now come to consider the ordinances of the New Testament church, and the biblical command for "decency and order" (1 Cor. 14:40), is especially applicable to this realm. This great need for decency and orderliness may easily be seen when we consider that the right use of these is so important to the scriptural status of the church. In the case of baptism, the church only retains its scriptural identity so long as it rightly practices the ordinance. Baptism is the life blood of true church identity.

There has been a sad lack of both decency and order in the ordinances as practiced by most professing Christian in these last days, and even many Baptists have begun to let slip these grand truths. The ordinances have been confused, misused, abused, and refused until "Babel" is a more fitting word than orderliness.

Because of the place of importance in our Christian testimony, and in our church identity that these occupy, and because of the almost universal tendency to corrupt these, it is of the greatest importance that we have scriptural convictions concerning these ordinances of the Lord’s House. From the earliest times the ordinances have been corrupted. Indeed, the corruption of baptism was one of the earliest departures from New Testament truth. In every instance the corruption was brought in through ignorance of God’s word. Here, then, is the secret of soundness: a thorough and practical knowledge of the Word of God.

Someone may ask "What is an ordinance?" Augustine termed the ordinances of the church "visible signs of invisible grace." Unhappily, however, he also believed that they actually conveyed grace. The word "ordinance" is derived from Latin and signifies simply "that which is ordered or commanded." In Christian usage, it refers to a divinely instituted rite which conveys truth through its symbolism.

This term is used to describe the two institutions, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which Christ left to the churches to be observed until He returns. How we observe them determines whether they are scriptural ordinances, or whether they are mere rituals and "traditions of men." In many instances, the ordinances have been so colored and modified by man as to no longer conform to the Biblical command and example. When this happens they cease to be the ordinances, "that which is commanded," and become henceforth only empty human inventions which do nothing, say nothing, and are nothing. Dr. Mosheim has well said:

These ordinances have come to be called "sacraments" in Protestant and Catholic churches, and, while they are holy and consecrated rites, as the Latin word sacramentum means, yet in too many cases the meaning has been changed so as to ascribe to them actual intrinsic grace to save.

While many of the scholars who assisted in the framing of the Westminister Confession of Faith believed in salvation through personal faith in the atoning death of Christ, this Confession was nonetheless framed in such a way as to leave room for belief in the efficacy of baptism for the salvation of infants, and so, in sacramental grace.

The belief in sacramental grace came about early in Christian times, originating in the practice of unregenerate men forming their theology by human reasoning, and then seeking for scriptural substantiation for their view. This is always the case when unregenerate man takes upon himself to formulate creeds for himself. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).

It is clear to any open-minded student of early Christian writings that very few of the so-called Church Fathers believed in salvation solely by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. Most of them believed in adding a certain amount of good works for salvation, joining the church for salvation, being baptized for salvation, partaking of the Supper for salvation, or some other such heresy. All of which reproaches the efficacy of Christ’s work, and its acceptance of the Father.

Because of this disregard for the scriptural pattern of these ordinances, man, in many cases, has corrupted them as to their purpose, their participants, their pattern or the procedure to be followed. It always results in confusion and disorder when the directions are ignored, no matter in what realm it may be.

Never has the Lord given a commandment concerning anything, without, at the same time, giving specific directions as to the way He wanted it carried out. It is a recognized maxim that no hopelessly obscure law has any binding force, nor can a person be held accountable for disobeying it. This finds scriptural justification in Romans 4:15 ff; 5:13 ff. In both of these is shown that man is accountable for nothing except what God has given in His Word. Though something seems to be reasonable, yet it is no one’s duty if it is not set forth in the Ward of God.

The Scriptures teach very clearly what God’s will is in these ordinances, and we have but to open the Book and look therein with a mind unbiased, but open to the leading of the Author of the Book, to know the truth of these things. The Word is given to reveal, not to conceal, God’s will (Deut. 29:29), and neither the traditions of the "Fathers" nor the authority of any group of men are needed to reveal these things to us.

They are the true symbols of Christianity, divinely appointed and all-sufficient.

There is also a matter of the number of the ordinances. As far as current usage is concerned, the number varies with the different denominations from none (Society of Friends and Salvation Army), to seven (Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches).

Scriptural Baptists down through the ages have ever held that there are two, and only two, ordinances which were committed to the churches, and that the practice of these is obligatory upon the churches. These two are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the former is necessary to the scriptural constitution .of a church. These were not developed over the centuries, nor did the Apostles or the early Christians institute them. They were given by the Lord Himself. J. M. Pendleton remarks about these:

There are those today who practice foot-washing as a third ordinance, and take, as their authority for it, John 13;14: "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet."

However, to practice such as an ordinance on the strength of one Scripture, and that one not clearly setting forth the institution of a church ordinance, is something which is little short of folly. Again we say, what is binding upon believers, is clearly set forth as such in the Scriptures. Foot-washing was a common thing in the East in the First Century, being an act of hospitality and courtesy to guests. Because most travel was by foot over dusty roads, the washing of the feet at the end of the journey was a necessary thing, and common courtesy demanded that facilities be provided for this. Failure to provide these facilities for a guest was considered both rude and disrespectful to the guest. The washing, when performed by other than the traveler himself, was generally done by a servant of the house where the traveler lodged. And for the host himself to do this was considered an act of great humility, and showed great respect for the traveler, for this was the duty of a servant.

