Why Were You Baptized? (Followup to Reason #3)

In my previous blog entitled "Why Were You Baptized? (Reason #3)," I showed that the practice of infant baptism identified more with practices under the obsolete 'old covenant' that God had made with the physical nation of Israel, than with the 'new covenant' that defines New Testament Christianity. Still, some people believe that the New Testament allows for the practice of infant baptism. Let me explain some of their reasoning and share some observations.

Even though there is no direct teaching regarding infant baptism and there are no specific examples, the Bible speaks of whole 'households' being baptized. Considering the definition of household, infants would have been included. For that reason, infant baptism is justified. 

Does that reasoning make sense? 
Let's begin with the meaning of household in the first century:

According to Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary the household  "included the immediate family and all who lived together in the same house. This included slaves, concubines, foreign residents and servants."

Clearly, this definition would include family members of all ages, even infants. In addition, there are examples in the New Testament of households being baptized:

• The household of Cornelius - Acts 10:24 ff.
• The household of Lydia - Acts 16:14-15
• The household of the Philippian jailer - Acts 16:31-33
• The household of Stephanas - 1 Corinthians 1:16

So, the thinking is that an infant in any of these households would have been baptized simply because of they were part of the household. Of course there is no evidence suggesting that any of these households did or did not have infants. For that reason, it is mere speculation to use these households as examples of infant baptism.

That leaves us with the definition only. So, is the definition of household enough to justify the baptism of infants?

Let's look a little further in scripture...
First, there is at least one example in New Testament in which infants and small children were excluded from the household. The text is in John 4 where we read that Jesus was in the town of Cana and was asked by a nobleman to heal his son who was near death. The man pleaded with Jesus to go with him to his home in Capernaum before his son died, but Jesus assured him that his son would live. Arriving home the next day, the father found his son in good health. Now, notice the response to the miraculous healing:

"...and he [the nobleman]  believed and his whole household."     --John 4:23

Common sense tells us that only those of the household who were capable of believing were the ones who actually believed. So, we naturally understand that infants, and even small children, were excluded.

This example shows that while the definition of household was all-inclusive, there were exceptions. Some circumstances might exclude certain members of the household.

Second, neither by instruction nor by example is Christian baptism found in Scripture apart from faith, repentance and discipleship. Let's consider three brief passages.

The Great Commission is found in the gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark and it naturally excludes infants and small children because it calls for a response of faith and discipleship:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."     --Matthew 28:18-19

Can an infant or toddler become a disciple (a learner and follower)? Of course not.

Clearly Jesus was not referring to anyone who could not make a conscious decision to devote his life to Him in discipleship. At the very least infants and toddlers are exceptions to Jesus' instruction.

And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."     --Mark 16:15-16

Can an infant or toddler believe or disbelieve the message being preached? Of course not.

Clearly Jesus was not instructing His apostles to go out preaching to infants. It simply does not make sense. Infants do not have the mental capacity to believe (or to disbelieve) any more than an animal. (And I do not believe the apostles went out preaching to animals even though they are technically a part of "all creation.") 
(Note: I am not calling anyone's child an animal; nor do I wish to offend your beloved pet.)

Let's make another observation in light of Jesus' instruction:

• If 'I' believe and 'I' am baptized, that would make sense;
• If 'you' believe and 'you' are baptized, that would make sense; however, 
• If 'I' believe and 'you' are baptized, that would not make sense.

So, it is clear that the Apostles were not to preach to parents and then baptize their babies. I think it would be a real stretch of the imagination to come to any other conclusion.

Next, consider the reaction of the crowd of listeners when the gospel message was first preached by the Apostle Peter:

Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."     --Acts 2:37-38

Some have speculated that infants were surely part of the large crowd that gathered to hear Peter and the Apostles. With that assumption, they then reason that infants were baptized that day. Yet, can infants be "pierced to the heart"? Can infants repent? Of course not.

