If You are seeing this page you need to update your bookmarks to
http://baptistbecause.com
View this Article on our New Site
http://baptistbecause.com/why-the-baptists-do-not-baptize-infants
Why The Baptists Do Not
Baptize Infants
As a fact, Baptists do not baptize their infants. If there be
any benefits springing from Infant Baptism, the children of
Baptists miss them. If Infant Baptism is necessary to the
salvation of children, then the children of Baptists are lost.
The motive of the Baptists in refusing baptism to children is no
secret. They hardly consider it necessary to say it is from no
want of kindness or religious solicitude for their children. They
expect many things to be said against them, and are ready to bear
them, but can not believe that their worst enemies will seriously
deny that they love their children and are concerned for their
highest religious safety.
Nor does their refusal arise from an unwillingness to consecrate
their children to the Lord. This, every sincere and intelligent
Baptist does. Nor is it from any desire to be eccentric or
singular; but a deep conviction of duty which they cannot but
regard.
The Bible Does Not Teach It
The one sufficient reason the Baptists have for rejecting Infant
Baptism is, that the Bible does not teach it. With some this is
nothing. They follow priests, creeds, and churches. But to the
Baptists, the Bible is the end of controversy. They confess its
authority as supreme, and accept nothing as religious duty except
that which it teaches. They do not find that it teaches Infant
Baptism. But some say that the Bible does teach it.
It is there! Well, where? Dreamy fancies that it is taught
somewhere in the Word of God are worth nothing. Give the chapter
and the verse where, by law or example if taught. If your child's
salvation depended on a passage in the Scriptures that taught
this doctrine, which would you select?
Jesus Did Not Practice It
True, certain passages or incidents in the Bible are presented in
support of Infant Baptism, but even the friends of the doctrine
differ widely concerning them. Without attempting to notice all
these texts, I will, as a matter of justice, select for notice
those which are considered the strongest. Perhaps the most
popular proof passage is found in Mark 10:14-16. This is to many
a tower of strength - a refuge in weakness, and quoted on all
occasions. What are the facts? Little children are brought to the
Saviour and he takes them in his arms and blesses them. The
surprise and displeasure of the disciples at the presentation of
these children to Christ plainly indicated that the practice of
Infant Baptism was not known to them. It was certainly a capital
opportunity for instituting such an ordinance and explaining its
object; but nothing of the kind was done. The silence of Jesus on
the subject is itself a significant argument against it. The fact
that he said nothing about Infant Baptism, and did something
quite different from it, turns this passage into a strong
proof-test against the practice.
Household Baptisms Do Not Prove It
But there are the Household Baptisms. It is claimed that if whole
families were baptized, there must have been children among them.
First in the list is the family of Crispus. Paul baptized that
household. It is enough to say that it is expressly declared that
Crispus "believed in the Lord with all his house," Acts
18:8.
Next is the house of Stephanas, I Cor. 1:13. Here Paul simply
speaks of it as the baptism of a household. Must there not have
been infants? Not unless it can be shown that there are no
households without infants.
But observe that in I Cor. 16:15, Paul, in alluding to this
family, calls them "the first fruits of Achaia," and
says they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the
saints." Manknight is candid enough to admit that there
could have been no infants in the house of Stephanas.
Next is the household of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:29-34. In
reading the account, you observe that they spake the word of the
Lord to all that were in the house of the jailer - that the
jailer rejoiced, believed in God with all his house. That is
unanswerably plain. Last in the list is the house of Lydia. Acts
16:14, 15-40. Before an argument in favor of Infant Baptism can
be wrung from this case, several impossible propositions must be
established: 1. That Lydia was married. 2. That she had children.
3. That any of these children were at that time infants. 4. That
these infants were baptized. 5. That the term brethren in verse
40 is used independently of these children.
Circumcision Has Nothing To Do With It
There is also the argument from circumcisions. It is claimed that
Infant Baptism is the substitute for
circumcision. That such is the case nowhere intimated in the Word
of God. The Jews that had been
circumcised, when converted to Christ were baptized. Timothy was
circumcised after he had been baptized.
If baptism is the substitute for circumcision, where is the fact
stated?
Some who practise Infant Baptism do not claim clear Bible
authority for it. They put it on the ground that it is a
"form of consecration," - "can do no
harm."That there is any wrong or injury in the simple act of
sprinkling a child with water and praying for its salvation, no
one would be foolish as to assert. But when this act is performed
on the plea that it is commanded by the Word of God, it becomes
an evil. It is to claim scriptural authority for what is not
taught in the Word of God. Besides, the observance of this
practice is a practical abolition of believer's baptism, which is
clearly required by the law of Christ.
It is an injury to the child. It infringed his right of choice in
the matter of baptism. It confuses his mind in regard to his
relation to the Church. It leaves him in doubt as to his
regeneration. It is calculated to foster in his mind false
religious hopes.
It is an injury to the Church. The scriptural idea of the Church
is that of a body of baptized believers. Only those who have been
pardoned and regenerated are entitled to membership. Upon the
preservation of this idea of a spiritual membership is dependent
the purity of the churches. This idea is assailed by Infant
Baptism, and the universal triumph of that doctrine would be the
introduction of all classes of persons within the ranks of some
external church. The truth of this statement is abundantly proved
by the condition of the Lutheran Church in Germany, and that of
the Established Church of England.
If it be true that Infant Baptism is not taught in the Word of
God—that it is injurious to those who are its subjects, and
unfriendly to the New Testament idea of a Church, then the
Baptists are amply justified in rejecting it.