Luke 7:36-44 shows that foot-washing was in common practice before that which is recorded in John 13. No one would claim this as a church ordinance, yet it teaches the same thing as that in John 13, namely humility and the love of one person for another. Simon the Pharisee manifested his lack of love for the Lord in that he did not provide facilities so that the Lord could wash His own feet, much less did he wash them for Him. Different was the attitude of the woman, who manifested her love and humility by her actions (vv. 44-59).

The admonition in John 13:14 was given to a bunch of proud, bickering Baptists who had forgotten what humility was (Luke 22:24). For each one considered himself above the menial task of washing the others’ feet. They had just a short time before argued about who should be accounted the greatest. It remained, therefore, for the Lord to take the place of a servant and to set the example of humble service for them. He gave no ordinance. He gave them "an example." An example of what? Of humble service! Of self-denying service! Of Christ-like service! Let us all take note of this example.

His words to them on this occasion (Luke 22:25-27; John 13:12-17), show that it was no ritual which they were to do, but rather it was an attitude which was to characterize their lives as His disciples. It was to be an attitude of love, humility and selfless service. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another" (John 13:35).

We should notice that, while foot-washing was a common practice in the First Century, it was not associated with religious service in any way, and after the mention of it in John 13, it is not again mentioned in the New Testament except in 1 Timothy 5:10. Here, as may be clearly seen, it is not a church ordinance, but rather an act of courtesy and love by one individual to another individual.

Are we then to conclude that an ordinance (if so be that foot-washing is such) would be so lightly dealt with and so seldom mentioned in the New Testament? It seems incongruous to think that an inspired apostle would deal so lightly with one of Christ’s commands if He meant for us to literally observe the washing of feet as an ordinance.

If, on the other hand, this was meant only to be an example of humble service towards others, as it assuredly was, then we have, in the apostles’ words, the same thing set forth elsewhere. "Use hospitality one to another without grudging. As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Pet. 4:9-10). "For, brethren, we have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Gal. 5:13-14). "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another" (Rom. 12:10).

These Scriptures, as well as others which could be given, set forth the same principle as that found in John 13, namely, the responsibility of the Christian to be humble, showing love for others as the Lord did, by taking the place of a servant. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:6-7).

Should the occasion ever arise when a saint needed his feet washed as they often did in the First Century, it would be perfectly in order for another to do this, but there is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that this was done regularly as a church ordinance.

Looking at the ordinances from a negative standpoint, it should be pointed out that neither of these are: (1) Efficacious of life. This becomes obvious when we consider that the things that are said of both of them are symbolic and cannot be interpreted literally. A symbol can never have any saving value. As a friend and fellow-pastor, Dale Atkinson, has said, "Life cannot come from works; life can only come from a Person." (2) Christian ordinances alone. That is, they are not to be administered by individual Christians as such. See Matthew 28:19-20 where the command to baptize the Gospel converts is given to the church. See also Acts 2:47 where each new convert was added to the church (cf. v. 41). That the Lord’s Supper was committed to the church (Matt. 26:26-29), is obvious from the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:18: "When ye come together in the church..." (3) Matters of individual discretion. Both are enjoined upon believers for testimonies, and no Christian has the privilege of observing or dispensing with these at will. With these introductory remarks and negative considerations of the ordinances behind us, we may embark upon a positive consideration of this subject.

The first of these two ordinances to come before us is that which stands first in the life of the child of God. It pictures the death to sin and the resurrection to newness of life just as the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the sustenance of the new life. The ordinance of baptism is set before us in Romans 6 as being the picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, our own death to the former way of life, our burial in the likeness of Christ’s death, and our resurrection to walk in newness of life. It is also our confession of our discipleship, and of our faith in the coming physical resurrection of the just in the likeness of Christ’s bodily resurrection. J. B. Gambrell observes the following on this ordinance.

Baptism has been subjected to abuses from time immemorial, and will continue to be until such time as our Lord returns. There has come a falling away from this grand theme in recent times by many of those who formerly stood for it. The vast difference between the Baptist position on baptism and that which is occupied by Catholicism and much of Protestantism is expressed by J. R. Graves, who says:

Most of professing Christendom baptizes sinners and thinks thereby to make saints of them. Baptists only baptize those who claim to already be Christians, and therefore baptize, not in order to save them, but because they are already saved according to their testimony.

Baptism may be briefly defined as the immersion of a believer in water by the authority of a local church as a testimony in symbol. As such, it embodies four essential qualifications: viz., (1) A scriptural subject—a born again person; one who has trusted in Christ to save him. (2) A scriptural mode—immersion in water. (3) A scriptural purpose—to picture Christ’s death, burial and resurrection for our pardon and justification, our own death to sin and resurrection to a new way of life, and to confess our discipleship. (4) A scriptural administrator—a local New Testament church.

It shall now be our purpose to take each of these qualifications and examine them individually and minutely for our learning and edification. First, there is the need for A Scriptural Subject.

A scriptural subject for baptism is one who has believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His finished work of redemption, and who depends upon this and this alone for the redemption of his soul. This may be proven in several ways, as R. B. C. Howell says:

However, this belief of which we have spoken is not a mere head belief. Judas had such a head belief in the Messiah, yet he "went to his own place." Perhaps we need to make a distinction between belief and trust. Belief, while having the meaning of trust also, is too often confounded with mere mental persuasion, but trust is generally associated with both mental and emotional persuasion. We may illustrate it this way: a man may look upon a chair and believe that it will support his weight, but he trusts the chair only when he believes in its strength enough to commit his weight wholly to it. Only one who has so trusted the finished work of Christ is a fit candidate for baptism. This aspect is borne out by the command to "make disciples’ and only then to "baptize" them (Matt: 28:19). Some would endeavor to make this mean "disciple by baptizing them," but the text will not bear this meaning, as even the renowned Richard Baxter, himself a pedobaptist, declares:

The Lord designated baptism a work of righteousness at His own baptism (Matt. 3:15), and comparison of this with Titus 3:5, teaches that baptism does not effect salvation, since it is "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us..." Advocates of baptismal regeneration seek to make baptism a work for righteousness, instead of a work of righteousness. The works of the unregenerate can never avail anything for righteousness because they are totally corrupt (Isa. 64:6).

The teaching of baptismal salvation almost invariably leads to the practice of pedobaptism, one of the most damnable practices ever foisted upon a gullible and unsuspecting Christianity. How dreadful to perform some rite upon unconscious babies, then tell them when they come to years that they were saved by that rite and have no further need to worry. Countless millions have gone out into a Christless eternity with that false hope. What punishment is sufficient for those who so deceive others? In 1852, R. B. C. Howell wrote one of the most complete and most sweeping indictments of the evils of infant baptism ever written. It was reprinted in 1988, and ought to be read by everyone so that he can see the evil of this system. Dr. Howell says:

The question naturally arises as to the source of infant baptism. Basically it had its start in the ignorance and superstition of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Centuries, times which also saw the beginnings of the Roman apostasy, the corruption of the original form of church government, and all of the heresies concerning the person and work of Christ. The professing Christian world became numbers-conscious in the early ages after the Apostolic age, and soon brought a multitude of unregenerate persons into the churches, even as many numbers-crazy "evangelists" (?) of our present day are doing. Only about two generations are necessary under such circumstances to corrupt whole churches, and leave them in the complete control of unspiritual and unregenerate persons. Such persons are easy prey for the delusions of Satan, whose chief aim is to corrupt churches by corrupting their teachers and preachers.

As soon as the church leaders began to teach that baptism had something to do with salvation, the next logical question was how soon then can children be baptized so as to get them saved. From this point, it was but a short step to begin baptizing infants. Nevertheless, this innovation was steadfastly resisted by some for many years before it became the common custom. Tertullian resisted it in the Second Century, and laid down the rule that baptism was legitimate for minors (not infants) provided they asked for it, or, in other words, if they had attained the age of reason and understood the need for salvation, and the portent of baptism. Here is the key to a proper observance of this ordinance: the understanding of the meaning and purpose the ordinance according to Scripture. It is symbolic only.

Many base the practice of infant baptism upon the theory that the ordinance was the antitype of circumcision, and since circumcision was administered to infants as well as adults, so should baptism be. But this is to confuse a national civil rite with an individual spiritual one. E. G. Robinson comments on this:

Most people forget that while the Lord commanded the circumcision of infants in the Old Testament, He no where even intimates that infants are to be baptized. The reader is further referred to the discussion of circumcision in chapter two (p. 44 ff.)

In support of what Dr. Robinson has stated, and in proof of the fact that infant baptism finds no countenance in the Scriptures whatsoever, we quote the following Pedobaptist scholars who admit as much. Dr. Hagenbach, Reformed Church: "The passages from Scripture which are thought to intimate that infant baptism had come into use in the primitive church, are doubtful and prove nothing."—History of Doctrines, Vol. I, p. 193. Professor Stuart, of Andover Theological Seminary, Congregationalist: "There are no commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament, relative to infant baptism" (Quoted in J. M. Cramp, Baptist History, p. 17). Dr. Woods, Congregationalist; "We have no express precept or example for infant baptism in all our holy writings" (Quoted in Cramp, ibid). Professor Lange (No denominational affiliation): "All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age, and the fundamental principles of the New Testament."—On Infant Baptism, p. 101 (Quoted in Howell, Terms of Communion, p. 138). Schleimacher says: "All traces of infant baptism which one will find in the New Testament, must first be put into it."—Christian Theology, p. 556 (Cited by Howell, ibid). Professor Limborch, Arminian: "No instance can be produced from which it may be indisputably inferred that any child was baptized by the apostles."—Comm. Sys. Div., Book 5, chap. 22 (Cited by Howell, ibid., p. 140). Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran Church: "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles."—In A. R.’s Vanity of Infant Baptism, Part II, p. 8. (Cited by Abraham Booth, Pedobaptism Examined, Vol. I, pp. 303-304.)

William Wall, Episcopalian: "Among all the Persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of any infant."—History of Infant Baptism, introduction, p. 1. Gesenius, the great Hebrew lexicologist, "being informed, in conversation, that the Baptists of America reject infant baptism, and baptize only adults, on profession of faith, replied, ‘That is perfectly right; that is according to the Bible.’"—Christian Review, Vol. III, p. 201 (Cited by I. T. Hinton, History of Baptism, p. 235). Bishop Burnet, Episcopalian: "There is no express precept, or rule, given in the New Testament for baptism of infants."—Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. 27 (Cited in Booth, ibid., p. 303). Vitringa: "That some in the ancient church long ago doubted, and that others now doubt, whether infants ought to be baptized, proceeds principally, I think, from hence: it is not related as a fact, in the Gospels, and in the Acts of the primitive church, that infants were baptized by Christ, or by the apostles."—Observat. Sac., Book II, c. 6, para. 2 (Cited by Booth, ibid., p. 304). The Magdeburg Centuriators, Lutheran: "Examples prove that adults, both Jews and Gentiles, were baptized. Concerning the baptism of infants, there are indeed no examples of which we read."—Cent. 1, Book ii, c. vi, p. 381 (Cited by Booth, ibid., p. 305).

Erasmus: "Paul does not seem in Romans 6:4, to treat about infants...It was not yet the custom for infants to be baptized."—Annotations on Romans (Cited by Booth, ibid). John Calvin, founder of the Presbyterian church: "From this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing unless so far as we receive it in faith."—Institutes, Book iv, chap. 15, para. 15. Dr. Goodwin: "Baptism supposeth regeneration sure in itself first. Sacraments are never administered for to begin or work grace; you suppose children to believe before you baptize them. Read all the Acts, still it is said, They believed and were baptized."—Works, Vol. I, part 1, p. 200 (Cited by Booth, ibid. 344). Thomas Lawton, Quaker: "See the author of rhantism, that is, sprinkling; not Christ, nor the apostles, but Cyprian; not in the days of Christ, but some two hundred and thirty years after. "—Baptismalogia, p. 75 (Cited by Booth, p. 373).

This last cited authority, being a Quaker, which denomination does not practice a literal baptism in any form, can certainly not be accused of a bias toward any form of the ordinance, but must be construed as an impartial witness. At the same time, all of the foregoing authorities are non-Baptists, and since their witness is against their own practice, they cannot be accused of perverting the witness of history to fit their own beliefs. We give one more authority on this subject—a man of such monumental stature as a church historian as to stand head and shoulders above almost all other historians. We speak of Neander, who says:

Nor are these the only witnesses against infant baptism being scriptural. The number could be multiplied. Neither is it claimed for a moment that the foregoing scholars were against infant baptism. On the contrary, most of them practiced it, but their language is inconsistent with their practice. They felt compelled by the Scriptures to acknowledge that it is not found in the Word of God, yet they were unwilling to bring their practice into alignment with the Scriptures.

He goes on to allude to the weight of authority of those whom he has himself referred to, and some of whom we have quoted above. He says:

Since we have seen the great concessions of many of the pedobaptists themselves in this matter, we may be allowed to ask Why then do they continue to practice what they have acknowledged to be unscriptural? The answer is, That it was an inheritance from the Mother Harlot herself. The Catholic church had long taught the damnable doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and it was only natural that her daughters retained the same, for it was taught in most of the "Standards" of the day. The people were attached to it, for it required no humbling of the carnal nature, but only the observance of a ritual. At the same time, the practice of infant baptism guaranteed the increase of communicants in the churches, for every child born to a church member naturally became a church member also. One thing is certain; infant baptism is firmly entrenched in all state churches, and in most Protestant denominations, and will probably never be eradicated until the Lord’s return. Indeed, this perverted ordinance is necessary to the perpetuation of all state churches.

But though most of Protestantism regularly practices what is not found in Scripture, but bases it upon human reasoning, it cannot agree an why they practice this ritual. If infant baptism were an institution divine, it seems hardly likely that there would be the confusion existent that there is as to why it should be performed, and upon whom it should be performed, but it is an evident truth that there is a great deal of confusion on this subject.

He further details the many different bases of this rite, and how that they mutually contradict one another as to the reason for it, and those upon whom it is practiced.

J. R. Graves likewise shows how inconsistent and even contradictory these different reasons are one to another when he lists no less than sixteen reasons for the practice of infant baptism.

The practice of infant baptism is attended by a host of evils. A whole Pandora’s box of evils was let loose upon the world when this practice was first begun. To this devil’s doctrine may be traced also that of an unregenerate church membership, the union of church and state, sacerdotal assumptions, and others, but perhaps the worse evil of all is the breakdown of the demarcation between the church and the world. Dr. Howell says:

It is also an established fact that where baptismal regeneration has obtained, it has almost always mated with the civil sword and instigated persecution of all dissenters. These two are wedded, and no man shall part them. It was but natural that the sword should be borrowed in order to enforce this rite, since many believed that faith was of no consequence, and if one could but be brought to the baptismal waters only, he would be saved, his own attitudes and desires notwithstanding. Chrysostom, the Catholic theologian of the Fourth Century expressed the ignorance and superstition of many when he said:

The practice of infant baptism is founded by some upon the theory that the baptism of Jewish proselytes and their families was in current vogue at the time of John the Baptist, and hence was merely adopted by him. Pedobaptists further state that since it was the common thing for infants to be baptized with their parents, there was no need for a definite example or command to be given by John, the Lord Jesus, or the apostles. Hence, say they, the silence of the New Testament upon the subject of infant baptism.

Dr. John Gill, who is acknowledged as one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of his own, or any other age, has ably met and slain this Goliath, for he shows that the baptism of Jewish proselytes is nowhere referred to: (1) In the Old Testament. (2) In the Apocryphal writings. (3) In the New Testament. (4) In Philo (Jewish historian, circa B. C. 10-50 A. D.). (5) In Josephus (Jewish historian, A. D. 37-100). (6) In the Targums or Chaldee paraphrases. (7) In the Jews’ Misnah, or Book of Traditions. (8) Nor in any of the writings of the Christian Fathers of the first three or four centuries. He adds:

Nor was Gill alone in denying that proselyte baptism existed this early. Owens, Jennings, and others of their pedobaptist brethren also denied its existence this early. But pedobaptists have not been willing to give up this, their "strongest proof" (?) of the practice of infant baptism in apostolic times, and some, either ignorantly or willfully, have quoted Jewish writings of later times concerning the baptism of proselytes, and have passed it off as proof that this was the practice of the First Century. The average person has no idea to what age the different Jewish writings pertain, and so, might accept a modern writer’s word and think it was written before the Christian era. Others do not know that even ancient writings often have modern glosses and comments appended to them. For instance, the Babylonian Talmud, quoting Exodus 2:5, has a gloss which says that Pharaoh’s daughter came down "to dip on account of proselytism," but the average person does not realize that this gloss was not appended until the twelfth century of the Christian era. Many pedobaptists make bold statements to the fact of the baptism of Jewish proselytes, but they offer no proof, nor can they, for it does not exist. The first instance of Jewish proselyte baptism is found in the Jerusalem Talmud which was written some time in the Fifth Century.

Infant baptism is founded upon the supposition that it has been practiced from the very beginning of the Christian era, and even before, yet in no writings is Jewish proselyte baptism certainly mentioned before about the Fifth Century. Even in church history, there is no indication of the baptism of infants before about the last of the Second Century. And even by the middle of the Fifth Century, so universal (?) was this custom, that its advocates were constrained to invoke the civil sword in order to foist it upon the masses.

The first passage to be met with which is supposed to teach that infants were baptized is in the writings of Irenaeus. He says in his book Against Heresies, 1.2, c. 39:

It is held by some that the word regenerated here means baptized, and inasmuch as infants are expressly included in this, it is said to prove that infants were baptized in the latter part of the Second Century. This is to put on an ancient word a more modern meaning: That the word regenerated does not, and cannot, mean baptized in the passage in Irenaeus is abundantly proven by Barnas Sears, one time President of Newton Theological Seminary when it was a sound Baptist institution. He observes:

To all these things, we add one additional proof that this did not deal with baptism. John 4:1-2 tells us expressly that Jesus did not baptize, so that even if Irenaeus had had reference to baptism, which he did not, the Scripture would have invalidated his statement and proven him wrong.

Dr. William Wall produced what was doubtless the best defense of infant baptism ever written. His work continues to be a standard work to this day after almost three hundred years, yet this is the first instance that he can produce which even seems to favor infant baptism. Abraham Booth well says:

We ask when did infant baptism first appear of which there is definite proof? The answer is, In the Third Century. Of the seven so-called "Fathers" of this century, only two speak of this matter, and of one of these, it is questionable whether the sentiments expressed were his or those of his translators who interpolated much of his material.

The first of these men is Origin, whose works were voluminous, but which often contained the wildest of fancies, and many things borrowed from the Greek philosophers which he read extensively. It was Origin who popularized the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures, a method by which they could be made to mean almost anything the carnal fancy of man might dream up. His works have been much altered, and this is especially true of the Latin versions of his works which were extensively interpolated by Ruffinus and Jerome. Whether the sentiments concerning infant baptism were his or those of his translators makes little, if any difference, in the present discussion. In either case the origin of this rite is almost two hundred years too late to be apostolic.

Cyprian was the second of these two men, and to him goes the dubious distinction of perhaps doing more to corrupt the original constitution of the churches than any other man. He was the foremost advocate of episcopacy, he taught that there was no salvation outside of the catholic church, that salvation was to be had by baptism, and other such damnable heresies. Such a person would be a natural candidate to advocate the theory of infant baptism. We do not mean to imply that these two men were the first to conceive of, practice, and advocate infant baptism, for they probably were not, but inasmuch as it is first to be found in their writings, it is hardly likely that it had been around for any great length of time.

Upon tradition this is founded, and upon tradition it stands or falls, for it is not to be found in the Scriptures. This silence of the New Testament is the greatest proof of its being nothing more than an ingenious human invention. Most of the foremost pedobaptist scholars are constrained to admit that it is not to be found in the Scriptures, nor, for that matter, in any writings before the latter part of the Second Century or the middle of the Third. Nevertheless, there are those who endeavor to substantiate this practice by reference in the New Testament. It shall be our purpose to consider these, but ere we do we observe, with Alexander Carson, the shameless twistings of Scripture by Pedobaptists. He says that:

Matthew 19:14 is often cited as a command to baptize children, but we must notice that: (1) Jesus commanded that the little children should be "suffered" or allowed to come unto Him. It was to be purely voluntary, not compulsory. (2) Inasmuch as He used the words "suffer" and "forbid not," He is manifestly dealing with those of the age of choice and reason. Unconscious babies are not under discussion. (3) The whole passage deals, not with baptism, but with a voluntary acceptance of the Lord and His kingdom. Infant baptizers, on the contrary, seek to force unconscious babies into God’s Kingdom. It is true that Luke records that they brought infants (Greek brephe), but this was expressly done to receive Jesus’ blessing, not for baptism (Luke 18:15-17). However, in all three parallel accounts (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17), the Lord uses "little children" (Greek paidia)—a young child). (4) Jesus never baptized (John 4:1-2). His disciples were the ones who always did the baptizing, yet, if these objected to children being brought even for the Lord’s blessings, what must they have done had children been brought for baptism? Thus, no amount of conniving can make this a proof-text for infant baptism. A pre-text, perhaps, but not a proof-text.

Acts 2:39 is another passage which is seized upon and made to do service in this matter. Since the command to be baptized is given in V38, and the apostles says that the "promise is unto you, and to your children," then it must mean that children are to baptized. But the reasoning of the pedobaptist is faulty here. (1) The term here employed (Greek teknon) is a general term having no reference to tenderness of age, for Paul often called adult converts his "sons" (Greek teknon) (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Philemon. 10). (2) In the passage above, the reference is to the descendents of those who heard the message of Peter even though they had not then even been born. (3) There is a definite limitation upon the application of this: "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Now no infant is capable of receiving either a general or an effectual call from the Lord. (4) The word "infant" (Greek brephe) is never used here, and the difference between it, and the term used is wide enough to refute any idea of infant baptism.

Some pedobaptists have thought that the mention of household baptisms were to their purpose, but such is not the case as we shall see. In the New Testament we read of the baptism of three households: that of Lydia (Acts 16:15); that of the Philippian Jailor (Acts 16:33); and that of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16): However, it may be justly inferred that the household of Crispus was also baptized inasmuch as they are said to have believed (Acts 18:8). Pedobaptists say that there must have been infants in some of these households, and so, infant baptism must be Scriptural. But this is to exalt conjecture and supposition to the level of fact. This writer, during his years in the ministry, while pastoring three different churches, has had occasion to baptize several households, not one of which had infants in them. And indeed most families in any community do not have infants in them. I. T. Hinton observes:

In the case of Lydia, nothing is given which would indicate that she was even married, while there are several things that would militate against there being infants in her household. (1) She was a business woman, "a seller of purple." (2) She was over two hundred and fifty miles from her home, a considerable distance in those days. (3) When the missionaries found Lydia by the river, there were no men present (Acts, 16:13), which seems to point to the fact stated above, viz., that she evidently was not even married. (4) After their release from prison, the missionaries returned to Lydia’s house and comforted the "brethren" there, a term which is never used of infants or children, but always of believers.

In the case of the Philippian jailor, it is quite as obvious that no infants were in his household, for it is expressly said, "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to 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, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house" (Acts 16:32-34). Is this not clear enough for anyone that in this household were none but those who were capable of, and actually did believe? Of this passage, Henry E. Robins observes:

Paul also declares that he baptized the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16), but before he closes the epistle in which this was written, he incidentally denies that there were infants within the number of Stephanas’ household when he says, "they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints" (1 Cor. 16:15). This is not predicable of infants, nor even of children, for that matter.

All the suppositions in the world do not amount to one single solid fact. The fact is, that the New Testament gives incidental proof that of the households which were baptized, not one contained any except those who were both capable of, and actually did, believe the word before they were baptized. Alexander Carson says:

Some pedobaptists have fancied that they have found support for their practice in the Greek words oikia and oikos, both of which are translated "house" or "household." It is held by some that the former denotes the servants of the household and that the latter denotes the children. Howell says of this:

The religious world, in retaining infant baptism, has chosen a rag of Romanism, and all of the suppositions, inferences, human reasonings, etc. in the world will never make it a scriptural practice. The very fact that men must resort to such means to find a support for this practice is confession enough that it has no scriptural basis. The religious world needs to return to the Bible as its sole, but sufficient rule of faith and practice, but all too many accept the authority of some creed, or the traditions of men, for their rule of faith and practice. This is how Protestantism got infant baptism. It was in the "Standards," the creeds, the traditions of Rome, and Protestantism accepted it without question. Little wonder then that such unscriptural practices creep in. Obsta principis—"resist beginnings."

That a scriptural subject for baptism is a saved person, and not a lost person, is obvious from many Scriptures. The Great Commission commands that the church first "make disciples" (the first "teach" in Matthew 28:19-20 is not the usual verb so translated, but is the verb form of the noun translated "disciple"), and only then baptize them. These are the church’s marching orders, and we dare not do otherwise. The testimony of all the prophets is that "through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43). It is not "whosoever is baptized," but whosoever believeth." And again, "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses (by doing the good works commanded by the Law)" (Acts 13:39). "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). Notice that both Jew and Gentile are saved in the same way. Purification of the heart comes, not from an ablution of the body, but by a changed attitude of the heart.

That salvation is by faith, and not by baptism is clear from many other Scriptures; e.g., "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Luke 7:50). "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). "God hath set (Christ) forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past" (Rom. 3:25). "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26). "For by grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8). And the number could be multiplied greatly, for each passage which relates to salvation speaks of it as of grace, and never of works. "And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom. 11:6).

Most lost people cannot understand how salvation could be so simple and free as this, but this is because "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. 2:14. And, as Paul says, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ...should shine unto them" (2 Cor. 4:3).

Before passing on, we will examine some of the passages which are sometimes thought to teach baptismal regeneration. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). Only a very superficial consideration of this verse could find baptismal regeneration here. If baptism were equally necessary to salvation as faith, then the negligent would be equally damned for his neglect of baptism as for unbelief. But it is the unbelieving, and not the unbaptized, that shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone (Rev. 21:8). We may illustrate this verse in the following way. A person might say, "He that gets on such and so train and sits down, shall go to Denver." But it is understood that sitting down is not necessary to go to Denver, but only that the person get on the right train. It is also recognized that the person will sit down after entraining as a general rule even though it is not necessary. The person who believes is saved totally apart from baptism, but most generally he will want to confess his discipleship and follow his Lord in baptism.

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). It is necessary to a correct interpretation of any passage of Scripture that it be: (1) In harmony with its context. Generally the context explains the text. (2) In harmony with all the rest of the Scriptures.

That the water mentioned here is not baptism is plain from the context, for the Lord four times speaks of salvation being by faith (vv. 15, 16, 18, 36). It is certain to the most candid that the Lord would not declare in one breath, the necessity of baptism to salvation, and in the next breath four times deny it by saying "he that believeth shall not perish but have everlasting life."

What is meant by "water" in this passage? There are several views of this, none of which require belief in salvation by baptism. (1) There are those who translate this, "Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit…" making water to be symbolic of the Holy Spirit, hence, having a parallelism in this passage. It is to be granted that water is sometimes used symbolically of the Holy Spirit, as in John 7:38-39. It is also true that rarely the Greek conjunction kai is translated "even." Nevertheless, we believe that to make one part of this phrase symbolically represent the clear statement of the next part is to involve an absurdity, and is to strain the Scriptures. If water symbolizes the Spirit as we are expressly told that it does in John 7:38-39, then this passage would mean "Except a man be born of the Spirit and of the Spirit..."

(2) Another interpretation of this makes the water to represent the Word of God, and Ephesians 5:26 is quoted as a parallel passage. But this does not seem to be the point, for in John 3:5 the water is the element of the birth, while in Ephesians 5:26 the water is the instrument of cleansing. It is literally the "washing of water in the word." However, neither of the foregoing interpretations harmonize with the whole context here in John. There is yet another explanation which both harmonizes with the rest of the Scriptures, and is in agreement with the general theme of Jesus’ speech to Nicodemus.

(3) That the water refers to the physical birth as contrasted with the spiritual. The following reasons are given for this view. (a) Two births are under discussion throughout this whole passage. Every verse from verse 3 through verse 7 speaks directly of, or else implies, the two births. "Born again" (v. 3). The Greek adverb anothen, when used of place, means "from above." When used of time means "again," or "anew." It is clear from Nicodemus’ response in verse 4 that it was used of time. "Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?" The coordinate conjunction in verse 5 speaks of two births. Verse 6 speaks of two different births, and is actually an explanation of verse 5. The same Greek adverb as used in verse 3 appears again in verse 7. If verse 5 does not speak of the two different births, it is the sole exception in this discourse, but if it also speaks of the births, one physical and one spiritual, then it is clearly explained by the context, and perfectly harmonizes with the rest of the verses. (b) Anatomically, a baby is "born out of (Greek ex) water," since there is the rupture of the water sac accompanying the birth, as any doctor will tell you. (c) Salvation is only for those who have been born physically, i.e., for humans only. The angels desire to look into the things of salvation, but cannot, for it does not pertain to them (1 Pet. 1:12). There is no hope of redemption for an angel if he sins (2 Pet. 2:4). Without a physical birth, a man would not be a candidate for the spiritual birth. (d) The Lord clearly distinguishes between the things of the flesh and the things of the Spirit. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (v. 6). This verse explains verse 5. (e) The whole purpose of this discourse was to show this proud Jew that his physical birth as Abraham’s seed would not avail to get him into heaven. He must be born again. It would take a spiritual birth to save him.

In the Scriptures, salvation is referred to as a birth, while baptism is pictorial of death, Rom. 6:4. How then can the water in John 3:5 have reference to baptism? It is clear, then, both from the negative and from the positive standpoints, that John 3:5 has no reference to baptism.

We may group under one heading, those passages alleged by some to teach that there is a "baptism for the remission of sins." Several of these are Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; and Acts 2:38, the last of which we quote in part: "Then said Peter unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

As already stated, a doctrine, in order to be scriptural, must harmonize with all of the rest of the Bible. Contradictions are an evidence that something has been wrongly perceived or interpreted. Such is the case before us. We have already seen that salvation is declared to be by faith alone. Hence, though the construction of this passage, and others, might seem to otherwise bear the theory of baptismal regeneration, yet because it will not harmonize with other passages, it cannot be true. The advocates of baptismal regeneration hold that the word "for" here means "in order to" and nothing else. Honesty compels us to admit that the word sometimes has this meaning, but it also often means "on the basis of," or "because of." The context must determine it. The word appears in Matthew 12:41 of the preaching of Jonah, yet no one would be foolish enough to advocate that the men of Nineveh "repented in order to the preaching of Jonah." It is obvious to all that they repented "because of the preaching of Jonah."

So, in Acts 2:38, one is to be baptized because of the remission of sins-because they have already been put away not in order to put them away. In the former case, the remission of sins is all of grace; in the latter it would be all of the works of man, something the Scriptures emphatically deny throughout. There must be repentance and faith before one can be saved; a changed attitude, not a soaking in water. "Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," Acts 10:43. This being the universal message of all God’s prophets, those who preach a different message must be recognized as manifestly false prophets.

Again, there is a break in thought, an actual division in the verse between the command to repent and the command to be baptized, which is not evident in the English version. This is marked by the change from the plural "Repent ye" to the singular, "every one," and from the second person to the third. It is noteworthy also that the command to repent is plural and the promise of remission of sins plural, while the command to be baptized is singular. Does this not separate remission of sins from baptism? It is also certain from Acts 10:47 that the gift of the Holy Spirit does not come because of baptism (it would not be a gift if some human work were necessary to procure it) but because of repentance and faith (divine graces wrought in the individual), and none but saved people receive the Holy Spirit.

Much the same thing could be said concerning Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3, and other such passages. Men too often ignore or overlook the dividing word "repentance," and in so doing, they take out a very important link in the chain, thereby giving a distorted view of the whole matter. Baptism is to be administered because one has repented. Remission of sins comes about because of repentance.

Titus 3:5 is sometimes cited as a proof-text of baptismal regeneration, but baptism is not referred to in this passage. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done," denies that baptism could be a part of this, for baptism is a work of righteousness as our Lord declares in Matthew 3:15: Every "washing" in the Scriptures is not a literal washing in water. In the new birth (regeneration) there is a spiritual washing of the soul in the blood of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:5). This is the washing of Titus 3:5—the washing of the new birth, which Scripture never associates with baptism. Baptism, being an outward thing, never touches the real source of sin, which is the soul.

1 Peter 3:20-21, while referring to baptism in water, pointedly states that it does not put away the filth of the flesh—the unanimous claim for it among the advocates of baptismal regeneration—and declares it to be the antitype of the physical preservation of Noah and his family. No type or symbol has any saving value in regard to the soul. This points up the danger of a truly saved person willfully neglecting the duty of following his Lord in baptism. However, the "like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us" clearly shows the salvation here spoken of to be the same kind of deliverance that Noah and his family experienced, namely, physical deliverance from death. The danger in the saved person neglecting baptism is to his physical life, not to his spiritual life, being cut off. The phrase "saved by water" (v. 20), is better rendered "brought safely through water." The word so rendered is not the usual word for "save," but is diasozo, which appears eight times in the New Testament, and always has to do with physical deliverance. See Matthew 14:36; Luke 7:3; Acts 23:24; 27:43, 44; 28:1, 4; 1 Peter 3:20. This usage is in harmony with the whole subject of the passage, which centers in the physical preservation from destruction of Noah and his family which was typical of baptism. That Noah was not saved spiritually by this act of entering the Ark is evident from the Scripture testimony of his character beforehand, for "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God" (Gen. 6:9), long before He entered into the Ark.

One other passage demands our attention, and that is Acts 22:16, which, if it stood alone on the subject could be construed to teach salvation by baptism. But again, its meaning must harmonize with the rest of Scripture to be the right interpretation. On three occasions the conversion experience of Paul is recorded in Acts (9:1 ff; 22:1 ff; 26:12 ff), yet in none of these does he mention baptism except as an act of testimony which happened three days after he was saved (9:9 ff). Paul was inspired to say that, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom. 10:13), and the passage now under consideration declares that he had already called upon the name of the Lord, and hence was already saved. Acts 22:16 in the inspired original literally says "And now why do you delay? Arise, have thyself baptized and thy sins washed away, having called upon His name." If Romans 10:13 is true, then Saul was saved when he believingly called upon the Lord in Acts 22:8-10, and not three days later when he was baptized. The act of baptism was no more than the symbolic washing away of the sins which had already been actually washed away. We have no reason to understand this of a literal washing away of sins in the baptismal waters, which would be a flagrant contradiction of many other Scriptures. Baptism is symbolic only, which is why Peter called it a "figure." Baptismal regeneration is not of God. It is the devil’s own doctrine to deceive people into trusting their own abilities and acts more than the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Many thereby make baptism an idol.

We come next to consider the second requirement for Scriptural baptism, which relates to The Mode of Baptism, which is immersion in water. E. T. Hiscox has the following to say about the word that was chosen to express this act. Of the numerous Greek words that could possibly have been used, only one, and that one very specific in meaning, was chosen.

It is indeed paradoxical that almost every trustworthy Bible scholar, church historian, and student of the Greek language, unites in the testimony that all baptisms recorded in the Bible. and those for several centuries after the canon of the Bible was closed, were by immersion of the whole body in water. Indeed, this is the very meaning of the word in the Greek Testament.

Dr. T. J. Conant, late Baptist Greek authority, after examining every instance of the use of the Greek word baptizo in every Greek work extant at the time, found that

In proof that immersion is the original mode of the ordinance, and that it is the only meaning that can be rightly applied to the Greek word today, the following things are presented.

A few years ago, John T. Christian wrote the leading Greek scholars of England and America and asked them if there was an authoritative Greek-English lexicon which gave as the meaning of baptizo the words sprinkle or pour. The following are some of the answers he received (These are quoted in W. M. Nevins’ Alien Baptism and the Baptists, pp. 17 et equ.):

The reader has before him the lexical proof concerning the meaning of the Greek word baptizo, and it is all one-sided. However, there is further proof also, for we note: