Who Is To Be Baptized?

Catholic priests and many Protestants pastors perform what is called a christening ritual on infants shortly after birth. The ritual involves the sprinkling or pouring of water on the child’s head as the ministrant utters a few words of explanation to dedicate the child to the Lord. This they describe as baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Most gospel preachers at some time in their evangelistic life have been asked to perform this service. They refuse to do so for biblical reasons – the first of which is that sprinkling and pouring water on a person is not baptism. Baptism is immersion (see Roman 6:4). But the chief reason is that the New Testament nowhere teaches infant baptism. This is a practice that was started many centuries after the church was established and the Bible was written.

There are good reasons why Bible students never read of infant baptism in the scriptures. First, the Bible at no place teaches that infants are born in sin and have need of baptism. The prophet Ezekiel teaches “that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20). Since baptism is “for the remission of sins,” there is no need to baptize an infant. Jesus also spoke of the innocence and purity of little children when he told his disciples that “to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:14).

Second, the Bible teaches specifically that baptism is for those who believe in Jesus as the Christ, repent of their sins, and confess Jesus as Lord. Jesus in the great commission told the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature and tell them: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:15-16). Peter on the day of Pentecost told the believing Jews: “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). The apostle Paul told believers that “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:9-10).

Belief means to understand “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30-31), repent refers to “changing one’s mind” in the rejection and repudiation of sin (Luke 3:7-8), and confess denotes the utterance from the lips that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9-10). Obviously, infants are unable to perform these basic but significant tasks in preparation for baptism.

Finally, some have argued that infants were circumcised under the old covenant and that baptism is likened unto circumcision in the New Testament. This, they assume, means they should be baptized under new covenant teaching. The problem with this reasoning is that one cannot enter the new covenant until he knows the Lord (Hebrews 8:10-11), and that those who are spiritually circumcised in baptism are “raised through faith” in this working of God (Colossians 2:12). Knowing and believing in the Lord eliminates infants as subjects of baptism into covenant relationship with God.

What is Baptism?

One’s understanding of the meaning of baptism depends on where that person seeks a definition. He might read from an English dictionary and find that it means “to immerse in water or sprinkle or pour water on in the Christian rite of baptism.” That is correct description of the use of the word in the English language by people in general.

That definition, however, won’t satisfy serious Bible students. They know that the scriptures were originally written in the Greek language, and they will want to know what Jesus or Paul or Peter meant when they commanded sinners to be baptized. When they take the time to research a dictionary that defines Greek words, they will learn that the original words used by biblical writers were baptisma [noun] and baptizo [verb].

J. Henry Thayer’s Greek lexicon says of the verb, baptizo, that it means “to dip, immerge, submerge” (94). William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich say, “to dip, immerse.” A secondary idea, growing out of this definition, is “to wash” or “to cleanse.” Totally different and unrelated words in the Greek language mean “to sprinkle” [rantizo] or “to pour” [cheo].

Beyond the exact meaning of the word “baptism” are two verses that declare precisely that baptism, in the likeness of Jesus’ burial and resurrection, is a “burial.” Paul wrote to the church in Rome: “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). At a later time he wrote to the church at Colossae in Asia: “Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12).

Examples of baptism in the first century confirm this simple, straightforward meaning of the word. John the Baptist, who introduced baptism among the Jews, baptized near the city of Aenon because, the Bible says, “there was much water there” (John 3:23). When Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan river, Mark describes him as “coming up out of the water” (Mark 1:10).

An Ethiopian, who was traveling in Palestine, learned about Jesus by the preaching of Philip and was commanded to be baptized. Luke, in the book of Acts, said of the two men: “And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” He then says: “And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:38-39).

It was centuries later, out of convenience, that men shortened the Bible teaching of baptism by immersion to sprinkling and pouring water on sinners. May God bless all men today with the conviction to follow the teaching of scripture and be “buried” with their Lord in baptism.

–L. A. Stauffer

Intelligent Design

Scientists are getting increasingly nervous over the developing view among many of their colleagues that nature may have originated by intelligent design. They are fighting hard that no such “faith” be allowed in the classrooms where science is taught.

Science they argue means “to know” and is based on hypotheses, experiments, and demonstrable proofs. Only when these experiments and proofs can be replicated by other scientists can we accept them as fact. And, supposedly, only “facts” are worthy to be taught in classrooms.

We teach that the earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours, that it revolves around the sun every 365 days, and that gravity draws objects toward the center of the earth. All of this can be clearly established by a number of experiments. Even Christians are at peace with atheistic science teachers on these and many other matters of science.

But how did all this come to be? What is the origin of the sun, the earth, and the relationship of these entities to one another? Even the scientists don’t know, yet they want to teach some variation of the “Big Bang” theory to describe the origin of the solar system and their pet theory of “natural selection” to explain the rise of man from matter and simple forms of life. What experiment can we perform in a lab to prove either of these and many other so-called “scientific facts”?

The truth is that scientists walk by “faith” also. They simply “believe” this is what happened. Evolution through natural selection is nothing more than a working hypothesis. They cannot demonstrate the origin of matter, the transformation of matter into life, and the evolution of primitive forms of life into complex animals or man.

Anthony Flew, the world renown English philosopher and atheists, now in his 80s, finally admitted that the intricacies and complexities of DNA can only be explained by intelligent design. Michael Denton [Evolution: A Theory in Crisis] and Michael Behe [Darwin's Black Box], two prominent microbiologists, came to the same conclusion. Even Charles Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, where he taught evolution through natural selection, admits that his theory offers no adequate explanation of the origin and intricate workings of the eyeball.*

Lest scientists have a nervous breakdown, be it known that none of these men believe the Genesis account of creation; nor are any of them interested in teaching the Bible in biology or physics classes. But they do admit that life cannot be fully explained by “scientific proofs.” And some scientists are simply arguing that it is only fair that children in the classroom be exposed to the theory of “intelligent design” along with the theory of “evolution by natural selection.” Neither can be proved; both are matters of faith. Why not teach both and leave the children to examine the facts and decide for themselves.

* Darwin Wrote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (Origin of the Species, A Mentor Book, 168)

Man Is Saved by Nothing “Alone”

Just a cursory reading of the Bible reveals that men are saved by many things. Yet we so often read from supposed Bible-scholars that men are saved by “grace alone” or by “faith alone.” They no sooner say this than they contradict themselves. Some say man is saved by “grace alone” but that he must believe. Others say he is saved by “faith alone” but he must “repent” of his sins and say the “sinner’s prayer.” If they would just stick with what the scriptures say, they could eliminate all this confusion.

Note what the Bible says about being saved:

1. We are saved by grace (Eph 2:5).
2. We are saved by faith (Eph 2:8).
3. We are saved by baptism (1 Pet 3:21).
4. We are saved by obedience (Heb 5:9).
5. We are saved by confession (Rom 10:9-10).
6. We are saved by repentance (Luke 24:47).
7. We are saved by belief and baptism (Mark 16:16).
8. We are saved by repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
9. We are saved by hope (Rom 8:24).
10. We are saved by works (James 2:24).
11. We are saved by mercy (Titus 3:5).
12. We are saved by the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5).
13. We are saved by the renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

Reformation theologians and their modern Protestant heirs are so fearful of the medieval Catholic doctrine of salvation by works that they distort beyond recognition the Bible doctrine of the “obedience of faith” (see Rom 1:5; 16:26). To do this they subtly add the word “alone” or “only” to the teaching of salvation by grace and salvation by faith.

Yes, the scripture do condemn the Judaistic doctrine of “salvation by works”- by works of law or works of the law (see Gal 2:16). Every discussion of this topic in the New Testament refers to salvation by perfect obedience in the absence of grace (see Gal 3:10-11). It has no reference to works of obedience in acceptance of God’s gracious blessings in Christ.

Paul, for example, says we are all sons of God by faith because we have been baptized into Christ and have put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27). Men are not saved by merely being baptized, but because in the obedience of faith they have come into Christ and unto God’s grace. Paul also says of Christ that men are baptized “into his death,” where his blood was shed, and are, thus, saved by grace. Out of baptism they arise to walk as new creatures who are free from sin (see Rom 6:3-4; 2 Cor 5:17).

Those who add “only” to grace, faith, baptism, obedience, confession, repentance, hope, works, mercy – or anything else – are perverting the teaching of scripture and rejecting God’s plan of salvation by grace through the obedience faith.