Lately, I have been studying the issue of baptism in the church. Do we baptize believers only, or do we baptize believers and their children? I’ve actually been raised in both circumstances. I was baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian Church and actually raised in that denomination. However when I was ten, my family started going to a Baptist church and I was baptized by immersion two years ago.


I never took the time to actually study the issue of baptism in the Bible. As I was studying, I came extremely close to accepting infant baptism if it were not for what I see as inconsistencies in the Scriptures. I have compiled a list of ten reason why I reject infant baptism and support believers only baptism.


1. Infant Baptism is not in the Scriptures


Now I know that this may not be the most compelling argument to my Paedobaptist friends because they truly believe that infant baptism is in the Scriptures. However, if we really look at every baptism recorded in the Bible, there are no instances where we actually see that children who were incapable of repenting and believing were baptized. In every instance of baptism in the Bible, there was a profession of faith and repentance.


2. Nowhere are we commanded to baptize our babies.


Now it’s interesting that the Westminster Confession of Faith used by most Presbyterians says that it is “a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance” of infant baptism. I think this is a problem. If the Bible does not command us to baptize infants, then how could it be a sin not to? If it was so important of an issue, you’d think that the Holy Spirit would inspire the writers of the New Testament to include commands to baptize infants in the Bible.


I go back to the regulative reformed principle which says that if it isn’t commanded, then you can’t do it. I’ve had Pentecostal friends tell me to seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which also isn’t commanded in the Bible. In that case I also don’t do that, because it isn’t commanded in Scripture.


Many have also made the argument that it is okay to practice infant baptism because it isn’t explicitly forbidden in Scripture which really isn’t a great argument. You can’t imprint with divine authority a command on the basis that it isn’t forbidden in Scripture. If Scripture doesn’t command it, you can’t do it.


3. Repentance is a requirement for baptism.


I think that one of the greatest arguments in support of believers only baptism is that repentance is always the requirement to be baptized. This is why Peter said “Repent and be baptized,” (Acts 2:38) and that “those who had received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). They only people who were baptized on this day at Pentecost were those who heard the word and believed. There was no exception to this in the New Testament church.


Although many Paedobaptists will object to the book of Acts and the household baptisms, this is not a valid argument. First there are only three examples of household baptisms in the book of Acts and here are what happened:


House of Cornelius


“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, ‘Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?’ And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Acts 10:44-48, italics emphasized)


This text is extremely clear. The Holy Spirit fell upon all, all believed, and all were baptized. Those who were baptized were those who received the Holy Spirit.


Household of Lydia


“A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshipper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.’” (Acts 16:14-15)


You must notice first of all, that nowhere in this text does it mention the baptism of infants. It is most likely that all believed in her house and that is why all were baptized. Because of her conversion she must have brought the gospel to her family and all must have believed.


Household of the Philippian Jailer


“They said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” (Acts 16:31-34)


This instance is also very clear. Why was he rejoicing? Because his entire household believed. That’s what was so wonderful about it. We can’t take a few examples of these and make it a normative. That is like saying that people spoke in tongues in Acts so that means everyone needs to speak in tongues. The reason these household baptisms were so wonderful are because it was not the normative of the early church for everyone in the household to believe in God. This was not the normative.


Another text the Paedobaptist will mention is 1 Corinthians 7:14, “For if the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.”


First of all, I don’t see anything about baptism here. The argument is that children are set apart by virtue of being in one’s family, but so is the unbelieving spouse. With this argument, if one has an unbelieving wife, she needs to be baptized too, even if she doesn’t profess faith. All Paul was saying here is that if someone becomes a believer and their spouse is not a believer, there is no reason to get a divorce. That was the context. There is too much being read into the text here.


Also, there are a couple more Scriptures about God’s care of children that the Paedobaptist appeals to.


“Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3-4)


I’m going to have quote Charles Spurgeon on this text: “What on earth does this have to do with baptism?” This text is simply saying that child-like faith is necessary to enter the kingdom.


Another example of paedobaptist defense:


“And they were bringing children to him so that he might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, ‘Permit the children to come to me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.’ And he took them in his arms and began blessing them, laying his hands on them.” (Mark 10:13-16)


Once again, I don’t see anything about baptism here. This is simply saying that our Lord has a special care for children.


The last Scripture our Paedobaptist friends will appeal to is Acts 2:39, “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” (Acts 2:38)


There are two things wrong with appealing to this text for support of infant baptism. First, the promise is not baptism or external membership in the church. The promise is the Holy Spirit for those who repent. And second, the verse even defines who this promise is for: “as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” In other words, this promise is for the elect of God.


4. The only mode acceptable for baptism is by immersion.


The word for baptize which is baptizo in the Greek language literally means to immerse. That is clear by the meaning of the word in the Greek Septuagint. However, if it isn’t clear, we can just look at the example of when John the Baptist baptized:


“And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:5)


We actually see first of all here that all who were being baptized were confessing their sins, which means no infants could have been baptized. But also they were being baptized in the Jordan River, which seems to say that they went under the water for baptism.


However, if it still isn’t clear, then we can look at the baptism of Jesus:


“Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him…After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water.” (Matthew 3:13, 16)


I think this is very clear. Even in the baptism of Jesus, he went under the water and came back up. This means that the only acceptable mode of baptism is by immersion.


Now some have tried to argue that baptism can be administered by sprinkling or pouring water on a person and they do so by saying that there are uses of the word in the Greek Septuagint that do not refer to immersion. However, the word being used this case is not baptizo which is the word always used for baptism in the New Testament, but the word bapto, which is a different word. There is a perfectly good word for sprinkling in the New Testament. It is the word rhantizo. I think that if baptism were by sprinkling, that this would be the word the New Testament authors would use.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fundamental Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic

NKJV Evangelical Study Bible

Gospel of Mark Carter