The following is a manuscript of a radio broadcast of Arnold
G. Fruchtenbaum, director of Ariel Ministries.  The text is
copyrighted material being reproduced with the permission of the
Board of Directors of Ariel Ministries.  This material may be
distributed free of charge, but it is asked that the text not be
modified in any way.  Your cooperation in this matter is much
appreciated.

     Ariel Ministries is an independent faith mission dedicated to
the work of evangelism and discipleship of Jewish people.  Unlike
many other missionary societies, we do not obligate our staff to
raise their own support.  Our missionary staff is financed through
contributions from believers throughout the country.  If this
manuscript has blessed you in some way and/or has added to your
knowledge of the word of God, then we encourage you to pray
concerning contributing to Ariel Ministries in accordance with
Galatians 6:6 and Romans 15:25-27.  All those contributing will be
sent a tax-deductible receipt.  Send your gifts to Ariel
Ministries, P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA  92681.

All scripture quotes are from the American Standard Version.



                       THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM


                       I.  The Word "Ordinance"
     
     It may be best to begin by defining the word "ordinance" so
that what is meant by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's
Supper is clearly understood.  What an ordinance is will be
discussed in four parts.


                            A.  Definition

     To get a clear definition, it is important to distinguish
between two terms:  "sacrament" and "ordinance."  The term
"sacrament" carries the idea of efficiently conveying grace
through the ritual.  The term "sacrament" carries the idea that
through the practice of the ritual it will somehow efficiently
convey grace to the partaker.  To what extent this grace is
extended is described differently by different groups.  In Roman
Catholicism, this has saving value:  the grace that is conveyed
through the sacrament has saving value.  With the Reformation
other ideas concerning the expression sacrament were formulated
and the Reformed definition of a sacrament is:

     A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in which
by sensible signs the grace of God in Christ and the benefits of
the covenant of grace are represented, sealed, and applied to
believers and these in turn give expression to their faith and
allegiance to God.

So in the Reformed view of the sacrament, the sacrament is a real
means of grace.  It is a means appointed and employed by Christ
for conveying the benefits of His redemption to His people, and
His people are made partakers of the blessing of which the
sacraments are divinely appointed, signs and seals.

     In the Reformed view, the efficacy is not in the elements but
rather due to the blessing of Jesus and the working of His Spirit. 
Furthermore, this conveying of grace is effectual only for adults
if it is received by faith.  The saving and sanctifying influence
can only be on believers.  Again, in the Reformed view, there is
the conveying of grace automatically to the one partaking. 
Because the term "sacrament" does convey the concept that one
actually receives grace through it, I prefer a different term: 
ordinance.  
     
     An ordinance can be defined as a prescribed rite or practice. 
It is an outward rite or ritual prescribed by Christ to be
performed by the church, administered by the church to be an
outward sign of the saving truth of the Christian faith.  Rather
than seeing the ordinances as conveying grace, it is better to see
them as visible signs of saving truth and that is why the term
"ordinance" is better than the term "sacrament."


                B.  The Qualifications of an Ordinance

     How does one determine what is and what is not an ordinance? 
Basically, the best way of defining what an ordinance is is to
apply three tests.

     First, was it commanded by Jesus?  Did Jesus command
believers to practice this?  Of course, Jesus commanded believers
to practice many things, but not all of them become ordinances. 
Nevertheless, something cannot become an ordinance unless it was
commanded by Christ.  

     The second test of an ordinance is:  Was it observed in the
book of Acts?  Are there examples where it was observed by the
church in the book of Acts?

     The third qualification is:  Was the rite or ritual expounded
upon in the epistles?  Do the epistles spell out the theological
significance of this outward rite?

     If all three things are present, that is an ordinance.


                     C.  The Number of Ordinances

     How many ordinances are there?  In Roman Catholicism, there
are a total of seven ordinances, known to Roman Catholics as the
seven sacraments.  These seven sacraments are ordination,
confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction, penance, baptism, and
the eucharist (the Lord's Supper).  

