The problem with understanding the purpose of baptism arises when Christians understand it to be a sign of faith, or a sign that one has received forgiveness of sins. When this is what we understand by baptism, then our understanding fails miserably. This problem is not averted by waiting until people make professions at an age of maturity, as has been demonstrated in our churches. We have seen far too many people baptized who do not have faith and/or whose lives clearly demonstrate that they are unregenerate. Further, by waiting until an age of maturity, we are being disobedient and are not following the biblical example. If we examine the book of Acts, any time someone made a profession of faith, they were baptized there on the spot. There was no waiting. If they were heads of their household, their entire household was baptized with them. Baptism was not a sign of their having come to faith, for we see several examples of those whose profession was false, such as Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24) and Demas (2 Tim. 4:10). If baptism was a sign of one's faith, and is for believer's only, then it makes no sense at all why Scripture would contain warnings against apostasy (Heb. 10:28-30).
Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign and seal of the truth of God's promise—to give righteousness to all who have faith—and testifies in one of two ways. One, it testifies to a blessing (that righteousness is given to those of faith); two, it testifies to a curse (that those who break the covenant will be cut off). Baptism and circumcision are different externally, but they are exactly identical internally. They represent the same things: 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).
Matthew Henry, commenting on Romans 2:28-29, wrote: "He is not a Christian that is one outwardly, nor is that baptism which is outward in the flesh; but is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God." Baptism, whether by sprinkling, pouring, or dunking, is merely an outward demonstration of one's being dedicated to God for His purposes and uses. Yes, Scripture supports sprinkling, pouring, or dunking as baptism. Study the individual words out (baptizo, βαπτιζω; baptisma, βαπτισμα; baptismos, βαπτισμος; baptistes, βαπτιστης; bapto, βαπτω) and their usages and interpretations. How can you baptize a table (Mark 7:4)? Baptism does not save, does not regenerate, and does not mean the individual truly belongs to, or will belong to, the Lord. Baptism is not a public declaration of one's faith, as we have proven with Simon Magus and Demas, and we have witnessed rampantly throughout the North American churches.
When you were born, were you born as a full citizen of your country with all the rights and responsibilities thereof? Yes, you were. However, because you were young, you did not know of these rights and responsibilities and could not appropriate them. You had to be taught them. When you were older, you then either embraced them as your own or rejected them, which is treason and demands you leave your country. The same is true concerning circumcision and baptism. The son circumcised on the 8th day had no faith of his own. He knew nothing of the covenant promises and had to be taught it. As he grew, he could then embrace what he was taught by faith and appropriate the blessings unto himself, or reject what he was taught and appropriate the curses unto himself.
The fact that no command was ever given in Scripture revoking the inclusion of children in the covenant is proof positive that infants of believing parents should be baptized. The several examples of household baptisms in the New Testament are also proof positive that infants of believing parents should be baptized. When you study the Greek construction behind these, you will find that one believed (singularly) but the entire household was baptized (plurally), which logically would have included children. It says nothing of their personal faith. If there was a change in the sign of the covenant and children were no longer included in that covenant, the Jews would have been furious because their children were now worse off than they were before. It would be quite understandable as to why. That is why Peter said, "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 2:39).
Those who come to this subject openly, honestly desiring to seek the truth of Scripture and know what it teaches so that they can conform their lives to it, will convert and embrace this doctrine wholeheartedly. God rewards those who diligently seek Him and reveals His truths to those who earnestly and honestly want to know them. Why do you suppose that so many credobaptists are becoming paedobaptists? What credible reason can you give as to their abandoning of credobaptism other than the fact they studied the Scriptures and Scripture convinced them of paedobaptism? Clearly their pre-supposition was toward credobaptism, and all their arguments against paedobaptism demonstrate the utter disdain they had for it. So what changed?
Let's not forget the historical record of the facts. I repeat from a previous blog entry:
If you want to understand this subject better in order to make a more informed decision, there are three excellent books I would recommend:
Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign and seal of the truth of God's promise—to give righteousness to all who have faith—and testifies in one of two ways. One, it testifies to a blessing (that righteousness is given to those of faith); two, it testifies to a curse (that those who break the covenant will be cut off). Baptism and circumcision are different externally, but they are exactly identical internally. They represent the same things: 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).
Matthew Henry, commenting on Romans 2:28-29, wrote: "He is not a Christian that is one outwardly, nor is that baptism which is outward in the flesh; but is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God." Baptism, whether by sprinkling, pouring, or dunking, is merely an outward demonstration of one's being dedicated to God for His purposes and uses. Yes, Scripture supports sprinkling, pouring, or dunking as baptism. Study the individual words out (baptizo, βαπτιζω; baptisma, βαπτισμα; baptismos, βαπτισμος; baptistes, βαπτιστης; bapto, βαπτω) and their usages and interpretations. How can you baptize a table (Mark 7:4)? Baptism does not save, does not regenerate, and does not mean the individual truly belongs to, or will belong to, the Lord. Baptism is not a public declaration of one's faith, as we have proven with Simon Magus and Demas, and we have witnessed rampantly throughout the North American churches.
When you were born, were you born as a full citizen of your country with all the rights and responsibilities thereof? Yes, you were. However, because you were young, you did not know of these rights and responsibilities and could not appropriate them. You had to be taught them. When you were older, you then either embraced them as your own or rejected them, which is treason and demands you leave your country. The same is true concerning circumcision and baptism. The son circumcised on the 8th day had no faith of his own. He knew nothing of the covenant promises and had to be taught it. As he grew, he could then embrace what he was taught by faith and appropriate the blessings unto himself, or reject what he was taught and appropriate the curses unto himself.
The fact that no command was ever given in Scripture revoking the inclusion of children in the covenant is proof positive that infants of believing parents should be baptized. The several examples of household baptisms in the New Testament are also proof positive that infants of believing parents should be baptized. When you study the Greek construction behind these, you will find that one believed (singularly) but the entire household was baptized (plurally), which logically would have included children. It says nothing of their personal faith. If there was a change in the sign of the covenant and children were no longer included in that covenant, the Jews would have been furious because their children were now worse off than they were before. It would be quite understandable as to why. That is why Peter said, "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 2:39).
Those who come to this subject openly, honestly desiring to seek the truth of Scripture and know what it teaches so that they can conform their lives to it, will convert and embrace this doctrine wholeheartedly. God rewards those who diligently seek Him and reveals His truths to those who earnestly and honestly want to know them. Why do you suppose that so many credobaptists are becoming paedobaptists? What credible reason can you give as to their abandoning of credobaptism other than the fact they studied the Scriptures and Scripture convinced them of paedobaptism? Clearly their pre-supposition was toward credobaptism, and all their arguments against paedobaptism demonstrate the utter disdain they had for it. So what changed?
Let's not forget the historical record of the facts. I repeat from a previous blog entry:
In his book Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable, Samuel Miller consults church history. He quotes several church fathers from the third century who speak on the issue of infant baptism. He even refers to a discourse between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius denied that children are born with a sinful nature. So Augustine argued with him that if that is the case, then there is no need to baptize infants. Pelagius agreed to infant baptism and said he knew of no one who denied such a practice. Now, if infant baptism is unbiblical and was not taught by the Apostles, then somewhere in the 200-some years between their deaths and these church fathers of the third century, infant baptism somehow miraculously and mysteriously became the predominant practice without anyone noticing. One minute they were not practicing it and *POOF* the next minute they were, without anybody noticing the slightest change. How stupid do these people think we are?!? The first group of people to question infant baptism were an offshoot of the Waldenses, under a man named Peter de Bruis, referred to as Petrobrussians, 1200 years after Christ. The next group of people to question infant baptism were the Anabaptists 1500 years after Christ. Then later the Baptists under the erroneous interpretations of Dispensationalism and its dividing of Scripture, creating disunity between the Testaments by separating them and creating a "God of the Old Testament" and a "God of the New Testament" when there is only but one God of the whole Bible--in unity! So, for over 1600 years (excluding the Catholic perversion of the practice), until the Baptists came along, the entire Christian church was in unity over the teaching, practice, and defense of infant baptism.Do yourself a favour, Christian, and be like the noble Bereans and search the Scriptures. Put off your traditions, put off your pre-suppositions, put off your personal feelings and opinions, and be like the noble Bereans and search the Scriptures. Seek God's truths with joy and a desire to conform your life to those truths. When those truths confront and challenge your current beliefs, submit yourself to them and conform yourself to them. This is the best advice I can give you.
If you want to understand this subject better in order to make a more informed decision, there are three excellent books I would recommend:
- Why Do We Baptize Infants? by Bryan Chapell
- Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism by Robert R. Booth
- The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge