Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

This writer can remember witnessing at the age of five the “baptism” of his infant cousin; the denominational “pastor” sprinkled drops of water upon his forehead. I wondered at the significance of that action then, but now, with an increased understanding of the Scriptural design of baptism I not only wonder, but must seriously question the validity of it. Jesus questioned the religious leaders and we must also examine with the same incisive interest modern-day concepts of baptism which conflict with the New Testament record. As any reputable scholar will attest, the only mode of baptism which was practiced in New Testament times was immersion. Immersion is, of course, the meaning of the Greek word transliterated “baptism” in our English translations. Not only was immersion the only mode of baptism, it can be abundantly established that the only design of baptism was “for the forgiveness of sins.”

An Appeal to History

An examination of historical documents which appear after the New Testament period is extremely helpful in understanding the development of certain practical and doctrinal trends characterizing the apostasy from the inspired message of the apostles. The writings of the men commonly called the “apostolic fathers” pinpoint for us the flow of thought which led to the many innovations that fill denominations today. These writings are searched and examined not for their authoritative value; the New Testament alone can be our standard for faith and practice, for it alone bears the Divine sanction of inspiration. Rather we consult such documents for their historical insight into post-apostolic Christianity.

Substitutions for Immersion

On an eventful day circa 253 A.D., a man named Novatian lay in illness, apparently upon his death-bed. Believing in the necessity of immersion for salvation, but unable to leave his bed, he was permitted by a local “bishop” to substitute the pouring of water all about him in its place. This episode, reported by the famous church historian, Eusebius (Church History VI. xliii. 14, 17), constituted the first known historical substitution of another action in the place of immersion. Another author, Cyprian, writing close to the time of the Novatian incident, suggested that the substitution was appropriate in the case of “emergencies” clearly stating, however, that this was an “accommodation” and that “everything else must be in order” (Epistle 75:12). Since pouring was administered to those bed-fast with infirmities, the practice came to be known as “clinical baptism” after the creek word for bed, kline. In reference to these exceptional substitutions and others which begin to appear infrequently following this period, we observe that to these writers, “baptism” still meant immersion and to describe another action (such as pouring or sprinkling) another word was used. Clearly, the origin of a substitute for immersion occurred in the context of extraordinary situations, (either the lack of sufficient depth of water or the circumstances of the candidate for baptism).

That “real” baptism was still considered immersion before and during this period can be shown from the testimony of such writers as Tertullian (“Baptism itself is a bodily act, because we are immersed in water . . .On Baptism, 7), Origen (who in commenting upon the crossing of the Red Sea mentions New Testament baptism: “the evil spirits seek to overtake you, but you descend into the water and you escape safely;”Homilies on Exodus, V:5), Basil of Caesarea (“We imitate the burial of Christ through baptism. For the bodies of those being baptized are as it were buried in water”-On the Holy Spirit, XV:35), and Cyril of Jerusalem (“For as he who plunges into the waters and is baptized is surrounded on all sides by the waters, so were they also baptized completely . . “-Catechetical Lectures, XVII:14).

Though strongly opposed soon after its appearance, even as an “exceptional” measure, pouring and then sprinkling continued to gain more and more acceptance as adequate substitutes for immersion. It was inevitable that these alternative modes would ultimately become acceptable even in “normal” circumstances. The first “official” approval of such occurred in 753 A.D., when Pope Stephen declared the alternative modes acceptable in “cases of necessity.” It was not until 1311 A.D., by the council of Ravenna, that the practice of baptism by modes other than immersion was officially legislated as a matter of indifference in any circumstances of conversion. The words of Alexander Campbell are particularly pertinent here: “In the history of Christianity, the whole world, Eastern and Western Christendom, with the exception of a few sick and dying persons practiced immersion during the long space of thirteen hundred years. Since that time, license was granted first to the Pope, in 1311, to practice affusion (pouring) with the authority of the church. Calvin next gave a law to his branch of the church, authorizing affusion. This was carried first into Scotland, and then into England . . . and finally imposed upon the people, much against their own conviction and inclination at first. Time, however, reconciled them to it;” (Christian Baptism, p. 153).

