T H E PA RT I N G O F T H E

WAT E R S

An Examination of the Various Views of Christian

Baptism

F. Wayne Mac Leod

Light To My Path Book Distribution

ll rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the

author's written permission.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®,

trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

“Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation,

Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in

the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee,

Cambridge University Press

CONTENTS
Title Page
Copyright
Introduction
Chapter 1 - Covenantal Infant Baptism
Chapter 2 - The Position Re-examined
Chapter 3 - Baptism as a Means of Salvation
Chapter 4 - Is Salvation Through Baptism Biblical?
Chapter 5 - 
Infant Baptism as Dedication
Chapter 6 - 
Believers’ Baptism
Chapter 7 - Believers’ Baptism and the New Covenant
Chapter 8 - 
Sprinkling
Chapter 9 - 
Pouring
Chapter 10 - 
Immersion
Chapter 11 - 
Baptism and History
About The Author

INTRODUCTION

his study was written many years ago and sat in an “unpublished”

folder on one computer after another. The reason for this is

because, for many years, this was a difficult topic for me to

address. I grew up in a tradition of infant baptism. This study is not the first

study I did on the subject. I can still remember the research I did on infant

baptism before I went off to Bible School. I was convinced that the practice

was biblical and had all the verses to prove it.

Even after many years, I still remember the setting. Some students had

gathered in a room at the Bible School where I was attending. Somehow the

subject of baptism came up. The words I heard that day still haunt me:

“How could any Christian believe in infant baptism?” I took those words

personally and felt deeply hurt by them.

As time went on, I continued to hear people commenting to me on this

subject. They would tell the joke about a book called “What the Bible

Teaches about Infant Baptism,” which only had blank pages when you

opened it. They would laugh and move on, leaving me frustrated and angry.

While I never really expressed it to them, I felt hurt and rejection because of

what I believed. I felt that I was a second-class Christian because I believed

what I did.

The opportunity came for me to do a research paper on the subject for a

theology class. Knowing all the arguments favouring infant baptism, I

determined that I would examine each one individually to see if it brought

clear evidence of the practice in the Bible. That paper was probably one of

the most difficult I ever wrote. It challenged my position and what I had

believed for many years.

Now I want to confess something here. It is one thing to come to a

conviction about what you feel the Bible is teaching, and quite another to

act on that conviction. As a result of that research paper, I believed that

baptism in the New Testament was for believers. However, it would not be

for years that I would have the courage to act on what I felt the Bible was

teaching. There were a couple of reasons for this.

First on my mind was the fact that I had grown up with the tradition of

infant baptism. I had a call from God to full-time ministry. In my mind, that

call implied working as a pastor in my denomination. If I could not stand

behind the denomination’s key distinctive, I had no chance of being

ordained as a pastor in that denomination. This threw the plans I had for my

future into chaos.

Second, infant baptism was the position of my family. I struggled deeply to

go against what my family had believed for generations. How would they

respond if I took a stand against their firmly held beliefs? This grieved me

deeply.

Third, I must admit, my heart still harboured anger against those who

ridiculed my infant baptism convictions. I was reluctant to join them and

hear them rejoicing over the fact that I had surrendered finally to their

position.

For years after that, I held believers’ baptism but refused to be baptized as a

believer. As the years rolled by, I would often feel a gentle conviction in my

heart to follow through with what I believed the New Testament taught.

This seemed to come to a head on one occasion, and I felt the need to speak

to the pastor of the Baptist church I was attending. I made an appointment

and sat down with him in his office. I have no idea how long I talked and

can’t even remember what I said that day, but I started from the beginning

and explained how and why I had come to a conviction about believers’

baptism. The pastor sat quietly, listening to me without interrupting. I ended

that conversation by saying, “I think I need to do something about this.”

When I finished talking, the pastor said: “Well, there is nothing that I can

say. You have covered everything.” He went on to say to my absolute

horror: “It just happens that on Sunday we have a baptismal service; would

you like to be part of it?”

There was nothing he could have said that would have floored me more

than those words. He was giving me the opportunity now to do something

about my belief. I still remember my hard response: “I don’t know.”

Hearing this, he said: “You have just spent all this time telling me what you

believe and that you need to do something about it. Now that I offer you an

opportunity to do just that, you say: ‘I don’t know.’

I knew the hypocrisy of this answer, but the obstacles were bigger than that

pastor understood. He reminded me very bluntly that I was putting other

things before God. I confessed to Him that he was right, but I still wasn’t

sure if I could go ahead with being baptized.

We ended that conversation with him saying: “Let me know if I should put

your name down for baptism.” He left the door open, and that meant that I

needed to do some serious soul searching in the days to come.

Over the next few days, I was in deep agony. I struggled with the obstacles I

was facing and what I believed to be the teaching of the Word of God and

His leading in my life. I knew I had to obey what I felt His Word taught, but

I did not want to do it. It was one of the most intense spiritual battles I had

ever experienced. I prayed: “Lord, I want to obey, but I just wish that the

pastor would hold me under the water until I died so that I could die in

obedience and not have to face what comes after.”

I remember making two lists on a piece of paper as I reflected on what I

should do. The first list was for the reasons why I should be baptized. The

second list was for the reasons I should not be baptized. When that list was

complete, and I studied it, the answer was quite clear. The mind was

convinced, but the heart was still powerfully resisted.

Ultimately it boiled down to an act of the will. I had to act on what I felt

that Lord wanted me to do. I picked up the phone and made the most

difficult phone call I had ever made. I told the pastor that I would be part of

the baptismal service.

The night before the baptism, I so wished I could die. That didn’t happen,

and I went to church. I was waiting in a change room, getting ready for the

baptism. Another pastor came in to see me and quoted a passage of

Scripture: “And those who believed were baptized.” He wasn’t expecting

what took place when I broke down into uncontrollable sobbing. From

where I sat, I could hear the swish of water as other candidates were being

immersed. With each swish came an equally great movement of water in the

form of tears and waves of terror and grief. Finally, my time came. As I

stood in the baptismal tank before the congregation, the pastor asked me if I

wanted to say something. The words that came out were these: “I don’t

want to be here, but I need to obey.” And with those words, I was plunged

into the water and came up alive to face an uncertain future.

For years after that baptism, I could not watch another baptism without

breaking down into uncontrollable sobbing. My whole body would tremble

and shake. In fact, the entire pew would shake as I sobbed.

Baptism was one of the most difficult steps I have ever taken in my spiritual

life. I do not regret taking this step of faith. It taught me much that I cannot

detail here. In the years to come, I would be required to baptize new

believers in the church where I worked. God was certainly preparing me for

what was ahead.

The rejection and misunderstanding of those early days at Bible School had

a profound impact on me. All too many people are quick to judge without

ever taking the time to understand someone else’s position. When I held to

infant baptism, no one ever asked me why I held that position. No one ever

asked me to explain it from a Biblical perspective. They just assumed that

because they didn’t see it, it had to be wrong.

I also saw how easy it is for people to ridicule or question the salvation of

those who hold another opinion. It has often grieved me that baptism or

other such doctrines have so divided Christians that in some cases, they

assume that someone who does not believe as they do is not a true believer.

Let me assure you that you do not have to come to the same conclusion as I

did. I have great fellowship with sincere believers who are convinced of

infant baptism. I have learned much from them and respect them as godly

men and women of faith. There will be differences in our understanding of

the Scriptures, but unity comes from our common bond in the Lord Jesus

and what He has done to secure our salvation.

I expect that when my life on earth is over, and I go to be with the Lord, I

will meet believers of every denomination who have trusted the Lord Jesus

and accepted His work on their behalf. In this world, they were not perfect.

They did not always understand things correctly. But they knew the Saviour

and relied on Him for their eternal salvation and forgiveness. I am also quite

certain that I will also discover that I, too, fell short in my practice and

understanding of Him and His purpose. I have a suspicion that I will be

deeply grateful for His grace and forgiveness toward me and my failures.

My purpose in writing this study is to share my journey and help believers

of every perspective think through this important doctrine. While I cannot

be totally impartial in this study, I hope that I can at least faithfully present

the arguments from the various positions currently out there concerning this

question of baptism in the New Testament church.

- F. Wayne Mac Leod

CHAPTER 1 -

COVENANTAL INFANT

BAPTISM

ome years ago, after coming to my position on believers' baptism, I

was teaching an Old Testament survey course. In the process of that

study, I addressed the roots of infant baptism in the covenant God

made with Abraham. After the study, a woman came up to me and said:

"Wayne, had my church explained to me what you explained today, I would

have had my children baptized as infants." As one who had adopted a

position on believers' baptism, I wasn't sure how to answer that statement.

What it showed me, however, was that there is often a lack of teaching on

this subject. I have met believers in mainline infant baptism churches who

cannot explain why their church has adopted its position on baptism.

What is true of infant baptism is also true of many other theological issues.

We are all too quick to let someone else think for us, and we go along with

them. We take their word for it but do not have a personal conviction based

on our study of the Scriptures.

As I said in my introduction, I grew up accepting infant baptism as a

biblical practice. This belief perplexed my believers' baptism friends as they

could not find any evidence for this in Scripture. In this chapter, I want to

explain how I came to accept this position at that time in my life.

Abrahamic Covenant

Our study of infant baptism begins well before the New Testament church

was established. It starts with the separating out of a people by God for

Himself in the days of Abraham. God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 17:7

and told him that He was going to make an everlasting covenant with him

and his descendants:

7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant

between me and you and your descendants after you for the

generations to come, to be your God and the God of your

descendants after you. (Genesis 17:7, NIV)

This covenant was an agreement between God and His people. God

promised to be their God, and His people committed themselves to live in

obedience to Him. In many ways, a covenant is like a marriage vow with

each partner pledging himself and herself to the other. There was a special

relationship between God and the Jewish nation. It was not that they

deserved the favour of God more than other nations, for they would prove

to be unfaithful. While they often broke their covenantal vows with the

Lord, they were still God's chosen people.

So that His people would be reminded of their covenantal relationship with

Him, God gave them a sign. Listen to what God told Abraham in Genesis

17:10,11:

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you,

the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be

circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision and it will be the

sign of the covenant between me and you. (Genesis 17.10,11,

NIV)

Like a wedding ring, this sign of circumcision was a sign to the people of

God that they belonged to Him and were accountable to Him for their lives

and actions.

What is important for us to note is that the sign of the covenant was not

given to those who had faith in God or understood their responsibility

towards Him. It was given to male infants at the age of eight days. At eight

days old, these infants did not have any memory or comprehension of the

purpose of the sign given them. Many of these circumcised children grew

up and turned their backs on God. Circumcision was not a guarantee that

these children would serve the Lord, nor did it show that they were even in

a right relationship with Him. It did, however, remind them of their

obligation. They would go through life carrying in their flesh a reminder

that they belonged to God and were under obligation to Him as their Lord.

It would be easy for us to say that this sign of circumcision was only for the

Jews. But let's consider what the apostle Paul told the Gentile believers in

Rome:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by

grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring - not

only to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father

of us all. (Romans 4.16, NIV)

Do you see what Paul is saying here? He told the Romans that Abraham

was not just the father of the Jewish faith but also the father of all who had

faith in God. He repeats the same thought in Galatians 3.6-9:

Consider Abraham: 'He believed God, and it was credited to

him as righteousness.' Understand, then that those who believe

are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would

justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in

advance through Abraham: 'All nations will be blessed through

you.' So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham,

the man of faith. (Galatians 3.6-9, NIV)

In Galatians 3:6-9, the apostle taught that the true people of God are those

who have put their faith in God. Abraham is the father of all who believe,

both Jews and Gentiles. In other words, we who believe today have become

children of Abraham and part of the people of God.

