The Question of Infant Baptism

The following is a three part essay I wrote in response to the reasoning of a Baptist pastor friend. It is not complete, but presents enough information, hopefully, to be worth reading, and will shed some light on the question of infant baptism. Below this essay is another that I wrote on another occasion.

Defining the Question of Baptism in the Christian Faith

This article considers two questions:
1. What does the Bible have to say about baptism: what is it, and what is its role in the life of the Christian believer?
2. Based on that understanding, what should be the role of infant baptism in the church?

We start from some basic premises:

1. The Bible is the final authority on all questions of doctrine. Unless the context demands it, we must take the ordinary meanings of words and phrases, including words and phrases in the original languages of the Bible.
2. The question of whether or not to baptize infants is somewhat akin to whether or not we should preach. Even though not everyone who hears our preaching will be saved, we still have a responsibility to preach to everyone we can. In like manner, even though not everyone who is baptized as an infant will be saved, this does not remove any responsibility we have to baptize infants.
3. If God commands us to baptize infants, it does not matter whether or not every infant who is baptized is eventually saved. We must follow God's commands regardless of the outcome.
4. If we cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that infants must be baptized, then we must examine the question from the perspective that includes the following points:
A. We must look at the cost of baptizing infants if we should not.
B. We must look at the cost of not baptizing infants if we should.

The following conclusions can be drawn based on a general survey of the Bible:
1. There is no place in the Bible where baptizing infants is forbidden.
2. There is no place in the Bible where it clearly indicates that infants were baptized.
3. The Bible commands us to teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Although the command to teach occurs first, the context does not demand that teaching occur prior to baptism. These are simply two things that are done to all nations. They are of equal importance.
In addition, there is nothing in the verses that makes it necessary that we exclude infants from the command to baptize. Clearly, they are not excluded from the command to teach.
4. There are examples in the Bible where an entire household was baptized on the basis of the confession of faith of one member of the family.
5. There are numerous instances where God forms covenants with families or nations.
6. While the salvation of an individual is based solely upon that individual's faith, the context in which faith is produced is almost always that of a community.
7. Although the Bible indicates that baptism is to be done as an act of obedience to God, the context of such references does not preclude that obedience taking place on the part of parents presenting their children for baptism.
8. The type (or symbol) of baptism is circumcision. Circumcision was done to male infants at eight days of age. The male infant did not make the decision to become circumcised. That was the responsibility of his parents and of the community.
9. The act of circumcising a baby is an act done TO him.
10. The act of baptizing a baby is an act done TO him.
11. Indeed, the act of baptizing anyone is an act done to him.
12. A secondary type of baptism is the ritual cleansing bath of the Old Testament, which the Jews call the mikvah. The requirements for ritual cleansing applied to all persons who became ritually unclean regardless of age.

A. If we should not baptize infants and we do so, what is the cost? The most likely and common cost will be a false assurance that baptism has provided the infants with some spiritual benefit that does not exist. The most common form of this mistake is the assumption that many Catholics make that if they baptize their infants, they will become part of the church and be saved, which results in ignoring the question of the nature of salvation, and lulls people into a false sense of security. However, if baptizing infants does have a spiritual benefit, then we should baptize them even if we overestimate the spiritual benefit. The responsibility is to recognize the limitations of the spiritual benefit and not to assume a benefit that does not exist. The Bible clearly commands parents to raise their children with an understanding of God, and with familiarity with the Bible. Baptizing infants can never be used as a substitute for these responsibilities. Nor can baptizing infants serve as a substitute for addressing what is needful for salvation, namely repentance and faith in Jesus. However, anyone who suggests that Lutherans, for example, who baptize infants believe that it is a substitute for sound doctrinal teaching simply does not understand the Lutheran perspective. When I was a child, I would occasionally visit churches belonging to other denominations, and invariably, I was more knowledgeable about the Bible than the other kids in the Sunday School class. I quickly learned that in most denominations where infant baptism is not practiced, the other responsibilities are often equally neglected.

B. On the other hand, if we should baptize infants and we do not, what is the cost? The most likely and common cost is that infants will die unbaptized without ever having learned enough of their mother tongue to understand preaching, and thereby with no opportunity to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour.

This presupposes certain doctrinal assumptions. On the part of people who reject infant baptism, the foremost is that infants are not held accountable for their sins if they die before some age commonly called the age of accountability. This age is defined as being the age at which a child can understand that he is a sinner and that he must repent in order to be saved. This age of accountability is nowhere defined in the Bible, and it also assumes that the ability to understand that one is a sinner is an intellectual or emotional activity, not a spiritual one. The Bible makes it clear that the process of realizing that one is a sinner is a spiritual activity which is induced, guided, and completed by the Holy Spirit. As such, the question of an age by which a child develops a mental understanding of his sinful nature is irrelevant.

On the part of people who practice infant baptism, the foremost assumption is that God will not necessarily save infants who die unbaptized through deliberate disobedience on our part. They believe that it is taking a chance when parents deliberately disobey God's command to suffer little children to come unto Him. We must never presume on God's grace.

In addition, there is one final consideration, and that is what happens to the unbaptized infant spiritually during the period of time before the age of accountability. Does the failure to baptize give the devil a unique opportunity to gain a foothold in the life of such a child, and will this sometimes result in permanent spiritual damage?

Another question which is not germane to our discussion is what happens to the infants of unbelievers who die unbaptized. Since it is not our responsibility to baptize the infants of others without the consent of their parents, the eternal fate of those children is not the topic we should consider, but rather, we should consider the necessity to evangelize their parents, in obedience to the command to teach all nations. Our responsibility to baptize infants, therefore, includes only the infants whose families are part of our church.

God neither tells us in the Bible that baptism is the only means of grace for the infant, nor does He tell us that we are safe in not obeying the command to baptize all nations in regard to infants. The evidence indicates that infants are not exempt from the outworkings and wages of sin, inasmuch as they are physically mortal. This fact must serve as a warning that they may be held accountable for their sins even before reaching an age of accountability. God is not limited in His means of grace; however, we are limited to following God's express instructions. Failure to do so may result in God withdrawing His blessing and protection. If God provides specific instructions that we are to follow, and we fail to do so, God may choose to allow us to suffer the natural consequences. All denominations agree that baptism is something that is done in response to God's command; the difference of opinion lies in the scope of the persons affected by that command. Denominations that practice believer's baptism only also hold that the command is only to believers. Denominations that practice infant baptism hold that the command is to believers and also to the believing parents of young children.

An examination of what the Bible has to say about baptism generally will lead to an understanding of the biblical position on the nature of baptism. This will help settle the question of whether or not we should baptize infants. Is baptism a sacrament and therefore a means of grace, or is it a mere ordinance?

Because the Bible does not tell us unequivocally that infants were baptized, it is understandable that there are differences of opinions and practices between denominations. However, we must ask ourselves whether or not we should remain silent in addressing our fellow Christians of different practice on this question. If we do remain silent, what is likely to be the price we pay? We will address this issue. If, in fact, the spiritual price we may pay for our silence is unacceptable, then we will issue an explicit call to speak out.

Because the Bible does not tell us unequivocally that infants were baptized, it will be useful to look at the practice of the early Church. Were infants baptized during the time of the Apostles? Were they baptized at any time prior to the last ecumenical council in 451 AD? At what point was the decision not to baptize infants made, and on what basis?

We can reasonably assume that Christian doctrine during the time of the Apostles was relatively uncorrupted by cultic heresies. This is not to say that the early Christians necessarily understood certain biblical points as well as we do, particularly in the area of eschatology. Further, it is not to say that we have not since developed better ways of defining and explaining cardinal doctrines. However, despite these problems, we can safely assume that whatever the early Christians who lived during the time of the Apostles believed was being subjected to correction by the Apostles, and that for this reason, what they believed should be reasonably accurate, and should not serve to undermine any cardinal doctrine, or any crucial idea needed for salvation. The same considerations would apply to the period of time spanning the early ecumenical councils, ending with the one in 451 AD. These councils were held to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and were used to define and refine certain cardinal doctrines for the express purpose of rejecting certain heresies, for example, Arianism. We will examine the writings of the early church fathers and other contemporaries to determine what the practice of the early church actually was in regard to baptizing infants. This information does not concern itself with what is correct doctrine. It concerns itself with what the early Christians did, and with early explanations of doctrine. It concerns itself simply and strictly with questions of history.

The fundamental question, then, is not whether or not we should administer baptism to infants, but whether it is ever justified to withhold baptism from them, and it is this question that this article is intended to answer.

At some point organized Christianity became corrupted and ultimately grew into what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church, and this organization held political power, persecuting all others, until the time of the Reformation, when Protestants successfully established themselves. Some Protestant denominations hold that infant baptism was part of the heresy that developed in the Roman church; however, all of the other heresies are clearly shown to have arisen no earlier than the Middle Ages. This would make infant baptism unique in having arisen hundreds of years earlier before the general corruption of Rome.

It should be possible to take the Bible as a totally accurate and complete description of all doctrinal ideas which we will ever have to know. However, it is a fact that some heresies were promoted after the Bible canon was complete, and it was necessary to issue additional statements and to devise additional vocabulary, to define biblical doctrines further in order to counteract the ideas and influence of the heretics responsible. An example of this would be the fact that although the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, the Bible does provide a complete and accurate description of the Trinity, and that it is not contrary to Scripture to use the word "Trinity" to refer succinctly to that body of information. Furthermore, because of heresies that did arise, the term and hence the concept needed to be better defined.

We begin by considering the nature of the covenants that God made with people at various points in history. I will consider only two covenants. The first is the Mosaic Covenant. The second is the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, under which the Church is governed. Or, more properly described, we are under the New Testament, in which God wills to us eternal life as His legacy when He died.

Under the Mosaic Covenant, although salvation is always an individual matter, nevertheless, God acted with people in certain specifically collective ways. The most important of these is the fact that God made a covenant with an entire people. In order to become part of that covenant, all infant boys had to be circumcised. If the boy was not circumcised, then he was not included in the covenant. That act was done at eight days, well before the boy had any capacity to express any views about his personal desires. What was done to include girls in the covenant is not necessary for our discussion, so I will not go into this much more complex (to me, anyway) subject. The decision to circumcise a son was in the hands of parents. Obviously, the command was to parents and to the priests to carry out the provisions that brought the boy into the covenantal relationship with God. For this reason, the decision of Christian parents to have their infants baptized is not outside the scope of God's dealings with people in the past. I am not saying that the fact that God commanded circumcision before a boy was old enough to make his own decision proves that Christians must baptize their infants. I am merely saying that an argument that states that it would be wrong not to allow a child to make his own decision to be baptized or to accept the Christian faith is not supported by precedent. If we are honest with ourselves, we realize that the decision of what faith to embrace is more often than not made by our parents anyway. Only those of us who change our religious beliefs later are exceptions. A sizeable percentage of the world's people never deviate from the beliefs taught to them by their parents. In that sense, the decision of what to believe is inevitably made for us, up to whatever point we choose to change our religion, if that ever happens. More importantly, the Bible tells us that God chose us from the foundation of the world, so the element of choice is not there for us in the first instance.

Another point about the Mosaic covenant that I believe we need to examine is the whole question of ritual cleansings. There were a number of reasons why a person would require a ritual cleansing. Some of them obviously were not within the scope of activity of a child. However, certain of them would be. For example, the person who touched a dead person or an unclean animal had to be ritually cleansed. I once asked if this would include a small child, and my Jewish informant (a Hebrew Christian) said that it would. It would not be uncommon for a child to touch his dead mother, for example. Please note that God made ritual cleansing in the Old Testament mandatory for a number of cases. God has established that cleansing was required, and if a young child is in that position, then it is required for that child. And when the ritual cleansing was carried out, on a very young child, it was always the parents and the priest who made the decision and carried it out. I think this single point about ritual cleansings is sufficient.

There is a body of evidence that suggests that in the same manner that God made a covenant with a people, He also made covenants, and makes covenants, with families. For example, the Bible tells us that God shows mercy to thousands who love Him and keeps His commandments, but visits His wrath on those that hate Him unto the third and fourth generation. What this appears to mean is that God visits wrath on the descendants of people who hate Him, without taking into consideration whether or not the descendants hate Him, except that any descendant can be saved. I think in practice it is obvious that because parents are most often responsible for the choice of religion of a child, the mere fact that a child grows up in a family that rejects God may be sufficient to result in his damnation. This point has always troubled me, and the Bible does not give sufficient information to refute my major concern. For this reason, I have come up with a private explanation which satisfies me, and may well be accurate. It is this: God, being omniscient, knows who would accept Him if given the chance. God, being merciful, makes sure that every person who would accept Him is offered the opportunity somehow. I am mindful of the fact that entire nations have sometimes been cut off from the Gospel completely for many generations, and if God is indeed merciful, then there must be some reason why all of the people born into those nations have had no opportunity to hear the Gospel, even though to human eyes that appears totally unjust. Now, that is negative evidence of the point I am trying to make, but I must take it into consideration nevertheless. Some more direct positive evidence is contained in I Corinthians 7:14. In this passage, Paul tells us that an unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse. This is necessary because if this were not true, the children would not be holy. Now I think it is correct to say that anabaptists use this argument in support of the withholding of infant baptism, because this would tend to indicate that it is unnecessary. But the argument actually cuts both ways. The way it seems to me is that this passage indicates that because one of the spouses has entered into the New Covenant, God honors that covenant on behalf of that person's spouse and children as well. This is evidence that God makes covenants with families, which is the point I am trying to make. Further evidence of God making covenants with families occurs in two passages in Acts where the Apostles baptized an entire household on the basis of the confession of faith of one member of that household. In studying those examples, I do not find an explicit idea that each family member in turn had to confess faith. To say that they had to is an argument from silence, and logically invalid. The information is not there. Period.

