THE REFORMATION OF BAPTISM FOR AMERICAN METHODISTS

I. Introduction

There is so much division in the Church over Baptism that it must surely grieve the Lord Jesus very much. It seems that the very idea of sharing the joy of salvation with fellow Christians is undermined by doubts concerning Baptism. The nagging question of who is and who is not a true Christian sometimes revolves around Baptism, especially when we ignore other evidence in the life of an individual pointing to a right relationship with God. It is my purpose here to put forth an ecumenical view around which many may rally for mutual support and edification.

II. The Purpose of Baptism

Baptism is presented as a ritual washing with water for the remission of sins and spiritual rebirth for those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. Consider the following commentary on passages from the New Testament.

A. The Gospel begins with the story of John the Baptizer, who preached a Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:1-4). Jesus called him a prophet, more than a prophet, the greatest of men and Elijah to come preparing God’s way (Matthew 11:9). Not only is John a transitional figure between the Old and New Testaments but he introduces the rite of Baptism that is carried forward as one of the Sacraments of the Church. John’s requirement of repentance is affirmed in the public ministries both of Jesus and Peter. The first word out of Jesus’ mouth when he began his public ministry was “repent” (Matthew 4:17). When asked what they should do, Peter answered the convicted crowd of Pentecost, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:32). Repentance is required because the moral force of the Law is maintained in Christianity. As Jesus said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets … but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). The “righteousness of the Law” that “exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees” (v. 20) is the Christian ethic of divine, sacrificial love, the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), the New Commandment (John 16:12-13 and I John 2:7-11), the love of God poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). Through repentance and cleansing “by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 25:26) we begin to appropriate to ourselves the grace needed to walk with Christ in the moral perfection of love (I John 4:7-21). As a Prophet, John made a prediction that is consistent with many other Old Testament prophecies concerning the New Covenant in Christ. John said that Jesus would baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11). It is the indwelling and sanctifying fire of the Spirit that makes us the persons we are meant to be under the Lordship of Christ. Ezekiel 36:25-27 says,

I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

B. Hebrews 7:1-10:25, especially 10:22, is an extraordinary discussion of how the provisions for moral cleansing in the Old Testament are superceded in the person and work of Christ. The New Testament contains “better promises” and more powerful means for fulfilling them: one righteous and eternal High Priest obsoletes a succession of sinful Levitical priests; and the one sacrifice of Christ for all time obsoletes continual animal sacrifices.
“Hebrews” speaks of the Old Testament sacrificial cultus as a “shadow” of the “reality” that was to come in Christ. This philosophical framework of “Hebrews” is from the writings of Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher. Plato taught that things aren’t always what they seem, that beyond them can be found a universal and eternal truth represented by them.
Just as Old Testament shadows were fulfilled in the Christ event, the work of Christ casts a shadow forward into the Church Age. That is, since the work of Christ was necessarily limited in time and space because of his incarnate nature, there must be some way to represent in the Church what Christ did for us on the Cross. So Jesus instituted Sacraments: Baptism, Holy Communion and maybe Washing Feet, to communicate to us in tangible, sensate ways what his life and work means to those who believe in him for eternal life. Because Christ himself instituted these rites, and because Christ is of one will with the Father and the Spirit, God honors with profound blessings the faithful administration of the Sacraments in his Church. Through faith and the Holy Spirit Christ himself is considered “present” with us in the Sacramental ministry of the Church.
In Hebrews 10:22, we see that Baptism signifies the application of the shed blood of Christ for atonement before God and the relief of a guilty conscience in a new Christian.
C. The following verses also elevate Baptism to Sacramental status in the life and ministry of the Church. That is, one might reasonably get the impression that Baptism is essential to salvation. Jesus told Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) That “born of water” means Baptism is clear from the immediate context of the Discourse. Immediately after his talk with Nicodemus Jesus went with his disciples to Judea where they baptized (v. 22). And then there is a discussion about the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptizer to finish out Chapter 3.
Peter, to whom were given the “keys of the Kingdom,” (Matthew 16:16) said, “In the days of Noah … a few … were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him” (I Peter 3:20-22). Here we see that Baptism is supported by the highest authority in the universe, the glorified Christ, who is Lord of all. Peter may have in mind what John the Beloved said about the Risen, Ascended and Enthroned Christ, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:1-2).
The Apostle Paul wrote to Titus, a pastoral colleague saying, “[God] saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7).
Sacrament is defined in our Anglo-Catholic tradition as the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Other excellent theories of the Sacraments have been put forward, as well. The various theories are wonderful topics for discussion, debate and the sharpening of wit; but it is our prayer that the Church seek unity around a sound Biblical exposition of the purpose of Baptism as a rite “of” (corresponding to, belonging to) repentance and rebirth in the Spirit of God.
D. Some argue that the New Testament view of Baptism is not consistent. The story of the Ephesians in Acts raises many questions (Acts 19:1-7). Paul seems to indicate that there is a difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. But one should not make too much of that distinction because Paul does not dispute the purpose of Baptism as the rite that accompanies repentance. The Ephesians are called “disciples” and there is great affinity between them and Paul even though they had never heard of the Holy Spirit! Yet, this story is useful for those who have been faithful to the teaching they’ve received and then later learn the whole truth about God’s plan of salvation. Paul re-baptizes the Ephesians because he wants the Ephesians to experience the normal and ordinary Christian program of rebirth “by water and the Spirit” that is set out by Christ and his Apostles.
The example of the Ephesians shows that God intends for baptism to accompany repentance from past sins and a baptism of renewal in the Spirit. Both baptisms, in water and the Spirit, are intended to be a conjoint work of grace in the conversion experience of every new Christian.
If a significant lapse occurs (in perception, understanding, expectation or experience) between the outward sign of Baptism and the evidence of new birth in the Spirit, it is the new birth that must take priority. The Church can make a mistake, or other circumstances intervene, to separate the rite of Baptism from the spiritual reality it attends. In such a case, as in Ephesus, we see that Paul brings the rite in line with the reality, not visa versa. The new birth is the constant; the rite is the variable.
Therefore, when the cause is compelling, the Church should not be afraid to re-baptize those who are not satisfied with a previous ritual. The Elders of the Church should carefully examine baptismal policy and review cases presented in an orderly fashion so as to balance and ensure the dual concerns 1) of protecting the integrity of the Sacrament and 2) of being pastorally responsible to members of the flock of God.

