Infant Baptism?
El Dorado UMC May 1, 2005
Infant Baptism?
Acts 2:38-39
1 have decided that no doctrine of the church has more questions associated with it and more confusion
surrounding it that the doctrine of infant baptism. "How can an infant ‘believe and be baptized’?" "Where
in Scripture does it show an infant being baptized?" "Should I be baptized again, now that I am an adult?"
These and many other questions are often asked concerning the baptism of infants. Most of us tend to avoid
the issues and questions because we are not sure of the answers ourselves. However, if we are willing to
take a look, there is a very strong case for the baptism of infants of Christian parents.
Let’s look at the evidence. Those who reject the baptism of infants accurately point out that the Bible
does not specifically command that infants should be baptized, nor does it give any specific examples of
an infant receiving baptism. Yet, the Bible is not silent in the matter.
To begin to build a biblical case for infant baptism, I need to start with the Old Testament. A careful
look leaves no doubt that infants were, in fact, members of the Old Testament Church, and as such were the
regular recipients of the covenant seal - circumcision. This began with the first covenant God made with
Abraham, as shown in Genesis 17:7, 1-12: "Behold, I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant
between me and you and your descendants after you...Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are
to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations
to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised...."
It is certain that just as Jewish adults were members of the church of God, their children were as well,
for the seal of circumcision was for all alike, regardless of age. This covenant seal was administered
for nearly two thousand years before Christ to infants, children, and adults alike as a sign of their
membership in God’s covenant family.
When Christ brought the new covenant, baptism took the place of circumcision, and from the beginning was
applied to the same subjects as circumcision. According to St. Paul, the connection between baptism and
circumcision is clear: "And in him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in
the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in
baptism..." (Col. 2, 11-12)
As circumcision in the Old Testament was a token of visible membership in the family of God, so is
baptism today. Circumcision was the ordinance which publically marked entrance into the family of God,
as does baptism today. Circumcision was a sign of God’s grace upon his people, as is baptism today
through the blood of Christ and regeneration by his Spirit. Although circumcision has been discontinued;
now baptism occupies the same place, means the same thing, and is a pledge of the same spiritual blessings.
Just as, in God’s wisdom, it was once right and possible for infants of believing parents to be accepted
as part of God’s family through circumcision, it is still right and possible for infants of believing parents
today to be accepted as part of God’s family through baptism. This gift to little children has always been
part of God’s plan.
The continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament Church is clear. If infants were once offered the
gift of God’s grace and seen as members of God’s people, they undoubtedly still are, unless some divine word
excluding them can be found. We find no hint in the New Testament of the high privileges granted to the
infant children of believers ever being withdrawn. As advocates of infant baptism, we don’t have to produce
from the New Testament an express warrant for the membership of the children of believers. That was given
two thousand years before the New Testament was written; and having never been revoked remains firmly in
force today.
The continuity between the Old and New Testaments provides a strong case for infant baptism. Another
strong argument is found in the principle of family baptism found again and again in the Bible. We know that
in Old Testament times it was customary, when proselytes to Judaism came from the surrounding nations, that
all the children of a family were admitted to membership in the church along with their parents; that all
males, both children and adults, were circumcised, and that all in the family - male and female - were
brought into the community of God’s covenant people.
Accordingly, when we examine New Testament history we find that the apostles, who were all native Jews,
continued this same principle of receiving and baptizing whole families on the faith of the parents.
When "the heart of Lydia was opened, so that she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul," we
are told that "she and the members of her household were baptized" (Acts 16:14-15). When the jailor at
Philippi believed, "he was immediately baptized, he and all his household" (Acts 16:33). Paul said in
I Cor.1: 16, "Now I did baptize the household of Stephanas..."
In his Spirit-inspired sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter made it clear that the blessing and promise
of salvation was not just for adults, but for children as well. "And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and let
each of you be baptized 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
for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to
himself " (Acts 2:3 8,39).
Although this is only indirect scriptural evidence, the fact that the Bible mentions that entire
"households" were baptized does make it seem probable that children and infants were included,
especially since this was the already established custom among the Jews, a privilege that was never
taken away. While there are no specific references to infant baptism in the New Testament, there
is every reason to believe that children and infants were included.
"That’s all well and good, Bro. Jim," some might say, "but how can infants be baptized if they cannot believe?"
That is a fair question, but one based on wrong assumptions.
Those who reject infant baptism practice what they call "believer’s baptism." On the basis of passages
such as Mark 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," they claim that a person must believe
and be able to confess his or her faith before receiving baptism. Since infants are clearly unable to
believe and confess, they must be excluded from baptism. Only those who have reached the "age of reason,"
or the "age of accountability" can be baptized.
This position has some serious faults. First, there is no reason to think that Mark was speaking
chronologically. He didn’t say "First believe and then be baptized." Any Christian who has been
baptized as an infant can confidently say, "I believe, and I have been baptized." We understand that
the gift of God’s love was offered long before we were born, and can be acknowledged in a child’s life
at birth. Later in their life they will have to accept the gift for themselves (to believe), but the gift
portrayed by baptism remains the same.
Second, and more importantly, the issue is not whether or not an infant can believe. None of us - children
or adults - are baptized because of our faith. We are baptized because of God’s grace. Many people today
have a hard time with the idea that baptism is not about what we do, but about what God did for us. Many
people today view baptism as their own personal sacrament, a sign of their own faith and acceptance of Jesus
Christ. If that is indeed the case, then infant baptism makes no sense. However, when we understand that
baptism is not about us, but about God, it becomes a sign of God’s grace, not of our faith. It is not a
sign of our willingness to follow God, but of God’s willingness to accept us into his family. Baptism is
a pure sign of the grace of God offered to all people of every age.
I haven’t the time today to go through all the arguments for infant baptism, or to show how consistently the
early church accepted infant baptism from the beginning. Let me simply conclude by saying that if John the
Baptist could be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1: 15), if Jesus could say,
"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them," and if the Apostle Peter could say on the
Day of Pentecost, "The promise is to you and your children" (Acts 2:39), who then can say that so great
an invitation is now invalid for infants?
Yes, we baptize babies. Unmistakable scriptural proof substantiates that doctrine. Unbroken Christian
history reflects this practice in each generation. As they have throughout the history of the church,
conscientious Christian parents still bring their children to baptism so that they may gratefully embrace
the affirmation extended to all: "For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ" (Gal.3.-27).
Brother Polk preached a series of sermons on baptism you may enjoy by following these links.
Baptism - A Meaningful Act | Jump Right In - the Water is Fine
A Paper on Infant Baptism | Infant Baptism?