Obviously, this concept that God makes covenants with families must be reconciled with the other concept, namely, that each of us must believe for himself in order to be saved. Such a reconciliation must not result in any contradictions. Whatever view a person has of infant baptism must take this into account. Persons who are opposed to infant baptism on the grounds that one can only be saved by faith argue that one should not baptize for the purpose of giving an infant eternal life. Unfortunately, if the only way we can be saved is by faith, then there is no way an unbelieving spouse can be sanctified. How do we explain this apparent contradiction? I believe that the best explanation is that if an unbeliever is married to a believer, and he keeps his marriage vows, that God will act specially in the life of the unbeliever, and will give an extra measure of grace. Most likely, this will result in the unbeliever ultimately accepting Jesus as Saviour and Lord. As far as I can determine, this is the best explanation of I Corinthians 7:14. The rest of the passage also explicitly says that it is possible that the faith of the believing spouse can in some way bring about a receptivity to the Gospel on the part of the unbelieving spouse. If salvation is strictly an individual matter, and there is no hint of God ever acting on behalf of families, then this verse makes no sense. In the same way, it is said that a mother's prayers for a wayward child are among the most powerful. That is to say, the mother will pray more earnestly than just about anybody else, and God will heed her prayers just because of her earnestness and sincerity, and because of His love, and because, I believe, of the fact that God makes covenants with families, and that child is holy, because his mother is a believer. I have no knowledge that the Bible specifically supports the notion that God looks favorably on the prayers of a mother, but I believe the Bible supports it by example.

A chief argument of Baptists used against infant baptism is the idea of an age of accountability. This concept, according to which God will not hold a younger child liable for his sins, who therefore does not need baptism, is not supported by scripture. Two verses serve to refute that idea. The first is, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." In other words, we are conceived with a sin nature. The second, "The wages of sin is death." The fact that infants are mortal then proves that they have a sin nature, and that they will pay the price of sin unless God intervenes. There is no biblical evidence that there is any exemption made for a child of tender years, and personal experience bears out the fact that young children are quite capable of being rebellious, even well before they know any words of their mother tongue. Presumably the passages that make note that without the law there will be no sin are used in support of the idea that until a child is aware of the sinful nature of his acts, he will not suffer the penalty of sin. However, that misses one very obvious fact: prior to the giving of the law, people still died in their sins, and went to hell.

Another consideration is the sovereign election of God, namely, the fact that He chooses people from the foundation of the world. This is clearly biblical. This being the case, there is no biblical argument that makes sense which supports the idea that a person has to be allowed to choose for himself, as opposed to an argument that parents have an obligation to bring their young children to Christ as He commanded. Clearly, if God sovereignly chooses to save some people, He has not consulted them, and there is every reason to believe He places those people as young children in homes where they will be nurtured in Christ. Why this should not include baptizing them is entirely unclear.

The point I want to make, then, is that there is ample biblical evidence that God has acted in ways that include infant baptism as a possibility. In other words, the Baptist arguments I have heard against infant baptism in this regard do not square with what I have found in the Bible.

First, I want to consider various Bible verses that deal with baptism itself. I will consider only those verses that seem to explain either meaning or practice, instead of automatically including mere accounts of what happened during John the Baptist's ministry. I will first consider a number in the order in which they occur in the Bible, and discuss the others later. I do this in order to develop my arguments.

Mark 16:15-18: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." There are a couple of points I want to discuss in regard to this passage. The first is that this is a repeat of the Great Commission at the end of the book of Matthew. It does not specify who is to be baptized, but goes on to point out that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, but whoever believes not shall be damned. The omission of the condition of baptism, either positive or negative, in the second part is significant, I think. I think that it indicates that baptism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for salvation, and therefore, failure to be baptized does not condemn a man; only failure to believe. We would all agree on this, I think. So what is the significance of baptism? Is it required that believers be baptized? I think the fact that the thief on the cross was saved without it would indicate that it is not necessary. However, that was an exceptional circumstance, one of several I will consider. It would be fair to say that salvation without baptism is possible in unusual circumstances, but it does not make salvation without baptism normative. It also does not tell us whether or not baptism can be a precursor to salvatory faith. I think the most that we can glean from this passage is that it is desirable that believers be baptized. The question of whether or not an infant who has not expressed his belief could be included in believer's baptism. I think perhaps much is made of the order of events. Believing comes first; baptism comes second. Is this significant? Only the examination of other passages might tell us. I included the next two verses because not everything mentioned that believers will do is something that most of the church today accepts as normative for today, including both you and I. It does indicate that it is not merely apostles that will do these things; but believers, which includes people other than apostles. This point has to do with another discussion that I will get to at another date: the issue of whether or not believers have the authority to forgive sins or announce forgiveness to other believers. I do not believe that the two verses have any significance on the question of infant baptism except that they are an indication that there is a new era to follow shortly, which differs from the era in which Jesus lived on earth, and for this reason, it can be inferred that there will be a change in baptism from John's baptism as well, which is borne out in other passages. The corresponding passage, Matthew 28:19, I discuss further below.

John 4:1-2: "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)" The reason this verse is of interest is that it indicated that Jesus' disciples were baptizing during Jesus' lifetime. So baptism at that point was not confined to John the Baptist. I do not know the significance of this, but I think it reinforces ever so slightly the comment I made earlier that there will be a change in the nature of baptism after the church is formed at Pentecost, because the apostles continued to baptize, but now they did it differently.

Matthew 3:16: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." Mark 1:9-10: "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" Luke 3:21-22: "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." John 1:32-33: "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." Matthew 3:13-15: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him." I consider these passages together because they are all about the same incident. The first thing that I observe from this is that when John baptized Jesus with water, the Father baptized Jesus with the Holy Spirit. This is not definitive of whether or not any person who is baptized with water will also receive the Holy Spirit, because Jesus is God. However, we do know that people do receive the Holy Spirit. These passages merely serve to illustrate the possibility that people may receive the Holy Spirit at baptism; it is not outside the realm of possibility. The final comment has to do with the reason Jesus came to be baptized of John. It was so all righteousness could be fulfilled. In other words, it was part of what Jesus did to live the perfect life in our stead. This means that if we fail to be baptized, Jesus' perfect life covers our failure. Does this mean that baptizing infants is unnecessary? No more so than that it is unnecessary for us to try to live a godly life as evidence of the fruit of our faith! Even though Jesus lived a perfect life in our stead, we are not exempt from living godly lives, and if we have faith, we will do so. In other words, it is reasonable to infer that if people are supposed to be baptized, the fact that Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousness does not excuse our failure, if we have the opportunity. So this passage does not excuse neglecting to baptize infants. For the same argument that can be used to excuse such neglect can also be used to justify living as we please so that grace may abound more, as Paul says. And his response: God forbid. Romans 6:1. The question I must ask in light of this passage is, "Is withholding of infant baptism an example of us doing something contrary to God's command so that God must produce more grace to make up for our failure to follow His command?" I think one of the major problems with the discussion all along has been that the question is misphrased. Instead of asking, "Should we baptize infants?" we should be asking "Do we have any right to withhold baptism from them?" Is it a sin to withhold baptism? A partial answer is in Matthew 19:14: "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." The issue here is that God prefers a childlike faith, and that childlike faith is most likely to occur in children. There is every indication that God sends faith to young children, and as we know, the only way this happens is by the Holy Ghost. We can or have established that understanding salvation is a spiritual thing, not a mental thing, and that the Holy Spirit is all powerful, and it is He that instructs us in truth. The Holy Spirit, being all powerful, can and does instill faith in young children. We are forbidden to keep them away from Jesus. We cannot physically bring children to Jesus' feet, but we can bring them into Jesus' presence in church, and if they desire to be baptized, and obey God's command to be baptized, but cannot yet speak to ask for it, then are we forbidding them from receiving baptism by not providing it?

Another partial answer is in Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." We must ask: is it an offense to a little one that believes in Jesus to keep him from baptism? If the Holy Spirit dwells in him, then he will desire it! If he cannot yet speak, then we are running the risk of offending him by not providing it. We need to answer this question honestly. In the earlier passage, Jesus rebuked the disciples for preventing parents from bringing their children for Jesus to touch. How can Jesus touch them today? Not with physical hands. But since Jesus is the Water of Life, can Jesus touch them through the waters of baptism? Are pastors, who are the modern equivalent of disciples (as close as we can come), offending Jesus and these little ones by instructing parents not to bring their children for baptism? If you cannot affirmatively answer that baptism is to be withheld, then we run a grave risk of offending Jesus by withholding it. The Bible nowhere commands us to withhold baptism from infants.

Next, I want to consider the Book of Acts. This book tells us what people did. It does not tell us everything they did, but it does tell us some things. I take them in the order presented.

Acts 2:38-39: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." This passage records something Peter said at Pentecost. This was an event that took place in a single day, and for that reason, the only instruction in the Christian faith which people received happened within one day. This shows us that extensive instruction is not a prerequisite to baptism, particularly in light of other passages where baptism also took place shortly after first contact with the baptizee was made. Now this passage is very, very interesting. The first thing we learn from this is that repentance and baptism go hand in hand. They are supposed to take place at the same time. The second thing we learn is that somehow both repentance and baptism are tied into receiving the Holy Ghost, and receiving forgiveness. The question we must ask is, can a person receive the Holy Ghost at a totally different time from his baptism, even though he has repented? We cannot rule out the possibility that both are necessary. It could be said that if repentance without baptism is sufficient, so should baptism without repentance be sufficient! Another thing we can examine is the order of events. They are as follows: repentance, baptism, forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit. This implies that repentance must come before baptism. However, I think you and I and most Christians would agree that we cannot repent until we receive the Holy Ghost! What! Things are chronologically out of order here! The only thing we can conclude from this is that the order in which the events were given is not a chronological order. The passage goes on to say that the promise is to us and our children. Does it say, the promise is to us, and our children when they reach the age of accountability, or any other age, for that matter? Not at all. (The United States Constitution says that the blessings of liberty are for ourselves and our posterity. Anybody with a brain can see that applies to the unborn as well. It is part of the English language that when we speak of children, we speak of children of all ages. Is Greek any different?) I examined the Greek word used for "children" here. It is "teknoiV." This word has the connotation of a human who has been either conceived (as of the father) or borne. So for this reason, it would appear that Peter is talking about all children who have actually been born. We could argue it includes the unborn also, but it is not physically possible to baptize them (we can only baptize their mothers; but they already live in fluid, and perhaps Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus is instructive here.) So we are not asked to do the impossible, but it becomes possible to baptize them as soon as they are born. This promise is not only to the persons to whom Peter currently speaks, but to their children also. The promise includes two acts that we are to do: to repent, and to submit to baptism. And these two acts coupled together result in remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost. So if we expect our children to repent, shall we not make sure they receive baptism at least at the same time? Is it then not appropriate that the first time our baby says "I'm sorry," that we would immediately baptize him? Why put it off until he asks for baptism? Going further, if the Holy Spirit is necessary for repentance, then are we preventing our children from repenting by not baptizing them so that the Holy Spirit will immediately cause them to repent???

Next we examine Acts 10:47-48: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Interesting! Here receiving the Holy Ghost preceeds baptism. So it can occur in any order. If one can be baptized first and then receive the Holy Ghost, then infant baptism becomes possible. If we can receive the Holy Ghost either before or after baptism, then the order in which they occur becomes unimportant. The thing that remains important is that we both repent and receive baptism. So if we want to baptize an infant before we know he has received the Holy Ghost (and thus the capacity to repent), we are well within our rights to do so. Please note also that forbidding water (i.e. baptism) is not the accepted answer to the question!

In Acts 13:24 "When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel" we learn that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. That point is necessary for another point I will make later on.

Acts 16:15: "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." and Acts 16:33: "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." both tell us of a case where one person acted, and as a result, his entire household was baptized; first Lydia's household, and then the jailer's. While we have no way of knowing whether or not either household contained very young children, it does establish the principle that baptism can occur because of the faith or acts of another, and that the Apostles baptized under these circumstances. Thus, we do no injustice to Scripture to baptize an infant based upon the faith and acts of his parents. There is no evidence in either passage that anything more than merely being a member of the household was necessary to prompt the apostles to baptize.

Acts 18:8: "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." This passage does not explicitly say the household of Crispus was baptized, but it implies it. It also states that his entire house believed. It also further indicates that the apostles frequently baptized entire households.

Acts 18:25: "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John." This passage indicates, again, that the baptism of John was something different from what baptism in the church was to become.

Acts 19:3-6: And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." This passage further indicates that the baptism of John was different from baptism in the church, and that the baptism of John was replaced by the baptism of the church. As soon as they were baptized, they received the Holy Ghost. It might be inferred from this passage that both the baptism and the laying on of hands was necessary for them to receive the Holy Spirit. If so, then we can take care of this in the case of infants by doing both. (This is done in the Lutheran church.) The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. The baptism of the church is more than merely a baptism of repentance, though it includes the baptism of repentance. Notice that in each case we have examined where a baptism took place, the receiving of the Holy Ghost took place on the same occasion (if it had not already happened.) The two are linked together somehow.

Acts 22:16 tells us, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Oh, now we have it. Being baptized washes away sins. Baptism is more than a mere ordinance. It conveys several spiritual blessings, including the Holy Spirit, and forgiveness of sins. I don't think the case could be more clear. Do we have a right to deny our infants the spiritual blessings that go with baptism? Let us talk about whether or not this means that baptism is a work that earns us salvation. I see it this way: If we insist that only believers can be baptized, and they do it so that they can fulfill a command, it is a work. If this is the case, then we are getting the Holy Spirit and forgiveness because of a work. We have a theological problem here. Bear in mind, however, that we cannot baptize ourselves. It is something that must be done to us. Does it matter whether the agent is God Himself directly, or a Christian acting on God's command? Preaching is done by humans at God's command. If faith cometh by hearing, then we are executing God's commands when we preach, and we are His agents. Then we can likewise baptize in response to God's command (Matthew 28:19) and in the same manner, God acts through us as we act as His agents. So baptism is not a work. I find Baptist theology flawed in stating that it is an ordinance, because that makes it a work, an obedience to a command. Because we do not do baptism to ourselves, but must have it done to us, then it becomes an act of God, and rather falls within the scope of God acting within the sphere of His sovereign election, which we discussed earlier. It becomes entirely appropriate for parents, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to baptize their infants, because they have been assured that the faith of one of them sanctifies their children already, so there is some mechanism of God's sovereign election already at work. They are merely acting at God's command, again, so that God will carry out His work of redeeming us, at His sovereign election. We know that no one was ever baptized by God without His acting through a human agent (remember the passage where it said that although the Pharisees claimed that Jesus was baptizing, He in fact was not, and that He baptized no one, which means that all baptisms take place as a result of the actions of human agents.) What is the difference between a pastor baptizing someone as God's agent, and parents presenting their children for baptism, as God's agents?

Having exhausted Acts, we turn to the Epistles.

