THE ONE BAPTISM
There is widespread disagreement among men as to what the New Testament teaches on the subject of baptism. Some say that baptism is necessary for man's salvation; other say it is nonessential. Some teach that sprinkling or pouring is just as acceptable to God as immersion; other teach that only immersion is the scriptural action of baptism. Some claim that both Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism are in force today; others claim that only water is the element no applicable. Some teach that both infants and rational individuals are subjects for baptism; others insist that only the latter are the scriptural subjects.
No one who truly respects the supreme authority of Jesus Christ in religious matters will conclude that all of these contradictory views on the subject of baptism are endorsed by the New Testament or that God is pleased with such confusion. Men, by teaching and practicing their traditions, are responsible for this chaos and confusion-"God is not a God of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33). The Bible never contradicts itself. It never teaches different interpretations of a single doctrine or theme; dealing with the issue of man's obedience to the will of God, it does so with clarity and simplicity so that no honest seeker for the truth need be ignorant as to what God demands of him.
How can honest individuals know what the Bible teaches on the theme of baptism, solving, the problem created by the confusion in the religious world on this important subject? Simply by keeping the the following basic principle in mind: What Christ and his inspired apostles teach in the New Testament on the subject of baptism is final. What men teach about baptism is worthy of acceptance only if it is what the New Testament teaches. The reader is asked to honestly decide for himself whether the New Testament doctrine of baptism is upheld in this discussion by following the divine injunction. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (! Thessalonians 5:21).
The golden text of this study is Ephesians 4:4,5: "There is...one baptism." The inspired apostle Paul wrote this statement approximately thirty years after the establishment of the church of Christ. The New Testament was in force at the time of this writing, and will be until the end of time; hence the fact of there being but one scriptural baptism when Paul wrote the Ephesian letter is just as true today. The one baptism of the New Testament dispensation is the subject under consideration in the investigation at hand.
Since there is but one baptism in force today, there can be no contradictions as to what constitutes this ordinance. It cannot be both in the Holy Spirit and in water, unto the remission of sins and not unto the remission of of sins, for infants and not fir infants, sprinkling and pouring as well as immersion. On each phase involved in the ordinance-element, action, design and subjects-the New Testament gives only one conclusion, just one interpretation.
Element of the One Baptism
There are four baptisms described by the Savior in divine word: the baptism of John (Luke 3:3). fire baptism (Matthew 3:11), Holy Spirit baptism (Matthew 3:11), and baptism if the great commission (Matthew 28:19, 20). But there is only one baptism now in force (Ephesians 4:4, 5). Which one of the four baptisms here referred to is the one baptism?
The baptism of John cannot be the one baptism, although there are certain points of similarity between the two. Different from the one baptism, John's baptism pointed forward to the ministry and death of the Saviour and was never administered into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When the New Testament dispensation came into being, John's baptism was done away with, having served its purpose. Carefully read in this connection Acts 19:3-5.
The one baptism cannot be fire baptism; for latter is to be administered in the future, with Christ as the administrator, when time shall be no more and evil men will be condemned to the "lake that burneth with fire and brimstone." Note carefully the context of the expression, baptize...with fire: "he shall baptize you with...fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:11. 12). Now compare this quotation with the following: "But for the fearful, and unbelieving...their part shall be in the lake that burneth with and brimstone; which is the second death"(Revelation 21:8). Undeniably, the baptisms in the fire description of sinners being committed by Jesus Christ to everlasting torment.
Only two baptisms now remain for consideration; Holy Spirit baptism and the baptism of the great commission. The perpetual nature of the great commission automatically eliminates Holy Spirit baptism. The great commission is to be in force during the entire gospel age (Matthew 28: 18-20), and the only baptism contemplated therein is water baptism. Note the following: Men were to administer the baptism of the great commission (Matthew 28:19), but the only baptism administered by men as recorded in the New Testament is water baptism (Acts 8: 36-38; therefore, the baptisms of the great commission must be water baptism and nothing else.
