Against Infant Baptism

Introduction

As Baptist we have two ordinances in the church. Sometimes you will see the term sacraments and if you understand what early baptists meant by it there is a sense in which it is true though we would not hold to the Catholic sacraments. In essence, the two sacraments are ceremonies that the church holds as symbolic of our salvation. One of those ceremonies is baptism while the other is the Lord’s supper. As you can probably guess baptism is a key distinguishing factor between us and many other denominations. It is even in our name. One of the things that separated Baptists from every other denomination at the time was our doctrine of Baptism.

I went back to look at my previous messages on baptism. I preached one in our series through Romans and one in the series on habits of grace. That would be at least once a year with this message that I have preached on this topic. Since the previous two messages covered an overview of the doctrine of baptism, I would like to focus tonight on one of the key distinguishing factors between us and other churches. If you study it out there are really three main differences in our doctrine of baptism. One we have covered before but the other two we will deal with tonight and next week:

The necessity of baptism- Baptists have always held that baptism is a symbol of our salvation or maybe even a spiritual fellowship with Christ in the sacrament, but one thing we are all agreed upon is that Baptism is not necessary for salvation. I have found Southern Baptist churches in the south who have gotten their theology confused who hold to baptism for salvation, but baptists have traditionally held that it is not. Since I have dealt with this question previously in my message is “Does Baptism Save?” I will not be looking at this point in this series.

The mode of Baptism- when we talk about mode, we mean the method. Some churches practice sprinkling, others affusion where they pour water on you. Still some denominations dunk you three times in water. We will deal with the mode of Baptism next week.

The recipients of baptism- The question I would like to ask tonight is who should be baptized? The Roman Catholic church and almost all of the Reformation churches, so those who hold to reformed theology would generally baptize infants.

Out of all the denominations, the presbyterians would probably be the closest denomination to the Baptists. The PCA would even be a fundamentalist branch of the Presbyterian church, but there is atleast one doctrinal position that separates the baptist from the presbyterian. There are potentially more depending on the baptist church’s beliefs, but this is one essential difference between us. Presbyterians practice the baptism of infants which we call paedobaptism. They do not do so because they believe it saves a person like some denominations; rather they do it because it brings the child under the covenant of their parents faith until they can make a decision for Christ on their own. Consider this explanation from Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, NYC.

Our position on infant baptism does not reflect a belief that baptism itself saves a child. In order to be saved, a child must possess his / her own personal faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord. The initial seeds of faith may or may not be in chronological union with the time of baptism. When a child professes faith at some point after baptism, that is the time in which the baptism and all that it signifies takes full effect. Until that time, the child’s baptism is regarded as the sign of the child’s inclusion in the church community (and all its benefits, except the Lord’s Supper) by virtue of his / her parents’ faith and the promise of God to be “their God and the God of their children.”

The Evangelical Lutheran church like the Missouri synod holds to a believe that while baptism ultimately doesn’t save; it is grace through faith alone, baptism creates faith just like preaching in Romans 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Because of this, they hold to baptizing infants and adults alike.

When you look at it those who hold to baptism only upon a profession of faith what we call credobaptism, the list is very few and far between. That list would include:

Baptists of all stripes

Pentecostals

Non denominational churches with a baptist theology

Mennonites

So tonight we are going to focus on the arguments you would hear from a Presbyterian in defense of infant baptism and try to give a biblical answer to those arguments.

Covenant Theology plays a role in Infant Baptism

The logic behind paedobaptism is firmly grounded in a belief in covenant theology. Traditional covenant theology teaches emphasizes the continuity between the Old covenant and the New covenant. They believe that God has had one plan of redemption from the beginning and therefore while the New and Old Testament are distinct they are tightly interconnected. There are other versions of covenant theology like progressive covenantalism and premillennial covenant theology that do not hold to this view. But the basic idea is that there is more similiar between old and new testament than there is different. God’s plan is one plan, so we should expect to see similar things from old to new. Covenant theology then seeks to draw a connection between circumcision and baptism.

I mentioned in my sermon “Does Baptism Save” that Paul does draw an analogy about baptism from circumcision in Colossians 2:11–12 “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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.” It is important to point out that the baptism mentioned in this verse is not a water baptism. This is the same spirit baptism that is mentioned in Romans 6:3 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Back in my sermon, “Union with Christ” I mentioned six reasons this cannot be water baptism. Rather than re-preach those points I would recommend listening to that sermon again. So that is one difference that needs to be made here.

Circumcision is a physical act while the baptism in those passages is a spiritual act.

There is a discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Circumcision was performed on unbelievers while baptism is never mentioned as being administered to unbelievers

Circumcision was limited to Jews while baptism is for all ethnicities.

Circumcision was only for men while women can be baptized.

Circumcision is a physical act while the baptism in those passages is a spiritual act.

Paul repeatedly emphasizes a discontinuity between the old covenant and the new covenant. While there may be some similarities and the old definitely paved the way for the new; they are two distinct things. Jeremiah 31:31–32 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That 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 that I took them by the hand To bring them out of the land of Egypt; Which my covenant they brake, Although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:” Hebrews 8:13 “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” If you want to look into the discontinuity of the old covenant look up the following verses: Gal 3:23-25, Gal 4:21-31, Rom 6:14, 2 Cor 3:6-11, Co 2:16-17, Eph 2:14-15.

Circumcision was performed on unbelievers as well as infants so that the nation of Israel was a mixed congregation. Some believed and some didn’t but all were circumcised. Baptism is never mentioned as being administered to unbelievers.

Circumcision was limited to Jews and proselytes only while baptism is for believers of all ethnicities. Matthew 28:19–20 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Circumcision was only performed on males while baptism is performed on male and female. Acts 16:14–15 “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.”

I cannot do a full rebuttal of covenant theology at this time and there are forms of covenant theology that would agree with us on these points, but hopefully these five points will help to explain why there is not a direct connection between circumcision and baptism.

A belief in household baptisms plays a role in Infant Baptism

The second argument that you will often see is that the New Testament mentions entire households being baptized.

Household Baptisms

Lydia Acts 16:14–15 “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.”

Philippian Jailer Acts 16:30–34 “And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”

Cornelius Acts 10:44–48 “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”

Crispus Acts 18:8 “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.”

Stephanus 1 Corinthians 1:16 “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.”

Arguments against infant baptism from the household baptisms:

In none of these passages does it mention infants being included.

We interpret the unclear in light of the clear passages.

In Acts 16: everyone in the household heard the word.

In Acts 16, everyone in the household rejoiced.

In Acts 10, the Spirit fell on all who heard.

In Acts 18, it specifically says all believed.

Church History plays a role in Infant Baptism

While there are some quotes that have been debatably put out there in support of Infant baptism from Irenaeus and Origen, scholars are not agreed that this is what was meant or even that the translations of them are correct. The first clear references to infant baptism begin in the 200’s AD. Around 215, Hippolytus advocated for infant baptism:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. If not, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”

If you look down through church history, you will find examples of it being practiced because it did not take long for Christianity to experience theological drift. Even in the days of Paul, men were coming in and teaching false doctrine and practices. Circumcision was being advocated, gnosticism was making inroads, a denial of the second coming afflicted the church; so is it any surprise that after the apostles died, false teaching made its way into the church. If you were the devil, how soon would you wait to try to corrupt the church. I want you to consider some things:

Early church practice does not equal apostolic authority. The tradition of the apostles is found nowhere else other than the scriptures themselves. As baptists our only true authority in matters of faith and practice is scripture.

We have already seen there is no clear reference to infant baptism in the bible.

Other church fathers like Tertullian were clearly against the practice.

“Let them come when they are grown up... let them become Christians when they can know Christ.

4. It was argued against all the way up to the Council of Carthage in 418 where Augustine led the way in affirming infant baptism.

Conclusion

So we have clearly defined what we are against, but what is the positive position we hold: The clear example of scripture is that only those who believe are baptized. Though it is often debated, I believe Acts 8:36-38 sums it up well Acts 8:36–38 “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”

17th century Baptist John Spilsbury writes:

To Baptize Infants, makes the holy ordinance of God a lying sign, because none of those things can be expected in an Infant which the said ordinance holds forth or signifies in the administration thereof, which is the parties Regeneration and spiritual new birth; a dying and burying with Christ in respect of sin, and a rising with him in a new life to God, and a confirmation of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, and a free remission of sin by the same; as 1 Cor.15:29. Rom. 6:3, 4. Col. 2:12. 1 Pet. 3:21. Act. 2:38. none of all which can be expected in an Infant.[8]