The Lord instituted only 2 ordinances, baptism and the supper. Some Churches prefer to call them sacraments, a simple definition of which is “an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.”

I will look first at simply what the scriptures teach about baptism and then secondly examine some of the arguments used in support of infant or paedo-baptism and finally at the teaching and practice of the early post New Testament church.

1 – What the Bible Teaches

In John 4:1 we read that ‘The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptising more disciples than John’. From this we can see that:-

• Jesus made disciples first then baptised them.
• Baptism does not make disciples.
• Baptism is for disciples.

These facts are confirmed by the words of Jesus in his great commission Matt 28:19. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

The apostles continued this practise of making disciples first and then baptising them, after Jesus’ ascension, as they carried out his command. Acts 2: 38 & 41 tells us that when Peter preached in Jerusalem “Repent and be baptised every one of you . . .” We are also told in Acts 8:12 that when Philip preached in Samaria ‘… when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women’. From these and other passages it is therefore clear that hearing the message, and responding to it, in repentance and faith, was a prerequisite to baptism as far as Jesus and the apostles were concerned.

As we read on through the book of Acts we see the gospel being preached to the Gentiles and in Acts 10: 44-48 Cornelius and his relatives and close friends believed, praised God and received the Holy Spirit, following which they were baptised in water.

Similar stories occur in Acts 16:15 with Lydia and her household; in Acts 16:29-34 with the Philippian jailer, and his whole family; in Acts 18:8 with Crispus, the synagogue ruler and his entire household. It is sometimes argued that these households or families probably included infants or babies and that their baptism can therefore be justified today. The facts, however, do not support this argument, as follows. There is no evidence that Lydia was even married. The jailers’ whole family had come to believe in God and went on to serve Him (1 Corinthians 16:15). Crispus’ whole household believed. Baptism of those who have not made a personal commitment would also run contrary to the earlier teaching and practice mentioned above and the reasons for practising baptism, as taught throughout scripture, described below.

Why then did Jesus, the apostles and the early church baptise believers? The following reasons can be found in the scriptures.

• It is a public confession by the believer of faith in Christ (Rom 6:3-4) and an acknowledgement of him as Lord and Saviour (Acts 2:38 etc).
• It illustrates symbolically to mankind at large, that the believer has entered into a new covenant relationship with God and all that it entails.

1. He has been identified by God with Christ in his death and resurrection and has become a recipient of eternal life in Christ. (Col 2:13 & 3:1-3; Rom 6:6-11).
2. God has washed him from his sins and raised him in newness of life in Christ, by his Spirit, so putting him right with himself. (Rom 6:3 & 4; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Col 2:12; Titus 3: 4-7).
3. He has passed safely through judgement, in Christ, and is no longer a slave to sin. (Rom 6:10-14; 1 Peter 3:18-22).
4. He has been baptised into the body of Christ, the church, by the Holy Spirit, and so made a child of God, through faith. (Luke 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Gal 3:26 & 27).
5. He has to die to self, forsake his godless life and live a new life in Christ by the power of God’s Spirit. (Rom 6:6-14; Gal 2:20).

• It is a response to the teaching and example of Christ and the apostles and an acceptance of the New Testament pattern (Matt 3:13 – 17; 28:16 – 20 etc).

Thus we see that hearing the message of the gospel and responding to it in repentance and faith was a pre-requisite to baptism as far as Jesus and the apostles were concerned. As a result baptism loses its true symbolic meaning if applied to people who are not children of God and members of the new covenant through the exercise of their own faith.

2 – The arguments used in support of infant or paedo-baptist

There are three:-

• Implicit in scripture? Most paedo-baptists agree that there are no instances of infants being baptised specifically recorded in scripture e.g. ‘There is no explicit command in the Bible to baptise children’. Louis Berkoff – Systemic Theology P 632. ‘. . . . . . . when whole ‘households’ received Baptism, infants may also have been baptised’ Catechism of the Catholic Church. P284, 1252. However they argue that such practice is implied in certain verses e.g. Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 1:16; Matt 19:13-15. Surely if God intended infant baptism to be practised, particularly if it was meant to be a means of imparting grace/salvation as some proponents believe, he would have clearly recorded the practice in the gospels or book of Acts and clearly taught throughout the New Testament that it must be practised. However neither the practice nor the teaching exists. Careful exegesis of the passages, where it is claimed support or imply infant baptism, will not justify even this modest claim.
• Comparing the old and new covenants. Some believe that the new covenant is a continuation of, albeit an improvement on, the old covenant that God made with Abraham and that therefore the sacraments of the two dispensations have essentially the same significance. Thus they argue that baptism is equivalent to circumcision and, because all male Jews were meant to be circumcised, all children of Christians should be baptised. However scriptures clearly teach that the new covenant is different from and far superior to the old (e.g. Hebrews). They also teach that those who believed that circumcision was essential for salvation were in fact binding themselves to acceptance by God through keeping the entire law (Gal 5:1-3). Today Christ is our circumcision, if we have faith, because he fulfilled the law for us (Col 2:11). Physical circumcision now counts for nothing (1 Cor 7:19). We are made children of God as a gift received through faith in Christ, just as believing Israelites were counted righteous through faith, and thus are spiritual children of Abraham (Eph 2:4-9; Rom 2:28 & 29, 9:7; Phil 3:3). The Holy Spirit, given to us when we believe, is the seal of the new covenant, not baptism (Eph 1:13 & 4:30). Ephesians 1:13. “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.
• A means of imparting grace/salvation? We have already seen above that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. No matter how much we would like to we cannot pass it on to our children through any ritual or act, (John 1:12 & 13). Some Catholic theologians quote the Douay Bible’s translation of John 3:5 ” Except a man be re-born of water and the Spirit. . . “to support their teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. However in the Greek the verb born is used in verse 5 quoted above, not re-born, and the verb re-born is used only in verses 3 and 7. If Paul had been persuaded that baptism imparted grace or was a means of salvation he surely would not have said “I am thankful that I did not baptise any of you except . . . For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the gospel – not with words of human wisdom . . . “. I Cor 1:17.

3 – The practice of the early post New Testament church

Some claim that infant baptism has been practised from the early years of the church and thus is ‘an immemorial tradition’. However, this is not borne out in writings of early Christians. The first reference to the possible practice of infant baptism occurs in the writings of Tertullian (c 200 AD), more than 150 years after the beginnings of the Christian church, and he writes against it! “. . . the delay of baptism is preferable; . . . .let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ” (Works of Tertullian P 253). In none of the writings of those who immediately followed the apostles was it mentioned. E.g.:-

• E.g. Clement (of Rome) died c 100 AD.
• Ignatius (the writings of) died c 107 AD.
• Epistle of Barnabas c 125 AD.
• Pastor of Hermes c 150 AD.
• Justin Martyr died c 165 AD.
• Melito, Polycarp, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, The Didache, all 130 – 200 AD, likewise do not mention the baptism of infants.

4 – Conclusion

In conclusion thus we have seen that neither the scriptures nor what we know about the earliest years of the Church can support either the practice of infant baptism or the belief that baptism imparts grace or salvation. In the light of this let us realise that baptism is meant to show forth all that the gospel is and all that Christ has done, and will do, for those who are already children of God through faith and as a result let us be careful to obey Christ’s last earthly command and seek to – “Make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of The Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you”.

Categories: Matthew