Infant Baptism and the Design of Immersion

As we have suggested, the early church understood the design of baptism to be the “forgiveness of sins.” This fact is underscored by the special emphasis placed upon the act in second century literature. Among the blessings attributed to baptism by these writers were remission of sins, salvation, eternal life, regeneration and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Such a high view of the design of baptism could only have come from a first century proclamation which intimately connected immersion and salvation. The consistency with which these men stress the essentiality of immersion would be impossible if not for this earlier understanding. It is inconceivable, as some would have us believe, that the whole realm of believers suddenly could have reversed its understanding of the design of baptism within fifty years after the lifetime of the apostles! It is evident that what made the change in mode justifiable in the minds of those who practiced pouring or sprinkling was the conviction that baptism was essential to salvation. The consideration of a substitute would never have occurred had baptism not been considered so important. This is a tremendously significant point which cannot be rationalized; this is corroborative proof that such passages as Mk. 16:16 and Acts 2:38 are to be understood quite literally. Baptism is essential to salvation! There was a predominant conviction of the innocence of infants through the third century. In numerous passages, infants become the standard of purity and sinlessness. Indeed, the whole language of “rebirth” in connection with immersion presupposes the innocent state of the infant. This understanding plus the conviction that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins explains why there is no early reference in support of infant baptism in the post-ap6stolic literature. Baptism was for sinners, they understood, and babies are not sinners.

By the fourth century, however, baptism had ironically digressed into a “sacramental” act; divorced from its context within the whole of God’s scheme of redemption, the act was given implications unwarranted in New Testament Scripture. Using John 3:5 as a “prooftext,” a view developed that baptism was necessary for every person who ever lived-without regard to age, spiritual state or pre-New Covenant circumstance. Consequently, an absurd contention such as “Jesus was in Hades baptizing Old Testament saints” could find fertile soil. Naturally, then, the baptism of infants was rationalized as a precautionary measure to assure the safe passage of the infant to heaven should he die. The reasoning was, if no one could enter heaven without baptism, then everyone, whether sinner or not, must be baptized. It is thus seen that contrary to popular conception, the practice of infant baptism actually preceded the doctrine of “original sin.” The first clear reference to infant baptism is found in Tertullian’s writings and he opposed it, nevertheless showing that the practice did have its advocates at the time. Progressively, however, as the baptism of infants became more common, the practice became a decisive argument for the doctrine of original sin. Reversing the view of the prior century, men reasoned that if infants ought to be baptized, then the reason must be because they are sinners since that is the design of baptism. An ironic turnabout indeed! Origen is the first to suggest in a positive defense that infants should be baptized; at his time of writing (mid-third century) the doctrine of original sin had not fully developed, but was present in its early stages. Origen himself suggests that although infants themselves do not have “their own sins,” a stain attaches itself from previous human sin-a stain to be removed by baptism (Homily on Luke, XIV:3). This doctrine would be in full bloom by the middle of the fourth century with the assistance of Augustine.

Observations

It is not difficult to trace the evolution of sprinkling and infant baptism to the present from these sources. As belief in the essentiality of baptism subsided and the presence of “original sin” on the souls of infants has been played down, most mainline Protestant groups have instituted the infant baptism ceremony as a “dedication service” for the parents. Of course this practice has no more in common with the Scriptures than did sprinkling, pouring or the original practice of infant baptism. But as is the case with most innovations, a circumstance occurs which demands, in the minds of its advocates, a “bending” of Scripture. This “bending” is justified on the basis of an “emergency;” however, once justified as an “exceptional” case, all too soon the innovation becomes established as an acceptable practice under any circumstances. We have seen this to be true in the case of the mode and design of baptism and currently witness the tragic consequences of such Scripture wresting in other areas. The only possible remedy for the divided state of modern “Christendom” is a return to the authority of the Scriptures. Doctrines and practices must not be formulated and then justified. The only possible procedure is to examine Scripture first and allow it, as the voice of God, to determine what our practices and beliefs must be.

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 422-424
May 15, 1975

By Steve Wolfgang

The subject of the “action” of baptism quite evidently concerns itself with the nature of the act. It raises the question, “Exactly what is `baptism’?-” This is a question which should be of obvious importance to every professed believer of the Bible. To those who do not believe the word of God, little if any significance attaches to what the act of baptism consists of, or is. To those who do believe the promise of Jesus (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”-Mk. 16:16), it is of paramount importance to understand exactly what is meant by “baptism.”

Historically, discussions of this question have centered in distinguishing between so-called “modes” of baptism-whether baptism is “by” sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. Ancient indeed is the argument that “baptism is commanded-but the `mode’ is not revealed; therefore any `mode’ is acceptable.” This, of course, is tantamount to arguing that God commanded an act (baptism) upon which one’s eternal salvation depends (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21), but was so nebulous and unclear as to leave completely undefined what the act is! (We recognize that many who would leave baptism so undefined also deny the necessity of the act for salvation.) From a Biblical standpoint, the complicated and intricate arguments over “modes” are completely unnecessary; in fact, they are foreign to the Scriptures, being instead the results of human systems of theology. The Bible simply does not say anything about “modes,” for the simple reason that the word itself indicates precisely what it means and what its “action” is.

In its most basic and fundamental sense, the act of baptism “consist(s) of the processes of immersion, submersion, and emergence” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Volume I, p. 96). Standard lexicons (Greek dictionaries), such as Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, define “baptism” in this way: “dip, immerse,” and point out that in “non-Christian literature” it means to “plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm, etc.” (p. 131). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines the Greek verb for “baptism” as “immersion, submersion” (p. 94); while Liddell and Scott, in their Greek-English Lexicon, define the word to mean “dip repeatedly, dip under” (p. 126). Alan Richardson’s Theological Wordbook of the Bible defines the word in this manner: “dip, plunge under water, sink or swamp” (p. 27).

Thus the English word “baptize” does not adequately translate the idea of the action contained in the original Greek word (baptizo); in fact (as we can see by comparing the Greek word and the English word), it is not a translation at all, but rather a transliteration. It merely transposes Greek letters (transliterates) into English letters, instead of selecting any of a number of English words (such as dip, plunge, immerse, submerge, overwhelm, etc.) which would correctly convey (translate) the idea of the Greek, baptizo. (It is also interesting to notice that a separate Greek word –rantizo–meaning “to sprinkle” could and would have been used if that were the action being contemplated.)

But one does not necessarily need a knowledge of Greek or access to a Greek lexicon to learn what the Bible means by “baptism.” Perhaps the best way to establish that the word itself indicates its own meaning is to examine passages of scripture in which the word is used. One of the best descriptive passages with regard to “baptism” is found in Acts 8, the record of the conversion of the Ethiopian treasurer. From the account beginning in verse 35 and continuing through verse 39, we learn that the act of baptism involves a coming unto water (v. 36), a going down into the water (v. 38), and a coming up out of water (v. 39).

Other passages are likewise revealing in helping us to understand the nature of the action of baptism. In Rom. 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12, baptism is called a “burial,” which involves again the ideas of a submersion, or an overwhelming. Perhaps we can understand from passages such as these why it was necessary that John the baptizer baptized where there was “much water” (John 3:23). Also, the concept of innundation and a complete overwhelming with water is implied by Peter’s use of the flood in Noah’s day, and his declaration that a “like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21).

Seeing then that baptism is declared to be an essential requirement for a person’s salvation, we need to be very certain that we understand what baptism is-that by definition and by its own usage it is immersion, and all of the sophisticated and complex discussion about “modes” will not make it otherwise; nor will it make sprinkling and pouring something which they are not-Biblical baptism.

Dear reader, if you have not been “baptized” (immersed) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), we fervently urge you to think seriously about, and act upon, this important commandment.

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 421-422
May 15, 1975

By Harry E. Ozment

There is not a single aspect connected with baptism about which there is not some controversy in the religious world. This is true in regard to its essentiality, its form, and its element. There is also controversy in the consideration of the subjects of baptism. Let us investigate the three main ideas that are held concerning this.

Jews Only

There are many people in the religious world who believe in and practice today the baptism of John the Baptist. In so doing, however, those people must accept the position that their baptism is for Jews only; for, John the Baptist preached only to Jews, and John baptized only the Jews. We read that all of John’s ministry was done only in a land that was inhabited by Jews (Matt. 3:5-6). Because John baptized many Jews before Jesus was manifested as the Christ, we may necessarily conclude that subjects of John’s baptism were not required to have faith in Jesus (see Matt. 3:5-12). This is not at all the baptism that Jesus commissioned in Mk. 16:15-16. Notice that the gospel was to be preached to “all the world” and to “every creature”-not just to the Jews alone (cf. Matt. 28:18-20; Lk. 24:47). Notice also that faith in Jesus is a pre-requisite to Bible baptism (Mk. 16:16). The baptism of John was never meant for this Christian dispensation. This can be seen in the events of Acts 18 and 19. Apollos was preaching and practicing the baptism of John until Aquila and Priscilla “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:24-28). The Ephesians had obeyed the baptism of John, but because this was insufficient for the gospel dispensation, Paul re-baptized them scripturally (Acts 19:1-5). We today, therefore, are not subjects of John’s baptism.

