Wayne Jackson wrote this article. It appeared in the May 1985 edition of the "Christian Courier" published by the Church of Christ in Stockton, California.
In an article entitled "Our Position on Infant Baptism" Lutheran clergyman Jeffrey C. Kinery wrote: "Adult converts to Christianity have come to know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior from sin by 'the hearing of faith' (Galatians 3:2) through the 'Word of God' (Romans 10:17). They confess their faith before baptism (Acts 8:13, 37) and thereafter baptism strengthens their faith as does the Lord's Supper. Thus, adults are first instructed and then baptized (Acts 2:41; 8:35-38; 10:47-48; 16:14-15, 30-34; 18:8). In dealing with infants, however, it is a different matter. Little children come into the Christian church through baptism. All orthodox (true, pure-teaching, right-thinking) churches practice paido-baptism (infant baptism)" (Christian News, July 31, 1978).
Subsequent to that affirmation, Mr. Kinery attempts to find biblical support for the practice of infant baptism. In this article, we will analyze his ten most prominent arguments.
First of all, however, we will make this brief but unanswerable argument. 1. All of the New Testament information regarding baptism requires that it be preceded by both faith and repentance (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). 2. Infants cannot believe, and they do not need to repent. 3. They are, therefore, not proper subjects of baptism. But let us note the reasoning of Mr. Kinery.
Infant Sinners - The gentleman writes: "Little children, infants, need baptism because they, like adults, are by nature thoroughly corrupted by original (inherited) sin. Even babies are known to cry out of pure jealous selfishness - a trait not learned or taught but inherent in their nature. By nature babies are bad!"
The truth of the matter is, the doctrine of "inherited sinfulness" is a purely human dogma without biblical support. Human beings become "evil" in the period of their "youth" (Genesis 8:21) when they are able to personally transgress the law of God (First John 3:4). The New Testament makes a clear distinction between the mental capacity of children and adults (cf. First Corinthians 14:20) and the Lord even used the purity of children as an example for those who would enter the kingdom (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:14). But here is an intriguing question: if infants are required to be baptized, and yet are not, what shall be their fate? Kinery solves the problem by suggesting that "God is not bound" to what He has said about the matter. "He can, if He so chooses, create faith in the infant outside of baptism just as He could raise up children to Abraham from stones." The perceptive Bible student will have little difficulty in judging the merits of such a statement.
Infants Among the Nations - In His great commission Christ declared: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them..." (Matthew 28:19). It is argued that babies are a part of the "nations", hence, are entitled to baptism. If the argument is valid, then it proves that atheists may be baptized, for they too are a part of the "nations". Actually though, the pronoun "them" in Greek is in masculine gender, and it does not have the neuter noun "nations" for its antecedent. the antecedent of "them" is the implied discipled ones suggested by the verbal "make disciples" (cf. J.W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 253).
Promise to Children - After announcing the conditions of salvation to his Jewish audience on the day of Pentecost, Peter said: "For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off..." (Acts 2:39). Kinery claims this is authority for infant baptism. First, the term "children" is here used only in the sense of descendants (cf. Matthew 27:25); it affirms the perpetuity of the blessings of the gospel. Second, if babies are to be baptized in the absence of faith (as per this passage) then so are those "afar off" (the Gentiles-cf. Ephesians 2:11-13). the argument proves too much, hence is worthless.
Circumcision - Kinery says: "As male children were made partakers of the covenant of circumcision in the Old Testament, so are all children to be made recipients of God's grace through baptism in the New Testament." Paul's instruction in Colossians 2:11-12 is supposed to establish this. Three things need to be said in this regard: (1) If the argument had any validity, it would limit infant baptism to males only - a conclusion which Kinery would reject. (2) Scripture reveals a clear contrast between the two covenants in this regard (cf. Jeremiah 31:31ff; Hebrews 8:8ff). Under the new economy, one must be taught of God before he is prepared to come to the Father (cf.John 6:45). (3) Advocates of infant baptism press too far Paul's analogy of baptism to circumcision in Colossians 2:12. Just as circumcision was a removal of the flesh, so in baptism, there is a circumcision "not made with hands." It is a "circumcision that is of the heart" (Romans 2:28-29). It is the putting off of the old man. Yes, this occurs at the point of baptism, but as Professor Willibald Beyschlag, the Lutheran theologian of the University of Halle noted, "No conclusion can be drawn from this similarity for infant baptism" (cf. J. W. Shepherd, Handbook on Baptism, p. 223).
Jewish Baptisms - Kinery contends that the Old Testament law contained numerous ceremonial "washings" (Greek baptismois, Hebrews 9:10) and that "children were included in all of these baptisms." Accordingly when Christ instituted New Testament baptism, in the absence of a specific exclusion of infants, the assumption would be, on the basis of this Jewish background, that entire families including babies were to receive the rite. Again, however there are two objections that can be made to this rather desperate assumption. First, the ceremonial washings of the Mosaic system were for those who had become defiled (Leviticus 15:4) or for priests (Exodus 30:20) in connection with their ministry. And, as we have shown already, children are neither defiled nor are they mature enough to function as priests under the New Testament system. Second though, is it not also true that the Jews practiced "washings" with reference to cups, pots and brazen vessels (Mark 7:4)? Would Mr. Kinery assume in the absence of any specific prohibition from Christ, that this type of baptism should be required today? The argument thus falls of its own weight.
The Red Sea - It is claimed that "all Jews, men, women and children were baptized unto Moses in the misty cloud and Red Sea." Since this is a type of New Testament baptism, it argues for the baptism of infants. Mr. Kinery conveniently neglects to mention however, that the Hebrews also took their herds and flocks through the baptism of the Red Sea (Exodus 12:32,38). Does he believe in "cow baptism" today? Again, his error is pressing typical language beyond its intended design.
Household Baptism - "The practice of household baptisms in the New Testament was most assuredly inclusive of infants." Again, it is necessary to perform surgery on this argument. (1) The Greek term for household (as in the case of Lydia in Acts 16:15) is oikos. It can denote one's servants or his entire property (cf. Thayer, Greek Lexicon, p.441). Lenski, a Lutheran, admits that none of Lydia's servants would have been baptized in the absence of personal faith (Commentary on Acts, p.660). Why not draw the same conclusion with reference to youngsters? (2) In several of the household baptism cases, the language absolutely excludes infants. At the house of Cornelius, they all "spoke with tongues and magnified God" (Acts 10:46). The Jailer's whole house was commanded to "believe" (Acts 16:31) and subsequent to their baptism, they "rejoiced (34). And the household of Stephanas (First Corinthians 1:16) "set themselves to minister unto the saints" (16:15). (3) Even many pedo-baptist scholars admit that "household baptisms" provide no proof for their practice (cf. Sheperd, Chapter VIII). And so, surgery performed! Unfortunately the patient died!
The Assumption of Silence - Mr. Kinery confesses that "we admittedly have no direct words such as 'baptize babies'." Since however, there is the "inference and implication" of certain texts of Scripture, he feels that we may "clearly assume the practice of infant baptism." If our friend had any kind of New Testament evidence for his practice of infant baptism, all of this talk about assuming, inferring, etc. would be entirely unnecessary. You may be absolutely sure that if there were passages which explicitly authorized infant baptism, the pedo-baptists would produce them. Assumption is no substitute for authority.
The Example of John - Kinery writes: "The example of John the Baptist should cause us to baptize babies for it is written that there 'went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins'" (Matthew 3:5-6). But note this: many of those who went out were so wicked that John called them "offspring of vipers" (7). Did John baptize them? Moreover, the text specifically declares that John baptized those who were "confessing their sins." Can infants do that? A man ought to be embarrassed to even make such an argument.
Let Children Come - Citing such passages as Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17, Mr. Kinery contends that "Christians are commanded to bring babies to Jesus Christ" and that, he assumes, involves baptism. In response we note (1) the Lord merely uses similes ("of such") to suggest that the innocence of children should be a model for those who would enter the kingdom. (2) Christ used similar figures which involved animals (Matthew 10:16) but this does not authorize animal baptism. (3) If infants are little devils (totally depraved) would not the Lord have been suggesting "Suffer the little devils to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God"?! (4) the famous Lutheran theologian, Hermann Olshausen admitted that there "is not the slightest trace" of authority for infant baptism in these passages (Commentary on Gospels and Acts, II p. 406).
Conclusion - It is not difficult to see that the practice of infant baptism is totally alien to the teaching of the Bible. Philip Hahn, a Lutheran scholar said that baptism "according to its original character and design" was "administered only to adults" (in Stier's Words of the Lord Jesus, VII, P. 309).
No comments:
Post a Comment