Seth's Journal

I have recently been awakened in my thoughts regarding the importance of the doctrine of baptism. Most professing Christians feel that baptism is an issue that can be tolerantly overlooked for want of peace with other Christians. At times, I have found myself inclined toward this position. But recently I have been forced to answer the question, What priority does Scripture give to baptism? And frankly, I cannot deny the conclusion of my conscience that Scripture commands baptism of Christians. Matthew 28:19 is the most commonly known passage proving this point: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” There is also a command in Acts 2:37-38: “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Another example, where Peter is speaking about Gentiles who have received the Holy Spirit, shows the urgency and requirement of baptism: Acts 10:47-48 says, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.” From these verses, then, it becomes clear that baptism is not a topic that Christians can view lightly. Rather, baptism is an issue of morality – an issue of sin or obedience to God’s commands.

That being said, I want to make sure that I extend my warmest love toward those who do not share my views – particularly my Presbyterian brothers and sisters. Much is to be commended of the gospel work done by those of the PCA, OPC, PCUSA, and other Presbyterian denominations. However, I cannot deny the testimony of God’s Word that every Christian man, woman, boy, and girl holding to these paedobaptist beliefs is in direct moral violation of one of the clearest and most urgent commands of God. In their belief of paedobaptism, which is the baptizing of infants, they practice a damnable heresy contrary to Scripture, and it is my sincere prayer that every paedobaptist will see their error and come to hold the true teachings of Scripture regarding baptism.

In this short little essay, I will plea Scripturally for believer’s baptism, showing that this view is the only proper and God-glorifying view. I will also show why paedobaptism is fallacious and seriously damaging to a Christian’s understanding of the Bible.

Argument 1: Paedobaptism is historically absurd.

Without question, arguing from history is not the final authority for truth, but history certainly sheds light on the reality of matters. What does history say about paedobaptism? The answer to this question is not something that most paedobaptists want anyone to know; I dare say that most paedobaptists aren’t even aware of this fact themselves. To their own embarrassment, the doctrine of paedobaptism, embraced by the major Presbyterian denominations, was not practiced until late in the history of the Church. How late exactly? Not two hundred years after the church began. Not three hundred. Not even four hundred, five hundred, six hundred, or seven hundred years after the Church began. Are seven hundred years enough time for the Church to think about baptism? Let’s give them another one hundred years. Still not there? Just to be kind, let’s give the Church another seven hundred years of cultural and ideological changes. We’ll throw in a few wars just to be safe. Has the truth of paedobaptism been discovered yet? This enlightening gem of theology didn’t show up until over one thousand five hundred years of church history had passed. Only from the mind of Ulrich Zwingli in the sixteenth century did the Presbyterian view of paedobaptism begin to develop!

Why is this astonishing historical fact so significant? It is astonishing because of the urgent and primary importance that the Bible places on baptism. If baptism is so prominent a theme; if it is commanded of the Church alongside the necessity of so basic a doctrine as repentance, then why did it allegedly take such an incredible amount of time for the correct position of baptism to be discovered? Does this not lead to the possibility that Zwingli sought to salvage the long-standing tradition of infant baptism in the Catholic Church by finding a way to make the doctrine fit with Scripture? Perhaps.

There are other historical problems with infant baptism. According to earlier sources, infant baptism was a topic of discussion during the times of the early church. Without argument, infant baptism was even practiced by some at this time, claiming that the practice was apostolic tradition. Yet Tertullian, who is often recognized as a staunch defender of apostolic traditions, gave no defense for infant baptism! This is surely astounding if infant baptism is so urgent a doctrine for the church!

Another source called Didache (100-125 A.D.), served as an early church manual. In this document, instructions for baptism are given only for catechumens, not infants! If the early church had been advocating the practice of paedobaptism, then why is such a practice not promoted in this important church manual?

So in conclusion to the historical dilemma for paedobaptism, we see that the Presbyterian view of baptism is significantly lacking any weighty historical precedence. Not only does the Presbyterian view of baptism show up 1500 years after Christ, but the sources from the early church that we have indicate that paedobaptism was not the advocated practice of apostolic tradition.

Argument Two: Paedobaptism is biblically absurd:

However, historical argumentation can at best only corroborate with the ultimate proof of any doctrine, which is Scripture. There are many arguments against paedobaptism from Scripture, but for the sake of brevity, I will give only a few.

First, there is the most well-known argument against paedobaptism, which is the fact that no explicit example of paedobaptism exists in the entire Bible! Yes, paedobaptists will make eloquent explanations from the Bible, taking some of the most amazing contextual twists and turns until an elaborate theological pretzel is fashioned. But could it be that such an explanation is required because of the deafening silence of biblical example? Paedobaptists are tired of hearing baptists give this argument, but they must hear it again, and again, and again, because in order for them to turn way from their sinful practice of infant baptism, they must hear the truth of God’s Word, which reveals that infant baptism is not a biblical truth ever clearly given in any text of Scripture.

The only texts which the paedobaptists can cling to as examples of infant baptism are found in the book of Acts, where accounts of household baptisms are recorded. Frankly, it is amazing that anyone could draw any other conclusion from these texts except that only a repentant born again believer should be baptized upon hearing the gospel.

Acts 2:38-39 is one of the texts that is sometimes used by paedobaptists to defend their view. The text says, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” The important part for paedobaptists is “for you and your children.” The claim is that the benefits of receiving Christ extend to one’s children according to this verse. However, a careful look at the context of the passage clearly indicates that Peter is extending the promise and result of salvation to any person who will “repent and be baptized.” This is the only possible interpretation of the text; otherwise, what does one do with the phrase “and for all who are far off"? If we are to handle this text like some paedobaptists wish to handle it, then children of believing parents are no more special than “all who are far off"! In other words, the promise and benefits offered by Peter are offered to parents, their children, and anyone else who will “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ . . .” There is no distinction of children apart from anyone else in this passage, and therefore this passage cannot be used in support for paedobaptists.

The baptism of Lydia and her household in Acts 16:14-15 is also used as a possible incidence of infant baptism. The text reads in verse 15, “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” Besides the glaring fact that any claim for infant baptism from this text is, to say the least, reading into the text, the context of this passage demands that the necessary circumstances of baptism are clearly shown to be faithfulness, which, in case anyone forgot, is an act of which infants are not capable. What was the prerequisite condition for Lydia before she was baptized? In verse 14 we see that before she was baptized, “the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” In other words, she heard the Word of God first! This important theological teaching is attested in every account of baptism in the New Testament! Such examples include the following verses:

Matthew 3:5-6 (ESV)
Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, [6] and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Galatians 3:27 (ESV)
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Col. 2:12 (ESV)
having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

In any of these passages about baptism, is their any room for infants? Can an infant confess his sin? Can an infant put on Christ? Can an infant be raised with Christ through faith? No! No! No! And text after text only further solidifies this truth. Look for yourself. If you are too lazy to do it, then I will be glad to send you a long list of texts.

Now, I do not write so tongue-in-cheek to be mean, but I do so because I want to convey my attitude of aggravation and concern with this terrible heresy of paedobaptism. Even though I don’t believe paedobaptists are damned to hell for their belief, I do believe their position is divisive and destructive to the unity of Christ’s bride. I have seen this happen with my own brothers in Christ, and I want to do everything I can to prevent it from happening. If you are someone thinking about accepting paedobaptism and the theology surrounding it, then I ask you, on the basis of what biblical text or historical foundation are you doing so? Are you sure you are not emotionally drawn to the strong theological foundation of Presbyterians?” Please let your emotions be guided by truth, not truth guided by your emotions.

With that statement, let me make it very clear that I detest paedobaptism. I love the brethren who hold to it, but I think the theology of paedobaptism is hurtful to the church and the mission of the gospel. This is especially true of heretics like Douglas Wilson, who have taken paedobaptist theology and used it to cause parents to stumble in presenting their children with the gospel.

I urge any paedobaptist Christians to reconsider their beliefs on the matter. These beliefs are damaging the advance of the gospel among our most precious souls–our children!

I know that I have left many ends untied, and for that I apologize, but this is not the platform for a thorough attack on infant baptism. I will be glad to discuss this issue further through the comments section.