims. I do not do the work, but the plain word of God—it does the work.
May the reading of this discussion prove a blessing to the reader and lead him into the truth as it is in Christ Jesus.
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 39
PROPOSITION.--" The Bible teaches that the sprinkling or pouring of water upon a proper subject is baptism." J. T. Bagby affirms; W. H. Trice denies.
BAGBY'S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE.
I discuss this proposition with no view at all of defending any denomination, creed, or ism, but with the purpose of showing just what "is noted in the Scripture of truth" concerning it.
We want in this age, above all wants, information—information that will rouse individuals to seek the truth as it is in " the oracles of God " (Rom. 3: 2), and become devout, zealous, joyful believers, "filled with the Spirit," thereby becoming members of the one true church—the church outside of which there is no salvation and in which all the members have the same marks; for in the one true church all the members are born of the Spirit, possess " repentance towards God, faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," and holiness of life and conversation.
It is not, therefore, in a spirit of controversy, but in a spirit of love, bent on presenting the truth of the Bible in such a way that prejudices, even the strongest, may melt away, thereby giving every one an opportunity of studying the proposition with an unbiased mind.
I will now give the terms of the proposition: " The Bible"—the hook created by the breath of God; the authoritative, final court of last appeal; the very utterance and voice of God; the Old and New Testament. " Teaches"—to enlighten by express statements or necessary inference. " Sprinkling or pouring of water is baptism." Proper subjects—one who makes a credible profession of repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and infants, who are also the subjects of redeeming grace.
My conception and estimate of the Old Testament must be no lower and no less than were the high conceptions and estimate of our Lord and his apostles for that inestimable book. What my Lord and his apostles regarded as the " breath of God " I must so regard in opposition to every breath of man that dares to breathe against the most sacred, age-established, and time-honored book of the world. Jesus and the apostles always recognized the Old Testament as the court of last appeal for mankind, and Jesus said concerning it, " Ye do err, not
40 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
knowing the scriptures;" and Paul said, " It is able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Thus we find that the Old Testament is a book of which Christ is the key, and beginning at any point we may preach Jesus. So the ordinances of the Christian church, or the church of God, were brought into use under the covenant of promise, and no new thing has ever been added to the church under the new covenant. Circumcision was taken away and due notice given of it, and the killing of the lamb in the Passover was taken away; but the cup and the bread were retained in the Lord's Supper, and baptism by direct command is retained; but nothing new has been added. It was necessary for a clear understanding of the proposition to call your attention to these things, for they are the fundamentals of a clear testimony to the truth. Since the Bible is the criterion by which we are to determine the controversy, I shall now call your attention "to the law and to the testimony " (Isa. 8: 20) and make the Bible the supreme authority in defining its own terms.
Now, God and his Son and the inspired Bible writers have defined " baptized;" and, for me, I prefer their definition to that of any great scholar of a later day. Isa. 44: 3, speaking for God, said: " I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon shine offspring." Joel 2: 28 said: " I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh." Jesus calls this pouring out of the Spirit " baptism," for he says: "John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 1: 5.) Here Jesus uses " baptize " to represent the action of water and Spirit in baptism, and Peter said that this pouring out of the Holy Ghost reminded him that Jesus had said: "John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10: 44, 45. )
Thus we find that Christ and the inspired writers define " baptize " to pour when used in reference to Holy Ghost baptism; and if "baptizo" has any other meaning in the New Testament than that of affusion, the Bible has not seen fit to give that meaning; but the express terms used in the Bible to show how Holy Spirit baptism was administered are " come upon," ' fell on," " pour out,'' and 'shed forth." (Acts 1: 8; 10: 44; 2: 17; 2: 33.)
1 John 5: 8 says: " There are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." We know how the Spirit and the blood were applied. It was by pouring. (See Acts 1: 8; 2: ;7; John 1: 32.) Hence it follows that as the water has to agree in action with the Spirit and the blood, it, too, has to be poured out. It cannot be gainsaid that the New Testament says " baptize " means to pour. Will my opponent find where the New Testament says that " baptize " means immerse?
