Articles
Infant Baptism (Part 2)
If God had wanted parents to have their infants baptized, surely he would have made such a matter so plain that, "Wayfaring men, though fools" should "Not err therein." (Isa. 35:8.) But there is not one word of scripture for such practice. The scriptures must be distorted and perverted, and made to teach something they do not say a word about, in order to present the idea. Assumptions must make up for what is lacking in the record, so as to make a show of sustaining the theory.
SAMPLES OF METHOD USED
We have seen the method used in the case of household baptisms, and how they assume the very point to be proved, that is: that there were infants in the families said to have been baptized. But we found that only believing families were baptized. (Acts 16:33-34.) Noah's "House" was saved in the ark. (Heb. 11:7; Gen. 7:1.) But the children were not infants, but all married. (Gen. 7:13.) Hence, the fact that a family was baptized is no proof infants were baptized, for the majority of families have no infants. By their method of reasoning, I could prove infants BELIEVE, and make out a much stronger case than theirs. The Nobleman had a "Son" and this son is called a "Child," and yet the record says, of the Nobleman and his family, "And himself BELIEVED, and his whole house." (Jn. 4:49, 53.) Hence, the "Son" or "Child" believed. Of course, he was not an "Infant." Yes, all the jailer's "House" were baptized, but the record says, "All his house" believed in God. (Acts 16:30-34.) Therefore, there were no infants in any house baptized.
BROUGHT LITTLE CHILDREN
Another example of making out a case by assumption, is that of children brought unto the Savior. "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." (Mat. 19:14-15.) Luke says the "Little children" were "Infants." (Lk. 18:15.) Yes, here is a plain case of "Infants" brought to Jesus, but for what purpose? The advocates of infant baptism assume what is lacking in the record, that is; the infants were brought for Jesus to baptize them. But the Bible says they were brought "That he should put his hands on them, and pray." (Mat. 19:13.) It says, "And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." (Mat. 19:15.) It does not say they were brought to be baptized, neither does it say he baptized them. Baptism is not hinted in the entire story anywhere. This is assumed and added to the story to make out a case where there is none.
ISRAELITES BAPTIZED
The advocates of infant baptism tell us that infants were baptized, the same as their parents, in crossing the Red Sea, when it is said "They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea." (1 Cor. 10:1-3; Ex. 14:29-30.) This, they claim, is a type of infant baptism today. But let us examine the case more fully. (1) If the fact that infants passed through the sea and received this figurative baptism is proof that they should be baptized today, then we should also baptized CATTLE, BREAD AND TRAYS, for these too, like the children, were brought through the sea. That which proves too much, proves nothing. But it may be said that the cattle could not believe, and those baptized were called "Our fathers," and were called "Believers." (Heb. 11:29; Ex. 4:30-31; Psa. 126:12; 1 Cor. 10:1-3.) Neither could the infants believe, any more than the cattle, nor be called, "Our fathers." Also the Israelites were not saved out of the hand of the Egyptians until they crossed the sea, and were "Baptized unto Moses." (Ex. 14:29-30.) They sang the song of deliverance after crossing the sea. (Ex. 15:1.) Are infants saved in being baptized? Of course, not. They are not lost, and have no sins from which to be saved. Jesus was not addressing babies when he said, "Except A MAN be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Jn. 3:5.) Neither was Peter addressing infants when he said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)
CIRCUMCISION ASSUMPTION
The advocates of baby baptism assert that baptism came in the room of circumcision, and since infants were circumcised under the law, they should be baptized under the new covenant. This is more assumption. No inspired writer of the New Testament ever made such an argument. Baptism did not come in the place of circumcision, for Christ and the apostles were both circumcised and baptized. (Mat. 2:21; 3:13-15.) The one did not come in the place of the other.
NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THEM
Circumcision and baptism are not similar at all, but are almost wholly unlike each other. (1) Circumcision of the old law was performed by man, and was BY HUMAN HANDS, as all know. But the spiritual circumcision of the new covenant is performed by Jehovah, and is "Without hands," and consists in cutting us loose from the guilt of sins when we are baptized into Christ "In whom" it takes place. (Col. 2:11-13; Rom. 6:3.) (2) Circumcision was for Jews and those bought with their money. (Gen 17:13) But baptism is for all nations. (Mat. 28:19.) (3) Circumcision was performed on children eight days old. (Gen. 17:12.) But baptism is for those who can hear and believe the gospel. (Mk. 16:15-16.) (4) Circumcision was only for males, while baptism is for both "Men and women." (Acts 8:12.) (5) They did not have to have faith to be circumcised, but only believers are to be baptized. (Mk. 16:15; Acts 8:12; 18:8; Heb. 11:5.) (6) Circumcision was in no name. But baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Mat. 28:19.) (7) Circumcision had nothing to do with salvation or remission of sins; while baptism is "For the remission of sins" and "Doth also now save us." (Acts 2:38; Mk. 1:4; 1 Pet.3: 21.) (8) Circumcision pertained wholly to the flesh, while baptism is "The "The answer of a good conscience toward God." (1 Pet. 3:21.) Of course, infant baptism could not be the answer of their conscience. (9) Circumcision was in obedience to the "Law of Moses." But baptism is commanded in the law of Christ. (Acts 10:48.) They are in two different covenants, the one not like the other. (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:6-13) (10) All in the new covenant know God, and do not have to be taught to know the Lord, for they already know him. Therefore, infants are not inducted into the new covenant by baptism. (11) The uncircumcised was cut off from his people, but the unbaptized baby is not excluded from anything that the others have, as all admit. (12) The circumcised infant went on its way CRYING, we suppose; while the baptized believer "WENT ON HIS WAY REJOICING." (Acts 8:36-39.)
NO INNOCENT PRACTICE (1) In the Bible God has given us "All things that pertain unto life and godliness." (2 Pet. 1:3.) But therein is no authority for infant baptism. Therefore, it does not pertain to "Life and godliness."
Paul declared all the counsel of God. (Acts 20:27.) But he no where declared infant baptism. Therefore, it is no part of the counsel of God, and is only in the counsel of men.
The scriptures "Thoroughly" furnish us "Unto all good works." (2 Tim 3:16-17.) But they do not furnish infant baptism. Therefore, it is not a good work.
We cannot please God without faith which comes by hearing God's word. (Rom. 10:17; Heb. 11:6.) But infant baptism does not come by hearing God's word. It is therefore not of faith, and cannot please God.
Whatever is done as an act of religion without scriptural authority is called vain religion. (Mk. 7:3-13; Mat. 15:9.) But infant baptism is without scriptural authority, and is vain.
God will not be with one in doing what is not in the doctrine of Christ. Therefore, God will not be with people in such a practice. (2 Jn. 9.)
Infant baptism is like vaccination against small pox— keeps one from taking the real thing—keeps one from ever being scripturally baptized at all—prevents believers baptism, the one commanded. (Acts 10:48; Mk. 16:15-16.)
If all parents were to have their infants baptized this would entirely do away with believer's baptism—the baptism commanded. Such a course is not harmless, for it thwarts the very plan of God to have all nations first taught then baptized. (Mat. 28:19.)
Infant baptism has nothing to do with faith, repentance, confession, or obedience to God, since God nowhere authorized it. It is an empty performance, and does not do the infant one bit of good. While the baptism of believing penitents is "For the remission of sins" and in baptism they enter "Into Jesus Christ," where salvation is. (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3; 2 Tim. 2:10; Acts 4:12.)
The only thing the baptized infant has that the unbaptized one does not have is water, and very little of that, since it is in fact only sprinkled, and not truly baptized.
Infant baptism is in doubt—is in controversy—and there is such a division over the practice .that the Lord's prayer for unity never can be answered until it is abandoned in teaching and practice, or else scriptural authority given for it. The latter cannot be done. (Jn. 17:20-22; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:3; Rom. 16:17.)
The baptism of believing penitents is not in doubt— not in debate, neither is there any division over it. All endorse it, and accept it as scriptural. There is no division over it, and we are commanded to follow after things which make for peace. (Rom. 14:19.)
(13) Infant baptism is not even mentioned in the scriptures—not a single time. But believer's baptism is mentioned time and again. (Mk. 16:16.; Acts 8:12; 18:8.)
(14) Infants are safe, not sinners, and need no baptism, nor salvation, for they are not lost. (Lk. 19:10.) "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. 19:14.) But accountable beings must believe and obey from the heart, or understanding, the form of doctrine to be freed from sin. (Rom. 6:17-18.) These things are presented in love of the truth, and not for the sake of merely differing from others. May God help us to all love, teach and obey the exact truth, as revealed, on all matters.