Romans 6:3-4:"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." This is further evidence that baptism is more than a mere ordinance. It is an act by which we were incorporated into Jesus' death! There is also the implication that when we are baptized, we receive the benefits of Jesus' resurrection (and we all know that means that we will be raised from the dead on the last day.)

I Corinthians 1:16: "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." This is another example of an entire household being baptized. It does not tell us how many confessed, but merely that the apostles were in the habit of baptizing entire households. This is the fourth example, and clearly indicates this was a practice.

I Corinthians 10:1-2: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" This is an Old Testament example of baptism, and included children of all ages.

I Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." This verse is part of a much longer passage that includes a description of the church as the body of Christ, and continues with the famous passage I Corinthians 13, where it is shown that agape, which is self-sacrificing love, is the most important fruit of the Spirit, greater than all the gifts. This verse says we are all baptized into the body of Christ, which includes everyone who is a member of the true church or body of Christ. If we do not baptize infants, then they are excluded from the body of Christ, and hence the church, and are excluded from the blessings thereof, one of which is salvation! I think it is clear this is why (as I shall quote later on) the early church fathers baptized infants, because they believed it was the only way infants (who cannot yet understand the spoken word) could become part of the church, which is the body of Christ, a fact clearly understood at that time, before the clouding resulting from the Roman juggernaut, which made the church over into a hierarchical structure, not a corpus of all believers. In sum, the early church fathers baptized infants because it was the only way to bring children into the body of Christ, which is part of what happens when we are saved.

Galatians 3:27-28: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Here we have further evidence that baptism is more than a mere ordinance. When we are baptized, we put on Christ. The passage goes on to say there is no distinction between male and female (among others). This is significant when we realize that at one time, some leaders prohibited women from being baptized. Is this the same thing as prohibiting infants from being baptized?

Ephesians 4:4-6: "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." This passage is sometimes used to argue that people who have been baptized as infants should not be rebaptized. I see it more as a claim that there is no distinction between different baptisms as long as they are done in the name of the Triune God. Somehow, here we see that the body of Christ is linked to the Spirit, the calling of God, the Lord, the faith, the Father, and baptism. They are so inextricably linked that it is impossible to envision any of them with another of them missing. Thus, it is unthinkable to withhold baptism from infants, if they are of Christ, because all of these things are inseparable. For us to single out one of these and deny it to children is nonsense.

Colossians 2:12: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This verse should be particularly read in context, also. It is clear that here baptism is linked with being quickened, being forgiven, and with spiritual circumcision. It is linked with blotting out our sins, and of the law, which binds us to damnation. This passage is even plainer than Romans 6, and indicates that when we are baptized, we are also baptized into Jesus' resurrection, which signifies that someday we will rise to be with God in eternity in heaven. Here, again, baptism is much more than a mere ordinance.

I Peter 3:21 is considered below.

The final passage I will discuss here before I back up and catch the ones I did not discuss the first time through is Hebrews 6:1-7: "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." I think this passage does not tell us a whole lot about our question. I think it is telling us that the discussion of the meaning of baptism should long ago have been settled, and that if we don't lay it to rest, then we are trying God's patience and running the risk of apostasy. Interestingly, it admits of the possibility of apostasy, which strongly implies that we can be in a position to receive salvation and subsequently reject it. I will discuss that another time.

I want to examine John 3:1-7, the story of Nicodemus, because I believe it is relevant, and I think it has been used to argue one case or another regarding baptism. "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." I remember some people claim that the water spoken of here is not the water of baptism, but the fluids of human birth. I think the only reason why someone might want to say that is because if he did not do this, then it would make baptism necessary for salvation. I believe that ordinarily baptism is necessary when it can be done. God makes exceptions where baptism is not possible, but I believe we cannot count on God to make exceptions where baptism is possible, and we neglected it. But I want to speak of this suggested interpretation. It is obvious that the claim that it is necessary to be born of the fluids of human birth, as you suggest, means that all unborn children who die before birth are condemned. I don't think most people mean that, and I certainly do not believe it. Since the logical consequences of the belief that "water and the spirit" refers to human birth means to deny that aborted or miscarried youngsters cannot be saved, I cannot accept the argument that this is what is meant by this passage. I think most people also reject the notion that they cannot be saved. I think that disposes of that argument, and we have no choice but to admit that the water spoken of here is the water of baptism. This speaks to us of our duty. On the other hand, we cannot apply our duty to children who are aborted, and thus, we must leave them within God's mercy.

The next passage I want to consider is Romans 10:17: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." People often mention this verse as evidence against baptism having any value beyond that of a mere ordinance, that is to say, against baptism washing away sins or conveying faith. I would like to consider several aspects to this particular argument. The first has to do with the verse itself. There are several things I think it is fair to say about the verse. The first is that the verse does not say, "Faith cometh only by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." This particular argument using this verse presupposes that the word "only" is implied. I cannot accept this because it leads to a logical absurdity. If the verse means that faith cometh only by hearing, then deaf people cannot be saved. Neither can people who get ahold of a copy of the Bible, and read, and therefore develop a saving faith. We know that there is ample evidence that deaf people do get saved, and that people do develop faith based on reading the Bible. What does this then mean? I believe that it means that the verse can only reasonably be interpreted to mean that ordinarily faith cometh by hearing, or that hearing is the major way in which faith happens. In other words, it states one way faith happens, but it is not exclusive. So the possibility that there are other ways faith can happen is definitely real. Let us examine it from another angle. Suppose that lots of people hear the word of God. We know that some percentage of them will never develop saving faith. Why is this? One of the major reasons is because we cannot have faith unless the Holy Spirit enters into our hearts and works faith in them. So on the other side of the coin, hearing is not the only condition necessary for faith. The Holy Spirit is also necessary. In fact, to put it bluntly, the only necessary condition is receiving the Holy Spirit, and the question we are asking is, by what various means do believers receive the Holy Spirit? Hearing the word of God is one way. But the verse in no way precludes the possibility that we can receive the Holy Spirit in some other way.

My brother-in-law, a Lutheran pastor, put it quite well. He said, God is not limited in how He dispenses grace, but we are limited to following God's commands. That is to say, we are not at liberty to ignore any of God's commands, even though God may dispense grace even when we are disobedient, and there is nothing stopping God from dispensing grace however He chooses.

In this regard, I want next to consider Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." I have heard this verse used to argue that one must teach before one can baptize. Again, this is not explicit. There is nothing about the verse that makes it mandatory that teaching must occur first. There is every reason to assume teaching and baptizing are to occur simultaneously and teaching continuously. To argue that teaching must come first is to argue from silence. The information that teaching must precede baptizing is not there. On the other hand, it is said that we are to teach all nations. It does not say, that we are to teach and baptize only people above a certain age or at a certain level of understanding. The argument that would prevent us from teaching and baptizing the infant because he cannot yet understand would also prevent us from teaching and baptizing the mentally retarded. That very argument underlies the Nazi philosophy, and Freemasonry, and just about every other wicked elitist ism the world has ever seen. I should make note of the fact that it took the anabaptist churches a very long time to mount any really serious opposition to legalized abortion. Is this because they believed that an aborted baby was better off dead because if he had lived, he might have been raised as a nonchristian? You don't find the infant-baptizing churches, by and large, to have been so lax. But again, the mere fact that a baby can be killed by abortion is support for the idea that the baby is condemned unless God intervenes. Wishful thinking that God will spare them and take them to heaven because they are innocent is not biblical. None of us is innocent. Remember, the Bible says clearly that there is none among us who are righteous, no, not one, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. The doctrines behind the failure to baptize infants can have some serious consequences for millions of people.

Let us look a bit further. Can we teach an infant? Who does the real teaching, in every case, including adults? The Holy Spirit. What kind of learning does the recipient get? Spiritual learning. Is spiritual learning a product of increased mental understanding? No. If that were true, then all persons and only persons with high IQs would be saved. We know this is not the case. The Christian faith is spiritually discerned, and spiritually discerned alone. Yes, doctrine is critical. But the young child is perfectly able to learn correct doctrine, and is actually more receptive. Is there anything to stop the Holy Spirit from acting in the heart of the infant? No. Let us go yet one step further. Suppose that the infant desires to be baptized. If a six year old came to you and requested baptism, would you do it? Possibly you would. You might ask him questions, and discover that he really loves the Lord. Maybe six is too young. How about twelve? Surely if a twelve year old came and requested Christian baptism, you would give it. But what if a two year old came to you and asked for baptism? Such a thing is not impossible. My three year old asked to partake of communion. How would you determine that he understood the Christian faith well enough to be baptized? Would you worry about it? At some point, below some age, a person cannot ask, because he does not have the necessary language skills. At some point, below some age, you cannot ask questions of a person to determine the extent to which he understands the Christian faith. At some point, below some age, your preaching will make no sense to that person because he does not yet understand his native language enough to understand the preaching. If God is going to place a saving faith in the heart of such a young child, it will have to be by some other means than preaching. Or is it being suggested that infants aren't saved by faith? And if the child is going to be obedient to the command to be baptized, he is going to have to have some assistance from some adults who will judge by his demeanor that he wishes it. The child may repeatedly demonstrate his love for Jesus. Is this enough to warrant Christian baptism, or must he explicitly ask for it? And while we are on the subject of obedience, who is to obey the command regarding baptism, anyway? It is the person to whom Jesus gave Great Commission, that's who! Can parents obey the Great Commission on behalf of their children? They must! They must teach, and they must provide the opportunity for baptism, by causing the child to be exposed to a pastor who will do the baptizing upon request. Either that, or they must do the baptizing themselves. You see, baptism is something that is done to someone, not something he does to himself. He can ask for it, but if no one answers his pleas, he will go unbaptized. In the same manner, do we do Christian faith to ourselves, or does God do Christian faith to us? The answer is obvious. God does Christian faith to us. If He did not, then faith would be a work, and that is a contradiction! And so, baptism, like faith itself, is something done to us, with us as passive recipients. Please note that no one can ask for faith! Until the Holy Spirit comes, there will be no faith to ask for it! Note well that when faith is spoken of in the Bible, it is always called the faith of Jesus Christ, not faith in Jesus Christ. Whose faith is it? God's. If it were not, then faith would be a work. So there is ample precedent for doing things to people to save them, without their prior consent. The very idea that we can save ourselves is contrary to the Christian faith. The verb itself is in the passive: be baptized, not in the reflexive: baptize yourself. More on that point later.

The whole thing about the Christian faith is that we receive. We are all recipients. And a person who is baptized passively receives baptism.

The next passage I would like to consider is I Peter 3:20-21. I was once told that this passage was mistranslated into the English, so I went back to the original Greek and studied it for myself. Unfortunately, perhaps, I came away with a very different view from the one I assume people want me to. I will tell you why. Two things struck me in particular about this passage. The first is that it says the water of Noah's flood saved the eight souls, not the Ark. That struck me as quite curious. But the next point struck me even more. I noticed that the English words "in like manner" were a translation of the Greek word "antitupon." I thoroughly studied that Greek word. That word really means, "the antitype." What is an antitype? We know that a type is a symbol. We read that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. In the end, God provided a ram as a substitute. That whole episode was a type of Jesus' death on the cross as our substitute. I could multiply examples, but we both know what a type is. An antitype is the reality of which the type is a symbol. The verse is saying, then, that the waters of Noah's flood were a symbol of the waters of baptism, which are the reality. And that this reality is what saves us. So instead of refuting the idea that we can be saved by baptism, my study reinforced that idea.

Let me pause for just a moment to consider the statement that it is heresy to say that baptism saves us when in fact faith saves us. I agree faith and grace save us. In reality, Jesus saves us, and the Holy Spirit imparts saving faith to us. Can it be said that baptism does not save us? I am not prepared to say that, in light of I Peter 3:20-21. I'm not one to argue with the Bible! On the other hand, I will not claim that baptism alone saves us. Once more, the language does not warrant that. But to deny that this passage does not plainly say that baptism saves us is to argue against the Bible, and I am not prepared to do that.

Let us examine Zodhiates on "antitupon." He says that the antitype is a symbol. I believe this is incorrect, but assuming his analysis is correct, then it would be more accurate to say that baptism is the antitype of the saving of the eight souls in Noah's flood, and that Jesus' death and resurrection are the antitype of baptism. It is reasonable to say that baptism is a symbol of death and burial with Jesus, and the coming out of the water is a symbol of His resurrection. But even if this is true, it does not preclude the idea that the Holy Spirit will choose to act upon the infant when he or she is baptized. If God commands an act, He will bless it if we obey.

But let us go further. The verse goes on to say, "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.)" That part of it caused me a great deal of thought, because to begin with, we have verses that say, Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. If baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh, then why do we say that we wash away our sins? That seems like a contradiction, so there has to be another explanation. The second part of that, I think, is used as an argument against infant baptism. How can baptism be the answer of a good conscience toward God if you do it to an infant? He cannot have a good conscience because he does not yet understand enough to know what sin is, and what it is not, can he? But who gives us our conscience? God does! A conscience is a spiritual entity, not a mental one. Again, if a conscience were a mental thing, then people with high IQs would have the best consciences. We know that often the brightest people are also the most wicked. Then there is the Bible verse that says, But ye are called. If we are called, then we have to answer. Is not a good conscience which is an answer, an answer to being called? I think so.

The next question we have to ask, is whose good conscience? The person who rejects infant baptism assumes the conscience we are talking about here is the conscience of the person being baptized. But does it have to be? Let us go back for a moment. Who built the Ark? Noah did. Did his wife help? The Bible does not indicate she did. Yet she was saved. Who, then, followed God's command? Noah did, and because of his obedience, the entire family was saved. The verse in which Jesus says, Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God, comes to mind. What does it mean to "suffer?" The archaic English means "to allow." We are to allow little children to come to Jesus. That is a command. If we bring our children to be baptized, then, are we not allowing them to come to Jesus? By what right do we withhold baptism from a child who is not yet able to ask for it for himself? Can it then be that the good conscience will belong to whomever is relevant? It could be the believer who asks for believer's baptism. It could be the good conscience of the person obeying the Great Commission. And it could be the good conscience of parents who bring their children to Jesus. If baptism is an ordinance, and we are to obey by being baptized, then what right do parents have to disobey Jesus' plain words to allow little children to come to Him? If obedience to God's command is the issue, then everyone must obey: the unbaptized believer, and the parents of young children. So the claim that it is a mere ordinance requiring obedience, and therefore infants are to be excluded, does not logically hold water. (sorry for that PUNishment!) Finally, I should point out that the infant himself may well have a good conscience, and desire to be baptized, and have no way to ask for it, and may be thwarted in his desire. Because the long term memories of very young children are not good, we cannot ask him later. But I have seen evidence that infants DO desire baptism. If we do not act for him, who cannot ask, then we prevent him from exercising his own good conscience. If the Holy Spirit is acting in his life because his parents are believers (and he is holy, as specified in I Corinthians 12, then he will desire baptism.

Let us go back to the question of why it was the water that saved the eight souls and not the Ark. I don't have all of the answer to that one, because it seems to me that water was the element of destruction here, and that without the Ark, it would have destroyed the family, not saved it. (Zodhiates agrees with this idea.) So why did the water save? The most obvious answer to me is that God inspired Paul to write it was the water because He wanted Paul to emphasize that it is the water of baptism that saves. Of course, this leads to another problem. That is that mere water cannot save anybody. What makes baptismal water special? It is the use of the name of God, in conjunction with the water, that makes it baptism. In baptism, we are to wash in the name (singular, because they share the same essence and name; they are one God) of each Person of the Trinity.

Now, we have reached a point where it might be fair to say that it has been demonstrated that the water of baptism does, among other things, wash away sin. Denial of that is to make the charismatic mistake.

What do I mean by the charismatic mistake? What I mean in this context is that some charismatics claim that there is something distinctive about being filled with the Spirit which is different from receiving the Holy Spirit. The latter is how we come to believe. The former is what we have to do if we are going to grow in grace. So charismatics seek a filling of a Holy Spirit Who has already filled them! The Holy Spirit takes over and fills us the moment we believe, does He not? We agree that this is nonsense, then, to say that there is something further for the Holy Spirit to do after He has first come to indwell in us. In the same way, is it not just a variant on the charismatic mistake to say that there is a distinction between being washed with water and being baptized in the Spirit? Again, the Bible is explicit. We are washed in water and the Spirit. Together. This is not a case of, we are baptized today, and we get the Spirit next week. If we did not already have the Spirit before baptism, then we get the Spirit at the time.

There is some to-do made over some of what was said in the Gospels concerning baptism. John had a baptism of repentance. For this reason, believers were rebaptized. This is clearly told us in the Bible. Why were they rebaptized? Baptists have told me that we may only baptize believers because baptism is a baptism of repentance. This is because of the fact that John always baptized a baptism of repentance. But to use that argument is to make the Adventist mistake.

What do I mean by the Adventist mistake? The Adventists teach that we are bound by the decalogue, including the commandment to worship on the seventh day of the week, because Jesus always went to the synagogue on the seventh day. What the Adventists forget is that the Church age started after Jesus' ascension, and that this did away with the law, nailing it to the tree. Jesus' life was a time of transition between the Old Covenant and the New. What happened during Jesus' ministry is not necessarily normative for us today. So we cannot argue that baptism must be baptism of repentance because that was what John did. In fact, because John's baptizees were rebaptized, clearly the perfect baptism of the New Covenant was not yet. The Trinity had not yet been fully revealed, for one thing. It was only when they baptized in the name of the Trinity that the baptism was normative for the New Covenant.

Further, to argue that baptism for us today must be the baptism of repentance of John is also to make another charismatic mistake. By this I mean to say that charismatics tell us that it is a foregone conclusion that speaking in tongues is still biblical for today. This is to say that the fact that the Bible is complete makes no difference. A variant on that is to say that in spite of the fact that the Bible is complete, and we have a new form of baptism, we are still to make our baptism the baptism of John. A lot of things changed after Pentecost, and a lot more changed when the Bible was complete. I am not trying to argue that we should not couple baptism with repentance. What I am arguing is that we cannot use the baptism of John as an argument for denying baptism to infants, who can, through the power of the Holy Spirit, also repent.

All of this is still inconclusive. For this reason, in the next chapter, we will examine the early church in practice and writings.

Before I begin my discussion, I would like to make note of what I am not claiming. I am not claiming that the evidence of early church history offers evidence of anything more than what early Christians did and why. I am not offering this as evidence of what God said, or suggesting that this information is infallible. I am simply claiming that the early Christians would have been aware of teaching and practice under the guidance of the Apostles, so that what they did probably is indicative of what the Apostles believed they should do based on their special understanding granted by God. This is simply a case of historical evidence of what people did, nothing more.

Recently I ran across something very, very interesting. I wanted to learn if the early church fathers had said anything to indicate that either the church baptized infants, or it did not. I first looked in the Didache. Interestingly, I learned from the Didache that the early Christians did not always baptize by immersion. Presumably the early Christians had a better understanding of just what made something a valid baptism than we do, because they were around watching the Apostles baptize. This told me that one argument which Baptists have often used in favor of their doctrine of baptism is invalid. Immersion is not the key to a valid baptism. I believe it is the use of the word of God, baptizing in the name of the Trinity that makes it valid. One overlooks the substance by concentrating on an incident. I do not reject the desirability of immersion. I simply consider it less than necessary for validity. But even though I gleaned that bit of intelligence, which the Bible certainly substantiates (there would have been insufficient water in prison to baptize by immersion), I failed to locate any reference to indicate whether or not early Christians baptized infants.

The next place I looked was in a number of histories of the early Church. Here is what I found:

"The validity of baptism and the Lord's Supper as proper sacraments was never questioned in the early church. However, the validity of other sacraments was in question for a long time. Confirmation and ordination were being practiced as sacraments in the fifth century. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, held that foot-washing was a sacrament. Matrimony, penance, and extreme unction were added later. The present seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church were not fully established until the twelfth century. In addition to baptism and the Lord's Supper (the Mass), it holds to the sacraments of confirmation, ordination, penance, extreme unction, and matrimony.

"The Reformation recognized only baptism and the Lord's Supper, regarding the others as ecclesiastical or religious usages that do not have the status of sacraments. The mode of baptism in the New Testament is immersion and appears to have been administered only to adults. The unity of the covenant in the Old and New Testaments, and the teaching that there is no salvation outside the church, eventually led to the practice of infant baptism: Origen (185-254) speaks of it as common, and in the fifth century it was the general practice of the church. We cannot here discuss the much debated question of the Lord's physical presence in the sacrament of communion. However, it is clear that, like so many fundamental theological and ecclesiastical questions, its origins lie in the thought and practice of the early church." Boer, Harry R, A Short History of the Early Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 1976, pp.144-45. (Dr. Boer was a Nigerian missionary for the Christian Reformed Church. He studied at Union Theological Seminary and The Free University of Amsterdam.)

What do we learn from this quote? First, we learn that the early church (at least as far back as Origen), regarded baptism as a sacrament, not an ordinance. Second, we learn that infant baptism was common by the time of Origen. This is at worst a full sixty years before Christianity became the state religion of Rome, which is the earliest date we can cite for the beginning of Romanism, or what is presently the Roman Catholic Church. (To grant any earlier date for Romanism is to fall squarely into the trap of the Roman claim that it is the only true church.) For that reason, infant baptism was not a Roman Catholic thing. It was an early Christian thing. Thirdly, we learn that it appears baptism was only administered to adults. What the author has not really said is that history is silent on the question of baptizing children, and so he is presenting an argument from silence. Of course, we must assume he was being objective, because the Reformed Church, to my knowledge, has always been a church to baptize infants. Finally, we learn that the reason for infant baptism was because there was only salvation within the church, and one became a member of the church through baptism. Think about that for a moment. What is the church? We have come to think of it as possibly a building. Roman Catholics want us to think of it as an institution, an ecclesiastical structure of chains of authority. But the Bible clearly tells us that the church is the body of Christ. If the early Christians believed that the only way an infant could become a member of the body of Christ is through baptism, this tells us something about their understanding of what the body of Christ really was. But the next quotes are even more interesting:

"b. The teaching in Hermas' Shepherd concerning baptism. As we have seen, baptism removes all past sins and there can be only one repentance after baptism. This view certainly finds no support in the New Testament. On the contrary, in the New Testament baptism represents the renewal of the heart, new birth, which makes it possible for us to resist sin or to repent of it when we commit it. As a result of this widely believed teaching set forth by Hermas, many believers in the early church refused to be baptized until very late in life or even until they lay on their deathbed. The most notable example of this practice was the emperor Constantine." Boer, p. 34. Note that Constantine made Christianity the state religion in 313 AD. I regard this as the earliest possible date for Roman Catholicism.

"Hermas taught that there could be only one repentance after baptism." Boer, p. 39.

Who was Hermas? Boer tells us: "The Shepherd of Hermas is the longest of the writings described here. It consists of visions, heavenly commands, and many parables of the Christian life. Its chief concern is repentance that leads to baptism. At baptism all past sins are forgiven. After baptism, it is possible to repent of sin and be forgiven only one more time...Associated with this theme is a constant emphasis on holy living." p. 32.

Very interesting! The basis for delaying baptism comes out of the writings of someone who was just as squirrely as Ellen G. White! (White was the false prophet of Seventh-day Adventism, a cult based loosely on Christianity.) Furthermore, Boer tells us on page 31 that Hermas of Rome wrote in 100 AD. Hermas was regarded as an Apostolic Father, and wrote shortly after the Apostles all died. This means that he lived in the age when the clear understanding of Apostolic practice was still widespread, from personal experience of the people. This dates the beginning of the practice of delaying baptism to well before any hint of Romanism, and means also that to begin with, it was not delayed. The Didache indicates that when adults were baptized, they were first instructed. There is no indication that they first instructed children.

Some time back, I was told that in the Catacombs, there are many Christians buried. At each site, the name of the Christian, his birth date, his baptismal date, and his date of martyrdom are all indicated. These sites indicate that some of the baptized and martyred were infants. I am still trying to track down something more definitive on that. One thing I plan to do is to contact Biblical Archaeology Review and ask them to send me a copy of any articles they may have run on this subject. (I realize their editorial bias is contrary to what we believe, but whether or not there were dates for infants who were baptized and martyred is an objective fact.)

"How early the custom of infant baptism arose it is impossible to say; but it was undoubtedly observed as early as the second century. Some Christians opposed the practice on the grounds that in later life a person baptized in infancy might fall into grievous sin and hence lose his hope of eternal salvation." Shepherd, Massey H., Jr., "The Rise of Christianity", A Short History of Christianity, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press: 1940, p. 27. Massey is Instructor in Divinity, Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This confirms Boer. This also traces the practice of infant baptism back to a good 100 years before the emperor Constantine. Again, we have an author who has no axe to grind as a Baptist. One of the things that concerns me is the fact that often historians will allow their work to be influenced by their theological perspectives. I was afraid that I would be unable to get accurate documentation for that reason. But when a person who favors infant baptism says that it was practiced at some point after apostolic times, but does not document it earlier than that, I am inclined to trust him, because his predilection would be to try to place it at apostolic times to prove a point. The fact that neither of these authors did so indicates, to me, their objectivity. On the other side of the same coin, should I encounter a Baptist historian who stated that he had evidence that the Apostles baptized infants, I would infer that he had no Lutheran axe to grind, and would be inclined to accept his evidence. At the same time, there are other ways to check veracity. One is to go to primary sources, and the other is to see the degree to which various authorities agree. One can also decide just how far into a definite conclusion the evidence warrants going.

"All Christians were clear that to the unbaptized, God would forgive any sin but since baptism washed away all previous sins, what would happen if a major sin were committed after baptism? The heathen in this respect had an advantage because for them the gates of mercy were forever open. The Christians ran a grave risk by using up baptism. For that reason some chose to wait until their deathbeds in order that the roster of their sins might be complete. Constantine did this and Tertullian advised waiting at least until after marriage by which the character is formed.

"But most Christians were baptized following conversion and Tertullian is our first witness to the practice of infant baptism. Could such Christians obtain a second forgiveness? Through martyrdom they could, for this was the baptism of blood corresponding to the baptism of water. But could forgiveness be granted to those who had failed the test of martyrdom? This question is raised in the book of Hermas written in Rome about the middle of the second century. What should be the treatment of those who had denied the Lord in the persecutions. The conclusion of Hermas was that the Lord would grant one more chance and would forgive those who repented with a whole heart." Bainton, Roland H., Early Christianity, D. Van Nostrand Company. (I don't have a copyright date or city in my copy; they have been ripped out.) pp. 42-43.

Dr. Bainton was on the faculty of Yale University as Titus Street Professor Emeritus of Ecclesiastical History. He got his BD and PhD from Yale. Bainton wrote a famous book on Luther called Here I Stand. I always regarded him as a Lutheran author, but I don't know for sure. Clearly, he wrote earlier than the other authors. Equally clearly, Bainton has not found the earlier sources on infant baptism cited by the other two authors.

This quote is further confirmation of the other two sources. Boer says that Tertullian lived from 150-220 AD. p. 85. He agreed with the teachings of Hermas on baptism. p. 39, according to the index. (The text is not quite so clear.) Boer also says that Tertullian left the Roman Catholic church and became a Montanist because of the lack of spirituality in the Roman church. That is very interesting, because it puts the Roman Catholic church way too early in history. I wonder what that means. I will discuss Tertullian and Montanism further later.

"Baptism was declared to be valid even if performed by a heretic...The whole African church since the days of Cyprian had repeated the baptism of converts from heretical sects even though Rome had condemned the practice. At Arles the African Catholics abandoned their opposition and aligned themselves with Rome. Then the Donatists conserved the earlier African view. When the Donatists refused to accept the decision at Arles, Constantine heard the case and he too decided against them. Still they would not comply." Bainton, pp. 66-67.

That is also very interesting. There are two sides to that coin. On the one hand, if we do not accept baptism performed by heretics, we are saying that the validity of the baptism depends on whether or not the baptizer is saved or not, which means we can never be sure of the validity of our baptism, because only God can see the heart. Heretics are just more open about not being saved, that's all. On the other hand, if a baptism is performed correctly in a cult, would it be dangerous to accept it as valid? I tend to think it would. If a person came out of a cult, I would be inclined to rebaptize. This is especially true because I believe that baptism in a cult can actually cause a person to become more susceptible to demonic influence. I thought about this a lot when my son accepted baptism at the hand of an Adventist. So how do we come down on this question? I personally come down on this side: If the baptism is done according to the instructions of Scripture, including the name of the Trinity, I accept it as valid, as long as the church has a clear picture of Who God really is, and teaches the true God, which is to say, that at the very least, their Christology is correct. Otherwise, I believe that the baptism is not valid.

