Perhaps it may be felt that this has been well established by what has already been said, but under this heading we would like to summarize the passages and considerations which demonstrate this point.

1. Because of its significance and the emphasis that the Scriptures lay upon what it accomplishes, making salvation contingent upon its observance.

Paul, writing to the Romans, and speaking specifically of being "buried with him in baptism" says (6:5): "... IF we have been planted together ... we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection ..." The on depends on the other.

To the Galatians he makes the same qualification (Gal. 3:27-29). IF they are baptized, they have put on Christ, and IF they are Christ's they are heirs of the promises.

And Peter said (1 Peter 3:21): "... baptism doth also now SAVE us ..."

Can its necessity be questioned?

Paul speaks in a similar vein to Titus (3:5): "... he saved us, by the washing of regeneration (rebirth, see John 3:5), and renewing of the Holy Spirit ..."

And those words of Christ to Nicodemus emphasize the essentiality of baptism to salvation (John 3:5-7): "... Except a man be BORN OF WATER, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ... Ye MUST be born again."

His final instructions, when examined on this point, are further proof (Mark 16:16): "He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved..."

2. It is expressly commanded.

Consider the instances of direct command upon the subject. When Peter had expounded the Scriptures to Cornelius and those of his household, we are told (Acts 10:48): "And he COMMANDED THEM to be baptized in the name of the Lord ..."

Likewise Ananias' command to Paul (Acts 22:16): "... arise, and be baptized..."

When Peter preached to the Jews after the resurrection of Jesus, those who were convinced asked (Acts 2:37): "... Men and brethren, what shall we do?" And Peter gave them the same instruction (verse 38): "... Repent, and be baptized..."

Jesus said (Matt. 28:19): "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..." Then he adds -- and it is to this that we particularly desire to draw attention in this connection -- "Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded you..." (verse 20).

Is baptism one of the "all things" that Jesus commanded? We do not believe there can be any doubt, for he had just commanded it in the previous verse.

3. Its necessity is proven by the invariable example of the New Testament.

We find it accepted without question, and obeyed without exception. It is an integral part of the preaching and activities of the apostles and believers all through the inspired record. This will surely have been evident from what has already been adduced.

4. The "One Baptism" is an integral element of the sevenfold "Unity of the Spirit."

Ephesians 4 is an exhortation by the apostle Paul to live according to godliness. It is not an exhortation just to "be good" according to the world's vague and hazy conceptions of goodness, with no better guide than its own uncertain conscience and natural fleshly reasoning.

No, Paul's words rest upon a firm foundation of specifically revealed DIVINE TRUTH and specifically enjoined DIVINE COMMANDMENTS.

Natural man does not like this. He wants to be free to speculate and formulate his own conceptions of goodness, but if he recognizes the Scriptures as the Word of God, then wisdom demands that he accept THEIR presentation of eternal facts, and not his own ideas. Paul says (Eph. 4:14-15): "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine ... But speaking the TRUTH in love ..."

The contrast is between Truth and natural speculations. And in verse 21: "If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the Truth is in Jesus..."

In verses 3 to 6 he gives an outline of what comprises the "Truth as it is in Jesus": "The unity of the Spirit ... one Body, one Spirit ... one Hope ... One Lord, one Faith, ONE BAPTISM ... One God and Father of all ..."

Here again is illustrated the solemn importance of baptism -- the ONE baptism. What does he mean by ONE baptism? We can answer this by asking what he means by one Lord and one God. He says elsewhere: "...there be gods many, and lords many, But to us there is but one God, the Father ... and one Lord Jesus Christ ..." (1 Cor. 8:5-6).

One TRUE God, one TRUE Lord, one TRUE baptism.

What then would reasonably be expected to comprise the ONE TRUE baptism, and to distinguish it from all other so-called "baptisms?" Would it not be that it was performed in the manner and under the circumstances required by God, as distinguished from the ideas and inventions of men? Could any "baptism" be the ONE baptism that differed from that described and recorded and commanded in Scripture?

Has man the right of changing the form of baptism, marring its significance and applying it to unsuitable subject? It seems inconceivable that any should think so, but let us consider some remarks by a renowned and respected leader of Christendom, who reflects the general view of the churches of the world.

The late "Dean" Stanley, a high dignitary of the Church of England (the Episcopal Church), wrote an article in the "Nineteenth Century Magazine" for October, 1879. His words are important for they expressed clearly the viewpoint of Christendom at large, and throw a tremendous light on its trend and relation to Scripture. They illustrate the sadly perverted viewpoint that can make abandonment of the commands of God a virtue, and "glory in their shame." He says,

"For the first 13 centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the VERY MEANING of the word 'baptize' -- that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water ...

"With few exceptions the whole of the Western Churches have now substituted for the ancient bath the ceremony of sprinkling a few drops of water on the face.

"There is no one who would now wish to go back to the old practice."

Note well the following:

"It had, no doubt, the sanction of the Apostles and their Master. It had the sanction of the venerable churches of the early ages.

"(But) speaking generally, the whole Christian World has decided against it. It is a striking exampl of the triumph of common sense over the bondage of form and custom."

We would say it was a striking example of what Christ called "making the commandments of God of none effect by your traditions" (Matt. 15:16). Dean Stanley continues:

"The change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the Apostolic language regarding baptism, and has altered the very meaning of the word."

Little comment is needed. The issue is clear. Which side are we on? Surely this is one of the most remarkable and enlightening pieces of writing to be found concerning Christendom's outlook toward God's Word. this eminent church dignitary solemnly approves a practice which he himself admits -- yea, even boasts -- has "set aside the larger part of Scriptural language regarding baptism."

What reverence had this man, and the whole system he represents, for the solemn, divine ordinance called by Paul the "ONE BAPTISM" which says Dean Stanley, "common sense" has triumphed over?

The aged Paul said, in his last recorded epistle (2 Tim. 4:3-4): "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers ... they shall turn away their ears from the Truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

What is the solution? Where lies safety and assurance? Paul gives the answer in the same epistle (2 Tim. 3:14-17): "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of ... from a child thou has known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation ... All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ... That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

And to the same beloved "son in the Faith" he solemnly appeals (1 Tim. 6:20): "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called ..."

Between this reverent and exalted view of the sanctity of God's Word and the viewpoint of Christendom at large, there is an unbridgeable gulf. Christendom's avowed allegiance to the Bible is only nominal at best. Sometimes not even that, as illustrated by the remarks of Dean Stanley.

If we consider the question of our salvation to be of sufficient importance to warrant the effort, we should ponder well which should be our guide -- an apostate, self-contradicting "Christendom," or the inspired, infallible, unchanging Word of God.