I call your attention to the fact that water, in the Bible, is a symbol of innocence and purity, the one implying the other. " I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O Lord'
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 41
(Ps. 26: 6); " I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency" (Ps. 73: 13). In these scriptures the water symbolizes innocency and purity before God, and anticipates the inward cleansing. All through the Bible water and Spirit are named or implied together— one, inward; the other, outward. Of course all inward purity can only he had through " the blood of sprinkling " applied by the Spirit, as these passages abundantly show: (a) " Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 1: 2.) (b) "The blood of Christ . . . shall purge your conscience . . . to serve the living God." (Heb. 9: 14.) And these scriptures associate water with the purity that comes only through the merit of the blood of Christ. (1) " Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. ..0: 22.) (2) " That soul shall be cut off from among the congregation [church], because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him." (Num. 19: 20.) And the water is a symbol of the Spirit by which we are actually cleansed, as these passages show: (a) " Wash shine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved." (Jer. 4: 14.) (b) " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty: . . . I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon shine offspring." (Isa. 44: 3.) (c) " Thou becamest mine. Then washed I thee with water." (Ezek. 16: 8, 9.) (d) " He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Tit. 3: 5.) (e) " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10: 47.) The water being associated with the work of the Spirit in all these passages, as well as innumerable other ones, shows conclusively that water is symbolic of the purity effected by the Spirit's application of the blood of Christ. This enables us to see that baptism is symbolic of the Spirit's work. Heb. 9: 13, " Sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," agrees with what I have said before, and here the water indicates the typical cleansing and is declarative of its work. All these washings were done with the sprinkling of water or of blood. (Num. 8: 7; Heb. 9: 17-22.)
Paul calls those sprinklings of Moses " divers baptisms," and uses the same word that Christ used in the great commission. Thus we have Paul saying that " baptize " means sprinkle or pour; and those " divers baptisms," as we have shown, were typical of purity. The person had to wash after he was purified to declare and symbolize the feet So the Bible teaches that baptism is done by sprinkling and that it denotes cleansing. Will Brother Trice please show me inside the lids of any respectable translation of the Bible on the face of the earth where " baptize " is rendered "immerse?"
Again, the Bible says that God should raise up a prophet among the
42 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
Jews like Moses. (Deut. 18: 15, 18.) This, of course, means that this new prophet would preach the law and administer the ordinances of the church after the manner of Moses. John was under the same covenant as Moses and preached the same law of inward purity, and symbolized that fact by baptizing with water, as is shown by these words: " There arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." (John 3: 25, 26.) Notice that John's baptism and that which Christ was having administered are here called " purifying," because it is still symbolical of inward purity; and if its significance was ever changed, Brother Trice will please give us the scripture that says so.
Now, when John came, he did so much like Moses the Jews thought that he must be " that prophet;" so they sent " priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? " (John 1: 19.) "Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No." (Verse 21.) "And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizeth thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" (Verse 25.) Any intelligent person knows from this scripture that the point of similarity between John's work and the work of Moses was his baptism, because the priests and Levites were so deeply impressed with the point of similarity that they asked why he baptized. Since John baptized like Moses, we do not have to guess how John baptized; for that has been settled for us by the Bible. Paul tells us plainly how Moses baptized. Heb. 9: 19 says: " For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people." Therefore, John's baptism " with water " was sprinkling. according to the word of the Lord; and as the baptism that Christ had his disciples to administer was, like John's, a " purifying," and as Christ was really the one that was to come, administering the ordinances of the church like Moses, his, too, is by sprinkling. If not, those who teach otherwise must give a " thus saith the Lord" for the contrary.
