infant baptism – La Vista Church of Christ https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms Sat, 30 Aug 2025 03:00:09 +0000 en hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/cropped-LaVistaBanner-Copy-1-32x32.png infant baptism – La Vista Church of Christ https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms 32 32 157465916 By What Authority? (Matthews) https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/by-what-authority-3/ Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:58:33 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=89836

by Samuel Matthews

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;  looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:11-15, KJV).

The Importance of Authority

Loved ones, authority plays a role in everyone’s daily life. Laws and rules guide us, offering protection and direction. In schools, regulations preserve order and enhance learning. Similar principles apply in the realm of religion.

To worship and serve God, we must not invent our own rules but instead follow the directions He has provided. As stated in John 4:24, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

Sadly, today, countless “Christian” denominations exist, each claiming to serve God. Many have adopted additional creeds, manuals, or articles of faith alongside the Bible. These additional man-made teachings often contradict God’s revealed Word. Paul wrote that God had revealed the mystery of Christ to the apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Ephesians 3:3-5). Ultimately, God’s authoritative book is the Bible.

Passages Concerning Authority

With respect to authority, let’s notice a few “authoritative” passages from the Bible:

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:18-20).

Christ said He had been given “all authority,” which means we need to listen to Him and give heed to His teaching. In fact, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Colossians 3:17). “In the name of” means “by the authority of.”

The Apostle John wrote by the Holy Spirit, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (II John 1:9).

Another authoritative passage that applies is in Matthew 4:4: “But Jesus answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Denominational Practices That Contradict God’s Word

Let us examine certain denominational teachings and practices that diverge from biblical authority, applying biblical principles as we do so.

Infant Baptism

Some denominations practice infant baptism. If this is done by Christ’s authority, where in Scripture is this found? There is no passage in the Bible that supports infant baptism, nor is there an example of infants being baptized.

Scripture calls for belief and repentance prior to baptism. In Mark 16:16, Jesus states: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Here, belief —something an infant cannot possess – precedes baptism.

At the church’s founding (Acts 2), Peter instructed the believers who were pricked in their hearts to “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37-38). Repentance, too, comes before baptism. Infants are incapable of repenting.

The Greek word for “baptize” means “to immerse.” Therefore, a Biblical baptism is a burial or immersion in water. “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” (Colossians 2:12).

Acts 8:36-39 details baptism as immersion, as Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch: “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized (immersed) him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.”

Some denominational groups “baptize” by sprinkling, pouring, or even using rose petals. The Presbyterian Church baptizes by pouring water, the Catholic Church by sprinkling water, and the Salvation Army does not baptize at all.

Sprinkling or pouring water on an infant is not a biblical baptism. Sprinkling for baptism was officially recognized by the Catholic Church at the Council of Ravenna in A.D. 1311. Previously, baptism was performed through immersion. By what authority was the biblical teaching on baptism changed? The Bible remains unchanged.

Since these practices are of men, not God, they are not accepted by God. These groups are not the one body of Christ revealed in the New Testament (I Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 4:4; Matthew 16:18-19).

Women Preachers

None of the apostles were women; however, many denominations now ordain women as evangelists. What does Scripture say about this? “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (I Timothy 2:11-14).

Titus 2:15 commands the preacher to teach with all authority, yet I Timothy 2:12 prohibits women from teaching or holding authority over men in the church. Therefore, women preachers are not authorized by God.

This does not mean women cannot teach men privately. Acts 18:24-26 shows Priscilla, along with Aquila, teaching Apollos privately. “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”

Paul instructed the church in Corinth: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (I Corinthians 14:34-35).

So, by what authority do churches ordain women preachers or evangelists today? It is not by God’s authority, but by human authority, influenced by Satan to disregard God’s revelation (cf. I Timothy 4:1).

Descriptive Titles and Names

Elders/Bishops

Local church shepherds have various titles—overseer, bishop, pastor, or elder—depending on the Bible translation. Their qualifications are listed in I Timothy 3:1-7: “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach... Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

A pastor must be married and have good children—qualifications showing leadership. Do all churches follow this teaching? No. Some denominations now have women serving as "pastors" or "elders," even though the Bible states that an overseer must be a "husband." Surely the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are not authorized because bishops, archbishops, priests, and popes are prohibited from marrying, which is a devil’s doctrine contradicting Scripture (I Timothy 4:1-3).

The Church

Among others, Scripture refers to “the churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16), “church of God” (I Corinthians 1:2), or “church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23). These designations are given by God to His church—the church that follows His Word, the New Testament.

The name is not the only concern. To find God’s church, one must examine its teachings and practices, ensuring they conform to Scripture, not the denominational commandments of men (cf. I Corinthians 1:10). Even in the Old Testament, Christ rebuked denominational divisions.

In Matthew 23:13, He said, “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” Scripture affirms that under the Old Testament law, God wanted His people to be just “Israelites” (John 1:47; Romans 11:1) — not divided into denominations (Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, etc.).

Every denominational creed differs from the Bible in some way. The creeds divide believers; therefore, the Lord is not pleased with, nor does He ask for, denominational Christians. Today, God wants His disciples to be simply Christians (Acts 11:26), members of the church Jesus promised He would build (Matthew 16:18), who follow only the New Testament. God does not want Presbyterian Christians, Mormon Christians, Pentecostal Christians, Catholic Christians, etc.

Before His ascension, Christ said: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...” (John 16:13). Nowhere were the apostles guided into denominational titles. If the New Testament contains all truth, why would anyone desire to follow doctrines that contradict it? If the Bible contains all truth, what do the denominational creeds contain—God’s Word, or Satan’s deceptions?

About the doctrines of men, Christ said: “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:7-9). Notice that word “doctrines” – it means many different teachings. Yet, the Bible's Godhead is one, and He reveals oneness.

Ephesians 4:4-6 states: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

How many bodies – One, which is the church of Christ. Jesus “is head of the body, the (one) church…” (Colossians 1:18). Not thousands of denominational church bodies. How many faiths – One, which is the Gospel (Romans 10:17). Not the doctrines of men. How many Spirits, hopes, Lords, baptisms, and Gods – one.

Final Warnings

Many differences exist between the Bible and denominational doctrines, but those referenced illustrate the problems of following human doctrine rather than God’s authoritative word.

Question: What is Satan’s role in the world? He is a deceiver! “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Revelation 12:9). Don’t be one of his victims!

God has warned us against going “too far”—beyond what has been given to us in the God-inspired Word of God, the Bible. We must heed the warnings found in Revelation 22:18-19: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

Through the free gift of God’s grace by Jesus’ blood (Ephesians 2:8; Revelation 1:5) and your obedient faith (Romans 1:5; 16:26), salvation is offered. If you have any questions or would like to comment, please don't hesitate to do so. Lord willing, a Bible answer will be provided for every Bible question. The God of Heaven and Earth is good, and His love reaches all. We love you with the love of the Lord (John 13:34-35).

]]> 89836 Not Every One Should Be Baptized https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/not-every-one-should-be-baptized/ Sat, 25 Jan 2025 03:34:55 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=83571

by Terry Wane Benton

Babies should not be baptized. They haven't sinned, don't disbelieve or believe, don't know what repentance is about, and can't confess Jesus. Dunking such persons in water only gets them wet. Calling it baptism does not make it "in the name of the Lord" (Acts 2:38).

The Ethiopian Eunuch asked Philip, "Here is water! What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:33ff) Notice that he believes he needs to be baptized, but he wants to know if there are matters to attend to that come before baptism. You don't just dunk someone in the water and presto, it is valid for God's blessings.

Some things must precede baptism. Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." Without believing with all the heart, baptism is just getting wet. God does not give remission of sins to those who merely got dunked in the water.

An unbeliever should not be baptized until he believes with all his heart. A person who does not believe with all his heart and who will not repent (turn around) from a sinful and self-centered life to a life centered on doing God's will. Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). Godly sorrow leads to repentance (II Corinthians 7:7ff). A person with no godly sorrow and repentance is not ready to be baptized.

Confessing Jesus is essential (Romans 10:9-10). If one is not ready and willing to confess Jesus with the mouth because he believes in Him with all his heart, then he is not ready to be baptized into union with Christ (Romans 6:3-6). The lack of these things would have hindered the Ethiopian Eunuch from being baptized.

You can see then that not everyone should be baptized if they are not prepared in heart to be scripturally baptized. We obey "from the heart" (Romans 6:3-6,17-18). Everyone needs to have their heart properly prepared to be baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. Has your heart been properly prepared?

]]> 83571 Response to Why Lutherans Sprinkle Infants https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/response-to-why-lutherans-sprinkle-infants/ Fri, 05 Jul 2024 19:56:55 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=68743

by Raymond Warfel

A few days ago, I came across a post on why Lutherans baptize (sprinkle) babies. As I read through the nine points, I saw the need to respond.

Because of Grace

If you understand grace you can understand infant baptism. Many believe that only those who are able to make a decision for Jesus can be baptized. However, we are saved by grace through faith. Faith is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is God’s doing, not our decision. John 1:13 clearly says that we are God’s children “born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, but born of God.” In other words, God gives us new birth. It is not a matter of decision. Also, baptism is never described as our work or our testimony.

My Answer:

The idea that God decides to give me faith and I don’t have any involvement in it disagrees with Scripture.

First, the Holy Spirit revealed the gospel to the apostles, and when I read or am taught the gospel, it produces faith (See Romans 10:17; Acts 2:36-38). This is how the Spirit does the work of giving us faith (through the gospel). “Has believed” in Mark 16:16 shows that belief is something I do. Otherwise, if God does not give me faith, then I’m lost because He failed to provide me with faith, not because I failed to believe the gospel and obey. Peter says that God is patient and does not want anyone to perish, but for all to come to repentance (II Peter 3:9). This being the case, then He should give everyone faith, and no one would perish.

Second, in Acts 11:14, when Peter is telling about what happened in Cornelius’ house, he says that Cornelius had seen an angel who told him to send for Peter and that Peter would “speak words by which you will be saved.” This agrees with what happened in Acts 8:12 when Philip was in Samaria. These people had to hear words, then believe those words, and then obey those words. There was a decision to be made by those who heard. Remember that when John was preaching, and people were being baptized by him, some rejected his message, and the text says, “But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.” These men made a decision, didn't they? Also, notice in Acts 2:41 the phrase “received his word.” This indicates that these people who heard the apostles decided to accept what they heard and obey it.

Third, how does a baby repent? Repentance requires some thought, awareness, and enough maturity to understand what it means to leave sin and follow God (Romans 6:12-14). Baptism is a spiritual birth and a work of God that I do in response to the gospel message (Acts 2:36-38). Paul says we are buried with Him (Christ) in baptism (Romans. 6:1-7; Colossians 2:12). This is when we have newness of life (new birth). Just a note on John 1:13: This simply says that the way people are saved was not designed by men but by God.

Because Infants Are Also Included in All Nations

“Go therefore and teach all nations baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19). God places no age limit.

My Answer:

Notice “teach all" and "baptizing them” in Matthew 28:19. Yes, no age limit was given, but there is a limit at which a person can be taught and understand what is taught. Also, note that the teaching comes before the baptizing. You have the order backward.

Because Infants Also Are Sinful

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalms 51:5). Babies die just like adults. The Holy Spirit works faith through baptism. What a comfort the picture of cleansing by the blood of Christ.

My Answer:

First, why does Jesus say we are to become like little children if children are sinners? See Matthew 18:1-4. Because they are innocent, the Lord wants Christians to be innocent (Philippians 2:15).

Second, what passage says faith comes through baptism? I read that faith comes from hearing the word of Christ (Romans 10:17), but I don't read that faith comes when one is baptized.

Third, it is sad that the NIV translates Psalm 51:5 as it does. David is not saying he was born a sinner, but that he was “brought forth in iniquity” (NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, etc.). This iniquity is not his own but that of someone else, or maybe he was speaking of the world into which he was born. Note: Was David saying his mother had committed adultery when he was conceived? This psalm is David’s confession of his sin involving Bathsheba, which was against God. He is crushed under the guilt of his sin and is longing for God’s forgiveness.

Fourth, when a child is born, what sin has the child committed? (See I John 2:16; Ezekiel 18:20) A Lutheran minister (LCMS) told me one time that children in the womb sin. As I think about that, what about all of the aborted babies are they doomed to hell because they were not baptized? (Side note: baptism is not sprinkling, but immersion, check the meaning of the Greek word.) Then compare that with what Paul says in Romans 6:3-4. What about all of the babies that die in infancy and the thousands of other small children who die not knowing about baptism? Sin is personal, and Paul says we will be judged for the things done in the body. What has a newborn child or one still in the womb done in the body? What David says here shows his deep regret and penitent heart about his sin. It is similar to Paul saying he was “the chief of sinners” (I Timothy 1:15). I am curious in II Samuel 12:22-23, when David’s child dies, David seems to think he will be with him again. How, if this child was a sinner?

Because They Must be Born Again

“Except a person be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Notice again that there is no age limit. Every person must be born of water and the Spirit.

My Answer:

Those that have sinned must be born again. True! What sin has a baby committed? What law of God has the child violated coming forth from its mother’s womb? None!

Because Infants Too Can Believe

Jesus said in Matthew 18:6 “These little ones who believe in me... Jesus then took them in his arms.” Faith or belief is from the Holy Spirit, not from our adult wisdom. Scripture never describes baptism as our work.

My Answer:

Just what does or can an infant believe? This passage does not say when the little ones will believe.

Because of the Witness of the Early Christian Church

The early Christian church baptized infants. Why would they do that if the apostles had forbidden it? (For example, Polycarp, a student of the apostle John, speaks of the fact that he was baptized as an infant.) I realize that this doesn't prove anything. This is not the Word of God, but the practice should not be totally ignored.

My Answer:

This argument lacks evidence and is based on an assumption. Polycarp never said he was baptized as an infant. I could say the same thing. I have served the Lord for seventy years (all of my life), but I was not baptized an infant.

Because the Bible Says in Acts 2 "Repent and be baptized for the promise is for you and your children”

My Answer:

I agree that the promise is to all, but it is based on repentance, faith, and baptism. When and how does the infant repent? Again, notice the order.

Because Entire Households were Baptized

Acts 16. The jailer of Philippi and his household, Lydia and her household, and others.

My Answer:

First, the problem is that you must assume that these two households had small children. I know that a household can exist without small children; see Hebrews 11:7. This empty argument proves nothing.

Second, notice in Acts 5:14; 8:12 there is no mention of children being added to their number or being baptized, but it does say that men and women were baptized. Also when Saul goes to Damascus the text says in Acts 9:2 he is going to bind both men and women (Those belong to the Way), but no children, isn’t that curious?

Because Baptism Is Compared to Circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12

A baby received circumcision as an infant at eight days of age. Why would baptism be compared to circumcision if babies are not to be baptized?

My Answer:

Remember, it was only boys who were circumcised, so if you take this thought to its logical conclusion, then only boys should be baptized. This argument is misusing what Paul is saying. He is comparing the cutting off (circumcision) of the literal flesh under the Law with the cutting off (circumcision) of the body of sin in Christ.

]]> 68743 Does John the Baptist Prove that Fetuses Know Good and Evil? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/does-john-the-baptist-prove-that-fetuses-know-good-and-evil/ Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:54:56 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=62348

by Terry Wane Benton

While it is true that John the Baptist, while yet unborn (what people call the fetus stage), leaped in his mother’s womb when Mary came and greeted Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), it is not true that this means that all infants are aware of sin or aware of Jesus, Mary, and what Jesus will mean for them. It does nothing to prove that this means all babies are aware of why a man in funny garments is dunking them or sprinkling water on them and wanting to have their sins removed.

In the case of John leaping in the womb in the presence of Jesus' mother, it would be a sign from God that John and Jesus would bring great joy to the world in their future programs of adulthood. It is not a sign that all babies are aware of sin and that they are excited about Jesus. John as an unborn child gave a strong kick at this moment and this was likely a providential reminder from God to Elizabeth that her baby had the assistance of the Holy Spirit even then (Luke 1:15). So, this “leap” was a sign of the Holy Spirit, not a proof that all babies are aware of sin, Jesus, and coming redemption even in the womb. Without the Holy Spirit's special sign, John would not have kicked at this moment and if he did, it would mean nothing about what he was aware of in that moment, especially not aware of the implication of Jesus.

God told Moses that little children today “have no knowledge of good and evil”(Deuteronomy 1:39). To imply that John knew that Mary was bringing the good Savior and He would conquer evil and sin in the world is to imply that he and all unborn are knowledgeable of good and evil. That means that they know God was wrong in His statement to Moses. No! God is not wrong about babies not knowing good and evil. In John’s case, the Holy Spirit was especially involved in making a reminder to Elizabeth surface to her attention.

Again, the Holy Spirit testifies that there is a time, even for the Messiah-Child, when there is no awareness of good and evil. Isaiah 7:15-16 says concerning the virgin’s child,

"Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings" (NKJV).

In other words, this child would be like all human children. He was in a human state of “not knowing” and therefore not refusing or choosing good and evil. To say that John the Baptist in his unborn state knew what even Mary’s baby would have yet to grow to know is to say that John was the exception to the rule, and that shows that you cannot use John as proof of anything about babies.

The practice of force-dunking babies is falsely justified by implying from John’s case that they can believe in Jesus even as a man in strange garments is dunking them or sprinkling them and saying strange ritualistic words as they do this to these babies. If John was aware of Jesus, the text does not say it or actually imply it. What it shows is that the Holy Spirit was already with John and urged the kick at the moment to remind Elizabeth of great things ahead for her child and through Mary’s child. That is all that proves. It proves nothing about how scriptural it is to force-dunk all babies.

Who is to be baptized? Jesus said it works this way! Preach the gospel, let the gospel bring about belief, and let the believer be baptized (Mark 16:15-16). There are no exceptions to this. Baptism is always and only to convicted, penitent believers. Every case of “households” being baptized was after that household first heard the word, understood their need for Jesus, and expressed their own desire to be united with Jesus in baptism. Not one exception!

Baptism is not forced upon anyone, and no person was ever baptized who did not first believe. Infants have no knowledge of good and evil and have no guilt that needs to be removed, and there is no benefit they get from being force-dunked or sprinkled in some ritual of men. When they grow and come of age to know good and evil and come to know guilt and what Jesus can mean toward the removal of sin and guilt, then they will let you know like all others, “what hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36). The answer will always be, “If you believe you may!” John’s kick is not proof that children already know and is no proof that force-dunking is what needs to be done while they can’t know to refuse evil and choose good.

Do not let the doctrines and traditions of men trump the clear teaching of God’s word, the Scriptures.

]]> 62348 On Infant Baptism https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/on-infant-baptism/ Thu, 24 Aug 2023 15:33:48 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=62316

by Terry Wane Benton

An Orthodox Church member writes:

"Infant baptism is the new circumcision. We find its parallel to circumcision in the Old Covenant. Infants were circumcised as a sign of being part of the Old Covenant so infants should be baptized as a sign of being part of the New Covenant."

In the Old Covenant of Israel, it was a law that all male children be circumcised on the 8th day after birth. Jeremiah prophesied that the New Covenant would be very different (Jeremiah 31:31f). In the old you were circumcised and later taught to “know the Lord.” In the New, knowing the Lord would come first before entering the covenant. So, there is no parallel between the two covenants in how to become a part of either covenant. You had forced entrance in the Old and voluntary entrance after coming to “know the Lord” first in the second covenant.

Secondly, the scriptures don’t say or imply that “infant baptism is the new circumcision.” That is made up whole-cloth out of desire and imagination rather than by revelation. We are called to “cast down imaginations” (II Corinthians 10:4-6). Baptism in the scriptures is always for someone who first comes to know God and is ready to repent, confess Jesus, and bury the old person of sin behind in baptism. Infants don’t know God, and are not ready to repent, confess, or bury their past sinful life in baptism (Romans 10:9-10; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:15-16; Romans 6:3-6). They do not “rise to walk in newness of life” and therefore have not buried the sinful self behind in this transformation. So, there is no decision on their end to be “baptized as a sign of being part of the New Covenant.” This argument is wholly contrived and does not stand the test of Scripture.

"We will all be judged based on our degrees of faithfulness. This includes those who would be faithless and deny infants their baptism" [Orthodox Church member].

We know of no one who “denies” infants their baptism. No infant has ever come to me wanting to be baptized, wanting to confess Jesus, wanting to begin transforming their sinful lives. Nor have I ever witnessed a single infant being either faithful or unfaithful. So, there is no judgment about their “faithfulness.” This too is a wholly contrived argument from Lance Conley. Where does scripture demand that we baptize any but penitent, confessing, believers? If a bank robber comes to me for baptism but refuses to confess faith in Jesus, and refuses to quit his thievery, I won’t baptize him because he brings no fruit of repentance. But, if he brings forth fruit worthy of repentance, I will gladly baptize him. Same with babies. Only babies are innocent and can’t bring forth the fruit of repentance. So, the second argument is shown to be false.

"Circumcision was a sign and seal of God’s covenant promises to Abraham and his offspring (Genesis 17:7-14; Romans 4:11). Likewise, baptism is a sign and seal of God’s covenant promises to believers and their children (Acts 2:38-39; Colossians 2:11-12)" [Orthodox Church member].

The only comparison that baptism and circumcision have in these scriptures is that a “cutting off” takes place in both. In circumcision, there is the cutting off of the male foreskin using human hands in the process to get the job done. In contrast, in baptism, there is also a “cutting off” of something. Colossians 2:11-13 reads,

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

The Christian has faith in the “working of God” that He will do this circumcision (cutting away) of sins. Babies have no such faith that God will do this when someone manhandles them and forces them into water. They are innocent of sins and have no knowledge or understanding of what these people are doing to them or why. The only comparison to circumcision is that a cutting off is in both, but the contrast is that in the circumcision of the flesh, there does not have to be any ‘faith” in the why or any understanding of God. Males were to be circumcised on the 8th day and did not have to consent or understand anything. In the case of baptism, there is first an understanding of what God will do in His operation. We understand that He will cut away our sins when we are buried with Christ in baptism. If there is no such understanding, then the baptism or immersion is not “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Jesus authorizes that “believers” be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:15-16). Peter, by the Spirit, said that “repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” results in “remission of sins” (cutting off sins which is the circumcision God does without hands). So, if there is no conviction of sin, and no determination to repent of sins, then there is no baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:36-41).

When I was 8 and my brother was 11, we would wrestle around in the lake. He would say he was baptizing me and then force me against my will down under the water. Did God then cut my sins away? Of course not! The mere act of being dunked against one’s will is not baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.” It takes a conscious understanding that I need my sins removed, a conscious and willing decision to do whatever God commands to get them removed, and then a submission to Jesus and His instructions on when He will cut my sins off, and a faith that when I am baptized into union with Christ, God will do this circumcision. None of that understanding and determination was involved when my brother forced me under the water, and none of that understanding is involved in the infant that some grown-up forces under the water.

Therefore, the preliminaries (hearing God’s word, understanding it, believing, and then being baptized (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41) have to first be in place before this circumcision takes place. A baby could be physically circumcised with no personal will involved when it comes to the Law of Moses, but Jeremiah 31:31f shows that entrance into the New Covenant involves a very different process. One must first “know God” before entering into a covenant relationship where sins are remembered no more. So, the argument that we can force people into the New Covenant by dipping them against their understanding and knowledge is simply not so.

The argument that Acts 2:38-39 says the promise is “to their children” is a desperate misuse of the term. It means their descendants who also “gladly receive the word” (Acts 2:41) and would seek to “be saved from this perverse generation.” We are always “children” of our parents no matter how old we are, but the people the promise is talking to are any future descendants who also “call on the name of the Lord” in their repentance and baptism. Babies are not calling and repenting. When they come to first “know the Lord” and become convicted in heart about their sinful and lost condition, they will want the circumcision of God, and will voluntarily ask to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. They enter the New Covenant after first “knowing the Lord.” In the Old Covenant, you were circumcised at 8 days old and later taught to know the Lord. So, the above argument is just another contrived argument to try to justify forcing babies into an act that adults impose on them with no knowledge of God in their hearts, and that is not the will of God.

]]> 62316 Infant Baptism (Tant) https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/infant-baptism-3/ Thu, 03 Jun 2021 19:08:29 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=35525

by Jefferson David Tant

A well-known practice in various denominations is that of infant baptism. This would include Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and others. The question is, “Is this Scriptural? Is authority for this found in the Bible?”

An examination of historical records indicates that there is no definite evidence of infant baptism being practiced in the 1st Century, the day of the early church. Some maintain that the mention of a “household being baptized” includes infants.

Acts 24:14-15 is given as an example. “And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.”

Note that there is no mention of any infants or children in the “household.” To infer that infants were present is a guess or speculation. But the truth is not based on guesses. Truth is based on facts. The fact is, there is never a mention of any infant being baptized in the New Testament.

Historians pretty well agree that infant baptism did not come into practice until after the 1st century. The earliest mention of infant baptism is in the writings of Irenaeus in his work Against Heresies, which was probably written about 180 A.D. Three passages by Origen (185-254 A.D.) mention infant baptism as being customary. History indicates from the 3rd Century on, infant baptism became common. While the practice was becoming common, it was still not without objection. Tertullian, in his writings about 198-203 AD advised the postponement of the baptism of little children.

Why baptize babies? It is argued that they are born in sin, having inherited sin from Adam. Therefore we are all born sinners, and since baptism washes away our sins (Acts 22:16) babies, as well as adults, need to be cleansed from sin.

Let us consider a few points that would argue against this common practice.

Sin Is Not Inherited

In the first place, we do not inherit sin, although this is a common belief among many denominations. Consider God’s Word from Ezekiel 18:20: “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

If we inherit sin, then every baby that is aborted, or that dies in delivery or in infancy that has not been “baptized” goes to hell. Obviously, there are millions of such infants that have not had their sins washed away. Who can believe that God would send a three-day-old baby to hell if the child died before being “sprinkled” or had water poured on its head?

Belief Is Missing

In the second place, there are clear instructions in the New Testament as to what one is to do before being baptized. In Mark 16:16 Christ said, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Thus faith comes before baptism. What faith does a baby have?

Repentance Is Missing

Then there is the matter of repentance. In the first gospel sermon after the resurrection, there were 3,000 that were baptized after hearing the message. Peter brings his sermon to an end with these words: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38).

Confession Is Missing

A confession of one’s faith is also mentioned. “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Romans 10:9). What “confession” does a baby make except cry when doused with water?

Baptism Means Immersion

The New Testament was written in Greek, the universal language at that time, and the word “baptizo” means to “dip, plunge or immerse.” All Greek scholars agree on that. It was long after the first century before men decided that it was more convenient to pour or sprinkle water in the place of immersion. The question then is — by what authority has the change been made — by the authority of God, or of men? If by God, then why does my Bible still teach “immerse?”

Note something Christ said to the Jews in his day. These were people who believed in God, who believed in Moses and the Prophets, but they had their own traditions and practices that were not in keeping with the word God had given. “But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Mark 7:7).

And so it is with denominations today that add to, subtract from, or change what God has revealed to us. They may worship God and believe in Christ, but when they follow the precepts of men rather than the Word of God, Christ said their worship is in vain. There are many such examples, as in ordaining women as pastors, ordaining homosexuals, eliminating the Lord’s Supper, and even eliminating baptism altogether. The question for any change or disregard of what the Scriptures say is “By whose authority?” God says, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father” (Colossians 3:17). That phrase “do all in the name of,” means “by the authority of.” We have clear warnings from God about making any changes to what he has told us.

“Do not add to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6).

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any-one adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19).

]]> 35525 Immersion, Pouring, and Sprinkling: A History https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/immersion-pouring-and-sprinkling-a-history/ Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:52:07 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=34443

by Bruce Edwards, Jr.
Truth Magazine XIX:27 (May 15, 1975), pp. 422-424

This writer can remember witnessing at the age of five the “baptism” of his infant cousin; the denominational “pastor” sprinkled drops of water upon his forehead. I wondered at the significance of that action then, but now, with an increased understanding of the Scriptural design of baptism, I not only wonder but must seriously question the validity of it. Jesus questioned the religious leaders and we must also examine with the same incisive interest modern-day concepts of baptism which conflict with the New Testament record. As any reputable scholar will attest, the only mode of baptism which was practiced in New Testament times was immersion. Immersion is, of course, the meaning of the Greek word transliterated “baptism” in our English translations. Not only was immersion the only mode of baptism, but it can also be abundantly established that the only design of baptism was “for the forgiveness of sins.”

An Appeal to History

An examination of historical documents which appear after the New Testament period is extremely helpful in understanding the development of certain practical and doctrinal trends characterizing the apostasy from the inspired message of the apostles. The writings of the men commonly called the “apostolic fathers” pinpoint for us the flow of thought which led to the many innovations that fill denominations today. These writings are searched and examined not for their authoritative value; the New Testament alone can be our standard for faith and practice, for it alone bears the Divine sanction of inspiration. Rather we consult such documents for their historical insight into post-apostolic Christianity.

Substitutions for Immersion

On an eventful day circa 253 A.D., a man named Novatian lay in illness, apparently upon his deathbed. Believing in the necessity of immersion for salvation, but unable to leave his bed, he was permitted by a local “bishop” to substitute the pouring of water all about him in its place. This episode, reported by the famous church historian, Eusebius (Church History VI. xliii. 14, 17), constituted the first known historical substitution of another action in the place of immersion. Another author, Cyprian, writing close to the time of the Novatian incident, suggested that the substitution was appropriate in the case of “emergencies” clearly stating, however, that this was an “accommodation” and that “everything else must be in order” (Epistle 75:12). Since pouring was administered to those bed-fast with infirmities, the practice came to be known as “clinical baptism” after the Greek word for bed, kline. In reference to these exceptional substitutions and others which begin to appear infrequently following this period, we observe that to these writers, “baptism” still meant immersion and to describe another action (such as pouring or sprinkling) another word was used. Clearly, the origin of a substitute for immersion occurred in the context of extraordinary situations (either the lack of sufficient depth of water or the circumstances of the candidate for baptism).

That “real” baptism was still considered immersion before and during this period can be shown from the testimony of such writers as

  • Tertullian: “Baptism itself is a bodily act, because we are immersed in water ..." (On Baptism, 7),
  • Origen, who in commenting upon the crossing of the Red Sea mentions New Testament baptism: “the evil spirits seek to overtake you, but you descend into the water and you escape safely;” (Homilies on Exodus, V:5),
  • Basil of Caesarea: “We imitate the burial of Christ through baptism. For the bodies of those being baptized are as it were buried in water” (On the Holy Spirit, XV:35), and
  • Cyril of Jerusalem: “For as he who plunges into the waters and is baptized is surrounded on all sides by the waters, so were they also baptized completely ...“ (Catechetical Lectures, XVII:14).

Though strongly opposed soon after its appearance, even as an “exceptional” measure, pouring and then sprinkling continued to gain more and more acceptance as adequate substitutes for immersion. It was inevitable that these alternative modes would ultimately become acceptable even in “normal” circumstances. The first “official” approval of such occurred in 753 A.D. when Pope Stephen declared the alternative modes acceptable in “cases of necessity.” It was not until 1311 A.D., by the council of Ravenna, that the practice of baptism by modes other than immersion was officially legislated as a matter of indifference in any circumstances of conversion. The words of Alexander Campbell are particularly pertinent here: “In the history of Christianity, the whole world, Eastern and Western Christendom, with the exception of a few sick and dying persons practiced immersion during the long space of thirteen hundred years. Since that time, license was granted first to the Pope, in 1311, to practice affusion (pouring) with the authority of the church. Calvin next gave a law to his branch of the church, authorizing affusion. This was carried first into Scotland, and then into England ... and finally imposed upon the people, much against their own conviction and inclination at first. Time, however, reconciled them to it;” (Christian Baptism, p. 153).

Infant Baptism and the Design of Immersion

As we have suggested, the early church understood the design of baptism to be the “forgiveness of sins.” This fact is underscored by the special emphasis placed upon the act in second-century literature. Among the blessings attributed to baptism by these writers were remission of sins, salvation, eternal life, regeneration, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Such a high view of the design of baptism could only have come from a first-century proclamation that intimately connected immersion and salvation. The consistency with which these men stress the essentiality of immersion would be impossible if not for this earlier understanding. It is inconceivable, as some would have us believe, that the whole realm of believers suddenly could have reversed its understanding of the design of baptism within fifty years after the lifetime of the apostles! It is evident that what made the change in mode justifiable in the minds of those who practiced pouring or sprinkling was the conviction that baptism was essential to salvation. The consideration of a substitute would never have occurred had baptism not been considered so important. This is a tremendously significant point that cannot be rationalized; this is corroborative proof that such passages as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 are to be understood quite literally. Baptism is essential to salvation! There was a predominant conviction of the innocence of infants through the third century. In numerous passages, infants become the standard of purity and sinlessness. Indeed, the whole language of “rebirth” in connection with immersion presupposes the innocent state of the infant. This understanding plus the conviction that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins explains why there is no early reference in support of infant baptism in the post-apostolic literature. Baptism was for sinners, they understood, and babies are not sinners.

By the fourth century, however, baptism had ironically digressed into a “sacramental” act; divorced from its context within the whole of God’s scheme of redemption, the act was given implications unwarranted in New Testament Scripture. Using John 3:5 as a “prooftext,” a view developed that baptism was necessary for every person who ever lived – without regard to age, spiritual state, or pre-New Covenant circumstance. Consequently, an absurd contention such as “Jesus was in Hades baptizing Old Testament saints” could find fertile soil. Naturally, then, the baptism of infants was rationalized as a precautionary measure to assure the safe passage of the infant to heaven should he die. The reasoning was, if no one could enter heaven without baptism, then everyone, whether sinner or not, must be baptized. It is thus seen that contrary to popular conception, the practice of infant baptism actually preceded the doctrine of “original sin.” The first clear reference to infant baptism is found in Tertullian’s writings and he opposed it, nevertheless showing that the practice did have its advocates at the time. Progressively, however, as the baptism of infants became more common, the practice became a decisive argument for the doctrine of original sin. Reversing the view of the prior century, men reasoned that if infants ought to be baptized, then the reason must be because they are sinners since that is the design of baptism. An ironic turnabout indeed! Origen is the first to suggest in a positive defense that infants should be baptized; at his time of writing (mid-third century) the doctrine of original sin had not fully developed but was present in its early stages. Origen himself suggests that although infants themselves do not have “their own sins,” a stain attaches itself from previous human sin – a stain to be removed by baptism (Homily on Luke, XIV:3). This doctrine would be in full bloom by the middle of the fourth century with the assistance of Augustine.

Observations

It is not difficult to trace the evolution of sprinkling and infant baptism to the present from these sources. As belief in the essentiality of baptism subsided and the presence of “original sin” on the souls of infants has been played down, most mainline Protestant groups have instituted the infant baptism ceremony as a “dedication service” for the parents. Of course, this practice has no more in common with the Scriptures than did sprinkling, pouring, or the original practice of infant baptism. But as is the case with most innovations, a circumstance occurs which demands, in the minds of its advocates, a “bending” of Scripture. This “bending” is justified on the basis of an “emergency;” however, once justified as an “exceptional” case, all too soon the innovation becomes established as an acceptable practice under any circumstances. We have seen this to be true in the case of the mode and design of baptism and currently witness the tragic consequences of such Scripture wresting in other areas. The only possible remedy for the divided state of modern “Christendom” is a return to the authority of the Scriptures. Doctrines and practices must not be formulated and then justified. The only possible procedure is to examine Scripture first and allow it, as the voice of God, to determine what our practices and beliefs must be.

]]> 34443 Does Acts 2:39 teach infant baptism? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/does-acts-239-teach-infant-baptism/ Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:04:01 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=30605

Question:

Good morning sir,

Please, I need your help in explaining Acts 2:39 because someone I am discussing it with is trying to use that passage as a backup for infant baptism. He said that Acts 2:38-39, according to the Greek translation, means babies should be baptized according to their parents' faith.

Answer:

Let's first examine what we do know about the baptism in Acts 2.

The choice for being baptized was made by the people being baptized. "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41). Their choice was based on accepting Peter's teaching. Thus, we know that these people had heard Peter's sermon (Acts 2:37,40) and believed what Peter taught (Acts 2:37,41). One of the things that Peter taught them was that they had to repent (Acts 2:38).

Therefore, we must conclude that there were no infants among the 3,000 who were baptized that day because no infant fully understands language, no infant can believe, and no infant has sins to repent of doing.

This baptism was for the remission of sin (Acts 2:38), to receive the gift of salvation from the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:39), and to be added to the church (Acts 2:47). Peter commanded the crowd to be baptized (Acts 2:38,40) but the command wasn't just for the immediate audience. "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself" (Acts 2:39).

Now notice how your friend twisted Acts 2:39. Peter said was for as many as the Lord God calls to Himself. Your friend said it was the parents who decided to baptize their children. Peter shows that this calling requires the people responding to make a choice. Your friend says the infant has no choice in the matter.

The phrasing is that the command to repent and be baptized will continue generation after generation. Peter is not just talking about their immediate children. Peter is also indicating that the command is not limited to just the Jews. It was for those present and those far off. This is a global command that will last through the ages.

Therefore, we conclude that your friend's assertion doesn't match the text. The mistake he made is that he asserted a possibility and then claimed that the text required that possibility to be true. Assumptions are not proof, nor are they necessarily required. In this case, his assumption doesn't fit the context so it is false.

]]> 30605 So there is not a sin gene? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/so-there-is-not-a-sin-gene/ Fri, 05 Jun 2020 23:22:00 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=50562

Question:

Dear Jeffrey,

Can you, if you get the chance, please confirm my understanding from one of your sermons Infant Baptism? This is the first time ever, I've heard the thought we didn't inherit sin, and I'm staggered by that. So there is no sin DNA? We don't sin because we are from Adam and inherited this behavior? Rather, we sin because we choose to by virtue of God giving us free will? Is my understanding correct?

That makes sense if I've grasped this as the message. At times I've wondered about babies and the context of the "inherited sin - we all sin because we were born that way - it's in our makeup because of Adam and Eve" mindset.

I adore your sermons, listening to them daily. I'm learning and evolving, paradigms are shifting as I now have a resource I trust that puts everything back into the scriptural intent and biblical source of truth context. The La Vista resources are really super-duper fabulous. I am working my way alphabetically through the sermons.

All the very best.

Answer:

You have the right idea. For some articles on this topic, see: Inherited Sins and Free Will

]]> 50562 How do I convince a Roman Catholic that infant baptism is wrong? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/how-do-i-convince-a-roman-catholic-that-infant-baptism-is-wrong/ Sat, 05 Oct 2019 20:46:57 +0000 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=11888

Question:

A Catholic and I debated the topic of infant baptism. He used the argument of "household" referring to babies as well. When I told him that households could mean teens or servants he said that he would rather follow the practice of infant baptism followed by earlier Christians 2000 years ago.

He then argued that the Bible is alone not sufficient. He asked me to prove "Where, in the Bible and the Bible alone, does the Bible teach the Bible alone?" When I quoted Timothy "All scripture is inspired by God....", he said "scripture" refers to the Old Testament.

How can I prove to him that infant baptism is nonsensical, even after talking to him about the household topic, etc.?

Answer:

Christians are required to teach the gospel. It is up to the ones listening to decide whether to accept the message or not. Keep in mind that Jesus, the Master Teacher, was not able to convince everyone he taught; therefore, don't expect to be able to convince everyone you teach. You are not greater than the Lord.

You did get the person to indirectly acknowledge that "household" does not necessarily include children. This is why he shifted his argument. He knows the Bible doesn't support his claim so he states that tradition trumps the Bible.

Honest Roman Catholics will admit that infant baptism did not appear in the church until the second or third century. Consider these Roman Catholic sources:

  • “There is no express mention of the baptism of infants in the New Testament” [Question Box, page 23].
  •  “It is difficult to give strict proof from the scriptures in favor of it” [Catholic Dictionary, page 61].
  •  “There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants” [Bishop Burnet].
  •  “Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten tradition. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday? How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion?” [Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, page 7].

In other words, according to the Roman Catholics, the practice of infant baptism is based solely on their traditions and is not found in the Scriptures. The earliest mention of infant baptism is by Irenaeus in c. AD 180: “For he came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” [Against Heresies, vol. 1, p. 391]. Origen (185-c. 254) also mentions infant baptism: “Baptism according to the practice of the church is given even to infants.” This is not something that was always done, but it was a very early innovation.

I suspect the initial impulse to baptize infants was to imitate the Jews and have a ritual that would keep children in the church as they grew up. Later, a justification was sought for that practice that was already being done. “Ecclesiastical custom with regard to the administration of Baptism has undergone a change in the course of history. Whereas the early Church baptized adults only, the baptism of children soon became the usual practice” [Pastoral Medicine, pages 32-33]. What developed was a belief that sin was inherited from Adam. “Where in the fourth and fifth centuries the doctrine of original sin became better known, the practice of infant baptism progressed rapidly” [Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law, page 72].

This is why the person you are talking to insists that infant baptism is necessary. From his view, to not baptize an infant places the child at risk of going to hell if he dies early. Therefore, you won't make much progress on infant baptism until you address the issue of original sin.

But all of this will be difficult because he doesn't accept the authority of the Bible. Without a common foundation, it will be hard to prove points.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (II Timothy 3:16-17).

"Scripture" means sacred writings. All Scripture is sacred because it comes from the mouth of God. But do only the Old Testament writings come from God? Paul claimed that he wrote as guided by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 2:10-13). Peter stated that Paul's writings were Scripture in II Peter 3:15-16. Therefore, the New Testament is just as much Scripture as the Old Testament.

According to Peter, "Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust" (II Peter 1:2-4). "Everything" doesn't leave out much. In fact, when the man you are debating goes to his traditions, he is stating that God didn't give knowledge of everything pertaining to life and godliness and that the Scriptures aren't able to make a man complete. In other words, his position contradicts the statements of Peter and Paul.

In reality, he should be proving how traditions written by men can add to the Scriptures that come from God and still be right. People who have done this in the past have been condemned for it. "... you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men'" (Matthew 15:6-9).

Response:

Wow, you are so good at explaining things. Thanks a lot!

]]> 11888