"At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. The stream shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it from above when there is no scarcity of water; but if there is a scarcity, whether constant or sudden, then use whatever water you can find.

"They shall remove their clothing. And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them. Then baptize the men, and last of all the women; they must first loosen their hair and put aside any gold or silver ornaments that they were wearing: let no one take any alien thing down to the water with them.

"At the hour set for the baptism the bishop shall give thanks over oil and put it into a vessel: this is called the 'oil of thanksgiving.' And he shall take other oil and exorcise it: this is called 'the oil of exorcism.'... A deacon shall bring the oil of exorcism, and shall stand at the presbyter's left hand; and another deacon shall take the oil of thanksgiving, and shall stand at the presbyter's right hand. Then the presbyter, taking hold of each of those about to be baptized, shall command him to renounce, saying:

"I renounce thee, Satan, and all thy servants and all thy works.

"And when he has renounced all these, the presbyter shall anoint him with the oil of exorcism, saying:

"Let all spirits depart far from thee.

"Then, after these things, let him give him over to the presbyter who baptizes, and let the candidate stand in the water, naked, and a deacon going with them likewise. And when he whis being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus:

"Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?

"And he who is being baptized shall say:

"I believe.

Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say:

"Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the quick and the dead? And when he says:

"I believe,"

"he is baptized again. And again he shall say:

"Dost thou believe in [the] Holy Ghost, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh?

"He who is being baptized shall say accordingly:

"I believe,

"an so he is baptized a third time." "The Statement at Baptism," from The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, Bainton, pp. 138-39.

That is real interesting, because that is very close to the way baptism is done in the Lutheran church. Hippolytus wrote in 235 AD.

"The master commanded me to reveal to you, all the sins which they have formerly committed shall be forgiven them, and they shall be forgiven to all the saints who have sinned up to this day, if they repent with their whole heart, and put aside double-mindedness from their heart. For the Master has sworn to his elect by his glory that if there be still sin after this day has been fixed, they shall find no salvation; for repentance for the just has an end; the days of repentance have been fulfilled for all the saints, but for the heathen repentance is open until the last day. You shall say, then, to the leaders of the Church, that they reform their ways in righteousness, to receive in full the promises with great glory. You, therefore, 'who work righteousness,' must remain steadfast and be not double-minded, that your passing may be with the holy angels. Blessed are you, as many as endure the great persecution which is coming, and as many as shall not deny their life. For the Lord has sworn by his Son that those who have denied their Christ have been rejected from their life, that is, those who shall now deny him in the days to come. But those who denied him formerly have obtained forgiveness through his great mercy." Forgiveness of Sins after Baptism, from Hermas, "The Shepherd." Bainton, p. 142.

So that is what Hermas actually said.

"The Christians appropriated the rite of baptism from John the Baptist. Jesus himself had been baptized by him. It is not known how baptism then arose in the community after his death. In any case, so far as we can see, it is a fixed practice. The Christians, however, distinguish their baptism from that of John: he baptized merely 'with water'; it was only Christian baptism that had the power to bestow the Spirit. (Mark 1:8).

"There are, to be sure, some scholars who hold that in the primitive community, too, baptism was at first only a rite of purification. Its connection with the bestowal of the Spirit is said to have been made first in the Hellenistic Church. There is no doubt that the Hellenistic communities were heavily affected by the works of the Spirit (prophecy, ecstatic experiences, healing of the sick). But such effects were prevalent also in the original community. The most important documentation of this is the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2...

"Thus it must be assumed that from the beginning onward, baptism was administered and experienced as baptism with the Spirit. Its effects (forgiveness of sins, incorporation into the New Covenant people, bestowal of the Spirit) presupposes the 'confession' on the part of the one being baptized: the acknowledgement of his sins (Mark 1:5) and the positive confession of belief in Jesus. Baptism was performed 'in the name' or 'on the name' of Jesus. The utterance of this name is a fixed component part of the rite; the laying-on of hands belonged to it. By this act the one baptized is incorporated into the possession and protection of Jesus, and the saving effect of Jesus' death is transmitted to him. The earliest sources give no further prescriptions for the rite. Yet it is certain that, where possible, the 'baptism' was an immersion. It may be asked whether the baptized was immersed by a baptizer or immersed himself in the presence of the assembled community. The former is the more likely. For one 'is baptized'; there is a 'baptizer' present. Paul says of himself that he was baptized (I Cor. 1:14, 16), Later, the Didache (Teaching of the Apostles...) gives more specific instructions: One is to baptize in 'living' water. If none is available, then one can also baptize in other (i.e., standing) water. If there is no cold water, or if it is not suitable, then it may be warm water. If both are lacking, then it suffices to pour some over the head three times 'in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.' Here, as in Matt. 28:19, the later, three-part formula is already in effect. Originally, however, the one-part formula, 'in the name' of Jesus, was dominant.

"The sources say nothing about the baptism of children or even infants." Conzelmann, Hans, History of Primitive Christianity, Nashville, Abingdon Press: 1973. pp. 49-50.

Conzelmann was professor of New Testament at the University of Goettingen, Germany. The translator, John E. Steely, was professor of historical theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.)

"Baptism removes sins, applies the salvation event to the recipient and at the same time commits him to the Lord, for obedience toward him and protection by him; it bestows the Spirit and therewith also the power to lead a new life. The commitment to the Lord is also the incorporation into his community. The Christian sacrament is distinghished from the non-Christian mystery by the fact that it does not have effect as a rite (ex opere operato) and is not an individualistically understood transfer of saving powers in which the individual would concentrate upon concern for himself. The new life is fellowship of the 'saints,' which has as its norm in the fact that Christ has died for one's brother (I Cor. 8:11)." Conzelmann, p. 76.

The title of this chapter is, "Hellenistic Christianity before Paul."

From other sources, I learned that Tertullian was a Montanist, which is to say that among other things, he believed that because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, people can prophesy and speak in tongues! Reading the description, he sounds like an early version of Ellen G. White. I bring up this point, because, being a Montanist, Tertullian clearly had flawed thinking processes, from our point of view.

"Montanist n. Eccl. Hist. A follower of Montanus, a Phrygian enthusiast of the 2nd century, who claimed that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, dwelt in him." Webster's New International Dictionary, Unabridged 2nd ed.

The Montanist Movement

"A movement quite distinct from both the Gnostics and the Marcionites, but which had wide vogue in the latter part of the second century...and which brought division in the Church, took its name from Montanus, of Phrygia...They represented a revival of the prophets who were prominent in the first few decades of the Church, a call to Christians to stricter living, and a vivid belief in the early end of the world, in the second coming of Christ, and in the establishment of the ideal society in the New Jerusalem.

"At his baptism Montanus "spoke with tongues' and began prophesying, declaring that the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, promised in The Gospel according to John, was finding utterance through him...

"Not far from the time of Montanus at least two bishops, one in Pontus and one in Syria, were expecting the early return of Christ. The one declared that the last judgment would come in two years and those who believed him ceased to cultivate their fields and rid themselves of houses and goods. [shades of the early Adventist movement!] The other led his flock into the wilderness to meet Christ. Since the return of Christ and the last judgement [sic] were regarded as being so imminent, believers were urged to be strict in their living. Celibacy was encouraged, fasting was enjoined, and martyrdom was held in high honour.

"The Montanist movement spread widely...It prized the records of the teachings of Christ and his apostles, but it believed, although not contradicting what had been said there, that the Holy Spirit continued to speak through prophets, and among these it included women...

"The most eminent convert to Montanism was Tertullian...Early in the third century, in late middle life, he became a Montanist and remained critical of the majority church until his death, towards the close of the first quarter of the century."

Latourette, Kenneth Scott, A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, HarperSanFrancisco: 1953, 1975, Volume 1, pp.128-29.

Tertullian also questioned the practice of infant baptism.

"By Tertullian's day the baptism of infants seems to have been common, so much so that he spoke of it as though all Christians were familiar with it. At baptism the children had sponsors who took vows, apparently on behalf of the children. Tertullian favoured the deferring of baptism for infants until they themselves knew Christ and asked for baptism." Latourette, p. 195.

From reading about Tertullian, we know the following:

Tertullian's thinking processes were flawed; he accepted Montanism, and spoke in tongues, (which may have indicated that he had an evil spirit.)

Tertullian criticized infant baptism, in part because he believed that one could only be forgiven once after baptism, and then only by martyrdom, so it was good to postpone it as long as possible. Christianity teaches that forgiveness is given freely by a loving God to all who repent.

All authorities I have consulted agree on the historical facts about Tertullian.

It is time now to draw some conclusions. I can reasonably draw only the following conclusions: 1. There is agreement among the sources on the early history of baptism. 2. Baptism was seen as a sacrament, not an ordinance, and washed away sins and conveyed the Holy Spirit. This was the view of the early Christian church, and the conclusions of Hermas were based on this understanding. 3. These conclusions square with the limited number of actual biblical references to baptism. 4. Baptism was seen as a way in which people became members of the body of Christ. 5. The baptism of infants precedes the earliest possible date for Roman Catholicism by at least 100 years. 6. The practice of reserving baptism for adults arises out of the belief that one had only one chance for forgiveness for major sins after baptism, and so it was to one's advantage to wait to be baptized. This belief was a result of the writings of Hermas. 7. Hermas was quite possibly, almost certainly, a false prophet, in the same way that Ellen G. White is a false prophet. 8. Christians would never have acted on the writings of Hermas in the manner they did if they had not already believed in baptismal regeneration. 9. Thus, refusing to baptize infants grows out of the writings of a heretic. 10. Finally, infant baptism did not grow out of Romanism.

I do not believe that it is necessarily possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we must baptize infants, but I believe it may be possible to prove that we should. So far, in my investigation, I have not come up with a reason why we should not baptize infants. I would like to address that latter point a moment. One of the dangers of baptizing infants, and one of the chief reasons why so many Christians opt against it, is that some people, most notably Roman Catholics, believe that baptism is enough to get into heaven. You realize, of course, that there is a contradiction on that point in Romanism. Romanism also teaches that you have to die in a state of grace (which is the reason for the sacrament of extreme unction), and that you also have to earn part of your salvation, and if this process is not complete before death, it must be completed in Purgatory. I see this as a contradiction of the idea that baptism is sufficient for salvation. However, I recognize that many Catholics act as if baptism is sufficient for salvation anyway. The Lutheran church does not make that mistake. The Lutheran church teaches that a Christian upbringing is essential, and the parents promise to provide one.

Of course, providing a Christian upbringing muddies the waters somewhat. If a child loves Jesus at the age of three, is it because he was baptized, because he was raised in the church, or both? There is no definitive way to determine the answer to that question, but some observations are in order. Of course the observations are not evidence. I have observed that baptized infants as a group pose fewer disciplinary problems than unbaptized ones. This was most striking in the case of my own children, whose total exposure to the Christian faith after baptism was almost entirely my own personal example and teaching, plus prayers over food. My children never reached the "terrible twos." There were some disciplinary issues which just never came up. For example, I never had trouble keeping them quiet when we did go to church, or in concerts. I never had a problem with a child saying a rebellious "No!" I recognize that I have a strong personality, and this may account in part for this, but I have also observed that Lutheran youngsters in general behave in church, and I don't generally hear a rebellious "No!" out of them. I have observed few instances of Lutheran youngsters chasing around like idiots after church. Is this due to the fact that most of my observations were made a generation ago? I don't know. I have also observed that a friend of mine who raised her daughter as a Baptist had all kinds of problems with her at an age when mine were still quite receptive to me. One incident in my own life particularly struck me. Lutherans teach that a person must be instructed in the meaning of Holy Communion before it can be administered to them. This is one thing I did in my home, and I had communion for the children a few times a year. I always explained what it meant, and then we proceeded. Each child was allowed to participate, regardless of age. One time, when Philip was 11 months old, and had had the background of communion in our home, we visited the Episcopal student group run by Dr. Carey Womble (a fine Christian man who remains faithful to Episcopalian orthodoxy). He offered communion to my entire family. Prior to that portion of the service, Philip had been acting up, and I had taken him out a couple of times to deal with him (I am talking about him making minor noise during the service, enough to be distracting). Philip wasn't interested in complying voluntarily with my wishes, so we got a little more forceful. When communion came, he refused it. It is the only time he ever did that. Since he was only 11 months, I have no way of knowing why he did that, but I believed it was because he knew he was not right with God at that moment, and therefore not at that moment eligible to receive it. Of course, on the other side of the coin, we have what has happened to some of my children when they got considerably older. Three of them went through some degree of rebelliousness. Balancing that is the fact that two of them returned to a right attitude fairly quickly. The jury is still out on the other one. But certainly, there would be no reason for her to shun me if she were not being convicted of what she is doing. We all recognize that people can become backslidden. The question is, why do Baptist youngsters act that way at a much younger age, by and large, than do Lutheran youngsters? Another factor that muddies the waters is the fact that we do not give youngsters communion before they are quite old. Surely they need the strengthening of this as much as anyone else. Lutherans should be consistent in their beliefs, and give communion to all baptized children, regardless of age. As soon as they are old enough to understand the explanation of the meaning, it must be given. Prior to that, it is the Holy Spirit's job to instruct them. I remember one time when one of my children (I don't remember which one) was asked what communion was, and he was no more than a year old at the time, and he responded, "It is God's body." I want to get into a discussion of Communion a little later. For now, I want to turn to a different aspect of the question of baptism.

I refer now to The Theology of Infant Salvation by R. A. Webb, DD. Dr. Webb was Professor of Systematic Theology at Southwestern Presbyterian University, Clarksville, TN. The original was published in 1907, and it was reprinted by Sprinkle Publications in Harrisonburg, VA in 1981. I purchased this book to begin with because I saw that Dr. Webb was going to discuss a number of different theological views of the question, and that the question of infant baptism would be one of his considerations. Dr. Webb is a Calvinist. I decided to go into some detail on some of the things he said because I think some of his arguments are typical of what I have heard Baptists say, and although his explanations may be flawed from a Baptist point of view, I think the examination is still worth our trouble. Perhaps it will help highlight some faulty thinking that is less obvious in other explanations.

I am commenting on the book in sequence. First rattle out of the box, unfortunately, Webb says on page 1, "In like manner, the soul has its complement of faculties of thinking and feeling and willing; and psychology is the science which articulates this group of mental phenomena." That statement coming from a believer is very disturbing. Psychology was designed by Sigmund Freud, who was not only opposed to Christianity, but involved in the occult. His study was based on people who were mentally ill, and from that he tried to infer what mental healthiness was. Psychology totally ignores the spiritual factor, and tries to explain everything in purely humanistic terms. It has no knowledge of guilt, nor of the consequences of actions which are contrary to God's commands. On page 4, Webb says, "Mr. Darwin claimed that his memory did not go back of four." From this statement, I infer that Webb accepted the theory of evolution. While this may not be the case, it is more likely than not, for if he rejected it, he would probably not have mentioned Darwin at all. For these reasons, I can infer to begin with that Webb's thinking may be flawed. As I proceeded, I noticed that he relies on reason before he ever discusses what the Bible has to say. He draws the conclusion that all infants will be saved, based on the idea that it would not be just for God to condemn people who have no developed moral capacity. (At the same time, he does not include heathens who have never heard the Gospel in this group, an omission I find curious.) Webb thus puts the capacity to make moral judgments squarely into the category of a natural knowledge. While it is true that natural man has a conscience until he allows it to be seared, it is also true that conscience is a spiritual faculty, given by God. It has no necessary intellectual component. An infant with no instruction in right and wrong can still act as if he is aware that what he did is unacceptable, whether it be due to an innate sense, or merely to the fact that he senses disapproval in those around him. I do not think that it is primarily the latter, unless parents have failed to reinforce his own conscience by letting him get away with things. In the tiny child who does not yet communicate well by language, I have observed either a willing or a rebellious spirit. Of course, a child who screams in anger when he is not fed upon first demand is most likely a child who is insecure. But on the other hand, children who do not readily give an object to a parent who demands its return is showing rebellion. Their body language confirms this conclusion.

Another example of faulty logic is this statement: "Births and deaths are about equal, and six years being one-fifth of thirty-years, the result is that one-fifth of fifty millions of this age die annually, or over twenty-seven thousand die daily under six." pp. 4-5. Webb was talking about the total of the world's population who die as infants. The flaw is in assuming that if so many under thirty die annually, then the number under six would be one-fifth of that number. This is contrary to the facts, and poor logic. Not only would the necessary information to determine that this statement is false have been available to him, but it is a good warning that in areas where the facts may not be known to me, I cannot necessarily trust them as he presents them.

In this first chapter, Webb basically makes the case that a person is not morally responsible unless he has the mental capacity to be aware of right and wrong. I am quite aware that this is the common concept of the age of accountability which is part of the basis of denial of infant baptism.

Webb admits that there is no biblical basis for assuming that all infants will be saved: "Any examiner...will be surprised and disappointed to find that not a single text explicitly and dogmatically tells us what is the fate of infants dying in infancy." p. 11. He states his conclusion on this question thusly: "I here explicitly set it down that I consciously, intelligently, firmly, and devoutly believe that all infants, idiots, and incapables, living and dying in moral incompetency, are finally saved and glorified in heaven." p. 8.

On what does he base this conclusion? He begins by establishing that in human law, a person under a certain age is considered incompetent to take an oath or testify at a trial. p. 4. Webb does not acknowledge that human law carries no weight in spiritual matters. He goes on to say that all churches are in agreement that all infants dying are saved, "Communis consensus hominum," (the common consent of man) and that we go against the weight of the church in disagreeing with "Vox populi vox dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God), p. 6. He says, "At any rate, he who departs from the traditions of Christ's Church, does so at his peril, and accepts the task of ultimately vindicating himself at the bar of sacred Scripture." p. 7. This is clearly an example of the Roman Catholic mistake, by which I mean assuming that whatever Christ's true church decides is as valid as Scripture itself, or put another way, we rely on the Bible plus tradition. If you, the reader, reject infant baptism, we need not go into the reasons why this idea is false; we are in agreement. We have now clearly established that Webb will draw on invalid authority, and that his reasoning ability is not very rigorous. In spite of this, I will consider each of his arguments on its own merits.

Webb goes on to claim that theologians agree with this point. He lists all types of theology, "(1) Pelagian or Rationalistic; (2) Semipelagian or Arminian; (3) Ecceslastical or Romish; (4) Pantheistic or Mystical; (5) Reformed or Calvinistic." p. 9. He goes on to define these: "Pelagianism, for example, grounds the salvation of this class of persons in their SINLESSNESS; Semipelagianism in the UNIVERSALITY OF CHRIST'S ATONEMENT; Romanists in ACTS OF THE CHURCH; Mystics in their METAPHYSICAL UNITY WITH CHRIST; Calvinists in the IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE REGENERATION OF THE SPIRIT." p. 9, emphasis in the original. Webb assumes what he is going to set out to prove. I find the description of Calvinism most interesting; Webb is stating the very basis of infant baptism, because it is because of imputation of Christ's righteousness and regeneration of the Spirit which happens as a result of baptism that makes it a sacrament for Lutherans. In Chapter 2, Webb attempts to examine indirect biblical evidence for universal salvation of the morally incompetent. The section is flawed because he draws on a number of cases where people lived past infancy, such as the situation with Cain and Abel. One cannot use Bible passages about those two, who were judged as adults, as a basis for salvation for the morally incompetent. Webb then goes on to examine some cases where the Bible talks about people prior to birth, such as Jacob and Esau. He admits that Esau evidently was not selected for salvation prior to birth, because God said that He hated Esau from the womb. This should demolish his claim that all morally incompetent persons who die are saved. Evidently, for him it didn't. Some of the individual reasonings in this chapter are interesting as demonstrations of Webb's inability to reason from the facts of Scripture. I give some examples. Genesis 4:26 tells that Eve said that Seth was appointed as a replacement for Abel. Webb states that it was done "evidently by inspiration," a conclusion not stated in Scripture, and that this made Seth appointed as a godly seed. Webb cites Abel and Moses as examples of godly children on the basis that they were physically attractive ("goodly"). But Webb admits that the infant cannot comply with the demands of salvation: "the very gravamen of the debate--turns upon the possibility of the salvation of a dead infant; for the dead infant cannot believe nor comply with any of the conditions of salvation upon which human redemption is proposed." p. 13, emphasis in original. Of course, I have a question about his wording: is he trying to say a dead infant cannot do these things because dead people don't do these things, or is he saying that prior to death, the infant lacked the capacity? He doesn't say. I would quarrel with the idea that a living infant lacks the capacity, simply because the capacity is spiritual, given by the Holy Spirit, Who can give that capacity to anyone He chooses. Lack of reasoning ability is no bar, and not the kind of reason likely to make the Holy Spirit choose not to convey this capacity. Scripture indicates that lack of likelihood by telling us that the best kind of faith is the faith of a small child. Reasoning ability actually gets in the way of the kind of complete trust that God wants us to have.

Webb admits that Esau was selected by God for hatred: "Between these two children a distinction was made which demarcated their lives and destiny for time and eternity: it was God who discriminated between them; and this discrimination was not made on account of their 'works'...for the discrimination was made prior to the birth of both, but the distinction was grounded in the sovereign election of God; and the result was that Jacob was made an object of the divine complacential love and Esau was an object of God's displacent wrath." Exactly. Webb has now disproved his thesis. Does he admit it? No.

In discussing the case of Samson, "a Nazarite unto God from the womb." Judges 13:5, Webb states that Samsons's deeds did not prove he was not saved. His argument is classic, and I don't have any problem with it. He clinches it by citing Hebrews 11:32, where Samson is listed among the saved.

In discussing the illegitimate child of David, Webb points out that David was sad while the child was alive, but after the child died, David put away his sadness and commented that eventually he would go to be with his child. Webb points out that most likely David meant that both would be reunited in heaven. I accept that point. However, Webb goes on to say that the other alternatives are not plausible. He list them as follows: "(1) We are told that all David's words can be made fairly to mean is--I shall go to the dead, but the dead shall not return to me. (2) This child was the monument of David's guilt and shame; and while the father struggled to do a father's part by it while it lived, he experienced a real satisfaction when this child of crime and shame passed out of his sight. (3) It was a peculiar case: it was the product of a double crime of which it was the victim but in which it was not a responsible partaker; equity and fair dealing demanded compensation for the child and retribution upon the father: so God took him: his case was exceptional, even if he were saved, and cannot safely be construed as typical and didactic as to the fate of all dead children." p. 22. I side with the author in rejecting all of these alternatives. However, there are several alternatives which Webb does not list which would result in some infants being saved, but not all. 1. The child was the son of a believer, and was saved for that reason. 2. He had been circumcised, and was part of the covenant, and was saved for that reason. Webb considers a number of other examples, with no noteworthy conclusions. He does state that he believes that all children who die in infancy are saved, and this is God's way of assuring that they are saved. He bases this on the case of Jeroboam's child. He says, "Here seems to be a good child which God took out of a wicked house unto himself through the gateway of death, which encourages faith in the general conclusion that only 'good' children die." This conclusion is almost mind-boggling because of the number of instances where God either took the lives of children we can safely assume were wicked (such as in Noah's flood) or instructed the Israelites to exterminate the entire nation, including the children. In the context of these instances, it seems clear to me that the children were to be exterminated because they shared in the wickedness of their people. If Webb's conclusion were correct, then we would be justified in killing all the children of the wicked to assure their salvation.

In the end, Webb turns to Jesus as an example. He says, "Of course the paternity of this child, to mention nothing else about him, differentiates him radically and fundamentally from all other human children, but this single instance explodes that a priori reasoning which finds something in childhood itself which renders it inherently unsanctifiable and insalvable; and it also explodes that reasoning which will allow that nothing can be a subject of the Spirit's operation except upon condition of a precedent faith and repentance and obedience, refusing to make distinction between the adult capable and the infant incapable." p. 27. The problem with this argument is that Jesus, while He was truly a human child, was also God. For this reason, nothing about this case can be used to support any thesis about human children in general. Webb goes on: "The Saviour himself was once a Holy Child--and holy without baptism." That is a very silly thing to say. Jesus was holy because He is God. Whether or not He was baptized is irrelevant. In addition, He was made part of the covenant by means of circumcision. The New Covenant was not yet in place. Webb continues: "As a mediatorial and theanthropic child, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, possessing true and proper humanity, strictly human and not merely phenomenal and apparent, he was sanctified and made sinless by the operation of the Holy Ghost in his miraculous conception, and developed an adult life which was absolutely taintless, holy, harmless and undefiled and separate from sinners. It yields to our hand the proposition that human childhood (for he was a true human child) is not intrinsically such a thing in its psychological nature as cannot be a subject of God's supernatural and saving grace." pp. 27-28. I have three quarrels with this. The first is that Jesus was holy because He is God. The fact that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost is evidence that Jesus is God, but it is not the reason why Jesus was holy. Secondly, it almost sounds like Webb does not believe Jesus was God! Thirdly, Webb is arguing that the case of Jesus proves that there is nothing intrinsic about childhood that makes children unsalvageable. That is a very interesting statement, because I doubt that anybody disagrees with that. But it is a long jump from saying that it is possible that some children are saved to saying all of those who die in infancy are.

Webb presents his conclusions:

"(1) That infants, as such, may be elected, regenerated and sanctified, and become the beneficiaries of all the blessings of redemption, without any PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE to the nature of the child on the one hand, or EVANGELICAL VIOLENCE to the gospel scheme on the other; that these concrete instances prove the possibility of the salvation of infants under age, according to the covenant of grace." p. 28, emphasis in original.

I have no quarrel with the conclusion. I am troubled by his repeated reference to the "psychological."

"(2) That, inasmuch as these children are distinguished from, and some of them contrasted to, other children, we must conclude that all children, without exception, are not elected, regenerated and sanctified in infancy; that there are non-elect infants as well as elect infants."

We agree. Why does he contradict himself?

"(3) That, inasmuch as all infants, whose deaths are recorded in the Scriptures, and any revelation at all is made concerning their final fate, were elect, regenerated and saved, we are entitled by induction to the broad generalization that ALL INFANTS DYING IN INFANCY were likewise elect, regenerated and saved."

He has not proven this. We cannot infer this by induction, because that would be an argument from silence. If any infants who died in infancy were not saved, we are not told of them. The absence of evidence is not evidence.

"(4) That, if any still object that the instances are too few and too obscure to justify a generalization so wide and dogmatic, I can only reply that, in the way of concrete instances, this is the best I can find in the Scriptures; and that if they do not prove that all dying in infancy are saved, they certainly do not show one single case of a lost dead infant, and that it is therefore purely gratuitous to assume that there are any such cases. To state this phase of the argument compactly: the Scriptures do introduce us to some infants who were elect and died and were saved; they do not present us any infant who was non-elect and died and was lost. It is illegitimate however to make the silence of Scripture a premise for a positive doctrine of the damnation of any infant." p. 29.

So he is aware that arguments from silence are invalid! He has no excuse for indulging in them.

Webb goes on to discuss other Scripture evidence. He cites, for example, the fact that God promises to punish those who afflict the fatherless child. He takes the conclusion from this too far, however. The fact that God protects fatherless children in general in this life does not support the contention that all children dying in infancy are saved. Quite a few children who die in infancy have fathers. Webb mentions several metaphors where children were used as examples of purity. He says this means that childhood is not depraved for its own sake. We already stated our agreement with that. In discussing the lunatic child, Luke 9:42, he says that the fact that Jesus delivered the child of an unclean spirit shows that children can be saved. Again, no quarrel. We are not arguing they cannot be saved. We are discussing whether they are, without exception. Webb cites the case of Jesus holding up a child as an example of ideal faith. Jesus went on to say it was bad for a person to offend a child who believes in Him. The problem with this example is that the passage clearly says, "which believe in me," which strongly implies that not all children do. (I am reminded of a specific example, of a transexual who told me that he had been rebellious since the age of two.) I have always seen this particular passage as a clear statement that Jesus wants us to trust unequivocally like children do, instead of questioning with our intellect and letting that get in the way of our faith. Again, Webb is trying to prove that children can be saved. Webb states that infants cannot be saved apart from grace, either. Webb acknowledges that this argument can be seen as special pleading. He is correct.

