http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2709
Infant Baptism
Rooted in the idea that infants bear Adam’s sin (“original sin”) is the
perceived need to baptize babies to free them from this “sinful nature”
and “from the power of darkness” (
Cathecism..., 1994, 1250). It has also been declared that
[t]he sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly
manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a
child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to
confer Baptism shortly after birth (1250).
Some well-meaning people who disagree with infant baptism have opposed
it strictly because they see it as an imposition of one’s will on
someone who is incapable of making his or her own decisions. While
making one’s own choices is critical in regard to salvation, the
argument against imposing the wishes of others on someone else should
not be the determining factor in whether or not infant baptism is
practiced. The only determinant should be whether God
authorizes or
requires it.
After all, if God has commanded us to baptize babies, we should obey
His command, even if the world calls it an imposition. But, if there is
no biblical reason to follow this practice, we should not impose
something purposeless on our children. With this understanding, the
following parallel has been drawn:
If my newborn son is born with an illness, should I deny him medicine arguing
that he is not consciously receiving it? Would I say that it would be
better to wait until he has sufficient ability to reason? (DomÃnguez,
2006, emp. added).
Of course, infant baptism might be a necessity
if
original sin were passed down through the generations. However, children
do not inherit the sins of their parents, so, ultimately, no one can
inherit the sin of Adam (cf. Exodus 32:32-33; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings
14:6; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20;
Pinedo,
2009). Therefore, babies and little children do not have “sickly
souls,” nor do they need baptism for spiritual healing. No one would
give penicillin to a baby who is not sick and does not need it. No one
would take his newborn son to the hospital so that he could undergo
surgery to remove a nonexistent tumor. Similarly, no one should subject a
baby to a baptism that is designed to forgive sins which he or she
cannot commit (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21).
The Bible never gives a command, provides an example, or implies that
infant baptism should be administered. There is not a single Bible verse
that mentions it. Therefore, some Catholics have tried to find biblical
support for infant baptism by arguing from the silence of Scripture.
Using Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15, where Jesus commissioned His
disciples to preach and baptize, it has been suggested that the
disciples would “consequently go forward in the practice of infant
baptism, unless restrained and prohibited by a special interdict”
(Hibbard, 1843, p. 95). This argument is fallacious because it suggests
that where the Bible does not record a prohibition, everything is
acceptable. The Bible does not prohibit “pet baptism.” So, should we
proceed to “baptize” them?
Others have suggested that the word “creature” in Mark 16:15 may
include babies. However, this word is limited by the context in which it
appears. The Greek word for “creation” (
ktisis) is used to
designate the act of creation or the creative actions in progress. It
also refers to the product of creation (see Vine, 1966, 1:254,255). In
its general usage, this word includes not only babies, but also the
totality of what was created, i.e., animals and plants, as well as
everything inanimate. Fortunately, the context helps us to understand
that baptism should be performed on “every creature” who is able to be
taught the Gospel and believe it (Mark 16:15-16). This automatically
excludes animals, plants, and inanimate things—as well as babies and
little children who cannot yet understand or believe the Gospel.
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus told the apostles to “[g]o therefore and make
disciples
of all nations” (emp. added). A disciple is a person who learns at the
feet of another. This certainly cannot include infants. In verse 20,
Jesus told His apostles to teach the new disciples to “observe all
things” that He commanded. The disciples were not only to learn, but
also to observe or practice what they had learned. The truth is obvious:
the Gospel was preached to, heard, and believed by people who were able
to understand, believe, and obey.
But, what about the biblical accounts of entire families being
baptized? Is it possible that babies were members of those families, and
that they were also baptized? The Catholic
Catechism explores this “possibility” and states:
There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that,
from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households”
received baptism, infants may also have been baptized (1994, 1252, emp.
added).
Some Catholic leaders have gone even further. In his book,
The Faith of our Fathers, Archbishop James C. Gibbons declared:
The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul, although
containing only a fragmentary account of the ministry of the Apostles, plainly insinuate that the Apostles baptized children
as well as grown persons. We are told, for instance, that Lydia “was
baptized, and her household,” by St. Paul; and that the jailer “was
baptized, and all his family.” The same Apostle baptized also “the
household of Stephanas” (1891, p. 308, emp. added).
Although at first glance this argument may seem valid, it is actually
an assumption lacking biblical support. First, it is hasty to conclude
that when the Bible writers referred to the “household” of someone, they
always included every member of the family. Second, there is no
biblical evidence that those households included babies or young
children. Since there is no way to prove that there were babies in the
households in question, nor that the word “household” necessarily
included babies, these passages do not endorse infant baptism.
In fact, the context of these passages in Acts speaks loudly against
infant baptism. Concerning the Philippian jailer, Luke tells us exactly
which members of “all his family” (Acts 16:33) were baptized. They were
those who were taught the Word by Paul and Silas (16:32), and those who
rejoiced with the jailer, having “believed in God” (16:34). Can babies
be taught the Word and believe in God, understand the sacrifice of His
Son, and immediately act upon faith? Can they rejoice as a result of
their obedient faith? Concerning Lydia, Luke tells us that “the Lord
opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Those
who were baptized had hearts and minds that were open to the Word. Do
babies have open hearts and discerning minds? The New Testament clearly
teaches that baptism was performed on people who were taught the Word,
who had open hearts, who carefully listened to and obeyed the Word, and
who rejoiced because they made the conscious decision to follow Christ.