The gospel message was understood by the people who heard and it brought about a response of deep sorrow in their hearts. They were asked to repent. (Repentance is literally 'a change of heart/mind.') With this kind of response, it does not make sense to include infants.

So, putting it all together...
By strict definition, household would include infants, yet where it makes sense infants could be excluded depending upon the circumstances. Furthermore, when the term household is used in the context of discipleship, faith and repentance, common sense tells us to exclude infants.

So, returning to the original question: Is the 'household' idea sufficient to justify the baptism of infants?
The answer is, "No."

Even if infants were members of the households that were baptized, they would have been excluded because of their inability to believe and make a conscious response to the gospel message.

Perhaps one final question should be considered: Is it wrong to baptize infants?

We must recognize that baptism and its benefits always follow faith, repentance and a call to discipleship. Since infants are incapable of faith, repentance and discipleship, then what would be the meaning and purpose of baptizing infants? 
Will the 'ritual' of baptism do something for the infant? Absolutely not!

God has assigned meaning and purpose to baptism in clear statements found in Scripture. So, to use the same practice yet with a different meaning and/or a different purpose would be to add or substitute man's thinking for God's.

So, while it is not technically wrong to baptize infants, it is, at best, confusing. At worst, it is likely to give people confidence in the present and hope for the future not rooted in God's promises. That is an illusion that simply does not make sense.

Why Were You Baptized? (Reason #3)

There seems to be considerable confusion in our day regarding baptism. Many things have been taught about baptism that are simply not in the Bible. For that reason, it is safe to say that the confusion is the fault of man, not God. Here is another reason that some people have been baptized.

Reason #3:

My parents had me baptized when I was a baby.

On one occasion a young man told me that he had been baptized as a baby. Curious, I ask why. He told me that it was the way the parents’ in his church devoted their children to Christ.

I truly admire parents who wish to devote their children to Christ, and I appreciate that they wish to make their desire known. But why choose baptism to express their desire?

I have read other reasons for baptizing infants. Some of the reasoning sounds noble and some of the reasoning is confusing. I have found no parallel in the Bible. In fact, I have found something in Scripture quite contrary to this practice.

The prophet Jeremiah wrote about a ‘new covenant’ that would replace the existing covenant God had with the nation of Israel. In his words…

“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”     —Jeremiah 31:34

(You can read the entire text beginning in verse 31.)

The first covenant God made was with the physical nation of Israel. When an Israelite couple had a child, that child was automatically part of a covenant relationship with God. Of course, that child knew nothing of God and had to be taught. So, birth occurred before instruction.

However, Jeremiah’s prophecy was about a new covenant. Under the new covenant a person would already have knowledge of God, at least the basic knowledge of His forgiving character.

Jesus fulfilled Jeremiah's prophecy ushering in the a covenant which assured forgiveness of sins through the blood (sacrifice) of Christ. The entire book of Hebrews examines the new covenant which resulted in Christianity. It is better than the old covenant and it made the old covenant obsolete. (Hebrews 8).

One stark difference between the two covenants is relevant to the question of infant baptism:

• Old Covenant: A child was physically born into a covenant relationship with God, then had to be taught about God. So, teaching about God followed physical birth.
• New Covenant: A person was taught about God and then entered into a covenant relationship through a spiritual birth. So, teaching about God preceded spiritual birth.

Which which covenant practice does infant baptism more closely resemble?
If you wish to be a part of the new covenant, it does not start as an infant, or even as a toddler.

Whatever reasons people offer for baptizing infants, Jeremiah said that in the new covenant, “they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.” All examples of baptism in the New Testament involved adults who were first taught the gospel, then baptized.

If you were baptized only as an infant, it may have been for noble reasons, but it must not be confused with the ‘one baptism’ that the Apostle Paul wrote about in Ephesians 4. The new covenant is better; the old is obsolete. You must be born again!

(Look for a followup to Reason #3 later in the week.)

(Click here for Reason #2.)