Infant Baptism (Part 2)
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Previously considered were the refutations against the arguments made by the Anabaptists as they protested the practice of sprinkling infants. Although an argument or two might have been better stated, they were legitimate, and the responses were totally ineffective. But, what about the other side of the issue? What case was made in favor of infant baptism? These are good questions, but there are only brief mentions of a few principles rather than many compelling proofs being offered. Schaff includes them, along with a few interesting comments in his 8th volume of History of the Christian Church. All quotations are from this volume.
Zwingli
As already mentioned, Zwingli (in Switzerland) and Luther (in Germany) were in agreement on most things except the presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. The way that Schaff comments on Zwingli and those Radicals, the Anabaptists, is interesting. Consider this text:
Moreover, he [Zwingli, gws] doubted for a while the expediency (not the right) of infant baptism, and deemed it better to be put off the sacrament to years of discretion. He rejected the Roman doctrine of the necessity of baptism for salvation and the damnation of unbaptized infants dying in infancy. He understood the passage, Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," as applying only to adults who have heard the gospel and can believe but not to infants. On maturer reflection he modified his views (72-73).
Isn't that comment rich? Never mind analyzing the situation in light of the truth; it is just a matter of maturer thought. Several comments are in order about this paragraph. First, Zwingli was right about infant baptism not being expedient. There is no purpose for it stated in the Scriptures, nor was it ever practiced.
Second, in rejecting the necessity of baptism for salvation, Zwingli was wrong. If he could understand Mark 16:16 to mean that faith must be present on the part of the one being baptized, why could he not see that both are required to have salvation? If one must have his own faith in order to be saved, then why must he not be baptized in order to be saved? How can a person not understand that whatever is necessary concerning the one is also necessary in the other?
Third, Zwingli was correct in realizing that infants are not condemned if they do not believe and are not baptized. He may not have known the truth of the matter, however. This may have been an emotional decision—that children cannot possibly be lost. The fact is, however, that infants and children do not need to believe and be baptized because they are not lost. They do not comprehend either sin or salvation, and no amount of water—whether sprinkling or immersion—can change that fact.
Fourth, Mark 16:16 does apply only to those who have the capability of believing and deciding to be baptized. For Zwingli to change his mind on the matter was not a mark of maturity but compromise. The religious beliefs and practices of others cannot serve as anyone's pattern to follow. In other words, it does not matter what people practiced in the 16th century—or the 9th—or the 3rd. The only important question is, "What was taught and practiced in the 1st century?"
The assumption of too many is that, if a practice has been around for a thousand years, it must be a valid practice, but this is erroneous thinking. Certainly, no one means to be unkind in telling others that infant baptism had no significance or that sprinkling is not the same as baptism, but what is a person to do—be mature and let someone be lost? Or should the truth be taught instead? It is only the truth that saves (John 8:31-32) and the love of truth that matters (2 Thes. 2:10).
Arguments in Favor of Infant Baptism
Those who have read and studied the New Testament already know that there is no authority for the practice of infant baptism. No command can be cited where infants were baptized. Not one example can be cited where an infant was baptized (let alone sprinkled). That leaves implication, and it is under this umbrella that the adherents of infant baptism take refuge. Following is the case that pedobaptists make.
1. Zwingli, after he became mature, defended infant baptism "with the analogy of circumcision in the Old Testament (Col. 1:11), with the comprehensiveness of the New Covenant, which embraces whole families and nations…" (73). What does all this six-bit verbiage mean? Essentially, it means that, as Abraham circumcised Isaac on the 8th day (a practice that Israelite parents were to practice for centuries), so must the infants of Christians be sprinkled to be part of the New Testament covenant. While this may make sense to those who sprinkle infants, it is a parallel that does not exist.
As previously explained, the differences between the Law of Moses and the new covenant of Jesus are many, and one of those involves the way one enters into that special relationship with God. With the descendants of Abraham, one became God's child by physical birth. He was taught as a child what that privilege meant. No one is born into Christianity by physical birth. As Jesus taught Nicodemus, it is a spiritual birth—one must be born again (John 3:3, 5). No one is born a Christian because his parents are Christians. One must make that decision when he can comprehend what sin is and his need for salvation. All children—those belonging to atheists as well as those of Christians—are in a safe state.
Colossians 2:11 is not comparing children under the two covenants. Paul is answering the mindset of the Judaizing teachers, who were insisting on the circumcision of the Gentiles when they became Christians. Paul affirms to them that baptism is our circumcision. Consider the text.
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which also you were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses… (Col. 2:11-13).
First, the point should be seen that both circumcision and baptism are ways of entering the two different covenants. Nothing is said yet regarding the age of the one entering in.
Second, the circumcision of Christ is equated with the body of sins being removed.
Third, the body of sins is removed in something that is called a burial. No one is sprinkled to have sins removed; they are buried to have sins removed in baptism. Romans 6:3-5 describes baptism in exactly the same way. The queen's treasurer is described as going down into the water and coming up out of the water in Acts 8:35-39. Philip buried him in the water when he baptized him.
Fourth, this process is not a rite or a sacrament. Baptism is the moment at which God removes a person's sins, and the person being baptized believes that fact because he has faith in the working of God (that He is removing our sins). Thus, faith is required, and the baptism is immersion. Sprinkling and pouring do not bear any resemblance whatsoever to a burial.
Fifth, prior to baptism we were dead in our trespasses (not circumcised); afterward we were made alive (born again), and our trespasses were all forgiven.
These five points constitute what the passage actually teaches. Not a word of it has to do with infants. Just making an oblique reference to a verse such as Colossians 2:11 cannot establish an argument. Anyone reading the passage carefully will see that it does not meet the claim for it by those in favor of baptizing infants.
2. The second argument in favor of pedobaptism was examined last week: to refuse children baptism is to prevent them from coming to Christ, and He said to allow them to do so. Infants do not want to come to Christ. They do not know Who He is; they just barely know mommy and daddy. They do not comprehend sin or their need for salvation. When they can comprehend those facts, then they can come, but infants and young children do not possess that capability. It is misuse of the passage to try to apply it to infants.
3. A third argument which Zwingli, Luther, and others used was based on 1 Corinthians 7:14, "which implies the church membership of the children of Christian parents…" (73). Really? The verse mentions neither the church nor membership in the body of Christ. It is a passage dealing with marriage and divorce. Questions on this topic had been asked of Paul. One of them apparently was, "If I am married to a non-Christian, is it, in fact, a marriage?" Paul's answer is: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children were unclean." Yes! A Christian and an unbeliever are married. Marriage is not an institution of the church; it existed even before sin. If the Christian and the unbeliever were not actually married, the children would be illegitimate.
How could anyone conscientiously try to use this passage to attempt to prove infant baptism? Only desperation could drive one to such extremes. Infants are not a part of the church, which is for the redeemed. Children are not lost and have no need of redemption. They can only be redeemed upon understanding that they are lost—and that does not occur in infancy. There is a vast difference in saying children are the legitimate offspring of parents who are actually married and saying that infants are members of the church and a part of the body of Christ. This argument is especially a bad one.
4. The fourth argument used to try to justify infant baptism is that in the New Testament we have examples of "family baptisms in Acts 16:33, 18:8, and 1 Cor. 1:16" (73). What? How was Acts 16:15 omitted (which is usually also cited)? This last one says that Lydia and her household were baptized. Perhaps this one was not mentioned because nothing indicates that Lydia was married. Well, then, what might her household have consisted of? She might have had sisters (though none are mentioned). She might have had one or more children, whose father had since died. She may have had some friends or servants who worked with her or for her. The reason we do not know who was in the household is that the text does not tell us. It would be an assumption to declare that any of those mentioned above were specifically included.
Acts 16:33 is no different. The jailer and all his family were baptized in the middle of the night. Presumably his family included his wife and some children. But what were the ages of the kids? Was the wife carrying an infant around with her? Or were the offspring teenagers or in their early 20s? Maybe they were 12, 14, and 16. We do not know with any certainty because the text does not say. Cornelius and his friends and relatives were present and baptized in Acts 10:27, 47-48. But once again no details regarding age are given.
Acts 18:8 describes Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue. He and all his household, along with many of the Corinthians, hearing the gospel preached by Paul, believed and were baptized. How do we know that the household of Crispus contained infants? We have no such information. As with all of the other instances, it is an assumption. Theoretically, his youngest child could have been six months old. But then how would he have believed before being baptized? For all we know, the youngest child could have been 10, 13, 15, or 20.
The final passage mentioned relates to the household of Stephanus from 1 Corinthians 1:16. And that brief mention is all the information we have about the brother's family. Any details about this man's family cannot come from the Scripture—but only the imagination of some who are trying anything to prove a point.
Other Observations
Schaff points out (and not too happily) that the Anabaptist position "led to the rejection of infant baptism" (76). Those who believed that infant baptism was legitimate called them Anabaptists since they insisted that one should be baptized as an adult. Schaff goes on to offer what appears to be a condemnation of these Radicals:
The demand of rebaptism virtually unbaptized and unchristianized the entire Christian world, and completed the rupture with the historic Church. It cut the last cord of the union of the present with the past (77).
Good! One must simply face facts. Is it right to hold on to the corrupt (which all the Reformers admitted) practices of an apostate church? Should one settle for some reforms while allowing other things to remain in error? Or should one go back to the New Testament as the only source of authority? Some actually affirmed this last option, but few made an attempt to live up to it. Zwingli, for example, agreed with these two principles:
1. The holy Christian Church, whose only Head is Christ, is born of the Word of God, and abides in the same, and listens not to the voice of a stranger.
2. The church of Christ makes no laws and commandments without the Word of God. Hence human traditions are no more binding on us than as far as they are founded in the Word of God (104).
These two principles are accurately stated, but they were not followed by Zwingli or others. The church Jesus established began making departures from this very Word until very little resemblance could be seen between the Roman Catholic Church and the one that Jesus built. Every practice should have been questioned, including that of infant baptism. The Anabaptists were correct on that point, although Schaff is obviously appalled by their doctrine, which harmonizes with the New Testament. Again, do we go to the pages of inspiration to prove our point or to what people have practiced for centuries?
Those who were sprinkled in infancy who are relying on such a "baptism" to get them to heaven are much mistaken and will be miserably disappointed. One must have the ability to believe first and then be baptized (Mark 16:16). Does this teaching unchristianize people? No. They are not Christians in the first place. They were taught wrong, and error cannot save. All such individuals need the truth. Furthermore, being baptized as a person who makes that decision does not unbaptize anyone because sprinkling is not baptism in the first place. One must realize that Satan is the one who deceives people. Parents certainly meant well in having their infants sprinkled, but they were taught a doctrine that is not in the New Testament. If we say that we are going to respect the Word of God, then we must abide by It rather than human traditions.