Truth Magazine

By O. C. Birdwell

The New Testament speaks often and much on the subject of baptism. The scriptures which speak on the subject are clear, concise, and were given to be understood: Yet, despite these plain Bible passages which show the need for baptism many still object and refuse to obey Christ in baptism. Foy E. Wallace, Jr. said, “. . . The task of circumventing every passage in the New Testament which expresses any connection that baptism sustains to salvation is the constant and studied effort of every denominational preacher” (Bulwarks of the Faith, p. 85). Because of the constant and almost passionate rejection of baptism, it is imperative that, in our study of the general theme Baptism, attention be given to a few of the more commonly heard objections to baptism.

OBJECTION: The Bible teaches salvation by faith.

Yes, the Bible does teach salvation by faith (Rom. 5:1). But does this exclude the need for baptism? Has anyone ever read from the New Testament that salvation is by faith only? We know that a well known church creed says, “. . . wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort” (Methodist Discipline, 1910, Art. 9), but our question is, where is it taught in the Bible? Another church manual says, “We believe the Scriptures teach that the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace; . . .” (Hiscox, Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, p. 61). While this particular church teaches salvation “wholly of grace” they, at the same time, also teach that salvation is by “faith only.” How can this be? “Wholly” is defined as, “to the full or entire extent: COMPLETELY.” “Only” means “as a single fact or instance and nothing more or different” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). How can man be saved “wholly by grace” and at the same time his salvation be “by faith only?” It is impossible. This is man’s doctrine, and not doctrine of the Bible. The Bible teaches that man is saved by grace (Eph. 2:8), by faith (Rom. 5:1), and by baptism (Acts 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). The word “only” or “wholly” is not used with either, except where it is used by James when he says “not by faith only” (James 2:24, KJV).

OBJECTION: The thief on the cross was not baptized.

There is no way for one to know positively whether he was or was not baptized. But, we will grant that he was not baptized. What does that have to do with what man in this dispensation is instructed to do? The thief lived in the presence of Jesus on earth before his death and before his Testament came into effect. He was not under the instructions given unto us in the New Testament (See Heb. 9:16-17). Another who lived before the New Testament period was Abraham. As far as we know, Abraham was never baptized. But he was never so instructed! If what he did teaches anything it surely shows that he would have been baptized if he had been so commanded, and that without a quibble. But Abraham and the thief lived before the New Law came into effect. The question we need to consider is, does the New Testament teach men who live after the death of Christ must be baptized in order to be saved?

OBJECTION: Baptism is a work, and man is not saved by works.

Ephesians 2:8-9 is usually cited by those who use this objection. A careful study of this passage will show that Paul speaks of the works devised by man in which man, if he were saved by them, could boast. Is baptism such a work? Now be fair with your answer! Can man boast of meritorious works, by which he is deserving of salvation, when he obeys the Bible instruction to be baptized? If you answer in the affirmative, then you must exclude faith and repentance, along with every other act of obedience. But none of these, my friend, are works of man’s righteousness: They are all a part of God’s righteousness, authorized by God, and bound upon man as his part in God’s plan, and necessary for one to take advantage of God’s extended grace. (For further study on this subject see “Baptism: A Work of Man or God?,” elsewhere in this publication.)

OBJECTION: Mark 16:16 does not say “he that disbelieveth and is not baptized shall be condemned.”

Of all the objections to baptism, this seems to be one of the most widely used. Jesus, in this passage, instructed that salvation be promised to those who believe and are baptized, and that condemnation be preached as a consequence of unbelief. Do not confuse the two subjects–salvation and condemnation. Two acts are listed as necessary for salvation; only one for condemnation. Unbelief alone will bring condemnation, but salvation follows belief and baptism. Do not be mislead.

OBJECTION: The man stranded in the desert or dying on the battlefield could not be saved if baptism is essential to salvation.

This objection is a human-reason argument against baptism that is made to appeal to the sympathy of man. Such sympathy appeals are made in many areas. Recorded actions of God which are contrary to the accepted practice of men are used by the modernist to try to disprove the inspiration of the scriptures. It is argued that any Old Testament passage which contains a command to slay people could not really be from God and is only the record of the people’s concept of God. This position assumes that modern man can know the nature and will of God apart from God’s having revealed it to him, and is just one of the many places where the modernist has missed the mark. He presumes to set his own standard and bounds for God and concludes that any act or command outside of these bounds of human wisdom is either not from God or is an immoral act by Him.

The same kind of reasoning is used by those who voice the above stated objection. Since they conclude that God could not reject the salvation of anyone who at the last minute before death decides he wants to be saved, they feel compelled to speak for God and devise their own scheme for the salvation of such people. Thus they, as the modernist, presume to know the nature and will of God apart from His revelation. Have they overlooked the constant New Testament warning of the dangers of procrastination and the perils of putting off obedience?

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Peter’s words are, “Repent ye, and be baptized, . . . unto the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38). Before man’s salvation is his belief and baptism. Remission of sins is promised after repentance and baptism. One who rejects baptism would remove this act as a condition. Most would, however, retain belief and repentance. Through what kind of reason would one man have the right to remove one of Christ’s conditions and another man not have the same right to remove still another condition such as belief? Then one might ask, “What about the unbeliever who dies on the battlefield but, no doubt, would have eventually believed if his life had not been cut short? Will he not also be saved? You see, there is no end to such human reasoning.

These, and all other objections to baptism, will be resolved if one will stay with just the Bible and not speculate about the matter. If God saves all people who are in the desert and all who are on the battlefield, that will be His prerogative. If man preaches the pure gospel of Christ, however, he will tell all men to believe and be baptized to be saved. This is precisely what Jesus said.

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 426-428
May 15, 1975

By Mike Willis

Having previously read that baptism is essential to salvation and that not all which is called “baptism” in contemporary terminology is Bible baptism, every person ought to consider whether or not his baptism is pleasing to God. Acts 19:1-6 records the case of a group of twelve men being rebaptized because their first baptism did not please God. Consequently, there is scriptural precedent for requesting that every individual reconsider whether or not his baptism pleased God. To my knowledge, baptism involves the proper action, design, and subject before it can be considered valid by Bible standards.

The Proper Subject

The proper subject of Bible baptism is the penitent believer (Acts 2:38; Mk. 16:16). (For further information on this point, read “The Subjects of Bible Baptism” by Harry Ozment.) No person who does not believe in Jesus Christ, either because he cannot or will not, is a proper subject of baptism. Jesus is not interested in simply seeing people baptized; if he were, a person could easily expedite the obedience to His will with a loaded shotgun. However, a person who was baptized in that fashion would not be pleasing to God. The only proper subject of Bible baptism is the penitent believer.

This being so, one of the things which is frequently wrong with denominational baptism is that its subjects are those who are not proper subjects of baptism, namely infants. The official position of many churches demonstrates this point:

“The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church” (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1940 edition, p. 44).

“Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Article 6.142).

Infants cannot believe in Jesus nor repent of their sins and, therefore, are not proper subjects of Bible baptism. Any person who was baptized as an infant and is depending upon that baptism to please God needs to know right now that God will not accept it. It is not Bible baptism.

The Proper Action

Elsewhere in this issue, Steve Wolfgang demonstrated that Bible baptism is an immersion in water. No reputable Greek lexicon can be cited which will disagree with the position that the Greek word baptizo, from which our English word “baptize” is transliterated and translated, means “to immerse.” The element of Bible baptism is water (Acts 8:36). From these facts, we draw the conclusion and make the charge that denominational baptism is frequently wrong because it involves the wrong action (sprinkling or pouring instead of immersion) as the quotations show:

“Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Article, 6.141).

“Let every adult Person, and the Parents of every Child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion” (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1940 edition, p. 602).

I know of no biblical evidence which would intimate that sprinkling or pouring will serve as an acceptable substitute for immersion in water. Denominational baptism, which is generally sprinkling or pouring, is not pleasing to God. (Frequently, denominational baptism involves both the wrong subject and the wrong action.)

The Right Purpose

The third and final aspect of Bible baptism is its design. Jimmy Tuten’s article on this subject proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that baptism is essential to salvation (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). These quotations, from only a -sampling of the many denominations which believe the same doctrine, demonstrate that not all persons are baptized in order to be saved and are, therefore, baptized for the wrong purpose:

“Baptism is not essential to salvation . . . .” (Edward T. Hiscox, The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, p. 20).

“Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort” (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1940 edition, p. 42).

“Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (baptism-MW), yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, . . .” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Article 6.143).

Everyone would admit that one’s purpose for being baptized is important. The person who might be baptized to please his wife or to receive some gift would not be properly baptized, even though he might have been immersed in water, because he was baptized for the wrong reason. Either one’s purpose must be right or it does not have to be right in order for his baptism to be valid. If it must be right for the baptism to be valid, then any reason other than the right purposes for baptism would invalidate the baptism. If it does not have to be right for the baptism to be valid, then any and every non-biblical reason for being baptized will be perfectly and equally acceptable to God. I think that all of us would conclude that one’s purpose must be the biblical purposes for being baptized. Therefore, a person who was baptized either to show to the world that he had already been saved or as an outward sign of an inward act has not been baptized for the right reason and, therefore, his baptism did not please God.

Inasmuch as one’s obedience to the gospel puts one into the body of Christ, the individual must have some idea of what the church is. Just as Philip taught the Samaritans about the kingdom of God before baptizing them (Acts 8:12), so also each person being baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) needs to have some knowledge of the body of Christ. He needs to realize that he is being added to the saved of all ages, that he is a part of the kingdom established by Christ on the day of Pentecost, and that, in that kingdom, he must worship and serve God throughout the rest of his life. Unless a person has some knowledge of these purposes of baptism, he cannot be scripturally baptized.

Conclusion

A person cannot be taught wrong and baptized right; he cannot be baptized wrong -and worship right; he cannot worship wrong and live right; he cannot live wrong and die right. Therefore, unless one’s baptism is right, he has no hope for salvation in Christ. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (Jn. 14:6). Any person whose baptism is not Bible baptism is seeking to approach God in some other way. Jesus said no person could do that. A baptism that involves the wrong action, wrong subject, and/or wrong design is worthless. Any person having been baptized after this fashion, like the twelve men of Acts 19, needs to reconsider his baptism and be baptized as the Bible directs. As a penitent believer in Christ, he needs to be immersed in water for the remission of his sins in order to become a part of the redeemed of all ages.

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 425-426
May 15, 1975

By Earl E. Robertson

This has been, and is, a much argued subject. It has not been so argued because God did not plainly reveal His will in this matter. The Bible says, “baptism saves” (1 Pet. 3:21). Any explanation of this statement, which denies that baptism saves, is not an explanation at all, but a contradiction of what God says. So, the question herein to be answered is: since one must be baptized to be saved, is that person’s salvation the result of man’s work in the absence of God’s grace? Baptists teach baptism is essential for one to become a Baptist; yet, they teach baptism for the remission of sins would nullify the grace of God. The “grace of God that bringeth salvation” instructs the sinner to believe the gospel and be baptized to be saved (Mk. 16:15, 16). It is apparent that the grace of God uses means through which the sinner is saved, one part of which is baptism.

Baptism In The Name Of Christ

Salvation is in the name of Christ (Acts 4:12). It can be in no other name. Since Peter says baptism saves and further affirms that salvation is in the name of Christ, it follows, therefore, that baptism must be in the name of Christ. The commission of Jesus states it this way, too (Matt. 28:19). The apostles were told they would preach salvation (remission of sins) in his name (Lk. 24:47). Luke testifies they did so (Acts 2:38).

The expression “in the name of Christ” means in or upon the authority of Christ. Our English word “name” comes from the same word “law” or “authority” comes from. The word is negated in the form “lawlessness” or “iniquity” (Matt. 7:23). The revealed words of Christ and his apostles, being a manifestation of God’s grace to man, constitute the law, authority, or name of Christ. Every case of conversion shows the same law was appealed to and the same obedience performed. The result was salvation “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8, 9)

Joel 2:32 is used by both Peter (Acts 2:21) and Paul (Rom. 10:13) in affirming salvation by the right name, law, or authority. Peter says, “.`And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” So, salvation is predicated upon calling on the name of the Lord. This statement is God’s grace instructing; but what does it mean to “call on the name of the Lord?” Thankfully, we have an example of this in the New Testament. In Acts 22:16, Saul is told by Ananias to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 9:18 says he “arose and was baptized.” When he did this he was calling on the name of the Lord! “Calling on the name of the Lord,” in Acts 22:16, is in apposition to “arise and be baptized.” It explains what is meant by the command of the Lord to be baptized. It tells the sinner that in his being baptized he is calling on the name of the Lord for salvation. Now, is this salvation, given in baptism, a result of man’s work apart from the grace of God? No!

This is further argued in 1 Corinthians 1:12-17. Division existed in the church at Corinth. Some were saying, “I am of Paul;” others, “I of Apollos;” while others were claiming, “I of Cephas.” Opposed to these were some saying, “I of Christ.” “Of” is possessive, meaning they were saying they belonged to these various ones. By two questions Paul either proves or disproves their contentions: 1) Was Paul crucified for you? 2) Were you baptized in the name of Paul? If Paul had not been crucified for them and they had not been baptized in his name then they were not “of” Paul. The same holds true for Apollos and Peter. Yet, the same is true for Christ! To be owned by or be “of” Christ equals salvation. This salvation from sin demanded the crucifixion of Christ and baptism of the sinner in the name of Christ. This is Paul’s argument-crucifixion and baptism in the name of the Lord-for anyone to belong to Christ, or have salvation! Jesus died for all (Heb. 2:9), and all whom he saves by grace are the ones baptized in his name for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). “By the grace of God” Jesus tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9), because all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). The gospel which tells men of God’s provisions, through Jesus’ crucifixion to save, is called the “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). This gospel must be believed (Rom. 1:16) and obeyed (2 Thess. 1:8) to save sinners. Jesus says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:15, 16). For one, therefore, to call on the name of the Lord is to make an appeal to the Lord upon his word. The same word in Acts 22:16, “calling on the name,” is used six times of Paul appealing unto Caesar. Acts 25:11, 12, 21, 25; 26:32; 28:19 use this word, and it is the same used by Ananias. Paul had to use legal procedures; he had to recognize Roman law. When he “arose and was baptized” he was recognizing scriptural means; he was appealing to the Lord for salvation (II Pet. 3:21).

God Operates In Baptism

“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). We all agree that God must operate, act, or work for a sinner to be saved. If God acts or works for our salvation we must recognize this as his grace; we contend salvation is the result of his favor. The question portending is: Is this salvation wholly his work without our submission to his name in baptism? Paul here says that God operates or works! But he tells us that God operates on the sinner “in baptism.” If God’s operation on sinners is necessary for salvation so is baptism! The passage says this work takes place in baptism! One cannot eliminate baptism and still have the operation of God. And if baptism is necessary for God to operate in the salvation of sinners, so is baptism essential for the sinner to become a receiver of God’s grace. Salvation is offered by grace; but salvation offered by grace is given in the working of God in baptism; therefore, the grace of God is not invalidated by baptism but accomplishes its design therein.

God Saves By Washing

Titus 3:5-7 tells us how justification by grace is accomplished. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Paul says he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Spirit. What is this “washing of regeneration?” I know of no recognized denominational scholar but what admits this to be water baptism. If you have doubt, what else could it possibly be? For this teaching to harmonize with the other scriptures showing salvation is given in baptism in the name of Christ, it must mean baptism. God does not save one man one way and another man another way! There is unity in God’s plan and action. God saves, says the apostle. He saves by his grace (Titus 3:7). He saves by washing. Thus, salvation by grace through washing is salvation by grace in water baptism in the name of Christ.

Conclusion

When one submits to God in the divine requirement of baptism for the remission of sins, one does so with complete trust that God will respond! In the name of Jesus he appeals unto God in the act of baptism for salvation, because in baptism God operates upon the sinner in cutting off the old body of sins to make him a new man in Christ (1 Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:12). It is in baptism, too, says Paul, that God saves us by washing (Titus 3:5). This implicit confidence that God will do what he has promised is man’s part-it is trustful submission to the authority of the resurrected and reigning Lord. This is salvation by faith that it might be by grace. (Cf. Rom. 4:16:)

The Lord makes baptism essential for salvation (Mk. 16:15, 16; Acts 2:38). If this is the way he wills for justification by grace to be, who can deny him this right? Remember that he works all things after the counsel of his own will (Eph. 1:11). And it is his expressed will to save in baptism in the name of Christ; to operate in baptism; and to save by washing!

Truth Magazine XIX: 27, pp. 424-425
May 15, 1975

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