Bible Investigator from Doniphan, Kansas • 3

BAPTISM NOT A CONDITION OF PARDON. where, oh where! would the believing pen itcnt be? Whv Bro. Dougan calls the "devout Jews out of every nation under heaven," who were gathered at their annual feast at Je-rusalem, according to God's appointment, "rabble," is more than we can account for; unless it is for the same purpose that he used the words "cry out." Does he use the word "rabble" in order to make it appear that they "said" or asked "excitedly ever, and wherever faith exists on the part of the penitent, pardon with God takes place according to the above scriptures. And this faith and pardon must go before a valied baptism: this is our proof. In John's Baptism, the people were to believe the coming Jesus.

In Peter's Baptism, the people were to believe in the past Christ. Repentance was taught alike by both; the same language is used by both, "For the remission of sins;" all may see this by comparing Mark 1:1, and Acts 2:38. If remission here means in order Reply to Bro. Dougan, page 03, June No. Baptismjs never said to be- the, or a means of pardon: one and only place, where baptism and Us object, stands out alone, in the New Testament; is Pet 3: 21, "Baptism doth also now save us' arid for fear the reader should mistke'the language, and the true OBJECT of bap tism; he gives his nieaning-tho object 'of and loudly" for pardon? We arc sorry our good having made such a manly becoming apology for past mistakes, should case, it docs in both.

If it to, one in the next broa fall into another, apparently' from the same cause. The word abblc" nor anything that would imply ill 'M i. 1 ll -i. i i- raooic, wiu noi appiy to ukil jreiuecosi baptism 4 by saying 'not the putting a-way the filth of the llcsh; but the answer of a good conscience towards God. "-the PROOF of a TRUE HEART 'towards God.

Now we state here, that this is the only place in the New Testament where BAPTISM and its OBJECT stand out A-LONE: and thc OBJECT, is stated i to be, 'the answer of a good conscience towards God; which the candidate gives, of his sincerity, by obedience to Heaven's appointed law. But FAITH as the instrumental means means because of, in one, it does in both; (will Bro. D. disprove this?) Hence in either case, the twelve could not be rcbap-tized in order to, or because ot pardon. True, the Holy Ghost did come upon the people until Pentecost; and could not follow, or go before baptism (as the case might be,) before that time.

And when Paul put the question of Holy Ghost (not of pardon) to the twelve, and they said we have never heard of the Holy Ghost, he occasion. But these and such expressions arc the manifest proof of the fixed impression on Bro. D's. mind I suppose; and we leave each of our readers to judge of such according to their true worth. We think there must be some mistake or misapplication about the "deer" case.

The boy killed the deer and continued going to the same place to kill another. Did I kill Bro. D. the first shot? is he the dead deer? Wc think all this struggling, and all for the REMISSION of SINS that arc PAST, does DOES STAND OUT A-LONE, Rom 3:25, To him that belie veth on him that JUSTIFIETH (pardoncth) the UNGODLY, his FAITH is counted for righteousness. Rom.

4:5. Therefore be-ing justifieg by Aini. Rom. 5:1. Whosoever believetii in hini shall keceive remission of sins.

Acts 1043. That they (the sinner) may receive forgiveness of sins by faith in me. Acts 29:18. Here we have given five passages of scripture where faith (on the part of the penitent) is the condition of pardon, or its undisputed e-quivalcnts. Now we say (once for all) there is.not a passage of scripture that attributes FORGIVENESS, JUSTIFICATION, 01.

remission of sins as necessarily dependent on -'baptism, but faith -is set forth as the condition of pardon; that being the true Bible teaching: that being the case, the instant that such faith exists, pardon (or forgiveness) takes place with God We have, given many instances where faith on the these mistakes proves he is not dead yet; this is our apology for our repeated efforts, wc think our readers will witness his last struggle soon; then we shall turn our arms on some other wild deer, for error always makes people wild. Bro. D. admits that baptism is not in order to pardon to some who enter the New Covenant. Here he has positively yielded part of his proposition, and to the same extent admitcd mine.

Here we have an admission of Bro. D's. yielding part of the proposition. But leaving the intermediate, (or time of John, and the personal ministry of Jesus, he asked us "to produce a case of pardon without baptism; after the day of Pentecost." Why did he knew the ceremony in their baptism was not according to that given in the. commission.

And they were rebaptized because of the Holy Ghost, and not in relation to pardon. Hence the only difference in John's and Peter's Baptism, was, the Holy Ghost followed Peter's, and did not follow' John's. But Bro. D. well knows if he admits the New Covenant before the day of Pentecost, his case is lost: for many were pardoned before or in the absence of baptism.

"At hand" "indefinite lanmiaire "re-mote distance," proot Joel 1:1, 15. final Judgment. Rom 13:12, end of life, in both cases remote distance. "I say that the true nature of the language of Acts 2:38, will not admit of surrender or give up." If by "true nature of language" Bro. D.

means its connection as in Acts 2:38, we simply differ with him. But if in the sense of Webster, he uses "true nature of language" we have a square issue, and simply andsquarcly state as before, the primary definition of the word remission, or remit, surrender; give up. Bro. D's. quotation, and application, is Webster's fourth definition.

Bro. D. even never alludes to the primary dcti nition as given by Webster; he never calls it in question; but states there are many passages where the primary definition will not apply; this wc do not admit, wc raise the question here. But wc state emphatic not say before baptism, rather than without baptism. Wc affirm that every case of pardon unci the New Covenant is by faith; and faith and pardon necessarily before baptism.

We ask attention to the following passages: Acts 20:18, that they (sinners) may receive forgiveness of sins by faith in me. Acts 10:43, whosoever bc-lieyeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. Rom. 4:5, to him that bclievcth on him that justifieth (pardoncth) the ungodlyhis faith is counted for righteousness. Rom.

3:25, whom God has set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, for part of the person is shown to be the only means of pardon. The palsied man, Matt. 0:2, and Jesus seeing their faith said, thy sins be forgiven thee. Also Luke 7:18,50. And he said unto her, thy sins arc forgiven, thy faith hath- saved thee.

Jesus has all power, and can and does pardon by the same means now, and ever. God and his son arc too wise to suspend man's pardon on baptism, for it is possible there might be many cases like that of the thief, which might render baptism impossible; then ally that the primary use of Webster's defi- 1 the remission of sins that are past. When nition, "true nature of lanuac'' will ap-.