A Reply to “George Whitefield’s Plea to Baptists”

Pastor Jason Wallace is a Presbyterian pastor in Magna, Utah and he has been reaching out to Mormons with the gospel for many years. He has a helpful YouTube channel called ancientpathstv where he uploads many documentaries on false religious movements. He has uploaded one video where he argues against the beliefs of Baptists and in favor of infant baptism.

Here is my reply to his video which I posted in the comment section of the video:

As a Baptist, I have learned much from watching your “earnest plea” videos. They are well-researched and you have some great insights into church history.

I would like to respond to a few of the arguments you make in this video and I pray that my response is made in a spirit of gentleness and respect:

1. At 7:37 you said, “And baptism is called the circumcision made without hands.”

The circumcision “made without hands” of Colossians 2.11 is not baptism, but the spiritual circumcision of the heart which is regeneration. In contrast, both physical circumcision and physical baptism are made with hands. It is true that circumcision and baptism can be used metaphorically to picture regeneration, but it does not follow that both circumcision and baptism mean the same thing when used literally.

2. At 8:32, you ask where in the Bible women are included in the Lord’s table “even though they’re never singled out for inclusion.”

Women were included in the membership of the church in Corinth according to passages like 1 Corinthians 11.5 and 14.34. And in 1 Corinthians 11.20 Paul says, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.” “You” in this verse would have included women because they were part of the church and Paul mentions women in this church just a few verses earlier in verse 15. And those who partook of the breaking of bread in Acts 2.42 included all of those who received his word and were baptized in the previous verse which included women since Jesus commanded all of his disciples to be baptized in Matthew 28.19.

3. At 22:36, you begin your critique of the Baptist trail of blood.

I actually agree with your critique of the trail of blood model. As my Baptist History professor said in seminary, you have to be a Christian first before you can be a Baptist. However, Peter of Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, and Arnold of Brescia argued against infant baptism long before the Anabaptist movement arose. I would not view these men as heretics.

4. At 43:15, you showed the Houston Chronicle article that exposed much of the child abuse that has taken place in Baptist churches. I assume that you are using this as an argument against the Baptist quest for a wholly regenerate church and how such a desire is unrealistic in contrast to their interpretation of Hebrews 8.

But rather than being an argument against the Baptist position, the widespread sin in the church shows why the Baptist pursuit of regenerate church membership is so important. These sins happened in the church because the Baptist practices of biblical church membership, formal and informal church discipline, biblical accountability, and the true preaching of the gospel are absent from so many Baptist churches today so that they are Baptist in name only.

As Albert Mohler has said in his article “Discipline: The Missing Mark” about church discipline:

“The mandate of the church is to maintain true gospel doctrine and order. A church lacking these essential qualities is, biblically defined, not a true church. That is a hard thing to say, for it clearly indicts thousands of American congregations who long ago abandoned this essential mark and have accommodated themselves to the spirit of the age. Fearing lawsuits and lacking courage, these churches allow sin to go unconfronted, and heresy to grow unchecked. Inevitably, the false unity they seek to preserve gives way to the factions that inevitably follow the gradual abandonment of biblical Christianity. They do not taste the true unity of a church grounded on the truth and exercising the ministry of the keys” (Baptist Polity, 56).

The sad reality is that there are regenerate and unregenerate people in the visible church today, but it should not be that way. Church discipline exists to remove unregenerate people from the membership of the church so that it will become a pure church made up of those who have the circumcision of the heart (1 Cor 5.1-13).

5. At 1:02:44 you said, “How is the new covenant better? And if he does, why are children no longer given the sign of that covenant?”

I’m sure that you have read James White’s two-part article “The Newness of the New Covenant.” I will not add to what he has said, but I will say that the interpretation of these key passages in Hebrews and Galatians demonstrate that we hold to different understandings of the degree of continuity between the two testaments and the relationship between the covenant of Abraham and the new covenant. The Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant are not the same. One was a covenant between Abraham and his physical offspring while the new covenant is only made between God and those who have forgiveness of their sins. Abraham has two seeds, one physical and one spiritual. And while sometimes they overlap as in the case of Jews who believe in Jesus, they must be distinguished because enrollment in the Abrahamic covenant by birth does not guarantee enrollment in the new covenant which comes through faith (Rom 4.11-12; 9.7-8; Gal 3.29; Heb 2.16-17). Abraham’s circumcision functioned as a sign which pointed to his righteousness by faith before God. But this was only true for Abraham and those Jews who believed. Not all Jews can point to their circumcision as being a sign that they are righteous because not all Jews have faith.

6. At 1:03:12 you said, “If children were kicked out of the visible church, why was the church in Jerusalem still circumcising theirs in Acts 21.”

Actually, this is a strong argument for the Baptist position. If baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant of grace, why were the Jewish Christians still circumcising their infants? They did so because they understood that circumcision and baptism both signify membership in different covenants. If they baptized their infants, why did they also circumcise them? Why didn’t the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 argue against the necessity of circumcision for Gentile believers by pointing out that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant?

7. At 1:12:49, you quote Hebrews 9.10 to support the belief that baptismos is describing “the ceremonial sprinklings and pourings of the Old Testament.”

But the baptisms of Hebrews 9.10 are not acts of sprinkling, but the ritual immersions of the Old Testament which describe the bathing of the body in water (Lev 11.32; 14.8-9; 15.5-13, 21, 27; 17.15-16; Num 19.7-8, 19). These are distinct from the sprinkling mentioned in Hebrews 9.13 which was done with blood, not water. I know you are familiar with the mikveh tradition and the archeology surrounding it.

8. At 1:18:42, you argue that Sirach 34.25 uses baptizō to refer to the ritual sprinkling of Numbers 19.19.

But Sirach 34.25 is describing the ritual immersion of Numbers 19.19, not the first part of the ritual involving sprinkling. The person must “bathe himself in water” and this was done by immersion. The proof that Sirach only has in mind the second half of the ritual involving immersion is that Sirach uses the noun loutron to describe the ritual which corresponds to the verb louō in the Greek translation of Numbers 19.19 in reference to the bathing in water.

9. At 1:20:46, you argue that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and therefore baptizō means pouring.

G. S. Bailey, in his book A Manual of Baptism, responds to this argument: “The Spirit is not literally poured out, only figuratively. He is not a liquid that can be literally poured. If the pouring were the baptism, the Spirit himself would be the one baptized, because the Spirit is poured out, not the candidates. If pouring is baptism, then the water is baptized, and not the candidates, for the former ispoured, but the latter is not” (225). Both pouring and immersion are figurative expressions to symbolize the work of the Holy Spirit in filling and empowering the disciples. But these are two different metaphors which use different verbs and have different objects. When the Spirit is poured out, the Spirit is the object of the verb “to pour,” not the disciples. But when the disciples are baptized, they are the objects of the verb “to baptize,” not the Spirit. Pouring does not mean baptizing because a person cannot be poured. To be baptized in the Spirit is a metaphor which means to be overwhelmed by the Spirit. The pouring out of the Spirit is a metaphor which means that the Spirit’s power and gifts were given to the disciples. The church father Cyril of Jerusalem expresses the relationship between water baptism and baptism in the Spirit this way: “As he who is plunged in the water and baptized is encompassed by the water on every side, so they that are baptized by the Holy Spirit are also wholly covered over” (Bailey, 222). The paedobaptist argument is the result of conflating the two metaphors together instead of keeping them distinct.

10. At 1:42:13 you said, “Why do you have to believe that Martin Luther and John Calvin got it so wrong, but men who deny the deity or humanity of Jesus were the ones who got it right?”

But I could use the same kind of argument for my position: “Why do you have to believe that Charles Spurgeon and William Carey got it wrong about baptism, but the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches were the ones who got it right about infant baptism?” Which view is right ultimately comes down to the exegesis of the text of Scripture, not what the heroes of our past believed to be true.

Two books that I read in college that confirmed my Baptist beliefs are The Meaning and Use of Baptizen by T.J. Conant and Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects by Alexander Carson. They are worth reading if you have never done so before.

As a pastor in rural Nevada, I pray that the Lord would bless your ministry and use you to reach many Mormons and ex-Mormons for Christ.

The Meaning of Baptizō in the New Testament

Baptism is a meaningless word in English. And that’s because the word baptism is not an English word, but a Greek one. When the Bible was translated into English, the translators chose to transliterate the Greek noun baptisma into English rather than translating it from one language into another. But why did they choose to do this?

