Darby Baptism

A long article, the end is just as important as the start, so read all if you have time.

The concept that baptism did not require a distinct faith in the individual was passed from Augustine's day on down to the protestant reformation. The Anglican church accepting infant baptism and with it the concept that a true faith is not a requirement. The Plymouth brethren who had come from Anglican roots continued to teach the concept in the Americas.

All who accept infant baptism do so because they believe infants and some unbelieving adults were baptized in the cloud and sea coming from Egypt. Much of this article covers that.

It isn't a good argument because all baptisms are different. There is no evidence that it has to be applied as they apply it. Each baptism was different.

Heb 6:2  Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Christianity taught multiple and distinct baptisms, but practiced only one. Not every detail of the Red Sea baptism transfers to New Testament baptism.

1. Red Sea baptism was one generation, and they walked on dry ground. They didn't get wet.

2. John's baptism was in water and for repentance and toward the remission of sins..

3. Christian baptism was in water, an act of repentance, for the remission of sins, and a requirement to be sealed by the Holy Spirit.

There is no proof Christ or the apostles applied the Red Sea crossing toward Christians in every detail. The possibility is there but it is presumptuous.

2Pe 2:10  But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

We shouldn't act presumptuously with such ordinances.

We should stop and note that Darby is a good example that Alexander Campbell or the Campbellites as his followers were called did not come from Anglicanism. There were protestants who did. Darby wrote in his letter to a Baptist,

The Campbellites have this view of it as an ordinance, but with grievous errors, and false in itself, as man's act and not as becoming a Christian.

Thus in Darby we see a distinction between the Plymouth Brethren, Baptists, and Churches of Christ. Baptists and Campbellites were almost identical in doctrine concerning baptism from the 10th century to the 18th century, while the Plymouth Brethren disagreed over infant baptism. Concerning the 1000 year reign of Christ all were in some respects divided. Darby misrepresented the teaching of Campbell by saying Campbell's baptism was not to become a Christian, which was false. Campbell believed baptism was to become a Christian.The point is that the Campbellites weren't Anglican at all.

The Baptists and Church of Christ both taught the same baptism, the Baptists split off in that area in different regions during this period. We see Darby was presumptuous and spoke evil of people falsely.

       Anglican's saw baptism as an ordinance the church carries out over believers and unbelievers alike. Darby cited the Red Sea crossing as an example of believers and unbelievers being baptized together.

We know this is false because Exodus says they believed.All those who were baptized in God's view.

Exo 14:31  And Israel saw that great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians: and the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses.

Catholics and Darby were mistaken because the New Testament text says those baptized in the sea had "an evil heart of unbelief", this after crossing the sea; at the time of the crossing they saw the power of God firsthand, at the time of crossing they believed. Even the infants and children were witnesses to the degree they could later remember. Children three and up would likely be able to tell their grand children later. Thus, there is no example of unbelief at the crossing, this came later in the wilderness. The scripture says they departed from the living God. This would not contextually apply to infants.

Also most laws were for the congregation, those able to willfully congregate.

Heb 3:7  Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

Heb 3:8  Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

Heb 3:9  When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

Heb 3:10  Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

Heb 3:11  So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

Heb 3:12  Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Heb 3:13  But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Heb 3:14  For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Heb 3:15  While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

Heb 3:16  For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

Heb 3:17  But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

Heb 3:18  And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

Heb 3:19  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

You can see Paul said the unbelievers departed later vs being in unbelief  at the Red Sea crossing. Unbelief is a reference to the next 40 years. All adults were believers and even those passed the age of reason. Darby was incorrect in his application.

Plus the males were killed by the Egyptians, there is no proof there were male babies. There is no proof there were true infants at all, God could close the wombs, or because of the Egyptians they may have stopped trying.

Unbelief is a reference to the time in the wilderness. When crossing the red sea they were fed and partook of the meat God gave. They later departed from God according to the Hebrews passage. Remember they had personally seen the 10 plagues and saw the waters parted.

1Co 10:1  Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

1Co 10:2  And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

1Co 10:3  And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

1Co 10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1Co 10:5  But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

All who crossed through the sea who were counted in this baptism were believers in some respect, being personal witnesses. There is no mention of infants. The use of the word "all" is people who could eat and drink spiritually, thus not infants.

The youngest babies were likely not under bondage, since they would not be required to work for the Egyptians until a certain age. They were under the laws of Egypt, but servitude did not start at birth.

Believer's baptism is an opportunity to share the faith today, by using it to teach the Gospel in the process of teaching baptism, in the explanation of baptism they become believers beforehand. Before being baptized, as the apostles taught the Gospel first. It is impossible to properly teach baptism and not teach the gospel.

Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Darby's view of baptism was essentially Catholic, teaching people did not have to have a basic understanding of the Gospel to be baptized. He used the great commission to say baptism was not the responsibility of the baptized, but the baptizer.

"The command was to baptise, not to be baptised, and this makes all the difference. "

Though in the commission Darby is correct, Christ was only addressing the duty of the Apostles to make disciples and baptize, we know from Acts 2 in Peter's sermon that it was equally the believers duty.

Act 2:38  Then Peter said unto them, 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.

Thus Darby's argument fell apart, for the command when addressing those becoming disciples was to "be baptized."

Darby insisted against baptism as an act of obedience.

The command was to baptise, not to be baptised, and this makes all the difference. It is not an act of obedience, in this the scripture is quite clear. Acts 8. (verse 37 is not genuine*), he says, "what doth hinder me to be baptised?" it was a privilege to be obtained; but the words do not allow the idea of obedience, but exclude it. So Acts 10, 47, "can any man forbid water?" - a privilege, no idea of obedience, but an admission into the christian estate consequent on the proof that God would have him: and indeed it would be cruel to make it a matter of obedience, as no man can fulfil it; another must do it for him. The admission to a privilege cannot be a matter of obedience, though obedience gives privileges as such. But the real point is, the passages prove that it was the act of the baptiser, not of the baptised. And this changes its whole nature. It is said, Where are children commanded to receive baptism? of course they are not, nor believers. Ordinances are never the subject of commands. They are ordained and rightly used, but never obedience in him who profits by them; it would deny the very nature of Christianity, and destroy the blessing for him who partakes of it.

Darby argues incorrectly and shows he rejected Acts 8:37, it is left out of Catholic Bibles,for baptism was indeed an act of obedience to Christ as the Son of God. Baptism was an act of obedience whether you accept Acts 8:37 or not

Rom 6:17  But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

http://jndarby.blogspot.com/2006/11/jn-darby-defends-infant-baptism.html

Darby also taught falsely saying baptism did not require a personal conversion. Though he held as Catholics that baptism was for the remission of sins, he saw this as a blessing apart from personal conversion.

Another important principle destroyed by the Baptist system is the existence of a divinely instituted place in which blessing is, independently of the question of personal conversion, and to which responsibility is attached according to the blessing:

Thus he considered us blessed in Christian baptism without conversion, contradicting Peter who considered conversion and obedience as necessary elements in salvation.

Act 3:19  Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Removal of sin did indeed require conversion and obedience to Christ.

Act 3:22  For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Act 3:23  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Darby argues incorrectly that obedience is impossible, but he sees obedience as fulfillment of all moral commands whereas the Apostles teach obedience of faith where we are to obey Christ's faith commands, not a list of moral directives man would always fall short of.

Man can indeed fulfill Christ's faith commands without being required to be morally perfect. Peter says no man can forbid water (Based upon moral  or legal grounds, even among Gentiles who were not accustomed to keeping the law of Moses in a careful way.)

Act 10:47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Act 10:48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Darby says Acts 10:47 does not hint at obedience, yet the next verse positively says it is. He commanded them to be baptized, not commanded them to baptize.

Darby's argument that baptism could not be a command is simply false, but his error is the typical argument among most protestant groups. Since God did not require moral perfection to be baptized, just baptism believing in Christ's name as proven by the resurrection. How could God require moral perfection or perfect moral obedience if baptism was for the remission of sins. All men had already disobeyed. All fall short of God's glory.

Rom 1:3  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Rom 1:4  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Peter nor Paul argue belief in Christ's name apart from the resurrection, but belief by the resurrection. Baptism upon Christ's name was indeed possible and necessary.

Darby also argues baptism as a priviledge with no restriction concerning belief. To him a priviledge has no requirements, but he is incorrect again. Baptism is not called a priviledge. He says it is a priviledge to bolster his doctrine.

I did a word search for priviledge in multiple Bible versions and the word isn't in the New Testament. No inspired teachers used the word to describe baptism.

Plus it requires belief in the death and resurrection.

1Pe 3:21  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

since all powers are subject to him, including man. It is an act of obedience.

1Pe 3:22  Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

In baptism the person confirms not only the resurrection but also the ascension of Christ to authority.