Home | About Us | Directions | Bulletins | Sermons & Audio | Cross Of Christ Studies | Classes | Student and Parent Resource Page | Dangers Facing the "Non-Traditional"
Infant Baptism (Part 1)
by Gus Nichols
|
The Scriptures nowhere even so much as mention infant baptism. Let those who may think I am in error tell us who ever baptized an infant in the days of the inspired apostles? Whose baby was it? When was it done? How was it done? The New Testament is as silent as the tomb on these questions. This is why those who preach infant baptism cannot even convince their own members that they should have their infants baptized. Cases of infant baptism are becoming so rare as to make news for the papers. Parents know the sermons on the subject do not contain a single scripture mentioning infant baptism in any shape, form or fashion. They know if God had wanted them to baptize their infants he would have made the matter plain—would have at least mentioned the subject in the Bible somewhere. NOT IN THE COMMISSION The great commission contains all our authority to baptize now, and there is not a word of authority in the commission for infant baptism. They were to "Teach all nations, baptizing them," or as in the American Standard Version, "Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them." (Mat. 28:19.) A "Disciple" is "A learner"—WEBSTER. Hence the commission contains authority only for the baptism of those taught, or disciples or learners, and not infants. Furthermore, we are told in the commission that those taught and baptized are to be further taught after baptism to "Observe all things" commanded by Christ. (Mat. 28:19-20.) Of course, infants could neither be taught, nor "Observe" anything commanded by Christ. Hence, to baptize an infant is a thing not commanded. To do it in the name of the Son, when the Son has not authorized it is forging his name to something which he has not required. (Acts 2:38.) Mark's record of the commission says, "He that beheveth and is baptized shall be saved." (Mk. 16:16.) Here we see that baptism in the commission is for those who have had the gospel preached to them and have believed it, and are in need of salvation. Infants need no salvation, hence, need no baptism. Baptism is for believers, and not infants. But some have argued that the Lord in giving the commission did not tell the disciples not to baptize infants, and we may therefore baptize them. This is poor logic and a perversion of scripture principles. He did not tell them in so many words not to baptize IDIOTS either. Must we baptize them? Neither did he tell us not to baptize infidels and thugs. Are they also to be baptized? God did not tell Noah not to build the ark of pine. But he did tell him to build the ark of "Gopher wood," and this excluded all other kinds of wood. (Gen. 6:14.) So, in the commission we are authorized to baptize the taught, or believers, and this excludes infants. To obey God is to do what he commands, then stop, without adding to his word. (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19.) NO APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE There is no example of infant baptism under the preaching of the inspired apostles. On Pentecost they preached the gospel. When those who heard it asked what to do, Peter said, "Repent and be baptized." (Acts 2:38.) Infants can not repent, and have no sins to repent of, and hence are not to be baptized. Peter told these people to repent and be baptized "For the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38.) Infants need no remission of sins, hence need no baptism. "They that gladly received his word were baptized." (Acts 2:41.) Infants do not "Gladly receive the word," and therefore, were not included in the number baptized on Pentecost. SAMARITANS THE EUNUCH AND SAUL "When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts 8:12.) These people were believers, and were men and women, not infants. Simon was also baptized, but he was a man and not an infant. (Acts 8:13.) Then the Eunuch, "A man of Ethiopia" was baptized upon a confession of faith. (Acts 8:27-39.) Likewise, Saul of Tarsus, a man, was baptized. (Acts 9:18; 22:16.) CORNELIUS AND HIS HOUSE In Acts 10th and 11th Chapters we read of the conversion of Cornelius and his house. It says he "Feared God with all his house." (Acts 10:2.) Infants do not "Fear God," therefore there were no infants in his house to be baptized. It says he "Commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48.) Infants cannot obey such a command, and therefore infants were not to be baptized. Furthermore, Cornelius' house was composed of those old enough to need salvation, for the angel said Peter would tell him words whereby "Thou and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11:13-14.) Are infants lost and needing salvation? LYDIA AND HER HOUSEHOLD Many have thought that Lydia's household is a clear example of infant baptism. It says, "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." (Acts 16:14-15.) Those composing Lydia's household were old enough to be called brethren, and were not infants. We are told that Paul and Silas, "Entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." (Acts 16:40.) Are infants "Brethren?" Could infants receive gospel "Comfort?" Lydia was of Thyratira, and was away from home at Philippi as a peddler, "A seller of purple." (Acts 16:14.) Who can imagine she had infants with her on such a journey? The wish is father of the thought. I have baptized "Households" and I have never baptized an infant. There is no proof Lydia was ever married. Many fine ladies maintain a "household" who are not married, and have no children. If she had relatives with her in her business of selling purple, they would have made up her household. To assume that there were infants in her household is to beg the question in controversy. THE JAILER'S HOUSE Some also think they have an example of infant baptism in the jailer's house. Of their baptism it is said, "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." (Acts 16:33-34.) It is said that all baptized were believers. After the baptism, the jailer "Rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." (Acts 16:34.) Or, as the American Standard Version says, "Rejoiced with all his house having believed in God." 'Hence, no infant baptism in this case, either. THE CORINTHIANS BAPTIZED "Many of the Corinthian hearing believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18:8.) Those here baptized, first heard and believed the gospel. Hence, no infant baptism here. HOUSEHOLD OF STEPHANAS Paul says, "And I baptized also the household of Stephenas." (1 Cor. 1:16.) Those in this house were all old enough to personally serve the Lord. Paul says, "Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they .have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." (1 Cor. 16:16.) Infants cannot minister to the saints. Hence, there were no infants in this "house" or "household." Joshua said, "As for me and MY HOUSE, we will serve the Lord." (Josh. 24:15.) Did he mean he and his infants would "Serve the Lord?" We are told that Noah "Prepared an ark to the saving of HIS HOUSE," and God said, "Come thou and all THY HOUSE into the ark." (Heb. 11:7; Gen. 7:1.) Yet ail in Noah's "house" were married. (Gen. 7:13.) We have examined all the cases of baptism in Acts of Apostles, and found no hint of infant baptism.
|
Other Articles
Infant Baptism (Part 2)
Are You?
When Jesus Does Nothing
Three Men Rebel Against Hypocrisy
Worship's Emotional Component
The Gospel-Doctrine Component as a Basis of a Broadened Fellowship