In the early English church, baptism was practiced by both immersion and through the pouring of water. Translating baptisma as immersion would have been seen as divisive and called into question the legitimacy of those baptisms done through the pouring of water rather than by immersion. So by transliterating the word instead, English translators avoided the debate about how baptism should be performed in the church since the word baptism by itself tells us nothing about whether it should be done by immersion or by pouring water.

I have already written an article defending the Baptist view that baptism is for believers alone. And I have written an article responding to objections to the Baptist view that baptism should only be done by immersion in water. But now, I want to build a positive case for the Baptist belief that baptism should only be done by immersion in water based on how the verb baptizō is used.

Let’s pretend that we have no idea what the Greek verb baptizō means. How do we determine the meaning of any word in a foreign language? We consult dictionaries written by people who are fluent in that language. And the Greek dictionaries all say that the verb baptizō means to dip or to immerse an object in a liquid.

But how do we know that these Greek dictionaries and lexicons are being honest with us and that this is not some sort of Baptist conspiracy that is trying to get us all dunked in water? Well, for one thing, there are many paedobaptist scholars who admit that baptizō describes the act of immersion in water and that this was the ancient mode of baptism practiced by the church in the New Testament. Their belief in practicing baptism today by pouring water is admittedly a later development in church history and not taught in the pages of the Bible.

But let’s pretend that we do not have access to any Greek dictionaries and cannot read a single word of Greek. How would someone who does not know Greek and only has access to an English Bible determine what the word baptism means? They would carefully study the context of every occurrence of baptism in the New Testament.

In Matthew 3:6, we read this about John’s baptism: “And they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” Those who were baptized were standing in the waters of the Jordan river. But if John’s baptism was done by sprinkling or pouring water, why was it necessary for them to be standing in the river? Immersion in water better explains the reason for this because it takes a large amount of water to fully immerse a person. John only did his baptizing in places where water was plentiful as John 3:23 says, “John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized.” But on the other hand, if John did perform baptism by sprinkling or pouring water, he could have traveled around to the different cities of Israel with a jar of water and a hyssop branch to sprinkle water on those who repented rather than only baptizing near bodies of water.

When Jesus was baptized, he was standing in the water before he was baptized and then got out of the water after he was baptized. Matthew 3:16 says, “And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him.” The baptisms of the Book of Acts continue this pattern in imitation of Jesus’ baptism. Acts 8:38-39 says this about the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch: “And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.” Both Philip and the eunuch walked down into the water and then Philip baptized him and then they walked out of the water. If the Ethiopian eunuch merely had water poured on him, why was it necessary for both of them to be standing in the water for Philip to baptize him? Why does Philip need to get wet?

The Apostle Paul compares the act of baptism to the burial and resurrection of Christ. Romans 6:4 says, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Colossians 2:12 states the same truth, “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.” Baptism is a metaphorical picture of burial and resurrection which pictures the new life that we have in Christ. But this symbolic picture is lost when baptism is performed by the act of sprinkling or pouring water which do not correspond with burial or resurrection.

1 Peter 3:21 describes the physical action of baptism as “a removal of dirt from the body” which corresponds to the act of immersion in water. When our bodies are bathed in water, dirt is removed from them. But how could the pouring out of a small amount of water on the head be considered a removal of dirt from the body?

But what if, even after consulting all of these Scriptures, we still don’t understand how baptism is to be performed? Even then, interpreting baptism in the New Testament as an act of sprinkling or pouring is grammatically impossible. Because when the Bible speaks about baptism, it is the person who is baptized, not the liquid. A person can be immersed in water, but a person cannot be sprinkled or poured. People cannot be divided up into smaller parts and poured out like a liquid can. But a liquid can be poured out upon them. Those who are baptized are the direct objects of the verb baptizō. They are baptized, not the water. But if baptizō describes pouring, we would expect the water to be the object of the verb baptizō, not the persons.

If you want to see what I’m saying, then go through all of the passages in the New Testament about baptism and replace the word baptize with the word immerse and then with the words sprinkle or pour and see which one makes more sense. Was Jesus immersed by John in the Jordan? Or was Jesus poured by John in the Jordan?

Even though the key of knowledge has been taken away from English readers by the transliteration of a word that never should have been transliterated, they can determine the meaning of the word by studying the context and grammar of how it is used.

We can also examine passages in Greek literature outside of the New Testament to see how the verb baptizō is used. But how would a person who does not know Greek be able to do that? That’s why T. J. Conant wrote his book The Meaning and Use of Baptizen where he gives us 236 occurrences of the verb baptizō in Greek literature outside of the New Testament with both the Greek text and the English translation to show us that baptizō describes immersion whenever it is used in a literal sense. His book allows those who do not read Greek to see for themselves the meaning of this word. Many other books have been written with examples from Greek literature to prove the same point. Some of them include Alexander Carson’s Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects, G. S. Bailey’s A Manual of Baptism, and J.R. Graves’ John’s Baptism.

If you want to learn more about baptism, then read these books. I pray that the Lord may immerse you in his truth.

The Origin of Infant Baptism in the Early Church

I have written before about baptism in the early church and I have defended the Baptist understanding of baptism which is for professing believers alone. But here, I want to answer the question of where the practice of infant baptism came from.

The practice of infant baptism developed out of the belief in baptismal regeneration. And we know this because when we examine the writings of the church fathers who supported baptizing infants, all of them connect it to a belief in the saving power of baptism. When they argued for infant baptism, they did so on the basis of their regenerative understanding of baptism. If baptism brings salvation to those who receive it, then why not give it to infants?

When we look at the writings of the early church fathers, Origen was the first person to argue for infant baptism and he did so based on what he believed it did for the infant:

“In the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous” (Origen, Homily 8 on Leviticus, Section 3, on Leviticus 12:2-7).

Origen says that baptizing infants would seem superfluous or unnecessary if baptism does not bring about the remission of sins. I agree with Origen’s logic but would draw the opposite conclusion: there is no reason to give baptism to infants because baptism by itself does not bring about the forgiveness of sins.

And Origen claimed the support of the apostles for this practice:

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Origen, Homily 5 on Romans).

Those who believe in infant baptism love to quote this passage to argue for the apostolic origins of this practice. But claiming that your beliefs come from the apostles does not prove that your beliefs actually come from the apostles. We must remember that Origen held to a number of false beliefs such as the pre-existence of the soul, universal salvation, that the Holy Spirit was a created being (Commentary on John, Book 2, Chapter 6), and the law of continence. I’m sure that Origen believed that the apostles would have agreed with him about all of these beliefs as well.

And I’m sure that the church father Tertullian believed that the apostles were in agreement with him when he argued against the practice of baptizing infants (On Baptism, Chapter 18). The church fathers can be mistaken about many things. For example, Irenaeus believed that Jesus was around 50 years old when he was crucified and Irenaeus claimed the authority of the Apostle John for this belief (Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 22, Section 5).

Cyprian, like Origen, argued in favor of infant baptism because he believed that it cleansed infants from the stains of original sin:

“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, Epistle 58, Section 5).

This logic was advanced further in the writings of Augustine:

“Now, inasmuch as infants are not held bound by any sins of their own actual life, it is the guilt of original sin which is healed in them by the grace of Him who saves them by the laver of regeneration . . . . If, however, the infant departs from the present life after he has received baptism, the guilt in which he was involved by original sin being done away, he shall be made perfect in that light of truth, which, remaining unchangeable for evermore, illumines the justified in the presence of their Creator” (Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Chapters 24-25).

Augustine believed that unbaptized infants who died without baptism would not be saved but go to hell. However, they would suffer less than other sinners and receive “the mildest condemnation of all” (Chapter 21).

Infants were baptized in order to prevent them from going to hell because it was believed that the act of baptism by itself washed away sins. At first, baptism was only given to young children and infants if there was a danger of them dying, but it eventually became the universal practice to give baptism to all infants as a precaution. The following quotations are Christian funerary inscriptions that represent this earlier period of time and they are from pages 373-375 of Everett Ferguson’s book Baptism in the Early Church. They demonstrate that these children who were baptized were not baptized as newborn infants, but only baptized because they were approaching death:

“Pastor, Titiana, Marciana, and Chreste made this for Marcianus, a well-deserving son in Christ the Lord. He lived twelve years, two months, and . . . days. He received grace on September 20 when the consuls were Marinianus and Paternus the second time. He gave up (his soul) on September 21. May you live among the saints in eternity.”