Webb discusses the passages where people brought young children to Jesus and Jesus said, "Suffer little children...to come unto me." He goes into considerable detail concerning the phrase "of such is the kingdom of heaven," saying that in the Greek it is "ton toiouton", which means "of this kind, of this sort." He says what kind is not expressed. He considers several views of what it means. The first is that Jesus is speaking of child-like persons. Webb thinks it goes further than that. The fact that Jesus blessed them meant they were members of His kingdom, as themselves. (I am tempted here to say facetiously that these were all Hebrew children, who were part of the Mosaic covenant, so of course they were part of His kingdom.) Secondly, Webb suggests that Jesus is talking about the children themselves, as true and literal members of the kingdom of God. But Webb likes Calvin's explanation best. The quote says that the children are not yet aware of their need for Jesus' grace, but He gives it to them anyway. (That is a very strange thing to say, because it is true that no unsaved persons is aware!) Webb also quotes Calvin as pointing out, correctly, that worshiping the host of the Roman mass is an abomination to God, and that the Roman making of innumerable intercessors deprives Jesus of the honor of Mediator. Both of these are correct, but irrelevant. Then Webb quotes Calvin: ""He declares that he wishes to receive CHILDREN...from which we infer that his grace is extended even to those who are of that age...To exclude from the grace of redemption those who are of that age would be too cruel; and it is therefore not without reason that we employ this passage against the Anabaptists. They refuse baptism to INFANTS, because infants are incapable of understanding that mystery which is denoted by it. We, on the other hand, maintain that, since baptism is the pledge and figure of the forgiveness of sins, and likewise of adoption by God, it ought not to be denied to INFANTS, whom God adopts and washes with the blood of his Son...In short, by embracing them, he testified that they were reckoned by Christ among his flock. And if they were partakers of the spiritual gifts, which are represented by baptism, it is unreasonable that they should be deprived of this outward sign. But it is presumption and sacrilege to drive from the fold of Christ those whom he cherished in his bosom, and to shut the door, and to exclude as strangers those whom he does not wish to be FORBIDDEN TO COME TO HIM." pp.37-38, emphasis in original. Very interesting. I guess if you want to be a Calvinist, you cannot escape Calvin's conclusion, here!

"FOR OF SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.--Under this term he includes both LITTLE CHILDREN and those who resemble them; for the Anabaptists foolishly exclude children, with whom the subject must have commenced, but at the same time, taking occasion from the present occurrence, he intended to exhort his disciples to lay aside malice and pride, and put on the nature of CHILDREN." p. 38, emphasis in original. These quotations were taken from Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol II., pp. 388-391.

Webb goes into an elaborate discussion that states essentially that we cannot legitimately exclude the possibility that children who have not come to Jesus or been brought to Him are nevertheless saved. He says the fact that some children are not baptized does not exclude them from heaven. I have no quarrel with that up to a point. We actually have no way of knowing, and I have to go back to what my brother-in-law said, which I quoted earlier, that God is not limited in His grace, but we are limited in what we are permitted to do or leave undone. So we may not use the fact that God may elect to save children who have never been brought as an excuse for not bringing them, whether it be to church or to baptism. Webb ends by saying, "Then the clear and intolerable antithesis would be that infants are damnable because they are not 'brought,' and children are lost because they do not 'come' to Christ--that is, they are damnable because of somebody's neglect. It is a hard saying that children are damnable because of their father's sins." p. 40. It may be a hard saying, but see Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9. There are lots of hard sayings in the Bible, but wishful thinking will not make them go away. Webb then states that the passage in Matthew 7:23 where it says that people who work iniquity will be sent away, means that children, who had not had a chance to commit works of any kind, are incompetent to stand that kind of trial. Webb argues that infants have never had the chance to commit grave sin, so will not be condemned by this judgment. He says, "consequently infants are not damnable upon THESE PREMISES; and there is no account in Scripture of any other judgment based upon any other grounds. I think therefore that a study of the final judgment entitles us to infer that ACTUAL CONDEMNATION is always predicated upon ACTUAL SIN. Original sin renders all the race--adults and infants--DAMNABLE; but the judgment scene shows us that DAMNABILITY is converted to DAMNATION only upon the ground of actual, personal, and conscious sins--a kind of sin which no infant dying in infancy could commit." p. 42, emphasis in original. Webb seems to be arguing for salvation due to works, and he finishes the chapter by emphasizing that the judgment shall be of works, with no grace present. This makes me wonder whether or not Webb has a clear understanding of grace, for nowhere does he mention that grace wipes the recordbooks clean of our sins. He may well be making the Adventist mistake, which is that grace is being given the capacity to live according to Jesus' example. I trust from the other things Webb says that he does not hold to this point of view, but I have to wonder.

Webb seems further to be ignoring the fact that the infant's mortality is evidence of his sinfulness. We need not commit a sin to be unsaved in the eyes of a scrupulously perfect God, Who has told us repeatedly that one sin is enough to alienate us forever. God did not let Adam and Eve's children back into Eden. They had the sin nature, and they were condemned to sin whether they consciously chose to or not. Applied to the infant, I think one of the biggest problems here is the fact that because we adults cannot look into the heart and mind of a child, we infer that the child is unaware of his rebellion as rebellion. The Bible tells us, for example, that disobedience to parents is as the sin of witchcraft. If this is the case, then one act of rebellion by an infant, in which the infant is aware that he is rebelling (and some of them show it by their body language, and others keep it silent), would be enough to condemn him, except for God's grace. We are not in a position to say when that first act occurs, or whether or not the Holy Spirit activates the child's conscience when it happens. We are not in a position to base our actions upon an assumption that we know when we don't. We are limited to following God's commands, which includes the command to baptize all nations, and if for some reason a child is not the beneficiary of our obedience, then it is up to God to show that child grace, and God is not limited. But to set ourselves up to necessitate God's special demonstration of grace because we failed to obey is to court disaster, and certainly is an act of rebellion for which our children may have to pay, to the third and fourth generation. It is a grave matter to argue from the fact that God is omnipotent to the idea that we can be neglectful. I am not saying that Webb is arguing that at this juncture, but I am saying that Anabaptists may well be doing that, which means that we better not listen to their counsel.

That is as far as I went with Webb. I think the points I wanted to make about his thinking have been covered, and I hope that you will examine any argument you may have for your point of view with the flaws I have pointed out in his thinking in mind. Please make sure that the logical conclusion that you must draw from your position does not fall into the same trap.

Before closing, I remind you once more of the variant of Paschal's Wager with which I began this discussion.

Summarizing, and this is the crux of the matter, is whether or not we are ever justified in not permitting children to come to Jesus through baptism, of denying them baptism, because they are not old enough to ask for it. Unless that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then I must baptize. Until it is shown me clearly in Scripture what the spiritual harm is from the act itself of baptizing the child (absent any other disobedience to Christ's commands), then I cannot make the decision that it is acceptable to withhold baptism from them. For if I may withhold baptism from them in spite of the Great Commission, then why is it sin for me to withhold teaching from them by the same argument? At what age should we start to teach a child? Should we pray with our infants? I think so. Should we take the infant to church? I think so. Brother Lester Roloff, an Anabaptist himself, once said that he would be out of business if people took their children to church. He strongly rebuked the congregation because most of them left their children at home, the evidence being the fact that there were few children in the congregation (I had my children there, and I believe they constituted 50% of the children present). So you see why I cannot abandon the practice of infant baptism except as a result of the most rigorous proofs that it should not be practiced. It is not enough to argue from inference that children are not condemned for sin until the age of accountability.

The following was written on another occasion on the question of infant baptism.

One of my friends argued that infant baptism does not work. She offered examples of people she knows who were sprinkled when they were babies, who do not act like Christians now. I want to examine that argument briefly.

Suppose I were to say to you that Christianity cannot be true because some people who claim to be Christians kill. Does this mean that Christianity is not true? Of course it doesn't mean that. Either Christianity is true or it is not. Whether it is true is not based on how people who claim to be Christians act. Another example: suppose I were to say that because some people do not respond to preaching, we should stop preaching altogether. This argument would be rejected.

If we consider that someone was baptized as an infant now claims to be an atheist, does this settle the question? Not until that person dies an atheist. Even then, the mere fact that one person, or a dozen, die as atheists, does not tell us anything. Some people who hear preaching also die atheists. Shall we stop preaching for this reason? I don't think so. The argument that infant baptism does not work isn't relevant. Only what Christ commanded us to do is relevant. The question of whether it works or not is God's to answer, not ours. Our place is only to obey God's command.

Suppose, then, you were to say to me that we should not baptize infants because it does not work. Is this a reason not to baptize infants? No. There is only one reason not to baptize them, and that is if the Bible forbids it. Does the Bible forbid it? No. On the other hand, does the Bible command it? That will require that we look at the Bible itself.

I propose that we discuss this question only from the Bible. I will therefore examine some Bible passages, and see if they can shed any light on the question. I have a much more extensive discussion of Bible passages elsewhere, but this brief survey will serve for now.

There are two ways we can ask the question regarding infant baptism. The common way is to ask, "Should we baptize infants?" The other way is, "Are we ever justified in withholding baptism from them?" I am going to answer the second version of the question.

The first thing I want to make note of is something the Bible does not say. Nowhere does the Bible discuss an age of accountability. Instead, the Bible indicates that we have a sin nature with which we are conceived. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psam 51:5. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." I John 1:8. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. There are plenty of other passages I could point to that say the same thing. We inherit a sin nature from Adam and Eve. This sin nature separates us from God. Unless God acts to give us grace, we will die in our sins. "The wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17. Adam and Eve became physically mortal as a result of eating the fruit of that tree. They did not die physically at that time, but much later. However, they became immediately spiritually dead, and no longer able to hear God's voice (once He had pronounced His judgment upon them). Children also show that they are subject to the wages of sin. If children did not have a sin nature before birth, then abortion would not be possible. The fact that abortion kills children demonstrates that children have this sin nature that separates us from God. Unless God redeems each of them specifically and justifies them through faith, they will die eternally just as the rest of us. Thus, the idea that somehow they are exempt from the consequences of sin until they reach some magical age is simply not biblical. For that reason, we cannot withhold baptism from them on the grounds that they do not need it because they are not yet accountable for their sins.

Anabaptists argue that baptism is merely an ordinance, which is to say, a regulation which Christians are bound to obey. If we can show biblically that baptism is more than merely an ordinance, then this will contribute to our discussion. The question we are now answering is whether or not baptism in any way contributes to the salvation of infants. So I will now show what the Bible has to say baptism really is. In this discussion, it is important to abide by a rule that is most frequently quoted in court proceedings, and it is this: unless there is some reason to redefine a word legally, the court will assume the common ordinary meaning of the word. If we assign special meanings to words of the Bible other than their common ordinary meanings, we open ourselves to all kinds of esoteric interpretations, and I can tell you that it is this tendency that results in all kinds of cults, including Freemasonry. So for this discussion, we will assume the common ordinary meanings of words unless the context demands otherwise.

"But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." I Corinthians 6:11. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5. Washing, sanctification, justification are all linked together. Washing is an act done with water. This is the ordinary meaning of the word. I will show later that we cannot make a distinction between being baptized by the Holy Spirit and being baptized with water.

Acts 22:16 tells us, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." OK, now we have it. Being baptized washes away sins. Baptism is more than a mere ordinance. It conveys several spiritual blessings, including the Holy Spirit, and forgiveness of sins. I don't think the case could be more clear. Do we have a right to deny our infants the spiritual blessings that go with baptism? Let us talk about whether or not this means that baptism is a work that earns us salvation. I see it this way: If we insist that only believers can be baptized, and they do it so that they can fulfill a command, it is a work. If this is the case, then we are getting the Holy Spirit and forgiveness because of a work. We have a theological problem here. Bear in mind, however, that we cannot baptize ourselves. It is something that must be done to us. Does it matter whether the agent is God Himself directly, or a Christian acting on God's command? Preaching is done by humans at God's command. If faith cometh by hearing, then we are executing God's commands when we preach, and we are His agents. Then we can likewise baptize in response to God's command (Matthew 28:19) and in the same manner, God acts through us as we act as His agents. So baptism is not a work. I find Baptist theology flawed in stating that it is an ordinance, because that makes it a work, an obedience to a command. Because we do not do baptism to ourselves, but must have it done to us, then it becomes an act of God, and rather falls within the scope of God acting within the sphere of His sovereign election. It becomes entirely appropriate for parents, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to baptize their infants, because they have been assured that the faith of one of them sanctifies their children already, so there is some mechanism of God's sovereign election already at work. They are merely acting at God's command, again, so that God will carry out His work of redeeming us, at His sovereign election. We know that no one was ever baptized by God without His acting through a human agent. What is the difference between a pastor baptizing someone as God's agent, and parents presenting their children for baptism, as God's agents? One other aspect of this verse should be discussed, and that is the phrase "calling on the name of the Lord." Some people might argue that infants cannot call on the name of the Lord. They can, if they are empowered by the Holy Spirit. If they are baptized, and receive the Holy Spirit, they can then call on the name of the Lord. If they do not yet speak, it would be a mental calling, like a silent prayer.

I want to examine John 3:1-7, the story of Nicodemus, because I believe it is relevant, and I think it has been used to argue one case or another regarding baptism. "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." I once heard the argument that the water spoken of here is not the water of baptism, but the fluids of human birth. This interpretation says that it is necessary for a person to have experienced human birth in order to be born again. This claim means that all unborn children who die before birth are condemned. Since the logical consequences of the belief that "water and the spirit" refers to human birth means to deny that aborted or miscarried youngsters can be saved, I cannot accept the argument that this is what is meant by this passage. I think that disposes of that argument, and we have no choice but to admit that the water spoken of here is the water of baptism.

Romans 6:3-4:"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." This is further evidence that baptism is more than a mere ordinance. It is an act by which we were incorporated into Jesus' death! There is also the implication that when we are baptized, we receive the benefits of Jesus' resurrection (and we all know that means that we will be raised from the dead on the last day.)

I Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." This verse is part of a much longer passage that includes a description of the church as the body of Christ, and continues with the famous passage I Corinthians 13, where it is shown that agape, which is self-sacrificing love, is the most important fruit of the Spirit, greater than all the gifts. This verse says we are all baptized into the body of Christ, which includes everyone who is a member of the true church or body of Christ. If we do not baptize infants, then they are excluded from the body of Christ, and hence the church, and are excluded from the blessings thereof, one of which is salvation! I think it is clear this is why (as explained below) the early church fathers baptized infants, because they believed it was the only way infants (who cannot yet understand the spoken word) could become part of the church, which is the body of Christ, a fact clearly understood at that time, before the clouding resulting from the Roman juggernaut, which made the church over into a hierarchical structure, not a corpus of all believers. In other words, the early church fathers baptized infants because it was the only way to bring children into the body of Christ, which is part of what happens when we are saved.

Galatians 3:27-28: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Here we have further evidence that baptism is more than a mere ordinance. When we are baptized, we put on Christ. The passage goes on to say there is no distinction between male and female (among others). This is significant when we realize that at one time, some leaders prohibited women from being baptized. Is this the same thing as prohibiting infants from being baptized?

Ephesians 4:4-6: "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." This passage is sometimes used to argue that people who have been baptized as infants should not be rebaptized. I see it more as a claim that there is no distinction between different baptisms as long as they are done in the name of the Triune God. Somehow, here we see that the body of Christ is linked to the Spirit, the calling of God, the Lord, the faith, the Father, and baptism. They are so inextricably linked that it is impossible to envision any of them without the others. Thus, it is unthinkable to withhold baptism from infants, if they are of Christ, because all of these things are inseparable. For us to single out one of these and deny it to children is nonsense. The other significance of this passage is the statement that there is one baptism. This means that all baptisms are identical, and there is not a baptism of water and a baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Colossians 2:12: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This verse should be particularly read in context, also. It is clear that here baptism is linked with being quickened, being forgiven, and with spiritual circumcision. It is linked with blotting out our sins, and of the law, which binds us to damnation. This passage is even plainer than Romans 6, and indicates that when we are baptized, we are also baptized into Jesus' resurrection, which signifies that someday we will rise to be with God in eternity in heaven. Here, again, baptism is much more than a mere ordinance.

The next passage I will consider is I Peter 3:20-21: "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a-preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" A Baptist pastor once told me that this passage was mistranslated into the English, so I went back to the original Greek and studied it for myself. Unfortunately, perhaps, I came away with a very different view from the one I assume he wanted me to. Two things struck me in particular about this passage. The first is that it says the water of Noah's flood saved the eight souls, not the Ark. That struck me as quite curious. But the next point struck me even more. I noticed that the English words "in like manner" were a translation of the Greek word "antitupon." I thoroughly studied that Greek word. That word really means, "the antitype." What is an antitype? We know that a type is a symbol. We read that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. In the end, God provided a ram as a substitute. That whole episode was a type of Jesus' death on the cross as our substitute. I could multiply examples. A type is a symbol of some reality directly connected to Jesus. An antitype is the reality of which the type is a symbol. The verse is saying, then, that the waters of Noah's flood were a symbol of the waters of baptism, which are the reality. And that this reality is what saves us. So instead of refuting the idea that we can be saved by baptism, my study reinforced that idea. The words "the answer of a good conscience toward God" could be the conscience of the believer requesting baptism, the conscience of the parents requesting baptism for their infant, the conscience of the infant himself who desires baptism but cannot ask for it, or the conscience of any believer who obeys the Great Commission. The conscience is supplied by God to begin with, and because God acts in the lives of all whom He chooses, by the power of the Holy Spirit, there is no reason to believe that the conscience is restricted only to a new believer who requests baptism.

Acts 2:38-39: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." This passage records something Peter said at Pentecost. This was an event that took place in a single day, and for that reason, the only instruction in the Christian faith which people received happened within one day. This shows us that extensive instruction is not a prerequisite to baptism, particularly in light of other passages where baptism also took place shortly after first contact with the baptizand was made. Now this passage is very, very interesting. The first thing we learn from this is that repentance and baptism go hand in hand. They are supposed to take place at the same time. The second thing we learn is that somehow both repentance and baptism are tied into receiving the Holy Ghost, and receiving forgiveness. The question we must ask is, can a person receive the Holy Ghost at a totally different time from his baptism, even though he has repented? We cannot rule out the possibility that both are necessary. It could be said that if repentance without baptism is sufficient, so should baptism without repentance be sufficient! Another thing we can examine is the order of events. They are as follows: repentance, baptism, forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit. This implies that repentance must come before baptism. However, I think you and I and most Christians would agree that we cannot repent until we receive the Holy Ghost! What! Things are chronologically out of order here! The only thing we can conclude from this is that the order in which the events were given is not a chronological order. The passage goes on to say that the promise is to us and our children. Does it say, the promise is to us, and our children when they reach the age of accountability, or any other age, for that matter? I don't think so. (The United States Constitution says that the blessings of liberty are for ourselves and our posterity. Anybody with a brain can see that applies to the unborn as well. It is part of the English language that when we speak of children, we speak of children of all ages. Is Greek any different?) I examined the Greek word used for "children" here. It is "teknois." This word has the connotation of a human who has been either conceived (as of the father) or borne. So for this reason, it would appear that Peter is talking about all children who have actually been born. We could argue it includes the unborn also, but it is not physically possible to baptize them. So we are not asked to do the impossible, but it becomes possible to baptize them as soon as they are born. This promise is not only to the persons to whom Peter currently speaks, but to their children also. The promise includes two acts that we are to do: to repent, and to submit to baptism. And these two acts coupled together result in remission of sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost. So if we expect our children to repent, shall we not make sure they receive baptism at least at the same time? Is it then not appropriate that the first time our baby says "I'm sorry," that we would immediately baptize him? Why put it off until he asks for baptism? Going further, if the Holy Spirit is necessary for repentance, then are we preventing our children from repenting by not baptizing them so that the Holy Spirit will immediately cause them to repent???

Matthew 19:14: "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." The issue here is that God prefers a childlike faith, and that childlike faith is most likely to occur in children. There is every indication that God sends faith to young children, and as we know, the only way this happens is by the Holy Ghost. Understanding salvation is a spiritual thing, not a mental thing, and the Holy Spirit is all powerful, and it is He that instructs us in truth. The Holy Spirit, being all powerful, can and does instill faith in young children. We are forbidden to keep them away from Jesus. We cannot physically bring children to Jesus' feet, but we can bring them into Jesus' presence in church, and if they desire to be baptized, and obey God's command to be baptized, but cannot yet speak to ask for it, then are we forbidding them from receiving baptism by not providing it?

Let us examine Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." We must ask: is it an offense to a little one that believes in Jesus to keep him from baptism? If the Holy Spirit dwells in him, then he will desire it! If he cannot yet speak, then we are running the risk of offending him by not providing it. We need to answer this question honestly. In the earlier passage, Jesus rebuked the disciples for preventing parents from bringing their children for Jesus to touch. How can Jesus touch them today? Not with physical hands. But since Jesus is the Water of Life, can Jesus touch them through the waters of baptism? Are pastors, who are the modern equivalent of disciples (as close as we can come), offending Jesus by instructing parents not to bring their children for baptism? If you cannot affirmatively answer that baptism is to be withheld, then we run a grave risk of offending Jesus by withholding it. The Bible nowhere commands us to withhold baptism from infants.

The Book of Acts tells us what people did. It does not tell us everything they did, but it does tell us some things.

We examine Acts 10:47-48: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Interesting! Here receiving the Holy Ghost preceeds baptism. So it can occur in any order. If one can be baptized first and then receive the Holy Ghost, then infant baptism becomes possible. If we can receive the Holy Ghost either before or after baptism, then the order in which they occur becomes unimportant. The thing that remains important is that we both repent and receive baptism. So if we want to baptize an infant before we know he has received the Holy Ghost (and thus the capacity to repent), we are well within our rights to do so.

I Corinthians 1:16: "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." Acts 16:15: "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." and Acts 16:33: "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." These passages tell us that the apostles were in the habit of baptizing entire households. In both passages in Acts, we learn of cases where one person acted, and as a result, his entire household was baptized; first Lydia's household, and then the jailer's. While we have no way of knowing whether or not either household contained very young children, it does establish the principle that baptism can occur because of the faith or acts of another, and that the Apostles baptized under these circumstances. Thus, we do no injustice to Scripture to baptize an infant based upon the faith and acts of his parents. There is no evidence in either passage that anything more than merely being a member of the household was necessary to prompt the apostles to baptize.

Acts 18:8: "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." This passage does not explicitly say the household of Crispus was baptized, but it implies it. It also states that his entire house believed. It also further indicates that the apostles frequently baptized entire households.

Acts 18:25: "This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John." This passage indicates that the baptism of John was something different from what baptism in the church age was to become.

Acts 19:3-6: And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." This passage further indicates that the baptism of John was different from baptism in the church, and that the baptism of John was replaced by the baptism of the church. As soon as they were baptized, they received the Holy Ghost. It might be inferred from this passage that both the baptism and the laying on of hands was necessary for them to receive the Holy Spirit. If so, then we can take care of this in the case of infants by doing both. (This is done in the Lutheran church.) The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. The baptism of the church is more than merely a baptism of repentance, though it includes the baptism of repentance. Notice that in each case we have examined where a baptism took place, the receiving of the Holy Ghost took place on the same occasion (if it had not already happened.) The two are linked together.

In this regard, I want next to consider Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." I have heard this verse used to argue that one must teach before one can baptize. Again, this is not explicit. There is nothing about the verse that makes it mandatory that teaching must occur first. There is every reason to assume teaching and baptizing are to occur simultaneously and the teaching continuously. To argue that teaching must come first is to argue from silence. The information that teaching must precede baptizing is not there. We now know that a mother's breastfeeding of her baby is teaching the baby the nature of love. Babies link their parents' behavior with the nature of God. On the other hand, it is said that we are to teach all nations. It does not say, that we are to teach and baptize only people above a certain age. The argument that would prevent us from teaching and baptizing the infant because he cannot yet understand would also prevent us from teaching and baptizing the mentally retarded. That very argument underlies the Nazi philosophy, Freemasonry, and abortion, and just about every other wicked elitist -ism the world has ever seen. I should make note of the fact that it took the modern-day anabaptist churches a very long time to mount any really serious opposition to legalized abortion. Is this because they believed that an aborted baby was better off dead because if he had lived, he might have been raised as a nonchristian? You don't find the orthodox infant-baptizing churches to have been so lax. But again, the mere fact that a baby can be killed by abortion is support for the idea that the baby is condemned spiritually unless God intervenes. Wishful thinking that God will spare them and take them to heaven because they are innocent is not biblical, as shown earlier. The doctrines behind the failure to baptize infants can have some serious consequences for millions of people.

Mark 16:15-18: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." There are a couple of points I want to discuss in regard to this passage. The first is that this is a repeat of the Great Commission at the end of the book of Matthew. It does not specify who is to be baptized, but goes on to point out that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, but whoever believes not shall be damned. The omission of the condition of baptism, either positive or negative, in the second part is significant. I think that it indicates that baptism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for salvation, and therefore, failure to be baptized does not condemn a man; only failure to believe. So what is the significance of baptism? Is it required that believers be baptized? I think the fact that the thief on the cross was saved without it would indicate that it is not necessary. However, that was an exceptional circumstance. It would be fair to say that salvation without baptism is possible in unusual circumstances, but it does not make salvation without baptism normative. It also does not tell us whether or not baptism can be a precursor to salvatory faith. I think the most that we can glean from this passage is that it is desirable that believers be baptized. We have no answer to the question of whether or not an infant who has not expressed his belief could be included in believer's baptism.

My brother-in-law is a pastor. I think he summarized the case for infant baptism well when he said that God is not limited in how He provides us with grace, and this includes infants. But we are limited to obeying God's commands. For us to withhold baptism is akin to sinning more that grace may more abound, a practice clearly condemned by Paul. Romans 6:1. Thus, for us to withhold baptism is to expect God to provide grace to the infant in spite of our disobedience. I think studying the entire Bible clearly tells us that in general God will not fill in for our disobedience in such a manner. We must never be caught presuming on God's grace!

Summarizing, my study of the Bible has convinced me of the following points: 1. All have sinned. 2. The wages of sin is death. 3. Infants die physically, and thus demonstrate that they have the sin nature specified in the Psalms. 4. There is no biblical basis for the doctrine of an age of accountability, before which God will not hold a baby accountable for sinning. 5. Baptism is more than a mere ordinance. 6. Baptism results in our being linked into Christ's death, and in putting on Christ. 7. Baptism is linked to receiving the Holy Spirit. 8. Baptism washes away sins. 9. Baptism saves us. 10. The fact that not all who are baptized appear to be saved is no more justification for withholding baptism than the fact that not all who hear the Word preached appear to be saved is a justification for ceasing to preach. 11. The Apostles baptized entire households on the basis of the act of faith of one member. 12. We are commanded to allow young children to come to Jesus. 13. We are commanded to baptize all nations. There is no evidence that this excludes children. 14. Therefore, since there is no command to withhold baptism from infants, and there is a command to baptize all nations, and a command to allow young children to come to Jesus, we must infer that we are commanded to baptize children regardless of age.

Tertullian is the earliest author who tells us that the early church baptized infants. He lived well before the first heresy of what came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church was declared. Tertullian was a Montanist, and he questioned the practice of infant baptism. The fact that he was a Montanist demonstrates that his thinking processes were flawed, because Montanism was a heresy. Tertullian's objection was based on the teachings of Hermas, who said that the Christian could only be forgiven once, and for this reason, it was desirable to postpone baptism as long as possible. The practice of postponing baptism arose out of a misunderstanding of God's grace, which is freely given each and every time we ask for it, and on a continuing basis for the Christian. Hermas had similar doctrinal problems with the Montanists. Both Tertullian and Hermas represented themselves as being prophets in a similar manner to Ellen G. White, the false prophet of Seventh-day Adventism. I have done research on Tertullian and Hermas, and on the practices of the early church. Tertullian says that the reason why infants were baptized was to bring them into the body of Christ. What we can learn from this study is that infant baptism was widely practiced while the Apostles were still alive to correct it if it were a bad practice, and also while early church fathers who knew the Apostles were still alive. While the practice of infant baptism is not documented in the Bible, it is amply documented elsewhere. It is safe to assume that the Apostles practiced and approved of infant baptism, and therefore there is no reason not to practice it.

I am compelled to conclude that there is no justification for withholding baptism from the infant, and that we are therefore required to do so, in order to honor God's clear commands.

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism This link is Catholic, but I largely agree with it. It settles the question of whether early Christian leaders (the Church Fathers) supported infant baptism.

Background graciously provided by: