Why Baptists Do Not Sprinkle Infants
By Pastor Austin Sorenson Fairmont Baptist Church Fairmont, MinnesotaWhich Did the Lord Jesus Command - Infant Baptism or Believer's Baptism?
Both Cannot Be RightBible-believing Baptists accept the Word of God as the final criterian of truth. Traditions and the theories of men have no part in the formulation of their doctrine.
Baptists contend that immersion of believers in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost alone constitues Christian baptism. There are, however, several denominations that follow the pattern of the Roman Catholic Church and sprinkle infants. Baptists are vigorously opposed to such practice.
Baptism is a matter of light and obedience. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20.)
BAPTISTS DO NOT SPRINKLE INFANTS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
I Because the sprinkling of infants is not to be found in the Scriptures. There is not a single text in the Word of God that commands the sprinkling of infants. Many who nevertheless follow the practice will admit this.
What arguments do they offer for the sprinkling of infants (called baptism)?
First, they say that the command of Christ to baptize all nations must have included the infants. Then they allude to the Saviour's blessing of little children and His assertion that "of such is the kingdom of God." Furthermore, they assert the analogy of Old Testament circumcision involving human sponsorship.
Finally, they cite the baptism of households in the New Testament. The Augsburg Confession (1530) At. IX, states: Baptism is necessary to salvation, by (it) the grace of God is offered; and children are to be baptized; who by baptism, being offered to God, are received into God's favor."
CHRIST COMMANDED BELIEVER'S BAPTISM Do these arguments constitute valid authority for the sprinkling of infants? A study of a few of their "proof texts" will give the answer. Matthew 28:19, 20 reads: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you . . . " It is argued that baptism comes first, and then teaching; and that children should be baptized even though they are not old enough to be instructed.
But these verses do not allow such an interpretation. The order is "teach," then "baptize." The Greek word "teach," according to Strong's Concordance means "to become a pupil," "to disciple, i.e., enroll as a scholar." The qualifications of a disciple are "the ability to hear, believe, receive, and to be taught." This excludes all infants. Babies do not become disciples. Let's keep the Divine order: disciple, baptize, teach.
MARK 16:15-16 does not teach infant baptism. The argument that babies are "creatures" and hence are to be baptized is weak indeed. Verse 16 reads: "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." This Scripture plainly teaches a person is to believe, and then as a believer, be baptized.
But the argument is given that babies can believe. Matthew 18:5, 6 is given as proof. However, the Bible declares that faith must be active and not passive. The apostle Paul declared that salvation consists of a heart belief accompanied by a mouth confession. (Romans 10:8-10) No infant is capable of heart belief or a mouth confession of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. The Scripture nowhere declares that the Holy Spirit places faith in the heart of an infant or that infant sprinkling is a means of grace. No sponsor or human intermediary can take the place of an individual to exercise personal faith.
MARK 10:13-16 Perhaps the favorite argument to support infant baptism (so-called) is Mark 10:13-16. (Christ blessing the little children). I agree with Charles Spurgeon who said:
"Certainly never was text so strained and distrained to pay what it never owed; never man so racked to confess what he never thought; never was a pumice-stone so squeezed for water it never held."Young children were brought to Christ that He might "touch them." Nothing is said of baptism, nothing is said of water, nothing is said of godfathers or godmothers, nothing is said of the sign of the cross. There is no water in this text, but "Jesus only". If these brought children to Christ to be baptized, certainly they brought them to the wrong person, for John 4:2 says: Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples.But someone may say: "Perhaps they brought the children to be baptized by the disciples." Let Spurgeon answer once again:
If they (the disciples) had been in the habit of baptizing infants, would they have rebuked parents for bringing them? If it had been a customary thing for parents to bring children with such an object, would the disciples, who had been in the constant habit of performing the ceremony, have rebuked them for attending to it? Would any church clergyman (who practiced this) rebuke parents for bringing their children to be baptized? The Lord Jesus had a wonderful opportunity to commend infant baptism, but He did not. To be logical, the sacramentalists should permit infants to partake of Communion. Why permit infants to be baptized and not permit them to sit at the Lord's table? The answer is obvious - infants do not have "discernment." (I Corinthians 11:29.)HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS The baptism of households in the New Testament is considered an argument for the sprinkling of infants. A close study of such households, as found in Acts 16:14, 15; Acts 16:30-43; I Corinthians 1:16, will reveal that they were believing housholds. Oftentimes, servants were included in a houshold. Many Baptist ministers have baptized complete housholds without baptizing infants. In every case of houshold baptism in the New Testament, baptism was administered to those who were old enough to be called "brethren" - a name given only to believers (Acts 16:40), those old enough to addict "themselves to the ministry of the saints" (I Corinthians 16:15), and those who were old enough to "believe," "receive," and "confess."
Circumcision has no validity as a basis for the sprinkling of infants. Jesus Christ did not speak of circumcision as an initiatory rite to church membership. Baptism did not take the place of circumcision. the apostle Paul spoke of the circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:29), not the sprinkling of the body.
JOHN 3:5
has nothing to do with baptism. If Christ had meant baptism, He could have said "born orf baptism and of the Spirit." The Lord did not mean baptismal regeneration. Christ was talking to Nicodemus, an adult, not an infant. Just as man has a physical birth through "water," so he must experience a spiritual birth by the Spirit. (John 3:4-7). The Word of God is spoken of as "water" in Ephesians 5:26. Water cannot supplant the blood atonement.Baptists do not sprinkle infants because such a practice is not to be found in the Scriptures.
II Baptists do not sprinkle infants because the immersion of believers is taught in the Word of God. The Greek word "baptizo" means "to dip," "to immerse," to submerge." Dr. A. T. Robertson, whose reputation a Greek scholar is unquestioned, challenges: "A man today who argues that "baptizo means 'to sprinkle' or 'to pour,' throws suspicion on his scholarship and is on the defensive."
THE SCRIPTURES SPEAK Matthew 3:6 - "baptized . . . in Jordan, confessing their sins."
(Repentance preceeded baptism.)Matthew 3:16 - "Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water . . ."
(This surely is not sprinkling.)John 3:23 - "And John also was baptizing . . . because there was much water there..."
("Much water" is not necessary for sprinkling.)Acts 2:38-41 - "... "repent and be baptized ... then they that gladly received His Word were baptized ..."
(Babies do not gladly receive the Word.)Acts 8:36-39 - "... they came unto a certain water ... what doth hinder me to be baptized? ... if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest ... and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water ... went on his way rejoicing."
(None of these conditions exist when a baby is sprinkled. The candidate requested baptism; the baptism was by immersion; the baptism brought joy to the heart of the candidate.)
Romans 6:3, 4 - "... baptized into His death ... buried with Him by baptism into death ... raised up from the dead ..."
(A beautiful symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Sprinkling of infants is not true to this symbol.)Romans 6:5 - "... planted in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."
(To plant means more than sprinkling or pouring.)I Corinthians 1:14-17 - "... I baptized none of you ... for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel ..."
(Gives a death-blow to baptismal regeneration.)Colossians 2:12 - "Buried with Him in baptism ... risen with Him..."
1 Peter 3:21 - "The like figure ... even baptism ... the answer of a good conscience toward God ..."
(Baptism is a "figure." In order to be baptized, a "good conscience toward God ..." is necessary. Surely notapplicable to infants.)
BABIES WHO DIE ARE SAVED Babies are saved without the ritual of sprinkling. David's son went to heaven without being sprinkled as an infant (II Samuel 12:23). The children of the unbelieving Israelites were not kept out of the promised Land because of the unbelief of their parents. Deuteronomy 1:39 - "moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
The "little ones" were not responsible because they had not reached the age of "accountability". Baptists believe in the total depravity of infants, but they also believe that the shed blood of Christ on the cross is their protection until the age of accountability is reached. Did not Jesus Christ say, "of such is the kingdom of heaven?" (Matthew 19:14.) The Lord Jesus is "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29.) Romans 5:18 declares: "Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
Baptists do not sprinkle infants because the immersion of believers is taught in the Scriptures.
III Baptists do not sprinkle infants because great harm is done by this unscriptural practice.
First, by this practice the symbolism inherent in New Testament baptism is destroyed. Baptism represents indentification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Death - immersion, burial - submersion; resurrection - emergence, Colossians 2:12 - "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, Who hath raised him from the dead." (See also Romans 6:3, 4.) No man or group of men have a right to change the symbolism of Christian baptism.
Second, infant baptism is not found in the Scriptures; therefore it is adding to the Word of God. Note the warning of Revelation 22:18 - "... if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." Most of the arguments for infant baptism come from some of the early church fathers, not from the Bible.
PERVERTS THE GOSPEL Thirdly, the sprinkling of infants is a perversion of the plan of salvation. It is grace - plus. It is grace and a so-called sacrament. It is a denial of the finished work of Christ on the cross. Nowhere in the New Testament is salvation obtained through ceremony. Incidentally, it is estimated that 85 percent of all criminals may have been subjected to infant baptism. Salvation is not found in a ceremony or any sacrament, but through the blood of Christ and a personal acceptance of Him as Savior.
Fourthly, infant baptism gives men a sense of false security. There are thousands of church members who are resting on infant baptism for salvation of their immortal souls. They have never been "born again" nor been regenerated by the grace of God nor experienced a transformation in their lives. The sum of their total Christian experience is: "I was baptized as a baby and later confirmed in the church." This has proved to be the devil's trap for great numbers of deceived folk.
Spurgeon said: "For all lies which have dragged millions down to hell, I look upon this as being the most atrocious - little children were not regenerated by their grandparents telling lies at the fount - by a solemn nockery, in which grandfathers and grandmothers promised to do for them what they cannont do for themselves. (See Ezekiel 18:20.)
Fifthly, infant baptism had its origin with the Roman Catholic Church, a system that is a combination of paganism, Judiasm, and Christianity. Martin Luther no doubt was a good man, but don't forget that he was in the Roman Church. Although he broke from Rome, he carried some of their doctrines into the new movement. Many Protestant churches still have some striking similarities to Roman Catholicism. God's Word warns us to "come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye received not her plagues." (Revelation 18:4.) Baptists will have no part with ceremonies that have their origin with men.
Lastly, infant baptism is a curse to the Church. It causes churches to be filled with unsaved members, church members on their way to Hell. Imagine unsaved people trying to carry out a church program in the name of the Lord! Hence such churches have no spiritual power. These churches are not interested in evangelism because salvation (to them) is found in a baptismal font or catechism, not through the proclamation of the Evangel. Evangelistic meetings are taboo. Such churches oftentimes suffer from "dead orthodoxy," with very little passion for the lost. The church has lost its message if salvation is found in infant baptism.
SALVATION IS OF THE LORD Salvation is found in a Person, in the blood of Jesus Christ. All the water in the world cannot wash away sins, whether it is the holy water of a sacramental church or the muddy water of the Mississippi River. We are saved not by water, but by blood.
"The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day.
And there may I, though vile as he, wash all my sins away."Bible-beleiving Baptists will continue to stand by the Word of God alone and follow its plain teachings implicity.
========================== [From Clarence Walker, editor, Ashland Avenue Baptist paper, July 6, 1962, pp. 1-3. Transcribed and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
Baptists: Various Subjects
Baptist History Homepage