“Sweet Tyche lived one year, ten months, fifteen days. Received (grace) on the eighth day before the Kalends. . . . Gave up (her soul) on the same day. Irene, who lived with her parents eleven months and six days, received (grace) on April 7 and gave up (her soul) on April 13.”

“Sacred to the divine dead. Florentius made this monument for his well-deserving son Appronianus, who lived one year, nine months, and five days. Since he was dearly loved by his grandmother, and she saw that he was going to die, she asked from the church that he might depart from the world a believer.”

“Her parents set this up for Julia Florentina, their dearest and most innocent infant who was made a believer. She was born a pagan on the day before the nones of March before dawn when Zoilus was a censor of the province. She lived eighteen months and twenty-two days and was made a believer in the eighth hour of the night, almost drawing her last breath. She survived four more hours so that she entered again on the customary things. She died at Hybla in the first hour of the day on September 25.”

“Postumius Eutenion, a believer, who obtained holy grace the day before his birthday at a very late hour and died. He lived six years and was buried on the eleventh of July on the day of Jupiter on which he was born. His soul is with the saints in peace. Felicissimus, Eutheria, and Gesta his grandmother, for their worthy son Postumius.”

“For Flavia, dearest infant, who with sound mind obtained the grace of the glorious font on Easter day and survived after holy baptism five months. She lived three years, ten months, seven days. The parents, Flavian and Archelaius, for their pious daughter. Burial on the eighteenth of August.”

When many of the Protestant Reformers broke with the church fathers in their regenerative understanding of baptism, they had to create new arguments for the practice of infant baptism. This is exactly what the Protestant reformer Ulrich Zwingli did. He said this about baptism:

“In this matter of baptism — if I may be pardoned for saying it — I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. . . . All the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach. . . . At many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries” (Of Baptism, in Zwingli and Bullinger, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24, p. 130).

Zwingli argued instead that baptism is the replacement for circumcision. So just as circumcision was given to Hebrew infants under the old covenant, baptism should be given to Christian infants under the new covenant.

Because of the regenerative origins of the practice of infant baptism, remnants of a regenerative understanding of baptism persist in the minds of many of those who practice infant baptism today, even if they belong to denominations that do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

The Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge believed that infant baptism writes the names of infants into the Lamb’s book of life:

“Those parents sin grievously against the souls of their children who neglect to consecrate them to God in the ordinance of baptism. Do let the little ones have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life, even if they afterwards choose to erase them. Being thus enrolled may be the means of their salvation” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 588).

Some Presbyterians, like Abraham Kuyper, argued in favor of presumptive regeneration which is the belief that the baptized infant children of believers are presumed to be born-again Christians until they prove otherwise (“Calvinism and Confessional Review,” The Presbyterian Quarterly, Vol. IV, No. 18). For more references to presumptive regeneration, see this article.

With regards to baptismal regeneration, those who argue for it have forgotten the words of the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:21 by assigning the instrument of salvation to the physical act of baptism rather than to the faith and repentance of the person being baptized: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” What saves us is not the “removal of dirt from the body” (the physical action of immersion in water), but the “appeal to God for a good conscience” which is faith and repentance as we appeal to God to forgive us for our sins and give us a clean conscience.

To use an analogy, baptism was the altar call of the first century. And just as no one believes that the physical action of walking down an aisle saves us, so likewise, the physical action of baptism alone cannot save us. Baptism in the New Testament was the first opportunity for sinners to express their newfound faith in Christ and repentance from their sins. Baptism is always associated with faith and repentance, things that an infant cannot do (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

In contrast to the belief in baptismal regeneration, the Bible teaches that faith alone is the instrument of our salvation by which we lay hold of Christ, not the physical action of immersion in water (Rom 3:25-28; Eph 1:13-14). It is not the water that saves us, but the faith of the individual who is being baptized and baptism is an outward expression of their saving faith. Baptism is not essential for a person to express their faith in Christ, as we see in the story of the thief on the cross, but it normally would have been the first expression of their faith as we see in the baptisms in the Book of Acts.

Baptism in the Early Church

As a Baptist, I believe that the only proper subjects of baptism are professing believers in Jesus Christ. And the purpose of baptism is not to bring about regeneration, but to express one’s faith in Christ through a visible act of repentance. And the only proper mode of baptism is immersion in water.

I admit that these three beliefs together are a minority position in the life of the church, but all three of these beliefs can be found in the writings of the early and medieval church:

Subjects

“But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before” (Didache, Chapter 7).

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 61 on Christian Baptism).

“That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already” (Tertullian, On Repentance, Chapter 6).

“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. . . . The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them ‘come,’ then, while they are growing up; let them ‘come’ while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ” (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 18).

“They who are about to enter baptism ought to pray with repeated prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the night through, and with the confession of all bygone sins” (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 20).

“Those who are to receive baptism shall fast on the Preparation of the Sabbath. On the Sabbath, those who are to receive baptism shall all gather together in one place chosen according to the will of the bishop. They shall be commanded to pray and kneel. Then, laying his hand on them, he will exorcise every foreign spirit, so that they flee from them and never return to them” (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, Chapter 20, Sections 7-8).

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated. . . . But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration. For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, Oration 40, Section 28).

“Gregory [of Nazianzus] is one of the so-called Cappodocian Fathers, along with Gregory of Nyssa and his brother Basil the Great. Interestingly, none of the three, despite being the children of Christian parents, was baptized while an infant. Gregory of Nazianzus, whose father was a bishop, was not baptized until he was about 30 years old” (Steven A. McKinion, “Baptism in the Patristic Writings,” in Believer’s Baptism, p. 182)

“Indeed, what we know of the ages at which those from strong Christian families who became leaders in the church in the fourth century were baptized offers no certain examples of baptism in childhood. The list includes Ephraem the Syrian, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Rufinus, Paulinus of Nola, and Nazianzus’s father Gregory, sister Gorgonia, and brother Caesarius” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 626-627. See also Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom, Chapter 5).

“Severus earnestly desired to receive baptism there and also to become, he, too, a signed one among the lambs of the house of God. For this Mother [faith] had still not been acquired by him, because in the country of his people, they used to baptize none except [grown] men” (Robert Bishop, Life of Severus of Antioch. As cited by Kathleen McVey, “The Life of Severus of Antioch by Robert Bishop of the Arabians” [Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1997], p. 95. Severus lived from 465-538. As cited by Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 632).

“Next it must be noted that at first the traditional grace of baptism was given only to those who had already matured in both body and mind, they would be able to know and understand what effort must follow after baptism, what must be confessed and believed; in short, what must be observed by those reborn in Christ” (Walahfrid Strabo in the ninth century, De exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticus rerum, Chapter 27. As cited by Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 633).

“In the first generation one did not baptize infants, but those who attained a proper age were called catechumens. It is to these that one preached baptism and taught the Christian religion for three years, and they were baptized” (Macarius, Bishop of Memphis in Egypt in the tenth century. As cited by Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 632).

“There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century. . . . Arguments against the originality of baby baptism, in addition to its lack of early attestation, include: the essential nature ascribed to verbal confession and repentance; the liturgy designed for persons of responsible age; size of baptisteries; and the lack of an agreed theology to support it. . . . The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. There was a slow extension of the practice of baptizing babies as a precautionary measure. It was generally accepted, but questions continued to be raised about its propriety into the fifth century. It became the usual practice in the fifth and sixth centuries” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 856-857).

“[Baptism cannot] be of any advantage to a little child, who neither wills nor runs, who knows nothing of faith, and is altogether ignorant of his own good and salvation in whom there can be no desire of regeneration, and from whom no confession of faith can be expected” (Confession of faith of the followers of Gundolfo of Italy in 1025 at the Synod of Arras. As cited by Pierre Allix, Some Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 104).

“From these words of the Lord (they say) it is evident that no one can be saved unless he believes and is baptized, that is, unless he have the Christian faith, for neither one of these without the other will save him. Hence infants, although they are baptized by you, nevertheless, because they cannot believe, since they are as yet too young, are not at all saved. It is useless, therefore, and vain when you baptize one with water, which indeed cleanses the body from filth, as one usually takes a bath, but does not at all cleanse the soul from sin. But we wait for the time when a person, after he has known God, is ready to believe on Him, and so baptize him – not rebaptize him, as you accuse us – but baptize him, since he had not before been baptized with baptism which cleanses from sin. . . . But I know why you thus deride (infant baptism) and declare that one cannot be saved by the faith of another, because you deny many things in your boasting among the ignorant and unlearned” (Peter the Venerable in his treatise against Peter of Bruys and the Petrobrusians. As cited by Joseph Cowley Reagan, “Did the Petrobrusians Teach Salvation by Faith Alone?” in The Journal of Religion, VII (1927), p. 89).

