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