"Teaching God's Word to God's World"
2766 Airport Road, Peru, Indiana 46970, (765) 472-4111
We want to thank Pastor Wetzel for this letter. He is to be congratulated for writing this letter for several reasons:
First: He believed, therefore he spoke. I like a man that is not afraid to publicly speak out in defense of what he believes.
Second: He is a pastor of a flock and considers my teaching heresy. He has done well to confront me for the sake of his flock. The members of his congregation should appreciate his exposing one whom he believes is guilty of attacking his sheep.
Third: The spirit of the letter is not antagonistic, but gentle and sincere.
Fourth: He has done as well as any I have read in defending his position for infant baptism and the mode of sprinkling in place of immersion.
I am, in this special issue of the Christian Guest, going to answer the letter in an honest, straight-forward approach. Having never really talked to Pastor Wetzel, except to say "Hello" at the Post Office a few times, I've never had the privilege of really getting to know Pastor Wetzel. This is good in that there will be no conflict of personalities, but merely of ideology.
Pastor Wetzel's open letter was sent to his congregation. I know of no other way of contacting his readers, than this paper. Since other persons also called to express their regrets of my publishing the article, I feel that the whole community is already involved in this study. This is good. Truth can stand investigation, and no matter which of our theological positions is correct, we should not fear to expose both sides of this commonly discussed question. Our fathers before us discussed it, and disagreed on the same issue. It is right that we who profess to adore the same Lord should openly discuss disagreements over His commands. Only error triumphs when men are silent. Truth, like silver, shines brighter when exposed to the light.
Before I get into the doctrinal issue at hand, I would like to write a few other remarks. I do not think it is improper to evangelize a community through a magazine via the mail. I also do not feel it is wrong to express our theology in this journal. That is exactly what evangelism is. I do not see our paper as a gross disservice to this community. I agree that the constitution of the United States does allow freedom of religion. It also allows freedom of the press, and freedom of evangelism. This is what makes America great. We do not violate anyone's right to believe, merely by stating that we do not believe some particular doctrine. Men do have "full rights to follow the dictation of Holy Scripture as they interpret them under the freedom in the constitution." My saying that we do not believe like you do, does not take away your rights. I did not forbid, nor do I know of any human law which does forbid, Pastor Wetzel to sprinkle infants. There is no infringement of religious liberty here. There is only a doctrinal disagreement. I would be the first to complain against anyone who would not allow you to exercise your religious beliefs. There is no unpatriotic attack upon anyone's freedom merely by calling in question an unscriptural practice. I hope these thoughts will remove any prejudice that the charge that we are "hindering religious freedom" may have aroused in your reader's mind. Rest assured, we believe in the right of believing and acting according to what one believes. We believe in religious freedom, both yours and mine.
Pastor Wetzel, made these challenges:
First, that Jesus went under the water in the Jordan River. I believe that it is obvious from the material in this issue, that "baptizo" means "to immerse".
Second, he challenged me to prove that John's baptism continued after Jesus' baptism. I believe that John's baptism was continued till Christian baptism on Pentecost. Jesus was not the last person to be baptized by John. This is obvious from the fact that Jesus' baptism began His ministry (Luke 3). He then went out and preached and did miracles and spoke well of John the Baptist. Jesus identified John as the messenger. We are then told that those who heard Jesus, went and were baptized by John. The Scriptures below show this to be true.
Luke 7 :27-30 - "This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he is that is least in the kingdom Of God is greater than he. And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him."
Besides this, we are told that after Jesus began His ministry, John continued his baptizing.
John 3:22-24 - "After these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judea; and there He tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison." We agree, of course, with Pastor Wetzel, that Jesus did not have to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but rather to fulfill all righteousness.
Third, he challenged me to prove any other meaning than that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins through the washing and via the Holy Spirit of God. This I do not question. It is exactly what the Bible teaches.
Acts 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 Spirit."
Acts 22:16 - "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
This is exactly why I believe that we must be baptized like He said. This is not a mere little doctrinal difference. Baptism is for forgiveness of sins. No one can be saved if unforgiven. The command is to "Repent and be 'baptizo' and wash away your sins." Pastor Wetzel, does not "baptizo" his flock, he "rantizo" them. I want my Woodburn friends to do what Jesus said, so they will have the promise of the forgiveness of their sins. If God is content with "rantizo" sprinkling), He has not said so. Should I be condemned for trying to get people to do exactly what Jesus said to do? He said, "He that believeth and is immersed, shall be saved." (Mark 16:16a). He did not say "rantizo", He said "baptizo".
Fourth, he offered Matthew 28 :18-20 as proof that babies should be baptized. Elsewhere in this paper we show the history of this practice. I deny that babies can believe, or repent, both of which are to precede baptism. The great commission is recorded two places. Let's contrast them.
Matthew 28:19-20 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."
Mark 16:15-16 - "And He said unto them, 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 says that the command is to preach the Gospel to every creature, and to baptize those that believe.
Matthew says that the command is to teach all nations, then baptize them. Obviously, until one is teachable, they should not be baptized.
If it is right to baptize babies because they are a part of the nations, as you say, then everyone should be baptized because they are a part of the nations. Why don't you baptize adults who don't believe? Why don't you baptize adults against their will? If the command to baptize all nations is proof that infants (who do not believe and are an unwilling candidate) should be baptized, then to be consistent you should baptize adults who do not believe, even if it is against their will. The command, Pastor Wetzel, is to baptize believers of all nations, not just baptize all nations.
Furthermore, why should a child who has never sinned, have to be baptized for the remission of sins. Elsewhere in this issue we show the origin of the misconception of the need for infant baptism.
Fifth, you want to know what I teach the children from the Lutheran Church at J.A.M. Do I teach them that they might go to Hell because they were baptized as babies? You asked for my answer. I shall give it.
Though we avoid doctrine and try to teach character building at J.A.M., we would not avoid the issue. I know of no one in our congregation who says to a child who was sprinkled that they would go to Hell. WE DO NOT BELIEVE CHILDREN GO TO HELL! We believe children are saved till they reach the age of accountability before God. You are the one who believes little children can be lost. I do not believe little Lutheran children are lost. You believe little Church of Christ children are lost, because we do not baptize our babies. Now, which is more Christ-like in our theology?
I believe an adult who will not be immersed, has no promise of salvation. Denominationalists believe an infant whose parents would not sprinkle it, has no promise of salvation. I leave it up to the community to decide which position is more loving, and just on the part of God. I maintain that my position is rational, but that your position makes God a fiend. Scriptural doctrine makes it the personal responsibility of each adult to decide if he will be immersed for the forgiveness of his sins. Your doctrine says a little child is condemned for what Adam did thousands of years ago, and if the child dies before its parents have it sprinkled, it has no hope of salvation. Surely you can see that what we have taught is not the one that denies basic Bible doctrine.
Sixth, you said in your conclusion, "Let my people go." I do not hold your people in bondage. They are not servants to any traditions that I originated. I do not perpetuate the doctrines and practices of the traditions of the dark ages. I do not teach as doctrine the commandments of men. I do not advocate the changing of Jesus' commands and substitute for what Jesus said. I try to get all men to believe the Gospel, repent of their sins, and to be immersed for the forgiveness of their sins. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). If this is heresy, then brand me a heretic. I do not believe such teaching is pernicious and drivel, as you call it. I believe that my love for the people of Woodburn is obvious to those who know me. I believe they know that I love them, therefore, I write to challenge their traditional thinking. That they are as sincere as I am, I do not deny. I will defend their right to believe as they do. I do not believe that they are correct in their thinking. I do believe it makes a difference what one believes. Sincerity is not the criteria of judgment. I will grant you this, if I am wrong in my doctrine, even though I am sincere, I will answer for it to God. I believe this is true of each one who reads these words.
If we call Jesus, Lord, we ought to do the things He says.
Respectfully,
George L. Faull