Biblical Answers
to Commonly Asked Questions On Water Baptism
INFANT WATER BAPTISM (IWB)
Question 66: 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 67 and 68.
Question 67: Why do some oppose Infant Water Baptism and is their opposition valid?
Answer: Some oppose Infant Water Baptism in favor of believers baptism from an understanding that personal belief and repentance are prerequisites to Water Baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2: 38; Acts 8:36-37).
Answer: Some oppose Infant Water Baptism in favor of believers baptism from an understanding that personal belief and repentance are prerequisites to Water Baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2: 38; Acts 8:36-37).
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
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 acknowledge that the New Testament is silent on how 2nd generation Christians were made. The history book of the New Testament, Acts, only records the conversion of Jews and pagans to Christianity, but tells us nothing of how their children and grand children entered the Lord’s church. However, when one looks to Church history it is found that Christians were baptizing their infants very early, at least by the 2nd century, and that this practice was a universal one. The practice of infant baptism 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 three passages listed above were sited. We will examine these three text in turn to see if they, indeed, refute infant baptism.
- Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. From this text, those who oppose Infant Water Baptism point out that the prerequisite for water baptism is belief. So their argument would go something like this: Infants cannot believe, so, therefore cannot be biblically baptized. ~ In defense of Infant Water Baptism 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, is the conversions of 1st 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.
- Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The opponents of Infant Water Baptism point out, from this text: Since repentance is a prerequisite for water baptism and since infants cannot repent (indeed, have no sins for which to repent), infants, therefore, cannot be biblically Water Baptized. ~ In defense of Infant Water Baptism 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 crime (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 (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.), although water baptism is not mentioned in this passage. Notice the context of both commands to repent:
- For Acts 2:38 the context is found in vv22-23 (KJV), “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:
- For Acts 3:19-21 the context is found in vv 13-15 (KJV), 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 are a call to repent for killing the Prince of Life. Moreover, Acts 2:38 is the only New Testament passage 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. Acts 2:38 is a crowd specific command. Peter is preaching to the mob 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, of 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), and 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.
C. 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: 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 Infant Water Baptism would be defended in the face of such a strong text requiring belief before baptism, the following two points are offered:
- 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 1st 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.
- 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 in any of the oldest manuscripts.
Codex Laudianus (A.D. 500-600) was the first to include it. This text is surely a gloss, from 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 or affirm any Church doctrine. So Acts 8:37’s “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” can have no bearing on the practice of infant baptism.
Codex Laudianus, after the name of a previous owner, Archbishop William Laud. Designated Ea in the Gregory-Aland numbering. It contains the Acts of the Apostles in both Latin and Greek, arranged in two columns; the Latin is on the left. The writing of it has been assigned to the 6th century. Most likely written in Sardinia and brought to England by Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 668. In time it came into the possession of Archbishop Laud who donated it the the Bodleian Library in 1636. It is the earliest know manuscript to contain Acts 8:37.
Question 68: Why do some practice Infant Water Baptism?
Answer:
1. Some Christian fellowships practice Infant Water Baptism because of their belief in Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology views Water Baptism as Christian circumcision (see Questions 60 and 61). Under the Old Covenant infants were circumcised at eight days old (Luke 2:21). Paul parallels Old Testament circumcision with New Testament Water Baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Moreover, the words of Paul in First Corinthians 7:14, that the children of believers are holy, gives strong indication that the children of believers are “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13) and are, therefore, born into covenant prerogatives. Taking their lead from the Old Testament Covenant and seeing the Old Testament Covenant as the rose bud that bloomed in the New Testament. The 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.
Answer:
1. Some Christian fellowships practice Infant Water Baptism because of their belief in Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology views Water Baptism as Christian circumcision (see Questions 60 and 61). Under the Old Covenant infants were circumcised at eight days old (Luke 2:21). Paul parallels Old Testament circumcision with New Testament Water Baptism (Colossians 2:11-12). Moreover, the words of Paul in First Corinthians 7:14, that the children of believers are holy, gives strong indication that the children of believers are “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13) and are, therefore, born into covenant prerogatives. Taking their lead from the Old Testament Covenant and seeing the Old Testament Covenant as the rose bud that bloomed in the New Testament. The 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.
Lk 2:21 And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
Col 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
Ezra 9:2 For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass.”
Isa 6:13 But yet a tenth will be in it, And will return and be for consuming, As a terebinth tree or as an oak, Whose stump remains when it is cut down. So the holy seed shall be its stump.
2. Also, the belief and teaching of 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” (KJV). The New International Version reads: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” The Apostle Paul writes to the Ephesians, “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/King David and the New Testament Apostle Paul, and since water baptism applies the blood of Christ that remits sins, a godly parent and a faithful minister cannot withhold from an infant the only means of salvation available (see Questions 47-57).
3. There is also an understanding that apostolic example is provided for Infant Water Baptism in the fact that whole households were Water Baptized in the book of Acts (Acts 10:24, 44, 48; 16:15; 16:31-34; 18:8; see also First Corinthians 1:16); it is assumed that the households included small children and infants.
Ac 10:24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. ... 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. ... 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Ac 16:15 And when she and her household were baptized, ... Ac 16:31-34 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. Ac 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. 1 Cor 1:16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.
Early debate on the matter of Infant Water Baptism:
Gregory of Nazianzum gives the advice to put off the baptism of children, where there is no danger of 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. 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 its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and 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 unto me, and forbid them not.” (Matt 19:14). The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism. Heretics also practiced it, and were not censured for it. The apostolic fathers make, indeed, no mention of it. But their silence proves nothing; for 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 well infer, for children also). Justin Martyr expressly teaches the capacity of all men for spiritual circumcision by baptism; and his “all” can with the less propriety be limited, since he is here speaking to a Jew. He also says that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age have been from childhood disciples of Christ. Polycarp was eighty-six years a Christian, and must have been baptized in early youth. According to Irenaeus, his pupil and a faithful bearer of Johannean 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 again unto God, sucklings, children, boys, youths, 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 Irenaeus[,] and the ancient church[,] baptism and regeneration were intimately connected and almost identi[cal]. In an infant, in fact, any regeneration but through baptism cannot be easily conceived. A moral and spiritual regeneration, as distinct from sacramental, would imply conversion, and this is a conscious act of the will, an exercise of repentance and faith, of which the infant 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, Origen 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 as much in favor of infant baptism as against it. He meets it not as an innovation, but as a prevalent custom; and he meets it not with exegetical nor historical arguments, but only with considerations of religious prudence. His opposition to it is founded on his view of the regenerating effect of 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 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 calls 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 death-bed, in moral levity and presumption, that they might sin as long as they could. Tertullian’s opposition, moreover, had no influence, at least no theoretical 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 were agreed,—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, and 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 almost magical effect of the baptismal 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 beneficent effect of the sacrament in regard to past sins, the other at the danger of sins to come.
(The above is adapted from History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff on INFANT BAPTISM comp. Just. M.: Dial. c. Tryph. Jud. c. 43. IREN.: Adv. Haer. II. 22, § 4, compared with III. 17, § 1, and other passages. TERTUL.: De Baptismo, c. 18. CYPR.: Epist. LIX. ad Fidum. CLEM. ALEX.: Paedag. III. 217. ORIG.: Com. in Rom. V. Opp. IV. 565, and Homil. XIV. in Luc. See Lit. in vol. I. 463sq., especially WALL. Comp. also W. R. POWERS: Irenaeus and Infant Baptism, in the “Am. Presb. and Theol. Rev.” N. Y. 1867, pp. 239-267.)
Water Baptism for The Dead
Question 69: What is meant by the reference concerning those who were “baptized for the dead” found in First Corinthians 15: 29?
1 Cor 15:29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?
Answer: To support his argument for the resurrection, the apostle Paul mentions those who practiced Water Baptism in behalf of dead persons. His argument was simple: If the dead do not resurrect, why were some being Water Baptized for them? This practice shows the relationship the apostolic Church understood to exist between Water Baptism and the promise of a resurrection (see Romans 6:4-5; Question 9 and Question 48, #5). Note: The Greek of this passage makes it clear that Water Baptism was practiced in behalf of dead persons; e.g. the text from which the King James version is translated reads, “huper ton nekron” - for the sake of the dead ones. GLTTrAW (Authoritative versions of the Greek New Testament: G-Griesbach, 1805; L-Lachman, 1842-1850; T-Tischendorf, 8th Ed. 1865-1872; Tr- Tregelles 1857-1872; A-Alford vol I. 1868, Vil II. 1865, Vol IV. 1862, 1870; W-Wordsworth 1870) reads, “hyper auton” - for the sake of them. Both readings are the genitive plural form; therefore, cannot be referencing Christ as the “dead party” for which the believers were being baptized. The “dead ones” seem to be referencing those who died in faith before being Water Baptized.
Ro 6:4-5 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
OLD TESTAMENT TYPES AND SHADOWS OF WATER BAPTISM
Question 70: What are some of the Old Testament types and shadows of New Testament Water Baptism?
Answer: The Old Testament supplies many types and shadows of New Testament Water Baptism. Listed here are a few of the most important ones:
1. The flood in the days of Noah (First Peter 3:20-21; see Questions 50 through 53).
1 Pt 3:20-21who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,2. The passing through the Red Sea at the time of the Exodus (First Corinthians 10:1-2).
1 Cor 10:1-2 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3. The Laver of water (Sea) in the Tabernacle of Moses (Exodus 30:17-21).
Ex 30:17-21 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 18 “You shall also make a laver of bronze, with its base also of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tabernacle of meeting and the altar. And you shall put water in it, 19 for Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in water from it. 20 When they go into the tabernacle of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to the Lord, they shall wash with water, lest they die. ...
4. The Water of Separation (Numbers 19:2-21, give special attention to verse 9; also see Questions 51 and 52).
Nu 19:2-21 Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 2 “This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord has commanded, saying: ‘Speak to the children of Israel, that they bring you a red heifer without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which a yoke has never come. ... 5 Then the heifer shall be burned in his sight: ... 8 And the one who burns it shall wash his clothes in water, ... 9 Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of purification; it is for purifying from sin. ... 17 ‘And for an unclean person they shall take some of the ashes of the heifer burnt for purification from sin, and running water shall be put on them in a vessel. 18 A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, ... 19 The clean person shall sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water; and at evening he shall be clean.20 ‘But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from among the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the Lord. The water of purification has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean. ...
5. Circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12; also see Question 9; Question 48, #5; Question 60 and Question 61).
Col 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Apostolically Speaking,
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)
Dear Disciple, looking for answers to Water Baptism questions? Please visit the INDEX to our Water Baptism Q & A at the link provided here:
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/05/water-baptism-index.html
Dear Disciple, looking for answers to Water Baptism questions? Please visit the INDEX to our Water Baptism Q & A at the link provided here:
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/05/water-baptism-index.html
Own this classic work on Water Baptism
Water Baptism is a comprehensive study of biblical water baptism. Bishop Hayes addresses 70 commonly asked questions on the subject, after which he examines 14 different biblical passages showing the salvific nature of the sacrament. Also, included in Water Baptism is a thorough examination of the canonicity of Matthew 28;19. Own your personal copy of this classic work on Water Baptism by ordering today from the link provided here:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY PURCHASING MY BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY. -JLH
Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:
No comments:
Post a Comment