.jpg)
Infant Baptism is Biblical?
Infant Baptism Is It Scriptural? by William Hendriksen
Answer This Question for Yourself on the Basis of Scripture
1. Does the Bible really teach that infants of believers should be baptized?
Answer: "And he that is EIGHT DAYS OLD shall be circumcized among you" (Genesis 17:12).
2. But that text says "circumcized," not "baptized." Hence, that passage fails to prove the point, unless baptism is Christian circumcision. Is it?
Answer: "In whom also ye are circumcized with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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 2:11, 12).
3. Is it true then that God has done away with circumcision, as having no longer any spiritual meaning, and has commanded baptism in its stead?
Answer: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing" (Galatians 5:12).
"Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).
4. So, then, the Bible teaches that since baptism has replaced circumcision, and since children eight days old were circumcized, therefore small children should be baptized. Is there any other passage which clearly implies this?
Answer: "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him" (Acts 2:38, 39).
5. Do you really believe then that Jesus would not forbid little children to be baptized?
Answer: "And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:13, 14; Matthew 19:13-14).
6. But why were the bloody sacraments of circumcision and passover replaced by the unbloody sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?
Answer: "Christ through his own blood entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:11, 12).
7. But is it not true that some persons who were baptized in their infancy are lost for eternity? Then, why baptize infants?--No, you do not have to answer that one, for on second thought I see that the objection is foolish, for it would hold just as well against adult baptism. Besides, we surely would not banish all wedding rings because some people fail to keep the pledge which is represented by them.
8. But another problem arises in my mind. It is this, What good does infant baptism do the child, seeing that he does not understand what is happening to him?
Answer: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcized among you" (Genesis 17:12).
Oh, I see your line of reasoning now. My objection would hold just as well against circumcision, yet God commanded a little one, eight days old, to be circumcized. And if God commands it, we must do it. But though I must admit that there is not much left of my objection, I still cannot understand what good baptism will do the little one... unless it should be that the parents who present it for baptism will be more apt to keep a solemn promise which they have made in public before the eyes of God and all his people. Do you think that there is something to that?
Answer: "I will pay my vows unto Jehovah, Yea, in the presence of all his people" (Psalm 116:14).
Moreover, if even wicked people are more ready to do a wicked thing because they have solemnly promised to do it, will not God's people be more ready to do a good thing because they have promised to do it?
Herod was a wicked king who had made a wicked promise. Yet we read, "And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her" (Mark 6:26).
9. I can see now that Infant Baptism is good for the child in a twofold way:
- because of the promise which the parents make, namely, to nurture the child in the fear of the Lord; and
- because of the fact that if the child has been baptized as an infant, then when later on he hears about this wonderful, sovereign, love, it becomes a powerful incentive for him to love and trust the Lord in return. He will then say, "How wonderful, that it is exactly INFANT BAPTISM that has shown me that God loved me ere I knew him. Seeing, then, that at baptism, he said to me: "My son [or "my daughter"], give me thy heart" (Proverbs 23:26), I will, by means of making public profession of my faith, and by means of adorning that confession with a godly life, say to him:
Take my life, and let me be
Consecrated, Lord, to thee;
Take my hands and let them move
At the impulse of they love.
Take my love, my God, I pour
At thy feet its treasure store;
Take myself, and I will be
Ever, only, all for thee.
10. But why does God present that wonderful gospel of his love to our eyes by means of the sacraments (baptism, the Lord's Supper) as well as to our ears (in the preaching of the Word)? Does that twofold presentation make the gospel more effective?
Answer: "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:5).
11. Is it true that the water of baptism points to the cleansing blood and Spirit of Christ?
Answer: "In that day there shall be a fountain opened... for sin and for uncleanness" (Zechariah 13:1).
"The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
"Except one be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
12. I am now strongly inclined to believe in Infant Baptism, I can see that it is a wonderful sign and seal of God's love, and that once rightly understood by the child, it will be able to exert a might influence for good upon his spiritual life in its development. But, if you don't mind, I want to know how to answer three additional objections that are sometimes advanced against this doctrine. The first is this: Does not Mark 16:16 indicate that a person should first believe before he can be baptized?
Answer: See for yourself by reading the text in its own context. It means, of course, that those to whom the gospel is preached (verse 15) must first confess their faith before they can be baptized. Hence, before an adult is baptized he must first confess his faith. The passage, therefore, has nothing whatever to do with infant baptism.
13. Yes, I can see that now clearly. The next objection I want to be able to answer is this one: some people say that infants cannot be admitted to baptism because nowhere do we read in so many words (literally), "Go and baptize infants."
Answer: And where do you read in so many words (literally), "Women can be admitted to the Lord's Supper"? (Remember that when Christ instituted this sacrament men only were present.) Where do we read in so many words, "Go to church on Sunday instead of on Saturday"? You say, "But these are safe and warranted inferences." Exactly, so is Infant Baptism, as you have seen. Furthermore, shouldn't we expect a command, not to baptize infants, if the Lord wanted the New Testament Church to have a different attitude and practice than was present in the Old Testament?
14. The final objection which people sometimes advance is this: Infant Baptism is a late invention. The early church did not know anything about it.
Answer: One of the greatest authorities on Church History, Philip Schaff, has this to say about that objection:"Among the fathers... there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism."
0 comments:
Post a Comment