Many churches practice infant baptism. Millions have been 'christened' as
infants.
Infant baptism is performed in the name of the Lord, but does the Lord authorize
it? Is it of human origin or divine? The child has no choice in the matter. Do
parents have the right to have their infants baptized? Let us examine infant
baptism in the light of the Word of God.
Terms defined
By 'infant' we mean a baby or small child who is too young to make a decision.
Infant baptism is usually performed by sprinkling or pouring. Sometimes it is
done by immersion, but most who read this will be familiar with the practice of
sprinkling or pouring.
Infant baptism is not of divine origin
I say this without fear of successful contradiction. Jesus said: "He who
believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16). Peter, led by the Holy
Spirit, said: "Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). Truth is always in harmony with
truth. Scriptural baptism is preceded by faith and repentance. Infant baptism is
preceded by neither. To practice baptism before there is faith and repentance is
to pervert the gospel. Anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed
(Galatians 1:6-9). When one practices infant baptism he is going beyond the
doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).
The first recorded case of affusion was in the year 251. The first law for
sprinkling was in 752. It was made by a pope who had to flee Rome (Edinburgh
Encyclopedia, Article on Baptism).
Infant baptism nullifies the law of God
Jesus accused the religious people of His day of "making the Word of God of no
effect" through their tradition (Mark 7:13). That is exactly what this man-made
practice does. It makes the law of Christ of no effect. Jesus taught that every
creature is to believe and be baptized, but they who advocate infant baptism
nullify this command of Christ. They supplant it by a human law.
Jesus is to be obeyed. This the Scriptures teach: "And having been perfected, He
became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Hebrews 5:9). Every
one who practices and endorses infant baptism is guilty, either wilfully or
ignorantly, of supplanting the divine law of believers' baptism. Are you, my
dear reader, guilty?
What about household baptisms?
Some try to justify infant baptism on the basis of New Testament examples of
household baptisms. It is argued that infants must have been included when whole
households were baptized.
In most passages, however, where household baptisms are reported, hearing and
believing are also mentioned, which infants are unable to do. Cornelius "feared
God with all his household" (Acts 10:2). His household was saved as a result of
hearing the gospel (Acts 11:14; 10:44,46). Paul told the Philippian jailer:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your
household" (Acts 16:31). Did this include infants? Can infants believe? We read
further: "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his
house" (Acts 16:32). What was the response? "And immediately he and all his
[family] were baptized" (Acts 16:33). That infants were not included is further
indicated by what follows: "He rejoiced, having believed in God with all his
household" (Acts 16:34).
Crispus "believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the
Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized" (Acts 18:8).
To teach that infants were included in household baptisms is going beyond what
is written. Furthermore, this human addition to the word of God is clearly
contrary to what is written. It is to accuse the apostles of sinning by
violating the terms of the Great Commission! God forbid. The 'household baptism'
argument is simply a case of a drowning man grasping at a straw. If you, my
friend, insist on going the way of rebellion do not try to take Peter and Paul
with you!
Paul says we were buried with Christ in baptism, in which we also were raised
with Him "through faith in the working of God" (Colossians 2:12). This shows
that the baptism he practiced was not infant baptism.
Let the children come
"But Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them;
for of such is the kingdom of heaven'" (Matthew 19:14). Perhaps this verse is
used more than any other to support infant baptism. But does it say one word
about it? Is there in all the chapter even one reference to baptism? Does not
this verse teach that children are alright as they are? Jesus says "of such" is
the kingdom of heaven. They are alright as they are! What good will a human
ordinance do them?
Some say: "Well, it will not hurt them." It certainly may! They might think they
have been baptized when in reality they have only obeyed the command of men and
not the command of God.
Is it harmless to take the name of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit in vain? For
that is what is done every time a child is christened. If I do something in a
man's name when he has not authorized it, I am taking his name in vain. Every
case of infant baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a
forgery.
You who practice infant baptism, how are you going to answer to God for having
changed His law, for having put a human law in its place? I know you love your
children, then how dare you deceive them, how dare you make them think this
human ordinance can take the place of the divine command of believers' baptism?
Baptism and circumcision
Figuratively, baptism is compared with circumcision (Colossians 2:11,12).
Because infants were circumcised in Old Testament times, some try to justify
infant baptism by this comparison. In many points, however, baptism is different
than circumcision. Who was circumcised? Israelites. Do those who practice infant
baptism only baptize Israelites? Only boys were circumcised. Do those who
practice infant baptism sprinkle only boys? Were not the Jews required to
believe and be baptized?
Finally
If you have trusted in this human practice for salvation, renounce it at once.
If you have taught it to your children, take your Bible and show them that you
have been mistaken. Baptism is connected with salvation (1 Peter 3:21).
Salvation is too important for one to be satisfied with a human substitute that
will not save. Let me quote again the language of Jesus: "He who believes and is
baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark
16:16).