Using Colossians 2:11-12, another attempt to defend infant baptism has
been based on the idea that baptism “replaces” circumcision. According
to this argument, since “circumcision was done to infants,” then infant
baptism is a biblical practice (“Infant Baptism,” n.d.). Although Paul
used circumcision to illustrate the time when people “put off” sin and
become Christians (in baptism—Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27), he never
taught, promoted, or commanded infant baptism (cf.
Lyons, 2003). Consider these points: (1) Paul made a comparison between circumcision and baptism,
not infant
baptism. The comparison was between the “cutting off” (of the flesh) in
circumcision and the spiritual “cutting off” (of sin) which occurs at
baptism. (2) Circumcision was commanded only for the descendants of
Abraham, and proselytes (Genesis 17:12-13; Exodus 12:48), but baptism is
for all nations (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16). (3) Circumcision was
performed only on
male babies (Genesis 17:10), but
baptism is for men and women (Galatians 3:28; Acts 8:12). (4)
Circumcision was performed on the male infant’s
eighth day
(Genesis 17:12), but baptism is to be performed when one believes and
repents (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). (5) Many people were circumcised before
becoming Christians (Philippians 3:5), and others were circumcised
afterward even though it was optional (Acts 16:3; cf. 15:1-29). If
baptism
replaced circumcision, how could they both be
performed at the same time, among the same people, and under the same
covenant (Brents, 1874, pp. 345-347)? (6) Paul declared that in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision is worth anything, nor uncircumcision
(Galatians 5:6). Colossians 2:11-12 does not justify nor advocate infant
baptism.
If the Bible does not support infant baptism, when and how did this
practice begin? Catholics acknowledge that “[i]n the course of the
fourth century it became quite common for people to be born into
Christian families, and by the next century, in the whole Mediterranean
world, this was the common pattern. This means that the process of
baptism changed considerably. Infant baptism became the general pattern”
(Orlandis, 1993, p. 35; cf. Koch, 1997, p. 116). In A.D.
418, the Council of Carthage officially accepted this practice and
enacted a condemnation for those who opposed it (see “Canons,” n.d., 2).
This is one more piece of evidence that infant baptism is not commanded
by God, but rather is a man-made tradition.
Finally, according to
Catholicism, what happens to the babies
who do not receive baptism soon after they are born? According to the
Catholic Catechism, babies are born with sin, and should be baptized so
they may be “freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm
of the freedom of the children of God” (1994, 1250). In other words,
little babies are condemned in spiritual darkness and separated from any
spiritual blessing. The provincial Council of Cologne even declared
that “[f]aith teaches us that infants...are excluded from the kingdom of
heaven if they die [unbaptized]” (quoted in “The Existence of
Limbo...,” 2006, bracketed item in orig.) Nevertheless, it is also
declared that
[a]s regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can
only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites
for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should
be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to
say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope
that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism (Catechism..., 1994, 1261, emp. added).
On one hand, Catholicism asserts that little children, without baptism,
are in spiritual bondage, while, on the other hand, it wants us to
believe that “there is a way of salvation for those children who died
without baptism.” Does this mean that little children are contaminated
with original sin at birth but are liberated from this sin at death? If
there is a “way of salvation for those children who died without
baptism,” why should Catholics baptize their babies at all?
Such incongruity can only be the result of a doctrine that lacks
biblical authority. Infants are gifts from God, pure and unblemished by
the world (Psalm 127:3). As they grow, precious little ones can learn
what sin is, and what its consequences are. Hopefully, as accountable
persons they will realize their need for forgiveness from God, and,
ultimately, they will choose between believing and being baptized to be
saved (Mark 16:16), and disobeying and living eternally separated from
God (2 Thessalonians 1:9).
REFERENCES
Brents, T.W. (1874),
The Gospel Plan of Salvation (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987 reprint).
“Canons” (no date),
Council of Carthage [On-line], URL: http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Council_Of_Carthage_May_1_418.html.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press).
DomÃnguez, J. (2006), “Baptism of Children, Infants, and Babies”
[“Bautismo de los Niños, de los Infantes, de los Bebés”], [On-line], URL: http://biblia.com/cpb/bautismo.htm.
“The Existence of Limbo: A Common Doctrine from Which It Would be Rash to Depart...” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.tldm.org/news8/Limbo.htm#_ednref20#_ednref20.
Gibbons, James C. (1891),
The Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore: John Murphy).
Hibbard, F.G. (1843),
Christian Baptism: In Two Parts (New York: G. Lane & P.P. Sandford).
“Infant Baptism” (no date), Catholic Answers, [On-line], URL: http://www.catholic.com/library/infant_baptism.asp.
Koch, Carl (1997),
A Popular History of the Catholic Church (Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s Press).
Lyons, Eric (2003), “Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?,”
[On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2287.
Orlandis, José (1993),
A Short History of the Catholic Church, trans. Michael Adams (New York: Scepter).
Pinedo, Moisés (2009), “Are Children Born With Sin?,”
[On-line], URL:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240109.
Vine, W.E. (1966),
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).
[EDITOR’S
NOTE: Dewayne Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is a doctoral
candidate at Amridge University. He has participated in an
archaeological dig at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional
membership in the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of
Biblical Literature, and the Archaeological Institute of America.]
It
is not uncommon to hear evolutionists claim that bacteria evolving a
resistance to antibiotics are proof positive that Darwinian evolution
(i.e., macroevolution) is true. Is that claim valid?
