Have you ever wondered what the earliest Christians after the time of the Apostles believed about water baptism? Did they believe it is when we receive forgiveness by God, or did they believe the "faith only" doctrine that many denominations believe today? Here are some examples of what they believed:

Barnabas wrote in 70 AD, “Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time…we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.” (The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1, The Epistle of Barnabas 11:114-16)

Irenaeus wrote in 120-205 AD, “As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'”(Irenaeus, “Fragments From Lost Writings”, no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574)

The proof text that early Christians used for baptism was John 3:5!

 In 110-165 AD, Justin Martyr wrote “they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.‘ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all… And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed” (Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 183)

In 140-230 AD, Tertullian wrote, “Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins” (Baptism 7:2).

In 140-230 AD, Tertullian wrote, “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed in the faith… The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and serpents themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. (On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 669.)

Interesting in the prior quote is that there was a false teaching coming about that was denying baptism!

Tertullian also wrote, “The prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none’ chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” (On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 674-675)
​
In 150-200 AD, CLEMENT wrote, “when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning…Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation.” (Clement, “Recognitions of Clement,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 155)

There are so many attacks against the New Testament offered by unbelievers, including atheists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, etc. that believe the New Testament has been corrupted. They say that men have corrupted the text and have mistranslated the Bible since the Apostles wrote it. One such example that many may bring up is Mark 16:9-20. Some say it does not belong in the Bible. Some say it does. Below are some of my opinions based on what I have read and learned about this issue.
Many people claim that this passage in Mark is not authentic. There seems to be three main reasons why they believe this to be the case:

1. Mark 16:9-20 is not included in two of the oldest manuscripts that we currently have today, the Sinaiticus and Vati­can­us manuscripts.
2. The vocabulary and style of the verses are deemed non-Markan, and
3. The connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20 seems awkward and gives the surface appearance of having been added by someone other than Mark.

Not Included in Two Oldest Manuscripts

1. There are a few problems that I have with this position:

• It is in the Alexandrian manuscript, which is about the same age as the other two. It is only 40 years older. What makes the other two more reliable than this one? It is an arbitrary decision to say that the oldest manuscripts are the more reliable manuscripts. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should carry no more weight over Alexandrinus.
• The vast majority of manuscripts do include Mark 16:9-20
• This passage is referred to by Irenaeus (in Against Heresies), an early church father, in the second century. It is also mentioned by a disciple of Justin Martyr around 170AD, and by Tertullian in the early 3rd century.
• One of the manuscripts that leaves Mark 16:9-20 out (Vati­can­us) also leaves out the book of Revelation, but no one questions the book of Revelation as being canonical.
• Nothing within it contradicts other scripture, and most of what it teaches is taught elsewhere in scripture. (one exception is the drinking of deadly poison)

Connection Between Verses 8 & 9 is “Odd”

1. I believe this point is easily dismissed as arbitrary and subjective opinion. Some may agree that the connection between verses eight and nine is awkward, some may disagree. Both opinions are equally valid and do not give evidence for its being excluded or included.

Different Vocabulary
This point also seems invalid to me. I am sure you could find many books in a bookstore that may contain different words in the last chapter compared to the other chapters that are written by the same person. This really proves nothing.Also, if you provided the same test on verses one through eight with the rest compared to the rest of Mark, you find the same problem. Should we reject verses one through eight also? This is not solid evidence to reject verses that are included in the vast majority of manuscripts.

1. The strongest three evidences against Mark being included can easily be dismissed. By far the strongest evidence, (different vocabulary) could be used to dismiss sections of the book which are clearly written by Mark. Based on this fact, along with the vast amount of manuscript evidence, the question I ask is: Is there a bias that many scholars hold that leads them to rejectMark 16:9-20? Do they have a bias because they believe the oldest manuscripts are the best? Do they have a bias against something taught in the passage?

​I have had many discussions about the subject of baptism with people, and it never fails that sometime during the discussion, they just deny what the scriptures say about the topic. They at times just say, “I deny what you are saying about baptism,” ignoring the fact that all I am doing is quoting verses about baptism. Another response I have gotten is, “You don’t have to be baptized!” Well, to this response I say, you are absolutely right! ​

Yes, you read the above image right! You do not HAVE TO get baptized! This is a true statement. You do not have to get baptized if you do not want to.

You only HAVE to get baptized if:

• you want to follow in the steps of Christ, who was baptized (Matthew 3:16);
• you want to become a disciple (Matthew 28:19);
• you want to be saved (Mark 16:16);
• you want to enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5);
• you want your sins remitted (Acts 2:38);
• you want the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, 5:32);
• you have gladly received the word of God (Acts 2:41);
• you have believed the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom (Acts 8:12)
• you want to obey the commandment of God (Acts 10:47-48)
• you want your sins washed away (Acts 22:16)
• you want to call upon the Lord (Acts 22:16)
• you want to be IN Christ Jesus (Romans 6:3)
• you want to be IN the death of Christ (Romans 6:3)
• you want to be buried WITH Jesus and raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4)
• you want to be united with Jesus in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:5)
• you want to be crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6)
• you want your body of sin to be done away with (Romans 6:6)
• you want to no longer be a slave to sin (Romans 6:6)
• you want freed from sin (Romans 6:7)
• you want to be washed and sanctified in the name of Jesus by the Spirit of God  (1 Corinthians 6:11)
• you want to be in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13)
• you no longer want to be under the tutor of the law (Galatians 3:25-27)
• you want to become a son of God by faith (Galatians 3:26-27)
• you want to be in Christ and clothed with Christ (Galatians 3:27)
• you want to be sanctified and cleansed (Ephesians 5:26)
• you want a spiritual circumcision of Christ, in which your body of flesh (sin) is cut away (Colossians 2:11)
• you want to be buried with Jesus and raised up with Him (Colossians 2:12)
• you want to be made alive together with Christ (Colossians 2:13)
• you want forgiven of all your transgressions (Colossians 2:13)
• you want to be saved by the mercy of God, regenerated, and renewed by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4-7)
• you want your heart and your evil conscience cleansed (Hebrews 10:22)
• you want to make an appeal to God for a clean conscience (1 Peter 3:21)
• you want saved through the resurrection of Christ (1 Peter 3:21)

 
So as I said earlier, you really don’t HAVE TO be baptized, but I pray you will be so you can partake of the above blessings that are given to those who are. 

What a great day for the kingdom of God it must have been when that first sermon was preached by Peter! The door into the kingdom of heaven was opened to the world. That first sermon led to the salvation of about 3000 souls.

Let’s put ourselves into the shoes of the people hearing this first sermon preached about Jesus Christ.
Some of these people were probably there on the day when Jesus was before Pilate being judged. Some may have even been part of the crowd that was yelling, “Crucify Him, crucify Him (Luke 23:21).” Their hearts must have been deeply pierced by the words of Peter when he, by the Spirit, said to them that they were guilty of putting to death the Son of God, the promised Messiah in whom they had been so anxiously awaiting (Acts 2:23, 36). We probably could not begin to understand the sorrow that was in their hearts for their wickedness in turning over the Son of God to the Gentiles to have Him crucified.

I don’t know what your response would be to the words of Peter, but the question that I would ask, begging for an answer, would be, “What must I do to be forgiven?”

This is exactly how the people responded to Peter and the other Apostles. We see the peoples’ response to the word of God in Acts 2:37: “When they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?” I’m sure that they, just as any of us, couldn’t wait for the answer to this question! What would the answer be? What would they need to do to be forgiven of their sin against God?

Did Peter answer by giving some of these answers you commonly hear today:

• “You don’t have to do a thing. Jesus did it all on the cross just 50 days ago for you!”
• “Just say this prayer with me and Jesus will come into your heart.” How about,
• “It seems like you already believe what I’ve said, so you are already saved!”

 
No, he didn’t say any of these things, because these were not what the Lord told him to say to the people on how they could receive forgiveness. So how did Peter answer this great question? Peter, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).”

Peter tells them that if they wanted to be forgiven of their sins each of them needed to as believers “repent and be baptized” for the remission of those sins. These were the things they needed to do! We see that there were about 3000 people who did just that! Acts 2:41 says, “those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.” When these people received the word of God, they obeyed it by being baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. It should not surprise us that Peter would give this answer to the people because Jesus Himself gave this instruction in the great commission. Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16).” It is interesting that there are so many who claim to be Christians today who would not have responded gladly to the command of Peter in the passage. They would accuse Peter of teaching “works salvation”. But Peter is not teaching this at all. The Spirit was using the words Peter was preaching, convicting people to come to faith, repentance, and baptism so that God would save them and forgive them. Those who were convicted and brought to faith and repentance by the Spirit would also be convicted to be baptized for the reason which Peter told them to, in order to receive remission of their sins. This conviction and obedience to the command of Peter was the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of the people to earn their salvation.

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” is the answer to the great question, “What shall we do?”

Have you been told to do something different than what was instructed to the people in Acts 2? Have you been told that you do not need to do anything to be saved, or that you just needed to say a prayer? That’s not what Peter (and the other Apostles), inspired by the Holy Spirit, said to do! 

Some respond to what has been written here by trying to retranslate what Peter says in Acts 2:38. What is argued is that the Greek word “eis”, which is translated in EVERY major translation in this verse, can also be translated as ‘because of’. So they say that Peter is instead saying, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [because of] the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” There are a few problems with this retranslation of the verse:

1. Every major modern translation translates it “for”, showing that one must repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness. Why reject the translation that hundreds of Greek scholars for over 500 years have given. Do they not have more experience with the Greek than you and I? When someone must retranslate a passage to get it to fit their belief system, the problem is usually not with the passage, but the belief system. One must read their presuppositions into the text to translate it differently.
2. When ‘eis’ is translated ‘because of’, one is forced not only to say that baptism is ‘because of’ the remission of sins that was previously done, but also that repentance comes because remission of sins already happened prior. Most who prefer to retranslate the passage believe that both repentance and faith are necessary conditions to receive forgiveness, but in retranslating the passage, they shoot themselves in the foot and deny that repentance is necessary also, bringing themselves into contradiction with Jesus (Luke 13:3).

 
Acts 2:38 means what it says. It means what it has been translated by hundreds of Greek scholars for hundreds of years to say. The only reason to believe otherwise is because one is bringing a presupposition to the text which contradicts the text as it is written in our translations.

The people that obeyed the gospel on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 were added by the Lord to the church and were set free from the bondage of sin. Will you gladly receive the word of God just as they did, by repenting of your sins and by being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins?

Infant baptism is objectionable for several reasons.

First, infant baptism is an unauthorized change in God’s pattern for baptism. God tells us whom to baptize. He tells the conditions people must meet in order to be baptized, but babies do not fit. To baptize babies is to act by human authority without divine authority. All things that we do as God’s people must be done by the authority of Christ (Col 3:17). How can we presume to do something in Jesus name and say it is approved by Him when He does NOT command it or say it is pleasing to Him? We cannot! Below I have provided two reasons that infant baptism is contrary to the pattern given by God:

• We do not see one example of babies getting baptized in the New Testament. It is assumed into passages where we are told that whole households were baptized, but there is no evidence in the passages that babies were included. This is only an assertion without any other scriptural evidence.
• Also, we are told in scripture that there are prerequisites to baptism. One must hear the gospel (John 6:44-45; Romans 10:14-17) believe (Mark 16:16), confess Christ (Romans 10:9-10), and repent (Acts 2:38) before baptism. The one who does not do these things has not been baptized Biblically. There is no Biblical precedent to change the order of these conditions for salvation. Man has no such authority to do so. The one who is not baptized based on what the Bible teaches has not received forgiveness of sins. Jesus says we must believe AND be baptized to be saved, and Peter says we must repent and be baptized to receive remission of sins (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38).
• Infant baptism is almost always done by sprinkling or pouring, not by immersion. The Bible says that baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). A person must go down into the water and come up out of it (Acts 8:38,39; Mark 1:9,10). Bible baptism requires much water (John 3:23). Also, the Greek word for baptism means “to dip, plunge, or immerse.” When baptism is commanded in the Bible by Jesus and His Apostles, they are commanding immersion, because this is what the word means! Infant baptism does not fit God’s pattern on any of these points. The evidence clearly shows that Bible baptism is an immersion, not a sprinkling or pouring.

 
Second, infant baptism leads people to believe they are saved and part of God’s covenant community when they are not. God requires people to be baptized for the remission of sins when they are old enough to make their own decision about the matter. But many people have been baptized as babies. Then, when they are old enough to be responsible for their conduct and to make the decision to be baptized, they refuse because they believe they have already done so. But their infant baptism was not Scriptural. So the person goes through his whole life never having been Scripturally baptized, and therefore he never has received forgiveness of his sins! The false doctrine of infant baptism leads people to suppress the truth and to think that they have been forgiven by God when they have not been Scripturally.

Third, baptism is meant to forgive sins that are committed, but a baby has not yet committed sins. Since baptism must be done for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of sins, a baby could Scripturally be baptized only if he/she was guilty of sins and needed forgiveness. But is a baby guilty of sin? The answer is ‘no’. Sin is defined in scripture as transgressing the law of God (1 John 3:4, James 1:14-15) and it is the sin that we commit that separates us from God (Romans 3:23, Isa 59:1-2). A baby is not guilty of sin, so they do not have a need to be baptized. ‘Sin’ must be redefined (contrary to scripture) to make a baby a candidate for baptism.
 
What should a person do if his baptism was not done the way the Bible teaches? He should realize that he simply has not yet obeyed God, and he needs to obey God by being baptized according to the Bible (see Acts 19:1-6).

A very dear brother of mine showed me an approach that he uses to show people the truth about what one must do to be saved and what Jesus actually says about baptism. He looks at the five common views of different churches/religious groups of Mark 16:16. Here are those five views:
​
1.  He who believes and is baptized “will not” be saved. Those who hold this view are the religious systems of atheism, Judaism, Muslims, and other religious groups who believe Christianity is false.

2.  He who “does not believe” and “is not baptized” will be saved. This would be a belief held by Universalists who believe that God will eventually save everyone regardless of their beliefs and practices.

3.  He who “does not believe” and “is baptized” will be saved. This is believed by those who baptize infants and believe that these infants receive some kind of forgiveness, such as Roman Catholics and Lutherans.

4.  He who believes and “is not baptized” will be saved. This is believed by the majority of protestant denominations and many protestant “non-denominational” churches.
When we compare these first for popular views of baptism to what Jesus actually says in Mark 16:16, we see that all four of them fall short of what the Son of God actually says.

Jesus says:

5. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…” (Mark 16:16). This view takes the words of Jesus at face value. This is the only view of the five that quotes the passage “as-is.”

The other four views of Mark 16:16 bring the very truth of the words of Jesus into question, denying what Jesus actually said. For instance, view number three, which is held by Catholics, denies the need for faith which Jesus does give as a condition of receiving salvation.

The fourth view denies the need for baptism by trying to make the second part of the verse (” …but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”) contradict the first part of the verse. They say that “Jesus didn’t say ‘whoever doesn’t get baptized will be condemned.'” But this treatment of the verse does contradict the first part of the verse where Jesus plainly states that both belief and baptism are conditions to receive salvation. Let me use an illustration to prove this point. I believe the words of Jesus would be on par with saying, “He that eats and digests his food will live, but he who does not eat will die.” What we see in this statement is that the natural thing which happens to the person that eats is that they will digest their food and live, and it is the case if they do not eat they will die. But nowhere in this statement does it say “whomever does not digest their food will die.” So does this mean that I don’t have to digest my food to live? Of course not. But the person who uses the second part of Mark 16:16 to negate the first would have to say ‘yes’ to be consistent. There is a reason why Jesus did not say, “‘whoever doesn’t get baptized will be condemned.” It is assumed that the natural thing that the person with faith will do is get baptized, and thus receive the salvation promised in the passage by faith at baptism. There is no need to negate baptism in the second part of the passage because those who “do not believe” will not get baptized, just as it is the case that there is no reason in our illustration to say “whomever does not digest their food will die,” because those who do not eat their food will not have food to digest. Do you see the point?

The third view rejects the instruction of Jesus that those who are baptized must believe. Once again, Jesus says that belief + baptism = saved. Those who believe one does not have to believe (infants) have created a manmade tradition that contradicts this passage. Also, most forms of infant "baptism" also contradict the command given to be baptized because the word itself means to be immersed, not sprinkled. In the greek, Jesus is saying here, "He who believes and is immersed will be saved..." 

Which of the five views do you believe? Did Jesus speak the truth when He said “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”?

I have studied the issue of baptism with many people over the years. There is one thing that ends up happening most of the time that makes it impossible for people to accept the view that I hold on baptism, and as I am discussing this issue with many people, I see this error many times. The error is this: Even though we may be discussing the subject of water baptism, the majority of the time, the person I am debating instead wants to change the subject from baptism to the subjects of faith and grace.

You may be asking why this is a problem? Here is the main reason: we are trying to find God's will about baptism, not faith and grace. What so often happens in these discussions is that the person I am talking to finds it impossible to accept what the passages say about baptism (or even retranslate the passages) because they are looking at all of the passages through the lens of their "faith alone" beliefs. This is a dangerous way to study scripture! (This approach is also logically fallacious. The ‘red herring fallacy’ is committed in this instance.)

Whenever you want to learn what the Bible teaches on the subject of the Lord's Supper, do we look at all of the verses on other subjects? Whenever you want to learn what the Bible teaches on the subject of repentance, should we look at the verses dealing with confessing Christ? No, instead, if we want to know what God's word teaches on a certain subject, we study what the Bible says on that specific subject! If we want to know what repentance is, we need to first discuss all of the passages that talk about repentance. If we want to discuss or debate the subject of faith, we need to examine all of the passages that talk about faith. And if we want to discuss the topic of baptism, we need to deal with the specific passage that mention or allude to water baptism.

Only after we do this, then we should try to harmonize what the Bible teaches about faith and grace and baptism. We should not allow the passages on one subject to lead us to retranslate the passages on another subject to mean the opposite of what they currently say in all of our translations unless we have first studied those passages and made sure that there is no possible way to harmonize them. We do this with any other supposed contradiction in scripture, why not do it on this subject also? Why assume that if scripture says baptism is the point our sins are remitted that this contradicts the idea of being saved by grace through faith?

At times, when we study the Bible, we are way too quick to assume that the Bible cannot mean what it says on some subjects. In my opinion, this is commonly the case regarding the subject of water baptism. When the passages are taken at face value, they do exalt God's work in baptism way above what the majority evangelical Christians believe about the issue. 

In our first article in this series, we discussed what our primary motivation must be as Christians. We were redeemed by Christ to be His possession. We are His, and because of this, we are to make sure we please Him in all that we do as His people (2 Cor 5:9-10; Colossians 1:9-10) . This being the case, we need to learn what is pleasing to Him and what is not pleasing to Him. The only objective place where we can go to get this information is in the word of God. Only the word of Christ given through His Apostles and Prophets can equip us with the knowledge we need in order to be pleasing to God under the New Covenant.

But the question arises, how does our King in His word communicate to us what is pleasing to Him? He communicates His will to us the same way any of us communicate our will to others. For instance, parents, whenever they want to communicate to their kids that something is pleasing to them, how do they do it? Can I suggest they do it in one of three ways. They will either TELL them that what they want them to do, SHOW them what they want their kids to do, or IMPLY something to them in what they tell them or show them. Is there another way but these three ways to communicate your will to someone? This is how God in His word communicates His will to us.

• He TELLS us what pleases or displeases Him in direct statements and commands;
• He SHOWS us what is pleasing or displeasing to Him with illustrations or examples; or
• He IMPLIES something to us. He desires that we make logical conclusions from what He has told us or showed us.

This is how our Lord communicates to us in scripture.

Let’s look at an example of these in action in the New Testament. Let’s look at what God reveals about baptism:

TELLS

He tells us, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). If we want to be pleasing to God, we will do what He tells us to do here in this direct statement to be saved. God uses both direct statements and commands to show us that baptism is something we must do to be pleasing Him.

SHOWS

Jesus gives us a multitude of examples in scripture of people being baptized. We learn in these examples that a way of baptizing that pleases God is by immersion. John was baptizing because it was a place where there was much water (John 3:23). When the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized, we see that they went down into the water and then came out of the water (Acts 8:38-39). We are not given any examples of other modes of baptizing that are pleasing to God other than immersion. It is also the only mode that is inherent in the definition of the word.

IMPLIES

God also implies certain things to us in scripture about baptism. God implies to us that preaching about baptism is included in “preaching Jesus.” We are told that Philip preached Jesus to the Eunuch, and the Eunuch responded by saying as they traveled, “look, water, what hinders me from being baptized?” This implies that Phillip told him about baptism. Another thing God implies to us in scripture about baptism is that babies cannot be baptized. Since he tells us that one must believe, repent, and confess Jesus as Lord before baptism, then it logically follows from this that an infant cannot be baptized because they are unable to do those things. Also, when God tells us in Mark 16:16 that we need to believe and be baptized to be saved, and when He shows us in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost that one must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, God is implying to us that these passages apply to us if we want salvation and the remission of our sins. We must use our ability to reason and the logic that God gives us as we come to commands, direct statements, and examples within the Bible to decide whether they apply beyond their original audience to us.
​
How our King reveals His will on baptism shows us how He reveals what is pleasing to Him regarding every Biblical doctrine/teaching. Once again, what other way is there for our King to reveal His decrees to us other than these three ways? This is how communication works, and this cannot be denied. It is a self-evident truth. One cannot communicate their will about anything without telling you something, showing you something, or implying something to you.