Infant Baptism (Part 1)
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
One of the chief reasons that the Anabaptists were despised and considered radicals was that they were persuaded that baptism, in order to be valid, must be by immersion. The reason this was considered radical was that at the time they became known for this doctrine, nearly everyone was using sprinkling as a substitute for baptism. This view is not so unusual today because many religious groups immerse individuals, but in the 1500s, the idea was greatly resisted, and those who taught immersion were deemed heretics.
Suppose someone today tried to establish the church on an island in the Pacific and discovered that the gospel had been preached there centuries before. As the missionaries meet with that group for worship, when it comes time to observe the Lord's Supper, the natives use coconut juice instead of the fruit of the vine. The missionaries cannot observe the Lord's death in this way. After the worship is completed, the natives want to know why they did not drink the juice of the coconut. The missionaries say that they always use the fruit of the vine, grape juice. The natives regard that as heresy because they have been using the coconut ever since they can remember—for generations. The obvious solution would be to go to the Scriptures and notice that fruit of the vine does not authorize that which grows on trees. Tradition, however, is very powerful; it is often regarded more highly than truth.
Likewise, those in the 16th century should have said, "What do the Scriptures actually teach regarding baptism?" They should have been interested in the truth, but instead they preferred to defend their traditions and persecute those who were actually trying to abide in the doctrine of the Lord. In fact, they began to try to find passages of Scriptures that would support what they were doing. It is interesting to see what those arguments consisted of, and Philip Schaff, author of History of the Christian Church, relates those on both sides of the issue.
Infant Baptism
Schaff dealt with this controversy in both volumes 7 and 8; the page numbers will be preceded by one of these volume references. The custom of sprinkling is tied closely to the practice of infant baptism; so the two topics will be considered together. Schaff reports: "All the Reformers retained the custom of infant-baptism, and opposed rebaptism (Wiedertaufe) as a heresy" (7:607). The Anabaptists, of course, denied that they taught rebaptism, since the sprinkling of infants did not constitute baptism in the first place (7:607). On this same page, Schaff continues his description by writing that the leaders of the Anabaptists thought
that the Reformers stopped half-way, and did not go to the root of the evil…. Their fundamental doctrine was, that baptism is a voluntary act, and requires personal repentance, and faith in Christ. They rejected infant-baptism as an anti-scriptural invention. They could find no trace of it in the New Testament, the only authority in matters of faith in Christ.
Yikes! Here I go being a Radical again! All these statements are, in fact, true! Sprinkling, which is used in infant baptism, is not baptism, and those who were baptized, according to the New Testament, did so voluntarily. Now notice that nothing in this dispute has anything to do with the Scriptural purpose of baptism—the forgiveness of sins—only with the way in which a person is to be baptized and the fact that it must be their own decision. Therefore, the baptism of an infant was not valid because: 1) he was not immersed; and 2) it was not a matter of his own will.
So, what was the defense of infant baptism? Schaff reports the major arguments against it and then gives Luther's reply. Luther made no secret that he believed in and preached infant baptism (7:610).
The Five Arguments
1. "Infant baptism is wrong because it comes from the pope who is Antichrist" (7:610). This is stated rather harshly, although many Reformers did view the pope as Antichrist. It does not appear that the pope denied that Jesus came in the flesh, which is John's definition of the antichrists that were already in the world in his day (1 John 2:18-22). It is the case that the New Testament does not speak of nor authorize any such office of that of the papacy. Jesus said that He had all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). No one else, therefore, can claim to have that power.
Luther selected a peculiar way to respond to the argument that infant baptism came from the Catholic Church. He replied that on that same basis we ought to reject the Scriptures and Christianity itself. As a parallel, he cited the fact that Jesus found many abuses on the part of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but He did not reject the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus told the people to keep their doctrines (Matt. 23:3).
Luther's response is so horrible that it is amazing that anyone went along with it. If his point is that even those in error can teach some truth, we would all be in agreement. But how does that relate to the issue at hand? It neither proves nor disproves the practice of infant baptism. Luther greatly abused Matthew 23:3. Jesus was not telling the Jews to practice manmade traditions or substitutions for what God commanded. He was telling the people that, as the scribes read the Law of Moses, they were to keep that law—even though the teachers of the law did not.
Perhaps the argument would have been better stated if it had said, "Infant baptism is not taught in the New Testament; it is a tradition that developed long after the New Testament was written and became a part of the Roman Catholic Church." Luther would then have had to deal with this matter in another way entirely.
2. "Infants know nothing of their baptism and have to learn of it afterward from their parents or guardians" (7:611). Luther responded by saying that we learn of our natural birth and other childhood things from our parents, also. While this observation is true, it dodges the point, which is that in Christianity one can only be born with his knowledge and consent. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again (John 3:3). He then referred to the water and the Spirit (John 3:5), which refers to baptism. Jesus did not go around Galilee telling infants to be born again. By natural birth one became an Israelite. He was taught, when he was old enough, that being an Israelite meant that he was one of God's chosen people and part of a special covenant with God. One is taught first in order to become a Christian, however (Heb. 8:8-11).
3. "Infants cannot believe" (7:611). This argument is brief but powerful in that it is obvious to all. However, Luther denied it. What? Yes, and he tried to provide Scriptures to back it up. He cited, first of all Matthew 19:14, where Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Seriously? Did he not notice the element of free will in the text? The verb let means that permission is given for the children to come of their own volition. There were no infants in this group. While it is true that the parents brought them to Jesus (v. 13), such does not mean they had not asked to come. But even if Luther had been correct, and the parents were bringing infants to Jesus, the purpose was not to be sprinkled; it was for Him to give a blessing to them (lay His hands on them and pray). One cannot use this passage to justify what was not done on this or any other occasion.
Luther used a second passage to prove that children can have faith. He used Luke 1:41 to say that John the Baptizer believed in Jesus—even in the womb. The verse states: "And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." Verse 44 says that he leaped for joy. What a perceptive child! He knows that Mary is carrying Jesus, who will be Savior. Who else knew that? Joseph did—but he got it by revelation. Mary did, but she received that news by Divine revelation. Elizabeth seems to know, but she received that news by the Holy Spirit, also. But the little baby John—he deduced it all because he was able to believe. How many want to agree with that idea? Or did not the Holy Spirit also reveal in some measure the fact and he responded by leaping? How much actual comprehension there might have been—or on what level—is a matter of pure speculation. In any event, a special occurrence such as this cannot be used to prove a norm.
Those trying to prove that the Scriptures teach infant baptism also allege that the practice can be based "on the vicarious faith of parent, and the covenant blessing of Abraham, which extends to his seed (Gen. 17:7)" (7:611). What? All right, consider the parents' faith for the child assertion. Is that possible? This makes the spiritual condition of the child an accident of birth. If someone is born in Africa to pagan parents, the child is out of luck. But if he is fortunate enough to be born of Catholic or Lutheran parents, then everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. What kind of teaching is this—that the spiritual well-being of the child depends on to whom he is born?
The citation from Genesis 17:7 is irrelevant. Was Luther of the seed of Abraham, or was he a Gentile? Even the true seed of Abraham has a new covenant they must be under—Christianity—and it is not entered by physical birth. If someone wants to argue that we are Abraham's spiritual seed, that is true (Gal. 3:29). But we do not become Christ's by physical birth but spiritual. So there is no parallel.
Another assertion of Luther was that "the Holy Spirit wrought faith in the child" (7:381). This would answer the question, "How can an infant believe?" But then one would be faced with another burdensome question. Does the Holy Spirit impart faith to all children? If so, what is the evidence of it, and what happened to that faith? Why are the infants in Eastern countries Buddhists and in many African countries Muslims? What happened to the faith that the Holy Spirit imparted when the infants were quite young? Or did the Holy Spirit only select a few infants based on their parents' faith? Would not this practice make the Holy Spirit a respecter of persons?
4. The New Testament contains no "command to baptize children" (7:611). Luther replied that they are included in the great commission (Matt. 28:19). Not only does this verse not authorize baptizing of infants, it is a witness against the practice. Notice that the verse says to go and make disciples of all nations, but how does one make a disciple of an infant? The disciple is to be made through baptizing and teaching them to do all the things Christ had taught His own disciples. How can an infant be taught such things? Is someone going to give the baby a test to see how much he knows? Such is ridiculous!
It is difficult to know if Schaff is speaking for Luther or himself—or both, but he writes next: "The burden of proof lies on the Anabaptists to show that infant-baptism is forbidden in the Bible, before they abolish such an old and venerable institution of the whole Christian Church" (7:611). As already noted, the age of a practice is irrelevant—if it cannot be found in the New Testament. The papacy did not begin until the early 600s; does a practice of 1300 years mean that it is acceptable? And where does the Bible say not to have a pope? We know that it is wrong because it is not authorized, and it contradicts what the Bible teaches regarding the organization of the church (Christ being the only Head).
Likewise, how would anyone expect the condemnation of a practice that never existed in the church? No authority exists to baptize infants, and we know that faith and repentance are required before baptism even if sprinkling was baptism, which it is not.
The arguments against infant baptism are valid. Neither Luther nor anyone else can assail them or answer them adequately. No one used sprinkling in the New Testament, and no infants were made disciples or baptized. Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever sprinkled anyone. These practices arose years later—and without any authority from God. They became a standard practice—just like Jeroboam's two golden calves in Dan and Bethel. No one questioned them for centuries. When they were shown to be erroneous, people hated that truth and the ones who discovered it. Next week, Lord willing, we want to examine the arguments made in favor of infant baptism.