Belivers Baptism

We’ve been talking about the practice of pedobaptism.

Today we are going to talk about an alternative view – believer’s baptism.

Notice that I did not say “adult baptism.”

The alternative to pedobaptism is not adult baptism.

It is believer's baptism.

That is to say, only someone who has consciously exercised faith in Christ is a legitimate candidate for baptism.

Again, several arguments can be offered on behalf of this view.

1. Confession and faith are essential to salvation and baptism.

They are essential components of salvation and therefore of baptism.

In Acts 2:38, we have the pattern for Christian baptism described in Peter’s Pentecostal sermon:

Acts 2:38 NASB95

38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

So the pattern here is to repent and be baptized.

That act of repentance is an act of confession and cognition, followed by faith in Christ.

The Greek word is “mata-nao” and it means to recognize a behavior as morally wrong and change your mind about it.”

So this is something that an infant simply cannot do.

An infant cannot know morality:

Deuteronomy 1:39 NASB95

39 ‘Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.

An infant cannot “change its mind” as it lacks the concepts to do so.

Therefore an infant isn’t a legitimate candidate for baptism.

ALSO:

1 Peter 3:21 BSB

21 And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Here baptism is seen as an appeal of the person to God for a clear conscience.

Therefore this is something that requires a conscious decision in order to make such an appeal to God – a decision that cannot be exercised by an infant.

2. What about the argument based on household salvation?

Certainly in the Jewish context and in the Old Testament you have the idea of the solidarity of the family as a unit.

But notice that even in the Old Testament the law of individual retribution still

stands.

As both Jeremiah and Ezekiel emphasize, each person is responsible for his own

sin.

Ezekiel 18:2–4 NASB95

2 “What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3 “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. 4 “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.

Each person is individually responsible before God, and therefore it isn’t true that one’s being a member of a household overrides your individual responsibility.

Each person is responsible before God to respond in repentance and faith.

When you look at the New Testament it is clear that Christ’s message did divide families.

They were not always unified.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, Paul gives instructions for Christians who are married to unbelievers and how they should handle this situation whether the unbelieving partner wants to live with the Christian or whether that unbeliever wants to separate.

1 Corinthians 7:15–16 NASB95

Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

So the Christian message is one that did divide families.

It is not true that simply because of the decision of the head of a household everyone was treated as a Christian.

The bottom line is that there is no baptism of infants recorded anywhere in the New Testament.

The defense of household salvation and infant baptism is based upon an

argument from silence.

There is no suggestion anywhere in the New Testament that little infants were taken out of their cradles and brought to be baptized.

So the defender of believer’s baptism would say that the argument from household salvation doesn’t really go through.

Indeed, infant baptism doesn’t meet the prerequisites for legitimate baptism.

3. What about Jesus and the children and his blessing them?

In the first place, it is not clear that these are infants.

Rather these seem to be little children who are exhibiting love and faith in Jesus and who believe in him.

The lesson that Jesus wants to teach here about the little children is that this is the same way in which we need to come to Christ.

We need to come to him in love and faith and with the same sort of childlike trust that a little child has in his or her parents.

We should also be childlike in our faith and trust in Jesus.

In any case, even if people were bringing little infants to Jesus to lay his hands upon them and to bless or pray for them, prayer and blessing just is not the same as baptism.

There’s no suggestion that these little children should be baptized.

On the contrary, as I’ve said, repentance and faith are prerequisites for Christian baptism.

4. What about the argument based upon circumcision?

It is important here to understand that the way in which one enters the covenant as we’ve seen is by faith.

It is not as though some act like circumcision or baptism makes you a member of the covenant.

You enter the covenant by faith and the way you stay in the covenant is by faith.

There isn’t some sort of means by which you enter and stay in the covenant apart from faith.

The fact that circumcision and baptism were not seen as parallel is shown by the fact that in Palestine they were both practiced.

Jewish children who were children of believing families that were part of the Jesus movement (that is, part of the church) were still circumcised.

It is not as though baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament church.

For Jewish believers in Jesus, both circumcision and baptism were practiced.

So there is no reason to think that infant baptism began to take the place of circumcision among Jewish believers.

Indeed, when you look at Colossians 2:11, what corresponds to circumcision is not baptism.

Paul writes,

Colossians 2:11–12 NASB95

11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

What corresponds to circumcision is Christ’s death on the cross.

When it talks about “putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ” it is talking about Christ’s death.

It is his atoning death on the cross that is a spiritual circumcision that puts away the body of death.

Then we are united with Christ in his death and resurrection in baptism.

There is no suggestion in Collosians 2:11-12 that infant baptism should

somehow replace circumcision of infants as a sign of the new covenant.

Finally:

The final case that the Believers Baptism case makes its a slam dunk.

Its a slam dunk dunk for 2 reasons.

1: The bible makes a clear difative statment in support of believrs baptism.

Acts 8:36–38 NASB95

36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

I want you to notice a few things:

1: Baptism occured only AFTER the gospel was presented.

2: The eunuch asked Phillip what the requirements are in order to be Baptized.

3: Philip clearly responded:

If you BELIEVE you may be baptized.

This is clear scriptural evidence for believers baptism.

Scriptural evidence that Pedobaptists simply do not have.

2: The controversy surrounding this verse.

Given the clear, slam dunk nature of this verse, it was almost inevitable that it would try to be discredited.

If you try to read this verse in your bibles most Christians will not find it.

This very important verse was quietly removed from 95% of all bibles over the last 100 years.

Why?

Because Wescot and Hort, who basically “own” the Greek text of the bible from which 95% of all bibles are translated from over the last 100 years.

Wescott and Hort were very unsound men.

They did not believe that the bible was inspired.

They did not believe that the bible was infallible.

They did not believe in The Atoning death of Jesus Christ.

A letter from Hort to Wescott revealed their hearts:

I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology.

Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.

I say there is still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible.

As a justification for this removal W&H claim that this verse was not in the originals and was added by a scribe in around 600AD.

2 problems:

1: This verse is part of what is called the Majority Text. This is a collection of NT manuscripts that, as the name says, consists of those manuscripts that read identically.

The vast majority of all NT manuscripts contain this verse.

the MT and RT are both still in church custody.

2: This verse was frequently quoted by early church fathers, well before the claimed 600 years addition.

From Irenaeus (180 AD):

[Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.”

From Cyprian (250 AD):

In the Acts of the Apostles: “Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If you believe with all your heart, you may.”

The removal of such a key verse, giving clarity on such a key topic is nothing less than a satanic attack on God’s Word.

Conclusion:

So it would seem on the basis of these arguments that the practice in the New Testament is believer’s baptism.

As was alluded to a moment ago, these believers might be children.

There might be youngsters who have come to consciously place their faith in Christ and believe and so who would be legitimate candidates for baptism.

But what would not be acceptable would be the baptism of little infants who have no conscious volition or faith in Christ.