How to Interpret the Bible Lesson #13 - Infant Baptism?
|
Introduction. The controversy over infant baptism has divided multitudes of disciples. First, it has driven a wedge between those who believe baptism is only for those who can “believe and be baptized” and those who baptize infants who can’t yet believe. Yet there is a second division among those who practice infant baptism. Some believe that the guilt of Adam’s sin (original sin) is transferred from parent to child (imputed sin). For these disciples, without baptism an infant child is lost in sin. Another segment sees infant baptism as a “christening” or “dedication”, but not necessary for salvation. The child is given a name, godparents can be assigned, and parents pledge to raise them, leading them to know God and ultimately become a disciple of Jesus.
|
|
Infant baptism has thus led to three separate groups who call themselves disciples. Since Jesus prayed this should never happen and Paul commanded that all disciples speak the same thing, it has created a serious issue for all disciples that can only be resolved by the truth. So once again we must use the tools given to us by the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 (commands, examples, and deductions/inferences) to find the truth and be set free.
Every command in the New Testament regarding salvation required the assent of the will. Every sermon preached was to sinners who could hear, believe and obey. Since an infant does not yet have the ability to hear or make choices, it is also impossible for an infant to obey the gospel. No one can deny the universal nature of Jesus command: “preach the gospel to every creature (whole creation). He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk. 16:15-16). Only adults can hear the gospel preached and only adults can believe. Since “every creature” or the “whole creation” must first believe before baptism, infants would be excluded. When Peter preached the first gospel sermon, he said, “repent, and be baptized everyone one in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. When this command to “every one of you was obeyed, “those who gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:38-40). Does an infant gladly receive the Word?
Every example of baptism in the New Testament was of a believing, repentant adult. Yet two examples are cited in defense of the practice of infant baptism. The jailer at Philippi “was baptized, he and all his household,” is often used as proof. Yet it had already been made clear that “they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house” (Acts 16:32-34). If they were speaking the word to “all who were in his house”, there were no infants because you can’t speak to those who cannot understand. When Lydia heard the gospel and it was said again, “she and her household had been baptized” (Acts 16:15). But we are not told if Lydia was married or if she had any infants “in her household.” These things must be assumed and we can’t base truth on assumptions.
With no commands, no examples, and no logical conclusions and necessary inferences, there is not a shred of evidence that the practice of infant baptism began in the age where the apostles were “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Mt. 28:20).
The most powerful passage used to prove infant baptism is based on circumcision. Circumcision was the covenant between God, Abraham and his descendants. “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you.” “Every male child ... who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised.” If he is not circumcised, “that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” (Gen. 17:1-14). Since circumcision was done to all male infants at the age of 8 days, a precedent was set that continued throughout the Old Covenant. Since baptism is called “the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11-12), it is easy for some to conclude today that infants must still be included. But does it really do that? This circumcision is done when we are “buried with Him in baptism.” Since no one buries infants in baptism, how can it be used to prove infants should be baptized? They are not “buried with Him,” they are sprinkled with Him.
The reader must decide whether this symbolic passage is enough to set aside all the clear passages quoted above. Although there is no doubt that baptism does exactly the same thing as circumcision, there is no clear proof that it still applied to infants. It is only those who did all that was commanded (hear, believe, repent, confess) who could be baptized. How would this passage change that? This passage proves that circumcision brought one into covenant relationship with God in the Old Testament and baptism does it in the New Testament. What is not proved or even implied is that infants were still included.
God had already told Israel that those who entered the new covenant would be different than those in the Old. In the first covenant, infants were circumcised and as they grew up, were taught to know the Lord and become his servants. But God said under the new covenant it would no longer be done this way.
Conclusion. The steps leading one to enter into the new covenant with God begin when the gospel is preached and the sinner hears it. After hearing, one must choose to believe it, repent of sins, and confess that Jesus is Lord (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:9-10). Only after doing all these things is one prepared to be baptized. Because baptism is the circumcision of Christ, baptism is the point where one enters the new covenant. Since one has already heard, believed, repented and confessed, they do already know the Lord before entering the new covenant. Infants can do none of these things. They cannot hear the gospel and believe. They cannot repent or confess. They do not know the Lord. How can the sprinkling of water and the giving of a name lead an infant to know the Lord and thus enter into the new covenant? The simple answer is that it cannot.
For additional study material from our archives, see the following:
Every command in the New Testament regarding salvation required the assent of the will. Every sermon preached was to sinners who could hear, believe and obey. Since an infant does not yet have the ability to hear or make choices, it is also impossible for an infant to obey the gospel. No one can deny the universal nature of Jesus command: “preach the gospel to every creature (whole creation). He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk. 16:15-16). Only adults can hear the gospel preached and only adults can believe. Since “every creature” or the “whole creation” must first believe before baptism, infants would be excluded. When Peter preached the first gospel sermon, he said, “repent, and be baptized everyone one in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. When this command to “every one of you was obeyed, “those who gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:38-40). Does an infant gladly receive the Word?
Every example of baptism in the New Testament was of a believing, repentant adult. Yet two examples are cited in defense of the practice of infant baptism. The jailer at Philippi “was baptized, he and all his household,” is often used as proof. Yet it had already been made clear that “they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house” (Acts 16:32-34). If they were speaking the word to “all who were in his house”, there were no infants because you can’t speak to those who cannot understand. When Lydia heard the gospel and it was said again, “she and her household had been baptized” (Acts 16:15). But we are not told if Lydia was married or if she had any infants “in her household.” These things must be assumed and we can’t base truth on assumptions.
With no commands, no examples, and no logical conclusions and necessary inferences, there is not a shred of evidence that the practice of infant baptism began in the age where the apostles were “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Mt. 28:20).
The most powerful passage used to prove infant baptism is based on circumcision. Circumcision was the covenant between God, Abraham and his descendants. “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you.” “Every male child ... who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised.” If he is not circumcised, “that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” (Gen. 17:1-14). Since circumcision was done to all male infants at the age of 8 days, a precedent was set that continued throughout the Old Covenant. Since baptism is called “the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11-12), it is easy for some to conclude today that infants must still be included. But does it really do that? This circumcision is done when we are “buried with Him in baptism.” Since no one buries infants in baptism, how can it be used to prove infants should be baptized? They are not “buried with Him,” they are sprinkled with Him.
The reader must decide whether this symbolic passage is enough to set aside all the clear passages quoted above. Although there is no doubt that baptism does exactly the same thing as circumcision, there is no clear proof that it still applied to infants. It is only those who did all that was commanded (hear, believe, repent, confess) who could be baptized. How would this passage change that? This passage proves that circumcision brought one into covenant relationship with God in the Old Testament and baptism does it in the New Testament. What is not proved or even implied is that infants were still included.
God had already told Israel that those who entered the new covenant would be different than those in the Old. In the first covenant, infants were circumcised and as they grew up, were taught to know the Lord and become his servants. But God said under the new covenant it would no longer be done this way.
- “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them” (Heb. 8:10-12; see also Jer. 31:31-34).
Conclusion. The steps leading one to enter into the new covenant with God begin when the gospel is preached and the sinner hears it. After hearing, one must choose to believe it, repent of sins, and confess that Jesus is Lord (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:9-10). Only after doing all these things is one prepared to be baptized. Because baptism is the circumcision of Christ, baptism is the point where one enters the new covenant. Since one has already heard, believed, repented and confessed, they do already know the Lord before entering the new covenant. Infants can do none of these things. They cannot hear the gospel and believe. They cannot repent or confess. They do not know the Lord. How can the sprinkling of water and the giving of a name lead an infant to know the Lord and thus enter into the new covenant? The simple answer is that it cannot.
For additional study material from our archives, see the following:
- "A" for "Age of Accountability"
- "B" for "Baptism"
- "I" for "Infant Baptism"
- "O" for "Original Sin"