baby Baptism

by

Infant Baptism Biblical or Unbiblical? (Part 3)

Some professing believers simply don’t see any harm with infant baptism regardless if it’s biblical or unbiblical.  However, there is indeed a great danger to the practice of infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism.  Danger?  Yes, danger!  Mankind is born into sin and to declare an infant to be spiritually cleansed is heresy!

Paedobaptists believe that the infant offspring of believers enjoy hereditary right to the covenant of grace, and due to their “baptism” they have full membership privileges in that local church.  These churches that ascribe to this practice of “infant baptism” would never consider baptizing an infant whose parents are unbelievers.  Whether the newborn infant is the offspring of believers or unbelievers doesn’t change the spiritual status of the newborn infant as a sinner in need of Christ as their Savior!

Note:  “not everyone who says Lord, Lord”…there are parents who profess themselves as believers who in fact are not.  This begs the question as to the supposed spiritual benefit inherited by the infant who is “baptized” with the assumption that their parents are believers when they in fact are not.  Now what happens regarding the infant based upon the presupposition that they are (true) believers?

The belief that infants of believing parents will guarantee the covenant benefits that God in Christ will be their God too, and thus, making them as God’s chosen elect is contrary to God already choosing His elect before the foundation of the world.  Some hold to the view that the mere physical birth of an infant to believing parents makes them members of the church and were never ungodly sinners to begin with, and their (physical) birth alone makes them members in the household of faith.

Let’s consider the subject of universal depravity regarding the harmony of these two principles.  “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 12:30-32).  By nature, men prefer the world and its sinful gratifications, versus preferring the love of God and of their neighbor.  Mankind’s affections take the place of God’s affections and therefore mankind is totally depraved.

How does this depravity apply to infant’s born to believing parents?  Simply put, the children of believing parents are just as depraved as infants born to unbelieving parents (as previously stated).  “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).  “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

Ok, let’s do some comparison between infant baptism and universal depravity.  They teach that the children of believing parents are sanctified by being born of believing parents, and that they are federally holy, and therefore, they should be “baptized.”  Though these churches teach universal depravity they negate universal depravity based upon their belief of infants being born to believing parents.  You cannot be totally depraved and somehow holy at the same time of your physical birth.  The truth of the matter is the fact that all are born into sin, and are by nature, depraved.  Those who ascribe to the hereditary claims of infant baptism falsify the doctrine of universal depravity.

Here’s what Paul said, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring” (Rom. 9:6-8).  Which shall we believe and stand firm upon?  Dear (Christian) reader we shall always stand firm upon the Word of God above any creed or confession of faith.

Another consideration to ponder is, if the infant children of believing parents are “holy,” in the “covenant of grace,” and “born into the church,” this would mean that they have pure nature’s, and the work of the Spirit of God is quite unnecessary indeed.  Being taught this from their early and formative years produces men and women who have never felt a deep sense of the miserable condition as (lost) sinners on their way to a devil’s hell nor can they have any deep sense of gratitude and appreciation for the (saving) grace of God Almighty!

Some of them may very well come to a saving knowledge of Christ by the hearing of His Word and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, yet apart from this they will never know the King of kings and Lord of lords.  Infant baptism nullifies universal depravity and teaches an unbiblical message that the children of believing parents have no need of the renewing power of the Holy Spirit of God.  Therefore, infant baptism is not only unbiblical at its core, it is a doctrine of devils because it is completely contrary to God’s Holy Word.

More to come…………………………………………………..

 

by

Baptism – What’s the BIG DEAL?

One area Baptists and paedobaptists commonly agree is that there are only two ordinances given to the Baptismchurch, contrasted with the seven claimed by the Roman Catholics. While we agree on what these two ordinances are – baptism and the Lord’s Supper – we do not agree on some of the details, particularly as regards baptism. We baptize believers – by submersion. We’re in the minority. Denominations that practice infant baptism include Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes, the United Church of Christ (UCC), Moravian Church, Metropolitan Community Church, Wesleyans, and Episcopalians. There are those who believe baptism is salvific – Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and those who hold to Federal Vision. I will not go into that discussion, just know they are out there.

Baptists have long loved to call themselves – ourselves – “people of the book”, denoting our claim to being among those who stand on the sure foundation of Scripture and under the authority of Scripture. May this be true of us, as many wise and solid sounding arguments have been marshaled in support of the opposing view of baptism – the sprinkling of little ones. I do not want to spend much time explaining why the paedobaptist view on baptism is wrong, I will appeal to a few of their finest theologians to tell us they are wrong.

Listen to the message here

by

Quotes (819)

It is impossible to measure the harm done to the Protestant cause through the retention of paedobaptism. The Reformed churches profess to be governed solely by Scripture, but so long as they continue baptizing babies, so long will they be taunted by Roman Catholics (and others) for their manifest inconsistency. . . . . Baby baptism is ruinous to the souls of thousands. Strictly speaking, it is not baby baptism but mistaken views regarding its efficacy and significance which leads multitudes down the broad way to destruction.

–          T.E. Watson

by

Quotes (771)

That plain people should be confused and deluded is not surprising when we examine some of the statements made about the efficacy of baby baptism. Take for example the Reformers. Consider the familiar words of the Prayer Book Service for the Public Baptism of Infants:

Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate . . . . We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this baby with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church.

Then in the Catechism, the question ‘Who gave you this name?’ is answered:

My Godfather and Godmother in my baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.

Now can it be denied that these words are misleading? Is not the natural and unforced meaning of these statements such as implies baptismal regeneration?


– T.E. Watson