“Thus they render void the priesthood of the Church and condemn its sacraments, save baptism alone, and this [they approve] only for adults, who, they say, are baptized by Christ, no matter who may actually administer the sacrament. They do not believe in infant baptism because of the text of the Gospel, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’” (Eberwin of Steinfeld to Bernard of Clairvaux about the beliefs of Henry of Lausanne and the Henricians. As cited by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, p. 131).

“On the baptism of children: You put together a captious and slanderous attack upon infant baptism by following, without much insight, the verbal formulas and noting in them a defect of misrepresentation where none exists. . . . This you do because you ignore original sin, washed away by baptism. . . . Therefore, just as carnal circumcision was once performed out of necessity, so now is the ablution of water, lest the soul of the child be taken away from his people” (The Letter of Master Vacarius against the Errors of Hugo Speroni. As cited by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, p. 154-155).

“Secondly, they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church; in the first place, as to baptism, they say that the Catechism is nothing—also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing” [Quod ablutlo quae datur infantibus nihil prosit] (The Dominican inquisitor Reinerius Saccho on “the sect of Poor Men of Lyons” or Waldensians. As cited by S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses, p. 410).

“We come now to the Rebaptizers, whose particular error is to baptize a second time. Their heresy arose at the same time as that of the Leonists [Waldensians]” (Summa contra hereticos by Peter of Verona written between 1235-1238. As cited by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, p. 277).

Purpose

“And further, as you are not ignorant, the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles after this manner: ‘While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them who heard the word. And they who were of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with their tongues, and they magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.’ Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: ‘And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith.’ And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water,—as thou observest that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied,—forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle’s hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith” (An Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, Chapter 5).

“And what wilt thou determine against the person of him who hears the word, and haply taken up in the name of Christ, has at once confessed, and has been punished before it has been granted him to be baptized with water? Wilt thou declare him to have perished because he has not been baptized with water? Or, indeed, wilt thou think that there may be something from without that helps him to salvation, although he is not baptized with water? Thy thinking him to have perished will be opposed by the sentence of the Lord, who says, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven;’ because it is no matter whether he who confesses for the Lord is a hearer of the word or a believer, so long as he confesses that same Christ whom he ought to confess; because the Lord, by confessing him, in turn Himself graces His confessor before his Father with the glory of his martyrdom” (An Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, Chapter 11).

“Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother’s womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe” (An Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, Chapter 15).

“Now if this righteousness be observed, there will be no need of Baptism; and if broken, Baptism cannot avail to salvation. This is the sum of our justification, to which the use of Baptism can superadd nothing, since this is the end of all apostolical and evangelical institutions” (Confession of faith of the followers of Gundolfo of Italy in 1025 at the Synod of Arras. As cited by Pierre Allix, Some Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, p. 104).

“This heresy and all who profess it, which today has been found to have conspired against the true and catholic Church – to wit, which holds that baptism will not avail toward washing away the stain of original sin, or of sins actually committed” (Condemnation of the Beliefs of Gundolfo of Italy in 1025 at the Synod of Arras. As cited by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, p. 85).

“There were heretics who denied that the substance of the bread and wine which priests bless on the altar is really changed into the body and blood of Christ. They also said that the sacrament of baptism of infants has no efficacy for salvation” (Description of a heresy in Ivoy, France in 1122 of those who have been called followers of Berengar of Tours. As cited by Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages, p. 105).

“You must either say that we [Catholics] are heathen, or if you avoid that, you must admit that we have faith in Christ and the Gospel, and the Martyrs were saved by faith alone and martyrdom, without baptism. . . . . Now if you admit this, that you say some can be saved by their faith alone without baptism, why do you not believe that some can be saved by baptism alone without faith of their own? If the Martyrs are saved by their faith alone without baptism, why cannot children be saved by baptism alone without faith” (Peter the Venerable in his treatise against the Petrobrusians. As cited by Joseph Cowley Reagan, “Did the Petrobrusians Teach Salvation by Faith Alone?” in The Journal of Religion, VII (1927), p. 89).

“‘Do you believe that water could work your salvation.’ He answers, ‘I do not believe it.’ — ‘You must renounce that veil which the priest placed on your head when you were baptized.’ He must answer, ‘I renounce it'” (Raynaldus on the initiation ceremony of a group of Waldensians. As cited by S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents Illustrative of the History, Doctrine, and Rites of the Ancient Albigenses and Waldenses, p. 394).

“We consider the Sacraments as signs of holy things, or as the visible emblems of invisible blessings. We regard it as proper and even necessary that believers use these symbols or visible forms when it can be done. Notwithstanding which, we maintain that believers may be saved without these signs, when they have neither place nor opportunity of observing them” (Article 12 of The Waldensian Confession of 1120 [almost certainly written long after 1120 as this was before the time of the Waldensians]. As cited by Samuel Morland, The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont, p. 34).

Mode

“This meaneth, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit” (Epistle of Barnabas 11:10).

“Those whom the water of baptism has submerged” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection, Chapter 52).

“With so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water” (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 2).

“In the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in water” (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 7).

“He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 26).

“Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water. When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them” (Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, Chapter 21, Sections 11-12).

“And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water” (An Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, Chapter 16).

“If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the three immersions of the one admission, but one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deprived; for the Lord did not say, Baptize into my death, but, Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, O bishops, baptize thrice into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ, and our constitution by the Spirit” (Apostolic Constitutions, Book 8, Section 47, Canon 50).

“Thou hast the baptism as a surety of the abode of heaven. Thou didst imitate, in the sinking down, the burial of the Master; but thou didst rise again from thence, before works witnessing the works of the resurrection” (Athanasius, Discourse on Holy Passover, Chapter 5).

“By imitating, through baptism, the burial of Christ. For the bodies of the baptized are, as it were, buried in the water” (Basil the Great, On the Spirit, Chapter 35).

“By going down into the water, and being in a manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock, art raised again walking in newness of life” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 3, Section 12).

“Let us, therefore, be buried with Christ by the baptism, that we may also rise with him; let us go down with him, that we may also be exalted with him; let us come up with him, that we may also be glorified with him” (Gregory of Nazianzus, On Holy Baptism, Discourse 40).

“And we in receiving Baptism, in imitation of our Lord and Teacher and Guide, are not indeed buried in the earth, but coming to the element akin to earth, to water, we conceal ourselves in that as the Saviour did in the earth” (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ).

“Baptism is a likeness of death when you go down into the water, and when you rise again it becomes a likeness of resurrection” (Ambrose, The Sacraments, 2.7.20).

“For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead” (John Chrysostom, Homily 25 on the Gospel of John).

“The Saviour Himself does not preach the kingdom of heaven until by His baptismal immersion” (Jerome, Letter to Oceanus).

“Therefore, baptism is signified by the sign of Christ, that is, by the water in which you are immersed and through which you pass” (Augustine, Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons, Sermon 213, Section 8).

“For in the baptismal office death ensues through the slaying of sin, and threefold immersion imitates the lying in the tomb three days, and the raising out of the water is like Him that rose again from the tomb” (Pope Leo the Great, Letter 16).

“But with respect to trine immersion in baptism, no truer answer can be given than what you have yourself felt to be right; namely that, where there is one faith, a diversity of usage does no harm to holy Church. Now we, in immersing thrice, signify the sacraments of the three days’ sepulture” (Pope Gregory the Great, Letter to Leander, Book 1, Letter 43).

“Baptism is an image of the death of Christ. For by the three immersions, baptism signifies the three days of our Lord’s entombment” (John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 9).

“For one baptism is spoken of, as also one faith, because of the doctrine respecting the initiation, being one in all the Church, which has been taught to baptize with invocation of the Trinity, and to symbolize the Lord’s death and resurrection by the threefold sinking down and coming up” (Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on Nahum, Chapter 1).

“The Christian literary sources, backed by secular word usage and Jewish religious immersions, give an overwhelming support for full immersion as the normal action. Exceptions in cases of a lack of water and especially of sickbed baptism were made. Submersion was undoubtedly the case for the fourth and fifth centuries in the Greek East and only slightly less certain for the Latin West” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 857).

