Infant Baptism

Let us once again turn to our question segment; so that we can provide a thorough response to some common questions and some not so common questions. However, we only have one question this time: 


 Is infant baptism biblical?

The clearest answer to this question is:  No. It is not a biblically based idea. But saying that may not be enough to make the case. So let me give a few foundational reasons why this is the case.

First, it is based around an emotional attachment rather the truth. What do I mean? Well, it is often because parents want what is best for their children-- which is a good thing in and of itself. But when it comes to the faith, it turns out to be something which can over-rule sound biblical understanding of the text.  For us to see this we need to make a parallel argument: how does one who believes infant baptism is biblical argue against someone for emotional reason thinks that the bible teaches that every person will be saved in the end even those who do not profess faith in Christ? It does not have any biblical basis just as I.B does not. 

Second, it is based on church history where people practiced this at different times. The problem here is that it is not a Protestant position to base church practices on it taking place at different times in church history. It has to be based on a scriptural foundation. Let us ask: does it make for some churches to allow the unregenerate partake in the Lord Supper when it is a no-go zone; so to is I.B 

Third, it is based on partial biblical references rather than any full ones. Let us be clear: whether a church practices it as a church tradition is not the issue; but rather when it claims that it is doing because the bible permits and teaches it is. Now we should at least note some of the citations:  for example 

(a) in Acts 2 we are told by I.B that "infants are included in the covenant because it state this promise is to you and your children and all those far off..." But what they fail to show is that it is the Spirit of God who is promised (1 8-9; 2 :38c). It is the promise of the holy Spirit. But on top of that we see that there is a further statement which helps us see something very important:  "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."  (vs. 38d) so this means that it is not speaking of I.B in any way but rather it is speaking of the elect who come to faith in Christ and are then baptised.

(b) in a number of places we find the term household mentioned such as Acts 10 and 16. But it is not conclusive as to whom that involved-- but what is conclusive is the fact that (1) the holy Spirit fell upon these people or actively brought them to faith in Christ directly or indirectly (10:44; 16:14; 25-31) And (2) then they are ordered to be baptised; and/or repent and believe (10: 48; 16:15; 31). But when the term household is used there is not conclusive proof that there was infants there-- there may have been but it still does not prove this claim. 

(c) one further argument is based on a statement of Christ to the disciple who had held off parents bring forth their children; and he said: "do not hinder them.. for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."   Here again are two point to consider: (1) what does it mean by the words "such as these"  does it mean that it belongs to children or does it mean that there is something more precious about them which is to be emulated? I would say the second; because that would mean that Christ could be advocate the worst possible thing which he does not. (2) and here is the point: it is a child-like faith that he is speaking to-- in other words, a Christian is someone who like these children depends on another for their life and sustenance. 

So the answer is no:  infant baptism is not biblical.

Popular posts from this blog

The insidious Gnosticism in Feminism

This title may be a little confusing because it is strange concept; yet I believe it is correct.  Now what Do I mean?  Let me explain:  Preliminary thought While what can be called "classical feminism" had an aim; no matter how misguided it may have been as what it was trying to fight for was a good thing just that it never needed to do such a thing; in the first place.  There had always been equality for the sexes due to the Christian faith-- just not identical rights-- for both men and women were equal before God in all thing pertaining to the faith. However, this equality did not rule  distinctive trait that defined each sex rather worked to enhance those wonderful points.  let me ask this:  did women gaining the vote ever do any good to society?  my answer is simple: NO.  the good it may have done was far overshadowed by the evils that were to seep through because of it being a slippery slope. for example: the vote was the catalyst to the...
Read more

The problem that Christians face.

  What is the primary thing that is consistently destroying the life of the ecclesia?   It is the institutional usurpation of the way things were meant to be carried out in the body of Christ. Let me make this point clear-- for much of the last 1800 years (but more so, from 325ad onwards) everything that we assume to be the correct manner is not only error; it is a danger to the health of the church.  In other words, the hierarchical system has no scriptural bearing.  The church as it was brought into existence through Christ and His Spirit by means of His apostles was an organic reality and not an institutional system. Take note of the following passages and tell me that what we have today in Evangelicalism (Today: institutional Christendom)  is what Christ put in place.  Paul teaches us that the function of the church is an internal all body dynamic-- and that all believers are to be participants and not spectators of some grand show: "And...
Read more