God told Abraham that He was making an "eternal" covenant with him and

his descendants. According to Paul, if you believe today, you are Abraham's

descendant and "blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." You have

entered a covenantal relationship with God. God promises to be your God,

and you promise to love and obey Him.

Having established that all who believe are children of Abraham and part of

a covenantal relationship with God, we must now consider the sign of that

covenant agreement in the New Testament. How do we move from the

covenant sign of circumcision to baptism? Circumcision was no longer

required of New Testament believers. While many in Paul's day wanted to

make it so, the church officially rejected this as a requirement.

What we do see in the New Testament, however, is the practice of baptism.

But is there any connection between circumcision in the Old Testament and

baptism in the New Testament? Consider what the apostle Paul told the

Colossians in Colossians 2:11,12:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful

nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but

with circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him

in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power

of God who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2.11,12,

NIV)

Notice how Paul connects the meaning of circumcision and baptism in these

verses. He tells us that believers are circumcised in Christ by the cutting off

of the sinful nature. By baptism, they symbolized death to the sinful nature

and resurrection to newness of life. Circumcision and baptism, Paul tells us,

symbolize the same thing, dying to sin. Since the death of the Lord Jesus,

circumcision is no longer practiced. Baptism has now taken its place.

Baptism represents our death to sin and our new life in a covenant

relationship with God through the work of His Son Jesus.

It is here that we come to the crucial point of this study of covenantal infant

baptism. Circumcision and baptism symbolize the same thing. Both are

signs of entrance into a covenant relationship with God. Circumcision was

applied to the children of God's people in the Old Testament even though

they would not remember it or understand it. Would it not follow then that

baptism, as a sign of the new covenant, should also be applied to the

children of believers? If Jewish children bore a symbol of the covenant in

their flesh, should our children not also have a symbol of their obligation to

God?

If baptism is for believers and their children, then it should follow that there

would be some evidence of this in the New Testament. Supporters of

covenantal infant baptism turn to several passages to show that this is

indeed the case.

Household Baptisms

Consider the following passages:

Yes, I baptised the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't

remember if I baptised anyone else. (1Corinthians 1:16, NIV)

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their

wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptised.

(Acts 16:33, NIV)

One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in

purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of

God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

When she and the members of her household were baptised, she

invited us to her home. (Acts 16.14,15, NIV)

To these cases mentioned above, we could also add the family of Cornelius

in Acts 10. While not specifically mentioned, the context would also

indicate that he and his family were baptised by the apostle Peter.

In these cases, we discover that when God placed His hand on the parents,

they did not see themselves in isolation from the rest of the family. Like

Joshua of old, they proclaimed:

As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord (Joshua

25:15, NIV)

The parents saw to it that the entire family committed themselves to seek

the Lord God. They placed themselves and their children under the

obligations of the covenant. Their home would become a God-seeking and

God-honouring home. Because it was a covenantal home, their children,

who were under their authority, were also subject to the covenant and its

signs.

Other Scriptural Support

Consider the attitude of Jesus towards children in Matthew 19:14:

Jesus said: 'Let the little children come to me, and do not

hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as

these.' (Matthew 19:14, NIV)

It is obvious from this passage that the Lord Jesus has a special place in His

heart for children. If the kingdom of heaven belongs "to such as these,"

would it not be wrong to keep the sign of that covenant from them?

In 1 Corinthians 7:14, we read:

For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his

wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her

believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,

but as it is they are holy. (1 Corinthians 7.14, NIV)

Paul told the Corinthians that the children of a believing parent were holy.

Because their parents were part of a covenantal agreement with God, these

children are also part of that same covenant (even as they were under the

Old Testament). This does not mean that they are automatically believers,

but they are under obligation to God because they are part of a Christian

home and favoured with the teaching of God's Word in that home.

Let also consider Acts 2:38,39:

Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the

name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you

will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you

and your children and for all who are far off -- for all whom the

Lord our God will call' (Acts 2:38,39, NIV)

In this passage, Peter told his listeners that they were to repent and be

baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. In so doing, they would receive the

forgiveness of sins and the promised Holy Spirit. Notice that what Peter had

to say here was not just for them but also their children. In other words,

they and their children were to repent and be baptized, and they would

receive the promised Holy Spirit from God.

Let me make just one more point here. The believers of the early church

were initially, for the most part, from a Jewish background. The concept of

a faith that was separate from the rest of their family was foreign to them.

They served God not so much as individuals but as a family unit. The father

led his family in the worship of the God of Israel. A rebellious child would

be severely punished. If a son or daughter turned from the Lord God and

worshipped other gods, they could be put to death. It was only natural for a

Jewish family to bring their child to be circumcised and placed under God's

covenant. Would this attitude not be carried over into the Christian faith of

these Jews? Would they not bring their children as they always had to

participate in the covenant sign? There is no evidence in Scripture

forbidding children to join in the sign of the covenant as they had from the

days of Abraham. Doesn't the absence of any teaching to the contrary cause

us to believe that they continued with this practice, seeing their children as

part of the covenant God had made with them? If children were part of that

covenant, should they not be baptized as a symbol of their participation?

Believers who have adopted a position of covenantal infant baptism do so

from an understanding that God is a covenant-keeping God who has a heart

for them and their children. Like the Jews of the Old Testament, they place

themselves and their families under obligation to God. For these believers,

there is a connection between the symbolism of circumcision and baptism.

Just as infants were circumcision by Jewish families, baptism should also

be given to the children of Christian families to show that they are under

obligation to God.

CHAPTER 2 - THE

POSITION RE-EXAMINED

aving examined the position of covenantal infant baptism in the

last chapter, it now falls on us to explore the argument in more

detail. As I explained in the introduction, this was not an easy

task for me. Even as I write, I still feel a certain reluctance to go back over

this painful territory. My intention here is to share my theological journey

and not necessarily to convince anyone of my position.

The journey from an infant baptism position to one of believers' baptism

began with a research paper I did in Bible School. As I set out to work on

this paper, I did not doubt that the argument for covenantal infant baptism

was based on Scripture. I determined, however, to put each of the

arguments to the test to see if this was what I understood Scripture to say.

Let me share with you this journey.

The Old Covenant And The New Covenant

There was no question in my mind that the Scriptures taught that God was a

covenant-keeping God. He had entered a covenantal relationship with His

people in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, however, prophesied

that a day was coming when God would make a new covenant with Israel.

Listen to what the prophet said about this new covenant:

31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I

will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the

house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their

fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them

out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I

was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 For this is the

covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those

days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I

will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they

shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his

neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for

they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,

declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will

remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31, ESV)

Jeremiah told Israel that this new covenant would not be like the covenant

made with Abraham, their father. Though Israel was already part of a

covenant relationship with God, many did not truly know or serve God.

Under this new covenant, however, everyone would know the Lord from

the least to the greatest. They would be forgiven of their sin and have His

law written on their hearts. No unbeliever would be part of this new

covenant. By telling us that the new covenant was not like the old covenant,

Jeremiah makes a clear distinction. Things would be different under this

new covenant.

The writer to the Hebrews explains this more fully when he says:

6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much

more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is

better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that

first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no

occasion to look for a second. (Hebrews 8:6-7 ESV)

Hebrews 8:6 tells us that the covenant Jesus mediated was better than the

old covenant. He tells us that if the first covenant had been faultless, there

would not have been a need for a second covenant. Jesus came to establish

another covenant that would replace the first. This old covenant would

become obsolete and vanish:

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one

obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is

ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13 ESV)

Jesus did not come as a priest according to the Jewish tradition. He was not

legally qualified to be a priest according to the Law of Moses because He

was not a descendant of Aaron. Listen to the words of Hebrews 7:

11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical

priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what

further need would there have been for another priest to arise

after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the

order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the

priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13

For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to

another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah,

and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about

priests. (Hebrews 7:11-14 ESV)

Note a couple of details here. Christ was not a priest according to the order

of Aaron. He did not come to administer the Old Testament covenant laws.

He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:12 tells us that a

change in the law was required under this new priesthood. According to the

old law, Jesus could not even be a priest because He did not descend from

Aaron. Jesus did not modify or update the Old Covenant –He fulfilled it and

established a completely new and different covenant under a new

priesthood and law.

The New Covenant is not the Old Covenant—its priesthood and regulations

are different. We need to be careful about applying Old Testament

requirements to this New Testament covenant. Just because children were

circumcised under the Old Covenant does not mean that this will be the

case for baptism in this New Covenant under the priesthood of Christ,

unless there is clear evidence in the New Testament to support this. Let's

take a moment, therefore, to examine this evidence to see if it does support

the baptism of children under the new covenant.

Household Baptisms

The first set of verses used to support infant baptism in the New Testament

comes from the passages that speak about household baptisms. While there

is no actual proof for this, the assumption is that there were infants in these

households. An examination of these passages, however, reveals in three

out of four cases that the members of the families were believers.

Regarding the household of Cornelius, in Acts 10, we read:

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in

what was known as the Italian Regiment. He and all his family

were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in

need and prayed to God regularly. (Acts 10.1,2, NIV)

Consider also what Acts 16 tells us about the Philippian jailer and his

family:

The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before

them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in

God -- he and his whole family. (Acts 16.34, NIV)

Writing about the household of Stephanas, Paul says:

You know that the household of Stephanas were the first

converts in Achaia, and they devoted themselves to the service

of the saints. (1 Corinthians 16.15a, NIV)

Also consider 1 Samuel 1:21,22 in relationship to this question of

households.

When the man Elkanah went up with all his family to offer the

annual sacrifice to the Lord and to fulfill his vow, Hannah did

not go. She said to her husband, 'After the boy is weaned, I will

take him and present him before the Lord, and he will live there

always.' (1 Samuel 1.21,22, NIV)

1 Samuel 1:21,22 clearly stated that Elkanah with all the family to the

annual sacrifice. Notice, however, that the phrase "all his family" did not

include the infant child and his wife. If the reference to the family did not

include the infant child, how can we be sure that the New Testament verses

on households include infants?

There is simply no proof that there were any infants at all in these

households. The only description we have of these families is that they were

believers. These verses, therefore, do not provide evidence of the practice

of infant baptism in the New Testament.

Argument From Silence

Let's move now to the argument that states that the Jews were so

accustomed to their children receiving the sign of the covenant that they

would have naturally brought them to be baptized, just as they would for

circumcision. The assumption is that the absence of any problems in the

New Testament church proves that children were also accepted for baptism.

Surely, if things had changed, there would be teaching or some rebuke

stating that children were no longer entitled to participate in the covenant

sign.

The problem with this argument is that the opposite could be equally true. If

children were brought regularly for baptism, why is there no evidence of it

in the New Testament? Adult baptisms are regularly mentioned, but there is

no indication of infant baptism. This is in stark contrast to circumcision in

the Old Testament, where the practice is spoken of often. The silence speaks

equally as loud for believers' baptism as it does for infant baptism.

"Suffer The Little Children To Come Unto Me"

Matthew 19:14

In Matthew 19:14, mothers brought their children to the Lord Jesus. While

the disciples tried to stop them from doing so, Jesus told them to let these

children come to Him. There is no question that children have a special

place in the heart of our Lord Jesus. His heart is always open to receive

them.

The problem here, however, is that Jesus was not baptizing children here.

The context is found in verse thirteen. These children were brought to Jesus

so that He could put His hands on them and pray for them. There is no

water mentioned here. If we are to follow the example of Christ in this

passage, we need to pray for our children and lead them to Him. This

passage is not intended to give instruction on baptism but to show that

Christ has a heart for little children and will receive all who come to Him.

"Holy Children" (1 Corinthians 7:13,14)

13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he

consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the

unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the

unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.

Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are

holy. (1 Corinthians 7:13-14 ESV)

1 Corinthians 7:14 tells us that the children of a believing parent are holy.

The assumption is that if they are holy, they should be baptized. A closer

examination of the passage, however, reveals that it is not only the children

who are holy but also the unbelieving spouse. If we see this verse as a

reference to baptism and grant baptism to the "holy" children, should we

not also do so for the unbelieving spouse in the same household described

as "holy"?

The context of 1 Corinthians 7:13,14 shows us that the problem being

addressed is the union between a believer and an unbeliever. What

happened when one partner came to know the Lord in a marriage? Did this

mean that they were now living in sin by being unequally yoked? What

about their children? Were these children illegitimate because God did not

accept the marriage? Paul assured his readers that God expected new

believers to remain with their partners. He assured them that God accepted

their marriage. Their children also were legitimate or holy.

The passage does not refer to baptism, nor was it intended to be instruction

on baptism. Paul's purpose is to show believing husband or a wife whose

partner was not a believer that their marriage was still acceptable to God

and that their children were not unclean or illegitimate.

The Promise For You And Your Children (Acts

2:39)

38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one

of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your

sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the

promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far

off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." (Acts

2:38-39 ESV)

In Acts 2:38, Peter called his listeners to repent and be baptized. In so

doing, they would receive the forgiveness of sin and the promised Holy

Spirit. This promise was for them and their children as well as for those

who were far off.

I have sat under preachers who used this verse to prove the call of Scripture

for Christian parents to baptize their infants. They interpret the verse to

mean that God's promise for believers and their children is repentance and

baptism.

A closer examination of this text, however, shows that the promise of this

verse is not baptism but forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy

Spirit. This promise is for those who repent of their sin and identify with

Christ in baptism. This promise of forgiveness was for the Jews and their

children and Gentiles from every nation. Peter is saying that anyone who

repents of sin and identifies with Christ, regardless of nationality or age,

can know the forgiveness of sins and the indwelling presence of the Holy

Spirit. The passage does not promise baptism to infants but forgiveness and

the Holy Spirit.

While not all readers will agree with my interpretations of the verses, the

point I want to make is that we must take the time to examine what we are

taught. Writing the book of Acts, Luke commended the Jews in Berea

because they listened to the apostles but also searched the Scriptures for

themselves to see if what they heard was true:

10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night

to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish

synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in

Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness,

examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

(Acts 17:10-11 ESV)

As I wrestled through each of these arguments, I found it difficult to support

my former position on baptism. This, however, was my theological journey.

Each person must be convinced in their minds about what the Scriptures

teach.

Not all proponents of infant baptism base their understanding of infant

baptism on a covenantal relationship with God stemming from the Old

Testament. In the next two chapters, I would like to examine two other

positions on infant baptism found in the church of our day.

CHAPTER 3 - BAPTISM AS

A MEANS OF SALVATION

elievers in covenantal infant baptism are all in agreement.

Baptism is not a means of salvation but rather an indication that a

child is under a covenantal obligation to God and part of a family

that has chosen to love and serve Him. On the other side of this debate are

those who see baptism as a means of salvation for their children. In other

words, the God of grace has chosen baptism as a means by which He

blesses and saves His children. He has given His church the obligation to

bring salvation to the world through baptism.

Those who adhere to this view base their doctrine on Bible verses showing

the connection between baptism and salvation. I will examine the

interpretation of these verses in the next chapter. For now, let’s try to

understand the Biblical basis for the doctrine of salvation by baptism from

the perspective of proponents of this view.

Baptism, Forgiveness And Salvation

In Mark 16:16, as Jesus prepared to return to the Father, He commission

His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel. He then made

this statement:

(15) And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim

the gospel to the whole creation. (16) Whoever believes and is

baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be

condemned. - Mark 16:15-16 ESV

Note that Jesus told His disciples that whoever believes and is baptized will

be saved. Jesus does not say that these individuals were only to believe to

be saved; he also told them that they needed to be baptized.

Also consider the ministry of John the Baptist as recorded in Luke 3:

He went into the country around the Jordan, preaching a

baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3.3,

NIV)

Luke describes the ministry of John the Baptist as “preaching a baptism of

repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” There seems to be a strong

connection between John’s “baptism of repentance” and the “forgiveness of

sin.”

Speaking to Nicodemus about the importance of being born again, Jesus

said:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the

kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John

3.5, NIV)

Proponents of baptism as a means to salvation interpret Jesus’ use of the

word “water“ to refer to baptism. “No one can see the kingdom of God,”

say supporters of this position, “unless they pass through the waters of

baptism.” According to them, the Spirit of God works through the waters of

baptism to bring salvation.

Listen to the words of the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the

name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

And you will receive the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and

your children and for all who are far off – for all whom the

Lord our God will call. (Acts 2.38,39, NIV)

Peter told his listeners that they were to repent and be baptized for the

forgiveness of sin. While he could have told his listeners simply to repent,

Peter told them also to be baptised for the forgiveness of sin.

After sharing his testimony with the Jews in Jerusalem, Paul concluded

with the following statement:

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptised and

wash your sins away, calling on his name. (Acts 22.16, NIV)

Notice that Paul told these Jews to be baptised and wash their sins away.

This has led some to understand that there is more to baptism than just a

symbol. Proponents of baptism as a means of salvation see here a reference

to cleansing and forgiveness through baptism.

Writing in his epistle, the apostle Peter compares the floodwaters of Noah’s

day to baptism. In this illustration, the apostle makes a striking statement:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the

unrighteous, to bring us to God. He was put to death in the

body but made alive by the Spirit through whom also he went

and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago

when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark

was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved

through water, and this water symbolises baptism that now

saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but a

pledge of a good conscience toward God. (1 Peter 3.21, NIV)

Peter told his readers that Noah and his family were saved through water

and the water of the flood of Noah’s day symbolized “baptism that now

saves you” (NIV).

Consider what the apostle Paul told Titus in Titus 3:5:

He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the

Holy Spirit (Titus 3.5, NIV)

Notice the phrase “the washing of rebirth.” Proponents of baptism as a

means of salvation interpret this to show that rebirth takes place through the

waters of baptism. The Spirit of God blesses this baptism and renews the

baptismal candidate. The verses we have listed here show us a connection

between forgiveness, salvation, and baptism.

The Church’s Responsibility

While those who support this position claim that salvation is by the grace of

God, they believe that baptism is how that grace is applied to the life of a

child. The children they baptize are sinners in need of forgiveness. God,

however, has given the church the ministry of reconciling humanity to

Himself:

And this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through

Christ and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation. (2

Corinthians 5.18, NIV)

Christ told His disciples that if they forgave men their sins, they would be

forgiven:

Again, Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent

me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and

said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins,

they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not

forgiven.’ (John 20.21-23, NIV)

Those who see baptism as a means of salvation see it as their responsibility

to unleash the forgiveness of God through baptism.

In the next chapter, I will respond to this argument and comment on the

interpretation of the verses used to support this view.

CHAPTER 4 - IS

SALVATION THROUGH

BAPTISM BIBLICAL?

n the last chapter, we examined the belief that baptism is a means of

forgiveness and salvation. We mentioned the verses of Scripture used

to support this idea. It falls on us now to look more closely at this

doctrine to see if this is really what the Scriptures teach.

If there is one truth this position underlines, it is that we are sinners in need

of salvation. David understood this when he wrote:

(5) Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my

mother conceive me. - Psalms 51:5 ESV

Another important truth underscored by this position is that the church of

Jesus Christ has an obligation on its shoulders to reach out to those who are

lost in sin. The church has a great responsibility to reach out to a lost world.

The Lord has given it the ministry of pointing men to their need of

salvation. Just before He returned to the Father, the Lord Jesus issued this

command to His disciples:

(19) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing

them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy

Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded

you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." -

Matthew 28:19-20 ESV

The church of our day has the awesome task of making disciples from

people of all nations and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and

Holy Spirit. This is a responsibility we must take seriously. Having said

this, let's take a moment now to examine the various Bible passages used to

support the idea that salvation is through baptism.

Does The Sign Of The Covenant Guarantee

Salvation?

The first matter we must address is the question of whether baptism or

circumcision guaranteed salvation. To answer this, consider the many

young children of Israel who were circumcised as infants. Did all of them

serve and honour the Lord God in their lives? A quick reading of Scripture

shows us that God killed some for their rebellion and abandonment of the

faith. In fact, after Solomon's death, when the nations of Judah and Israel

were divided, the entire nation of Israel turned its back on the Lord God and

set up another religion in opposition to the faith of their fathers. While

circumcised as children, these men completely abandoned the Lord God.

Consider this also in more modern terms. Do all those baptized as children

continue in the faith? Do we not see all around us men and women who,

though baptized as infants in their church, have now turned their backs on

the Lord God and want nothing to do with Him? Evidence in real life shows

us that baptism does not guarantee true salvation.

Beyond this evidence in real life, there is evidence in Scripture that shows

that God also poured out his Spirit and saved individuals who had never

been baptized. Consider the case of Cornelius and his household in Acts 10.

Cornelius was a Roman. As Roman, he would not likely have been baptized

as a Christian, for Christianity was only starting to have an impact in those

days. Though he was a God-fearing man, Cornelius did not know the Lord

Jesus and the salvation He offered. God told Cornelius to call for Peter, who

would explain the gospel to Him. When he heard what Peter had to say,

Cornelius accepted the message and became a Christian. Here was a man

who became a believer in the Lord Jesus before baptism.

Later, in Acts 10, we read how Peter witnessed the Holy Spirit falling on

the Gentiles. He saw how the Spirit of God transformed these pagans into

men and women filled with awe and praise to God. Seeing how God has

saved and filled these man and women with faith, Peter declared:

(47) "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people,

who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" - Acts

10:47 ESV

Clearly, baptism was not the means of salvation. These men and women

were already saved before Peter baptized them. These examples show us

that God does not wait for men and women to be baptized before saving

them.

"Believe And Be Baptized" (Mark 16:16)

(15) And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim

the gospel to the whole creation. (16) Whoever believes and is

baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be

condemned. - Mark 16:15-16 ESV

Notice how Mark 16:16 tells us that those who believe and are baptized will

be saved. The connection between believing and baptizing is quite clear.

Does this imply, however, that we can accept the Lord, but we are not

guaranteed salvation until we are baptized? Is baptism a necessary

ingredient for salvation?

To answer this, let's look first at that second half of verse 16 – "but whoever

does not believe will be condemned." The passage tells us that whoever

believes and is baptized will be saved, but condemnation comes to those

who do not believe. In other words, while baptism is a symbol of one's

belief, what condemns an individual is not the lack of baptism but disbelief.

Also consider the interaction between the Lord Jesus and the thief crucified

on the cross beside Him. The thief, believing in Jesus, asked Him to

remember him when he went to His Father.

(42) And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into

your kingdom." (43) And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you,

today you will be with me in paradise." - Luke 23:42-43 ESV

Notice the response of Jesus to this thief – "Truly, I say to you, today you

will be with me in paradise." There was no time for this sinner to be

baptized. True salvation came to that unbaptized criminal. He would be in

the presence of Jesus that very day.

Clearly, from this passage, we see that while baptism is a sign of a changed

life, it is not a requirement for true salvation.

"Baptism Of Repentance" (Luke 3:3)

Luke 3:3 tells us that John the Baptist preached a "baptism of repentance

for the forgiveness of sins." We have an example of this preaching in Luke

3:7-9:

(7) He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized

by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the

wrath to come? (8) Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And

do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our

father.' For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up

children for Abraham. (9) Even now the axe is laid to the root

of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is

cut down and thrown into the fire." - Luke 3:7-9 ESV

John called people to repent of their sins. He baptized them as a symbol of

that repentance. No one was baptized who was unwilling to repent. John's

baptism was a baptism of repentance because he baptized those who

repented of their sins. This humble repentance before God and the turning

over of their lives to Him guaranteed forgiveness and not their baptism. The

passage teaches us that repentance brought forgiveness, not baptism.

Baptism was merely a symbol of this repentance toward God.

"Born Of Water" John 3:5

(5) Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is

born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of

God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that

which is born of the Spirit is spirit. - John 3:5-6 ESV

Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3 that unless a person was born of water and

the Spirit, he or she could not enter the kingdom of God. The question we

need to ask ourselves here is this: What does it mean to be born of water?

While some see here a reference to baptism, Jesus explains Himself in the

next verse when he says:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born

of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:6 ESV

In John 3:5, Jesus speaks of water and Spirit. In the next verse, He speaks

about flesh and Spirit. The words water and flesh are used interchangeably.

An unborn child living in the womb of his or her mother is protected by

fluid. At the time of birth, that fluid is expelled. The clear sign to the

mother that her time has come is the breaking of her water.

Jesus speaks here about a very natural process of childbirth. A child is

physically born with the expulsion of water from the mother's womb. This,

however, is not the only birth an individual must experience if they are to

enter the kingdom of God. Those who enter the kingdom of God must also

be born again of the Spirit. The water Jesus speaks about here is not the

water of baptism but physical birth.

"Wash Away Your Sins" (Acts 22:16)

(16) And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash

away your sins, calling on his name.' - Acts 22:16 ESV

In Acts 22:16, Paul called on his listeners to be baptized and wash away

their sins, calling on the name of the Lord. As we seek to understand what

Paul is saying here, we need to ask: How are our sins washed away

according to this passage? Are they washed away by baptism, or are they

washed away by calling on the name of the Lord? The criminal on the

cross was forgiven because he called on the name of the Lord. To the best

of our knowledge, he was never baptized. Paul is telling his listeners here

that they were to wash away their sins by calling on the name of the Lord

and, as in the case of John's baptism, demonstrate their commitment to walk

in obedience by baptism.

"Baptism That Saves" (1 Peter 3:21)

(21) Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as

a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a

good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, - 1

Peter 3:21 ESV

Peter uses the illustration of Noah and his family being saved through the

waters of the flood. He tells us that these waters symbolize baptism that

saves us. Let's examine what Peter is telling us here.

Notice how Peter goes on to say that the baptism to which he refers is not "a

removal of dirt from the body" but "an appeal to God for a good conscience

through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This distinction is vital if we are

to interpret the verse correctly.

Peter made it clear in this verse that the baptism to which he referred was

not about the removal of dirt from the body. When we remove dirt from the

body, we do so by using water. That water is poured over the hands so that

the dirt can be removed. Peter tells us here that when he speaks about

baptism, he is not referring to water being poured over someone. In other

words, he is not talking about baptism with water.

Peter tells us that the baptism he is speaking about is a good conscience

through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostle is telling us that while

physical water cleansed the body of dirt, there was a baptism that cleansed

the conscience of all sin. That baptism was the result of the work of Jesus

Christ through His death and resurrection. What saves us is not a baptism

with water but a baptism of salvation that cleanses us on the inside. This

salvation is possible because of the Lord Jesus, who paid the penalty for our

sin and through His Spirit give us a clear conscience and right standing with

the Father. Peter tells us that water baptism is not what saves us but rather a

baptism of salvation that cleanses our conscience the work of Jesus Christ.

"Washing Of Regeneration" Titus 3:5

(5) he saved us, not because of works done by us in

righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing

of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he

poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior - Titus

3:5,6 ESV

Paul told Titus in Titus 3:5 that believers have been saved through the

washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Paul explains this

in verse six by reminding us that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon us

richly. The image here is one of water being poured upon an individual to

cleanse him. The Jews were familiar with this purification rite. The pouring

out of the Holy Spirit, like this water of purification, cleanses us from our

sins and brings regeneration and renewal. This passage does not speak

about baptism but of the ministry of the Spirit of God in the life of

unbelievers, cleansing them and making them new creatures.

"If You Forgive Their Sins" (John 20:21-23)

(22) And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said

to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. (23) If you forgive the sins

of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from

any, it is withheld." - John 20:22-23 ESV

In John 20:23, the Lord Jesus told His disciples that if they forgive sin, it

would be forgiven, but if they refused to forgive, sin would not be forgiven.

Does this mean that the apostles had the power to forgive sin? Does this

imply that this ministry of forgiveness has been passed on to the church?

The context of this verse is important. Jesus had just breathed on His

disciples and told them to receive the Holy Spirit. In this context, Christ

told His disciples that if they forgave anyone their sin, it would be forgiven.

Who has the power to forgive sin in this context? It was not until they

received the Holy Spirit that this ministry could be possible. It was the Holy

Spirit who indwelt them that made this ministry possible. He was the power

behind this forgiveness.

How does the Holy Spirit make forgiveness possible? He would minister

through these disciples as they presented the message of the gospel to the

world. He would reach out through them and touch the hardened hearts of

unconverted sinners to offer them forgiveness of sin. These disciples had in

them the means by which forgiveness of sins was possible. The Spirit

within them could grant forgiveness to whomever He wished. That Spirit

would lead them to the people he wanted to forgive. They would move in

response to His leading, offering pardon and passing God's judgement.

The power to forgive is not in the church but the Holy Spirit. The Holy

Spirit works through those filled with His presence, offering this

forgiveness to those with whom they speak. This is not the task of a select

few but a ministry God has given to all who know the indwelling Spirit. We

go in the power of God's Spirit to offer forgiveness to our friends and

neighbours. In the power of that Spirit, we see the miracle of forgiveness

and rebirth taking place before us. Lives are transformed because the Lord

Jesus empowers His people as His representatives through His Holy Spirit.

Baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Nor is baptism the means to

salvation. Salvation is a work of God's Spirit in all who repent of their sins

and trust His work for cleansing and forgiveness whether they have been

baptized or not.

CHAPTER 5 -

INFANT BAPTISM AS

DEDICATION

he third position held by those who believe in infant baptism sees

baptism as a means of dedicating children to the Lord and placing

them under the care of the body of Christ. It should be noted that

even churches that do not practice infant baptism observe some form of

infant dedication.

For the most part, those who hold this position do not see baptism as a

means of salvation. It is merely a means of bringing children into the

church and under its care. It should be noted that believers in this position

do not necessarily see a connection to the circumcision of the Old

Testament, nor do they make any reference in this baptism to a covenant

with God.

The question we need to consider here is this: If we remove the focus on the

covenant God made with Abraham and the idea that baptism is a means of

salvation, then where do we find support for infant baptism in Scripture?

Probably one of the greatest supports for this view of baptism comes from

Luke 2.22-24:

(22) And when the time came for their purification according to

the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present

him to the Lord (23) (as it is written in the Law of the Lord,

“Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to

the Lord”) (24) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is

said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two

young pigeons.” - Luke 2:22-24 ESV

When the days of His mother’s purification were over, Mary brought Jesus

to the temple to present Him to God. The presentation of Jesus in the temple

is seen as an example to follow. Parents present their children to the Lord

through baptism.

In Matthew 19:13-15, Jesus encouraged parents to bring their children to

Him for blessing. He rebuked His disciples for not allowing little children

to come to Him:

Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his

hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked

those who brought them. Jesus said, “Let the little children

come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven

belongs to such as these.” When he had placed his hands on

them, he went on from there. (Matthew 19:13-15, NIV)

Many parents bring their young children to be baptized for a similar reason.

They seek the blessing of the Lord for the lives of their infants.

Advocates of this view of infant baptism also use references to household

baptisms (1 Corinthians 1:16; Acts 16:33; Acts 16:14,15) to support their

argument. The assumption is that these households must have included

children. They also use the same New Testament passages as those who

believe in covenantal infant baptism to support their position. I will not

repeat this here.

In this view, there is a heavy emphasis on the presentation of Jesus in the

temple and His words encouraging children to come to Him. Children are

brought for baptism to present them to the Lord and place them under the

care and supervision of the larger body of believers. As the mothers of Jesus

day, parents bring their children so that the church might lay its hands on

them and bless them in Christ’s name. Often during these baptisms, parents

publicly declare their commitment to raise their children for the Lord and

call upon the church to support, encourage, and pray for them.

A RESPONSE TO BAPTISM AS A

DEDICATION OF INFANTS TO THE LORD

Need Of The Larger Body Of Christ

One of the strong points of this position is the realization that we need each

other in the process of raising our children for the Lord. Many people will

influence the young child presented before the church. Each of these

individuals will either point them to the Lord or away from the Lord. When

the child is brought before the church in this manner, it is a reminder to

each member and adherent that this young child will watch their lives. It

also reminds each person present that the shape of this child’s life will

depend, in part, upon their influence in his or her life. We need this

reminder as believers today.

Prayer For And Dedication Of Children To The

Lord

We cannot underestimate the importance of prayer for our children. The

Word of God tells us that our prayers will move the hand of God. We have

seen God move in powerful ways in response to even one simple prayer

offered up in faith. What will be the result of the concentrated prayers of the

church as they cry out for children presented to the Lord? Only eternity will

tell how many times those prayers moved God to work in the lives of our

children. Any opportunity to present our children to the body of Christ for

prayer is a welcomed opportunity.

The Presentation Of Jesus In The Temple (Luke

22.21-24)

This view of infant baptism uses the example of Jesus’ presentation in the

temple as proof of their position. The problem with this is that Jesus was

not brought to the temple to be baptized. Let’s look at Luke 2:22-24 more

closely.

(22) And when the time came for their purification according to

the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present

him to the Lord (23) (as it is written in the Law of the Lord,

“Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to

the Lord”) (24) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is

said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two

young pigeons.” - Luke 2:22-24 ESV

There are two details we need to see here. First, the Law of Moses

considered a new mother unclean for seven days because of the blood flow

resulting from childbirth.

(2) “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If a woman conceives

and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days.

As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. -

Leviticus 12:2 ESV

If the child born to the mother was a male, he was circumcised on the

eighth day. The mother would continue in her uncleanness for another

thirty-three days (Leviticus 12:3-4). At the end of this time, the mother

went to the temple to present an offering for her impurity (Leviticus 12:6-

8). This is what Mary was doing at the temple with Jesus.

The second point we need to make from Luke 2 is the reference in verse 23

to the law of the firstborn – “as it is written in the Law of the Lord, Every

male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord” (Luke

2:23). This law is found in Exodus 13:2:

(2) “Consecrate to me all the firstborn. Whatever is the first to

open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of

beast, is mine.” - Exodus 13:2 ESV

According to Numbers 18:15-16, the firstborn male child was redeemed

(bought back) from the Lord at the cost of five shekels:

(15) Everything that opens the womb of all flesh, whether man

or beast, which they offer to the LORD, shall be yours.

Nevertheless, the firstborn of man you shall redeem, and the

firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem. (16) And their

redemption price (at a month old you shall redeem them) you

shall fix at five shekels in silver, according to the shekel of the

sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. - Numbers 18:15-16 ESV

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia has this to say about the

practice:

The custom of redeeming the firstborn son is preserved among

the Jews to this day. After thirty days the father invites the

“Kohen,” i.e. a supposed descendant of Aaron, to the house.