See this article for quotations from paedobaptist scholars who argue that immersion was the mode of baptism practiced by the first-century church.

What View of Baptism Is Most Strongly Supported Biblically And Why?

This is a paper I wrote in seminary for my Christian Theology class defending the Baptist view of baptism.

The Issue at Stake

Christians are more divided by baptism than perhaps any other issue.  What God intended as a great uniter of his people has ironically become the occasion of great division (Eph 4:4-5).  Hundreds of polemical works on baptism have been written since the time of the Reformation and will continue to be written until Christ returns.  This paper seeks to defend the Baptist position that only Christians may be baptized while answering many of the arguments that Reformed paedobaptists use to defend infant baptism.  Only the debate between Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists concerning the proper subjects of baptism will be discussed in this paper.  What a person believes about who should be baptized has enormous implications for their understanding of the church, the relationship between the Old and New Testament, and Christian discipleship.

The Positions

The Baptist position, according to Shawn Wright, affirms “that the church should have as members only those who are regenerate.  They argue that the church is a body of Christians who have been baptized as believers and have committed themselves to follow Jesus in communion with one another.”[1]  In other words, the Baptist belief that only Christians should be baptized flows out of their understanding that the New Testament church is only to be composed of regenerate believers – not believers and their unregenerate children (Heb 8:8-13).  Infants, by virtue of not being members of the new covenant community which knows God and has forgiveness of sins, cannot receive baptism which is the sign of the new covenant.  Only those who are in the new covenant may receive the sign of the covenant.  Unlike Old Testament Israel which is composed of all of Abraham’s descendants, the New Testament church is composed of only those who are the spiritual offspring of Abraham who belong to Christ (Rom 2:29; 9:6-8; Gal 3:7, 29; Phil 3:3).  As Wayne Grudem explains, “One becomes a member of the true church by being born again and by having saving faith, not by physical birth.  It comes about not by an external act, but by internal faith in one’s heart.”[2]

Therefore, the Baptist position admits a certain discontinuity between the peoples of God which the paedobaptist position does not.  Because the new covenant is composed of only regenerate believers, the New Testament church may only admit as members those who repent and profess faith in Christ (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 2:38-39; 10:47; 11:26; Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21).  Baptism can only be for believers because only they can confess Christ, repent, be disciples, put on Christ, and be forgiven of their sins.  Stephen Wellum elaborates, “Baptism marks and defines the children of God, those who believe in Messiah Jesus.  That is why we baptize only those who have confessed Jesus as Lord, who have experienced his power, who are, by faith and spiritual rebirth, Abraham’s true spiritual seed.”[3]  Furthermore, Baptists contend that the Bible does not teach infant baptism since even paedobaptists admit that infant baptism is never explicitly taught in the New Testament.  As B. B. Warfield once said, “the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament.”[4]

The Reformed paedobaptist position, to say the least, is more difficult to understand than the Baptist position.  Essentially it states that the children of believers are to be baptized because baptism has replaced circumcision and the children of believers are members of the covenant community just as the children of the Israelites were members of the covenant community.  As the Israelites circumcised their male children, New Testament believers baptize their children because these children likewise are members of the same covenant community.  Warfield gives one of the best summaries of the Reformed paedobaptist position:

“God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.”[5]

Unlike the Roman Catholic argument for infant baptism based on baptismal regeneration, most Reformed paedobaptists reject the idea that baptism gives their children regeneration or forgiveness of sins.  Because of his rejection of baptismal regeneration, Ulrich Zwingli had to develop a new argument for infant baptism based on circumcision and the relationship between the covenants.[6]  Reformed paedobaptists, rather than arguing on the basis of baptismal regeneration, conclude that “if the children of believers are members of the covenant people in the New Testament, then those children, as members of the covenant, are entitled to the sign and seal of the covenant.”[7]  The continuity of the people of God ensures that children of believers are participants in the Abrahamic covenant to whom God has promised “to be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen 17:7).  Since they are members of the Abrahamic covenant, they must receive the sign of the covenant which is now baptism.  The burden of proof therefore falls upon the Baptist to find a command which excludes infants from the covenant.[8]

Other arguments for infant baptism include Jesus’ statement that little children belong to the kingdom of heaven (Matt 19:4).  John Calvin reasoned that, “If it is right for infants to be brought to Christ, why not also to be received into baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ?”[9]  Acts 2:39 says that “the promise is for you and your children” which parallels the promise of Genesis 17:7-8 showing that infants even in the New Testament are members of the covenant community.[10]  1 Corinthians 7:14 states that the children of even one believer are holy and therefore part of the holy covenant community.  The disciples baptized whole households which must include everyone in the house including infants (Acts 16:15; 1 Cor 1:16).[11]  Colossians 2:11-12 shows that baptism has replaced circumcision.  Both circumcision and baptism are the sign and seal of the same covenant which began in Genesis 17 and includes the children of those who belong to the covenant (Rom 4:11).[12]  

Biblical Support for the Baptist Position

The strength of the Baptist position is rooted in its commitment to exegete all of those passages which actually relate to baptism.  On the other hand, many of the arguments that paedobaptists employ to defend infant baptism have absolutely nothing to do with baptism.  As even Warfield has noted concerning Jesus receiving little children, “What has this to do with baptism?  Certainly nothing directly; only if it be held indirectly to show that infants were received by Christ as members of His Kingdom on earth.”[13]  At best, paedobaptist arguments are rooted in analogy and conjecture such as speculating whether infants were present in the household baptisms in Acts.  In contrast, Baptist arguments are derived from those passages which teach about baptism such as Matthew 28:19-20, Romans 6:3-5, and 1 Peter 3:21.

The foundational text for understanding Christian baptism is Jesus’ commission to his disciples to “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 (Matt 28:19-20).  From this passage several important truths about baptism appear: the proper subjects of this baptism are disciples, those disciples are to be baptized into the name of the Triune God, and those who are baptized are then to be taught.  Infants are unable to be baptized into such a commission since they are not Christian disciples (Acts 11:26), are not in union with the Triune God (Rom 5:10; 8:1; Eph 2:1-7), and are unable to be taught the commands of Christ until they are much older.  Jesus assumes that those his disciples baptize are disciples themselves and are able to learn his teachings.

Alexander Carson, the great 19^th century Irish Baptist, presents an ingenious argument against infant baptism based on Matthew 28:19:

“This commission to baptize believers, does not indeed imply that it is impossible that another commission might have been given to baptize infants, but, by necessity, it excludes them for ever from being included in this command.  If infants are baptized it is from another commission; and it is another baptism, founded on another principle. . . . if there were even another commission enjoining the baptism of infants, when these infants, who have been baptized in infancy, according to this supposed second commission, believe the gospel, they must be baptized according to the commission, Matt. 28:19, without any regard to their baptism in infancy.  The commission commands all men to be baptized on believing the gospel.”[14]

In other words, even if paedobaptists prove infant baptism, it would not excuse those baptized in infancy from being baptized according to Jesus’ command that all of his disciples are to be baptized.  Since those baptized in infancy were not disciples when they were baptized, they must be baptized into this baptism now that they have become disciples since all who are disciples must be baptized into this baptism once they are made disciples through the preaching of the gospel.  Otherwise, they are disciples who have not been baptized as disciples.  Merely proving infant baptism does not disprove this command to baptize all who become disciples.

Infant baptism leaves unbaptized those disciples who have been deceived into believing they were truly baptized in infancy and baptizes those who are not disciples.  As Carson explains, “It has ordered infants to be baptized, who, by the very terms of this commission, are excluded from this baptism: and it leaves unbaptized, believers whom only Jesus hath commanded to be baptized.”[15]  Additionally, baptism and repentance are always joined in Scripture (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 13:24).  Baptism is an act of repentance when those who are baptized repent of their sins (Matt 3:6).  Infants are unable to repent and thus cannot be baptized.  Baptism is also associated with the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet 3:21) though it is the confession which brings about forgiveness, not the physical action of immersion in water.  Infants have not committed personal sins themselves so they cannot confess them in order to receive forgiveness.  Infants cannot put on Christ, die to sin, or be in union with Christ which are all presupposed by baptism (Rom 6:2-6; Gal 3:27).[16]

An overlooked passage relevant to this debate is 1 Peter 3:21.  Peter says that baptism involves both the removal of dirt from the body and an appeal to God for a good conscience.  Baptism involves those being baptized requesting that God would give them a clean conscience purified from the guilt of past sins (Heb 9:14).  This is why baptism saves in this passage because baptism is an act of repentance.  Infants do not have the ability or desire to appeal to God for a good conscience through repentance and so cannot be baptized.  The person being baptized is actively involved in the baptism through confession unlike infants who are completely passive when water is sprinkled on them.  J. R. Graves also notes that because infant baptism is not explicitly taught in Scripture, it is a violation of the regulatory principle of worship since the regulatory principle demands that all worship of God find its warrant directly in Scripture.[17]  Infant baptism therefore cannot be part of the true worship of God.

Paedobaptists are also inconsistent when they give baptism to infants since they are members of the new covenant community while denying them the Lord’s Supper until they believe.[18]  Are not both baptism and the Lord’s Supper signs of the new covenant?  On what basis can baptism be given without the other?  If it is because infants cannot discern the body (1 Cor 11:29), why should they be given baptism when they cannot repent?  Paedobaptists must create the ordinance of confirmation to replace baptism in order to give their children the Lord’s Supper.[19]  In doing so they create levels of membership where some members partake of the Lord’s Supper while others do not.

The practice of infant baptism has resulted in the corruption of the purity of the church.  By baptizing infants, paedobaptists knowingly allow the unregenerate to become members of the body of Christ.  In contrast to the Baptist belief that the visible church is only to be made up of regenerate believers who know God because the new covenant is composed of only the redeemed, paedobaptists believe that the new covenant is filled with many of the non-elect who will go to hell.[20]  The new covenant can be broken by those who do not embrace Christ after their baptism.  Such was the belief of Charles Hodge: “Do let the little ones have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life, even if they afterwards choose to erase them.”[21]  Like the old covenant, they believe that the new covenant is composed of both believers and unbelievers since “the church under the new dispensation is identical with that under the old.”[22]  But is this the teaching of Scripture?

A pivotal passage relating to this debate is Hebrews 8:8-12.  In stark contrast to the imperfection of the old covenant, the author of Hebrews teaches that the New Covenant is composed entirely of those who have God’s law put into their mind, written on their hearts, belong to God, know the Lord, and have their sins forgiven so that God remembers them no more.  Such a description is impossible of any unbeliever since they reject God’s law, do not know him, and stand condemned before him (Rom 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-12).  Because infants do not know God and do not have forgiveness of sins, they cannot be part of the new covenant and therefore cannot receive baptism which is the sign of the new covenant.  All of those in the new covenant have circumcised hearts “in contrast to the ‘mixed’ nation of Israel who broke the covenant.”[23]  The new covenant is not a future reality, despite what some paedobaptists think, because it has been enacted (Heb 8:6).[24]  The verb “enacted” is perfect passive showing that its coming is a completed action.

If the new covenant is still future, that would absolutely destroy the apologetic argument that the author of Hebrews is making because there would be no need to abandon the old covenant system since the new covenant one is still future.  The coming of the new covenant is necessary for Christ’s intercessory work as the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 9:15; 12:24).  If the new covenant is still future, Christ’s work of intercession would still be future.  Those in the new covenant cannot perish because Christ is mediating for them (Heb 7:25).  The old covenant is completely obsolete now that the new has come (Heb 8:13).  Because the new covenant has come, only those who know God can be members of the covenant community.  As Wellum rightly explains, “To be a member of Abraham’s family now is not tied to a specific physical lineage, nor circumcision, nor any kind of physical links to other believers.  Rather, one becomes a part of Abraham’s family only through faith union in Christ brought about by the Spirit (Gal 3:26-29).”[25]  This is the answer to the paedobaptist objection that God has not commanded the children of believers to be excluded from the covenant.  Under the new covenant, the infant children of believers are excluded from the covenant of grace’s external economy until they believe because only those who know God can participate in the external economy of the covenant of grace under the new dispensation in contrast to the old covenant.

Objections to the Baptist Position

Paedobaptists argue that children should be baptized because whole households were baptized (Acts 16:15; 1 Cor 1:16).  However, this is a logically invalid argument since if a person argues that infants were baptized because the household was baptized, it would follow that the infants believed because the household believed (Acts 16:31; 18:8).  Carson explains, “By the very same arguments that our opponents show that there might have been unbelieving infants in believing houses, we will show that there might have been unbaptized infants in baptized houses.”[26]  The term “household” is defined in the context of how it is used.  If Luke can speak of believing households where the infants do not believe, he can likewise speak of baptized households where the infants are not baptized. 

Another argument is 1 Corinthians 7:14 where Paul says that the children of a believing spouse are holy.  This argument too is invalid since the unbelieving spouse is likewise called holy.  If the children are to be baptized because they are holy, the unbelieving spouse should also be baptized because he or she is holy too!  As Abraham Booth explains, “If, then, that sanctification of the unbelieving husband gives him no claim to baptism, the holiness thence arising cannot invest his children with such a right.”[27]  The point that Paul is making is simply this: unlike Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13 when the Israelites had to forsake their pagan wives and children, a believing husband does not have to leave his unbelieving wife and children because the marriage is truly valid in God’s sight and therefore your children are legitimately yours and not illegitimate.[28]  A similar use of “holy” is 1 Timothy 4:5 in reference to acceptable food.

Paedobaptists assert that baptism has replaced circumcision so infants should therefore be baptized since “what circumcision was to the Old Testament church, the same now is baptism to the New.”[29]  They base this conclusion on Colossians 2:11-12 which speaks of spiritual circumcision and the believer’s burial with Christ in baptism.  Paedobaptists wrongly assume that because both baptism and circumcision can be used metaphorically to refer to regeneration that one has replaced the other.  Two things can be used metaphorically to signify the same thing while the literal use of those terms is completely unrelated.  This is the linguistic fallacy of assigning a metaphorical use of a term to its literal use and then comparing two literal things based on their metaphorical usage.  The circumcision that Paul is speaking of in this passage is not physical circumcision, but spiritual.  If baptism has replaced circumcision, why were the Judaizers saying that circumcision was necessary for salvation when baptism had replaced it?  Should believing slave owners baptize their slaves because Abraham circumcised his slaves?

Acts 2:39 also provides no basis for infant baptism because the promise for “your children” is qualified by the assertion that the promise of the Holy Spirit is limited to “as many as the Lord our God will call.”  The promise of salvation is not for all children, only for those that God effectually calls to salvation (Rom 8:30).  Rather than being an argument in favor of infant baptism, it demonstrates that only those who have the Holy Spirit may be baptized.

---

[1]Shawn D. Wright, “Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2006), 218-19.

[2]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 977.

[3]Stephen J. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2006), 159.

[4]B. B. Warfield, “The Polemics of Infant Baptism,” in Studies in Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 2003), 399.  Many more quotations could be given of paedobaptists refuting themselves.  See T. E. Watson, Should Infants be Baptized?, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976).   

[5]Ibid., 408.

[6]Ulrich Zwingli, Of Baptism, trans. G. W. Bromiley, in Zwingli and Bullinger, ed. G. W. Bromiley, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 130.

[7]Mark E. Ross, “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003), 100.

[8]Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 944; Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992-97), 3:418.

[9]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection [CD-ROM] (Rio, WI: AGES Software, 2004), 4:326.

[10]A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1866), 496.

[11]Robert R. Booth, Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995), 124.

[12]Ross, “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals,” 89.  

[13]Warfield, “The Polemics of Infant Baptism,” 398-99.

[14]Alexander Carson, Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishing, 2000), 170.   

[15]Ibid., 174.

[16]Grudem, Systematic Theology, 970-71.

[17]J. R. Graves, John’s Baptism: Was It From Moses or Christ? Jewish or Christian? Objections To Its Christian Character Answered (Memphis: Southern Baptist Book House, 1892), 187.

[18]Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 3^rd ed. (Faverdale North, Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 1999), 352.

[19]Wright, “Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists,” 227.  

[20]Ibid., 224.

[21]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 3:588.

[22]Ibid., 3:549.

[23]Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants,” 137.

[24]Ibid., 146.

[25]Ibid., 135.

[26]Carson, Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects, 185.

[27]Abraham Booth, Paedobaptism Examined; with Replies to the Arguments and Objections of Dr. Williams and Mr. Peter Edwards, 3 vols. (London: Ebenezer Palmer, 1829), 2:200.

[28]Carson, Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects, 208.

[29]Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man Comprehending A Complete Body of Divinity, 2 vols., trans. and rev. William Crookshank (London: R. Baynes, J. Maitland, T. Lochhead, and T. Nelson, 1822), 2:442.

Paedobaptist Testimonies to Immersion

The historic practice of the Christian church is that baptism is to be carried out by immersion in water. This is because the word baptism comes from the Greek word baptisma which describes the dipping of an object in liquid. This is recognized by all secular historians and Greek scholars. That baptism was practiced by immersion also is confirmed by the Jewish roots of baptism. The practice of baptizing by sprinkling or pouring water arose over time for pragmatic reasons in the Western Church while the Eastern Church which knew Greek continued to practice baptism by immersion. The following quotations come from those who believed in infant baptism and yet they recognized that immersion was the ancient and biblical mode of baptism. Many more quotations could be added to this list:

Martin Luther

“The name baptism is Greek; in Latin it can be rendered immersion, when we immerse anything in water, that it may be all covered with water. And although that custom has now grown out of use . . . yet they ought to be entirely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For this the etymology of the name seems to demand” (On the Sacrament of Baptism; Opera Lutheri, 1:319).

Philip Melanchthon

“Baptism is immersion in water, which is performed with the accompanying benediction of admiration . . . Plunging signifies ablution from sin and immersion into the death of Christ” (Catechesis De Sacramentis; Opera Omnia, 1:25).

Ulrich Zwingli

“When ye were immersed into the water of baptism, ye were ingrafted into the death of Christ; that is, the immersion of your body into water was a sign that ye ought to be ingrafted into Christ” (Annotations on the Epistle to the Romans, on Romans 6:3; Opera Omnia, 4:420).

John Calvin

“The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church” (Institutues of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 15, Section 19).

Theodore Beza

“Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified” (Second Letter to Tilium).

William Tyndale

“The plunging into the water signifieth that we die, and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin which is Adam. And the pulling out again, signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us and work the will of God in us, as thou seest” (Obedience of a Christian Man, 1571 edition, 143).

Girolamo Zanchius

“Baptism is a Greek word, and signifies two things; first, and properly, immersion in water: for the proper signification of Baptizo, is to immerse, to plunge under, to overwhelm in water” (Works 6:217).

Richard Baxter

“We grant that Baptism then was by wash­ing the whole Body: And did not the differences of our cold country as to that hot one, teach us to remem­ber (I will have mercy and not sacrifice) it should be so here” (Paraphrase of the New Testament, on Matthew 3:6).

Herman Witsius

“It is certain, that both John and the disciples of Christ ordinarily used dipping; whose example was followed by the ancient church, as Vossius, Disput. 1. de baptismo, Thes. 6, and Hoornbeck de baptismo Veterum, sect. iv. have shown from many testimonies both of the Greeks and Latins. 2dly, It cannot be denied, but the native signification of the words, baptein and baptizein, is to plunge or dip” (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, 3:390).

Francis Turretin

“As in former times the persons to be baptized were immersed in the water, continued under the water, and emerged out of it; Matt. 3:16. Acts 8:38; so the old man died in them and was buried, and the new man arose” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:378).

Thomas Chalmers

“The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion” (Lectures on Romans, on Romans 6).

John Wesley

“Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion. The child was ill then, but recovered from that hour” (Extract of Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from his embarking for Georgia, 10).

“Buried with him,’ alluded to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion” (Wesley’s Notes, on Romans 6:4).

Philip Schaff

“Immersion and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John” (History of the Apostolic Church, 2:256).

Henry Percival

“The principal work of the deaconess was to assist the female candidates for holy baptism. At that time the sacrament of baptism was always administered by immersion (except to those in extreme illness) and hence there was much that such an order of women could be useful in” (“Excursus on the Deaconess of the Early Church,” in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, 41).

Friedrich Brenner

“[For] thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and regularly an immersion of the person under water, and only extraordinary cases a sprinkling or pouring with water; the latter was disputed as a mode of baptism, nay, even forbidden” (Historical Exhibition of the Administration of Baptism, 306).

James Gibbons

“For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by immersion; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by immersion” (Faith of Our Fathers, 317).

William Cave

“The action having proceeded thus far, the party to be baptized was wholly immerged, or put under water, which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times, whereby they did more notably and significantly express the three great ends and effects of baptism. For, as in immersion there are, in a manner, three several acts, the putting the person into water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again, so by these were represented Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; and, in conformity thereunto, our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our resurrection to a new course of life. By the person’s being put into water was lively represented the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and being washed from the filth and pollution of them; by his abode under it, which was a kind of burial unto water, his entering into a state of death or mortification, like as Christ remained for some time under the state or power of death” (Primitive Christianity, 220).

William Wall

“Their (the primitive Christians) general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant, or grown man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages, that as one can not but pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it, so also we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English Antipedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping. It was, in all probability, the way by which our blessed Savior, and for certain was the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient Christians did receive their baptism. Tis a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. As for sprinkling, I say, as Mr. Blake, at its first coming up in England, ‘Let them defend it who use it.’ They (who are inclined to Presbyterianism) are hardly prevailed on to leave off that scandalous custom of having their children, though never so well, baptized out of a basin, or porringer, in a bed-chamber, hardly persuaded to bring them to church, much further from having them dipped, though never so able to bear it” (History of Infant Baptism, part 2, chapter 9, 203).

“France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism, by affusion, was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it. There has been some synods, in some dioceses of France, that had spoken of affusion, without mentioning immersion at all, that being the common practice; but for an office or liturgy of any church, this is, (Referring to Calvin’s ‘Form of administering the Sacraments’) I believe, the first in the world that prescribes affusion absolutely; and for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was, at 1645, just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after 1641. But then came The Directory, which says: ‘Baptism is to be administered, not in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation,’ and so on. ‘And not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed.’ So they reformed the font into a basin. This learned assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then in the other Popish countries) in times of Popery; and that accordingly, all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been, owned, have left off dipping of children in the font; but that all other countries in the world, which had never regarded his authority, do still use it; and that basins, except in case of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves. What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in the ordinary use of baptism, is to be understood only in reference to these western parts of Europe, for it is used ordinarily nowhere else” (History of Infant Baptism, part 2, chapter 9, 213).

William Conybeare and John Howson

“It is needless to add that baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism (though perhaps necessary in our northern climates) has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important passages of scripture” (The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 1:471).

Is Baptism for the Church Today?

Believe it or not, there are some professing Christians who do not believe that the practice of baptism is for the church today. One such organization is the ironically named Berean Bible Society named after the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11. Another group who do not practice baptism are the Quakers. When I first read about the belief that baptism is not for the church today, I thought it was a joke that would make a good article for Christian satire. No one could actually believe this, right? But I was wrong. This organization claims that baptism is no different from Jewish practices like circumcision which were only intended for Israel. They make the incredible claim that “there is not one verse of Scripture instructing one member of the Body of Christ to baptize with water another person who is already a member of that Body.”

According to them, the practice of baptism as instituted by Jesus Christ is “a bad testimony,” “a confession of a lack of appreciation of the finished work of Christ,” that baptism “betrays a poor understanding of the heavenly character and position of the Church of this age,” and is an expression of “presumption and religious pride.” Those who disagree with their position are described as “some well-meaning brethren,” as if the belief that baptism is for the church today is some minority position rather than the universal teaching of Christianity until the rise of hyper-dispensationalism.

If baptism is not for the church today, then why did Jesus command the apostles to make and baptize disciples in Matthew 28:19-20? If baptism is not for today, then why should we believe that making disciples of all nations is also for today? This is the same kind of argumentation that the hyper-Calvinists used. They argued that the command to make disciples of all nations was only given to the apostles and therefore there was no command for the church today to do so. But as William Carey pointed out, this line of reasoning also makes the command to baptize only for the apostles as well so that if we are  going to argue that we have no warrant to reach the nations for Christ today, to be consistent, we should not baptize anymore either resulting in a reductio ad absurdum.

If baptism is not for the church today, then why did Paul baptize the Gentile Philippian jailer and his family in Acts 16:33? Why did Paul baptize Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas in Corinth? Why is the book of Acts filled with references to baptism? Why does Paul assume that all of those he is writing to have been baptized? (Rom 6:3-5; Gal 3:27). The New Testament assumes that all Christians have been baptized to signify their desire to follow Jesus as Lord (Acts 19:3-5; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21).

A common verse used to argue that baptism is not for the church today is 1 Corinthians 1:17 where Paul says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” But this argument completely ignores the context of the verse where Paul says that he did baptize Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. When Paul says he was not sent to baptize, the point he is making is that the proclamation of the gospel is more important than the act of baptizing. We are saved through the proclamation of the gospel, not through the action of immersion in water. Paul’s primary mission was to preach the gospel, not to baptize. But that does not mean he never baptized people.

Another verse that is used for their position is Ephesians 4:5 which speaks of “one baptism” all Christians share in. They argue that because there is only “one baptism,” water baptism cannot be for today or else there would be two baptisms: one in water and one in Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). But Paul can speak of “one baptism” because he assumes that all Christians have been baptized. Water baptism unites all Christians together because it is an event which every Christian would have participated in as part of their conversion process into the Christian faith. Paul’s point is that there is only one water baptism into which we are baptized. There are no additional baptisms after that which distinguish some Christians from others.

What Is Donatism?

Donatism is the belief that the sacraments given by clergy who had abandoned the faith under persecution and then came back are invalid. During the persecution of Diocletian, many priests renounced the faith to save their lives. After they returned to the church, the party of the Donatists, named after Donatus Magnus who served as Bishop of Carthage, argued that they could no longer serve as priests and that the baptisms they administered were invalid. Those who had been baptized by them needed to be rebaptized since only a true minister of Christ can perform valid baptisms. Because they had renounced the faith, the Donatists argued that they were unqualified for office and therefore their sacraments were invalid as well.

The Donatists also argued that those who abandoned the faith needed to be rebaptized in order for them to be readmitted to the church. This distinguished them from the Novatians who had previously taught that no apostate can ever be restored to the church. Whether or not a person’s baptism was valid was seen as a matter of salvation or damnation because the church at that time generally believed that the act of baptism brought about regeneration. That means if your baptism was invalid, then you still needed to be baptized in order to be born again. Therefore, according to the Donatists, those who were baptized by priests who previously abandoned their profession of the faith still needed to be baptized by a valid priest in order to be born again.

On the other hand, the Roman church believed that a person’s baptism was valid regardless of the character of the priest who performed it. Baptism is valid ex opere operato “from the work worked” or by the action of the thing performed meaning that baptism is valid by the action itself regardless of who performs it. In contrast, the Donatists believed baptism was only valid ex opere operantis “from the work of the worker” meaning that only certain people can perform valid baptisms. Serious sin excludes a person from giving valid baptism. The Donatist view of ex opere operantis appears to have been the belief of Cyprian before he was beheaded for his faith. This disagreement created a schism in the church that lasted until the Muslims wiped out Christianity in North Africa in the eighth century. The Council of Arles in 314 declared that the ordinations made by priests who had previously renounced their faith were still valid contrary to Donatist belief.

Today, Baptists are accused of being Donatists because they rebaptize those who were already baptized as infants. But the reason why Baptists view infant baptism as invalid is very different from why the Donatists viewed the baptisms done by priests who had apostatized as being invalid. Baptists actually disagree with both sides in this debate. The Donatists were wrong to say that a baptism is invalid because the person giving it had been immoral in the past while the proto-Catholics were wrong to believe that the act of baptism itself brings about regeneration. Both sides were wrong to view baptism as regenerative.

If your pastor is a hypocrite and later abandons his profession of the faith after you were baptized by him, you do not need to be rebaptized. Your baptism is valid by virtue of the fact that it is true Christian baptism: the baptism of a believer by immersion in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the context of the true church. A person does not have to be morally perfect or even a pastor to give valid baptism (Acts 6:5; 8:38). The New Testament does not explicitly indicate who is allowed to baptize and who is not. So how do we determine whether or not a baptism is valid? A baptism is invalid if:

1. It is not done by immersion in water since baptisma means immersion (the correct mode).

2. It is not done to a true Christian who has placed his or her faith in Christ since Christian baptism is a baptism of disciples alone (the correct subject).

3. It is done by an apostate church that teaches heresy since only the true church can give true sacraments (the correct church).

4. It is done without the name of the Triune God since there is no other God (the correct God).

Baptism for the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29

What did Paul mean when he said, “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” (1 Cor 15:29). This verse has perplexed Christians for ages and there is no shortage of interpretations that have been given. In order to properly interpret this verse, we need to answer several questions:

1. Who is being baptized?

2. Who are the dead?

3. What baptism is this?

4. How do the dead benefit from this baptism?

5. Does Paul approve of this practice?

I believe the baptism of this verse is Christian baptism for several reasons: there is no archaeological or literary evidence in favor of a pagan practice for being baptized on behalf of the dead, the practice of baptism is Jewish in origin, baptizō in Paul’s writings always refers to Christian baptism or baptism in the Holy Spirit, those who were baptized for the dead were professing Christians since Paul is using this baptism against their doubts that the dead will be raised while claiming to believe in the resurrection of Christ, and he does not rebuke them for this practice anywhere in his letters. If this was a practice Paul did not approve of, then it is unbelievable that he would never say anything against it. That means those who are baptized are professing Christians, those they are baptized for are Christians who have died, the baptism of this verse is Christian baptism, and Paul does approve of this practice.

But how is Christian baptism a baptism for the dead? It is for them in the sense that new Christians join the visible church through baptism taking the place of those who have died. The preposition “for” should then be understood as “in the place of” rather than “for the benefit of.” Paul’s argument would then be, “Why were you baptized into the church to take the place of those who have died if you do not believe those who have died are going to be raised from the dead? If they are not going to be raised, then you will not be raised either. Baptism is a picture of resurrection from the dead. Why would you participate in this act symbolizing resurrection if you do not believe in a future day of resurrection?”

Why I Am a Baptist

A Baptist is a Christian who believes that the only fit subjects for Christian baptism are professing Christians. This is in contrast to the belief in infant baptism which intentionally allows those who are not Christians into the membership of the church. It is also in contrast to the belief that a person cannot be a Christian until he or she has been baptized. Rather, Baptists believe that it is only those who are already professing believers in Christ who are allowed to be baptized. This conclusion flows from the New Testament’s teaching on the nature of the church as a body of regenerate believers. Since the infant children of believers are not regenerate or members of the new covenant, they cannot receive the sign of the new covenant. Only those who are members of the new covenant may receive the signs of the new covenant. This excludes all of those who are unregenerate.

Baptism is the immersion of the believer in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is how Christians publicly profess their faith in Christ to the world. It symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and affirms that we were united with him in his death and resurrection. Baptism pictures the death of our old self and the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit who has made us new creations in Christ. It is the sign of the new covenant and the public proclamation of our allegiance to King Jesus. When we are baptized, we are made members of the local church and enter into all the benefits of membership in a church including the Lord’s supper (Acts 2:41-42). Baptism is also a public act of repentance signifying our turning from sin to Christ. Only believers may partake of the ordinances of Christ because the signs of the new covenant are limited to those who are in the new covenant (Heb 8:6-13; 9:15; 10:15-18; 12:24). Since Christ intercedes on behalf of all those in the new covenant, all of them must be saved.

In contrast to credobaptism, the practice of infant baptism is without biblical warrant. It has neither command nor example in Scripture to support it. The English word “baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptisma instead of an actual translation. This Greek word is always used to refer to dipping or immersion when used literally and never to describe the act of pouring or sprinkling. The practice of baptism as pouring or sprinkling developed over time in response to the need to baptize those who converted to Christ on their deathbed. It is also much easier to pour or sprinkle water on an infant instead of immersing them. Pragmatism eventually triumphed over fidelity to Scripture in Latin Christianity.

The most cited verse of Scripture to argue for the necessity of baptism in order to be saved is Acts 2:38: “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.’” Peter demanded that they be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins because baptism itself is an act of repentance. If those Peter was speaking to had refused to be baptized, it would have demonstrated that their repentance was not genuine. Baptism would have meant being kicked out of the synagogue (John 9:22). The costliness of baptism in the first century decreased the likelihood of false converts. There are no “secret agent” Christians who do not profess their faith publicly. Repentance and baptism are not two different requirements for salvation any more than repentance and turning are two different requirements for forgiveness in Acts 3:19. Baptism is the outward expression of repentance, not something separate from it. Repentance can only come from a heart that has been regenerated by God through the gospel (Jam 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23). The gospel, not the act of baptism, is the instrument of regeneration. Those who are in the flesh cannot do anything pleasing to God (Rom 8:7-9). But faith, repentance, and baptism are pleasing to God which means regeneration must occur before them (1 John 5:1).