Infants

Infant “baptism” (it is really sprinkling, not baptism) is practiced by a great many in the religious world-the Roman Catholics as well as many Protestant bodies. This, of course, does not make it right. The scriptures condemn “infant baptism” for infants are not the proper subjects of baptism. This is true for several reasons:

(a) A baby has no sin. As we have seen, baptism’s purpose is to remit sin by and through the blood of Christ. Only a sinner, therefore, is a proper subject for baptism. Babies born into this world commit no sin, and they inherit no sin. Hereditary depravity (or, original sin) is the root of infant baptism. In apostatizing from the original pattern of the gospel, men began to believe that infants inherited the original sin of Adam. If this were true, these men reasoned, it would necessitate the “baptizing” of infants. Thus, infants were sprinkled in the Roman Catholic Church. This doctrine of inherited sin, however, is foreign to the Bible. Sin can only be committed, not inherited (see Ezek. 18:20). John shows this in defining sin: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4).

(b) A baby cannot meet the pre-requisites of baptism. A mere dipping in water will save no one. There must be meaning and purpose behind such before it can be Bible baptism. Meaning and purpose is given to baptism when a person obeys its pre-requisites. Faith (Heb. 11:6), repentance (Lk. 13:3), and a confession of faith (Rom. 10:9-10) are all commands which-must be obeyed before one can be a proper subject for baptism. Infants cannot believe anything, for they do not have the capacity to understand what they should believe. Infants cannot repent for they have nothing of which to repent. Infants cannot confess, for they do not have the capacity even to speak. Therefore, they are not the proper subjects for baptism.

(c) There is no Bible example of infant baptism.

Many argue that the four examples of “household” baptisms necessarily infer that infants were baptized. Let us look briefly at the four cases:

(i) Household of Cornelius. Those composing this household were able to understand the words of Peter-thus they “heard the word” (Acts 10:44). This excludes infants.

(ii) Household of Lydia. This same household was able to be “comforted” by the words of Paul and Silas after their conversion (Acts 16:40). This excludes infants.

(iii) Household of Philippian a Jailor. When Paul preached the gospel to this house, all were able to believe it (Acts 16:34). This excludes infants.

(iv) Household of Stephanus. Paul baptized this Corinthian household (1 Cor. 1:16), but those of that household “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). This excludes infants.

Penitent Believers

These are the proper subjects for Bible baptism. Only penitent believers were baptized in the New. Testament. Before Philip baptized the eunuch, he made very sure that the treasurer was a believer (Acts 8:30-38). The Samaritans believed before they were baptized (Acts 8:12). Cornelius and his household were commanded to believe (Acts 10:43-44). The jailor and his house believed (Acts 16:31). Without exception, every case of conversion places faith before baptism. Therefore, only penitent believers are proper subjects for baptism. I believe that this is God’s simple plan regarding baptism and salvation. If man would take God’s word alone, there would be unity.

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 419-420
May 15, 1975

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

There is hardly a subject connected with the salvation of man that has been more heatedly contested and discussed than baptism. The importance of the subject is seen in the fact that baptism and its cognate appears over 100 times in the 269 chapters of the New Testament. We’ cannot deny the importance of the subject: In spite of the fact that the New Testament says much about baptism, there is a great deal of disagreement regarding the design of baptism. Is baptism essential to salvation or is it not? The Bible teaches that the believer must be baptized to receive salvation. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate this fact.

Men Deny the Essentiality of Baptism

There are many who maintain that we are saved at the point of faith without baptism. It is difficult to see how anyone can take this position in view of the fact that the Apostle Peter said that “baptism doth also now save us . . .” (1 Pet. 3:21). Here are a few examples of those who reject baptism:

Wayne Camp preaches for the Beverly Manor Baptist Church in Washington, Illinois. He has conducted a couple of debates with church of Christ preachers. On the essentiality of baptism, Mr. Camp says, “baptism for the remission of sins is absolutely unscriptural” (Washington Courier, Dec. 17, 1969). John R. Rice, Baptist editor of The Sword of The Lord says, “baptism does not save does not help save” (The Sword of The Lord, Dec. 6, 1968, p. 1). In the great Bogard-Warlick debate, Bogard (Baptist preacher) said, “I object to the idea that baptism is necessary to salvation because, if true, it makes God dishonest” (p. 45). In the same debate he said, “either way you take it, we see that baptism is not necessary to salvation (p. 136). Mr. A. U. Nunnery, in his debate with Guy N. Woods; said, “Baptists teach that baptism is essential. Baptists even teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Baptists do not teach that baptism is essential to acquire salvation, but they teach that baptism is essential to demonstrate salvation” (Woods-Nunnery Debate, p. 5, italics mine, jt). The New Manual For Baptist Churches says, “baptism is the performance of a good work, therefore, it is not essential to salvation” (p. 45).

What the Bible Teaches

The Bible clearly teaches that baptism of the believer is essential to salvation. As a matter of fact, baptism stands between the sinner and salvation. In the great commission Jesus said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). This cannot be controverted by denominational creeds and preachers. Look at Acts 2:38: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Another passage showing that baptism is essential is 1 Peter 3:21, “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us . . .”

Before examining a couple of these passages in detail, we call your attention to the following chart:

What Baptism Does

Puts one into Christ – Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27

Makes one a child of God – Gal. 3:26-27

Put on Christ – Gal. 3:27

Puts into one body – 1 Cor. 12:13

Saves – Mk. 16:15-16; 1 Pet. 3:21

Remission of sins – Acts 2:38

Washes away sin – Acts 22:16

Baptism Is Therefore Essential to Salvation

It can be clearly seen that baptism has its specific design. This is true of every Divine institution. The general assumption that baptism is not essential or necessary to salvation would make God have people do something in religion that is not necessary. Why would God want us to be baptized if it is not necessary? The truth of the matter is that when God commands a thing, what He commands is positively necessary in order to obey Him (Matt. 7:21). God commands baptism (Acts 10:48). We must be baptized to please God. This is necessary in order to please him.

A Closer Look at Mark 16:16

Let’s take a closer look at the statement of Jesus: “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The statement “he shall be saved” is the principle part of the sentence. Just who shall be saved is shown by the dependent clause, “that believeth and is baptized.” Not just any person can be saved. Only the he who believes and is baptized. The individual who will fulfill the conditions of the commission shall be saved. Those who will not believe and be baptized will not be saved. If salvation is to be obtained, both of the conditions upon which it is based must be fulfilled.

In our study of this passage we cannot overlook the conjunction “and.” Jesus said, “believeth and is baptized.” “And” is a coordinating conjunction, joining elements of equal rank. With reference to the promise, “shall be saved,” belief and baptism stand together, equal in rank. If one is essential, so is the other. Just as one must believe in order to be saved, so one must be baptized to obtain salvation. A colleague has illustrated it like this: The little word “and” is like the coupling pin that connects two box cars on a railroad track. As long as they are joined one cannot move in one direction and one in another direction. Both must move in the same direction. Faith may be represented by one box car; baptism may be represented by the other box car; the conjunction “and” joins them together as a coupling pin. Both move in the same direction as long as they are coupled by the conjunction “and.” Both are essential to salvation.

Another way to look at it is to substitute the word “plus” in the place of “and,” because the word “and” means plus. Just as two plus two equals four, so belief plus baptism equals salvation. Salvation is not by faith only (Jas. 2:24). “Believe and be baptized” means belief plus baptism. Jesus clearly said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

A Look at Acts 2:38

In this passage the inspired Apostle Peter says, “repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Both repentance and baptism are given as prerequisites to the remission of sins. Both of them are essential. Neither of them can be omitted or ignored. Baptism sustains exactly the same relationship to remission of sins that repentance sustains. If we are to repent for the remission of sins, we are also to be baptized for the remission of sins. Both repentance and baptism are essential. Thus Peter not only told the people what to do, he stated the design or purpose for doing it.

We are told by some that the expression “for the remission of sins” means because of the remission of sins, and that we are baptized because of salvation, not in order to obtain it. But observe, if we are to be baptized because our sins are already forgiven, then we are to repent for the same reason. No word can have opposite meanings in the same instance of its usage. The word “for” in Acts 2:38 cannot mean “in order to” as related to repentance and “because of” as related to baptism. Whatever “for” means, it means it for both parts of the sentence. The Greek word translated “for” in Acts 2:38 is never translated “because of” and never looks backward. “For” looks forward to the remission of sins. Let me illustrate: the worker labors for his wages. He labors in order to receive wages, not because he has already received them. So repentance and baptism are in order to the remission of sins.

Conclusion

When it comes to the matter of baptism do not fall back on human sentiment by offering excuses to justify yourself from the responsibility of obeying God. Remember, the way of salvation is that of complete, implicit, faithful, trusting submission to the will of Jehovah God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 418-419
May 15, 1975