Dear Christian Believer,
People often object to infant baptism without knowing what it is. Most people object to it because somehow they associate it with the Catholic practice, which claims that it regenerates the infant upon receipt. This claim, however, is false.
When one learns that the Christian Church has practiced infant baptism throughout the majority of its existence, one must ask the question "Why?"
Some people claim that the Apostles never taught or practiced infant baptism. If this is true, then we have a huge problem on our hands. The earliest mention of infant baptism appears in the writings of the Early Church Fathers around 100 years after the death of the Apostle John. From that point forward, there is never any kind of objection raised against its practice until the 16th and 17th centuries. If it is true that the Apostles never taught it, and we have mention of it as a consistent practice 100 years later, this means that somewhere within those 100 years the entire church was not practicing it and then—*POOF*—the entire church was magically practicing it without a single individual ever noticing a difference or ever contending the fact that something had changed. What is the likelihood of such a thing actually happening? Ponder that thought deeply.
Another question that should be raised is: If infant baptism is wrong, why are so many people who used to adamantly defend "believer's baptism only" now converting to believe in infant baptism and refute all their previous arguments? This, as well as the historical fact, should cause an individual to look into it with great care and a desire to know the truth and to conform to the revelation of God's Word.
Some people argue that there is no example of infant baptism in the Bible. There is also no example of a believer's child growing up and being baptized later in life. An argument from silence is no argument at all.
Some people argue that there is no command given to baptize infants in the Bible. There is also no command not to baptize infants in the Bible. An argument from silence is no argument at all.
Some people argue that baptism is a sign of one's salvation, and this is false. There is absolutely no support in Scripture for such a claim. In fact, Scripture would deny this with every account of warning against apostasy. Judas was baptized; Simon the magician was baptized; Demas was baptized; yet all of these turned out to be false converts—apostates. Baptism clearly is not a sign of one's salvation.
Baptism is a sign and a seal of being in covenant with God. For the genuine believer, it is a testimony that he/she is a covenant keeper and that all the blessings that go with it are his/hers. For the apostate, it is a testimony that he/she is a covenant breaker and that all the curses that go with it are his/hers. Circumcision and baptism represent the exact same internal things, yet are different in external practice. Both are initiatory rites (Gen. 17:10-11; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13); both signify an inward reality (Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:2-12; Phil. 3:3); both picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); both represent repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41; Acts 2:38); both represent regeneration (Rom. 2:28-29; Titus 3:5); both represent justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-14); both represent a cleansed heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7); both represent union and communion with God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; Heb. 8:10); both indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen. 17:4; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 2:12-13; 4:5); both indicate separation from the world (Ex. 12:48; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 2:12); and both can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom. 2:25; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; 11:28-30). Likewise with the Passover and communion. Communion replaces Passover just as baptism replaces circumcision. Circumcision and Passover involved blood, which were foreshadows of what was to come in Christ by His trial, crucifixion, death, and burial. The blood had to be there.
Some people argue that the covenants are different and that they have nothing in common, but that is false. Look up Jeremiah's description of the new covenant and the usage of it in Hebrews. Read over it a couple times. With the exception of one thing, nothing in that covenant is new to the "new" covenant. In fact, the word for "new" actually means "renewed" or "fresh." It does not mean "brand new." The only thing different about the new covenant is that "they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all will know Me, from the least to the greatest of them" (Hebrew 8:11). In the old covenant, the only people who knew God and communicated God to others were the Levites—the priests. Everyone learned about God through them. In the new covenant, this would no longer be the case. Nothing else about the new covenant is new to it. We can witness all of it back in Genesis and throughout the entire Old Testament. God has always dealt this way with His people (believers).
Under the old covenant, children were included in it. When the new covenant came along, nothing changed. If something had changed, we could expect a command to that degree, but there is nothing. There is never a command saying that children are no longer part of the covenant. In fact, Peter, in his sermon at Pentecost, declares, "the promises are for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself" (Acts 2:39). Also, Paul calls baptism circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12: "in Him you were also circumcised...having been buried with Him in baptism..." Our circumcision is our baptism. The circumcision that matters is not that outward circumcision, but the inward circumcision of the heart. Moses declared this in the Old Testament, yet the Pharisees focused on the external rather than the internal.
Is the new covenant administration more restricted in its reach than the previous case had been under the old covenant administration? No.
Is the new covenant administration less encompassing in its reach than the previous case had been under the old covenant administration? No.
If children of believing parents are not included in the new covenant as they were in the old covenant, then children are in a worse condition now than they ever had been previously! If the new covenant no longer includes children as the old covenant did, that means that children are worse off and in a worse condition under it than they had been under the old covenant. That means the new covenant is worse than the old covenant.
But Scripture repudiates this pungent doctrine everywhere, differentiating children of believers from unbelieving parents and their children. How else does one explain 1 Corinthians 7:14 if children are excluded from the new covenant whereby they were included in the old covenant? Why the commands to children in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 if they are not considered a part of the new covenant?
Example: When you were born into whatever country you were born into, were you born with all the rights and privileges that go with being a citizen of that country? or did you have to try and become a citizen later on? The answer is, Yes, you were born with all the rights and privileges of being a citizen, even though you did not know what they were and could not appropriate them to yourself (e.g., the right to vote). As you grew and learned of these rights, privileges and responsibilities, you could either appropriate them to yourself or reject them, in which case you would be considered a traitor to your country.
The same is true with regard to infant baptism. When a child of believing parents is baptized, he/she has available to him/her all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that go with being a child of God. As they grow, it is the parents' duty to instruct them of these rights and privileges. If the child appropriates these to himself/herself through faith, then his/her baptism acts as a witness or testimony that they are covenant keepers and children of God, having the sign and seal of that covenant. If the child does not appropriate these by faith but rejects them, then his/her baptism acts as a witness or testimony that they are covenant breakers before God. Hence all the warnings against apostasy in the Bible.
Baptism does not guarantee one's salvation, nor is it the sign of one's salvation. A baptized infant can grow up and reject all things Christ, thereby proving himself/herself to be an apostate. An adult who made a profession of faith and was baptized only to later reject all things Christ proves himself/herself to be an apostate. In either case, baptism is a testimony against them because both of them are apostates. Baptism is meant to be administered both to the children of believers AND to adult converts.
When we look at the household baptisms in the book of Acts, we can rightly assume that there would have been infants in those households. The likelihood that there were not is too far fetched. Further, for example, when the jailer believed, the Greek is singular, meaning only he believed. However, when his household is baptized, the Greek is plural. It never says anything of his household's faith, yet they were all baptized. Same with Lydia. We see many examples throughout Scripture of how God wants to redeem everything associated with a believer. Noah is a fine example. He is the only one to be said to have found favour in God's eyes, yet because of his faith, God saved his entire family.
Some people argue that baptism should be delayed until there is evidence that they are genuinely converted, but this goes in the face of what we see in Scripture. When they made a profession of faith, whether is was genuine or not, they were immediately baptized. Delaying baptism does not guarantee that an individual is regenerate any more than baptizing infants does. The church in North America delays baptism until they are adults, and yet the recipients of those baptisms prove to be nothing more than unregenerate false converts anyway. By delaying we are being disobedient to the Scriptures. By denying our children baptism we are grouping them together as one with the rest of the heathen, where even the Bible clearly made a distinction between the children of believers and heathen adults and their children.
When trying to learn the truth about baptism, one cannot merely look for the word "baptize" in the Bible. One must study "covenants," "signs and seals," and "children." Doug Wilson was a "believer's baptism only" guy until he studied what the Bible had to say about "children." Then his faith reformed and underwent conversion. Others converted their faith from "believer's baptism only" when they studied "covenants" and/or "signs and seals." When one truly studies what the Bible has to say with an open heart and a desire to know the truth and conform to that truth, they will inevitably believe in infant baptism. Infant baptism has Scripture on its side; it has church history on its side; and it has modern day conversions from "believer's baptism only" to "infant baptism" on its side. The evidence is there. We just need to believe it.
People often object to infant baptism without knowing what it is. Most people object to it because somehow they associate it with the Catholic practice, which claims that it regenerates the infant upon receipt. This claim, however, is false.
When one learns that the Christian Church has practiced infant baptism throughout the majority of its existence, one must ask the question "Why?"
Some people claim that the Apostles never taught or practiced infant baptism. If this is true, then we have a huge problem on our hands. The earliest mention of infant baptism appears in the writings of the Early Church Fathers around 100 years after the death of the Apostle John. From that point forward, there is never any kind of objection raised against its practice until the 16th and 17th centuries. If it is true that the Apostles never taught it, and we have mention of it as a consistent practice 100 years later, this means that somewhere within those 100 years the entire church was not practicing it and then—*POOF*—the entire church was magically practicing it without a single individual ever noticing a difference or ever contending the fact that something had changed. What is the likelihood of such a thing actually happening? Ponder that thought deeply.
Another question that should be raised is: If infant baptism is wrong, why are so many people who used to adamantly defend "believer's baptism only" now converting to believe in infant baptism and refute all their previous arguments? This, as well as the historical fact, should cause an individual to look into it with great care and a desire to know the truth and to conform to the revelation of God's Word.
Some people argue that there is no example of infant baptism in the Bible. There is also no example of a believer's child growing up and being baptized later in life. An argument from silence is no argument at all.
Some people argue that there is no command given to baptize infants in the Bible. There is also no command not to baptize infants in the Bible. An argument from silence is no argument at all.
Some people argue that baptism is a sign of one's salvation, and this is false. There is absolutely no support in Scripture for such a claim. In fact, Scripture would deny this with every account of warning against apostasy. Judas was baptized; Simon the magician was baptized; Demas was baptized; yet all of these turned out to be false converts—apostates. Baptism clearly is not a sign of one's salvation.
Baptism is a sign and a seal of being in covenant with God. For the genuine believer, it is a testimony that he/she is a covenant keeper and that all the blessings that go with it are his/hers. For the apostate, it is a testimony that he/she is a covenant breaker and that all the curses that go with it are his/hers. Circumcision and baptism represent the exact same internal things, yet are different in external practice. Both are initiatory rites (Gen. 17:10-11; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13); both signify an inward reality (Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:2-12; Phil. 3:3); both picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); both represent repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41; Acts 2:38); both represent regeneration (Rom. 2:28-29; Titus 3:5); both represent justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-14); both represent a cleansed heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7); both represent union and communion with God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; Heb. 8:10); both indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen. 17:4; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 2:12-13; 4:5); both indicate separation from the world (Ex. 12:48; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 2:12); and both can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom. 2:25; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; 11:28-30). Likewise with the Passover and communion. Communion replaces Passover just as baptism replaces circumcision. Circumcision and Passover involved blood, which were foreshadows of what was to come in Christ by His trial, crucifixion, death, and burial. The blood had to be there.
Some people argue that the covenants are different and that they have nothing in common, but that is false. Look up Jeremiah's description of the new covenant and the usage of it in Hebrews. Read over it a couple times. With the exception of one thing, nothing in that covenant is new to the "new" covenant. In fact, the word for "new" actually means "renewed" or "fresh." It does not mean "brand new." The only thing different about the new covenant is that "they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all will know Me, from the least to the greatest of them" (Hebrew 8:11). In the old covenant, the only people who knew God and communicated God to others were the Levites—the priests. Everyone learned about God through them. In the new covenant, this would no longer be the case. Nothing else about the new covenant is new to it. We can witness all of it back in Genesis and throughout the entire Old Testament. God has always dealt this way with His people (believers).
Under the old covenant, children were included in it. When the new covenant came along, nothing changed. If something had changed, we could expect a command to that degree, but there is nothing. There is never a command saying that children are no longer part of the covenant. In fact, Peter, in his sermon at Pentecost, declares, "the promises are for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself" (Acts 2:39). Also, Paul calls baptism circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12: "in Him you were also circumcised...having been buried with Him in baptism..." Our circumcision is our baptism. The circumcision that matters is not that outward circumcision, but the inward circumcision of the heart. Moses declared this in the Old Testament, yet the Pharisees focused on the external rather than the internal.
Is the new covenant administration more restricted in its reach than the previous case had been under the old covenant administration? No.
Is the new covenant administration less encompassing in its reach than the previous case had been under the old covenant administration? No.
If children of believing parents are not included in the new covenant as they were in the old covenant, then children are in a worse condition now than they ever had been previously! If the new covenant no longer includes children as the old covenant did, that means that children are worse off and in a worse condition under it than they had been under the old covenant. That means the new covenant is worse than the old covenant.
But Scripture repudiates this pungent doctrine everywhere, differentiating children of believers from unbelieving parents and their children. How else does one explain 1 Corinthians 7:14 if children are excluded from the new covenant whereby they were included in the old covenant? Why the commands to children in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 if they are not considered a part of the new covenant?
Example: When you were born into whatever country you were born into, were you born with all the rights and privileges that go with being a citizen of that country? or did you have to try and become a citizen later on? The answer is, Yes, you were born with all the rights and privileges of being a citizen, even though you did not know what they were and could not appropriate them to yourself (e.g., the right to vote). As you grew and learned of these rights, privileges and responsibilities, you could either appropriate them to yourself or reject them, in which case you would be considered a traitor to your country.
The same is true with regard to infant baptism. When a child of believing parents is baptized, he/she has available to him/her all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that go with being a child of God. As they grow, it is the parents' duty to instruct them of these rights and privileges. If the child appropriates these to himself/herself through faith, then his/her baptism acts as a witness or testimony that they are covenant keepers and children of God, having the sign and seal of that covenant. If the child does not appropriate these by faith but rejects them, then his/her baptism acts as a witness or testimony that they are covenant breakers before God. Hence all the warnings against apostasy in the Bible.
Baptism does not guarantee one's salvation, nor is it the sign of one's salvation. A baptized infant can grow up and reject all things Christ, thereby proving himself/herself to be an apostate. An adult who made a profession of faith and was baptized only to later reject all things Christ proves himself/herself to be an apostate. In either case, baptism is a testimony against them because both of them are apostates. Baptism is meant to be administered both to the children of believers AND to adult converts.
When we look at the household baptisms in the book of Acts, we can rightly assume that there would have been infants in those households. The likelihood that there were not is too far fetched. Further, for example, when the jailer believed, the Greek is singular, meaning only he believed. However, when his household is baptized, the Greek is plural. It never says anything of his household's faith, yet they were all baptized. Same with Lydia. We see many examples throughout Scripture of how God wants to redeem everything associated with a believer. Noah is a fine example. He is the only one to be said to have found favour in God's eyes, yet because of his faith, God saved his entire family.
Some people argue that baptism should be delayed until there is evidence that they are genuinely converted, but this goes in the face of what we see in Scripture. When they made a profession of faith, whether is was genuine or not, they were immediately baptized. Delaying baptism does not guarantee that an individual is regenerate any more than baptizing infants does. The church in North America delays baptism until they are adults, and yet the recipients of those baptisms prove to be nothing more than unregenerate false converts anyway. By delaying we are being disobedient to the Scriptures. By denying our children baptism we are grouping them together as one with the rest of the heathen, where even the Bible clearly made a distinction between the children of believers and heathen adults and their children.
When trying to learn the truth about baptism, one cannot merely look for the word "baptize" in the Bible. One must study "covenants," "signs and seals," and "children." Doug Wilson was a "believer's baptism only" guy until he studied what the Bible had to say about "children." Then his faith reformed and underwent conversion. Others converted their faith from "believer's baptism only" when they studied "covenants" and/or "signs and seals." When one truly studies what the Bible has to say with an open heart and a desire to know the truth and conform to that truth, they will inevitably believe in infant baptism. Infant baptism has Scripture on its side; it has church history on its side; and it has modern day conversions from "believer's baptism only" to "infant baptism" on its side. The evidence is there. We just need to believe it.