02.23. BAPTISM - 02 - Subjects of Baptism.
BAPTISM – 02 – Subjects of Baptism.
The question is, Who may scripturally be baptized? Nobody in the world, be he wisest theologian or profoundest Christian philosopher, knows one particle more about this question than what the Scriptures reveal. None have private revelations on the subject, and no one can presume to pit an opinion of his own as to the proper subjects against the teaching of the Bible. The professing Christian world is generally agreed that those who believe in Jesus Christ and who are truly penitent, are fit subjects of baptism. Many claim that in addition thereto infants may also scripturally be baptized. Our practice of baptising penitent believers is admitted by all to be right. The practice of what is called "infant baptism" has been variously justified. Indeed, considerable difference has existed among paedo-baptists as to what infants may be baptized; some said children of members of the church; others declared children of whom one parent was a communicant; others would have admitted children of believers who were not communicants; some declared, "Charity bids us hope well of all." There are three ways in which we can learn the will of God on this question: (1) We may have commands regarding baptism; (2) We may find examples of baptism; (3) We may have necessary inferences from Scripture records. Let us apply these methods in our study. 1. Have we a command to baptize? Yes, nearly all professed Christians believe baptism to be a command of permanent obligation. But whom does the command concern? Those to whose ears it comes, so that they can intelligently obey it.
(a) Have we a command for the baptism of penitent believers? Yes. The apostles were charged to baptize those whom they discipled (Matthew 28:19-20). The gospel was to be preached, and "he that believeth and is baptized" was promised pardon (Mark 16:15-16). People who were pricked to the heart, believing they had crucified their Messiah, were commanded to "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). Gentiles on whom the Spirit had come, people speaking with tongues and magnifying God (and therefore not unconscious infants) were commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48). Saul, a penitent bet/ever of three days’ standing, was commanded, by a special messenger from God, "Arise, and be baptized" (Acts 22:16).
(b) Have we a command that infants should be baptized? We can quote no texts. There is no such command anywhere in God’s Word.
2. Have we examples of baptism in God’s Word? Yes, many of them.
(a) We have the following instances of the baptism of believers: Three thousand who "gladly received the word" spoken by God’s apostle were baptized (Acts 2:41); the Samaritans, "when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" "were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:12); the eunuch, instructed in the things of the Lord, was baptized (Acts 8:35-38); "Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized" (Acts 18:8).
(b) We have no recorded instance in Scripture of the baptism of an infant. Infants are mentioned in some passages; baptism is mentioned in other passages: the infants and the baptism are not found together.
3. In the absence of command or example, advocates of infant baptism have recourse to inference. True, some (as Plummer in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible) confess, "Not only is there no mention of the baptism of infants, but there is no text from which such baptism can be securely inferred."
(a) Some say that because children were admitted to the old covenant, therefore they should be admitted into the new. The inference is not valid, for this, if for no other reason. The Old Covenant has passed away (Hebrews 8:7-13); with a change priesthood, there is a change of law (Hebrews 7:12),
(b) What is a special form of this argument is the statement that baptism came in the place of circumcision, and therefore infants should be baptized. There is not a shadow of proof anywhere that baptism came in the place of circumcision. The latter was practiced for long concurrently with the former. Circumcision was a fleshly ordinance, not requiring faith or any moral qualification in the recipient. Circumcision was based on conditions of flesh and property (see Genesis 18:12-13); Pedo-baptists uniformly decline to claim parallelism here. It was not an initiatory rite, as baptism is. The descendants of Abraham entered the covenant by birth of flesh and blood; baptism is initiatory to the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). We cannot go back to Genesis and search the law of circumcision for information as to another rite which was not instituted till nineteen centuries later, and then in words which never hinted that there was any connection between the two ordinances.
(c) Acts 2:39, "To you is the promise, and to your children" is oft quoted. "You" here represents the Jews present; "your children" were their posterity; both are distinguished from "all that are afar off," i. e., Gentiles. That the "children" here were not unconscious infants is proved by two considerations:
(i.) The promise was for "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." We wish all would wait for the children to hear and respond to God’s call.
(ii.) "The promise" which was to their "children" was the promise of the Holy Spirit’s being given on condition of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38) orally, the promise is for everybody who can fulfill its conditions.
(d) Household baptisms are often appealed to. These we may be sure were not out of harmony with the terms of the commission (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16) But we know the jailor and his house believed (Acts 16:32-34), Crispus and his house believed (Acts 18:8), the household of Stephanas addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Corinthians 16:15). In these cases we know no infants were baptized. Regarding Gaius and Lydia, we have the alternative of interpreting their cases in accord with the uniform teaching and example of the New Testament; or of assuming that these folk were married, had children, and children too young to believe, who must then as in the household be held to be baptized. Assumption is not a strong enough foundation for a church ordinance.
Infant baptism really came in through a strained view that "original sin" somehow imperiled the infant’s soul, and through an exaggerated and quite unscriptural belief in the efficacy of baptism to save. Of course it is not the case that all Paedobaptists now take this view, though Roman Catholics and some others still do so.