baptism

The doctrine of infant baptism is a secondary issue. The real issue is that of scriptural authority.

This study uses some of Jordan Bajis' article to present the legitimacy of infant baptism. My comments are not intended as an attack on Mr. Bajis' beliefs, but I use his reasoning as a representation of those who endorse the doctrine. His dissertation is concise and scholarly, while those written by theologians are long-winded treatises that I leave to the reader to digest.

The only authority we can use to support a teaching is the Word of God. Quoting from Jordan Bajis' article, "There is not one Church Father who denies or even questions the validity of infant baptism."

From its inception, and under the Apostles' divine guidance, the early church was riddled with false teachers. After the apostles died, certain men sought to establish themselves as heirs of that office. Jude wrote that "certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you" (Jude 4). These men weren't "slipping in" just to take advantage of the church potluck; their intentions were more sinister.

Origen, Iranaeus, and other early church fathers left a legacy of insight that is clearer than what any modern-day scholar can present. However, they were fallible, as I am fallible. The assumption that "the preacher is always right" has led many astray from the truth. For this reason, it is best to base all truth on the authority of God's Word.

Peter wrote, "there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. (2 Peter 2:1-3) NIV

Quoting from Peter, false teachers "will bring the way of truth into disrepute." Men have muddied up the truth to a point where no one can believe anything in the bible. As a result, the "your-belief-isn't-any-better-than-my-belief" argument prevails today.

But this is a shallow defense, coming primarily from those who really could care less about the truth. Again, we look at Peter's words:

This is where the religious leaders of Jesus' day got into trouble. Instead of simply obeying the scriptures, they relied on legalistic interpretations provided by their scribes. Many today have formed "hard doctrine" based on interpretations. Unwilling to humble themselves, they steadfastly clench to their beliefs in a mistaken notion that they possess unwavering faith.

If one person's interpretation is no better than another's, then we need to throw away our bible, throw up our hands, and say, "No one knows. Let God sort it out on Judgment Day."

The phrase, "the promise is for you and your children" refers to Christianity spreading across the centuries, from one generation to the next. Under the Old Testament (OT), children were heirs of the promise made through Abraham, where they inherited their parents' physical property. Christian parents pass on to their children a spiritual inheritance, raising "them up in the training and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:4).

'Children' does not mean 'children.' When we try and interpret the scriptures through our Western thinking, we get into trouble. How does the bible define 'children'?

We can't form doctrine on what "seems probable." Mark records that all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. (Mark 1:5)

Does this mean that every man, woman and child--about 3 million people--were baptized by John the Baptist? Simply put, he was the Billy Graham of his day. If one was going to be baptized, John the Baptist was the one to see.

Mr. Bajis writes, We know that the Greek word oikos, translated "house" or "household," has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults.

I've learned two things from learning the ancient languages in bible studies:

1. You can prove anything with Greek

2. You can't prove anything with Greek

The bible was written to fishermen, shepherds, carpenters, and farmers. The language is simple and economic. If you have to use Greek to support your teachings, you've built a very wobbly doctrine.

Jesus addressed His disciples as children (Mark 10:24)

Paul referred to Timothy as his child (1 Tim 1:2), and also to Onesimus (Philem 10)

John designated the disciples to whom he was writing as his children (2 John 4)

Disciples are sometimes called "little children"

Jesus called His disciples “children” (John 13:33)

Paul addressed the Galatians as “children” (Gal 4:19)

John uses it extensively in his letters (1 John 2:1; 4:4; 5:21)

Jesus used the term “babes,” or “little ones” in addressing His disciples after His resurrection (John 21:5)

John also used this term in saluting those to whom he was writing (1 John 2:18)

Thus, when Mr. Bajis says, it becomes reasonable to assume that these children to whom Peter refers were young juveniles or, at the very least, in their preadolescence, it shows both his uncertainty and lack of scriptural basis for reaching such a conclusion.

It's "reasonable to assume" anything, but that doesn't make it truthful. It may be "reasonable to assume" that the Mark of the Beast in Revelation 13 is social security numbers. But we can't rely on our reasoning. If God's truth can't validate it, we need to disregard it.

Let's look at what Acts 2 says:

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call." With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:37-41) NIV

These were Jews who were in Jerusalem, celebrating the Day of Pentecost and other religious observances. And when they heard Peter's sermon, it says "they were cut to the heart." Why? Because Peter said, "you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross" (Acts 2:23).

So these weren't kids, but grown men who had participated in Jesus' crucifixion. Convicted of their guilt, they asked Peter, "What shall we do?"

Additionally, the statement, "for all whom the Lord our God will call" implies understanding that call, something a child, especially an innocent new-born, is not going to grasp.

How is God's righteousness revealed? The verse above says, "through faith in Christ FOR ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE."

How does one garner that righteousness? They have to first believe. "Those who BELIEVE and are baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16) If you want to use the "all" argument to support including infants, you may as well throw in retarded people living in the household, and grandpa who sits in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's Disease.

When Jesus answered the Jews religious arguments, He typically used one or two scriptures and left it at that. I've said enough on the subject and refer the reader to the Internet for further information.

I leave you with one question: Why infant baptism? The real motivation is not found in support for any biblical truth, but to promote certain men's agendas.

When you baptize an infant, it is a powerful tool for getting followers under the umbrella of that denomination. Throw in a warning about the baby roasting in the fires of eternity, and you've pretty much convinced someone who doesn't know their bible.

When David lost his baby son, he said that he would meet him in heaven (2 Sam 12:23). Concerning Jeroboam's child, he was the only one in the house of Jeroboam in whom God found anything good (1 Kings 14:13).

What made them good? Because someone had baptized them? No, because they were innocent. No one practiced baptism in the OT. This teaching, as Paul says, is a "doctrine of demons."

Terry DeLaney