John
MacArthur had an insightful sermon on an important subject. Most of the words below are his. Please read:
One of the
strange paradoxes in the church is that the world is full of baptized
non-Christians, millions of them, all over the planet. While at the same time, the church is full of
non-baptized Christians. And it raises
the issue of baptism, and what it is, and why people are so confused about
it. What does the Bible say? Its method?
Its meaning? There are too many
people who don’t know that it is important, and who don’t think the methodology
is important, or even the time when a person is baptized. In particular, we will look at the baptism of
infants, which is how you get a world full of baptized non-Christians. Because of the “media-oriented” church of
today, many people come to Christ by listening to radio or from TV evangelists,
or going to a crusade. They might hear
nothing about baptism. They might be
going from church to church to find more connection, and baptism never becomes
an issue for them. Many churches,
striving for what’s pragmatic to people, don’t see baptism as pragmatic, and
don’t emphasize it. But baptism in
Scripture is a command. The Great
Commission is very clear at Matthew 28: 19:
Go therefore and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit…
All nations need
to hear the Gospel, and those that believe need to be baptized. Peter, in the first sermon on the day of
Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” On that day there were 3,000 baptized, and
thousands more, day after day in the early days of the church. It is clear in Scripture that baptism is a
requirement, seeing His Words spoken to individuals and to the church.
Still, its
confusion is widespread, and we have millions of baptized non-Christians, and
millions of un-baptized Christians. So
let’s cover Scripture on this. Some of you
need to face the reality that you should be obedient to this command, and you
cannot be indifferent to it. Perhaps
you’re defiant, perhaps you’re not willing at all to confess Christ openly and
publicly—which raises the issue of whether you are a Christian at all.
Much
confusion over baptism has come from the phenomenon known as pedo-baptism, or
baby baptism. Where did this come from?
For those of you who are Roman Catholics, or former Roman Catholics, you
were likely baptized as a baby. For
those of you who were raised by Presbyterian parents, or Lutheran parents, or
Episcopalian parents, or Anglican parents, or Methodist parents, and we can
pretty much go down the line of “mainline” denominations and see baby
baptism—until we get to the Baptists.
So baby baptism is widespread. It
is woven into Catholic tradition—and the Eastern Catholic church as well. It is
part and parcel of Protestant theology, except for Baptists and those who
identify with their view of believer-baptism.
From the fourth century on, infant baptism has been the norm for both Catholics
and the later Protestant theology. The
Reformation in the 1500s didn’t change the view of baby baptism—so it was an “incomplete
Reformation.” (I will explain that term later). Tradition ruled the day, and
still does.
You say,
“Well, is it a really big issue?” It’s a
huge issue, and I’m going to show you why.
I will give you 3 reasons why we must reject infant baptism.
Here’s the
first one, and that would be enough: Infant baptism is not in the
Scripture. Scripture nowhere
advocates or records any baptism of an infant.
It is therefore impossible to support infant baptism from the
Bible. There’s not an incident of it,
and there’s no mandate for it. A German
theologian, so from a Lutheran background, affirmed that infant baptism is not
Biblical. Most highly-esteemed theologians of the Church of
England not only affirm the absence of baby baptism from the New Testament but the
absence of it from apostolic and post-apostolic (AD 100-300) Christian writers. Keep in mind, the Church of England, the
Anglican Church, does infant baptism. A reputed
Presbyterian theologian could not confirm baby baptism either. So how did it come about?
Infant
baptism began in the 2nd and 3rd century, and was the
norm by the 4th century—when the Catholic Church merged with the
Roman government. This provided a relief
from Roman persecution, which was wonderful short-term, but a disaster
long-term. Infant baptism ruled
unopposed for 1200 years. But the
Reformation didn’t change it either, so it is still the norm in most Protestant
and all Catholic Churches to this day. But
they knew it wasn’t Scriptural, so simple tradition doesn’t answer “why” they
took to it. Looking into details, here
are some important facts: during the Middle Ages, severe ecclesiastical laws
were created as part of the civil code. (Civil code ruled how you must behave
in public. Punishment was meted out for
profanity, gossiping, etc.) In Europe,
nations were divided. There were
Catholic nations, and there were Protestant nations. To keep the State united,
they wanted one religion; you could not be Protestant in a Catholic country,
and vice versa. Church and state were
merged; civil code was designed to make everyone toe the line and accept the
religion of that country. Thus there was
no religious freedom. You were baptized
as an infant as Catholic, let’s say, or if the family refuses, that means you
would not wash out Original Sin, per church tradition (not in Scripture, by the
way). If the baby died (which sadly
happened frequently), the baby could never go to heaven. Whatever decision the state rulers said, it
was backed up by the religious rulers.
The religion and the state maintained tyranny—but this ensured
compliance and unity.
You would
think baptism would not divide anybody, since “everybody” did the same baptism
of infants. But there arose “re-baptizers,”
or Anabaptists—who read Scripture, realized their baptism as infants did not
ensure heaven, and decided to baptize adults who truly believed in the
reconciliation of Jesus Christ. Believer
rebaptism, operable in the early church, was born again in the 1200s or
so—which had been long gone since 300 A.D.
The devil
must have really hated this believer-baptism idea, because the persecution of
Anabaptists (I have a blog on them, by the way), was beyond unbelievable. (Ed.Note:
I also have a blog on how believer baptism is part of salvation). The rulers decided, particularly on the
Catholic side, that re-baptizing was a capital offense! It was an act against the state, against the
state church, and you usually would pay with your life. (Read the book Foxe’s Book of Martyrs
for some horrible but true tales of man killing man in the name of religion). It was a heresy, so it deserved death. Hatred of re-baptizers went a long way back--to
391, in fact. In that year, the Roman emperors
had a law that whoever “desecrates the holy baptism through heretical
superstition” shall be “excluded from society.” That means if your belief system was “wrong,”
you could not appeal the judicial decision, you could not make a will, or take
possession of an inheritance, or be appointed heir by anyone. People would not
talk to you. If they did, you would be banished, forced out of your home and
the village. There was no making amends,
no repentance, no way to legally come back to society. You were traitors. You’re Done—if you affirm anything other than
infant baptism. In 413, the persection escalated—the
one baptized and the baptizer would have “death without mercy.” After that, the humiliation of the family
would go further; they would confiscate (total greed, I suspect) all the
possessions of these people. But people were fearful, and few made public note
of their different beliefs. As you can see, these persecutions were around for
a long time, but there were few violators who went public until the late 1400s.
So if you came
along and said that Scripture teaches us that you should first come to a faith
in Christ and then be baptized—which is what the New Testament teaches—you
would be violated like this. If this
seems to be extreme persecution, and you wonder “why,” a writer puts some light
on the subject: The real reason for such
harshness was to secure the existence of the state, and individual liberties be
damned. Believer baptism disrupted the
national church, posing a threat to solidarity; the “corruption” it introduces might
break the monolithic power of the nation.
Once the Catholics formed powerful alliances between religion and state
and controlled their populations under the tyranny of the Pope, the Protestants
felt the only way they could match that power was to have the same “security”
excuse and persecute people who think differently about religion the same
way. Luther eventually felt the
Protestant state would have to exist and not be overtaken by Catholics, so to
preserve it, we must force everyone in Germany into the Protestant mold. No
deviancy, disparity, diversion, and no heresy to weaken it. It was likely that even Luther knew that it
was not Biblical, but “practicality” reigned.
(Actually, there was no faith in God’s ability to defend the
truth).
If you’re
wondering how the Reformers treated the Anabaptists, even though they were supposedly
more accurate than Catholics on “how to be saved and go to heaven,” they didn’t
practice Scripture too well—they hated the Anabaptists too. Here they supposedly believed in “sola
Scriptura,” yet they didn’t really practice what it clearly said about baptism,
because they persecuted the Anabaptists only a little less aggressively than
the Catholics. Instead of torture, they simply drowned the re-baptizers. They
were called “devilish vermin.” Thus, freedom
of conscience remained unknown in Protestant Europe as well. You want to be baptized? We’ll put you down and won’t bring you up
until you’re dead. Through history,
there were always believers in the New Testament way, believer baptism, but
they were small in number, so not a great threat. Bohemian and Moravians were easily snuffed
out, but not the Brethren—but they too were all few in number. The Waldensians finally had the boldness to
take a public stand. They grew in number
from the 1200s and took a public stand in the late 1400s, and endured
unbelievable persecution in the 1500s. Martin Luther originally defended the freedom
of Christian conscience, but under pressure from the ruling nobles, he crumbled. The Reformation began a new era of
tribulation, tears, and blood. God was
determined that satan would never take away the truth, so war was on. Between Catholics vs. Protestants,
mainly. Through it all, a remnant of
Anabaptists endured, and morphed into the Mennonites, the Amish, the Brethren. Let’s
not forget the Zwinglians (who later became Mennonites) and Baptists. Despite their pacifist ways, they were to be
flogged and banished from the cities forever (Today’s Baptists, who also follow
Scripture in believer baptism, have a shorter and separate history, founded in
the early 1600s). So, in summary, infant baptism was defended by fire, water,
and the sword. Infant baptism was imprinted with divine authority, though it
was a ceremony invented by men for the worst of political reasons.
So you may
say, “Well, we need to agree on a lot of things, but baptism is a minor
detail.” It’s not a minor detail if
you’re going to be drowned for believing it.
The city law for Hanover Germany (and other cities) called for
re-baptizers to be beheaded. This had the specific approval of Martin Luther. (I have a blog on him).
Let’s talk
about the Scriptural arguments presented to back up infant baptism. (1) Matthew 18, where it says, “Except you
become a little child, you can’t enter the kingdom of heaven.” I don’t read anything about baptism
there. It’s saying, childlike faith is
necessary to come into the Kingdom. (2)
Matthew 19:14 and others, “Let the little children come to me for such is the
kingdom of heaven.” No baptism. It says God has a special care for the
children—not just baptized children.
Neither Jesus nor anybody else in Scripture baptized any children. (3) Five times in Acts and I Corinthians it
talks about households being
baptized. So they assume that the
children are baptized under the protective umbrella of the father; his faith is
the surrogate for them. But the truth
is, in those 5 cases, it never mentions children ever. In Acts, in the case of Cornelius, “all in
his house heard the Word” (more than a baby could do). The Spirit fell on all, and all were
baptized. No mention of a child. If
there were, receiving the Holy Spirit means you heard the Word and believed,
something babies can’t do. Scripture accents
that elsewhere. Same story in the
jailer’s house, in Acts 16. In Acts 18,
with Crispus, “all heard, all believed, all were baptized.” The same wording was in the account of
Stephanas, where it also says that all were devoted to the ministry of the
saints. (Now you have to understand
“saints” means every believer in Scripture.)
Therefore they weren’t infants. Another
reference in John 4:53 talks of the nobleman’s son who was healed, that his
household “believed.” But it says nothing about baptism. Also, all were old
enough to believe. Finally, in Acts 16, in the case of Lydia, when her
household were baptized, there are no children mentioned—in fact, no husband is
mentioned. Possibly it was her, her
mother, or her slaves. If no husband, it
was more likely that there were no children. This next Scriptural example
requires some explanation. In I
Corinthians 7:12-14, the believing husband is urged not to divorce his
unbelieving wife. And her for him. Then comes an interesting verse:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children
would be unclean, but now they are holy.
Catholics claim that here is the father acting as surrogate,
which I mentioned before, the umbrella of protection for the family, justifying
infant baptism. It’s true that a believing husband (or wife) can influence the
family’s acceptance of Christianity. But
no salvation floats the kids’ way, no grace is transitioned, simply because the
father is baptized (the verse says nothing about baptism anyhow—again). This is
the same kind of superstition as praying for the dead, or praying to the angels
or saints. Those heretical actions have no impact on anybody. Finally,
their last “proof” is Acts 2:39, where it says,
the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are
afar off… .
It’s likely
here that “your children” refers to the next generation of Jews, since who are
those who are “afar off?” The
Gentiles. This isn’t about baptism, it’s
the promise of salvation to future generations of all races. So these texts don’t prove infant baptism in
any way.
So, there’s
never mention of a child in any of these 5 texts. None of these “proofs” are
compelling enough to take a radical stance away from behaviors and words of the
earliest church fathers—and from clear Scriptures elsewhere. The Scriptural
model in all 5: You hear, you believe,
you are baptized. That’s pretty clear
proof of believer baptism, instead of baby baptism. If the martyrs were asked to give proof for
their beliefs, they could cite these Scriptures. The Foxe book indicates all the courts were
kangaroo.
For our
second reason to reject infant baptism, Infant baptism is not baptism. The
Bible is crystal clear on directions for baptism. Barring unforeseen difficulties (water is
unavailable or poisoned, or insufficient, person has a phobia of water, or
weighs 400 pounds, etc), baptism is immersion, a total dunk. The Greek is clear. Baptism comes from Greek “bapto” and
“baptizo,” terms that are always transliterated to our word “baptize.” It means “dip down.” “Sprinkling” comes from a completely
different Greek word—never used to describe baptism. Even Calvin, who baptized
babies, wrote “it is certain that immersion was practiced in the early
church.” Here’s another guy who didn’t
practice what he wrote. This immersion was
inspired by God to convey the symbolism of the ordinance. The dunk was identifying Christ in His death
for us, the time spent underwater (let’s hope it’s shorter than He was in the
grave) is identifying us with His burial and the raising up identifies us who will
someday be resurrected from the dead as He was.
Sprinkling doesn’t convey any of that.
Of course, the baby (and likely his/her parents) don’t make any
connection anyhow. It’s Tradition. (Fiddler
on the Roof comes to mind). Romans
6, Galatians 2 and 3, and Colossians 2 explain that theology of our union with
Christ, our union in Him, if anyone would care to look it up. Note: The only other ordinance given to us is
the Lord’s table—or Eucharist. We are to
do both these things as a public declaration, or proclamation. Hopefully you can, from Scripture indicated, get
a vision of how important believer baptism is, and how horrible it will be for
those who deny this sacred symbol, or those who don’t bother to read His Word
on such important subjects and practice a deviant or obscured form. In every real baptism, the believer is saying
he receives Christ, renounces former life, embraces Him as Lord and Master of
his life, and is eager to publicly confess to those facts. In every case of baptism in Scripture,
personal saving faith is predisposed.
For the third
reason to reject infant baptism, infant baptism is not, as its claimants
contend, “a replacement sign for the Abrahamic mark of circumcision. The claim that infant baptism “takes the
place of circumcision” is not identified anywhere in Scripture. A little bit about circumcision would
help. Every Jewish baby boy was
circumcised, a proof that they were Jews.
But it was not a sign of salvation.
What did Paul say in Romans 9?—“Not all Israel is Israel.” Meaning not all from Jewish lineage in the nation
of Israel are saved. But saved was the faithful
Israel, or Jacob. His lineage, among
Jews and mostly Gentiles who are faithful to Christ, are saved.
Let’s not
forget: As Jesus points out, the nation Israel became under divine
judgment. As were Gentiles, I would
hasten to add. That’s why we all need
salvation. Which Jesus provided. The
Jews were apostate and, as God repeatedly calls it, adulterous. They loved other gods—just not the one who
had blessed them, and was ready to bless them again if they repented. Among that entire nation of circumcised
people, only a small remnant were saved.
So it is today; few Jews are saved.
So if you
make infant baptism a replacement for circumcision, are you infant-backers
saying the same thing about those who are baptized as infants? Do you want to claim that only a small
remnant of those baptized as babies are saved? No, you back away. Are you
willing to admit that circumcision was not an evidence of salvation? Bingo.
It would have been nice if the Jewish people had faith in God, were
godly, and wore the badge of circumcision, but they didn’t. We likewise pray that those who are baptized as
infants will wear that badge and have real faith in God and Christ, and live
godly. But again there is no guarantee.
Some
Catholic, and some Christian communities that baptize babies, lately have a
newer theology: they maintain that there is some “covenant community” that the
baby is in once baptized. But for the
most part, they’re not saying flat out that these kids were automatically saved.
It seems to me, the children would be confused—as I am, reading about
this. What state are they in? The Episcopalians can’t explain it, the
Anglicans can’t either. Are they going to let the public, prone to
self-deception, make that judgment? Let’s hope not. I
don’t think God would want such fuzziness about such an important idea.
In all this,
there is a weak connection between circumcision and infant baptism. Both are done involuntarily, before the
little one knew what was happening. (Though circumcision is only for boys,
while infant baptism is for boys and girls).
It’s important to point out that no salvation, or even special grace,
will follow automatically for either device, as Scripture indicates. (In case you’re worried about death of the
little child before baptism, we believe little ones who die will go to heaven. Scripture says heaven is full of these little
ones. That’s great. I love every little person. There are at
least 60 million from America alone who have been aborted who will be joining
the crowd, along with the gigantic number of infanticides when China made a
demonic “one-child” argument. They were
determined to have a boy—so there will be more cute little Chinese girls in
heaven than boys.)
By the way,
it is important to point out that this weak connection about circumcision does
not talk about salvation, does not reduce the Scripture that clearly points out
believer baptism. Infant baptism is a
failed device and should be ended as soon as possible, as the rest of this
paper convincingly shows. Let’s end
tradition and go for whatever God says in His Word. (Ed. note: This third explanation for rejecting infant
baptism is not John MacArthur’s words, they’re mine).
The fourth
reason to reject infant baptism is that it confounds the nature of the church.
With infant baptism, you can’t distinguish between the believer and
non-believer. They say “the baptized
becomes the church.” But as we have
seen, there are many baptized infants who grow up unsaved. So is the church supposed to be a mixture of
the saved and unsaved? Then how can you
administer church discipline? Should
unsaved people, who happened to be “members” because they were infant-baptized,
be allowed to be haters and blasphemous and still unrebuked? What if they slow down the church’s growth,
ultimately preventing people from being saved? So infant baptism destroys the
reality of the regenerate church. Ideally, to be in the real church (God’s
Kingdom), you must be saved, and that means you must abide in Christ (John
15:1-6). Churches everywhere, though,
are some mixture of saved and unsaved.
If churches want to reduce the unsaved membership, all they have to do
is heat up the sermons and make life uncomfortable for the unsaved to
listen. And practice church
discipline. That would be a shocker.
Speaking of
being confounded, I can’t pass up mentioning this. Scripture says works are not the path to
getting saved. You begin by faith in
Jesus Christ and what He did. You then lead a godly life through the Holy
Spirit. Learning and doing His commands
enable you to abide in Christ. But here
are the shocking words of the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism. Wikipedia says it “is regarded as one of the
most influential of the Reformed catechisms.”
Thus it is accepted by most mainline Protestant churches who were in the
Reformation. This was written in 1563 to counteract the Catholics and
the Anabaptists (ie, it gave them a reason to call Anabaptists
“heretical” and go about killing them without remorse):
74th question:
Shall one baptize young children also? Yes, Infants as well as adults are included in God's
covenant and people, and they, no less than adults, are promised
deliverance from sin through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit who produces
faith. Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant, they too should be
incorporated into the Christian church…
Quoting Dr.
MacArthur, ‘It says “Baptize them, because they’re promised salvation in the
Holy Spirit.”’ Of all things, Luther
calls this baptism a “bath of regeneration.”
Considering how this is the opposite of faith, the opposite of
Scripture, how much it introduces confusion:
Was this man the great theologian we have all heard? He who believed in “sola
Scriptura?” (I have a blog on him elsewhere—sorry for all
the ads). How could theologians who
claimed to believe in the great doctrines like justification and faith, if they
truly believe that Scripturally we are not saved through sacrament, or rites, come
to this sorry confusion? They are worshipping
the apostate altar of a sacrament for salvation.
Frankly, I
was shocked to read how warped the Reformed theology was on this important
subject, which is not about infant baptism so much as it is about
salvation! I could see why Dr. MacArthur
called it an “incomplete Reformation” above.
This document (taught in “Christian” seminaries everywhere) has the
audacity to assert that there is salvation in an infant being baptized. He could live like hell and still be saved? God
forbid. Nothing in this answer resembles
Scripture, about how each individual needs to assert faith in Christ and live a
godly life to be saved.
As you can see by the Catechism, infant
baptism confuses all that. People who
were baptized as infants are told repeatedly afterwards that they are going to
heaven. This feeds their self-deception.
A lot of people assume they will go to heaven, and infant baptism adds
to that, but they often live a worldly life, ignoring God except for
emergencies, and they will be surprised by Jesus’ words—“I never knew you.” Why
add to the confusion and self-deception, which is bad enough already? They
should cancel the infant baptism and start the Gospel by stressing that only a
minority will go to heaven (Matthew 7:13,14).
Luther
published another statement that seems to say something promising: “The
Anabaptists are right, the baptism without faith profits nothing, and that thus
in fact children ought not to be baptized, since they have no faith.” Sounds
right, right? But let me finish the
quote: “But the assertion of the Anabaptists is false; yes, we know the
children cannot believe, but….”
What? How did he conclude this
crazy talk? Ah, yes: at first, it was
the vicarious
faith of the parents or the godparents that did the job. But that wasn’t enough for him (he had a
reputation for changing his mind on important things). He thought some more,
and concluded…yes, the Holy Spirit helps them to believe.” (Some
“theologians” even called the Holy Spirit’s job in infant baptism is to grant
“unconscious faith.”) Well, now Luther
is on the verge of declaring that infant baptism makes a child an elect,
thus he is guaranteed that God will get him to heaven. This idea was formalized by Calvin in his
famous TULIP acronym. It is also called
“once saved, always saved.” They actually believe God regenerates you before
you accepted Him In your life.
Presumably man doesn’t have free will.
God picks who will go to heaven—and thus, unfortunately, who goes to
hell. And such garbage as that. (I have a 3-part blog to discuss that).
MacArthur’s
concluding quote: Infant baptism has no
saving efficacy, delivers no grace, confers no faith, is a symbol of
nothing. It is absolutely and totally
pointless. It leads to ritualism,
confusion, and false security.
May God help
you to read all this and ponder how Scripture is pointedly clear, as opposed to
tradition. Ignore the theologians. Just read Scripture—over and over and
over.
Acknowledgement: Sermon by John MacArthur, delivered October
21, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment