Dr. 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. They are not connected to a
church when saved, so they don’t think about being baptized. A lot of church pastors don't emphasize
it. Also, people might hear nothing about baptism. They might be
going from church to church to find more connection, but baptism never becomes
an issue for them. But baptism in Scripture is a command. The Great
Commission is very clear at Matthew 28:19, when Jesus said:
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 believe the Gospel, and those that believe need to be
baptized. Peter, in the first Gospel sermon, 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 urgency once they’ve been saved, seeing His
Words spoken to individuals and to the church.
Still, its confusion is widespread, and we have millions of infant-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 and Anabaptists (Mennonites/Amish).
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 even the later ”Reformed” 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, 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 in Scripture 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 actually meted out for profanity, gossiping,
etc.) In Europe, nations were divided. There were Catholic nations,
and there were Protestant nations. To keep the particular 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. But if the family refuses, Catholic dogma says that means (1) you
would not wash out Original Sin, per church tradition (not in Scripture,
by the way). If the baby died (which sadly happened frequently), (2) the
baby could never go to heaven. Whatever decision the state rulers said,
it was backed up by the religious rulers. (Not by Scripture). 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 only gave you
wet babies, and decided to baptize adults who truly believed in the
reconciliation of Jesus Christ. Believer (re)baptism, also 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--and the courage of those who stood against the system). 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 considered traitors.
You’re Done—if you affirm anything other than infant baptism. In 413, the
persecution 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 (because of 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.That’s partly because most people were kept illiterate, and there were
few Bibles—the Catholic Church kept them locked away.
So if you came along then 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 the above. 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. Protesting was
a test of "are you willing to die for Christ?" Believer
baptism disrupted the national church, posing a threat to solidarity; the
“corruption” by doing it might be copied, and 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. 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. But since it was difficult to make a new Protestant convert comprehend about why they
needed to re-baptize, they just dropped that subject, and focused about faith, not
tradition. Even Luther knew that it was not Biblical, but “practicality”
reigned. (Actually, there was no faith in God’s ability to come alongside
and defend the truth).
If you’re wondering how the Protestant Reformers treated the Anabaptists,
even though they were supposedly more accurate than Catholics on “how to be
saved and go to heaven,” they hated the Anabaptists too. 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 by the Reformers (Luther,
Calvin) as well. Thus, freedom of conscience remained unknown in
Protestant Europe as well. You want to be baptized again? We’ll strap
you down in the water 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—the Waldensians. They
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—from Catholics and Reformed Lutherans.
Martin Luther originally defended the freedom of Christian conscience,
but under pressure from the ruling nobles, he crumbled.
The Reformation also began a new era of tribulation, tears, and blood between
Catholics vs. Protestants. God was determined that Satan would never take
away the truth, so war was on. Through it all, a remnant of Anabaptists
endured, and morphed into the Amish, and the Brethren. Let’s not forget the
Zwinglians (who later became Mennonites) and Baptists—who had an independent
history beginning in 1600. Despite their mostly pacifist ways, they were
to be flogged and banished from the cities forever. 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, all these denominations now, we need to agree on a
lot of things, but baptism is a minor detail.” It was not a minor detail to
them, if they were willing 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” (can a baby
"hear the Word?"). 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, the umbrella of
protection for the family, supposedly justifying infant baptism. It’s true that
a believing husband (or wife) can influence the family’s acceptance of
Christianity. But no salvation is through surrogation, 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 verses: 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; cite all you want—you were still a “heretic.”)
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. (In ancient
cities, they would grab a baby’s feet and dunk him in water three times!) 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.” (There’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 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.
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 it offends God 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 the
understanding. 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, for our sins have offended God. Which Jesus provided
for. 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 was 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? In other words, do you want to claim that only a small remnant
of those baptized as babies are saved, as it is said of Jews who are
circumscribed? 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. Infant baptism does not
save.
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. (I shouldn't say that--we don't know
what age we are upon resurrection).
By the way, it is important to point out that this weak connection about
circumcision does not talk about salvation, nor does it 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
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). Admittedly, 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
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. The "74th question"
below 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…so it was believed.
Quoting Dr. MacArthur, ‘It says “Baptize the infants, because they’re
promised salvation in the Holy Spirit.”’ Surprisingly, Luther calls this
baptism a “bath of regeneration.” Considering how this is the opposite of
faith, the opposite of Scripture, and considering how much it introduces
confusion; one question needs to be asked: Was this man the great
theologian we have all heard? He who believed in “sola Scriptura?” 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.
(My comment paragraph) Frankly, I was shocked to read how “off” the Reformed
theology was on this important subject, which importance, let me remind you, 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 then
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). Then maybe people will pay attention to Scriptural
requirements, particularly how to live a godly life.
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….” You want
to know how did he conclude this? 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, which eventually became the famous TULIP acronym. Something
derived from this is called “once saved,
always saved.” Proponents of that actually believe God regenerates you before
you accepted Him In your life. Presumably man doesn’t have free will; God
has already selected who "makes it." God picks who will go to
heaven—and thus, unfortunately, by omission, 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