Name:
Location: MO

Monday, December 19, 2005

Sadler quote

“He (St. Paul) was a chosen vessel of God, to bear His name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. To this end, he must be accredited to the Church around him, have their confidence, and work with and by means of them. It became, therefore, indispensable that he should not only be washed from his sins in the sight of God by the Baptism made without hands, but also in the sight of the Church by the Baptism made with hands. Hence the exhortation of Ananias to him, “Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away they sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee. You are His; avow yourself such without delay. You are His soldier, secretly but really enlisted: enroll yourself in the ranks openly, according to His general orders. You are a pardoned sinner before God: proclaim it before men.”

Let the reader, having perused this, now turn to the extracts I have given in Appendix B from Luther and Cranmer. Let him particularly notice that, whereas Luther and Cranmer account Baptism to be, under all circumstances, and act of God, the writer of the above considers it to be, under all circumstances, and act of the man baptized—simply a practical proof, as well as a significant act, of his inward submission to God. Now, if this be the meaning and intent of Baptism, inasmuch as no one soul can really know the sincerity of another, it seems to me that Baptism, by the hand of any minister whatsoever, is a pure mockery, for no man can really vouch for the sincerity of his fellow-man. And so, to carry out fully this idea, not only must the Baptism of Infants be at once abandoned, but that of adults, by any hands except their own.
If Baptism be an avowal of sincerity, inasmuch as each individual is the sole judge of his own sincerity, each man ought to baptize himself. From the preceding extracts, one would imagine that the leading view of Baptism which we find in the New Testament is that it is a profession of faith; whereas, in no one single place in the New Testament is Baptism said to be a profession of faith, or an avowal of faithfulness.
I repeat again, the place cannot be named where it is said to be a profession. The place cannot be named where it is not connected with spiritual grace, supposed to be bestowed in it. There is, of course, a profession of faith to be made before a man can be baptized; but this takes place before the Baptism, and the Baptism itself is always the act of another, in the name of His who commissioned him.

- M.F. Sadler in “The Second Adam and The New Birth”

3 Comments:

Blogger T A Lucas said...

The scripture quote is from Acts 22 where Paul is giving is side of what happened to him. And the first paragraph is a quotation that Sadler is quoting from someone else, and then comments on. Baptism and its efficacy has been a challenging one for me.

10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Howdy. This is Jeremy Sauder, the new PK.

10:35 AM  
Blogger T A Lucas said...

Thanks for the write up Jeff, but I will have to disagree with Tertulian, though I don’t do so lightly. I think his view of children born to Chrisitan parents is off. Why must he use the verse dealing with not giving holy things to dogs or pearls to swine. He is saying that these children born to Christians are dogs and swine whereas the Apostle Paul would call them holy in 1 Corinthians. The reference to Phillip and the Eunuch is a bit problematic because if this is our template to baptizm than rarely will one be baptized. How often is it that God would translate one to a spot where you encounter one reading a portion of Isaiah? Besides what constitues a clear declaration of a person’s faith? Also, how was Simon notified that Paul was “an appointed vessel of election”? He was notified by God. How often does this occur for a normal person? I would say that no one is notified of a person’s election in the sense that you know for a fact that that individual will not apostacize.

Tertulian also down plays the significance of baptizm as if Jesus was kidding about what the apostles/disciples were to be doing when he (Tertulian) says, “For why is it necessary-if (baptism itself) is not so necessary”. Who says that baptism is unnecessary? And his reason for not baptizing is a ridiculous reason. Who knows who is going to persevere in their faith? We don’t but we still baptize. Who knew that Korah was going to rebel? Yet, he was still circumcised. Tertullian’s answer is to let the children come and keep coming but denying why Christ was saying this. Jesus was giving a blessing to the children, He wasn’t advocating for the children to have a spot next to him so as to hear Him better. Christ wasn’t enamored by the cuteness of children and just wanted to cuddle with them. He was wanting them to have a part of Him. Do not prevent them, yet that is what Tertullian is advocating for. “If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.” Fear of baptism is fine, but I fear the spiritual death of a child who is prevented from the grace of God for 10+ years when there is no biblical warrant for such abuse. Households were baptized in the book of Acts and this would include children and slaves. There you have bible the other is pragmatism.

3:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home