The Sacramental nature of Baptism is soundly established in the discussion of New Testament passages just completed. That Baptism is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace is obvious. From the New Testament perspective, it is the normal and ordinary turn of events for converts to be baptized. The close link, both experientially and theoretically, between Baptism and the remission of sins/rebirth in the Spirit makes Baptism essential to the Faith in these ways: 1) Church officials would be derelict if they neglected to baptize a convert in due course, 2) such dereliction would be grounds for suspension, and 3) a person’s refusal to submit to Baptism would make their sincerity highly suspect.

III. Proper Candidates for Baptism

A. Proper candidates for Baptism are those who hear the Gospel and repent. This is not accurately called “Believer’s” Baptism because the demons “believe” and are yet evil (James 2:19b). One must be converted and show the fruits of repentance, examples of which were given by John the Baptizer, recorded in Luke 3:7-14. The evidence of a changed life is essential to the American Methodist experience.
B. Infants are not proper candidates for baptism because an infant cannot be conceived as having sinned. John Wesley defined sin as the willful transgression of a known law of God. How can that definition apply to infants or even children, all else being equal? Neither is an infant able to repent or believe in Christ. Infants, children, those who are profoundly handicapped or those under duress cannot be held morally accountable for their behavior because they lack the mental capacity to form malicious intent. The New Testament recounts not a single incident of an infant being baptized. The practice of Infant Baptism depends on the doctrine of Original Sin, which is poorly conceived. It takes literally a passage that is clearly a literary device called hyperbole, “In sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). The doctrine of Original Sin is sexist because it says that sin is genetically transmitted to a child through the sinfulness of intercourse with a woman (Augustine and Calvin). It is a superstition that should be discouraged in the Church.

IV. Proper Modes of Baptism

A. By Sprinkling, Pouring or Submersion
B. By an Elder or One under the Direction of an Elder
C. In an Emergency upon Request
D. Salvation without Baptism an Exception to the Rule - The Thief on the Cross

V. A Form of Catechism Recommended

Whereas the New Testament accounts of Baptism show a population of penitents being almost immediately baptized, one must remember that this was often in the context of those who had rudimentary knowledge of a covenant relationship with God. On the Day of Pentecost, it was Jewish proselytes from many places who first heard the Gospel miraculously in their own languages. In the Missionary Journeys of Paul, it was his practice to go first to the Jewish synagogues. Many churches in Asia Minor and Rome were hived off from Jewish synagogues.
From early Church history, however, we find that as the Gospel spread even beyond the previous reach of Judaism, into communities that were alienated from the knowledge of God, the Church developed short-courses in Christian doctrine for converts called “catechism.” The converts who submitted to these lessons were then called “catechumens.”
When Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, he proclaimed specific content concerning Christ, as did Paul in his ministry to the Gentiles and Philip when he spoke to the Ethiopian Eunuch. Baptism “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” should be accompanied by some knowledge of the same. So a form of catechism is highly recommended when the Elders have some desire to instruct new converts in light of their need for instruction.
FIRST LESSONS FOR AMERICAN METHODISTS was written for this purpose. See the link at index1.html.

VI. Reforming Methodist Baptism

We have presented Baptism as a rite of Christian initiation, a washing away of sins and beginning fresh with God in Christ, a new birth of the spirit in the Spirit of God, a death to sinful behavior with a resurrection to moral transformation. Baptism is a ritual washing that should be “lived out” from that “happy day” forward in an intentional way. Just as living things in the natural world grow and develop through various stages, and according to a plan or structure suited to them, so it is with our spiritual development after Baptism. Those of us who are “Methodists” look to John Wesley for guidance in living out our Baptism.
First, Wesley was able to reclaim and officially enshrine within Methodism two important doctrines found in Scripture and the early Church: sanctification (breaking free from the powerful bad habits of sin that may hang on after Baptism) and moral perfection in love. That is, the new life of the Spirit, which Baptism accompanies, has outward manifestations in the on-going life of the Christian. Wesley’s overwhelming passion for the New Birth characterized his extraordinary evangelistic ministry and was in sharp contrast to the Judicial Decree promoted by Calvinist preachers of this day. And Wesley’s methodical organizational skills were used to preserve the fruit of the Revival in the Methodist Societies, which became churches after his death. Those historical developments in Methodism have consequences for how we conceive of Baptism - it raises the need for an individual’s personal response to the Gospel in repentance and discipleship to a very high level, a level usually found in churches of the more radical Reform movements, such as the Baptists. So, in doctrine, Wesley’s teaching was “high church” but his experience in the Methodist Revival was “low church” for which he received contumely and ostracism in his own Church.
So second, this emphasis on the New Birth as a personal experience caused a terrible dilemma for Wesley. He met opposition in those who believed that because they were baptized as infants, they had no need of the New Birth and Spiritual Growth that Wesley was preaching. Being an 18th Century Anglican priest, Wesley was conflicted: he saw the power of the Gospel at work to change the lives of adult men and women, yet he supported the traditional Church doctrine and practice of baptizing infants. His frustration is seen in excerpts from his writings presented below.
Third, it isn’t enough to reform Baptism on the basis of Wesley’s conflicted statements about Infant Baptism alone. Whatever else Wesley said, he certainly did believe in and encourage Infant Baptism (see Dan Tilly). We may take his conflict as a clue, though, to something being fundamentally wrong with the system of Infant Baptism in Methodism, but to promote a truly “Wesleyan” reform we must outline a view consistent with other Wesleyan interpretive principles. Wesley’s use of Scripture and reason will provide an adequate basis of reform.
The following excerpts come from the Sermons of John Wesley but more than that from among the 52 Standard Sermons that form the basis for authoritative Methodist doctrine.
A. From “Circumcision of the Heart”

That “circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;” - that the distinguishing mark of a true follower of Christ, of one who is in a state of acceptance with God, is not either outward circumcision, or baptism, or any other outward form, but a right state of soul, a mind and spirit renewed after the image of Him that created it; - is one of those important truths that can only be spiritually discerned. And this the Apostle himself intimates in the next words, - “Whose praise is not of men, but of God.” As if he had said, “Expect not, whoever thou art, who thus followest thy great Master, that the world, the men who follow him not, will say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant!’ Know that the circumcision of the heart, the seal of thy calling, is foolishness with the world. Be content to wait for thy applause till the day of thy Lord’s appearing. In that day shalt thou have praise of God, in the great assembly of men and angels.”

Here we see that Wesley follows the apostolic teaching concerning circumcision, that in Christianity circumcision is not analogous to Baptism but to spiritual renewal. The Old Testament sign of the Covenant was circumcision. The New Testament sign of the Covenant was a changed life, the seal of the Spirit. Yet many today confuse these signs of the covenant, assuming that because circumcision was performed on the eighth day so should Baptism be administered to infants. But, as Wesley points out, the true sign of the Christian covenant is not an “outward form” but an inner change of heart. Wesley seems aware that this doctrine is controversial and reminds his listeners that they should follow the truth with a mind toward God’s approval and the judgment day.
B. From “Marks of the New Birth”

Say not then in your heart, “I I baptized, therefore I am now a child of God.” Alas, that consequence will by no means hold. How many are the baptized gluttons and drunkards, the baptized liars and common swearers, the baptized railers and evil-speakers, the baptized whoremongers, thieves, extortioners? What think you? Are these now the children of God? Verily, I say unto you, whosoever you are, unto whom any one of the preceding characters belongs, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the works of your father ye do.” Unto you I call, in the name of Him whom you crucify afresh, and in his words to your circumcised predecessors, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

How, indeed, except ye be born again! For ye are now dead in trespasses and sins. To say, then, that ye cannot be born again, that there is no new birth but in baptism, is to seal you all under damnation, to consign you to hell, without help, without hope. And perhaps some may think this just and right. In their zeal for the Lord of hosts, they may say, “Yea, cut off the sinners, the Amalekites! Let these Gibeonites be utterly destroyed! They deserve no less.” No; nor I, nor you. Mine and your desert, as well as theirs, is hell; and it is mere mercy, free, undeserved mercy, that we are not now in unquenchable fire. You will say, “But we are washed;” we were born again “of water and of the Spirit.” So were they: This, therefore, hinders not at all, but that ye may now be even as they. Know ye not, that “what is highly esteemed of men is an abomination in the sight of God?” Come forth, ye “saints of the world,” ye that are honored of men, and see who will cast the first stone at them, at these wretches not fit to live upon the earth, these common harlots, adulterers, murderers. Only learn ye first what that meaneth, “He that hateth his brother is a murderer.” (1 John 3:15.) “He that looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28.) “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?” (James 4:4.)

“Verily, verily, I say unto you ye” also “must be born again.” “Except ye” also “be born again, ye cannot see the kingdom of God.” Lean no more on the staff of that broken reed, that ye were born again in baptism. Who denies that ye were then made children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven? But, notwithstanding this, ye are now children of the devil. Therefore ye must be born again. And let not Satan put it into your heart to cavil at a word, when the thing is clear. Ye have heard what are the marks of the children of God: All ye who have them not on your souls, baptized or unbaptized, must needs receive them, or without doubt ye will perish everlastingly. And if ye have been baptized, your only hope is this, - that those who were made the children of God by baptism, but are now the children of the devil, may yet again receive “power to become the sons of God;” that they may receive again what they have lost, even the “Spirit of adoption, crying in their hearts, Abba, Father!”

Wesley is intensely aware that Infant Baptism was not coterminous with new birth in the Spirit, the moral transformation that “marks” one as being born again. His experience was the same as the Apostle Paul when Paul first arrived at Ephesus, except for one difference. Paul did not have an established national Church telling the Ephesians they were already saved; Wesley did. And to complicate matters, Wesley was ordained by the very Church that opposed his message!
Notice that John Wesley calls Infant Baptism a “broken reed” and makes no mention here of Infant Baptism magically washing away original sin. Evidence would suggest otherwise. Infant Baptism is based on the doctrine of original sin described previously.
If Infant Baptism washes away original sin, what is the source of the evil that so many commit, who were once baptized and now live like the devil? And if at some point a child must profess faith in Christ for self-sake, showing repentance for actual sins committed and submit to instruction in a program of confirmation or membership in the Church, why not at that point administer Baptism as well?
These simple observations raise the question whether the Sacrament of Baptism should be reserved for those who have dealt reasonably successfully with the issue of sin in their lives in an appropriation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the evangelistic perspective on Baptism that would be a logical extension of the views of Wesley, especially in America where there is no national Church and a guaranteed freedom of religion.
C. From “Catholic Spirit”

I dare not, therefore, presume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical: But my belief is no rule for another. I ask not, therefore, of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my Church? of my congregation? Do you receive the same form of Church government, and allow the same Church officers, with me? Do you join in the same form of prayer wherein I worship God? I inquire not, Do you receive the supper of the Lord in the same posture and manner that I do? nor whether, in the administration of baptism, you agree with me in admitting sureties for the baptized; in the manner of administering it: or the age of those to whom it should be administered. Nay, I ask not of you, (as clear as I am in my own mind,) whether you allow baptism and the Lord’s supper at all. Let all these things stand by; we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season; my only question at present is this, - “Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?”

