Baptism:
Preacher of Church Ordinance?
Second Treatise

With all sincerity, generosity, concern for and a good feeling toward all, and antipathy toward none; this indictment is sent forth. I am aware of its many defects, nevertheless I submit it all who will expend the laborious effort required to read it, and pray God to vouchsafe it His blessing. But also let me be emphatic in saying I know nothing in this treatise, especially that which relates to doctrine, that I desire to recall.

I have tried to avoid being clumsy and rambling, and come to close grips with the subject matter, rather than do a long distance analysis. The doctrine of baptism, as far as so-called Christendom is concerned is in chaotic blackness, and it is for this reason, Baptists need to make their position on the ordinance lucid and unquestionably distinct. This I have tried to do herein, and hope to have erased some of the obscurity from the ordinance.

Some may consider this reply to be a volley of denunciation or redundant. I plead guilty to the charge, but it is a guilt of no ill to which I plead, for in the arsenal from which this volley was taken, there remaineth; as it seems, the whole. Redundancy, yes. But it is sent forth with the hope of turning aside all who would mishandle the authority of the church, and thereby dilute its independence..

To formulate this remonstrance I needed not to ask Brother Cockrell’s permission, for he, assuming his arguments were insuperable, invited me to try and unravel them. But what he did not see in his conclusions was, near to all of them was clamoring for not only examination, but rejection. Thus it is, in caring for our souls we are to know "no man after the flesh." In light of this truth, I strongly urge every reader to carefully weigh all that is advocated in these pages. In a commercial flight from one city to another, a few do the thinking for the many (Pilots, Co-pilot, Engineer, etc.), and that is as it should be. But in our flight from the city of destruction to the celestial city, we cannot safely trust our spiritual welfare to the thinking of a few men or any number of men, no matter how deft they may seem to be in charting the course. "Do not err, my beloved brethren—everyone of us shall give an account of himself unto God" (Jam. 1:16; Rom. 14:12). One lesson Baptists learned a long time ago is, they who speak the loudest do not necessarily speak for the majority.

The controversy under consideration has not to do with morals or integrity, but with the doctrine of baptism, And so it is, vilifying or defamation of character serves no purpose where arguments are not convincing. Truth needs not to resort to vicious invectives to make it acceptable, all it needs to make it both admirable and acceptable is to be presented fairly, and free from the dark clouds of sophistry. If arguments are to be rejected, the one and only valid basis for rejection is the infirmity of the arguments. Any other motive for rejection of said arguments, is but an effort to hide the real facts involved.

My aim in sending forth this book is to be constructive rather than destructive. My desire is for unity among Baptists rather than division, and I am willing to allow all the latitude which can honestly be allowed to maintain or achieve this cherished unity. However, we must realize that aggressiveness for unity, is not per se aggressiveness for correctness in doctrine, and unity obtained at the expense of orthodoxy is unprofitably high priced.

This book is not intended to be a declaration of non-fellowship with brethren or churches who may take variance with what it contends for. We are living in a day, it seems, when the least dissension is a bar to fellowship. But in fact, nothing should serve to break fellowship with a sister church which does not impeach her claims to be a New Testament Baptist church.

Fellowship is not a verb, nor can it ever be a verb, for the simple reason; fellowship is something we have, and not something we do. True churches are sisters in the faith, not because they hold the same opinions about every minute detail of doctrine and practice, but because they have the same Father and Head, Jesus Christ. the Jerusalem church being older and wiser in the things of the Lord than the church at Corinth, made allowances for the infantile conduct of the Corinthian church; and the Corinthians were used of the Lord to aid in the relief of "the poor saints" at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26; Cor 16:1-3). Paul rebuked the Galatian churches, but in so doing he said, "I have confidence in you" (Gal. 5:10).

Paul was dogmatic on all the Lord had revealed to him, and there was no price so great which could induce him to knowingly transgress the least commandment of His glorious redeemer. Paul knew how to deal with the Lord’s churches and people without sanctioning their errors, and he stood ready to make every innocent concession necessary to the enhancement of the ministry to which the Lord had called him.

Paul was willing to go along with Jewish traditions as long as they did not lead toward Sinai or the Mosaic law. He would go along with the Gentiles in their abstaining from meats sacrificed to idols, so as not to offend their weak consciences, Simply, Paul was willing to circumscribe his Christian liberty in matters of no moral significance, where no doctrinal compromise was called for. He would do this so as to "save some" from being unnecessarily offended, and thereby "gain" them or preserve his opportunity to declare unto them "all the counsel of God".

Paul would do anything this side of Scripture violation which would contribute to the furtherance of the Gospel, but he would not compromise doctrine nor Christian principle to curry favor with any man, be he the great apostle Peter, or his beloved missionary companion. Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39; Gal. 2:11-14).

I believe it is good to have and hold unyielding inflexibility on what the Scriptures teach relative to doctrine and practice, and it may be an occasion would arise making a break in fellowship unavoidable (God forbid). But the evidence prompting such an action should be indisputable and overwhelming, so as to leave no doubt the action was correct and warranted.

Pride is the mother of an exaggerated sense of self-importance, and the intolerance of such egotism will not allow for the least infraction of its preconceived opinions. The proud man says, Every person who expresses variance with what I hold to be truth, attacks me personally. When in fact, all the while, the blame does not rest with his brethren, but with his own stubbornness and cantankerousness.

Baptist history proves they have known all along that Divine grace and human pride were antagonistically exclusive. The history of their humility and self abnegation is proven by their pacific demeanor or sedate life style. Surely, it is conceded some have been afflicted with churlishness and acrimony, but these have been rare exceptions to the rule, and in the main Baptists have come down to the present time with their dogmatism and humbleness unruffled. Someone may say, But that is paradoxical. Paradoxical, Yes. But thank God, Baptists have proven it to be true by their millions of yielding martyrs.

While Baptists are neither arrogant or bigoted, they will not compromise that which has been revealed to them by the Spirit of truth. They will not surrender their convictions to sentiment or fear, and punctuate their preaching with apologetical words or gestures. Baptists take all pain so as not to be unnecessarily offensive, but they would rather a multitude be offended, than to give up any element of the Gospel which they have been called to defend. They know the pastor who bends to accommodate the errors of others, cannot make those people in his own congregation straight who are bent. But they are not unscrupulous, and will assiduously consider all viewpoints which run counter to their own. This courtesy they expect from their would-be gainsayers, but regretfully it goes wanting in the main.

In climax, let me. once again assert, we believe in "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). Scriptural baptism consists of the following, no more or no less: First, a Scriptural subject—a Holy Spirit regenerated person. Second. the Scriptural mode—complete immersion of the believer in water. Third, the Scriptural motive—not the washing away of sins, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. Not baptized in order to be saved, but to show forth in symbol the salvation which has already been wrought in the heart by the grace of God. Fourth, the Scriptural authority, namely A New Testament Baptist church. Bible baptism requireth no more than these, and any additions to or deletions from these four prerequisites makes the baptism of the person highly suspect.

I urge the reader to take all circumstances into account, and judge accordingly. Our Lord said: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

I will now close this Second Treatise on baptismal authority by quoting Elder LeRoy Pack—Pastor of Mount Pleasant Baptist Church of Chesapeake, Ohio. "Who baptizes? The preacher doesn’t baptize, the church baptizes. I don’t know how you folks feel about it, but I feel very strongly about it. I wouldn’t baptize any of you folks here into this church, for I am not a member of this church. The only way I would baptize you would be for our church to receive you, I would baptize you into our church, and then you could ask for and we would get you a letter down here.

I wouldn’t baptize anybody into this church, I don’t have that authority, YOU CAN’T AUTHORIZE ME TO, for I am not a member of this church, you see. Not a member at all, it is none of my business, I am just preaching for you." (Taken from a sermon preached in the Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Hazard, Ky. 11/28/1983. Used by permission of Brother Pack. Caps mine).

THIS IS THE BAPTIST WAY, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE BIBLE WAY.