Featured child baptism right or wrong ?

What good will it do? That's a pretty simple question to help determine any value. Read the Scriptures and pray That God would reveal His will.

 

Is that what Scripture teaches?

 

First, do not be troubled by the fact there is no verse in the Bible that commands us not to baptize infants. There also is no verse in the Bible that commands us to baptize infants. That does not mean the Bible is silent on the matter. Far from it. A little history on infant baptism is a good place to begin.

Both infant baptism (paedobaptism) and believers baptism (credobaptism) were practiced during the early church period (the Patristic age). Debates raged over the topic as they did about many other doctrinal areas during the early centuries after Jesus' ascension. In the 5th century, Roman Catholicism began to flourish and one of their most important sacraments was baptism. Roman Catholicism believes in baptismal regeneration, that water baptism is necessary for salvation. When the Reformation began in the 16th century, the practice of infant baptism carried over from Roman Catholicism. However, many of the Reformers viewed baptism as not necessary for salvation, but as a sign and seal of the New Covenant that is to be applied to the children of believers. This is what most branches of Presbyterianism believe today. They believe that children of believers are to be baptized, and that baptism makes them visible members of the New Covenant. However, unlike Roman Catholicism, Presbyterians believe baptism does not save the infant, it only places them inside the covenant community, i.e. the local church.

So, is the baptism of infants a command that believers must obey? What can we learn from scripture?

Acts 2:37-39 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 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.”

Presbyterians use this passage quite often. They point to verse 39 as a strong inference that infants are to be baptized. What they miss is that Peter's emphasis is not on baptism alone but on repenting (verse 38). The chronology is very clear: repent first and then baptism. The "promise" of verse 39 is that this offer of forgiveness of sins will extend to each successive generation until the whole number of God's elect have been saved. Maybe you can see the inherent problem with applying this passage as a command to baptize infants? A person must be able to hear and understand the gospel in order to repent. This is not the case with infants.

Acts 16:25-34 25 But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; 26 and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened. 27When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” 29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Our Presbyterian friends like to use this passage to support household baptism. They are partly right about that, but they are also wrong. In this familiar story, Paul and Silas were freed by God from jail while in Philippi. Believing that the prisoners had escaped, the jailer was about to kill himself instead of facing shame and execution for his supposed failure. Paul cried out to him, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!" The jailer took Paul and Silas to his house where they preached the gospel to all that were there. The Holy Spirit prevailed upon the hearts of those who heard and they all believed with one accord. As their first step of obedience, these new believers were baptized. That is an important fact to mark. Verse 34 reads, "And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." The emphasis here is on belief, not baptism. All of the jailer's household, that believed, were baptized. Infants are incapable of belief.

One last passage for consideration:

Acts 8:26-38 26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, “Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) 27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:

“HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER;AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT,SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.33“IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY;WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION?FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH.”

34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

In this story, Philip came upon an official of Candace, queen of Ethiopia. The official was reading from the prophet Isaiah. He did not understand what he was reading. Philip engaged the official in conversation and wound up preaching the gospel to him. At the end, we read where the official said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" There is a lot that went on between when Philip began preaching and the Ethiopian official asked to be baptized; namely that the official believed what was preached to him. It was on the basis of his belief that Philip agreed to baptize him. That is why verse 37 is in brackets. It was added by redactors to emphasize belief on the part of the official.

So, here is my point. The New Testament provides ample evidence that baptism is always on the basis of a credible profession of faith. It is not to be applied to infants or unbelieving children on the basis of their parent's faith. Believe and be baptized is the biblical model and the biblical command. I certainly am not going to intrude between you and your wife, but I implore you to be convinced on this very important subject by the preponderance of scripture and to lead your family accordingly.

May God grant you wisdom and courage.

 

Just a quick side note on your wife's concerns and the "covenant".

• [1 Corinthians 7:12-16 NASB] 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14 For 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. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such [cases,] but God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

First a note on the Children from the part I placed in bold. If even ONE parent is a believer, the children are holy (set apart for God). That is the meaning of being under the covenant in the Old Testament (which is what Presbyterians believe baptism accomplishes in the New Covenant church). Since Paul speaks of the "wife" being a believer and the "husband" an unbeliever, there is a strong possibility that the children could not get baptized (wife honoring her husband thing). So the "Holy" children of just one believing parent is independent of baptism.

If one believing parent places the children "set apart" for God, then how can TWO believing parents do less!

******

Second, note the general principle Paul is conveying here. The believing 'spouse' may be the very instrument that God uses to touch the heart of the unbelieving 'spouse'. One cannot live surrounded by faith in action and be completely unaffected. How much more would this principle apply to the children raised in a household with two believing parents (frankly, or even one believing parent).

