Answering Jason Weatherly’s Rebuttal to My Affirmative on Infant Water Baptism

Greetings friends in the mighty name of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Recently I wrote a blog article on “The Bishop’s Epistle” en-titled, Children of Christians are Holy Seed (A Study In Infant WaterBaptism) https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2018/09/children-of-christians-are-holy-seed.html. Something  of a long title, but necessary to inform the reader of the article’s content. My friend and former debating opponent, Jason Weatherly, wrote a rebuttal on his blog “The Weatherly Report.” https://theweatherlyreport.blogspot.com/search?q=infant+water+baptism (Jason is a minister and teacher in the United Pentecostal Church International and is a veteran debater.)

Apart from our disagreements on this subject, I am seriously concerned about how he represented my affirmative arguments. I will say, up front, that his article misrepresented my teaching in several key places and spun half truths into misinformation in a number of other places. What follows is an answer to Brother Weatherly’s rebuttal. It is my earnest wish that you, dear reader, will prayerfully consider both of our thoughts and arguments on this most ancient Christian doctrine of paedo-baptism.

I have numbered Brother Weatherly’s paragraphs 1 through 25 for easy referencing.

In ❡3 my friend mentions a concern over my “shocking confession," where I wrote: “I am no longer sure of the need of each succeeding generation of Christians being required to have the exact new birth experiences as did the first.” Of course I understand his “shock” given the position Acts 2:38 has held for 100 years in the Oneness Pentecostal ranks. But I would ask the reader to focus on my intent and not on Weatherly’s “shock:” Overlooked by our people (OP), but acknowledged by over 80% of all claiming Christianity as their faith, is the different genre that children of believers fall into. By that we mean that when the Gospel of Christ is first presented to a people, the people to which it comes are alien sinners who have experiential sins and a lifestyle that is opposed to godliness. To this sort (which includes the whole of the earth that are not Christian) the command goes forth to repent and believe ( Mark 16:16 and Luke 24:47) before water baptism is administered. However, children of believers are not of that sort. The apostolic church did not see them as alien sinners but as holy to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:14 cf Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13). So, then, the requirements for baptism are not the same for Children of believers as for the alien sinner that comes to faith in Christ.

We have shown that while the NT gives detailed instructions of how first generation disciples were made, it is silent on how 2nd and succeeding generations of disciples were made. In his ❡4-6 Brother Weatherly challenged that by stating: “the New Testament DOES  instruct us how second and succeeding generations ARE TO BE MADE Christians! Acts 2:38-39, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. FOR (gar -because) the promise is to you (first generation), and to your children (second generation), and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

Permit me to untwist Brother Weatherly’s wresting of Scripture: The “promise” that is to all generations is the “promise of the Father” spoken of in Acts 1:4 “And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.” I.e. the gift of the Holy Ghost. The 120 in the upper room were not repenting, they were believing !  They received the “promise of the Father” that all generations are promised. But, those who asked Peter and the rest of the apostles ‘Men and brethren, What shall we do?” had the blood of their Creator on their hands (v23). And to these murderers, Peter said “ R E P E N T “ !   In effect Peter was saying: What the 120 believed for and received, and you see and hear and desire, you must do more than believe, you must R E P E N T .

Because Acts 2:38 commands the sinner to repent before baptism it is the most quoted text in condemning the baptism of infants. (See Weatherly’s ❡13-16.) It is argued that infants cannot repent, so, then, they are not candidates for baptism. This passage with its command to “repent” was shown to be out of bounds for the baptism of the children of believers on at least two grounds: 

1. Acts 2:38 are instructions given to alien sinners and includes the required repentance that is demanded of all who turn from Satan and his devices to Christ. Children of Christians are not alien sinners. According to Paul they are holy at birth (1 Corinthians 7:14). And 
2. The command in Acts 2:38 to repent is crowd specific: The command to repent was given to those who had called for the crucifixion of Jesus. For further treatment on this point please see my first article.

Universal? Weatherly’s ❡7-8 challenged my use of the word “universal” for the practice of Infant Water Baptism. Perhaps I can clear-up the pool that my friend mudded. My use of “universal” intended to state that the practice of IWB was universally wide spread. The way Weatherly spun my use of the word was to insinuate that I was saying that every Christian in the world believed the doctrine and practiced it. 

Brother Weatherly’s debating style is to misrepresent his opponent’s position with such tactics of which his “universal” argument is a classic example. (My friend’s modus operandi is to debate from the foggy mist of deception.)

Brother Weatherly is the master of half truths. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in his ❡9-10 where he challenged my position that IWB was not brought into question until the 16th century. Of course my point was that the doctrinal soundness of the practice was not questioned until then.  My readers understood that. Not being able to let that stand (for that fact is a very powerful argument in favor of the correctness of the practice) my friend seized upon Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 155 - 240), whom I had already introduced. 

To read these particular paragraphs (❡9-10) one would think that Tertullian challenged paedo-baptism on biblical grounds. Nothing could be further from the truth. The baptism of small children did not set well with the lawyer from Carthage, that much is true, but he did not oppose IWB on any biblical or historical grounds. Tertullian’s objection to paedo-baptism was on the grounds of what seemed to him to be impracticality. His suggestion was to delay water baptism for everyone (except the sickly) until after marriage. This to Tertullian seemed the most practical action since the temptations of the flesh were such that young people are pronged to indulge in fornication. (No doubt he was judging all humanity from his own youth.) His lack of confidence in men and women to live holy, and his conviction that water baptism remitted sin, and that one could only be water baptized but once in a lifetime, prompted him to advise delaying baptism until the danger of lust had abated. For if one sinned after baptism, reasoned Tertullian,  there would be no remission that could be had (Tertullian, On Baptism Chapter, XVIII). However, even he stated that in cases of illness or near death that baptism was not to be delayed and that even laymen could baptized if no priest or bishop were present (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter XVII). Moreover, it is pointed out that Tertullian’s opinion was not influential in changing the universal practice of Christians to baptism their new borns. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who called Tertullian his teacher and master, who read Tertullian daily, took a whole different view on the baptism of infants.  

One, Fidus, had written to the council of sixty-six bishops asking whether it would not be better to wait until a child was eight days old to be baptized, after the ancient custom of circumcision, instead of the first or second day after birth.  Cyprian answered back to Fidus that he and the other bishops elected for the earlier time, but did not forbid waiting until the eighth day (The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LVIII.2-6).

“For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, in that spiritual circumcision ought not be hindered by carnal circumcision,  but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks and says, “The Lord hath said to me that I should call no man common or unclean." But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more hideous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted– and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace –how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins– that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.”  —Cyprian (The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LVIII.5)

The above statement is from the student of Tertullian !

You, dear reader, will have to determine between Weatherly and Hayes, as to who misrepresents history.

Hello friends, my name is Jerry Hayes, I am a full time biblical researcher. I  rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales  for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

We now come to ❡11 of my friend’s rebuttal. There are some statements from this paragraph that I will reference in passing

1. Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in John 3:1-8 are referencing the Jewish nation, as the Grk grammar bears out. The nation of Israel was born again on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) and is addressed by Paul in Romans chapter 11. 
2. I am not saying that every soul must not be born again, for truly they must. This new birth takes place on both infants and adults in the living waters of Christian baptism.
3. Paul lets us know from 1 Corinthians 7:14 that children of Christians are holy. In the Old Covenant the children of covenanted Hebrews were holy seed.  The teaching of traducianism (which I hold the Bible to teach—a lesson for another day) is that each person’s soul comes from the spiritual DNA of the parent or parents. The teaching that our children are born Christians (in the sense that they are holy from conception and conceived and born into covenant prerogatives) is rooted in this belief. Whether or not Brother Weatherly (or any other Christian) believes his/her children are different from the children of the unregenerated really depends on how seriously he believes in the New Birth. Is there a nature change in our souls upon being born again or not. If we answer in the affirmative, then the children born to us, that come from our regenerated souls/spirits, are indeed different from the children of the unregenerated !  Different in as far as they are “holy” as opposed to “unholy.” And, yet, in need of baptism to remove the stain of Adam.

Again, some particulars must be pointed out concerning my friends ❡17.

1. Water baptism is Christian circumcision according to Paul — regardless of what Brother Weatherly says: “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”  —Colossians 2:11-12. ~ Just as surely as the foreskin of the male member was cut away from the OT covenanted Hebrew, so too are the “sins of the flesh” cut away from the NT covenanted one in baptism.
2. Weatherly’s suggestion of baptizing males only is a red herring argument. Suggested for the purpose of throwing the reader off the trail of truth. It is hardly worth mentioning (because it is a well know truth), but I will: Judaism was/is a male religion; it is like Islam in that sense. With the coming of the Messiah all people: Jew and Gentile, male and female are but one person (Galatians 3:28).
3. “Through the faith of the operation of God,…” My friend is arguing that one cannot have faith for another; and since infants cannot have faith for themselves they are not valid candidates for baptism. Sounds good on the surface. Then we read that Job not only had faith for his children, but repented on their behalf (Job 1:5). What is more, “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. …” My point is: if Job can have faith for his children and even repent on their behalf, and if the NT believer can intercede in behalf of a sinning brother or sister and the sinning Christian receive “life” because of the third party’s prayer, then it is a small thing that the sponsoring parent can believe in behalf of a child being baptized. Think on this: Those , like my friend, that do not believe in or practice IWB profess to believe that the faith of the parent “covers” their children until they are of the age of accountability. How is that IMPUTED faith any different from the IMPUTED faith of a sponsoring parent for their infant being baptized?! Oh, wait! There is a difference: Faith alone does not remit sin, only baptism does. So, then, the faith of the parent who is attempting to cover a child until age of accountability does nothing to remove the guilt of adamic sin. However, the faith of a sponsoring parent for a child in paedo-baptism produces said baptism, which does, indeed, remit the sin of Adam.

Beloved, I have never in my years of debating witnessed as shameful of an act as is demonstrated in my friends ❡18. I am almost speechless. I said “Almost.” In this place Weatherly attacks the doctrine of Original Sin. Of course this teaching is anchored in Psalm 51:5 which reads: “ Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (KJV). The NIV breaks it down; “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” 

Now Brother Weatherly and those of his ilk cannot let this text stand as believed by most every group of Christians around the world. So, what does he do? He finds some commentator who has suggested that King David, who represents the Messiah, was born from an adulterous affair. (Did the Jews not tell the same tale on Mary and Jesus?) Weatherly suggests that that is the Psalmist’s reference to being shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin. 

One eternal day, hopefully, Brother Weatherly, you will met Jessie, whose character you have not shunned from assassinating in order to maintain a false doctrine. I am not surprised; I have witnessed it before. Nitzevet, also, you have insulted by denigrating her family. Militating against your evil suggestion are David’s words praising his mother as a servant of Yahweh (Psalm 86:16).

Our readers may wonder why brother Weatherly has gone off the reservation with his suggestion that Psalm 51:5 does not reference original sin. The reason IMHO is this: If this text stands as most Christians for 2000 years have read it and understood it Infant Water Baptism is not only allowed but REQUIRED for the salvation of children that are sickly or may die in infancy. 

Here I will offer my ABC’s for Infant Water Baptism:

1. The doctrine of Traducianism;
2. The Doctrine of Original Sin;
3. The Doctrine of Paedo-Baptism

“B” is predicated on “A”, “C” is predicated on “B”. Or, we could work the problem from the other direction: If “A” is true, then “B” is true, if “B” is true that “C” is true.

Lastly, I will deal with Brother Weatherly’s ❡20-24.

I spent considerable word currency in establishing the probable events of IWB in the New Testament, although no passage actually describes an actual event. Great effort was expended to show that no NT passage militates against the practice of IWB, and that IWB is, in fact, actually taught by strong and necessary inference. It is clearly taught that Christian water baptism is the fulfillment of Old Testament circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). It is clearly taught that the Children of believers, like the children of the covenanted Hebrews, were holy seed ( 1 Corinthians 7;14 cf Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13). Children of the Old Covenant were circumcised at 8 days old. Also, at that time their names were assigned. It is at water baptism that  the name of Jesus, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth are named, is assigned to each believer. Both circumcision and baptism are seals of their respective covenants. There is, then, a strong inference that children of believers were baptized as infants.

The inference is more that just strong, it becomes a necessary inference when the testimony of the saintly Polycarp is considered. Polycarp was burned at the stake for being a Christian in A.D. 155. As the flames were licking at his body he was asked to deny Christ. His testimony was: “For eight-six years I have been His servant, and He has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my king that saved me” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 9)  The bishop of Smyrna testified to being a Christian all eight-six years of his life (he was 86 years old). Christian are made by being baptized into Christ (Romans 6:4-5). Therefore, Polycarp was baptized in A.D. 69 as an infant. A.D. 69 was during the lifetime of the apostles. The apostles and their surrogates routinely baptized whole households (Acts 16:31-34; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16) . To contend that these “households” did not include infants and small children is mischievous, if not an outright dishonest position. By reaching to A.D. 155 and bringing the testimony of Bishop Polycarp to bear on our topic, IWB is more than simply inferred by the household baptisms, it is necessarily inferred. In this writers mind it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

My friend, and those of his strip, doubt that there were small children and/or infants in ANY of those household baptisms of the NT. Now, they have expressed their doubt, but their's is not “reasonable doubt.”

One who is serious about paedo-baptism cannot ignore Timothy. Timothy was second (maybe third) generation Christian. We are introduced to him in Acts 16:1. We are not told how old he was at the time but he must have been very young, for 10 years later when Paul gives him encouragement by saying. “Let no man despise your youth”(1 Timothy 4;12) he was still young enough that grown men would think of him as unfit for great responsibility. At a time when few men lived to be fifty years of age and 30 was past prime (life expectancy of a Roman adult was 27) we can think of Timothy of being no older that 18-22. This would mean that Timothy could have been as young as eight when Paul took him as his apprentice. He had not been circumcised though he was from a Jewish family and his father was not a Christian. Because he was well versed in the Old Testament scripture at such a young age (the Septuagint, no doubt) is a necessary inference that Timothy was a Christian from infancy. The fact that he had not been circumcised may testify to circumcision having been replaced with Christian baptism.

Concerning Brother Weatherly’s comments on households, he had this to say: “A ‘household’ in 1st century times could have comprised of a Matriarch/Patriarch and adult servants.” This could be the case, but not likely in that a “household” consisted of the nuclear family, extended family members, servants and their children. Brother Weatherly is asking us to believe the unlikely is the likely. (He doubts if small children were included in the NT “households”, but his doubt is not “reasonable doubt.”) 

With the case of the Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:31-34) Paul’s declaration to him was that his believing would assure the salvation of his whole house. I dare say that Paul did not know at the time if the man had any children at home or not, but he knew what folks like my friend does not seem to know: I.e. the faith of the head of the family embraces the whole  household. Therefore, Joshua could say with certainty: “As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).  The Jailer obviously did have children at home: v33 states that the Jailer and “all his” were baptized. Verse 34 mentions the rejoicing of the Jailer and the fact that he believed in God with all his house. Brother Weatherly’s question “Does this mean that even the infants in his house rejoiced…?”  This is his slight of hand with words. Anyone with one eye and walking around sense can see that. Let me make it clear: v34, “And when he (the Jailer) had brought them into his (the Jailer’s) house, he (the Jailer) set meat before them, and (the Jailer) rejoiced, …”

My Brother tries the same kind of spin tactics with Acts 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:16. That dog just won’t  hunt. The testimony of Bishop Polycarp destroys Brother Weatherly’s objections to IWB. The Bishop of Smyrna proves that the Apostolic church was baptizing infants in A.D. 69.

I will close by stating, in response to Jason Weatherly’s remark that our belief in original sin and Infant Water Baptism was a “strange” doctrine,   that most Christian denominations accept the doctrines of original sin and infant baptism. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Church of the Nazarene, Reformed Church in America, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, Presbyterians, Continental Reformed, Apostolic Orthodox Church International, True Jesus Church (which is a Oneness Pentecostal denomination with 1.5 million members, officially) and others. Together, these constitute over 80 percent of all those who call themselves Christians. So, the “strange” teaching is that which is not the norm. We who believe in the Original Sin and Infant Water Baptism are the norm. Amen.

Apostolically Speaking

☩☩ JLH

Read the Bishop's first affirmative on Infant Water baptism at: https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2018/09/children-of-christians-are-holy-seed.html.

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Children of Christians are Holy Seed (A Study In Infant Water Baptism)

(A Study In Infant Water Baptism)

At this point in my life I have lived long enough to draw some conclusions from observations that I have made along the way. One very pointed observation is the mistake made by Evangelicalism (for this writing I am placing Pentecostalism within this category) concerning how Christians are made. Because the “new birth” teaching is applied to each new generation of Christians, by Evangelical theology, it becomes necessary to re-evangelize each generation, or lose them to Secular Humanism, or worse. It is obvious that we are not very adapted to such a task. Consequently, then, the main-line Evangelical groups ( e.g. main-line Protestant denominations) are shrinking in number in each succeeding generation. There is no comfort when Pentecostal camps boast that their numbers are rising. With them it is only the spiritually hungry from the main-line Evangelical, Catholic, (we might throw the Orthodox in for good measure) that are making a lateral move. It is not that they are becoming Christians by moving over to a Pentecostal pew; it is just that the floor show is better. But even in the Pentecostal (non-denominational type) churches, very few of their children will follow through. The mega-church is a fad; and when the spiritual crowd get their fill of religious entertainment, their buildings will be vast warehouses - not even a museum piece of architecture.

Yes, I confess that the New Testament teaches to be “Born Again.” However, I am no longer sure of the need of each succeeding generation of Christians being required to have the exact new birth experience as did the first. The challenge arises when we must admit that the New Testament gives no example of any but first generation converts. I mean, we have no biblical example of how second and succeeding generations were made Christians. Of course, when I speak of succeeding generation I am speaking of those born into Christian families. However, early in the life of the Church historical records reveal the practice of Infant Baptism for children of believers. 

(Infant Water Baptism was universal in Christian society from the first century onward and was not brought into question until the Anabaptist [16th century]. Irenaeus [A. D.  130–202) speaks not only of children but even of infants being "born again to God" and three passages of Origen (185–c. 254) mention infant baptism as traditional and customary. Tertullian (c. 155– 230) too, mentions that it was customary to baptize infants, with sponsors speaking on their behalf. The Apostolic Tradition, attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (died 235), describes how to perform the ceremony of baptism; it states that children were baptized first, and if any of them could not answer for themselves, their parents or someone else from their family was to answer for them. As a caveat: I mention the above persons, not because I agree with their theology on other matters, but, because they happen to reference IWB in their historical setting.)

It has become my conviction that the early Christians solved the question of: Now that I am a Christian, how are my children made Christians? They concluded, from Old Testament example, that their children were Christians already by right of birth and only needed the seal of the covenant, i.e. water baptism.

Jesus told Nicodemus that the Jewish people must be born again (John 3:1-8). The apostolic missionaries took the same message to the world. Consequently, then, each individual of first generation believers were brought to a crisis point of belief; where a conscious decision is made to produce repentance and acceptance of Christ. Now we come to the children of those who were “born again.” Are they born into new covenant prerogatives by virtue of their parent’s New Birth? Or are they born into the world, and must be evangelized at some point in the future, AFTER their carnal man has been awakened? By taking the latter road (which is the lower road) the salvation of succeeding generations of Christians is but a roll of the dice. By taking the lower road, Christianity is weakened in the face of her enemies. Nay, the former road is the biblical and higher road. The children of Christians are holy seed, and, as a result are born Christians, and are eligible for all Christian prerogatives; by this, Christianity is strengthened in the face of her adversaries.

The enemies of Christianity (Secular Humanism in the West, and Islam and Judaism in both the West and East) do not have any such identity crisis as does Evangelical/Pentecostal Christianity. One is born a Muslim, or a Jew. There is no conversion process for their children. As for Secular Humanism: If our children do not have their Christian identity by age four they are most likely lost forever.

At or about age four, most Christian parents mindlessly hand their precious holy seed over to the agents of Secular Humanism for the next 14-18 years. Then these same Christian parents are scandalized when the college student, home on spring break, debates with his/her parents on the value of religion.

For Muslims, being a Muslim is not an option, one is born a Muslim. For a Jew, being a Jew is not an option, one is born a Jew. Only in Christian Evangelicalism must children, usually teenagers, decide to be Christian. And they, most of the time, are not confronted with this crisis decision until they have the tentacles of Secular Humanism wrapped tightly around them. In the camp of our enemies, if a decision is made, it is made to NOT be a Muslim, or to NOT be a Jew. It should be so in Christianity! If a Christian is to be faced with a crisis decision, it should be: NOT to be a Christian. Instead, however, we have stood the process on its head; and, we have placed obstacles in our children’s pathway to becoming Christians. We have unwittingly placed blockades in their journey to Christ. Thanks be to God, that our children, the strong ones, run the blockades. But what about those not so strong, not so determined? They are lost to the world. Why? Because they lacked a proper identity:  they never knew they were Christians from birth. In fact they were told they were alien sinners, and that their sins made them despicable to God, and that they must struggle

and fight their way to God, with tears and self-loathing, to seek His forgiveness. Why do we labor at bringing our precious innocent children to the place of self-loathing, hoping they will accept Christ and become clean, when the Bible tells us they are holy from the beginning? Why?

What follows are a few questions and answers that , prayerful, will help correct this malfeasance perpetrated upon the Lord’s church by an uneducated and illegitimate clergy.

Question1: What position does the Bible take on the question of Infant Water Baptism? ∼ Answer: The question of Infant Water Baptism has been with the Church almost from the beginning and touches many other doctrines such as: original sin, the fallen nature, and the view of the sacraments; not the least of which is the question of the origin of the soul. However, the best we can say is that there is much in Scripture to support the practice of Infant Water Baptism and nothing that would convincingly refute it. See Questions 2 and 3.

Question 2: Why do some oppose Infant Water Baptism? ∼ Answer: Some oppose Infant Water Baptism in favor of believers baptism from an understanding that personal belief and repentance are prerequisites to Water Baptism. The following passages are often cited as proof for their conviction: 

• Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
• Acts 2:38,  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
• Acts 8:36-37, And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

The first thing that we must do is to knowledge that the New Testament is silent on how second generation Christians were made. The history book of the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles, only records the conversion of Jews and pagans to Christianity, but tells us nothing of how their children and grandchildren entered the Lord’s church. However, when one looks to church history it is found that Christians we're baptizing their infants very early, at least by the beginning of the second century. By this time IWB was a universal practice that was unquestioned by Christian authorities until the time of the Protestant Reformation and the Anabaptist movements in Europe during the 16th century.

To give biblical support to their opposition the Anabaptist employed the three passages listed above. We will examine these three texts in turn to see if they, indeed, refute IWB.

1. Mark 16:16,  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. ~ From this text, those who oppose IWB point out that the prerequisite for water baptism in this text is belief. So their argument would go something like this: Infants cannot believe; so, therefore cannot be biblically baptized.

In defense of IWB one would point out that this is the Evangelist Mark’s rendering of the Great Commission and as such is addressing the conversion of the world to Christ. The context, therefore, concerns the conversions of the first generation Christians and does not have their children in view. It would then be argued that to apply it to the children of Christians is to remove it from its context; which would be doctrinally dishonest.

2. Acts 2:38, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ~ The opponents of IWB point out, from this text: Since repentance is a prerequisite for water baptism in this text and since infants cannot repent (indeed, have no sins for which to repent), infants, therefore, cannot be biblically water baptized.

In defense of IWB one would point out that such a conclusion from this text is doctrinally unlawful, because: The command to “repent” in this passage is crowd specific. Peter is preaching to the mob that called for the crucifixion of Christ, and was commanding those particular people to repent of that  particular sin (Against Heaven) before they could be admitted to Christian baptism. The same can be said for the command to repent found in Acts 3:19, although water baptism is not mentioned in this passage. Notice the context in which both commands to repent is found:

1. For Acts 2:38 the context is found in vv22-23, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:”
2. For Acts 3:19-21 the context is found in vvv 13-15  “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”

In both cases the call to “repent” is crowd specific.  In that both texts is a call to repent for killing the “Prince of Life.” Moreover,  Acts 2:38 is the only New Testament text that associates water baptism with repentance. The command to “repent” from Acts 2:38 cannot be required of every person coming to God, because of the context, and the addressee of the text. (One of the Laws of Scriptural Interpretation is the Law of Addressee.) Acts 2:38 is a crowd specific command. Peter is preaching to the mod that had cried for the crucifixion of Christ. This particular text is commanding them to “repent” of that particular sin, i.e. the murder of the Son of God. This command to repent, in this particular text, cannot be applied to all who come to faith in Christ, (the same is true of Acts 3:19).

Having said that, let me state: The Bible demands repentance as a way of life for all people that would be disciples. But there is only ONE text that connects repentance and water baptism (Acts 2:38). The command of this one particular text cannot be required of all who come to faith in Christ because of its context: it was addressed to those who had murdered Christ. Acts 2:38 and 3:19 require those who had killed the Son of God to repent of THAT PARTICULAR SIN.
Moreover, baptism is for the remission of sin, that is true. Infants and small children have no sin to be repented of, In other words, they are not alien sinners that need to repent. But they are born with the sin of Adam (the original sin -- see below). The sin of Adam, is not a sin that can be repented of, whether one is an infant or an adult -- it can just be remitted. And it is for the remission of that sin that an infant or young child is baptized. Therefore, repentance is a moot point.

3. Acts 8:36-37, And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. ~ From this text, v37, in particular, it is argued that believing with all of one's heart is a prerequisite for water baptism, and since infants cannot believe with all of their hearts they are not eligible for Christian baptism.

To address how IWB would be defended in the face of such a strong text requiring belief before baptism, the following two points are offered:

1. First, it would be pointed out that this narrative is of a conversion of one to Christianity from, possibly, Judaism. Therefore, it is the story of how a first generation Christian is coming to faith in Christ. As such, the text does not qualify to address how the children of believers gain entrance into the Church.
2. Second, and most importantly, it would be shown that v37 (“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”) is a spurious text that is not found any of the oldest manuscripts. Codex Laudianus (A.D. 500 - 600) was the first to include it. This text is surely a gloss, by a well-intentioned scribe, that later found its way into the sacred text.  This is not to deny the truthfulness of its message, but only, yet importantly, that it is not canonical. By not being canonical it cannot be employed to deny nor to affirm any church doctrine. So Acts 8:37, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” can have no bearing on the practice of IWB.

By reviewing all the biblical arguments some have against IWB and showing how these arguments are neutralized by sound hermeneutics, we may assert with confidence that there is no biblical reason to object to Infant Water Baptism.

Question 3: Why do some practice Infant Water Baptism? ∼ the answer to this question is really threefold:

1. Some very orthodox Christian fellowships practice Infant
   
   Water Baptism because of their belief in Covenant Theology. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant (Romans 4:11). Christian Covenant Theology views Water Baptism as Christian circumcision (see Colossians 2:11-12): therefore, the seal of the New Covenant. Moreover, the words of Paul in First Corinthians 7:14, that the children of believers are holy comes from the Hebraic idea that the children of believers are “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13), and are, therefore, born into covenant prerogatives — which include Christian water baptism: the seal of the Covenant. So, then, just as the children (holy seed) of the Hebrews were circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so, too, did New Testament Christians began, almost from the very beginning, to baptize their children according to the type and shadow of baptism (i.e. circumcision) they found in the Old Testament.
   
2. Also, the belief in Original Sin places an infant’s salvation in question without water baptism. The Psalmist writes in Psalms 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” The New International Version reads:”Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived.” The apostle Paul writes in this fashion: “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Ephesians 3:2). Since original sin is real, as attested to by the Old Testament prophet and king, David, and the New Testament apostle Paul, and since water baptism applies the blood of Christ that remits sins, a godly parent and/or a faithful minister can not withhold from an infant the only means of salvation available. (As a point not so parenthetical we might add: The original sin, or the sin of Adam, is not a sin that can be repented of, whether one is an infant or an adult -- it can just be remitted. And it is for the remission of that sin that an infant or young child is baptized. Therefore, repentance is a moot point.)
3. There is also an understanding that apostolic example is provided for IWB in the fact that whole households were water baptized in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (10:24, 44, 48; 16:15; 16:31-34; 18:8; see also First Corinthian's 1:16); it is logically assumed that the households included small children and infants. To argue against the "households" including small children and infants is to take a mischievous, if not an outright dishonest, position. 
4. Then there is the allegory Paul used to illustrate the New Birth, found in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4,  Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;  4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.  ~ Here, in the Apostle's analogy, the complete scope of the New Birth process is pictured: leaving Egypt-leaving the world, passing through the sea⏤water baptism, dwelling under the cloud⏤Spirit baptism, manna and water from the Rock⏤body and blood of Christ in  the holy Eucharist. It is noteworthy that the baptism of the sea included the children, even infants. This does, indeed, answer to the "households" being water baptized in the NT.

Hello friends, my name is Jerry Hayes, I am a full time biblical researcher. I  rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales  for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

Early debate on the matter of IWB: Gregory of  Nazianzum gives the advice to put off the baptism of children, where there is no danger death, to their third year. At the same time it seems an almost certain fact,…, that, with the baptism of converts the optional baptism of the children of Christian parents in established congregations, comes down from the apostolic age. Pious parents would naturally feel a desire to consecrate their offspring from the very beginning to the service of the Redeemer, and find a precedent in the ordinance of circumcision from the Old Covenant of which the New Covenant is the fruition. This desire would be strengthened in cases of sickness by  the  prevailing notion of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted– for he combats only it's expediency–there is not a single voice against the lawfulness of the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: “suffer the little children to come into me, and forbid them not.” The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, implied the existence of infant baptism. Heretics also practiced it, and we're not censored for it. The apostolic fathers made, indeed, no mention of it. But their silence proves nothing; they hardly touch upon baptism at all, except Hermas, and he declares it necessary to salvation even for the patriarchs in Hades (therefore, as we may infer, for children also). Justin Martyr expressly teaches the capacity of all men for spiritual circumcision by baptism. He also says that many old men and women of 60 and 70 years of age have been from childhood disciples of Christ. Polycarp was 86 years a Christian, and must have been baptized in early youth. According to Irenaeus, his pupil  and a fellow bearer of Johnannean tradition, Christ passed through all the stages of life, to sanctify them all and came to redeem, through Himself, “All who through him are born began to God, sucklings, children, boys, youth, and adults.” This profound view seems to involve an acknowledgment not only of the idea of infant baptism but also of the practice of it; for in the mind of Irenaues, and the ancient church, baptism and regeneration we're intimately connected and almost identical. In an infant, in fact, any regeneration but through baptism cannot be easily conceived. A moral and spiritual regeneration, as distinct from sacramental, would implied conversion, and this is a conscious act of the will, an exercise of repentance and faith, of which the infinite is not capable (nor required because the infant is not coming from a pagan environment, but from a Christian household). In the churches of Egypt infant baptism must have been practiced from the first. For, aside from some not very clear expressions of Clement of Alexandria, Origin distinctly derives it from the tradition of the apostles; and through his journeys in the East and West he was well acquainted with the practice of the Church in his time. The only opponent of infant baptism among the fathers is the eccentric and schismatic Tertullian of North Africa. He condemns the hastening of the innocent age to the forgiveness of sins, and entrusting it with divine gifts, while we would not commit to it earthly property. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves much in favor of infant baptism as against it. He meets it not as an innovation, but as a prevalent custom; he meets it not with exegetical nor historical arguments but only with considerations of religious prudence. His opposition to it is founded on his views of the regenerating effective of water baptism, and of the impossibility of having mortal sins forgiven in the church after baptism; this ordinance cannot be repeated, and washes out only the guilt contracted before its reception.(Here he does not take into account the holy sacrament of the Eucharist as dealing with post baptismal sins.) On the same ground he advises that the healthy adults, especially the unmarried, to postpone this sacrament until they shall be no longer in danger of forfeiting forever the grace of baptism by committing adultery, murder, apostasy, or any other of

the seven crimes which he called mortal sins. On the same principle his advice applies only to healthy children, not to sickly ones, if we consider that he held baptism to be the indispensable condition of forgiveness of sins, and taught the doctrine of hereditary sin. With him this position resulted from moral earnestness, and a lively sense of the great solemnity of the baptismal vow. But many put off baptism to their deathbed, in moral levity and presumption, that they might sin as long as they could. 

Tertullian’s opposition had little to no influence even in North Africa. His disciple Cyprian differed  from him wholly. In his day it was no question, whether the children of Christian parents might and should be baptized– On this all works agree,– but whether they might be baptized so early as the second or third day after birth, or, according to the precedent of the Jewish circumcision, on the eighth day. Cyprian, at a council of sixty-six bishops held at Carthage in 253 under his lead, decided for the earlier time, yet without condemning the delay. It was in a measure the same view of the saving effect of the baptism of water, and of its absolute necessity to salvation which led Cyprian to hasten, and Tertullian to postpone the holy ordinance; one looking more at the beneficial effect of the sacrament in regard to past sins, the other at the danger of sins to come. (The above is adapted from multiple sources that are catalogued in the author’s book entitled “Water Baptism,” published by Seventh Millennium Publications.)

Apostolically Speaking

☩☩JLH

Read the Bishop's second affirmative on Infant Water Baptism:
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2018/09/answering-jason-weatherlys-rebuttal-to.html

Scripture Texts Cited:

Ezra 9:2, For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.

Psalm 51:5, Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Isaiah 6:13,  But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.

Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:1-8, There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Acts 2:22-23, Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts 2:38,  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 3:13-15, “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”

Acts 3:19-21, Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Acts 8:36-37, And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 10:24,  And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends. 44, While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 48, And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Acts 16:5, And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily. 31-34, And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. Acts 18:8, And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Romans 4:11, And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

1 Corinthians 1:16, And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

1 Corinthians 7:14,  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4, Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptizedunto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Colossians 2:11-12,  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Ephesians 3:2, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