     The various Brethren groups believe in three ordinances: 
baptism, the Lord's Supper, and footwashing.  Footwashing is taken
to be an ordinance on the basis of John 13:12-15 where Jesus
commanded "wash one another's feet."  They believe that
footwashing is a symbol of the atonement just as baptism and the
Lord's Supper are symbols of the atonement and therefore
footwashing is a third ordinance.  But is footwashing truly an
ordinance?  The main passage used, John 13:12-15, in context does
not emphasize footwashing as such but humility.  Furthermore, in
that same context, footwashing is not a symbol of the atonement
but rather a symbol of the spiritual cleansing of the believer who
has already had the atonement applied to him.  So John 13:12-15
simply does not teach footwashing as an ordinance.  Finally, it
does not meet all three qualifications.  Whereas it was commanded
by Christ, it is never practiced in the book of Acts, nor is there
any theological exposition of it in the epistles.

     How many ordinances are there?  Only two meet all the
qualifications:  the Lord's Supper and baptism.

     
           D.  The Necessity of the Observance of Ordinances

     Why is it necessary to observe ordinances?  According to
Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, they should be practiced
because they have regeneration value, they have saving value.  The
Bible simply does not teach that as being the necessity for the
practice of the ordinances.

     The biblical reason for practicing the ordinances is a matter
of obedience.  One does this in order to obey that which the Bible
commands.


                     II.  The Ordinance of Baptism

     The ordinance of baptism will be discussed in seven parts.
 

                              A.  Meaning

     What is the meaning of baptism?  One definition is that of
the Westminster Confession: 

     Baptism is a sacrament wherein the washing with water in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit both
signify and seal one's ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the
benefits of the covenant of grace and our encouragement to be the
Lord's recipients of grace.

The Westminster Confession is the confession used by many of the
Reformed churches.  This definition can be broken down into five
points.

     First, it is a divine ordinance.  Secondly, it is a means of
grace to believers.  Third, it is a sign and seal of the covenant
of grace.  Fourth, it was intended for a perpetual obligation. 
Fifth, God promises to bring the benefits signified by baptism. 
The Reformed position has the element of conveying of grace in
this act and they connect it with a theological concept known as
the Covenant of Grace which is not found anywhere in Scripture.

     There is a better definition, and it is more in keeping with
the Jewish origins of baptism.  Baptism should be defined as
follows:

     Baptism is an identification or association with a person
and/or message and/or group.  

The word "identification" is the single most important word in
describing exactly what baptism means.  For instance, in Judaism
there was the practice of proselyte baptism.  When a Gentile
converted to Judaism he was baptized and when he was baptized he
identified himself with Judaism and the Jewish people.  Whoever
was baptized by John the Baptist identified himself with the
message of John and committed himself to accepting the Messiah
once the Messiah was pointed out.  Believer's baptism or Christian
baptism is also best defined by the word "identification."  One
identifies himself with the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ.

     There are five key Greek words by which the meaning of
"baptism" is determined.

     The first is the Greek word bapto which means "to dip" and is
used three times in the New Testament.

     The second is baptizo which means "to baptize" and it is used
eight times.

     The third word is baptisteis which means "baptizer" and it is
used four times.

     The fourth word is baptisma which means "baptism" and is used
twenty-two times.

     The fifth word is baptismos which is used nine times and is
translated two different ways:  baptism or washing.  

     The meaning of the act of baptism is "identification."

           B.  The Qualifications of Baptism as an Ordinance

     Baptism meets all three qualifications for an ordinance. 
First, it was commanded by Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).  Secondly,
it is practiced in the book of Acts (Acts 2:38,41; 8:12-13,36,38;
9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:9).  Thirdly, it was expounded
upon in the epistles (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:11- 12).  

    
                            C.  The Formula

     The formula for baptism was given by Jesus in Matthew
28:18-20:  baptism should be done in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  By this formula, Christian
baptism will be distinguished from other baptisms prevalent in
that day.  This formula will distinguish it from proselyte baptism
which was the baptism performed upon a Gentile converting to
Judaism.  This formula will distinguish this baptism from John's
baptism, as John the Baptist's baptism was not Christian baptism. 
Christian baptism is a baptism in the name of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit.

     Some teach that because the book of Acts only mentions being
baptized in Christ's name that one only needs to name Jesus and no
one else.  Here they are misunderstanding the Jewish context in
which Christian baptism originated.  Again, baptism was a Jewish
practice long before it became a Christian practice.  When the New
Testament speaks of being baptized in Christ's name, it never uses
the word "only."  It mentions Christ or Jesus and not Father or
Spirit simply because that is enough to distinguish it from other
forms of baptism.  When the New Testament states "baptize in the
name of Jesus," it simply means that the person being baptized was
baptized into Christian baptism, not into John's baptism, not into
proselyte baptism nor any other baptism that was practiced in
those days.  The expression "baptized in Jesus' name" simply
distinguished it from other types of baptized.  It means the same
thing as "Christian baptism."  But the formula to us at baptism is
"in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

     
                        D.  The Mode of Baptism

     The controversy here is between those who insist on immersion
only and those who use non-immersion types such as pouring or
sprinkling.


                           1.  Non-immersion

     Under the heading of non-immersion there are two practices.
One is affusion which is known as pouring and the other is
sprinkling.  There are six main arguments used to support
non-immersion practices.

     The first is that the word baptizo is used in a secondary
sense of "bringing under the influence of" and this is best
pictured, by pouring.  It is true that baptizo can be used in a
secondary sense of "bringing under the influence of" but the
problem is that that is not the way anyone interprets Scripture
elsewhere.  INterpretation must first be based on the primary
meaning, and the primary meaning is "to immerse."  One never
resorts to a secondary meaning if the primary meaning is clear. 
Only if the primary meaning does not make sense does one resort to
a secondary meaning.  In no passage where baptizo is used is it
necessary to resort to a secondary meaning.  Also, the secondary
meaning is a derived meaning of the act, it is not the meaning of
the word.  The expression "to bring under the influence of" is not
a secondary meaning of the word baptizo.  Rather, it is simply a
secondary meaning of the act itself, but the word itself never
means that even in a secondary sense.  It always means "to
immerse."

     The second argument used is that pouring best pictures the
Spirit's coming upon a person.  Since baptism is to picture the
Spirit's coming upon a person, the best way of picturing that is
by affusion.  But the answer is that this is not the way that
water baptism and Spirit baptism are related in the Scriptures. 
Rather, Spirit baptism places one totally into the body of Christ,
and immersion is a far better picture of that.

     The third argument used to favor non-immersion states that
immersion was improbable or impossible in places like Acts 2:41
where there was simply too many people, or Acts 8:38 where there
would be too little water, or Acts 10:47 and 16:33 where there
would not be enough water in a house.  But in these passages in
the book of Acts, is immersion really impossible or improbable? 
In relation to Acts 2:41, one thing archeology has discovered is
that throughout Jerusalem there were many pools of water both for
ritual and non-ritual immersion purposes.  So there were plenty of
pools in Jerusalem to immerse all of these people that were saved
on the day the church was born.  As for Acts 8:38, the exact place
where the baptism occurred is unknown, but there are ponds all
over the area that are sufficient for immersion.  As for Acts
10:47 and 16:33, these were Roman homes and Roman homes had pools
or baths.  These pools were sufficient for immersion.  

     The fourth argument used is based upon Hebrews 9:10 where the
word baptizo is used to include the Old Testament rituals of
sprinkling.  However, the word here is not "sprinkling" but
"washings" and the washings of Old Testament law required the
instruments for Temple usage to be immersed into water.  The
utensils were not cleansed by sprinkling water on them and no
woman washing would consider them clean by simply sprinkling water
on them.  Quite the contrary, the instruments were washed by
dipping them or immersing them in water.  Furthermore, it might be
pointed out that throughout the rituals of the Old Testament law
it was blood that was sprinkled, not water.  The Greek language
has a word for dipping.  That is bapto, but the Bible does not use
this word in relation to the ritual.  It does use the more
intensive word, baptizo, and that proves the point even better
because bapto means "to dip" and the more intensive form of the
word, baptizo, means to totally immerse the instrument.  

     The fifth argument concerns the significance of baptism
according to non- immersionists.  Some non-immersionists teach
that the baptism represents the death of Christ on the cross. 
They claim that baptism does not represent the Lord's burial
because the atonement was completed on the cross and baptism does
not represent Christ's resurrection because the resurrection does
not add to the atonement and therefore immersion is not necessary. 
The answer to this is that baptism is never associated with the
manner of Christ's death, but with the act of death, burial, and
resurrection (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:11-12).  The emphasis in
baptism is clearly on the burial aspect in these two passages, and
it is not merely the fact of the atonement that baptism portrays,
but the acts Christ had to undergo to accomplish the atonement,
which was three things:  death, burial, and resurrection. 
Furthermore, according to Romans 4:25, without the resurrection,
there would be no atonement since resurrection was important for
justification.  So to say that burial and resurrection are not
part of the actual atonement and therefore immersion is not
necessary does not logically or biblically follow.

     The last argument that is used is to say that three-quarters
of the visible church today does not immerse and since
three-quarters do not immerse how could three-quarters of the
church be wrong?  But, the majority can often be wrong and truth
is never determined by a majority vote but by what the Scriptures
teach.  No church has the right to dispense with the command of
Christ or to modify it since that puts the church above Jesus.


                             2.  Immersion

     On what basis is it taught that immersion is the only proper
way of baptizing?  There are ten reasons why immersion is the only
true biblical form of baptism.

     First, the primary meaning of the Greek word baptizo is "to
immerse."  It might be pointed out that the word "baptism" is not
a true English word.  It is merely a transliteration of the Greek
word.  "Baptism" is from the Greek word baptismos.  What did the
Greek word mean?  The Greek word clearly meant to immerse.  The
translation of that form of the word would be "immersion."  If the
original English translators had been honest, every time they came
to that word, they would have translated it as "immersion" because
that is the meaning of the word.  Unfortunately, sprinkling had
become wide-spread by the time the English versions of the Bible
came out, and many of the translators themselves were sprinklers. 
So rather than translating the word they transliterated the word
and the English text reads "to baptize" or "baptism" but the
meaning of the word is "to immerse" and "immersion."  

     Secondly, "immersion" is the best way of explaining the
normal meaning of the words "into" and "out of."  In the context
of baptism, the Bible speaks about the baptized person going into
the water and after baptism, coming up out of the water and these
statement clearly imply immersion (Matthew 3:11,16; Mark
1:5,8,9-10; Acts 8:38-39).

     The third argument in favor of immersion is that this is the
way that Jesus was baptized (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:9-10).

     The fourth argument in favor of immersion is that this was
clearly the method of the baptism of John (John 3:23).  According
to this verse, John had to leave for a different part of the
country for the reason that there was much water there.  If simply
sprinkling was sufficient, John could have stayed right where he
was because there was always a trickle down the Jordan River. 
However, merely a few sprinkles of water would not have been
sufficient and therefore John was forced to go to a place where
there was much water, a place where there was a sufficient amount
of water for the purpose of immersing people.  

     Fifth, every New Testament case allows for immersion.  There
is not a single example anywhere in the New Testament where
immersion was either improbable or impossible as critics maintain. 
In every New Testament case where baptism is performed, it is
obvious that immersion was more than possible.

     The sixth argument in favor of immersion is that the Greek
language has words for pouring and sprinkling, but neither one is
ever used for baptism.  In the case of pouring, the Greek word is
epicheo.  Another form of the word is katecheo. While these words
are used in the New Testament, they are  never used in connection
with baptism.  The Greek language also has a word for sprinkling
and that word is rantizo.  While rantizo is also used, it is never
used in connection with baptism.  So the Greek language has words
for pouring and sprinkling, but these are not the words used in
connection with baptism.  With baptism, it is always the word that
means immersion.  It is the regular word that Greeks use to mean
to immerse something into water.  Even apart from its ritualistic
sense, whenever a Greek wanted to say "I want to immerse this
knife into the water," he would use the word "baptism."  "I am
baptizing this knife into the water."  What he meant was that he
was immersing it into the water and it is the word for immersion
that is always used in connection with the ritual of baptism.

     The seventh argument in favor of immersion is that immersion
best pictures the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit (Romans
6:3-5).  Romans 6:3-5 speaks of not water baptism, but Spirit
baptism.  When one is baptized into Christ, one is baptized into
His body by the Spirit and the believer is then identified with
the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and immersion best
pictures this.  First of all, the believer is place totally into
water as he has been placed by the Spirit totally into the body. 
Furthermore, just as baptism pictures the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ, going down into the water is a picture of
death and burial and coming up out of the water is a picture of
resurrection.  

     The eighth argument in favor of immersion as being the only
proper mode of baptism is that the Jewish practice of baptism was
always by immersion.  For example, Jewish proselyte baptism was by
immersion and that points to John's baptism and believer's baptism
being the same, by means of immersion.  Baptism did not begin with
the Gentile church, but it began with Jewish believers who
continued the practice of baptism from Judaism but gave it a
different meaning and a different formula.  Jewish baptism was
always by immersion and Jewish Christians would only practice
immersion as a proper form of baptism.  So from a purely Jewish
perspective, a Jewish believer that had a Jewish background could
never come out in favor of either sprinkling or pouring.  He would
always come out in favor of immersion only.         

     The ninth argument in favor of immersion is that this was the
practice of the early church, both the Jewish branch and the
Gentile branch of the church.  In the first century, for example,
immersion was the only practice performed either by the Jewish
believers or by the Gentile believers.  The practice of pouring
only began in the second century.  Even when pouring was first
mentioned in a second century document, it had to do with a
believer who was on his deathbed and was simply to ill, to sick,
to go to a place where he could be immersed so it was suggested
that in that case and in that case only it was permissible to pour
water on his body.  But again, the pouring would mean that the
person would still become totally wet.  While the second century
document does not carry biblical validity, those who use it should
be reminded that it was emphasized in that same document that this
was the exception to the rule and not to become a common practice. 
As for sprinkling, sprinkling only began in the twelfth century
A.D.

     The tenth argument is to point out the practice of the Greek
Orthodox Church.  The Greek Orthodox church has many similarities
with Roman Catholicism but they use Greek as their language and
not Latin.  Since they know Greek, they know what the word
bapizmos means and so the Greek church to this day does not
practice pouring or sprinkling, but practices immersion only.     
 
     So the only proper mode of baptism is immersion.  Any other
kind of practice, sprinkling or pouring, is not biblical baptism. 
Those who have merely been sprinkled or have had water poured on
them have not yet undergone true biblical baptism.


                      E.  The Subjects of Baptism

     Who qualifies for baptism?  This area will be discussed in
two parts:  infant baptism and believer's baptism.

     
                          1.  Infant Baptism

     Infant baptism will be discussed in three parts.

     
                  a.  The Reasons for Infant Baptism

     While several different groups practice infant baptism, they
do not all practice it for the same reason.       

     Some groups practice infant baptism because they believe in
baptismal regeneration.  They believe that by means of baptism the
infant is saved and that is the view of Episcopalians and
Lutherans.

     Other groups that practice infant baptism do not believe in
baptismal regeneration.  Groups that are based on covenant
theology such as the Presbyterian Church and Dutch Reformed Church
practice infant baptism because that by means of infant baptism
the child is brought into the covenant family.  That is why only
children of at least one believing parent qualify for baptism.

     These are the two main reasons why groups practice infant
baptism.  Since infant baptism is not found in Scripture, they
have to find different reasons for it. 


                   b.  Arguments for Infant Baptism

     What are the arguments used to defend the practice of infant
baptism?  Four primary arguments are used. 

     First, it is taught that baptism is the anti-type of
circumcision and since circumcision was practiced on infants,
therefore baptism should be practiced upon infants.  But if it is
true that baptism is the anti-type of circumcision, then only male
infants should be baptized, since only male infants were
circumcised.  Furthermore, in the Bible the anti-type of
circumcision is never said to be baptism, but rather the anti-type
of the circumcision of the flesh is the circumcision of the heart. 
In Acts 15 the controversy over the necessity of circumcision was
not solved by the church declaring that baptism is a replacement
for circumcision.  They solved it by pointing out that the
Gentiles were simply not under the Law.

     The second main argument used is that household promises
allow for infant baptism.  One such household promise is in I
Corinthians 7:14 where the children are sanctified by the
believing parent.  But one has to read baptism into the passage
and the teaching that household promises allow for infant baptism
is an unproven assumption.  Furthermore, if I Corinthians 7:14 is
used to teach infant baptism, it would also teach the baptism of
unbelieving adults for they too are found in this passage.  The
unbelieving spouse is also said to be sanctified by the believing
spouse.  If one is going to use this verse to teach infant
baptism, one should also use this verse to teach adult baptism of
unbelievers which adherents do no do.  This is an inconsistent way
of handling this passage.

     The third main argument used to support infant baptism is to
claim that household baptism must have included infants.  The
passages used to support this argument are Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; I
Corinthians 1:16 where it is read that the entire house was
baptized and they go on to point out that there must have been
infants in that house.  The answer to this is that the inclusion
of infants is again an assumption for it is equally likely that
there were no infants in that house.  For example, I belong to a
family with parents and a total of seven children.  My parents are
still living and all of the children are still living.  I am the
oldest and the youngest is twenty-two years younger than I am. 
Yet, every one of us is old enough to believe and therefore to be
baptized.  So if my entire house was baptized, there would not be
a single infant among us.  Again, the inclusion of infants is an
assumption for it is equally likely that there were no infants
there.  A second way to answer this argument is to point out that
even household baptisms were prerequisited by faith.  Even when
the whole household was baptized it was only because the whole
household believed.  For example, in the case of Acts 16:15, verse
40, shows that all those in this woman's house were all believers. 
As for Acts 16:33, verse 34 shows that the whole house believed. 
There were no infants that could not believe.  As for Acts 18:8,
the very same verse states that his house believed and therefore
was baptized and again, the believing preceded the baptizing.  As
for I Corinthians 1:16, in 16:15 the same house is mentioned
again, and everyone in that house was old enough to minister.  If
they were all old enough to minister, then there were no infants. 
If they were old enough to minister then they were old enough to
believe and it was because they believed that they were baptized.

     One of the theologians that taught and favored infant baptism
admits in a theology book that he wrote that there is no biblical
command to baptize infants and he also admits that there is not a
single example of infant baptism in the New Testament.  But after
having admitted that there is no command for baptizing infants,
and that there are no examples of baptizing infants, he
nevertheless goes on to defend the practice.  It is obvious that
here church tradition has overruled what the Bible teaches.  This
theologian's argument is first of all to go back to the Abrahamic
Covenant and claim that circumcision was practiced on infants. 
But again, the Bible does not teach that baptism is the anti-type
of circumcision and furthermore, they do baptize infant girls and
circumcision was not performed on infant girls.  Secondly, this
theologian claims that the Abrahamic Covenant is the same as the
New Covenant and since there was infant participation in the
Abrahamic Covenant, there must be infant participation in the New
Covenant.  The Bible never makes the two covenants as one and the
same and this theologian is simply presuming his theory rather
than proving it.  This theologian then, thirdly, states that
infants partook in the benefits of the covenants and received
circumcision.  While that statement is true, it does not prove
that it carries over to the New Testament with baptism and there
is a lot of reading into and assumptions here.  His fourth
statement is that baptism is a replacement of circumcision as a
sign and seal of the covenant of grace.  The answer to this is
that the Bible does not even teach the existence of a thing known
as "the covenant of grace," and furthermore the anti-type of the
circumcision of the flesh is not baptism, but circumcision of the
heart.  His fifth argument is that there was no New Testament
mention of infant baptism only because it emphasized the ministry
to adults.  This a true statement as far as it goes, but the real
issue is that the reason the New Testament does not mention infant
baptism is not because it only emphasized the ministry to adults. 
The real reason infant baptism is not mentioned is because it was
not practiced.

     All of these arguments for infant baptism are aimed toward
supporting a church tradition that is already there.  Rather than
turning away from tradition to the Word of God, these people chose
to turn away from the Word of God to their traditions.  That kind
of traditionalism is hypocrisy and there is no biblical teaching
or even an example of infant baptism.


               c.  The Arguments Against Infant Baptism

     First, the very meaning of baptism restricts it to those who
consciously exercise faith.  Baptism means the identification with
a person and/or a message and/or a group.  It is a choice the
individual must make and an infant does not make such a choice and
therefore does not qualify to be baptized.

     Secondly, there is no New Testament command to baptize
infants.

     Thirdly, there is not even a New Testament example of
baptizing infants.  

     Fourth, infant baptism was not practiced in the early church. 
The first clear case of infant baptism was only in the third
century.       

     Fifth, the reason for infant baptism is based on the
sacramental idea of baptismal regeneration and a lot of the
denominations practice infant baptism because they believe and
teach that by means of a little sprinkling of water on a baby that
baby will be saved.  Infant baptism is not based upon Scripture,
but is based on a false teaching, that of baptismal regeneration.
    
     Sixth, there are certain evil effects of infant baptism. 
First, it forestalls a personal commitment.  In dealing with
people who were baptized as infants, it is often found that they
are depending their salvation on the "baptismal covenant" as
infants.  The have never made a personal commitment to trust
Christ for their salvation.  They are trusting on an act performed
on them at the decision of their parents only.  So one evil effect
is that is forestalls personal commitment.  Secondly, it has
created a superstitious confidence in the efficacy of water. 
There is a superstitious belief among many of these that by means
of a few drops of water, they have been miraculously or magically
saved.  The third evil effect of infant baptism is that it brings
unregenerate people into the membership of the church.  There is
no guarantee that these infants are going to believe as they grow
up.  But upon being baptized they automatically become members of
that church and as they grow up they will always be members of
that church and often never are believers.  As a result these
churches have many unregenerate people in the church and that is
probably the worst effect of infant baptism.


                        2.  Believer's Baptism

     "Believer's baptism" means that the subject is qualified for
baptism only after he exercises faith.  Only after he has believed
does he qualify for baptism and this is the clear teaching of
Scripture.  For example, Acts 2:38:  Repent and be baptized. 
Repentance must precede baptism.  Acts 2:41 states that only those
that received the Word were baptized and the reception of the Word
must come first.  Acts 8:12 states that they believed and then
they were baptized.  Believing preceded their baptism.  Acts 8:36
states that nothing hindered the Ethiopian's baptism since he had
already believed.  In Acts 9:18 Paul believed first and only then
was he baptized.  In Acts 10:44-48, once it was clear that these
Gentiles in the house of Cornelius were saved because the Spirit
had fallen upon them, only then were they free to be baptized.  In
Acts 16:30-34 only after faith was baptism followed for all.  In
Acts 18:8 after believing they were baptized.  Again, one must
believe first before he qualifies for baptism and that one
prerequisite excludes an infant as a qualified one to be baptized. 

     One other thing under believer's baptism is to point out a
distinction between circumcision and baptism.  Often circumcision
is used to support infant baptism but there is a clear distinction
between the two practices.  Circumcision never showed the faith of
the child.  At the age of eight days, that child didn't believe
anything.  Circumcision did not show the faith of the child, it
showed the faith and obedience of the parents.  Baptism is to show
the faith and obedience of the one being baptized. 


              F.  The Relationship of Baptism and Salvation

     Some groups teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and
therefore teach that one must be baptized to be saved.  

     First, in the over two hundred passages where salvation is
mentioned, faith is the only condition for salvation.  If baptism
was necessary for salvation it should have been mentioned in all
cases where the conditions for salvation are mentioned.

     Second, Paul did not consider baptism to be that vital.  In I
Corinthians 1:14-17 Paul states that he was happy that he did not
baptize too many people in the Corinthian church so that they
would not camp on the fact that they were baptized by Paul.
Furthermore he said that God did not send him to baptize but to
preach the gospel.  If baptism was necessary for salvation then
Paul would have said that he was sent to preach the gospel and to
baptize.  But what he said in that passage is that he was sent to
preach the gospel but not to baptize.  Then in 15:1-4 he discussed
the gospel and pointed out that the gospel is what saves, baptism
is not part of that gospel.

     Third, there are some problem passages that people use to
support the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.  

     The first passage used is Mark 16:16 and here two things can
be mentioned.  First, there is a real question that this part of
Mark 16 was originally part of the gospel of Mark because the
oldest and best manuscripts do not even have this passage in it
and it is foolish to base a doctrine on a passage that is not even
found in the best and oldest manuscripts.  A second way of
answering this is that it is not stated in the negative.  He does
not say that if you do not believe or are not baptized you will be
lost.  He simply says that if you do not believe you will be lost. 
If baptism was necessary, he would have also said that if you
believe but are not baptized you will be lost.  He mentioned
believing and baptism because in those days baptism followed
believing right away.  That is not done today but it was done back
then.  

     A second passage used is John 3:5 where it speaks of being
born of water.  Being born of water is not baptism.  If it was,
Jesus would have used that word.  Being born of water was a Jewish
expression meaning physical birth.  Mere physical birth as a Jew,
he tells Nicodemus, is not sufficient to enter the Kingdom.

     The third passage used is Acts 2:38 where it says believe and
repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins.  The Greek
word there is eis which is also used in a place like Matthew 12:41
and there it means "on account of."  In Acts 2:38 the word eis
should read "on account of" as it does in Matthew 12:41 and so
what he is saying in Acts 2:38 is "repent and be baptized on
account of or on the basis of the remission of sin."  

     The fourth passage is Acts 22:16 which states "to arise and
be baptized for the washing away of your sins."  There are two
parts of the verse and they should be kept distinct in that
"arise" is a participle and "be baptized" is an imperative and
there is no "and" in the Greek.  It simply says "arising, be
baptized." "Washing away your sins" is an imperative followed by
"calling" which is a participle.  What Acts 22:16 is saying is
this:  Baptism follows the arising as forgiveness follows the
calling upon the name of the Lord.  One is saved by merely calling
upon the name of the Lord but after being saved by calling upon
His name, he then should arise and be baptized as an act of
obedience.  

     The last passage used is I Peter 3:20-21 which speaks of
baptism saving but that verse is speaking of a cleansing of the
conscience and not salvation.  These were Jewish believers who had
not undergone the obedience of water baptism and because they were
disobeying the Lord they were operating under a bad conscience. 
The writer is telling them that they need to have that cleansed
and a conscience is always cleansed the same way, by obeying the
Lord in whatever area one is in disobedience and in this case they
were in disobedience as to the command of baptism.  Baptism is a
symbol and a sign of cleansing and never the means of cleansing.  
Baptism is only necessary for discipleship and obedience, not
salvation.  No one can be a disciple of Jesus if he has not been
baptized.  He can be a believer in Jesus, but not a disciple of
Jesus if he has not undergone water baptism.

     
                             G.  Rebaptism

     Is there ever any basis to be rebaptized?  There is one
passage where people are rebaptized and that is Acts 19:1-7. 
These were disciples of John the Baptist and had been baptized by
John.  They had John's baptism but they had never been baptized
into Christian baptism because they had left the country before
John pointed out who the Messiah was.  So they did not know that
Jesus was the Messiah.  In that passage Paul lets them know who
the Messiah was that John had predicted would come and that was
Jesus.  Once they believed, Paul proceeded to baptize them into
believer's or Christian baptism.  Since John's baptism was not
Christian baptism, they needed to be rebaptized.  

     If a person has been truly biblically baptized, there is no
necessity for rebaptism.  Rebaptism should not be practiced just
to join a new church as it sometimes is.  Rebaptism should not be
practiced just because one happens to be by the Jordan River and
wants to be baptized for ceremonial reasons in that river.  If one
has been biblically baptized, there is no basis for rebaptism.

     If someone was baptized in an improper baptism, then this
calls for a rebaptism.  If one was baptized before he became a
believer, he is to be rebaptized.  If one was baptized as an
infant, he is to be rebaptized.  If one was baptized in a wrong
mode, either by pouring or sprinkling, then that calls for a
rebaptism because these are not biblical baptisms.