Here we see that it violates the ecumenical spirit to argue with those who practice a different policy with regard to Baptism. This tolerant spirit varies greatly from Methodists in the 19th Century in America, who vehemently debated the Baptists, and many Methodists in America today, who are quite defensive about infant baptism. Wesley shows by this passage that he is not legalistic about Baptism at all, specifically mentioning the “age of those to whom it should be administered.” For Wesley, the spiritual fruit of Christian love trumps all other considerations.
With regard to new converts to the Faith, we should give proper instruction and follow proper procedure, faithful in our own belief and practice concerning the Sacramental nature of Baptism; but in ecumenical efforts, it should not be a stumbling block to Christian filial love.
D. From “The New Birth”

And, First, it follows, that baptism is not the new birth: They are not one and the same thing. Many indeed seem to imagine that they are just the same; at least, they speak as if they thought so; but I do not know that this opinion is publicly avowed by any denomination of Christians whatever. Certainly it is not by any within these kingdoms, whether of the established Church, or dissenting from it. The judgment of the latter is clearly declared in their large Catechism:
Q. “What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of a sacrament are two: The one an outward and sensible sign; the other, an inward and spiritual grace, thereby signified. -
Q. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water, to be a sign and seal of regeneration by his Spirit. Here it is manifest, baptism, the sign, is spoken of as distinct from regeneration, the thing signified.
In the Church Catechism likewise, the judgment of our Church is declared with the utmost clearness:
Q. “What meanest thou by this word, sacrament?
A. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.
Q. What is the outward part or form in baptism?
A. Water, wherein the person is baptized, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Q. What is the inward part, or thing signified?
A. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness.”
Nothing, therefore, is plainer, than that, according to the Church of England, baptism is not the new birth. But indeed the reason of the thing is so clear and evident, as not to need any other authority. For what can be more plain, than that the one is an external, the other an internal, work; that the one is a visible, the other an invisible thing, and therefore wholly different from each other? - the one being an act of man, purifying the body; the other a change wrought by God in the soul: So that the former is just as distinguishable from the latter, as the soul from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost.

How many times have I heard, out of the Liturgical Renewal movement, that “baptism is the act of God?” Yet, this is not the view of the Anglican Church or of John Wesley.
The English Reform and our Anglo-Catholic liturgical tradition gives us an excellent definition of the Sacraments that allows us to distinguish between living faith in Christ versus dead works that “hold to a form of religion but denies the power of it.” Wesleyan Methodism is all about the grace of God, the powerful, life-changing activity of God in our hearts and lives, without which nothing else matters.
Anglicanism is a unique form of the Reformation that does not depend on scholasticism, either Medieval or Lutheran, but on reasonableness. It does not depend on a propositional or Confessional approach but on a method of interpreting Scripture. Anglicanism sought a “middle way” between the Catholic and Protestant perspectives under Elizabeth in the Act of Toleration. Wesley took the English Reform one step further than mere toleration; he became proactively evangelistic. The Wesleys were, therefore, the first “Evangelicals,” making free will, the new birth, the witness of the Spirit, entire sanctification, and moral perfection in love the tests of all belief and practice.
Wesley’s Evangelical perspective had implications for how he interpreted Infant Baptism. He was painfully aware that the bulk of his countrymen, though baptized as infants, were irreligious and sinful. “Ye must be born again,” he boldly proclaimed. His thoughts on the matter put him in a trajectory that leads to the official view of the American Methodist connection, that it is not proper to baptize infants. First, it is not required for membership in a national Church like the Church of England, and second, it seems to have no practical effect on the infant. So why would Methodists in America hold to a magical view of Baptism when our tolerant Anglican tradition and our Methodist evangelistic experience would lead us in another direction? The passages from Wesley above show that the true Methodist perspective is to measure all things by the fruit of the Spirit; those things that contribute to spiritual formation should be believed and practiced, while those that complicate or confuse the issue should burn up as dross in the refining fire of the Spirit.
Did Wesley really believe in infant baptism?
There is some evidence to suggest that Wesley was lukewarm to the idea of Infant Baptism. Note the following quotes. Though not from the authoritative sources of Methodist doctrine, the Sermons and Notes, they give an insight concerning Wesley’s true feelings on the subject.
E. From “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion”

This beginning of that vast, inward change, is usually termed, the new birth. Baptism is the outward sign of this inward grace, which is supposed by our Church to be given with and through that sign to all infants, and to those of riper years, if they repent and believe the gospel. But how extremely idle are the common disputes on this head! I tell a sinner, “You must be born again.” “No,” say you: “He was born again in baptism. Therefore he cannot be born again now.” Alas, what trifling is this! What, if he was then a child of God? He is now manifestly a child of the devil; for the works of his father he doeth. Therefore, do not play upon words. He must go through an entire change of heart. In one not yet baptized, you yourself would call that change, the new birth. In him, call it what you will; but remember, meantime, that if either he or you die without it, your baptism will be so far from profiting you, that it will greatly increase your damnation.

Allowing for Wesley’s hyperbole at the end of this passage, which speaks more to men of religion than of reason, I would draw attention to how Wesley used the word “supposed.” Baptism is, in Wesley’s words “supposed by our Church” to give “this inward grace” to “all infants.”
“Supposed” is not a ringing endorsement of the practice of Infant Baptism. His “increased damnation” comment at the end tells us his frame of mind when he said “supposed.” That’s because Wesley saw all around him baptized sinners. So he didn’t know what to call it when infants were “supposedly” born again in their obviously ineffective Baptism. He had no name for what happened to infants when they were baptized because nothing seemed to happen.
It seems that the greatest public objection to the specific idea of the “new birth” in Wesley’s evangelistic preaching was that the people were already magically born again in their Infant Baptism. He encountered this objection from the Established clergy on a number of occasions and retorted in the strongest of terms, saying it was a “lie” and “hypocrisy” to claim new birth in Infant Baptism while said persons were later living a sinful life.
Isn’t that nearly always the assumption in liturgical or non-Evangelical Churches, that the regular ritual program of the Church is “supposed” to save their adherents, that no conversion experience is required? And isn’t that the “supposition” behind much that has passed for “liturgical renewal” in the Liberal Mainline Churches today? Beware, the false hope implied by an over-ritualized religion is spiritually dangerous. The inward and spiritual grace should not be assumed in the outward and visible sign.
F. From later in “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion”
In defending the doctrine of justification by faith that he preached, Wesley proves that it is the official doctrine of the Church of England, moderating half-way between Antinomians and Catholics, by quoting the Articles of Religion, the Homilies and the Book of Common Prayer. He quotes these sources to support the requirement of repentance and faith in those who are to be justified, as antecedents to justification. Then, again, he uses the word “supposes” with regard to infant baptism.

Infants, indeed, our Church supposes to be justified in baptism, although they cannot then either believe or repent. But she expressly requires both repentance and faith in those who come to be baptized when they are of riper years.

Notice the contrast between “supposes” and “expressly requires” when comparing the conditions under which infants, as opposed to adults, are baptized. Wesley accepts the limits of an infant’s capacity and makes no magical claims for the effectiveness of Infant Baptism, since it may be that he doesn’t really believe in it.
Though Wesley would not be in a position to directly question Infant Baptism, it’s clear that the difficulties, inconsistencies, in his own Church did not escape him.
G. From “A Roman Catechism”
That Wesley was sensitive to magical interpretations of Infant Baptism can be seen from his criticism of the Roman Catholic ritual.

But can we think it for the majesty of baptism to have it dressed up like a form of conjuration, that the child must be supposed to be possessed with the devil, and the Priest must blow in his face three times, with, “Get thee out, Satan,” before he can say, “Peace be with thee;” and that he must cross him half a score times, or more, from part to part, in preparation to baptism?
Can we think it for the majesty of it, to have salt exorcised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to be put into the mouth of the child, for a propitiation unto eternal life? Can we think it for the majesty of this ordinance, that the Priest should put some of his own spittle in his left hand, and then taking it thence with the thumb and forefinger of his right hand, touch both ears of the infant, and say, “Ephphatha, be thou opened!” and then his nostrils, and say, “For the odor of sweetness; but thou, O devil, fly;” and then on his right hand, after the manner of a cross, saying, “N, I deliver unto thee the mark of our Lord Jesus Christ, (†) that thou mayest drive the adversary from thee on every side, and have life eternal?”
And what are the benefits imprinted on the mind by these fantastical ceremonies? Or when is it such benefits are promised as these are said to signify? Is it not rather a debasing of it, to have such rites and prayers introduced into it, as signify that which baptism was never appointed for?

Again, look at the use of the word “supposed” in the first sentence above. “Suppose” means to accept something without adequate rational basis. In contrast to supposing something is true, valid and good, look at the questions Wesley asks about the ritual. Notice that Wesley takes a pastoral interest in what practical good the rite does for the recipient of the rite. Unless one is ready to divorce faith from reasonableness, we should be careful to avoid superstition and “be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us.”

VII. Conclusion

Wesley rejoiced that he was saved from “zeal for the Church” to better serve Christ.
From “Sermons on Several Occasions”
There was a time in Wesley’s life when he was scrupulous about every ritual and tradition of the Church of England. He tells on himself with the following words, penned after experiencing his spiritual awakening. He had been a “missionary” to America and describes his experience thusly.

In October, 1735, my brother, Mr. Ingham, and I, were induced, by a strange chain of providences, to go over to the new colony in Georgia. Our design was to preach to the Indian nations bordering upon that province; but we were detained at Savannah and Frederica, by the importunity of the people, who, having no other Ministers, earnestly requested that we would not leave them. After a time, I desired the most serious of them to meet are once or twice a week at my house. Here were the rudiments of a Methodist society; but, notwithstanding this, both my brother and I were as vehemently attached to the Church as ever, and to every rubric of it; insomuch that I would never admit a Dissenter to the Lord’s Supper, unless he would be re-baptized. Nay, when the Lutheran Minister of the Saltzburghers at Ebenezer, being at Savannah, desired to receive it, I told him, I did not dare to administer it to him, because I looked upon him as unbaptized; as I judged baptism by laymen to be invalid: And such I counted all that were not episcopally ordained.
5. Full of these sentiments, of this zeal for the Church, (from which, I bless God, he has now delivered me,) I returned to England in the beginning of February, 1738.

The work of the American Methodist reform movement is to assist others in what Wesley experienced: deliverance by the grace of God from unhealthy and unhelpful attachments to sectarian/institutional traditions and rituals. Wesley was freed from magical views both of the episcopacy and of baptism. It is truly a blessing to be free, to use our liberty as Americans, not as a license to sin, but as an opportunity to follow Scripture, reasonableness, pastoral necessity and the primitive church, as Wesley bade us to do.

To: azcap; Dust in the Wind

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." John didn't sprinkle or pour so I think I will have to go with the method Jesus took.

Nice try. But the KJV word "straight-way" does not mean "straight-up, perpendicular." It means "immediately." Hence the New American Standard Version's translation: "After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and, behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting upon him" (Matt. 3:16). See also this article: Why Baptize By Pouring and Baptize Infants

21 posted on 03/27/2004 10:20:36 AM PST by The Grammarian (Saving the world one typo at a time.)

To: The Grammarian

Show support for the belief that requiring baptism for salvation (that is, requiring a ritual for salvation--something other than faith alone) is Biblical, and that taking "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38-9 is a ritual done in order to rather than because of the remission of sins.

I didn't mangle Acts 2:38 to take baptism out of it. You stated that it was necessary to reinterpret the Greek, in order to make sure salvation was not a work (in disagreement with the preponderance of scholars who have translated that word the same way in a variety of translations.)

I merely challenged you to produce a "work" that the baptized person does at baptism which you believe would constitute "earning their salvation." So far you keep stressing the passive nature of baptism, meaning the person being baptized does nothing.

So lets get this straight 1) when you are baptized, you don't do anything yourself. 2) It is necessary to reinterpret nearly every major translation in order to make sure we don't associate remission of sins with the (nonexistent, see 1 ) work of baptism.

Huh? How can not doing anything be a work that earns your salvation?

22 posted on 03/27/2004 2:19:44 PM PST by hopespringseternal

To: hopespringseternal

Actually, as I pointed out, there was no "reinterpreting" going on. The word in the Greek can be translated "for." In English, "for" can mean either, "because" (For unto us a child is born...Because unto us a child is born) or "in order to" (he got a grant for studying medicine...he got a grant in order to study medicine). As far as your "preponderance of scholars," that's a red herring, since the English word "for" can mean either "because" or "in order to." Just because people commit eisegesis by taking 'for' as 'in order to,' does not mean that the word 'for' is out of place in that passage.

Actually, I stressed the passive nature of infant baptism. But I'm not the one saying that infant baptism saves the infant intrinsically. As far as adult baptism, I said of its nature that they submitted to, or permitted (or, if you think those words too passive, sought out) the baptism. The problem with the interpretation that you are arguing for (which I will call 'your interpretation' henceforth, though whether you believe this doctrine or are just disagree with my argument is besides the point), is that taking "be baptized for the remission of sins" to mean "be baptized in order to gain the remission of sins" is that it goes against the tenor of the New Testament: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," the Evangelists write, "But he who believes not is damned already." There is no mention of baptism as a condition of salvation here. Baptism may have a rightful place in Christian symbolism and ritual, but the Bible makes quite clear that it is "by grace through faith that you are saved," not by "grace through faith and baptism."

See above.

Huh? How can not doing anything be a work that earns your salvation?

It's a matter of where the faith is. If you expect Jesus to save you because you have faith that he will, that is Biblically-placed faith. But if you believe that Jesus will save you because you have faith that he will--and because you were baptized (which is the natural interpretation of Acts 2:38 if one views it as "be baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins")--then you are relying on your own actions in seeking out baptism, as well as on Jesus' atonement, to save you, and hence looking to "dead works" for your salvation.

23 posted on 03/27/2004 2:46:17 PM PST by The Grammarian (Saving the world one typo at a time.)

To: The Grammarian

As far as adult baptism, I said of its nature that they submitted to, or permitted (or, if you think those words too passive, sought out) the baptism.

But the bible does not say seeking to be baptized remits your sins. The act of seeking baptism is not what we are discussing. You say that baptism is a work, therefore not required for salvation. I have asked again and again what that work is, since you insist that the correct definition of "for" is arrived at based on the premise that baptism is a work.

If it is a work, surely you can provide the actual action taken by the person during baptism? Hint: It is the same as any person being buried.

but the Bible makes quite clear that it is "by grace through faith that you are saved," not by "grace through faith and baptism."

That sort of absurd reductionism can take you any place you want to go. Besides, Paul was addressing Judaizing teachers when he spoke of salvation by faith. You should read James, who was speaking to the original adherents of "faith alone." Hint: The only place the words "faith alone" are found in the bible, they are preceded with "not by."

24 posted on 03/27/2004 6:01:45 PM PST by hopespringseternal

To: hopespringseternal

As far as adult baptism, I said of its nature that they submitted to, or permitted (or, if you think those words too passive, sought out) the baptism.

But the bible does not say seeking to be baptized remits your sins.

Nor does it say that baptism itself remits your sins. Hence the note about the meaning of the word 'eis' in Strong's Greek Lexicon, specifically referring to Acts 2:38.

The act of seeking baptism is not what we are discussing. You say that baptism is a work, therefore not required for salvation. I have asked again and again what that work is, since you insist that the correct definition of "for" is arrived at based on the premise that baptism is a work.

The rite of baptism itself is a ritual. In assuming that Peter commands, "Be baptized for the remission of sins," by which you mean, "Be baptized in order to obtain the remission of sins," you are saying that baptism is required in order to be saved. This, in and of itself, means that you are trusting a "dead work" (the term the author of Hebrews, in particular, uses to describe rituals), at least in part, for your salvation. You want my definition of a 'work'? It is trusting in anything other than Jesus' atonement for your salvation, even partially. It is faith in anything but the blood of Jesus to save you from your sins. As it relates to Biblical theology, salvation by works is believing that anything else than "grace through faith" saves.

If it is a work, surely you can provide the actual action taken by the person during baptism? Hint: It is the same as any person being buried.

The Bible says that the "actual action" of a baptismal candidate is precisely that of being baptized--that is, washed. The symbolic action of water baptism is being baptized by the Holy Spirit.

but the Bible makes quite clear that it is "by grace through faith that you are saved," not by "grace through faith and baptism."

That sort of absurd reductionism can take you any place you want to go.

Heh. It's not reductionism when it's spelled out in the following verse ("not as a result of works, that no one should boast").

Besides, Paul was addressing Judaizing teachers when he spoke of salvation by faith. You should read James, who was speaking to the original adherents of "faith alone." Hint: The only place the words "faith alone" are found in the bible, they are preceded with "not by."

Just because the exact words are not there is no excuse for a total excision of that doctrine from your creed. There is a maxim that many different men have held to, that "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." Your problem is that you are confusing "dead works," that is, rituals, with "good works," which is to say, the fruits of the Spirit.

Paul says quite clearly that "[B]y grace are you saved; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast" (Eph. 2:8,9). And James never disagrees. He sets up what he means by "works" at ch. 2:14 of his epistle when he says, "What use it it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?" (James 2:14-16.) First off, note that he does not say that the man actually has faith, only that he "says he has faith." As vv. 15 and 16 show, when he explains what he means by works, they are moral actions, "good works" that come from a heart filled with God's love. This has nothing to do with baptism, since there is no ethical character to the action. You are not helping others by being baptized; you are only, on even the most outlandish Baptistic scheme, identifying yourself with Christ's death.

In fact, James' main point is spelled out in verse 22, "You see that faith was working with his works [Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac], and as a result of the works, faith was completed." James is not saying that faith and works are both the grounds of salvation. He is saying that faith isn't complete without works (which, as the incident with Abraham and Isaac shows, was a natural extension of trusting God, that is, having faith in him).

25 posted on 03/27/2004 7:10:53 PM PST by The Grammarian (Saving the world one typo at a time.)

To: The Grammarian

You can have whatever translation of that verse you like. It doesn't matter whether he went up "straightway out of the water" or "came up immediately from the water" Was Christ coming "out of" or "up immediately from" a dash of water? If so why was John the Baptist hanging out in a River? You don't need a body of water to sprinkle and pour. From YOUR preferred translation. "People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. ⁶Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River."

26 posted on 03/27/2004 7:54:45 PM PST by azcap

To: The Grammarian

Nor does it say that baptism itself remits your sins. Hence the note about the meaning of the word 'eis' in Strong's Greek Lexicon, specifically referring to Acts 2:38.

It says exactly that in Acts 2:38 and many other places. I have posted lists many times, for all the good it does. Each and every case is deconstructed so Mr. Faith Alone can say, "see, this verse doesn't mean what it says" in the same way you have deconstructed Acts 2:38 to mean the opposite of what it says.

Baptism is not a work, because it is a burial. No corpse ever works at its burial, it is an inert thing. Likewise, the person being baptized does not "work." There is nothing for him to do!

But what about the baptizer who works? Nowhere in scripture is any significance placed on the baptizer. His work is merely incidental and physical.

So where is the work? This is where the faith-aloners miss the boat. The work of baptism that saves was accomplished by Christ on the cross. Paul says that if we have been baptized, we have been baptized into the death of Christ, and being buried with Christ we are raised with Him. It follows then that if we have not been baptized, we have not been buried with Christ and therefore have not been raised to walk a new life!

"Faith alone" distorts Paul's rejection of the dead rituals of Judaism into rejection of the living rituals of Christianity, commanded by Christ Himself! Christian rituals such as baptism do not save by the action of the Christian, but by the action of Christ. No one who believes baptism is necessary believes that it is anything without Christ. No one believes that baptism "earns" your salvation for you. Those are straw men.

James flatly and directly rejects salvation by faith alone. No amount of deconstruction can change the clear and simple meaning of James 2.

27 posted on 03/27/2004 8:58:08 PM PST by hopespringseternal

You can have whatever translation of that verse you like. It doesn't matter whether he went up "straightway out of the water" or "came up immediately from the water" Was Christ coming "out of" or "up immediately from" a dash of water? If so why was John the Baptist hanging out in a River? You don't need a body of water to sprinkle and pour. From YOUR preferred translation. "People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River."

Being baptized in a river does not prove that they were immersed in a river. As the author of the article that you apparently failed to read puts it, ""In the river Jordan" has no more significance than the other phrase ("in Jordan"). I washed my hands "in the river Jordan" and "in the Dead Sea" but I did not go under the water. Jesus "sat in the sea" but not under the water. "The ship was in the midst of the sea," but not under water. I live in Tennessee but not under dirt. "Paul stood in the midst of Mars Hill" but not under that great rock. "John did baptize in the wilderness," but not under the ground. Jesus "abode" at the place "where John at first baptized" (John 10:40). Did Jesus live under water?"

28 posted on 03/27/2004 10:45:35 PM PST by The Grammarian (Saving the world one typo at a time.)

To: hopespringseternal

Since you fail to recognize that there is more than one grammatical function for the word 'for' (and to the word from which it is translated), I am unsurprised that you choose to label my exegesis as "deconstruction." Not only that, but I find it pointless to continue this particular argument, since we no longer have any common ground to work from--and I'm not sure you could continue it, either, since you've already resorted to groundless assertions ("you have deconstructed Acts 2:38") and not facts.

Baptism is not a work, because it is a burial. No corpse ever works at its burial, it is an inert thing. Likewise, the person being baptized does not "work." There is nothing for him to do!

Baptism is a ritual. The word is used metaphorically to describe inclusion into a common group or experience in several places of Scripture, including the one place that it links baptism and burial (Col. 2:12, "having been buried with him in baptism..."). However, the Bible also describes the significance of baptism in the following ways:

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3)
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, etc. (1 Corinthians 12:13)
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:27)

It should be pointed out that there is no clear evidence in any of these passages that what is meant here is water baptism. It is a groundless assumption to believe that any or all of these instances refer to water baptism. Further, in our argument over the point of baptism being a work, you switched terms on me, dodging the issue. I have been arguing that believing that baptism remits your sins is trusting a work to remit your sins and save you. Your response was to argue that baptism itself is not a work (rather than the believing it remits your sins), which is 1) not an answer to my argument, and 2) nonsense. Baptism is something you do or have done to you, which makes it a work. There is nothing wrong with that. It is also commanded of by the Lord. However, when we get to the real argument, it is not that baptism is a work, but that trusting in baptism to have some part in our salvation means that we are looking for salvation to be by what we do--being baptized, a work. And not only salvation by a work, but not even the same type of work that James talks about in declaring that "faith without works is dead."

But what about the baptizer who works? Nowhere in scripture is any significance placed on the baptizer. His work is merely incidental and physical.

Irrelevant.

See above about the other meanings behind the rite of baptism. That said, your contention that baptism is required because it, by some merit intrinsic to itself, raises us to walk a new life, does not follow.

"Faith alone" distorts Paul's rejection of the dead rituals of Judaism into rejection of the living rituals of Christianity, commanded by Christ Himself!

Actually, no. "Faith alone" places the "living rituals of Christianity," as you put it, where they belong: as things that the Lord has commanded, and that even offer a channel of grace, but that do not save.

Christian rituals such as baptism do not save by the action of the Christian, but by the action of Christ. No one who believes baptism is necessary believes that it is anything without Christ. No one believes that baptism "earns" your salvation for you. Those are straw men.

I wonder about that, since you are believing that you must be baptized to be saved. You aren't trusting in Jesus Christ alone to save you because of his sacrificial death; your faith isn't in him alone. Your faith is also that your having been baptized has a hand in it. You say that baptism saves because of the action of Christ, not because of the action of the Christian; but the problem is that you make baptism save, and not Christ. Christ's death is the meritorious cause of our salvation (he is why we merit being saved) under your scheme (as he should be), but baptism is the instrumental cause of our salvation (baptism is the method Christ uses to save us). The Bible does not exalt baptism so highly. "It is by grace through faith that you are saved," Paul writes in Ephesians 2. The key word here is 'through.' By God's grace we are saved, and grace saves us using faith as its instrument, as its conduit. NOT baptism.

James flatly and directly rejects salvation by faith alone. No amount of deconstruction can change the clear and simple meaning of James 2.

Another groundless assertion.

29 posted on 03/28/2004 12:15:39 AM PST by The Grammarian (Saving the world one typo at a time.)

To: The Grammarian

Your response was to argue that baptism itself is not a work (rather than the believing it remits your sins), which is 1) not an answer to my argument, and 2) nonsense. Baptism is something you do or have done to you, which makes it a work.

So when a dead body is buried, it is working? I guess if they can vote democrat, why not.

Once again, the work that saves in baptism was done on the cross. I keep pointing out that no one believes dunking itself is intrinsically salvific. But you insist that must be the case. It is no wonder you labor in error, since you feel the need to define what those you disagree with believe over their strenuous objections to the contrary.

By the way, "baptism" is a religious weasel-word, the more correct word is immersion or dunking. By using "baptism" rather than "immersion", all sorts of chicanery can be accomplished because it isolates the ritual from everyday life. "Baptism" has become something with infinitely variable definition. For example, you claim that most of the places "baptism" is used, it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When Paul penned the Greek word for immersion, it was plain to see that he was talking about water immersion because that is the understood context of immersion in everyday life. That is why the bible explicitly says "baptism (immersion) of the Holy Spirit", because the immersion is in a different medium than would be otherwise assumed.

30 posted on 03/28/2004 5:27:31 AM PST by hopespringseternal

To: hopespringseternal

So when a dead body is buried, it is working? I guess if they can vote democrat, why not.

You weren't paying attention. Ritual=work. Baptism=ritual. Therefore, baptism=work. Trusting for your involvement in a ritual (baptism or otherwise) to save you is what is commonly called "salvation by works," and is unbiblical.

Once again, the work that saves in baptism was done on the cross. I keep pointing out that no one believes dunking itself is intrinsically salvific.

Like I said, you make baptism the instrumental cause of salvation, a place that the Bible gives to faith (Eph. 2:8,9).

Several points here:

1) "baptizo" does not translate properly as "immerse". The early (pre-Vulgate, second-century A.D.) Latin translation, the Itala, does not translate "baptizo" as "immergo" (the Latin word for immersion), but leaves it as "baptizo". Not only that, but in several places in the New Testament, the word "baptizo" cannot be translated as "immerse", as in Mark 7:4, "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not." Likewise in Luke 11:38, "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner."

2) I nowhere claimed that the majority of places where the word "baptism" occurs, it refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit--only that it is not incontrovertibly used to refer to water baptism in the places I cited. What I did say is that in the passages I cited that give the significance of baptism, they do not refer to the significance of water baptism itself, but instead to what water baptism itself is supposed to symbolize: the baptism of the Spirit.

3) It should also be pointed out that Peter equates the "baptism of the Spirit" with Joel's prophecy, "In the last days, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." It is difficult to immerse someone by pouring liquid on them, since immersion necessarily implies completely covering the subject all at once, i.e., dipping.

31 posted on 03/28/2004 10:20:27 AM PST by The Grammarian (Saving the world one typo at a time.)

To: The Grammarian

You weren't paying attention. Ritual=work. Baptism=ritual. Therefore, baptism=work. Trusting for your involvement in a ritual (baptism or otherwise) to save you is what is commonly called "salvation by works," and is unbiblical.

Repeating it endlessly does not make it so. A funeral is a ritual, but the body being buried does not work. A burial is a ritual, but the corpse does not work. A baptism is a ritual, but the person being baptized does no work.

The idea behind salvation by works is that you can "pay up" your debt of sin to God. That is what the Jews of the first century thought they could do. That is what some tried to teach the early Christians.

But we know no matter what you do, you can't atone for your own sin. No one who believes baptism is essential believes that it earns their salvation. To earn something, you have to do the work required. The work required for salvation was done on the cross, and no matter how many times you accuse baptizers otherwise that remains the case.

only that it is not incontrovertibly used to refer to water baptism in the places I cited

The bible does not entertain sophists and those who approach it with a mind to distort. Washing, immersion, dunking, dipping all occur in water typically, and if you want someone to draw the conclusion some other media is involved you have to specify it. When Inspiration wants to refer us the the baptism of the Spirit, that is what is cited.

32 posted on 03/28/2004 2:58:20 PM PST by hopespringseternal

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

THE REFORMATION OF BAPTISM FOR AMERICAN METHODISTS

(Incomplete)

THE REFORMATION OF BAPTISM
FOR AMERICAN METHODISTS