What About Infant Baptism?

(Blue ink for citations and maroon ink for citations inside the citations.)

I have never accepted infant baptism as legitimate since I could never find it in Scripture and because baptism is symbolic of the new life in Christ. Faith in Jesus is required and an infant doesn’t have that faith. This citation is a perfect description of the problem:

In opposition to the usual arguments for infant baptism the Brethren set forth their position, underscoring the basic insights of Anabaptism. 

First, the nature of baptism rules out the possibility of infant baptism. New Testament baptism requires prior conviction for, and repentance of, sin, and faith in Christ. Baptism is viewed as a symbol of initiation into the church and a sign of the new life which the believer has in Christ. “In other words, baptism is to be administered only after receiving the Holy Spirit; and children, though they are not necessarily condemned, do not have the Holy Spirit.”

Second, baptism is a symbol and not a sacrament. It has no meaning where faith in Christ is absent. 

Third, Christ has set for us an example through his own baptism. 

Fourth, through the Great Commission he has explicitly commanded us to teach and baptize. Fifth, baptism is not analogous to circumcision: 

“As for the matter of circumcision, it is clear that baptism is not the same as the Old Testament act of initiation, but its its replacement. The analogy should not be pushed too far. Summarizing: Baptism is not the expression of a mechanical covenant theory, it requires a certain type of personal standing and a personal relation to God, the Father of Jesus Christ.” (Jan Matthijssen, Bern Disputation, p.32)

William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, pg.206-7

Therefore, on the basis of the N.T., baptism must be preceded by repentance; the person being baptized must have reached an age at which he or she would be capable of repentance. Baptism should never be administered without a previous profession of faith. Baptism is also tied in with membership in the church and infants cannot hold church membership. The order required for believer’s baptism (the only proper baptism) according to Scripture: hearing the Word, believing the Word by faith, repentance, then baptism.

Contrary to some teaching (e.g. Roman Catholicism), baptism has no salvific value, rather it is the inward acceptance of the Gospel and placing one’s faith in the work of Christ for salvation. 

Baptism signifies the forgiveness of sins, an inner transformation of mind and heart, and a pledge of a life of discipleship.

 William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, pg.202. Citing the teachings of Conrad (Konrad) Grebel.

It would not be confusing to say that Christian baptism is immersion in water in the name of the  Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and it signifies that the one baptized is identified with, or united with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

Earl C. Smith, M.S., D.D., Paul’s Gospel: An Analysis and Exposition of the Major Epistles, pg.102-103

What about “household” baptisms, as in Acts 10 with Cornelius, Acts 16 with Lydia, Acts 16 with the Philippian jailer, Acts 18 with Crispus, and 1 Corinthians 1 with Stephanas? Wouldn’t children be in these households? The Bible says the people being baptized believed the Gospel message—how do infants have that sort of faith? An excellent synopsis of these events and why they don’t include infant baptisms can be found here: Household Baptisms in the New Testament

Finally, in the Didache (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”), chapter 7, we find the following instructions about baptism, which is what the early church taught and believed:

Now concerning baptism. Baptize as follows, when you have rehearsed the aforesaid teaching: Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, use whatever is available. And if you cannot do it in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times—in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Baptism is NOT Necessary For Salvation Nor Does It Save You

I’ve had a Catholic criticize my article, Roman Catholic Baptism Is Unbiblical, claiming that baptism is indeed necessary for salvation. He included the following Bible verses as “proof texts” that baptism does indeed provide salvation.  Well, let’s just examine his “proof” for what it is.

Mark 16:16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Notice it first says, “He who believes.” The belief in Jesus as savior is what saves the person, and the baptism is the outward sign of an inward faith/spirituality. Notice in the second phrase it says, “he who does not believe will be condemned.” The one who does not believe will not be saved through baptism. 

John 3:5: Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

IF the water referred to is baptism, then notice one must be born of the Spirit (i.e. born of the Holy Spirit because of faith in the salvation of Jesus). But water here is not literal, rather it refers to cleansing (e.g. Ezekiel 36:24-27). John MacArthur points out, When water is used figuratively in the OT, it habitually refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing, especially when used in conjunction with “spirit” (Num.19:17-19; Ps.51:9, 10; Is. 32:15, 44:3-5, 55:1-3; Jer. 2:13; Joel 2:28-29). Thus, Jesus made reference to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (cf. Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5), required for belonging to His kingdom.

Notice though, that Jesus is restating vs. 3 where He says, “Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Replace “born again” with “born of water and of the Spirit.” “Born again” has the meaning of placing one’s faith in Christ for salvation.

Acts 2:38-41: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

It doesn’t take a theological scholar to see that Peter did not say anyone needed to be baptized to be saved. He stated the first thing to do was “repent.” Then he says the baptism which follows is in the name of Jesus, which implies with their repentance they put their faith in Jesus for salvation. Those who were saved were “those who received his word”— i.e., the sermon he had just preached about Jesus beginning at verse 14. They asked what they should do after hearing this sermon. If they didn’t repent and place their faith in Jesus, being baptized in His name would not give them salvation. Real repentance knows how evil sin is and that it must be forsaken “and the person and work of Christ totally and singularly embraced.”

The Apologetics Study Bible says this: Many groups use these verses to teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Yet Paul made a distinction between the two when he wrote, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Co. 1:17). He then described the gospel as “the power” to save (v.18). Baptism and the gospel are thus set in opposition to each other. Paul explained that “the gospel . . . is God’s power for salvation” (Rom.1:16).

Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

This was said by Ananias AFTER Paul had an encounter with Jesus and more teaching by Ananias. Paul had been given the faith and the Holy Spirit. So Ananias is telling him to now be baptized. As most commentaries will point out, grammatically calling on the name of the Lord precedes “rise and be baptized.” Calling on the name of the Lord is what saved Paul, not the baptism.

Romans 6:3-4: Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Notice he says ‘baptized into Christ Jesus.” They were believers and then baptized into that faith. The baptism symbolized their faith in Christ as they were “buried with him through baptism.” BUT that is assuming Paul is talking about water baptism. But what do scholars have to say? “Paul is actually using the word baptized in a metaphorical sense, as we might be saying someone was immersed in his work, or underwent his baptism of fire when experiencing some trouble.” 

This is pretty plain because Paul says we were buried into death and yet we didn’t die.

1 Corinthians 6:11: And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This passage doesn’t even mention baptism, rather it is about being washed, etc, but the Spirit! Baptism would come later.

Titus 3:5:  He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit…

Again, this is not about baptism but about regeneration and renewal by the Spirit! Water baptism isn’t even hinted at.

1 Peter 3:21: Baptism … now saves you…

How about we look at the context of this passage starting at vs 18:

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the]spirit; in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

So notice he says, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, i.e. not with water but with an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I suggest the reader look at the very thorough explanation at “Got Questions."

Ephesians 2:8-9 says salvation is not of oneself, i.e., works—and baptism is a work. Baptism is the outward sign of an inward faith/spirituality. Without the inward faith, baptism has no meaning—it does not provide salvation nor is it necessary for salvation.

Now the amusing thing is that Catholics have four paragraphs in their Catechism which prove they don’t believe that water baptism is what saves you:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”[62] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

None of this is even hinted at in the Bible and has been invented by the Papist Church as a way to maintain the lie that Baptism is what provides salvation.

Roman Catholic Baptism Is Unbiblical

This article was originally published on 6/17/10 but I thought it needed to be revisited after 15 years.

====

The Catholic teaching on Baptism begins with the idea that the very act of baptism “erases original sin,” and that it is required for one’s salvation. This is why babies must be baptized as soon as possible. Some quotes from the Catechism demonstrate this teaching:

Para. 1250 “Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.”

Para. 1257 “…The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…”

Para. 1261 “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God… Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

Another interesting aspect of Catholic baptism is noted in Para. 1237 of the catechism: “Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate.”

Of course none of this is found in Scripture. Baptism is what the Christians do because they have become Christians by being justified by faith in Christ; it is an outward, public sign of the person’s confession. There is nothing about baptism that saves a person who has not placed their faith in the atoning work of Christ. One is forced to ask why Christ never baptized anyone, and why Paul baptized only a few, if baptism was required for salvation? Faith in Christ alone is what saves us from sin (John 3:16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:47; John 20:31; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:16; Rom. 3:22,25; Rom. 10:9; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 2:8-9, 16; et al).