******

My third and final point is a personal observation rather than a scriptural one. A great deal of the problem (conflict) is one of semantics (choice of words) rather than actions. I know of no one who is opposed to parents wanting God to bless their baby [and preventing such an action is forbidden by the lips of Jesus in the Gospels]. I know of very few people who actually believe that pouring water on a babies head means that that baby is guaranteed a place in heaven. So the real issue becomes the actual term "baptism". To a Baptist, "baptism" means that God has already saved you and you want to tell the world. To a Lutheran, "baptism" means that God has actually placed his Holy Spirit in that baby using the water and the Word of God spoken. To a Presbyterian, "baptism" means that the child is part of the covenant church and a member of the "visible church".

So don't call it "baptism". Many believers baptism (credobaptism) churches hold a "dedication" ceremony to bless the baby and parents, pray for the parents to raise the child to honor and serve God, pray for the child to receive grace from God, and pledge for the body of Christ (the church) to support them. It achieves everything that we all agree upon with respect to a baby, without implying something that "baptism" may imply that is not appropriate for a baby (depending on what one thinks "baptism" means and does.)

******

Let me conclude with a slightly humorous personal story. My atheist father and backslider Roman Catholic mother wanted to keep the peace between his Methodist parents and her Roman Catholic parents when I was born (with respect to the issue of Baptism). One side was adamant that I must be baptized Roman Catholic to prevent eternal damnation and the other was adamant that I would be raised Protestant. So as a compromise I was baptized in a Lutheran church (one of only two times that I set foot in a Lutheran church in my life). So technically, I was baptized as an infant and then promptly raised to be an atheist.

It really isn't the baptism that counts as much as it is the "training up" ... and GOD ALWAYS gets the final word on the subject.

 

I'll try to be gentle.

1. If you are truly a Baptist, you will not want to see your baby baptized. Baptists have fought spiritual wars over this.
2. Why are there no specific verses in the Bible against it? Because it makes absolutely no sense, given the Biblical purposes of baptism: showing the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and giving a testimony of faith. God did not provide us with Bible references opposing nonsense.
3. Who would be doing the baptizing: Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist? Any of them would be happy to draw your family away from Biblical practices.
4. Historically, no church practiced baby baptism until several centuries after Christ. Why? They didn't even think of it. It didn't make sense to them, because it's not in the Bible.
5. I don't know your wife, but most wives want a strong husband. If I were give in to a practice I believe is mistaken, my wife's respect for me would be diminished.
6. Infant baptism is meaningless for the infant. It will only have meaning for your wife. You have not said what denomination she is and what meaning it will have to her. If she is thinking this will keep the baby out of Hell, that is an awful and unbiblical teaching and you should stand up to it.

 

Acts 8:34-37 KJV
[34] And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. [36] And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? [37] And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


The “if” of vs 37 is a condition one must meet to be baptized. Babies cannot meet the requirement of believing.

Also there are ZERO examples in scripture of babies being baptized.

I put together a whole short message on baptism for new believers, it explains what baptism is, how it’s done, and who should be baptized, the audio is pretty short, I think around 15 minutes:

It is message number 3 on that link

Discipleship - Google Drive

 

Jon if one can ask the question "What good will it do?" then surely one can ask the corollary question "What harm will it do?".

I think that is Cavell's question.

 

Sure, i understand. I figured if one can at least verbalize some "pro's" then they can reflect on Scripture and see if that should even be a reality.

 

What harm will it do?

In the court of heaven in eternity - nothing.

But the parents will be responsible at the Bema seat, IMO the husband more than the wife.

What that will result in? who knows.

 

We know that is not biblical. That is harm enough.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

I know in my own life, knowing i was baptized as a baby gave me a false sense of hope that i was right with God. I would reflect on what "I have done" in order to earn favor with God. This was very harmful.

 

I am glad you used the word "we".

Just for the record there are now and have been over the years many outstanding Christians who are/were paedobaptists.

Calvin.

 

Something else that i believe is harmful is it discourages obedience to the Lord when a person actually does get saved. Part of maturing is obedience to Christ. When a person refuses to be baptized after conversion, because they were baptized as a baby, it will hurt their relationship with the Lord, IMO.

 

I agree with the brethren on what you should do and the action you should take, but only you know your wife and the circumstances and we don't.... Will it do more harm than good?.... Will it take the joy out of being baptized again when your son ask for it?... Will those of your relations attend if the child is baptized again even thought the first time wasn't a real baptism according to scripture?... You have sought counsel and have received it... My counsel is go to the Lord in prayer and go where the Lord and your heart leads you... Brother Glen

 

I am a former Catholic "baptized" as a baby.

When conviction of sin turned my life upside down I had no hope in anything much less a handful of water on my head.

 

But "we" are Baptists and should be resolute on this issue. We cannot prevent another person from doing something, but we should not condone it or fail to proclaim the truth and do so boldly.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk