Statement of Declaration: The author of this work believes without reservation, that the King James Bible is more than just a priceless work of literary art, which it is. But it is has indeed been preserved without error by God's providence as an infallible book that the common man in the English speaking world can hold and own, and the light it can give rest entirely on that man's faith in it and its Author. And all those who believe otherwise have either been duped, have an unclean motive, are just ignorant or see no issue of importance in having God's word readily available in an infallible form. No amount of linguist ability can give any extra light if there is doubt to its content, the Holy Spirit will not honour anyone that want to subject this English Bible to an inferior position.
How often I have said that I wish that hyper-dispensationalist were right when it comes to water baptism not being for the Body of Christ. The reason being is because of all the heresies and damnable heresies connect with it. Yet, the hyper-dispensationalist are wrong, for many were in the body of Christ before Paul and were baptized. (Rom_16:7).
One can see why the Salvation Army advocates no baptism at all and calls it passé.
Let us face it between infant sprinkling, water regeneration, “Baptist Briders” and a host of misapplied passages of Scripture (like baptizing the living for the dead—can you say Mormon 1Cor. 15:29) it is a whirl pool of confusion and in it’s wake the simply doctrine of salvation (I Corinthians 15:1-4) is drowned out with Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21 and many other misapplies passages.
(Jer 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.)
First let me say I am not advocating dry docking the Good Ship Zion for I am a Baptist and a dispensationalist, but a good Pastor asked me to write on the subject at hand. Therefore even though volumes of correct doctrine and errors have been written I will honour his request and do so. Yet, I am convinced that no matter how many write on this doctrine there will still be those who would try to dilute the blood of Christ Jesus.
The word baptism appears 22 times in Writ, baptized 61 times, baptizing 4 times, baptisms 1 time and there are many other links to “baptism” including good old John the Baptist, Noah and even Naaman the leper.
First it must be stated that the very term infant baptism is a misnomer it should be called what it really is infant sprinkling.
When we allow people to refine the definitions of words according to the Holy Writ, we have in fact undermined our own doctrine. Never mind what the current usages may be the Bible is its own dictionary. If someone wants to call a sinner in Rome “Holy Father” they have that right, but not according to the Book of Books the term is used for the Heavenly Father alone (John 17:11). Let’s face it if a man wants to call a chimpanzee a kangaroo he has that right, but that does not alter the chimp.
While many who believe in credobaptism (believer’s baptism is defined as adults and children with a developed conscience of good and evil) will use lexicons to help prove a point, there is a danger of making these supports the final authority and not the English Bible itself.
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.
The more we use these supports the less faith we can have in the English text, till finally we can wind up using them as a thesaurus and play the “Greek Game” of a better rendering--- anyone can do this and many have.
In other words you “humbly boast” that the transliteration baptism should have been translated immersion, washing or anything that you may want to justify your position and then show people just how much smarter you are than the translators of the A.V. 1611. At last your halo will become a noose that will choke out what faith you have in the infallibility of the BOOK.
In fact did not a group of believers, believe baptism by immersion and published their own translation because of the word baptism was a transliteration and they assumed that the translators erred and baptism should have been translated immersion? Yes, they did in1864 (American Bible Union Version).
The following few verses are associated with water baptism (Out of the water Matt 3: 16; River of Jordan Mark 1: 4; they went down both into the water both Philip and the eunuch Acts 8:38; much water there John 3: 23).
Why two would go down in a body of water and then teach that it is because one was sprinkling the other is doing injustice to the text itself as well as common sense. But a preconceived doctrine will read into a text what it will.
Years ago a heretic I knew had to have the repenting thief on Calvary baptized. What was his text to justify his position? John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
Can you not see that the water from our Lord’s side splashed upon the thief? Many an insane person is not institutionalised.
Baptism is connected to burial and of course we do not sprinkle or pour a little dirt on the deceased, we put him under the sod and in case some aqua brain should speak of a sepulchre, here to, they are also under ---under a stone. Our Lord body was placed in a sepulchre and this act was called a burial!
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (Luke 12:50)
The words sprinkled, sprinkle and sprinkling are associated with ashes, blood, oil, dust, water of separation, water of purifying, and the restoration of Israel.
And if one should say, that the water of separation supports infant sprinkling, let them.
The Recipe For Making Homemade Water Of Separation According To Scripture (Numbers 19).
1. One red heifer without spot or blemish and never yoked freshly sacrificed (If you live in a small apartment this may be a problem. Yet, just tell your neighbours—Moo Moo I love you before you slaughter the heifer.).
2. One large area to burn the dead heifer along with its skin, blood and dung (A city park may do or your neighbours front lawn—if they are on vacation).
3. While the heifer is burning, season it with cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet (no steak sauce required).
4. Burn past well done, burn to ashes
5. Note it will be necessary to do all the above according to Mosaic Law and not a Betty Crocker Cook Book.
Save some of the ashes to be mixed with water by your priest or pastor to perform the ritual of infant sprinkling and the rest to make homemade soap. The soap will be more beneficial in cleansing the infant than the ritual.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13-14)
And of course there are other verses taken out of context to support sprinkling of infants as well as adults.
Num 8:7 And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and [so] make themselves clean.
So I guess we should put a razor in an infants hand or perhaps hold the little darling by the heel and let others shave it next to the baptismal font, which would come in handy in order to rinse off the razor. And of course if the candidate is an adult, it might cause a sensual revival (Can you say Charismatic Catholic).
No where in the Holy Writ are infants sprinkled, have water poured on them, * let alone baptized in order to receive the grace of God or spiritual life. And to use verses where baptism is connected to a household (Acts16: 15 & 33 and 1Cor. 1:16) in order to teach infant Sprinkling is nothing more than forcing private interpretation and a preconceived doctrine. Let’s look at Acts 16:29-34 and add nothing to the text, but common sense.
Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, (Act 16:29)
Here is an adult man trembling not an infant, who was of such despair and fear he was ready to take his own life. Would not you say that fear makes one predisposed to hear words of hope? The verses on fear, conviction, repentance, helplessness and guilt are too numerous to list when dealing with any adult on eternal matters in the Scripture. Can you give me one verse where an infant was in such despair or condition where he took his thumb out of his mouth and cried out “what must I do to be saved” and not because he was hungry or wet?
The phrase “He fell down” shows us he was old enough to walk (My what great theological insight). Sure he may have humbled himself as a little child (Luke18: 17), but he was not. A little child has no veneer and is more forthcoming with his or her feelings this is self evident with anyone who has been with little children. Therefore to approach the God of heaven or to be in a position to receive Jesus Christ, the veneer is strip away. The Jailer’s veneer had been removed when he approached Paul and Silas.
A very young child or infant as define by Holy Writ knows not good and evil or the Law (Romans 7, Deu. 1:39).
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (Act 16:30)
His first word showed humility from stocks to sirs. There was a change from being in control to needing desperate help.
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (Act 16:31)
The words and thy house are wilfully altered to read and the small children or infants in thy house. Tell me how long have you suffered from spiritual hydrocephalus, how many households do you know where there are no infants, but adults or children of conscience?
You see you have not a diaper (nappy) to mop up any sprinkled water or infant nor small child to prove your doctrine none is represented clearly in the text. You have to add to the text and forcibly assume that they were present (Pro. 30:6).
And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. (Act 16:32)
Again the text list no infants or small children. If so called infant baptism is so critical, why did not the Holy Sprit have them listed in any text where baptism is mention? Is the Spirit of God guilty of oversight or does he want to leave them in peril?
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. (Act 16:33)
And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. (Act 16:34)
Why did they leave the house (verse 32) and re-enter (verse 34) unless you believe his entire household was at the jail. Furthermore was there not a sufficient amount of water to baptize them in the house, after all it does not take much water to sprinkle or pour. I know it was the night air and dew laid upon the ground.
Did the infant rejoice and shout praise God?
No matter how you cut it, and there is no getting around the fact (pun intended) is that those that support infant sprinkling teach that baptism has replaced the old covenant (circumcision) with the new covenant infant sprinkling in one degree or the other. If you believe in believer’s baptism you are out numbered for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists and others that practice infant baptism. And of course many of these teachings of these diver denominations are in flux to a greater or lesser degree. It would that volumes to answer it all and this author is not so equipped with time.
Points To Ponder On Comparing Circumcision To Baptism
1. The rules for circumcision are very clear and if we substitute the word baptism in its place the folly is exposed.
John 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
Gen 17:10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
In every case it is always the male, this being so why baptize females? Has the unisex movement went too far?
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Please, refrain from the rebuttal of "in Christ Jesus" “Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. “ for this has been used to justify woman pastors and even sodomite marriages.
Yet, if you are an amoeba do so. But if you are a child of Adam the Lord recognizes sexes in connection with sin (Luke7: 27 female and Matt. 9:12).
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
If water baptism is the replacement of physical circumcision then what is a male cut off from if he is not baptized. Is he cut off from a local church, heaven or his people? How can circumcision to the physical offspring of Abraham be called an everlasting covenant (Gen.17: 7) if it has been replaced? I sure hope the everlasting life my Lord gave us last longer than this.
2. Baptism changes not a Gentile’s gender or your standing with Israel. If you are a Greek female slave before baptism you will still be the same after. But if you were a Gentile male under the Law and were circumcised your station does change you can become a Jewish proselyte (Acts 2:10). There are no Christian strangers; you are either in Christ or not.
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Lev 19:34 [But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.
Yet, even then a circumcised stranger had no claim to the Promise Land under the Law of Moses and never had the full rights as a natural son of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: he was limited.
Yet, under the Gospel of the Grace of God we saved Gentiles because of the blood of Christ Jesus (not baptism or circumcision) are no longer strangers or foreigners (Eph. 2:11-22) and are eligible for all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3).
3.In the New Testament there are different types of physical baptisms (the baptism of repentance under John and under the Great Commission Matt. 28 there are other baptisms as well). Tell me; are there diver types of physical circumcision under the Old Covenant? Never mind any spiritual connection it was a physical act regardless. And if believers were rebaptized in the New Testament (Acts 19:1-5) can you say the same for circumcision.
I know that spiders can grow new legs; perhaps we are missing something here.
4. Circumcision was practiced by those who are not part of the house of Israel such as Egyptians and others. This did not make them Old Testament saints. The sons of Ishmael (Muslims) practice this ritual today and would have the nation of Israel destroyed. Does this ritual make Muslims the sons of Jacob?
The same can be said of baptism and even baptism falsely so-called (infant sprinkling) if baptism makes a person a Christian or member of the New Covenant then does doctrine of that denomination matter?
Jehovah witnesses do not believe in Trinity nor does the Roman Catholic believe that the sacrifice on Calvary is all-sufficient and they both baptize. Do we over look false doctrine and damnable heresies and call them our Christian Brothers and teach that some spiritual gift has been placed on them?
But to Rome’s credit at least they do not circumcise bells, but they do baptize them.
5. Original sin and baptism?
The added trimmings of godfathers or godmothers for “baptism” have no biblical support. (My godmother when I was a child used an Ouija board. —How godly can you get!)
Jewish parents did present their firstborn to the Lord (Ex.13: 2, Luke 2:22-23). Furthermore a purification of the woman was needed, this was done with a sacrifice, a burnt offering (Lev.12:1-8). The offering was a sin offering not for the “original sin” of the child but for the sin of the mother (Mary needed a sin offering).
Nowhere in the Bible is baptism said to remove original sin, which is often defined as the hereditary sin due to the fall of Adam and Eve. For if the original sin is the catalyst of all other sin we commit and it were removed then why do infants grow up to sin and die after so called “baptism”? Am I responsible for my father Adam’s sin?
Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Yet, in Adam all die for he brought sin and death into the world (Rom. 5:12) and you can sprinkle a child until it grows gills it will still contend with the consequences of sin and death.
We know that King David was not a bastard child so what does Psalms 51 mean?
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Could not this be explained with Genesis 3? (Gen 3:16) Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
The sorrow that befall woman that travails in labour is due to the sin of Eve (The Curse), in fact many woman still refer to their monthly cycle as the curse.
Every sprinkled female will experience the above, to say that the original sin is removed and forgiven and to suffer the punishment is absurd. Nothing is removed or forgiven by infant sprinkling or even adult baptism. The mothers who brought forth children under the law needed a sin offering (see above) and mothers today need a sin offering also, the Lamb of God, The Lord Jesus Christ!
Every honest person regardless of modes of baptism or any misconception of the doctrine will agree with Paul when he declared, “Rom 7:19-21 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me”.
You may not like the term sinful nature, but we all are born with it and baptism changes nothing. Perhaps we should call it “I would not” in order to be biblical.
You plant corn, corn comes up and when two sinners have a child guess what they produce?
Yet, God in his mercy has given us one that did partake in a baptism that will remove the curse and has removed the barrier between man and God (1Tim.2:5). And he did that with another baptism, after John baptized him.
Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
This baptism no mortal can endure or is qualified to partake for he took on the power of Satan and death and won.
Isa 50:8 [He is] near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who [is] mine adversary? let him come near to me.
6. The covenant for Israel and the new covenant for the church enter in by baptism or how to misapply Jer.31.
All those would want to appropriate Jeremiah thirty-one in some degree or another to the Christian Church will have to misapply the passages. Yet, none have to be a student of Larkin, Scofield, Darby or any dispensationalist to understand the passage. Common law of biblical exegesis will do.
A. Who is speaking (God, man or Satan)?
B. Who is being spoken to (Jew, Gentile or Church)?
C. When does it taken place (Past, present or the future)?
D. Where does this take place (Earth, the Heavens or hell)?
E. What is being spoken about?
F. It is conditional or unconditional?
G. Can it be taken literal?
H. Are there parallel passages?
I. Is it a spiritual or physical promise?
(Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come (C), saith the LORD (A), that I will make a new covenant (E) with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:(B)
(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day (C) [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (D); which my covenant they (B) brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD (A):
(Jer 31:33) But this [shall be] (C) the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel (B); After those days (C), saith the LORD, I will put my law (E) in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they (B) shall be my people.
(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me (F & G), from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity (G & F), and I will remember their (B & I) sin no more.
You may say this is an over simplification of the passages, but no harm has been done to the text and the literal promise and word of God has been honoured! Notice that not one verse here speaks of the Body of Christ (The Church) or Baptism. There is no spiritual Israel here, but the literal twelve physical tribes, which are the descendents of Jacob. The same UNCONDITIONAL promise can be found in the book of Hebrews Chapter eight and the same results will result. The promise is future and to think otherwise is a result usurping the position of Israel and stealing their promises, which is fuelled by conceit according to the Apostle Paul.
Rom 11:25-28 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (27) For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. (28) As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.
While believing Gentiles (a wild branch) maybe grafted (Romans 11) into a good olive tree by faith and not baptism this still does not void the covenants that God gave to the natural branches (Israel).
No amount of perverting the Scripture can make the body of Christ spiritual Israel by baptism, sprinkling or any other means. God has not cast way his people (Romans 11).
7. The verses used to make Gentiles into Israelites.
Gal 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. (27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (29) And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The term spiritual Israel appears not in Writ. We are children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (26) and by faith the same as the children of Abraham (uncircumcised without works Gal.3 & Rom.4) but never will be children of Jacob (Israel). Jesus did not come to the lost sheep of the house of Abraham but to Israel (Mat 15:24
Here once again baptism shows up and those suffer from spiritual hydrocephalus will read water into the text when the word water does not appear. Perhaps, Paul should have written Timothy to drink a little baptism for his stomach sake!
How are you baptized into Christ Jesus seeing that the Scripture speaks of One Lord, one faith and one baptism? The last time I counted there were seven different baptisms in the Writ (Baptism of fire Matt3. Baptism of John Mat.3, Baptism of suffering Luke 12, Baptism of the Gentiles Matt. 28 and so on).
There are many Lords (1Co 8:5) and many faiths (needs no comment just check your phone book). One Spirit baptizes you by one faith in one Lord who died for us. It is a spiritual operation of faith not aqua and we trust a person (Jesus Christ not a thing (water). The words of Hosea should ring loud and clear “Hos 8:6 it [is] not God”. The Spirit does not administrate this by human hands.
This verse has been touched on in part, but we are all one in Christ Jesus. God is no respecter of persons when it comes to saving a soul from hell. This is not corporate but to all individuals regardless of their gender, race or station in life. A black female slave in America in the 1800’s is on equal footing with the most respectable Christian today, the blood of Christ Jesus is the real fountain that ALL must come through!
Rom 3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
We are of Abraham’s seed not Jacob and the promise is that in thy seed all nations shall be blessed.
But enough on comparing circumcision which is a sign (Rom. 4:11) to baptism which is a figure (1Pet.3:21). NOTE! Sign starts with a S and figure starts with a F. The word figure (appears seven times in Writ) usually closely related to a person, but a sign is usually connected to an event or a thing.
Law of First Mentioned
Deu 4:16 Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
Exo 4:8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.
The word figure that baptism represents is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1Pet, 3:21,Heb.9;9) and it also is linked to his incarnation, sacrifice and life.
But if you persevere in making Gentiles into Jews by twisting verses such as Romans 2:28 and teaching baptism has replaced circumcision so be it. But if Paul had replaced the Jew with the Gentile (“Christian Church”) he never would have written Romans 11. You cannot graft back in what does not exist.
Should you be baptized.
Every person in the Scripture that trusted Jesus Christ and had the chance did so.
The thief on the cross trusted him and was not baptised and he died after the New Testament was in affect (Heb. 9:16-17). This shows that baptism is not prerequisite for salvation or is part of the whole.
Paul set the boundaries for the Gospel (1Cor: 15) that is the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. Anything added to this is out of bounds and heresies. Paul administered little water baptism and Jesus none.
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
If water baptism is an absolute requirement for salvation, than Jesus Christ personally never saved a soul.
If you have trusted the Lord as your Saviour due to seeing yourself as God see's you, a sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness then do so. Water baptism will not save you any more than partaking in the Lord’s Supper, giving, living a clean life and so forth. Wilful refusal to do so is rebellion. This shows others that you are glad to identify yourself as a Christian with this public ordinance. This shows that your Saviour died for you was buried and arose, be proud of the Saviour identify with him!! Name me one Christian in the Bible who refused to due so????
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.