INFANT BAPTISM
By
Shelby G. Floyd
Just about all the religious world
believes in some form of baptism. The
only exception that I have ever heard of, down through the years, are the
Quakers. So all religious groups
emphasize, and realize, the importance of baptism in some way or another. We want to study about a practice that is
large spread throughout the religious world, and that is the practice of infant
baptism.
Now
if we can find anywhere in the Bible where God ever commanded infant baptism,
or if we can find where there was any practice of it, or even any necessary
inference that such should be practiced, then we are obligated to practice it
ourselves, and we are obligated not to fight against those who do. On the other hand, since the Bible says that
God has given unto us everything that pertains to life and godliness, and since
God has said that the scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect and
thoroughly furnish him unto every good work, then surely we ought to be able to
find the precepts or commands, the examples and the inferences, if that
practice is enjoined by God.
QUESTIONS ABOUT
INFANT BAPTISM
I
would like to ask several questions about infant baptism before we make an
investigation of the subject from the viewpoint of the Bible. 1.
Where did God ever command, in the New Testament, for parents to bring
their children to be baptized when they are just a few days old? I don't believe that you can find it from
Matthew to Revelation. 2. Where did God ever command infants to be
baptized? Surely, if they are obligated
to be baptized, God would have commanded them to be baptized. 3. Is
the infant active or passive in infant baptism?
Is that infant actively doing something from his willpower, or is he
simply a passive instrument in the will and hands of others? 4.
Where was any baby ever baptized in all the New Testament? If you can find it, I would like to know
whose baby at was, when it was baptized, how it was baptized and why it was
baptized?
I
don't believe that you can find one case of infant baptism in all the New
Testament. In fact, the Paedo-Baptists
admit that their practice cannot be based upon either an express command or an
approved example. They say that the
practice is authorized by inference. We
are going to see if that is the case.
Let's look at just a few passages of Scripture which are used as
proof-texts that infant baptism is authorized by God.
ALLEGED
PROOF-TEXTS OF INFANT BAPTISM
Matthew 28:18-20
The
first I shall mention is found in Matthew 28: 18-20. This is Matthew's account of what we call the
great commission. Jesus gave this charge
just before he ascended back into heaven to be seated on the right hand of
God. He said, "All power is
given unto me in heaven and in earth. 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.”
Now
the argument of the people who practice infant baptism is simply this: Jesus
said to make disciples of all nations, and then he said to baptize them in the
name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they say infants are part of all
nations, and since Jesus said to baptize all nations, and since there are
infants in all nations, therefore, we should baptize infants. Upon a closer examination of this passage we
shall find out that the antecedent of the pronoun them is not
nations. Jesus said make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them (baptizing who? -- all nations, no, baptizing those
who are disciples of all nations.) So the antecedent is not nations, but
disciples, those who have been taught out of all nations, are to be baptized.
In
the second place, the argument proves too much, therefore, it proves
nothing. I can point out that there are
atheists, there are infidels, there are idolaters in all nations, and
therefore, should we baptize atheists and idolaters simply because they are
part of all nations? Obviously, the
argument goes too far, proves too much, so it proves nothing. The truth of the matter is that Jesus said
for them to go and teach people out of all nations, and then those who were
taught and who were willing to be baptized were to be baptized in the name of
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then you are to teach them all things I
have commanded you.
Now
I ask you, are infants capable of been taught? No. Are
they capable of being taught all things that Jesus has commanded us after you
might baptize them? No. Therefore, infants are not the subject of
baptism in Matthew 28: 18-20.
Matthew 19: 13-15
In
Matt. 19:13-15, we have the record of some people bringing little infants to
Jesus Christ, in order that he might take them up in his hands and pray for
them and bless them. The disciples
forbade these people and were ready to send them away, but Jesus said, "suffer
little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me for of such is the
kingdom of heaven.” Now here is the
argument made by the Paedo-Baptists.
They say, (1) they brought the infants to Jesus, and they say today that
people bring their infants to them; (2) they brought the infants to the hands
of Jesus, and today the parents bring their infants to the hands of the
preachers who are going to baptize them; (3) Jesus was going to bless them, and
they say that they are going to bless them; (4) they say the disciples were
forbidding them, and they say today some religious people forbid infants to be
baptized; (5) then they say that Jesus said, "suffer the little children,
and forbid them not, to come unto me," and they say that is what they do
today.
They
say that they suffer the little children to come unto them that they might
baptize them. So they think that they
have a parallel here. But in answer to
that, why were these little children coming to Jesus? Were they being brought to Jesus for
baptism? Were they being brought to
Jesus for salvation? No, they were
neither being brought for baptism, nor for salvation. The Bible tells us why they were bringing
these little children to Jesus. They
were being brought to Jesus in order that he might take them up into his arms,
pray for them and bless them. They were
not being brought for baptism at all.
This is not a proof text on baptism, because baptism is not even
involved in the conversation or the incident.
So it falls way short of what it is intended to prove.
In
the next place, let us examine the last part of that statement when Jesus said,
"suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of
such is the kingdom of heaven.” Now
the advocates of infant baptism will say that Jesus said the
But
did Jesus say that the kingdom of heaven is made up of little infants? If he did, that would cut out adults. But Jesus didn't say that. Jesus said, "Of such is the kingdom
of heaven.” He meant here that the
kingdom of heaven is made up of people who are like little children, who
resemble little children, and that is what he meant in Matt. 18: 3, when he
said, "except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall
not enter the kingdom of heaven.” He
said, "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the
same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
So when you put Matt. 19: 13-15, together with Matt. 18: 1-4, we see
that Jesus here was comparing the subjects of the kingdom of heaven in their
attitude and character to that of an innocent little child. So our Lord Jesus Christ did not authorize
infant baptism in Matt. 19: 13-15. This proof-text falls far short of proving
that infant baptism is authorized by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:38-39
Passage
number three is found in Acts 2: 38-39.
All of us are familiar with this statement, and the teaching of it. Peter was preaching on the day of Pentecost,
and a multitude of people cried out, after hearing his sermon and said, "men
and brethren, what shall we do? Then
Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For
the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
Now
the argument is simply this. Peter said,
"repent and be baptized for the remission of sins,” then he says, “for the
promise is unto you, and to your
children, and to all that are afar off.”
The Paedo-Baptists say that the promise of baptism here is for you
and your children and those that are afar off.
So they say that children here are involved in the promise, and
therefore they ought to be baptized.
In
answer to that I simply reply in the first place, by saying, "Can infants
repent?" Peter said,
"repent," and is the little infant capable of repenting? If not, how can they be baptized, because the
same person that is commanded to be baptized is the person that is commanded to
repent? I affirm that the little infant
is not capable or accountable of sin.
Therefore they cannot repent of sins, and are not subjects of baptism.
In
the second place, these children that are mentioned here, are they
infants? When Peter said that the
promise is to you, to your children, and to those who are afar off, did he have
infants in mind? No, they are not
infants. Do you mothers know that if
your child is to be 65 he is still your child?
So a person could be a child or children even though he might be 65
years old. So children are used here in
this passage as descendants and not infants.
Peter says that the promise (what ever that is) is to you, (you Jews),
to your children or descendents and then to those who are afar off (the
Gentiles.)
In
the next place, what is the promise mentioned here, is it baptism? No, the promise here is either the gift of
the Holy Spirit which he had just promised to those who would repent and be
baptized, or it is the promise that God made to Abraham in Genesis 22: 18, when
he said, "And in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be
blessed.” (Gen. 12: 3.) I believe that he is talking about the
promise that God made to Abraham, and that promise was finally being realized,
and now not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles, would share in the blessings
of the kingdom. So the argument again
falls far short of proving infant baptism.
1 Corinthians 10:
1-4
Passage
number four is found in 1 Cor. 10: 1-4.
Paul says, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through
the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same
spiritual meat; and did all
drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” Now the argument here is this. The people of Israel were a type of the
church, and that is true; but they say that in being baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea, that there were infants in that nation, and therefore,
not only were adults baptized unto Moses, but also infants.
Now
it is true that all those who were down in
Acts 16: 14-15
I
would like to mention passage number five which is perhaps the strongest
argument that has ever been used in favor of infant baptism, and it isn't worth
a dime. In Acts 16: 14-15, Paul and Silas
were on the second missionary journey.
They traveled to
There
is only one thing wrong with that argument.
It is based upon an assumption.
Anything based upon an assumption is not a valid argument. Do you see what you have to assume in order
to baptize infants? You would have to
assume in the first place that
It
is true that Lydia and her household were baptized, but they were old enough
and accountable enough that they could hear what Paul had to say, and they were
old enough that the Lord opened their hearts to the teaching of Paul and
Silas. They were old enough to obey the
command to be baptized, and I know that infants cannot do any of those
things. Therefore, the presumption is
that there were not any infants in that household, but rather they were adults
and old enough to do these things that the Bible tells us that they did. So we have found out that these five
proof-texts all fall short of proving infant baptism.
ARGUMENTS FAVORING
INFANT BAPTISM EXAMINED
Let
us examine two or three general arguments that are used in favor of infant
baptism. Our friends who practice infant
baptism tell us that all children inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. Therefore, since a little child that comes
into the world is guilty of Adam’s sin, if that little child is going to be saved,
that child must be baptized since baptism is for the remission of sins. They teach that if that child should die it
would be lost unless it had been baptized.
That is the reason that some churches today will christen a new baby by
sprinkling a few drops of water on his head.
The point is that some say that a child is guilty of Adam’s sin. And they take the position that they're going
to baptize your little child (and it's not really baptism in the first place
because they will sprinkle a little water on his head.) They believe if
something should happen to that child that it would be lost, so they're going
to take up for you, and make sure the child isn't lost, in case the child
should die shortly after birth.
The
truth of the matter is that children are not guilty of Adam’s sin. Sin is the transgression of God’s law. (1
John 3: 4). Sin is unrighteousness. (1 John 5:17.) Now if a little child is
guilty of Adam’s sin, how could Jesus have said, "Of such is the
kingdom of heaven?”
Did Jesus mean that the kingdom of heaven is made up of people who
are sinners? That would be the
comparison if infants inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. Sometimes, in order to prove that contention,
they will quote Psalms 51: 5, where David said, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive
me.” Now does that mean that David
was born a sinner? No, David said he was
shaped in iniquity and his mother was in sin when she conceived him. Now the point is that David's mother was a
sinner, and he was born into a world of sin, and he was shaped in iniquity, but
that didn't make him a sinner, and that didn't make him guilty of sin.
What
our parents have done does not follow over into the life of the child. Ezekiel, the prophet, said that the son shall
not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity
of the son. (Ezekiel 18: 19-23.) So the
point is that little children are not guilty of their parent’s sins since sin
is a transgression. Children become
guilty of sin when they grow up and become accountable for their actions. So parents are guilty of their sins and
children become guilty when they become accountable.
Little
children are not guilty of sin, they are safe, and so they are not subjects of
salvation until they become accountable.
This is borne out in that God allowed all the Israelites that came out
of Egypt, from 20 years old, and younger, to go into the promised land. The ones 21 years old and older didn't make
it. That tells me that God held those 21
years old and older accountable, and he didn't hold those 20 years and younger
accountable. Well, you might say,
"Does that mean that you have to be 21 years old before you are
accountable for your sins?" No, I
don't know anywhere that the Bible sets an exact age. It may vary from one child to another. Some children grow up and are more serious
minded earlier than others, but I do know that a little tiny baby, or infant,
cannot be accountable for anything that they might do. Therefore they are not subjects of salvation.
Does Baptism Take
The Place Of Circumcision?
Another argument is this: they will tell
us that baptism takes the place of circumcision in the Old Testament, and since
infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, then infants ought to be
baptized today. Well, what is wrong with
that? First, it is an assertion without
any proof. Where does the Bible say that
baptism takes the place of circumcision?
I've never read it, and I don’t believe it can be found.
In
the next place, if we were to grant their argument that baptism does take the
place of circumcision, were all infants circumcised? No, just the male children were
circumcised. Does that mean that only
male children should be baptized and we should leave the girls out? You see, it proves too much and therefore
proves nothing. The point is that
baptism did not take the place of circumcision.
Circumcision was a sign of Abraham’s children. And God added circumcision to the law, but
the law has been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. (Col.
2:14.) Baptism is a part of the new
covenant has nothing whatsoever to do with circumcision or taking the place of
circumcision.
Has The Church
Existed From The Days Of Abraham?
Another
argument is this: they tell us that the church has existed from the days of
Abraham, and since there were infants in the Abrahamic
church, there ought to be infants in the church today. Now the fallacy of this argument is simply this. They confuse the New Testament church with
the Old Testament church that was in the wilderness.
While
there is a connection between God's people in the Old Testament, and God's
people in the New Testament, they are not identical. God's people back then were in a different
institution from the church today. The
church is a new institution. In
Ephesians 2, Paul said that God was going to make one new man in Christ Jesus. So the church is a new institution. It did not exist in the days of Abraham or
Moses or even in the days of John the Baptist.
It is a new institution established by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:
13-19.
So,
being a different institution, the subjects of this institution were not
necessarily the subjects that were in the old institution. In fact, in the old institution one was born
into the kingdom by a natural birth, and grew up and then was taught to know
the Lord. Today, according to Hebrews 8:
6-13, you first are taught to know the Lord, and then you are born into the kingdom
by a birth of water and the spirit.
(John 3:3-5.) So we find that the subjects of the new institution are
not the subjects of the old institution.
One was a natural birth and the other is a spiritual birth. One was entered when an infant, now you enter
when you were old enough to be taught and know the Lord.
Do Infants Have
The Right To Church Membership?
Another
argument is this: all who have a right to church membership have a right to
baptism. They tell us that infants have
a right to church membership; therefore, infants have a right to baptism. Well, the problem with that is, where does
the Bible say that infants have a right to church membership? It is not in the Bible. Where does the Bible teach that those who
have a right to church membership have a right to baptism? I thought the Bible taught just the
opposite. The Bible teaches that those
who are baptized are automatically members of the church and not those who are
members of the church are to be baptized.
They have the cart before the horse.
They have things just turned around.
We’re first baptized, and then we enter the kingdom.
OBJECTIONS TO THE
PRACTICE OF INFANT BATISM
Finally,
I want to point out some objections to the practice of infant baptism. (1) It places upon the parents the duty that
God never placed upon them. Can you
imagine parents who believe that they ought to baptize their little
infants? Can you imagine how anxious
they are going to be when their child is born, fearful that the child will die
before they can get that child baptized?
So it places a duty on parents where God never placed one.
(2)
It causes parents to teach their children a lie. Now that is plain, but it is the truth. A person that baptizes a little infant will
say when that child grows up, "Son or daughter, you were baptized when you
were a little baby." Consequently,
that child believes a lie. Isn’t it
terrible to think that a parent might be guilty of teaching a lie to their
little children as they grow up?
(3)
It causes the parents to plant a delusion in the heart of a child. No doubt, there are many adults today who
have been deluded into thinking they were baptized when they were little
infants. They will read their Bible
where it says to be baptized, and they will say, "Well, I've already done
that, my parents took care of that matter when I was an infant." If you were to start talking about baptism to
them they will say, "Well, I don't need it, I've been baptized years and
years ago." They will agree with
you that baptism is essential, but they will say they were baptized in infancy
so they don't need to be baptized again.
So it plants a delusion or lie in the heart of the child.
In
the next place, it causes many children to be permanently disobedient to the
divine law of entering the kingdom, and therefore to be lost forever; and
finally, it is a human tradition, and as such, it makes void the worship and
the service of those who practice it. *
*Shelby G. Floyd delivered this sermon