One
of the most aggravating things about the false doctrine of baptism is
the fact that the world promotes infant baptism, even television
promotes infant baptism. People have all this faith in God, yet have
everything completely wrong because they go by what they are told
rather than by seeing or learning the truth for themselves through
the Bible. Many groups of Christians sprinkle or pour water upon
infants and call it baptism. Some teach that it is necessary to save
a child from hell while others see it only as a dedication to God and
a way to add to the "covenant" community. There are many
good reasons why infant baptism is wrong:
Infant
Baptism is Unnecessary
Many feel that if infants die
without baptism they will go to hell and thus baptism is the means to
remove original sin and save them from hell. However, if that were
the case then why do those who are baptized need to be later
"confirmed" in personal faith? Apparently, after baptism
they still possess a sinful nature, they still sin and they still die
which are all the consequences of being related to Adam and original
sin.
Infants have no ability to rationally discriminate
between right and wrong and therefore they will have no sin held
against them if they die in that state. Moreover, those who are cast
into hell are said to be judged "every man" according to
their "OWN WORKS." Hence, eternal punishment is a
consequence for PERSONAL sins rather than for the singular "sin"
of Adam. Hence, the Bible clearly teaches that eternal punishment by
God is strictly "according to the works done in the flesh."
Hell is a consequence of INDIVIDUAL and PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY for
the wrong works performed in their OWN body. Hence, Scripture is
silent about eternal punishment of infants, but it is not silent
about the God's preservation of infants from "sheol" as in
the case of Korah's children and it is not silent about the future of
dying infants as in the case of David's son.
When God
cast Korah and all his family into "hell" He preserved
Korah's children. What a clear picture we have in the preservation of
Korah's children. "And the earth opened
her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that
company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men:
and they became a sign. Notwithstanding the children of Korah died
not." - Numbers 26:10,11.
When David's infant
child died he clearly expressed hope to see him again. The Bible
clearly tells us that God does not punish the children for the sins
of their fathers but only for their own sins. "And
it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the
servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for
they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him,
and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex
himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw
that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead:
therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they
said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and
anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of
the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he
required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his
servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst
fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child
was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child
was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether
GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is
dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go
to him, but he shall not return to me."
- II Samuel 12:18-23.
It
is not silent about children suffering for the sins of their fathers
(they do not). It is not silent about the basis for eternal
punishment in hell, "according to their own works" and
dying infants are without such works. If baptism was necessary to
procure the eternal safety of infants from hell we should not only
find clear and unambiguous commands in scripture for parents to
baptize their children, but we should be able to find many examples
as well because what can be more urgent and more appealing to the
hearts of parents than to procure the safety of their children.
Infant Baptism is Not in
Scripture
There is not one verse in Scripture that
commands infants to be baptized. There is not one example found in
Scripture where any infant was baptized. Some imagine or suppose
infants may have been included in the "household" baptisms
in the book of Acts. Do these scriptures say that? No! One can just
as easily suppose no infants were baptized in these cases and be more
in keeping with what the Bible does tell us about such household
baptism.
If
we are going to imagine anything about these household baptisms there
is far more evidence to reject infant baptism than to justify it.
Some believe that Matthew 18 where Jesus commanded to let little
children come to Him supports infant baptism. However, this is a
"dry" text as no baptism whatsoever is mentioned. Secondly,
these "little" children were old enough to come to him by
their own choice as the disciples were attempting to keep them away
from the Master. Some argue that baptism is like circumcision as
circumcision was performed on infants under the "old"
covenant in order to add them to the "covenant" community.
Hence, some reason that we should baptize infants in order to add
them to the "new" covenant community.
However,
there is a vast difference between the "old" covenant and
"new" covenant. The Bible is very clear that those who make
up the new covenant community are those who are capable of knowing
God. "But this shall be the covenant that
I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the
LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their
hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they
shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his
brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will
forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
- Jeremiah 31:33,34.
Hebrews quotes this very passage and
identifies this covenant as the "new" covenant, "For
this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and
write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they
shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all
shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful
to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I
remember no more. 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." - Hebrews 8:10-13.
The New Covenant
community is made up of those whom God has down in inward work of
grace in their minds and hearts so that they are able to KNOW God
from the "least" to the "greatest." Hence, there
is none in this covenant community that is not capable of KNOWING God
for themselves without someone else teaching them. Babies would have
to be taught by someone else. Circumcision was only performed on male
infants and it was a picture of those repentant believers "born
again" children of God under the new Covenant. Conclusion:
Hence, baptism of infants is unnecessary and it is wholly unbiblical
and those who practice it have no command or example of Scripture to
teach and practice infant baptism.
Infant
Baptism is Anti-Biblical
Infant baptism is not only
unnecessary and unbiblical, but it is also contrary to Scriptures in
many ways. It is an anti-biblical doctrine and practice. First, the
scriptures require personal faith in Christ as the necessary
prerequisite for baptism, meaning that baptism is for believers only.
Every command to baptize in the Scriptures is preceded by the
condition of repentant faith in the gospel. Second, those who claim
to baptize infants distort the Biblical design and picture that
baptism is meant to portray. Baptism is intended to publicly IDENTIFY
one with salvation in Christ under the "new covenant."
Remember, the new covenant community of saints are those capable of
knowing God apart from anyone teaching them. This excludes infants.
Furthermore, infant baptism distorts the intended picture that
baptism is designed to identify the believer with. Baptism identifies
the believer with the death, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ.
The Greek New Testament has terms for "sprinkle" (rantizo)
and "pouring" (epicheo) but such terms are never used for
this ordinance. The only term used for this ordinance is "baptize"
and it has the consistent historical meaning of "immerse, dip,
plunge under." It is the only mode that can portray a burial or
resurrection.
Infant Baptism Teaches
False Doctrine
Both baptism and the Lord's Supper are
symbolic pictures of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They both portray
aspects of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The
Lord's Supper emphasizes his death by his shed blood and broken body.
Baptism emphasizes the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What
is the significance of a symbol? The ONLY significance is found in
correctly portraying the truth they are designed to picture.
When
a symbol is distorted then so is the truth it is designed to reveal.
In this case we are talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ. How
does infant baptism distort the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
It does so in many ways. First, it identifies the gospel of Jesus
Christ with someone who has not personally repented of sins and
believed it. Thus it pictures the salvation of unbelievers in the
gospel. Hence, it distorts the proper object of salvation. Second, it
distorts the gospel by omitting the BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Jesus
Christ for which it was designed to portray. It is a serious error to
omit the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ from any symbolic
enactment of the gospel. When an infant is sprinkled, poured or
immersed another gospel is being preached by symbolic enactment. How
serious is it to "preach another gospel", if any man preach
any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed.
In conclusion, it is unnecessary, unscriptural,
perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it identifies you
historically with those who were the greatest persecutors of God's
people. All of these are good and solid reasons to leave such a
church and find and join a true New Testament Church were the gospel
is preached clearly in both the pulpit and in the ordinances as
without scriptural baptism there can be no scriptural church. If you
are not a member of one of Christ's churches and you are yet without
scriptural baptism, you have been deceived and just got wet.