And, of course, there is no biblical teaching for the idea that exorcisms should be pronounced at the time one is baptized.

Baptism saves no one, and that is what the Bible teaches.

"Think on These Things"

You Do Err…  Think about Pharisees, legalists and cults.

The Broken Logic of Infant Baptism.  Excellent study!

Didaché - Are We Worse Than The Pharisees?!?

The Beth Moores vs. the Mary ‘Polly’ Careys.  Good, thought-provoking article.

Are there modern-day Apostles? Short answer, NO!

The Gospel Coalition just keeps getting worse and more satanic.

JD Greear, Ex-president of the Southern Baptist Convention as well as a pastor, has a bizarre take on homosexuality and other cultural issues. Certainly not proper for even a pastor!

Bethel ’s children’s ministry is disgusting and heretical.

More reasons to avoid Jen Wilkin.

Why do people still follow Kenneth Copeland? He is not a Christian—he is a rank heretic and fraud.

Another warning against Priscilla Shirer!

Rick Joyner continues to prove what a false teacher—let alone a false apostle—he is.

Kathryn Krick is as bad as it gets.

RECLAIMING the true meaning of 2 CHRONICLES 7:14  I addressed this back in 2020.

If you’ve liked Veggie Tales, as we did with our kids, you may have noticed them being not so good as the years went by. Well, the creator of Veggie Tale, Phil Vischer, has become a rank heretic; don’t give him any more of your money!!!

Interesting review of Kendrick Brothers’ films. I like the first three (and saw the same issues Elizabeth notes) but Courageous seemed too contrived (more so than the others) and War Room went so far out of whack that we didn’t bother with any further movies.

Good, Bad, and Ugly

I’m really getting behind on my blog!  Busy summer—that’s my excuse!  Meanwhile, I try to keep up with my reading, so here are things I felt needed to be shared.

The Good:

To their own destruction--Jehovah's Witnesses.

Was the thief on the cross justified by works, as claimed by the Roman Catholic Church?

Old Testament polygamy does not justify same-sex “marriage.”  I previously wrote an article demonstrating God’s attitude towards polygamy.

5 non-negotiable from the church fathers on the incarnation.

Educational Limbo: How Low Can You Go?

Was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil good or evil?

When did churches stop baptizing by immersion?

Is the KJV the most accurate translation?

John MacArthur has a series, “The Long Struggle to Preserve the Gospel.” Part one here, part two here.

The Bad and/or Ugly—Things you need to be alerted about!

When a Christian university capitulates to the culture for money (i.e. accreditation).  They could have kept their morals and people could still get educated there, but approval of man seems to be more important.

Kenneth Copeland: why, oh why, are there still people listening to this horrid wolf!?!? He is a false teacher, false prophet, and bald-faced liar. Nothing he says is even remotely true or based in reality.

The more I read about the Pennsylvania priest sex scandal, the more I see how horrid is the Papist church.  The organization has been rife with perverts from the beginning and the RCC just continues to protect them.  The only time they do anything is when they get “caught with their hand in the cookie jar.” And contrary to what the author of this article claims, this did NOT start in the 1960s and is NOT just a thing in the USA.  An archbishop is calling for the Pope’s resignation, claiming the Pope was involved in the cover-up of the crimes.

When Catholics deny reality—which really demonstrates the reason that sexual abuse is rampant in the Catholic Church, and always has been.

But if you haven’t had enough proof that the Pope does not represent Christ or God, take a gander at this.

The Mormons are trying to escape their history. It seems “God” has spoken to them again.

Mormons were NOT persecuted, contrary to the claims of President Trump.

Remember, this is what the apostate ELCA denomination has become.  How can a true Christian continue being a member of this group?!?!

A cult to be aware of, and warn others about, is The Twelve Tribes.

I’ve mentioned the name Ed Stetzer in prior posts, but I think you need to know more about him so as to mark and avoid him.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything about Joyce Meyer, so let me remind you of what a horrid false teacher she is.

Rachel Held Evans gets worse all the time.

More evidence that Tim Keller is a WOLF.  Mark and avoid him!

Mark and avoid this wolf and his goat pen, Greater Purpose Community Church. They are instruments of Satan.