The child is brought and shown to the “Kohen,” and the father

declares the mother of the child to be an Israelite. If she is a

“Kohen,” redemption is not necessary. The “Kohen” asks the

father which he prefers, his child or the five shekels; the father

answers that he prefers his son, and pays to the “Kohen” a sum

equivalent to five shekels. After receiving the redemption-

money, the “Kohen” puts his hands on the child’s head and

pronounces the Aaronite blessing (Nu 6:22-27). - (“The

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia”. Marion, IA:

Laridian, Inc., 2017. This book is in the public domain.

reserved.)

Mary brought Jesus to the temple to present Him as a firstborn child and

pay the price to redeem Him according to the Law of Moses. Luke 2 is not

intended to give instructions for baptism. It shows us that Mary was faithful

to the Law of Moses and its teaching about purifying herself and redeeming

the firstborn child.

“Let The Little Children Come” (Matthew 19:13-

15)

We have already examined the story of mothers bringing their children to

Jesus. This passage shows us the heart of Jesus for little children but makes

no mention of baptism. Jesus laid His hands on these children and prayed

for them. He did not baptize them. John 4:1-2 tells us that Jesus did not

baptize at all:

(1) Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that

Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (2)

(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples) -

John 4:1-2 ESV

In this story, the disciples, who were the ones to baptize, tried to push these

children away. Jesus received them, and while He did not baptize them

here, He laid His hands on them and prayed. If we follow the example and

instruction of Jesus here, we will spend time with our children, value them

and pray for them.

While the passages used to support this view do not speak about baptism,

the position does show us the importance of the body of Christ in raising

our children. We can learn from this that our prayers and example will have

a powerful impact on the next generation. An African proverb says: “It

takes a village to raise a child.” This is true for the church. May God give

us the grace to follow the example of Christ in valuing and praying for the

church of the next generation.

CHAPTER 6 -

BELIEVERS’ BAPTISM

e come now to believers’ baptism. Those who adhere to this

view believe that because baptism was commanded and

instituted by Christ, our understanding of it should come

directly from the New Testament. These individuals generally see no need

to go back to the Old Testament to understand baptism. Let’s take a moment

to summarize the Biblical support for believers’ baptism in the New

Testament.

The Command Of Jesus To Baptize

Just before returning to His Father, Jesus commanded His disciples to make

disciples and to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy

Spirit:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven

and on earth has been given to me. {19} Therefore go and make

disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the

Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:18-

19 NIV)

Notice the connection between making disciples and baptizing them in the

name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Those who committed themselves

to Jesus were baptized as a symbol and pledge of their commitment to Him.

The Baptism Of Jesus

This is not the first time we read about baptism in the Gospels. Jesus was

baptized around the age of thirty by John the Baptist.

(21) Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus

also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were

opened, (22) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily

form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my

beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” - Luke 3:21-22 ESV

(16) And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up

from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,

and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and

coming to rest on him; (17) and behold, a voice from heaven

said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

- Matthew 3:16-17 ESV

It is interesting to note that during the baptism of Jesus, the Holy Spirit

descended on Him in a special way. In those days, the Spirit of God fell on

those God wanted to use in ministry. It also appears that after His baptism,

Jesus would enter the wilderness to be tempted by Satan and then begin His

public ministry. The baptism of Jesus seemed to be a crucial step toward

this public ministry. Jesus declared in baptism a submission to the Father

and the Spirit for the work He had come to do. That work would ultimately

lead to a cruel death on the cross. Jesus would speak of this death as a

baptism that would cause Him great distress:

(50) I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my

distress until it is accomplished! - Luke 12:50 ESV

For Jesus, baptism symbolized a complete and total surrender to the

Father’s purpose –even death on a cross.

Baptizing The Followers Of Jesus

Like John the Baptist, it was the practice of Jesus and His disciples in the

early days of His ministry to baptize those who decided to follow Him:

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean

countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.

(John 3:22 NIV)

While Jesus, himself, did not baptize, He instructed His disciples to baptize

those who become His disciples:

(1) Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that

Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (2)

(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

(3) he left Judea and departed again for Galilee. - John 4:1,3

ESV

Those who committed to follow Christ were baptized as a sign of their

devotion to and His teaching.

Belief And Baptism

The New Testament seems to teach that belief in the Lord Jesus, and His

work were requirements for baptism. Consider the following verses:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever

does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16 NIV)

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the

name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you

will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NIV)

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about

three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:41

NIV)

But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of

the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were

baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12 NIV)

“Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with

water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

(Acts 10:47 NIV)

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed

yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:27 NIV)

You cannot read these verses without seeing the connection between

baptism, repentance, and belief. Nowhere does the New Testament teach the

baptism of unbelievers. Baptism in the New Testament is accompanied by

repentance and faith. Faith in Christ is very clearly a necessary qualification

for believers’ baptism in the New Testament.

It is important to note that even those who baptize infants are generally in

agreement with this. Most infant baptists will also baptize adults who have

never been baptized as a child. They typically only do so, however, if that

adult demonstrates a commitment to the Lord Jesus and His purpose.

Understand that just as infant baptists are willing to baptize adults who

make a faith profession, believers’ baptists also willingly baptize children

who make a similar profession of faith.

Of all the positions we have discussed, this position is the easiest to

understand. The emphasis is on the clear teaching of Christ and the

apostles. These believers feel no need to study the covenants and laws of

the Old Testament to understand what Jesus and the apostles teach us about

baptism. Those who are baptized under this position testify to what the Lord

has done in their lives. Their baptism allows them to publicly share their

faith and commitment to follow the Lord Jesus.

CHAPTER 7 - BELIEVERS’

BAPTISM AND THE NEW

COVENANT

must admit that coming from a covenantal infant baptist position, I felt

somewhat disappointed by the lack of emphasis on the covenant God

made with His people in the believers’ baptist position. For many who

held this view, baptism was simply a public declaration of what Christ had

done for them.

In Genesis 17, God chose Abraham to be the father of a people He had

separated for Himself. While Abraham was the father of the Jews, this was

only the beginning of what God had in mind. God intended to call out,

through Abraham, a people from every nation and tongue. Listen to what

He told Abraham in Genesis 17:1-5:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to

him and said, ‘Walk before me and be blameless. I will confirm

my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your

numbers.’ Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, ‘As for

me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many

nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be

Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

(Genesis 17.1-5, NIV)

God told Abraham that through him and his descendants, every nation

would one day be blessed:

I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous

as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your

descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies,

and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,

because you have obeyed me. (Genesis 22.17,18, NIV)

The Psalmist understood this great plan of God when he wrote:

9 All the nations you have made will come and worship before

you, O Lord; they will bring glory to your name. (Psalm 86.9,

NIV)

How would the Lord accomplish this great purpose? He would do so

through the nation of Israel. He chose them to be the instruments through

which this great plan for the whole earth would be accomplished. Listen to

what God said through the prophet Isaiah:

“I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold

of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a

covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles. (Isa 42:6

NIV)

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the

tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will

also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my

salvation to the ends of the earth.” (Isa 49:6 NIV)

God would make Israel a “covenant for the peoples and a light for the

Gentiles.” They would bring “salvation to the ends of the earth.” Israel was

the vehicle through which the message of salvation would spread. Abraham

would become the father of a people that spanned every nation on the earth.

He would become the father of all who believed. Listen to the words of the

Apostle Paul to the Galatians:

Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to

him as righteousness.” (7) Understand, then, that those who

believe are children of Abraham. (8) The Scripture foresaw that

God would justify the Gentiles by faith and announced the

gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed

through you.” (9) So those who have faith are blessed along

with Abraham, the man of faith. (Galatians 3:6-9 NIV)

The covenant God made with Abraham is now seeing its fulfilment in us

who believe. The covenant God made with the Jewish people through

Abraham had a gospel purpose. He set them apart and blessed them so that

the world would come to know the Messiah and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The prophet Jeremiah prophesied that the day was coming when, after

having fulfilled His promise to Abraham, God would establish a new

covenant with His people:

“The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a

new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of

Judah.” (Jeremiah 31:31 NIV)

By His death and resurrection, Jesus would become the mediator of this

new covenant.

To Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled

blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

(Hebrews 12:24 NIV)

Having accomplished its purpose, the old covenant would now give way to

a new one.

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one

obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

(Hebrews 8:13 NIV)

Believers from every nation and language would now enter a covenant

relationship with God through the Lord Jesus. Listen to what Jeremiah had

to say about this new covenant God would establish through the

mediatorship of His Son Jesus:

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after

that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their

minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they

will be my people. (34) No longer will a man teach his

neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’

because they will all know me, from the least of them to the

greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their

wickedness and will remember their sins no more. (Jeremiah

31:33-34 NIV)

Those who belong to this new covenant are a changed people. From the

least to the greatest, each will know the Lord God and experienced the

forgiveness of sin. God will write His law on their hearts –it will be their

delight to obey Him. They would serve Him with a new and transformed

heart. Is this not what happens to an individual who is born again? Does he

or she not come to know God personally, receive the forgiveness of sin and

a new heart? Do they not then enter a covenant with God to be His faithful

and obedient children? Does He not also promise to be their God?

To become a child of the old covenant, you needed to be born into the

nation of Israel. Entrance into this new covenant is no longer by physical

birth into a particular family or nation. To enter this new covenant, you

must be spiritually born as a child of God. The Apostle Paul teaches this in

Romans 9 when he says:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor

because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s

children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your

offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the natural

children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the

promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. (Romans

9.6-8 NIV)

Paul told the Romans that not all of Abraham’s descendants were truly

God’s children. It is those who believe who are children of Abraham and

children of the promise:

Understand, then, that those who believe are children of

Abraham. (Galatians 3:7 NIV)

Jesus repeated the same thought in the Gospel of John when He said:

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name,

he gave the right to become children of God -- (13) children

born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a

husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13 NIV)

According to Jesus, those who receive Him and believe in His name are

children of God. It is these true children who are the fulfilment of God’s

Promise to Abraham. Only those who have faith are blessed along with

Abraham:

So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the

man of faith. (Galatians 3:9 NIV)

The new covenant we enjoy today is the fulfilment of the great promises

that God made to Abraham when He told him that he would become the

father of many nations. Like a marriage, this covenant joins us to the father

through the work of His Son. Entrance into covenant relationship is by faith

in the God of Abraham who promised salvation to the ends of the earth

through His son Jesus. Those who receive Him and believe in His name

become children of God. and enter a lifelong covenant relationship with

God. He promises to be their God, and they promise to be His faithful and

obedient people.

Like circumcision of the Old Testament, baptism is a sign of entrance into a

covenantal relationship with God. In baptism, candidates declare their faith

in Christ and covenant with God to live as His children. They boldly claim

God’s promise that He will be their God, never leave or forsake them. In

their baptism, they identify with the covenantal family of God who, from

Abraham, looked to the Messiah who was to come.

With this as the background, the covenantal believers’ baptist emphasizes

the New Testament teaching on the requirement of the new birth for

baptism. While baptism is a New Covenant sign, it is only completely

understood when seen in the light of God’s overall purposes as recorded in

the Old Testament.

The position shows the harmony between the Old Testament and the New.

God is working out His purposes for the entire world. We are the fulfilment

of the promises God gave to Abraham. The Abrahamic covenant is not just

for Jews. It is part of our heritage as Gentile believers in the Lord Jesus as

well. It is the foundation stone upon the new covenant with Jesus as

mediator is built.

Baptism is a sign of entrance into a covenantal relationship with God. It is

more than an outward sign to the world that I belong to Christ. Like

marriage, baptism is the exchanging of vows between God and His child.

Like Jesus, we submit to the purpose and will of God, even if it means our

death. We also accept God’s promises to sustain and keep us no matter what

lies ahead.

When I was baptized many years ago, it was a step I struggled with deeply.

Personally, it had little to do with sharing my testimony with the people

who witnessed it. As I stood in that baptismal tank, it was just God and me.

I was making one of the most difficult decisions I had ever made. I was

taking a stand that I knew would change my ministry plans for the future. I

did not know how those closest to me would respond. My flesh wanted

nothing to do with this baptism. I took that step as an act of obedience to the

Spirit’s leading and my conviction about the teaching of Scripture. I knew I

had to obey the Lord even if it hurt. God was calling me to trust Him. That

day we entered a covenantal agreement. I chose to honour Him even when

it hurt. He chose to sustain and keep me in the calling He had on my life

until I stood before Him in heaven.

CHAPTER 8 -

SPRINKLING

t falls on us now to examine the various modes of baptism. These

modes fall into three categories: sprinkling, pouring, and immersion.

In this chapter, we will discuss the Biblical basis for sprinkling as a

mode of baptism.

To understand why sprinkling is used in some churches as a mode of

baptism, we need to return to the Old Testament. In Exodus 24, Moses

stood before the people of God and declared to them all the words of the

covenant God was making with them. The people of Israel then proclaimed

their willingness to walk in obedience to these words:

(7) Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the

hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has

spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” (8) And Moses

took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the

blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in

accordance with all these words.” - Exodus 24:3-8 ESV

Notice how Moses sealed this agreement by “throwing” the blood of the

offering on the people.

The blood that stained their garments was a reminder of their commitment

to the Lord God. The death of a sacrificial animal sealed this agreement.

From that point forward, they were separated from all other people through

this covenantal relationship with God.

Later in Exodus 29, God showed Moses how he was to ordain Aaron and

his sons to the priesthood:

(19) “You shall take the other ram, and Aaron and his sons

shall lay their hands on the head of the ram, (20) and you shall

kill the ram and take part of its blood and put it on the tip of the

right ear of Aaron and on the tips of the right ears of his sons,

and on the thumbs of their right hands and on the great toes of

their right feet, and throw the rest of the blood against the sides

of the altar. (21) Then you shall take part of the blood that is

on the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it on Aaron

and his garments, and on his sons and his sons’ garments with

him. He and his garments shall be holy, and his sons and his

sons’ garments with him. - Exodus 29:19-21 ESV

Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons to the priesthood by sprinkling blood

on them.

The law of Leviticus 8:10-11 states that religious objects were consecrated

by sprinkling anointing oil on them:

(10) Then Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the

tabernacle and all that was in it and consecrated them. (11)

And he sprinkled some of it on the altar seven times and

anointed the altar and all its utensils and the basin and its

stand, to consecrate them. - Leviticus 8:10-11 ESV

After healing from an infectious disease, the Israelites would present

themselves to the priest for examination. The priest would then declare

them healed of their illness and sprinkle blood on them for their cleansing.

(5) And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in

an earthenware vessel over fresh water. (6) He shall take the

live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the

hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird

that was killed over the fresh water. (7) And he shall sprinkle it

seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease.

Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird

go into the open field. - Leviticus 14:5-7 ESV

Through this ceremony, individuals were welcomed back into full

communion with the family of God’s people.

Those who were defiled by touching something unclean were required to

come before the priest and have him sprinkle water upon them to purify

them from their uncleanness:

(13) Whoever touches a dead person, the body of anyone who

has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of

the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because

the water for impurity was not thrown on him, he shall be

unclean. His uncleanness is still on him. - Numbers 19:13 ESV

As we move closer to the New Testament, the prophets picked up on this

theme of sprinkling. Speaking about the coming Messiah, Isaiah tells us that

this Suffering Servant would sprinkle many nations.

So will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their

mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will

see, and what they have not heard, they will understand. (Isaiah

52:15 NIV)

The sprinkling referred to here was symbolic of the forgiveness of sin. The

day was coming when the pagan nations would come to the Messiah and be

cleansed from their sin. The Lord Jesus would sprinkle them with his blood

and they would become His people.

Ezekiel too, spoke in these terms when he said.

{24}” ‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you

from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.

{25} I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I

will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your

idols. {26} I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in

you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a

heart of flesh. {27} And I will put my Spirit in you and move

you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

(Ezekiel 36:24-27 NIV)

According to Ezekiel, the Lord would call His people out of exile. He

would sprinkle clean water on them and they would be cleansed of their

sins. The sprinkling of God’s people with water indicated a cleansing and

forgiveness of sin.

The sprinkling of blood or water in the Old Testament represented the

forgiveness of sin and the entrance into a covenantal relationship with God.

By means of sprinkling, an object or person was set apart for the Lord for

His exclusive use. By means of sprinkling, an individual was declared

healed of his or her disease. Sprinkling represented the power of God to

cleanse, renew and heal.

The writer to the Hebrews ties the sprinkling of the Old Testament with the

blood of Christ and its power to cleanse us from sin in Hebrews 9:

{13} The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer

sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them

so that they are outwardly clean. {14} How much more, then,

will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered

himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts

that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

(Hebrews 9:13-14 NIV)

Notice here how the writer compares the blood of Christ to the sprinkled

blood of the old covenant. Christ’s blood, sprinkled upon our conscience

and lives cleanses us from sin. We are encouraged, therefore, to draw near

to God with hearts that have been sprinkled to cleanse them from sin.

Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance

of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty

conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

(Hebrews 10:22 NIV)

Sprinkling is a symbol of what God has done in the lives of his people. He

has cleansed them and consecrated them for Himself. By means of the

sprinkled blood we have access to God.

We see here in this position a connection between the Old and New

Testament. The laws of purification see their ultimate fulfilment in the

person and work of Christ on the cross. Baptism speaks of that purifying

work.

Practically, this mode of baptism could be useful in cases where immersion

may not be possible. Sprinkling is rich in symbolism and points us to the

work of Christ and the purifying power of His blood.

While the laws of purification certainly point us to the work of Christ, this

does not necessarily mean that we are to apply this to New Testament

baptism. While the writer to the Hebrews draws a connection between the

Old Testament law of purification and the blood of Christ, it was not his

intent to give us instructions on how to baptize. His intent here is to show

the readers how Christ’s death fulfilled the Old Testament purification laws.

If these laws are fulfilled, should we carry them into the New Testament

and apply them to a New Testament covenant sign?

It is important to note here that sprinkling was not the only means of

purification. An individual who needed to be cleansed from an infectious

disease was also to bathe in water.

{8} “The person to be cleansed must wash his clothes, shave off

all his hair and bathe with water; then he will be ceremonially

clean. After this he may come into the camp, but he must stay

outside his tent for seven days. {9} On the seventh day he must

shave off all his hair; he must shave his head, his beard, his

eyebrows and the rest of his hair. He must wash his clothes and

bathe himself with water, and he will be clean. (Leviticus 14:8-

9 NIV)

In this case sprinkling was insufficient for cleansing. The body and clothing

of the individual were to be completely cleansed with water before they

could be declared clean.

On the day of Atonement, a goat was sacrificed for the sins of the people.

The priest then took a second goat, place his hands on its head and release it

into the wild as a symbol of what God had done in forgiving his people of

their sins. The priest who released this goat into the wild was to bathe

himself in water for purification before being able to return to the camp:

(26) And he who lets the goat go to Azazel shall wash his

clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may

come into the camp. - Leviticus 16:26 ESV

Individuals who were unclean by means of a bodily emission or by eating

defiled food were to bathe in water before they could be declared clean.

(See Leviticus 15:18; 17:15,16). Anyone who refused to bathe in water

would continue to be impure before God:

(16) But if he does not wash them or bathe his flesh, he shall

bear his iniquity.” - Leviticus 17:16 ESV

If we see the laws of purification as applying to baptism in the New

Testament it would be as legitimate to immerse a candidate in water as it

would be to sprinkle as that both methods were used in the Old Testament

purification rites.

Sprinkling as a mode of baptism in derived mainly from the Old Testament

purification laws. The symbolism of this method is quite rich. The question

we must ask ourselves, however, is whether these Old Testament laws

should be applied to New Testament baptism.

CHAPTER 9 -

POURING

he next method used to baptize is to pour water over the head of

the baptismal candidate. To find the Biblical basis for this, we

must again return to the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, oil and incense were sometimes poured over objects

to consecrate them to the Lord. We see this in the case of Jacob in Genesis

28:

(18) Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had

placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil

on top of it. (Genesis 28:18 NIV)

The context of the verse tells us that Jacob intended to set aside this place as

the location of a house for God:

(20) Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me

and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will

give me food to eat and clothes to wear (21) so that I return

safely to my father’s house, then the LORD will be my God (22)

and this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God’s house,

and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth.” (Genesis

28:20-22 NIV)

This same principle is applied to the consecrating of individuals for the

Lord’s service. Part of the ordination service for Aaron and the priests of

the Old Testament involved pouring oil on the priest’s head to consecrate

him to the ministry.

He poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head and

anointed him to consecrate him. (Leviticus 8:12 NIV)

In Leviticus 21, the high priest is identified as having had the sacred oil

poured on his head.

The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the

anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to

wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become

unkempt or tear his clothes. (Leviticus 21:10 NIV)

Kings in Old Testament times were also anointed with oil to set them apart

for their work (see 2 Kings 9:3 and 1 Samuel 10:1). Similarly, water poured

on the head of the baptismal candidate represents their consecration to the

Lord.

Under Old Testament law, certain offerings were poured out before the Lord

(see Numbers 28:7). The act of pouring out an offering was a symbol of

complete surrender to God. The drink offering that was poured on the

ground could no longer be reclaimed. It was completely surrendered to the

Lord. The apostle Paul compared his life to a drink offering in 2 Timothy 4

when he said:

(6) For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and

the time has come for my departure. (2 Tim 4:6 NIV)

Paul surrendered his life to the Lord, never to reclaim it again. This mode of

baptism reminds us that we are to offer our lives in complete surrender to

God as a drink offering poured out before him.

In the writings of the prophets, “pouring” takes on a new significance.

Ezekiel reminded his people that the day was coming when the Lord God

would pour out His Spirit upon His people.

(29) I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out

my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign

LORD.” (Ezekiel 39:29 NIV)

The prophet Joel tells us the same thing:

(28) ‘And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will

dream dreams, your young men will see visions (Joel 2:28 NIV)

Paul told Titus that believers are saved by the washing of regeneration and

by the renewal of the Holy Spirit who was poured out upon us:

(5) He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done,

but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of

rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he poured out

on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6

NIV)

Water poured on the head of a baptismal candidate represents the work and

ministry of the Spirit of God.

In the New Testament, a woman approached Jesus with a jar of special

perfume. She broke the seal and anointed his head with the contents. Jesus

explained the significance of this act in Matthew 26:12:

(12) When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to

prepare me for burial. (Mat 26:12 NIV)

By pouring perfume on the Lord Jesus, this woman was setting Jesus apart

for a particular ministry. This woman’s act was symbolic. It represented the

consecration and commitment of Jesus to do the will of the Father in dying

for our sins. By pouring water on the head of the baptismal candidate,

advocates of this method proclaim their willingness to submit to the will of

the Father even as Jesus did.

Just a few verses later in Matthew 26, the Lord gathered His disciples

around Him and instituted the Lord’s Supper. Notice what He told His

disciples on that occasion:

(28) This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for

many for the forgiveness of sins. (Mat 26:28 NIV)

“This cup that we share,” says Jesus, “represents my blood that was poured

out for you.” Baptism by pouring water over the head of the baptismal

candidate points us to the blood of the new covenant and the death of the

Lord Jesus on our behalf.

There is much to be said in this position about the symbolism of pouring.

Pouring is a symbol of consecration. It represents the work of the Spirit of

God in an individual’s life and the complete surrender of that life to the

Lord. It reminds baptismal candidates that their lives need to be poured out

before the Lord and points them to the blood of the Lord Jesus sacrificed

for them. As with sprinkling, this mode could be useful where it was not

possible or practical to immerse the baptismal candidate.

The position ties the Old and the New Testament together and reveals how

the Old Testament purification rituals point us to the coming Messiah and

His work on the cross for our salvation. While it may be easy to see how

pouring water over the head of a baptismal candidate could have great

significance, baptism is not an Old Testament purification ritual. The

biggest problem with this position is that there is no clear evidence in

Scripture that New Testament baptism should be celebrated according to the

Old Testament purification rules.

CHAPTER 10 -

IMMERSION

t is generally assumed by those who see immersion as the proper

mode of Christian baptism that since it is a New Testament practice,

our study must be based on the teaching of Christ and the apostles.

This study begins with an analysis of the Greek words used in the New

Testament for “baptism.”

The Greek word for baptism is βάπτω (báptō). This word occurs about three

times in the New Testament. There are also several variations of the word

(baptisma, baptizo and baptismos). While these variations generally have

the same meaning, there is one distinction. The word

βαπτισμός (baptismós), which occurs about four times in the New

Testament, always refers to ceremonial washings and is not used to refer to

Christian baptism.

Baptismos (Βαπτισμός)

The word baptismós occurs four times in the New Testament. In each case,

it speaks about Old Testament ceremonial washings. Mark 7:4 is an

example of this:

(4) When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless

they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the

washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. (Mark 7:4 NIV)

The word is translated as “various washings” in Hebrews 9.10 and refers to

the ceremonial washing of the Old Testament.

(8) By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy

places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still

standing (9) (which is symbolic for the present age). According

to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot

perfect the conscience of the worshiper, (10) but deal only with

food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body

imposed until the time of reformation. - Hebrews 9:8-10 ESV

In Hebrews 6:2, the writer encouraged his readers to leave the elementary

doctrines and “instructions about washings” and go on to maturity.

(1) Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and

go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance

from dead works and of faith toward God, (2) and of instruction

about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the

dead, and eternal judgment. - Hebrews 6:1-2 ESV

The word “baptismos” does not speak about New Testament baptism but

is used in the New Testament to refer to the Old Testament practice of

dipping objects in water to cleanse them (see Numbers 31.23).

Baptisma (Βάπτισμα)

This second Greek word occurs about twenty-two times in the New

Testament. It means “to dip.” Of the twenty-two occurrences of this word,

the vast majority of these refer to the baptism of John. The next most

common usage is to speak of a baptism of death:

But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye

able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized

with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him,

We are able. (23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed

of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized

with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to

give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my

Father. (Matthew 20:22-23 KJV)

But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until

it is completed! (Luke 12:50 NIV)

The Lord Jesus speaks here about a baptism of death that He and some of

His disciples would face. This death would overwhelm them.

Paul uses this word baptisma in a similar way when he writes to the

Romans and the Colossians.

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death

in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through

the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:4

NIV)

(12) having been buried with him in baptism and raised with

him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him

from the dead. (Colossians 2:12 NIV)

The apostle Paul speaks of being buried with Christ through baptism into

death and raised through faith. He teaches this to both the Romans and the

Colossians. In his mind, baptism was a symbol of dying to self and the

newness of life in Christ. Those who believe in immersion point out that

when a baptismal candidate goes down into the water, he or she symbolizes

this death. When they come up out of the water, they testify of new life in

Christ.

In 1 Peter 3:20,21, Peter uses the story of Noah and his family going

through the waters of the flood as a symbol of baptism. They were in the

midst of the waters of death but were saved.

(20) because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience

waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared,

in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely

through water. (21) Baptism, which corresponds to this, now

saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an

appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection

of Jesus Christ, - 1 Peter 3:20-21 ESV

The word baptisma helps us to understand something of the meaning of

baptism. The New Testament shows a connection between baptism and

death to sin and self. Paul speaks in Romans and Colossians about the

symbolism of being buried through baptism. Those who practice immersion

dip (baptisma) believers in water and bring them back up to represent this

death and resurrection.

Bapto (Βάπτω)

The word bapto occurs three times in the New Testament in this form. It is

translated by the word “dip” or “dipped” in every occurrence but never by

the word ‘baptize.”

The first occurrence of the word “bapto” is found in the Gospel of Luke.

So, he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and

send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my

tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ (Luke 16:24 NIV)

In this case, Lazarus asks Abraham to dip the tip of his finger in water and

place it on his tongue to cool it.

The second occurrence of the word is in John 13:26.

Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of

bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the

piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. (John

13:26 NIV)

The word is used here to describe taking a piece of bread and dipping it in

sauce.

The last occurrence of the word is in the book of Revelation.

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the

Word of God. (Revelation 19:13 NIV)

This passage describes a rider of the white horse, likely a reference to the

Lord Jesus. The rider wore a robe dipped in blood, a reference to his

crucifixion and death on our behalf.

The three verses that use the word bapto all speak of dipping or immersing

an object in water, sauce, or blood.

Baptizo (Βαπτίζω)

The final word used in the New Testament for baptism is the word

“baptizo.” This word is used more frequently than any other word. Baptizo

also means to dip but can also be translated by the words immerse,

submerge, overwhelm, or saturate. Advocates of immersion point us to the

actual meaning of the Greek words and examples in Scripture that could

indicate that immersion was the practice of the early church.

Mark tells us that John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the Jordan River.

(9) In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was

baptized by John in the Jordan. - Mark 1:9 ESV

Speaking of this event, Matthew tells us that after His baptism, Jesus “went

up from the water.”

(16) And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up

from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,

and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and

coming to rest on him - Matthew 3:16 ESV

The use of the phrase “went up from the water” seems to indicate that Jesus

was in the Jordan River when He was baptized. We could argue that Jesus

went down into the water and John sprinkled or poured water on Him, but

we have no proof for this. The only indication we have of how Jesus was

baptized is found in the use of the word baptizo, meaning to dip, immerse

or submerge.

In John 3:23, we read:

Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because

there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to

be baptized. (John 3:23 NIV)

From the context, it appears that John chose this location because there was

plenty of water. While John’s choice of this region does not prove that He

baptized by immersion, we could legitimately ask why John would need

“plenty of water” if he were only going to sprinkle or pour water over the

heads of those he baptized. Would not a tiny stream of running water have

sufficed? Once again, the only clear evidence of how John baptized is found

in the word baptizo. John was dipping, immersing, or submerging people at

Aenon because there was plenty of water.

In Acts 8:36,37, we read the story of how an Ethiopian eunuch came to the

Lord when Philip shared Christ with him in the desert. After accepting the

Lord and finding some water along the road, the eunuch requested Philip to

baptize him.

(36) And as they were going along the road they came to some

water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents

me from being baptized?” (38) And he commanded the chariot

to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the

eunuch, and he baptized him. (39) And when they came up out

of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the

eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. - Acts

8:36-39 ESV

Notice that “they both went down into the water” (verse 36). While it is

unclear how much water there was in that location, there was sufficient for

them both to wade out into it. The baptism did not take place beside this

water but in the midst of it. Both Philip and the eunuch went into the water

for this baptism. While it might be conceivable that Philip sprinkled or

poured water over the head of the eunuch when they went into this water,

the use of the word baptizo indicates that he “dipped” him in it.

Another important passage related to the mode of baptism is found in

Romans 6:4, where Paul tells us that we were buried with Christ through

our baptism. How does baptism symbolize this burial with Christ?

Advocates of immersion see here a reference to how a candidate is

immersed in water during baptism. This immersion in water represents the

death and burial of the old nature.

Strong Emphasis On The Meaning Of The Greek

Words

This position places a strong emphasis on the meaning of the Greek words

used for baptism in the New Testament Greek. The context of these words

also gives support to immersion as the mode of baptism. For example, John

chose a location with much water to baptize (dip) those who came to him.

Both Jesus and the Ethiopian eunuch went into the water to be baptized

(dipped).

Limitations

I recall speaking to a friend of mine about the mode of baptism. I asked him

what he would do if it were not possible to baptize an individual by

immersion due to physical limitations such as not enough water or the

sickness of the candidate. He told me that God would understand that

baptism was not possible and would not expect it of this person. There are

situations where immersion is not physically possible. In these situations,

individuals are refused the privilege of baptism unless another method is

used.

Problem Verses

Certain verses in the New Testament seem to connect baptism and

ceremonial washings of the Old Testament. Take the following as examples:

When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless

they wash (baptizo). And they observe many other traditions,

such as the washing (baptismos) of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

(Mark 7:4 NIV)

But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash

(baptizo) before the meal, was surprised. (Luke 11:38 NIV)

They are only a matter of food and drink and various

ceremonial washings (baptismos) —external regulations

applying until the time of the new order. (Hebrews 9:10 NIV)

In these passages, the Greek word for baptism (baptizo) is used in

connection with the term used for Old Testament purification rites

(baptismos). Those who practice sprinkling or pouring use these verses to

say that if the New Testament writers made this connection, it would be safe

to assume that immersion is not the only way to baptize. Since sprinkling

and pouring were also acceptable methods used to purify an object or

person in the Old Testament, it should also be a proper method of baptism.

In response to this, we must return to the Greek word used to refer to

ceremonial washings. The word baptismos speaks of dipping in water. It is

never used in the New Testament to refer to sprinkling or pouring water

over something. In the verses listed above, cups, pictures, kettles, and hands

were not sprinkled with water to wash them but completely dipped in water.

Those who believe in sprinkling or pouring point out the use of the word

“baptizo” in 1 Corinthians 10:

(1) For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers,

that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all

passed through the sea. (2) They were all baptized (baptizo)

into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. (1 Corinthians 10:1-2

NIV)

These individuals tell us that the children of Israel were not immersed in the

sea as they crossed on dry land, yet Paul tells us that they were baptized.

The Egyptians who followed after them were immersed and drowned. The

Israelites were merely sprinkled by the mist of the walls of water. They

interpret this verse to say, therefore, that sprinkling is a legitimate form of

baptism.

Notice, however, how Paul words verse 1. He tells us that these forefathers

were all “under the cloud” and “passed through the sea.” Paul is telling the

Corinthians that these Israelites had water beside them and on top of them –

they were surrounded or immersed (baptizo) “in the cloud and in the sea”

(verse 2).

I must admit that I can’t be completely objective in this study. For many

years, I have met infant baptists who could not defend their position on

baptism. My hope for them is that this study would help them see how

sincere believers in their denominational heritage have come to this

conclusion based on their interpretation of Scripture.

I have also met and been hurt by believers’ baptists who have never

understood how anyone could find evidence of the baptism of infants in

Scripture. Often this is because they have never sat down and listened to

someone from an infant baptism perspective defend their beliefs. My desire

is that believers’ baptists would have the opportunity to examine the

arguments from the perspective of someone who believes in infant baptism.

I could have presented each position without offering any defence, but that

would not benefit the reader. Assumptions are being made on both sides of

this debate. Infant baptists assume that households contained infants.

Believers’ baptists assume that because John went into the water, he

automatically immersed every person he baptized. We can also become so

focused on a verse or wording of a verse that we fail to see it in its context.

I have attempted to point these details out in this study.

I have attempted to be honest with where I stand, and I have shared my

theological journey with you. This is my journey. Your journey may not be

the same. My hope and prayer are that this study will foster greater respect

for people of different theological perspectives. I fellowship with sincere

believers from both sides of this debate. I cannot be content to say that I

believe something simply because that is what my denomination believes. I

had to make this mine. It took me over twenty years to be willing to release

this work. I trust it will not be divisive but rather a means of encouraging

deeper understanding between believers on both sides of the fence.

In the final chapter, I want to examine baptism in the early history of the

church to show that the difference of opinion over baptism is not a new

issue in our day but one that has been debated for hundreds and hundreds of

years.

CHAPTER 11 -

BAPTISM AND HISTORY

n this study, we have confined ourselves to the teaching of Scripture

and its interpretation by various believers. The debate over baptism,

however, is not new. In this final chapter, I want to take a moment to

examine how believers for centuries have wrestled to understand how

baptism is rightly administered.

One of the first references to infant baptism in the Christian church comes

from a scholar named Tertullian who lived at the close of the second

century. Writing about the practice, he says:

It follows that deferment of baptism is more profitable, in

accordance with each person’s character and attitude, and even

age: and especially so as regards children. For what need is

there, if there really is no need, for even their sponsors to be

brought into peril, seeing they may possibly themselves fail of

their promises by death, or be deceived by the subsequent

development of an evil disposition? It is true our Lord says,

Forbid them not to come to me. So let them come, when they

are growing up, when they are learning, when they are taught

what they are coming to: let them become Christians when they

are competent to know Christ. Why should innocent infancy

come with haste to the remission of sins? Shall we take less

cautious action in this than we take in worldly matters? Shall

one who is not trusted with earthly property be entrusted with

heavenly? Let them first learn how to ask for salvation, so that

you may be seen to have given to one that asketh. With no less

reason ought the unmarried also to be delayed until they either

marry or are firmly established in continence: until then,

temptation lies in wait for them, for virgins because they are

ripe for it, and for widows because of their wandering about.

All who understand what a burden baptism is will have more

fear of obtaining it than of its postponement. - (Bridges, Donald

and Phypers, David: The Water that Divides, Leicester: Inter-

Varsity Press, 1977, pg. 74.)

Obviously, from what Tertullian says, infant baptism existed in the church

of his day. Though he recognized the practice, he cautioned parents about

bringing their children. He struggled with infant baptism for two reasons.

Firstly, he felt that it was losing some of its significance. People were

deciding to be baptized or have their children baptized without a proper

understanding of what they were doing. “Shall we take less cautious action

in this than we take in worldly matters,” he asked. Related to this objection

was the second objection. Tertullian felt that since baptism was an

important decision, the baptismal candidate needed to take the time to fully

understand what he or she was doing before being baptized. There was no

need to rush baptism. Because of its significance, it was better to wait until

the candidate was truly ready. Some sources would indicate that baptism

was such a serious matter in the church that, in some cases, the candidate

was given a three-year probationary period to test his or her character

before baptism. (Dowley, Tim (ed) Eerdmans’ Handbook to the History of

Christianity, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans’ Publishing Company, 1977, pg.10.)

The Didache was a manual of church practice. Scholars have dated it

somewhere between the years 120 and 150. In it, we have a description of

how baptism was to be practised.

Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public

instruction on all these points and then baptize in running

water, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy

Spirit. If you do not have running water, baptize in some other.

If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither then

pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit. Before a baptism, moreover, the one being

baptized must fast, and any other who can. And you must tell

the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand. -

(Petry, Ray C., (ed), A History of Christianity: Grand Rapids:

Baker Book House, 1962, pg. 13.)

In his book entitled “First Apology,” Justin Martyr (a converted philosopher

who lived in the second century) explains his understanding of Christian

baptism. Bridge and Phypers summarise the teaching of Justin Martyr in the

following words:

Baptism for Justin is the means whereby men and women are

dedicated to God and made new through Christ. It is given to

as many as are persuaded and believe that the things are true

which are taught by the church and undertake to be able to live

accordingly. It is proceeded by prayer and fasting by the

candidates and congregation. Then they are brought where

there is water and are born again, being washed in the Name of

the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Baptism is

administered that the baptized may obtain remission of sins

formerly committed. - (Bridges, David and Phyper, David, The

Water that Divides, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977, pg.76)

Baptism for Justin Martyr was administered to those who believed the

teachings of the church. It was through baptism that the candidate was

forgiven his or her sins.

On the other hand, the writings of Origen and Hippolytus in the second and

third centuries, indicate that infant baptism was quite widespread in the

church. There appears to be no real objection to the practice. In his book

“Apostolic Tradition,” Hippolytus provides for both infant baptism and

believers’ baptism. In the case of believers’ baptism, the believer was

immersed three times in water following an anointing with oil for the

departure of the evil spirits. He also felt that sins were forgiven through

baptism. (Bridges, David and Phyper, David, The Water that Divides,

Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977, pg.76)

What seems clear from the writings of these early Christian thinkers is that

both infant baptism and believers’ baptism were practised in the church by

the second and third centuries. It is also clear that many of these early

believers held that sins were forgiven through baptism. Because of the

belief that sins were washed away by baptism, there was much debate over

whether wrongs committed after baptism could be forgiven. Particularly in

the church of the fourth century, there was a tendency to put off baptism

until the point of death to ensure that all sins had been washed away before

meeting the Lord.

By the fifth century, Augustine emphasised the doctrine of original sin: that

children are sinners from birth and in need of salvation. Before this, there

was a general feeling that a young child was innocent until he or she sinned.

What Augustine taught was that even before the child had an opportunity to

sin, he or she was under the judgement of God. With this teaching came a

resurgence of infant baptism. If a child was lost from birth and baptism was

the means of washing away his or her sin, children should be baptized.

Before the Reformation, the official position of the established church was

infant baptism, though new adult converts were also baptized during the

Middle Ages. It is worth noting that two groups took a stand against this

official position. The Waldensians in the 1200s, believing the church was

corrupt, felt it had forfeited the right to administer baptism. Members of this

group were divided concerning infant baptism. Some believed in the

baptism of believers by immersion. Others accepted infant baptism and saw

it as a means of salvation. They baptize their children and would rebaptize

anyone joining them from the “corrupt” established church.

The second group of importance was the Paulicians. They tended to be

expressive in their views, sometimes taking up arms to fight for their

position. This led to increased persecution at the hands of the established

church. The Paulicians rejected infant baptism and baptized believers by

pouring water over their heads.

By the sixteenth century, a group known as the Anabaptists challenged the

official church position. Like the Paulicians, they rejected infant baptism.

They believed the church’s membership needed to be composed of those

who had a personal relationship with the Lord. They gained many

followers. Even the reformer Ulrich Zwingli was originally sympathetic to

their doctrine. He is quoted to have said:

Nothing grieves me more than that at present I must baptize

children, for I know it ought not to be done. (Quoted in Bridge,

David and Phypers, David, The Water that Divides, Leicester:

Inter-Varsity Press, 1977, pg.103)

He went on to say:

I leave baptism untouched. I call it neither right nor wrong. If

we were to baptize as Christ instituted it, then we would not

baptize any person until he reached the years of discretion, for I

find infant baptism nowhere written or practised. But we must

practise it now so as not to offend our fellow men. It is better

not to preach (adult baptism) until the world is ready to receive

it. (Quoted in Bridge, David and Phypers, David, The Water

that Divides, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977, pg.103)

It appears, however, that later in life, Zwingli would take a firmer stand in

support of infant baptism. He based his argument for infant baptism on the

fact that baptism was a sign of God’s promise to man and not a sign of

man’s acceptance of God’s promises.

One of Zwingli’s converts was a man named Conrad Grabel. He, too, had

come to his convictions regarding baptism. Unlike Zwingli, however,

Grabel stood firmly on the doctrine of believers’ baptism. He gained an

impressive number of followers. Many of his followers would die for their

convictions on baptism. Because of the execution of one of these

Anabaptists, Menno Simons, then a Catholic priest, gave himself to the

study of the issue of baptism. Not being able to find infant baptism in the

Scriptures, he committed himself to the cause of the Anabaptists. He would

become a very influential figure in their cause.

During the time of Menno Simons, yet another very influential figure

appeared on the scene. John Calvin has probably done more for the cause of

infant baptism than any other theologian. Calvin emphasized that baptism

was a symbol of the grace of God in imparting salvation to those He so

desired. He felt that believers’ baptism placed too much emphasis on man’s

part in salvation. Infant baptism, on the other hand, put salvation in the

hands of God. Calvin emphasized the important connection between God’s

covenant in the Old Testament and the New Testament covenant. He drew

parallels between the participation of children in the covenant signs of the

Old Testament and their right to partake in the New Testament covenant

signs. He gave to those who practised infant baptism a theological argument

for their practice.

What does all of this teach us? We can see from this that the doctrine of

baptism has been a controversial one. Already in the second century, we

have clear evidence of the practice of believers’ baptism, infant baptism,

and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (baptism as a means of

salvation). From the writings of Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Hippolytus,

we discover that the early church took great pain in examining their

candidates. While there is evidence that the church practised adult baptism

using a threefold immersion, provision was also made for other modes. The

official position of the church for many years allowed for infant baptism.

Before the Reformation, it was generally accepted that an individual’s sins

were washed through his baptism. With the coming of the Reformation, this

position gradually shifted. Infant baptism became a symbol of the child’s

need for the grace of God. It did not guarantee salvation. The Reformation

placed the word of God in the hands of the common people and gave them

the right to interpret Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This

led to a resurgence in the doctrine of believers’ baptism and the Anabaptist

tradition. Thousands of Anabaptists were killed because they rejected infant

baptism. Over time, however, believers learned to respect each other. It was

John Bunyan who wrote:

I will not let water baptism be the rule, the door, the bolt, the

bar, the wall of division between the righteous and the

righteous. (Quoted in Bridge, David and Phypers, David, The

Water that Divides, Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977,

pg.136)

I close with that thought. Baptism has for too long been the dividing wall

between sincere Christians. Godly individuals can be found on both sides of

the debate. Each is solidly convinced of his or her position based on their

understanding of the Word of God. As Paul the apostle said:

Accept him whose faith is weak without passing judgement on

disputable matters …each one should be fully convinced in his

own mind (NIV, Rom.14.1,5).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Light To My Path Book Distribution

Light To My Path Book Distribution (LTMP) is a

book writing and distribution ministry reaching

out to needy Christian workers in Asia, Latin

America, and Africa. Many Christian workers in

developing countries do not have the resources

necessary to obtain Bible training or purchase

Bible study materials for their ministries and

personal encouragement.

F. Wayne Mac Leod is a member of Action

International Ministries and has been writing

these books with a goal to distribute them freely to needy pastors and

Christian workers around the world. These books are being used in

preaching, teaching, evangelism, and encouragement of local believers in

over sixty countries. Books have now been translated into several

languages. The goal is to make them available to as many believers as

possible.

The ministry of LTMP is a faith-based ministry, and we trust the Lord for

the resources necessary to distribute the books for the encouragement and

strengthening of believers around the world. Would you pray that the Lord

would open doors for the translation and further distribution of these books?

For more information about Light To My Path Book Distribution visit our

website at www.lighttomypath.ca