Holy Spirit baptism was promised in Matthew 3:11, but according to this passage the Saviour was to administer it-not men. Thus baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be the baptism of the great commission. The promise of baptism in the Holy Spirit was temporary and had the household of Cornelius. See Acts 2 and 10. The circumstances of the administration of baptism in the Holy Spirit happened many years before Paul wrote, "There is one baptism." But at the time of this writing the great commission was still in force, and will be until the end of time; and the only baptism enjoined therein is water baptism.
THE ELEMENT OF THE ONE BAPTISM IS WATER.
Action of the One Baptism
The word baptism as it is found in its various grammatical forms in the English versions of the New Testament is not a translated word but an anglicized Greek word, i.e., a Greek word put into the English spelling for. The original Greek word for the verbal, to baptize, is baptizo. What does baptizo literally mean when it is translated? Evidence will later be presented in this discussion which proves conclusively that baptizo when translated means to immerse.
Unless the word baptism is defines there is no way for men to know what they are to do in obeying God by being baptized. Three methods will be used in this stud to find the meaning of baptism. they are: 1. An examination of the contextual use of the word baptism in the New Testament. This method alone is sufficient to give the full meaning of baptism; but for those readers who desire to have in their possession as much information on the subject as a brief discussion such as this will allow, the tow following methods will also be used. 2. An examination of the definition of baptizo (to baptize) as given by competent lexicographers of the ancient Greek language.
I. TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
"And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan..."(Matthew 3:6).
The strong inference in this passage is that baptism means immersion. It is possible to lead a person out into a river and then sprinkle or pour water upon him, but it is not reasonable to do so. "...and was baptized of John in the Jordan" (Mark 1:9).
This passage refers to the baptism of Jesus by Baptist. The Greek word here for in is eis and literally means into; so the footnote of the American Standard Version. If sprinkled or poured were put in the place of baptized in this citation, we would have the following reading: "And was sprinkled or poured of John into the Jordan." Just how could an individual be sprinkled or poured into a body of water? When one is dipped or immersed in a body of water he is actually placed into the water. Hence immersion only can fulfill the meaning of baptism in this passage.
"And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized" (John 3:23).
True, this reference, as well as the two preceding ones, is made in regard to John's baptism rather than to the one baptism of the New Testament dispensation. But the word baptism primarily defines a specific action; and this action never varied as long as the same word was used. even though certain other details connected with the ordinance were changed when John;s baptism gave way to the one baptism in Aenon because there was much water there. It takes much water to immerse a person, but little for the purpose of sprinkling or pouring. "...they came unto certain water..." (Acts 8;36).
Coming to the water is a logical move leading to the act of immersion. Where does the the New Testament ever state that water was brought to a candidate for baptism, such as is done when water is to be sprinkled or poured upon an individual?"...and they both went down into the water...' (Acts 8:38).
Both the baptizer and the one to be baptized must come out of the water in the case of immersion, but not under the circumstance of sprinkling or pouring. ",,,buried therefore with him through baptism..."(Romans 6:4). "...buried with him in baptism..." (Colossians 2:12).
Baptism is describe in these two verses as a burial. When something is buried it is completely submerged. Only immersion in the case of baptism can fit the description of a burial. One is not buried in baptism when water is sprinkled or poured upon him. "...that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4). "...wherein ye were also raised with him..." (Colossians 2:12).
Only after being immersed can a person be raised. As Christ was submerged in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea--completely surrounded by the element in which he was buried--and was raised from it in His resurrection, so men when buried in baptism--completely submerged in water--are raised from the watery tomb to walk anew. No person was ever raised from a few drops of water!
II. MEANING OF BAPTIZO (TO BAPTIZE)
ACCORDING TO GREEK LEXICOGRAPHERS
Thayer, probably the greatest authority on New Testament Greek, under baptizo: "To dip, dip under immerse."
Sophocles, baptizo: "To dip, to immerse, to sink."
Liddell and Scott, baptizo: "To dip, dip under."
Cremer, baptizo: "Immerse, to submerge."
Greenfield, baptizo,: "Immerse, immerge, submerge, sink."
Stephanus, baptizo: "To dip or immerge."
Donnegan, baptizo: "To immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to submerge, to sink thoroughly, to saturate."
Berry, baptizo: "To bathe oneself, to immerse, to submerge."
So also is baptizo defined by Robinson, Anthony, Robertson, Pastor, Ikenius, Scheduler, Casualness, Gutturalness, Walkers, Stephens, Heidericus, Green, Groves, Pop, etc. There is not a single reputable Greek lexicographer who defines baptize by to a sprinkle or to a pour. To speak about people being baptized by having water sprinkled or poured upon them is plainly a contradiction of terms, as much as declaring that one can run by walking, love by hating, smile by frowning, etc.
III. ORIGIN OF THE PRACTICE OF Effusion
Since immersion is the only scriptural action of baptism, the question arises, "From whence comes the practice of effusion (sprinkling or pouring)?" this query is clearly answered by authoritative references on religious history.
The first case of effusion found in church history is that of Ovation, not earlier that A. D. 251, probably 253. It is mentioned in the following words of Vesuvius, called the father if ecclesiastical history: "Ovation, being relieved thereof by the exorcist, fell into a grievous distemper; and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being be sprinkled with water, on the bed, whereon he lay, (if that can be termed baptism)." This method of applying water was used in such cases of illness and became known as clinic baptism, but never was in much favor for thirteen centuries. Eusebius is the first writer to mention a substitute for immersion, approximately two centuries after the establishment of the ordinance of New Testament baptism.
The account of the first time authority was given by ecclesiastical power for the substitution of affusion for baptism is presented in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Sir Edward Brewster (Presbyterian), Baptism: "Pope Stephen II being driven from Rome by Adolphus, kind of the Lombards, in 735, fled to Pepin, who, a short time before, had unsurpassed the crown of France. Whilst he remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him, whether, in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of an infant would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth of this fact be allowed--which, however, some Catholics deny--yet pouring, was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent."
The Roman Catholic church was responsible for substituting affusion for God's law of immersion and making it a general practice. When the Protestant denominations substitute sprinkling or pouring for the scriptural action of baptism, which is immersion, they simply are imitating Rome. Why, then, has affusion been substituted for immersion? To gratify the caprice of the human mind. Those who teach and practice sprinkling or pouring in the name of baptism fall under the condemnation of God: "But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men (Matthew 15:9). No person who has had water sprinkled or poured upon him has obeyed the New Testament command to be baptized.
THE ACTION OF THE ONE BAPTISM IS IMMERSION
Design of the One Baptism
Every divine institution has its own specific design. This is, of course, true about baptism. God has not commanded men to be baptized and left them in ignorance as to the reason for their obedience to this ordinance. As the New Testament clearly gives information about the element and action of baptism, so it also presents the design with the same clarity and simplicity.
There is the assumption widely extant in the religious world that baptism is not necessary for man's salvation from sin. Such a notion is presumptuous, to say the least. It lays the charge before God that He expects man to do things in religion which are unnecessary. But God in His divine wisdom has never commanded anything which is nonessential or unnecessary. When God commands anything it is positively necessary and essential that men obey Him. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:3). "Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth...". (1 Peter 1:22). These passages prove that man is saved from sin conditional to his obedience to God, and baptism is one of the commands to be obeyed.
True is that God saves man through the sacrificial offering of His Son, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17-19; Ephesians 1:7), and nothing that the New Testament expresses about the necessity of man's faith and obedience minimizes this verity. While the New Testament plainly teaches the necessity of man being baptized in order to the remission of his sins, it never presents baptism as a meritorious cause, but a conditional cause, in which faith and repentance are developed and made fruitful. People are saved by the merit Jesus Christ, His cleansing blood, and not upon any merit of their own; but they receive the benefits of Christ's meritorious life and death by submitting themselves to the gospel plan of salvation: belief in Christ (John 4:24), repentance of sins (Luke 13:3; 24:47), and baptism unto the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) upon a simple confession of their belief (Acts 8:37; Romans 10:10). Their obedience to the gospel is salvation conditional; Christ;s gift of his precious, cleansing blood is salvation meritorious.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16).
Stated in terms of mathematical formula the first part f this passage would read, "Belief plus baptism equals salvation." When men teach that baptism is not essential to salvation, they would have it read "Belief minus baptism equals salvation." Which formula do you accept? When Jesus in Mark 16:16 combines baptism with belief as necessary for man's salvation, that once and for all refutes the erroneous, mistaken, human idea that baptism is nonessential.
Some claim that the conclusion of Mark 16:16, "but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned," teaches that the failure to be baptized will not condemn a person, but only a lack of belief; thus they insist that the passage does not teach the essentiality of baptism. Such interpretation is definitely contrary to the goof logic of the entire verse. When one fails to believe he is condemned on this basis alone. "...he that believeth not hath been judge already..." (John 3:18). One who does not believe in Christ couldn't be baptized if he would, wouldn't be baptized if he could, and it wouldn't do him any good if he did. To comprehend clearly the logic of Mark 16:16, showing that it teaches the essentiality of baptism, the following comparison is made; "He that eats his food and digests it shall live, but he that doesn't eat shall die." It would be absurd to present this kind of a conclusion to the previous statement, "but he that doesn't eat his food and doesn't digest it shall die." The lack of food in itself would destroy the person- one cannot digest food that he doesn't have-but food will not sustain life unless it is digested. It takes belief digested, as it were, in baptism to save a person- all the belief in the world cannot and will not save the individual unless he is baptized-but a lack of belief will in itself condemn.
"And peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins.." (Act 2:38).
The Greek word for the preposition unto is eis; it literally means into. Baptism, then, puts men into the remission of sins, The Common Version has translated eis as for, and many of those who deny the necessity of baptism assert that for in this passage means because of. The very fact that repentance is combined with baptism in this verse is absolute proof that eis (for or unto) cannot mean because of. Men do not repent of their sins because they have already been forgiven. The same reality that repentance points unto in the passage also applies to baptism. To accept the scriptural fact that repentance is in order to the remission of sins (Luke 13:3; 24:47) necessitates the acceptance of baptism as having the same design.
To offer further proof that Acts 2:38 literally declares, 'Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you . . . in order to the remission of sins," the following passage is presented: "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto (for , Common Version) remissions of sins." (Matthew 26:28). Unto remission of sins of this verse states essentially the same thing as unto the remission of your sins of Acts 2:38. Who would affirm that Christ shed His blood because the sins of men had already been remitted? Matthew 26;28 teaches that the Saviour shed His blood in order to, in prospect of, the remission of sins. And so it is that sinners repent and are baptized in order to, in prospect of the remission of sins. "They then that received his word were baptized . . ." (Acts 2:41).
This verse simply;y states that the ones who obeyed the lord in being baptized did so on the basis of receiving the divine word. It is necessarily implied that those who refused to be baptized were the ones who rejected the word. The basic reason why any individual fails to be baptized after hearing the gospel message is that he refuses to accept the word. "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12:48). To say that one can be saved without being baptized is the same as saying that he can be saved without receiving the word of Christ. Such a conclusion is a denial of the truth of John 12:48. Baptism is essential!
"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48).
This quotation refers to the conversion of Cornelius and his household. When Peter later related the circumstances of this case, he told of the angel who appeared to Cornelius and informed him of "Simmon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house" (Acts 11:13, 14). The command of Acts 10:48 for Cornelius and his household to be baptized was part of words spoken by Peter in order to their salvation; hence, baptism was essential to their salvation.
"And now why tarriest thou? Arise,and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).
This command was made by Ananias to Saul in fulfillment of the demand made by Jesus of Saul on the road to Damascus: "but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do" (Acts 9:6). Being baptized for Saul was a must, not something he could or could not do according to his personal whim. The order of the words of Ananias is: be baptized, first; wash away thy sins, second. Advocates of the nonessentiality of baptism would have the order: wash away thy sins, first; be baptized, second.
"Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized unto Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:3).
The death of Christ for the sins of men is the central theme of the gospel. Read 1 Corinthians 2:2; 15:3. The blood of Christ was shed in His death, and without His blood there can be no salvation from sin. See John 19:33, 34; Hebrews 9:22; Ephesians 1:7. When one comes into the Saviour's death he becomes a partaker of the blessing of the precious blood. Romans 6:3 clearly and simply states that the means of coming into the death of Christ is by baptism. The inescapable conclusion, then is that those who have not been baptized have yet to come into the death of Christ; and, therefore, they have yet to receive the remission of their sins by the Saviour's blood.
"We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4).
This passage asserts that men walk in the new life of righteousness after they have been baptized, and not before. The unbaptized person still walks in the old life of sin. See Romans 6:17, 18; 2 Corinthians 5:17.
"For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ" (Galatians 3:26, 27).
Those who teach that baptism is not essential to salvation are prone to read the first sentence of this quotation and overlook the latter. But verse 27 is a commentary on verse 26. It explains how faith works to make sinners children of God. Men truly become sons of God by faith; not by faith only, but by faith expressed in obedience to baptism. How do men get into Christ? By baptism. Is salvation in Christ or out of Christ? In Christ. See Romans 8:1. Then baptism is necessary for salvation. Those who are not baptized do not get into Christ and therefore, fail to receive the blessing of salvation.
". . . while the ark was a preparing, wherein few that is eight souls, were saved through water: which also a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:20, 21).
The eight souls referred to by Peter were Noah and his family. Water saved them by bearing up the ark and delivering it from the state of the antediluvian world to the world after the flood. the similarity between this and baptism is plain. Before baptism the individual lives in the old world of sin; then when he is baptized, immersed in water, he is delivered into new state of righteousness. See Romans 6:4, 17, 18.
Advocates of the nonessentiality baptism claim that the expression after a true likeness does not refer to the relationship of baptism to the water which saved Noah and his family, but rather to real salvation enjoyed by the individual before he is baptized. Their argument is that the sinner is saved before he is baptized; and being baptized only saves him figurative, this salvation merely being a likeness of the real salvation received before baptism. This interpretation has no foundation whatever in the text. Peter makes only one comparison; baptism and salvation of the sinner to the water of the flood and salvation of Noah and family. The Greek word here for likeness is antitupon, and literally means antitype. Peter first presents the type: the salvation of Noah and family by the conditional means of the water of the flood. Then he gives the antitype, the fulfillment of the type: the salvation of sinners by the conditional means of the water of baptism. As the salvation of the type was real and actual, so is the salvation of the antitype.
The Greek word for interrogation is eperotema. In regard to the use of this term, Thayer writes, "As the terms of inquiry and demand often include the idea of desire, the word (eperotema) thus gets the signification of earnest seeking, i.e. a craving, and intense desire." His translation of the expression in verse 21 which includes epertotema (interrogation) is: "have earnestly sought a conscience reconciled to God." The soul earnestly seeking the forgiveness of sins inquires, "What shall I do to enjoy the blessings of the blood of Christ in the remission of my sins and to make my conscience void of offense toward God?" Peter asserts that the act of baptism is the answer to this question. One who has not been baptized is still in his sins and has yet to receive a conscience reconciled to God.
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
Entrance into the kingdom of God, wherein is found salvation, depends upon one being "born of water the Spirit.' Baptism is the only scriptural ordinance that bears out the reality of being "born of water.' When one is born in the physical realm, he is delivered from the prenatal state, in which his body has been completely submerged in his mother's womb (see John 3:4), into the new state of existence in the open world. When one is baptized, his body is completely submerged in water; then he is "born of water" to walk in the new state of existence, free from sin. This is essentially the same description as Romans 6:4.
THE DESIGN OF THE ONE BAPTISM IS IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
Subjects of the One Baptism
Infant baptism (i.e., sprinkling of pouring water on infants and designating such as baptism) is practiced by many of the religious denominations. So widespread is this practice that the reader may conclude that the writer is presumptuous in denouncing it. But the reader must keep in mind that this is a scriptural discussion. It matters not how universal is the practice of infant baptism, nor how many claim it as valid, nor how strongly it is entrenched in the prejudices of men. The question of prime importance to the honest truthseeker is: Does the New Testament, the supreme authority of Jesus Christ, authorize the practice of infant baptism? From a careful unbiased study of the ______
6Among the noted commentators who taught that the expression born of water refers to baptism are: Albert Barnes, Timothy Dwight, Adam Clarke, Henry Alford, Marcus Dods, Alvah Hovey, Johann Lange, heinrich Meyer, M. F. Sadler, John Wesley, B. F. Westcott, Daniel Whitby, and Samuel Clarke.
7It is often called pedobaptism, from the Greek word pais, meaning child.
New Testament on this theme, the reader will learn that there is not a single command or example to be found where an infant was ever baptized by the authority of Christ.
I. TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them say, All authority hath bee given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:18, 19).
The expressions make disciples here in the Greek is a single verb, matheteusate, and refers to the process of discipling people through the teaching of the gospel. In this process individuals are to be baptized. Infants are not proper subjects for baptism because they cannot be disciplined.
The injunction to baptize individuals in the process of discipling them is according to 'all authority... in heaven and on earth" given to Jesus by the Father. There is absolutely no authority whatever given in the great commission. (either here in Matthew or in Mark 16:15, 16) for the baptizing of infants. To practice infant baptism is to reject the supreme authority of Jesus Christ. We can be very certain that the faithful apostles did not violate the commission the Master gave them by baptizing anyone who either could not or would not receive the teaching of the gospel.
"And he said unto the, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mark 16:15, 16).
This is the great commission according to Mark. It teaches essentially the same thing as Matthew 28:19. Those who hear the preaching of the gospel and believe its message are to be baptized. Infants cannot be baptized because they can neither hear the gospel nor believe its message.
"And Peter said unto the, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins....(Acts 2:38).
In this passage we learn that one must repent of his sins before he is baptized. But only a rational individual can repent; for repentance, simply defined in its gospel setting, is a change of mind or will regarding the practice of sin. Infants cannot repent; therefore, they cannot be baptized. Comparing Acts 2:38 with Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15, 16, we learn that penitent believers are the proper subjects of baptism.
"They then that received his word were baptized..." (Acts 2:41).
Those who receive the word are the ones to be baptized. Infants are necessarily excluded, for they have not the mental capacity to receive the word.
"But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12).
This passage plainly states that those baptized were believers. It is further emphasized that the baptized were people of mature age men and women. In no way can infants be included here as subjects of baptism.
"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (And Philip said, If thou believest with all they heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him" (Acts 8:36-28).
The sentence in parenthesis, verse 37, is quoted from the Common Version. it is omitted in the Revision on the ground that is not found in the oldest extant manuscripts. It is referred to by Irenaeus in the second century and quoted by Cyprian in the third century. Suffice it to say, those manuscripts which quote verse 37 have supplied in the text what is clearly taught in many other passages and what is logically part of the context here in the case of Philip and the eunuch, and that is that belief is a prerequisite for baptism. Infants cannot meet this prerequisite, because they have not the mental capacity to believe.
"And he commanded them to bebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48).
Who were the ones baptized? Those commanded. Can infants hear and understand a command? No, Then they are excluded as subjects of baptism by this reference also.
8The eunch's confession of his belief in Christ, even though not found in the most ancient manuscripts, is reasonabily part of the narrative. Philip would not baptize the eunuch unless he blieve, and the only way for him to know if this belief were present was by the eunch's expression of it. That this confession is part of God's plan of salvation is taught in Romans 10:10. Confession of one's faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is the last step taken before the individual is buried with the Lord in baptism. It is necessarily implied in the truth that penitent believers are the proper subject of the one baptism.
"... and many of the Corinthians hearing belived, and were baptized" (Acts 18:8)
No infants among the Corinthians were baptized, but only the ones who heard and belived.
"Which also after a true likeness doth, now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God . . ." (1 Peter 3:21).
Baptism is referred to here as the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, something that can be done only by rational, intelligent, mature people, and not by infants.
II. ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM
The first allusion to infant baptism was by Irenaus in the latter part of the second century. He did not expressly mention the word baptism in connection with infants, but wrote the following: "He came to redeem all by himself; all who through him, are regenerated to God: infants, little children, boys, young men and old." The argument that the language here refers to baptism is based on the assumption that in the terminology of Irenaus baptism means regeneration and regeneration means baptism. The validity of this assumption is generally accepted among religious scholars. But Irenaeus proves nothing in favor of infant baptism as a law of God, for he offers no scriptural proof whatever for his assertion.
The first writer in religious history to make an express reference to infantt baptism
9Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II. Chap 22, Sec 4.
was Tertullians (immediately following Irenaeus in the first quarter of the third century), but only to condemn the practice. Had the doctrine at this time been generally regarded as an apostolic instituion, he would not have ventured to speak so strongly against it. Note the following words of Tertullian: "The delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. . . . Let them 'come' then, while they are growing up; let them 'come' while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. More caution will be exercised in worldly matters; so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to 'ask' for salvation, that you many seem (at least) to have given "to him that asketh'."
Contemporary with Tertullian was Origen, who was the first writer to specifically, advocate baptism as an apostolic tradition." When besieged with inquiries concerning this practice (proof that at this time it was not a generally accepted doctrine). he replied. "Having occasion given in this place. I will mention a thing that causes frequent inquiries among the brethren. Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? or when have they sinned? or how can any reason of the laved in their case hold "Tertullian, Baptism, Chap. XVIII. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III. p. 678
"Neander (Op. Cit. P 314) comments on this as follows:" . . . which cannot be regarded as much weight in this age, when the inclination was so strong to trace every institution which was considered on special importance, to the apostles; and when so many walls of separation, hindering the freedom of prospect, had already been set up between this and the apostolic age."
good? But according to that sense we mentioned even now: None is free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one ray upon the earth. And it is for that reason because of the sacrament of baptism that pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized."12
Origen based infant baptism on two false assumptions: that there is something sinful about bodily birth itself, later called the doctrine of original sin, and that there is a certain magical quality in the water of baptism which washes away sin. This basis for infant baptism is the same as the one presented by the Roman Catholic church, which will be dealt with in detail in the next section.
In regard to the historical origin of infant baptism, and summing up in brief the information of this section, Loofs remarks, "Infant baptism first provable in Irenaeus, still combated by Tertullian, was to Origen an apostolic usage."13 We can safely conclude that prior to 175 A.D. infant baptism was an unknown practice.
III. ARGUMENTS BY ADVOCATES OF
INFANTS BAPTISM
Inference from Original Sin
The necessity of infant baptism based on the doctrine of original sin is a cardinal tenet of Roman Catholicism. An official Catholic statement of this dogma is: "This necessity (of baptism) follows from the fact, that all men are born 'children of wrath' 9Ephesians 2:3); that is, in original sin (Romans 5:12), and need therefore the regeneration of new birth of which the Saviour speaks . . . Baptism is a sacrament which cleanses us from original sin . . . "14 Notice will now be given to the two proof texts offered in this quotation in favor of original sin.
Ephesians 2:3 reads: "among whom we also once lived in the lusts of our flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest," Does the expression by nature mean that men are inherently sinful? The word rendered by nature is found in Romans 2:14; 1 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 2:15; 4:8. Only in Galatians 2:15 can it refer to natural birth at all, and in this passage it refers to race. The word describes custom and practice in the other passages. In Ephesians 2:3 it describes the condition of those who practice 'the desires of the flesh and mind," those who have transgressed God's law and have yet to obey the gospel. Nothing is said in this reference to affirm that men are inherently sinful.
Romans 5:12 reads: "Therefore, as through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all have sinned," Paul is discussing in this passage the effect of Adam's sin upon men. Accommodatively the word sinned in this verse is applied to all men in the sense that through their federal head, Adam, they must all suffer the consequences of his sin, which is death.
There are two deaths described in the scriptures: the first, physical, and the second, spiritual. The effect of Adam's sin is physical death rather than spiritual death, for the latter is the result of personal sins. This spiritual death is described in Revelation 21:8. Now, as all men must die physically through Adam's sin, so through the righteousness of Christ (consummated in His power over death and the grave) all will be granted a deliverance from physical death at the general resurrection. "For since by man (Adam) came death, by man (Christ) came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21, 22). See John 5:28, 29.
It is not baptism that acts to remove the effect of Adam's sin (physical death) upon the individual; but he power of Christ, which is given unconditionally to all, irrespective of their age and spiritual condition or whether they have been baptized or not. Hence, the basis for infant baptism as taught by the Roman Catholic church is nonexistent. Only in reference to personal sins, actual violations of the law of God, are men scripturally baptized. Infants have no sin, for "sin is lawlessness (or transgression of the law)" (1 John 3:4). 'Where there is no law, neither is their transgression" (Romans 4:15). There is no law given to infants and could be none, and no obedience is required of them. Their innocence and purity is pronounced by Christ in Matthew 19:14, "of such is the kingdom of heaven," and in Matthews 18:3, "except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." Infants need not to be saved because they are not unsaved they are safe!
As has already been emphasized in this discussion, there is no magic or intrinsic power in the water of baptism to wash away sins. Baptism is not the instrumental cause of salvation,but a conditional cause. It has no efficacy at all apart from the blood of Christ and without the basis of faith and repentance. Since baptism is a conditional cause of salvation from personal sins and has no religious meaning apart from faith and repentance, infants are excluded as subjects of it, for they have neither personal sins not can they believe or repent.
Inference from Household Baptism
A favorite argument among many Protestants is that household baptism in the New Testament logically or necessarily infers the practice of infant baptism. They conclude that the precedent set forth by this inference is enough to justify the practice, aside from any doctrinal or philosophical arguments that might be presented in its favors. Is this inference valid? Note the individual cases of household baptism recorded in the New Testament.
1. "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). This passage refers to Cornelius and his house. In Acts 10:2 it is said of Cornelius that he was "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house." This statement precludes the idea of there being infant children in the house of Cornelius, for only mentally matured people can fear God. Furthermore, it is plainly said that the members of the house were "commanded . . . to be baptized." Infants could not understand a command. No infant baptism here!
2. "And when she was baptized, and her household . . ." (Acts 16:15). This verse refers to Lydia and her house. The argument used here by advocates of infant baptism in favor of their doctrine assumes that Lydia was married, that her household included children, that her children were infant children, and that she had her children with her although she was living three hundred miles away from her home in Thiatyra. What a hypothetical basis for a divine institution--no fair induction, but just plain speculation! Note the following: "And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believe in the Lord with all his house" (Acts 18:8). If one must insist that there were infants in Lydia's household who were baptized, to be consistent he would have to insist that there were infants in the house of Crispus who believed! We can be certain that Paul faithfully carried out the great commission in regard to Lydia and her household and baptized only those who could believe and repent.
3. "And they (Paul and Silas) spake the word of the Lord unto him (the Philippian jailer), and with all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, and set meat before them, and rejoiced greatly with all his house, having believed in God" (Acts 16:32-34). In this case the word of the Lord was spoken to all the house, and all the house rejoiced greatly . . . having believed in God." No infants are here referred to. The house of the Philippian jailer included in its scope only those who were capable of receiving the word, believing, and rejoicing.
HAUN PUBLISHING COMPANY
Box 3426
Pasadena, TX 77501