Now, I want to take up a few cases of baptism and show that they are in keeping with what I have said and proved by the Bible, that the mode of baptism has always been sprinkling or pouring. I will now take the first recorded case of the baptism of men, women, and children. This baptism took place nearly sixteen hundred years before John came preaching repentance, and God himself did this baptizing, and Paul says that he would not have us ignorant about this first baptism. In Ex. 14: 22, 29 we read: " But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea." 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2 says: "All our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Ps. 68: 9
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE 43
says: " Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary." Notice what we have given here: (1) They were in the sea; (2) they were under the cloud; (3) they were on dry ground; (4) God sent a plentiful rain; (5) they were baptized. In speaking of this baptism administered by "a plentiful rain" from the cloud, Paul uses the identical word that Christ uses in the commission; and if this pouring of rain from a cloud was baptism, as Paul says it was, when God himself did the baptizing, then it follows that in our day sprinkling is baptism. Now we are prepared to make these statements:
1. In all cases in the Bible where the mode of baptizing (Spirit) is given it is pouring.
2. In all cases where the mode in the allusions to baptism is given it is effusion.
3. In all cases where such words as " cleanse " and " sanctify " are used, referring to water, all agree it points to baptism, as Eph. 5: 26, it is effusion.
4. Immersion as an ordinance of the Christian church is a stranger and foreigner to the whole Bible; and if these statements are not so, let Trice bring forth proof to the contrary.
Since immersionists claim that Christ was immersed, I deem it best to consider his baptism more closely. We have already shown that John baptized under the Mosaic dispensation; that his baptism was a "purifying;" that cleansing or purifying was done by sprinkling. (Num. 8: 7; Ezek. 36: 25 ) All these things are proof that Jesus was sprinkled. Besides all this, Matt. 3: 13 says: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." It was "at" the Jordan, not "in" or "into" it. Mark 1: 9 has it " eis," which immersionists translate "into." I could cite vast numbers of places where " eis " means " to," " at," or " by," as in these cases: At Carmel (1 Kings 18: 19), at Jordan (1 Kings 2: 6), to Jordan (2 Kings 2: 6 ) . But Matthew says that it was at ( " epi " ) Jordan; and the Greek Testament (Mark 1: 10) says " he came immediately from ["apo"] the water." Since he was baptized "at" the Jordan under a dispensation of sprinkling, and came immediately from the water, we know that he was not immersed. Besides, we are not told that Jesus went into the water, and we are only informed that he came from the water. All that supports the idea of immersion is the fact that he was baptized at Jordan. So you see that it is a very slender thread that supports the idea of immersion; but as there are many strong reasons why he was sprinkled, one of which is that he came not "to destroy, but to fulfill" a law (Matt. 5: 17) that demanded sprinkling for cleansing, and his own baptism was called a "purifying," therefore he was not immersed. I want my opponent to tell why Jesus was baptized. In whose name was he baptized, and upon what profession of faith?
44 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
Seeing that our position is fortified thus far by the Bible, we will now examine briefly the baptism on the day of Pentecost. How did the apostles baptize on the day of Pentecost? This is a very important question, because this was the first case of baptism performed under the new covenant. If the rite of baptism was now changed from the he sprinklings of the Mosaic law to immersion, now is the time for Peter to tells us; but he does not give us one word of information about it. If three thousand persons went marching out to the pool of Bethesda, or Siloam, or any other place, in order to be baptized, accompanied by thousands of others who would naturally follow out of curiosity, it was certainly a spectacle worthy of notice; but Luke does not give us an expression that will allow us to think such a thing possible. Peter was reading from the prophets, explaining and expounding as he went, telling them that Pentecost was a direct fulfillment of prophecy. The people were "pricked in their heart," and said: " What shall we do? " Peter answered: " Repent, and be baptized every one of you," etc. " For the promise is unto you, and to your children." (Acts 2: 39.) Therefore the children of believing parents are to be baptized also; and in Paul's writings it is plainly stated that even if one of the parents be a heathen, the children of a believing parent are not to be left out. (1 Cor. 7: 14.) This clearly shows that infants— "those that suck the breasts" (Joel 2: 15-17)—are a part of the New Testament church, the same as they were of the Old. As the blood of Christ covers their condition, and as they are innocent and in a saved condition—the same condition to which conversion brings sinners (Matt. 18: 1-5; Eph. 2: 13-19)—they of all the human family are most properly entitled to baptism.
But let us see what prophecy told of Pentecost and the events that transpired. Let us take the items as given by prophecy and compare them with what happened on the ever-memorable day of Pentecost:
PROPHECY—Ezek. 36: 24 says: " For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land."
FULFILLMENT—Acts 2: 5 says: "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."
Here is an accurate and literal fulfillment of the prophecy. Let us take the next item and see how it turns out.
Ezek. 36: 25: "Then [at that time] will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you."
Acts 2: 41: " Then [at that time] they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
Here is another accurate and literal fulfillment of the prediction, unless the apostles wrested the "scriptures unto their own destruc-
BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE. 45
tion" and substituted immersion for baptism. Let us take the next item:
Ezek. 36: 26. "A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh."
Acts 2: 46: "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."
Another fulfillment, and a genuine conversion set forth.
Ezek. 36: 27: "And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."
Acts 2: 4: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Here is another accurate and literal fulfillment, making four successive items of prophecy recorded in the same chapter, verse after verse—all fulfilled to the letter, on one single day, and set down in one single chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Unless they departed from the he plain word of God and invented immersion for baptism; and the very last item of the prophecy makes that substitution impossible, for it says: " I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes "—the "forever statutes" that Moses walked in, that John the Baptist walked in; and one of those " forever statutes" of God is that baptism is to be performed by sprinkling. This mode has never changed, and never will. Let me state the four things necessary to fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy: (1) The gathering of the Jews. They were gathered and present on Pentecost. ( 2 ) Sprinkling clean water upon them. Three thousand were baptized. (3) The renewing of the heart. They received that. (4) Receiving God's Spirit within. They were all filled. If ever there was a prophecy fulfilled, this prophecy of Ezekiel was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and the apostles baptized the first converts by sprinkling. This is where Peter used one of the keys of "the kingdom of heaven" and admitted the Jews to the new covenant. Now we will go with him to the house of Cornelius, where he uses the other key and admits Gentiles to the church of God. As he preached, the Holy Ghost was poured out upon them. This reminded him of Pentecost and of baptism. So he said: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? " Acts 10: 47.) Or, to put the language in modern form: "Will some one bring water that these may be baptized?" "And [when the water was brought] he commanded them to be baptized," and the Gentiles were admitted to the church by God's " forever statute " of sprinkling.
Let us next consider the eunuch's baptism, which is the clearest case of baptism by sprinkling that is to be found anywhere in the New Testament. He was in a desert, riding along the road, reading Isaiah, where it tells about the coming of Christ and the establishing
46 BAGBY-TRICE DEBATE.
of his kingdom. Philip began at that place and preached unto him Christ, and explained the prophecy to the eunuch, telling him that Christ was the one that purified the heart by pouring out his Spirit, and as a sign of that fact he would " sprinkle " the nations. That expression occurs just seven verses from where the eunuch was reading, and the Bible was not divided into chapters and verses then, but in subjects; and when Philip came to that, he told the eunuch that "sprinkling" was baptism. So when they came to a little spring, as the eunuch's words imply, he seems surprised to find water, and says "Behold, water!" Not "much water," not deep water; but "ti hudor," some water, as it were, in a manner, enough water to notice, and here Philip baptized him. Of course they had to go down from the chariot to the water; then they had to come back up into the chariot. But we know that Philip preached baptism by sprinkling, for the Bible tells us that he was reading where it is so stated; and, besides this, the Gentiles had not been admitted to the church, and the law of Moses was strictly kept for years after this, and this law required running water. That the law of Moses was kept for years after this, see Acts 15: 1-20; all of 21; and Gal 3. This is further proof that he was sprinkled, for the law that Philip kept required such.
The baptism of Paul, of Lydia's household, and of the jailer's household are such clear, undeniable proofs of baptism by sprinkling that I will not examine them now.
Now, I will ask Brother Trice this question: If the word "sprinkle" in all of these passages that I have considered, and the many others that I could have considered, a word that occurs forty-seven times in the Old |