Should Your Baby Be Baptized?
Does baptism wash away sins? Why did Jesus get baptized?
EVERYONE who has ever thought of his own or his child’s baptism should be vitally interested in this question. There is no doubt that baptism is a requirement for Christians. Jesus Christ himself was baptized in the Jordan River. But what is the Bible’s view of baptizing babies, which is usually done with a few drops of water? Does an unbaptized baby that dies suffer in a world beyond in what has been called “perdition”? Is there hope for unbaptized babies who die?
Just when infant baptism began is not known with preciseness, but it was definitely after the death of the apostles of Jesus Christ that the practice appeared. Explains The EncyclopÅdia Britannica: “The whole early period knows baptism only for adults, who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century and was practiced also during the following centuries, yet only as an exception.”—Vol. 3, page 84.
This same authority shows that it was nearly four hundred years after the time of Jesus Christ that baby baptism came into considerable prominence, due largely to the influence of Augustine: “The theorist of baptism who has been most influential for succeeding ages is S. Augustine.” What did he believe? “Infants dying unbaptized are excluded from the Kingdom of heaven in consequence of original sin, and live in the world beyond in some form of perdition, even if of the mildest kind. Baptism has effect upon original sin, in the sense that it takes from it its character of guilt.”
But what of the view that infant baptism is of apostolic origin? The religious historian Neander writes of the first-century Christians: “Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in the instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. . . . That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus, a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of apostolic origin.”—Planting and Training of the Christian Church.
NO SCRIPTURAL PRECEDENT
Further, the historian of baptism, the abbey Jules Corblet, writes: “In short, we do not find in the Scriptures any certain fact, any precise text that is able to demonstrate beyond question that one baptized infants in apostolic times.”
From these various historical facts we must draw the following conclusion: That baptizing infants was not the practice of the early Christians. What, then, led to the practice? It is largely the view that baptism is a sacrament, resulting in the washing away of sins.
Does not the Bible speak of baptism for the forgiveness of sins? Yes, both in regard to the baptism performed by John the Baptist and that performed in the name of Jesus Christ. First, let us examine John’s baptism. John baptized “those repenting for forgiveness of sins. . . . they were baptized by him in the Jordan river, openly confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4, 5) This does not mean that baptism itself washed away sins. As Acts 19:4 shows, according to various modern translations: “John baptized with the baptism of those repenting.” “John’s baptism was a baptism in token of repentance.” (AT) “John baptized with a baptism that was an expression of repentance.” (Williams) John’s baptism, then, was a token or symbol of a natural Jew’s having repented for sins against the law covenant. Hence John’s baptism prepared these repentant persons for the Messiah. John’s baptism, moreover, was not sprinkling but immersion in water: “John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was a great quantity of water there.” (John 3:23) To repent from sins one had to be old enough to understand repentance. That is why John did not baptize babies.
Did things change with the institution of Christian baptism, so that now babies should be baptized? To answer that question we must ask: How was Jesus baptized? Why was Jesus baptized?
SYMBOL OF DEDICATION
The Son of God went to John the Baptist and, to John’s surprise, asked to be baptized. John did not understand why Jesus should be baptized and said: “I am the one needing to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?” (Matt. 3:14) Jesus stood firm in his request and John obeyed, dipping Jesus under the water as he had been dipping others. Jesus was not merely sprinkled but was down in the water: “Jesus immediately came up from the water.”—Matt. 3:16.
Why did Jesus get baptized? It could not have been for the removal of sins or for a sign that he had repented of sins, because he was “guileless, undefiled, separated from the sinners.” And “he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.” A perfect man—yet Jesus was baptized!—Heb. 7:26; 1Â Pet. 2:22.
The sinless man Jesus got baptized because of his desire to do his Father’s will. Explaining this, the apostle Paul applies Psalm 40:6-8 to Jesus Christ: “Look! I am come (in the roll of the book it is written about me) to do your will, O God.” (Heb. 10:4-7) Jesus was baptized because he wanted to symbolize his dedication to do Jehovah’s will; and he proved that he had made this dedication by turning his back on carpenter work and beginning the ministry. Jesus made this dedication as a full-grown man: “Jesus also was baptized. . . . Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced his work, was about thirty years old.”—Luke 3:21, 23.
Christian baptism today should be performed in imitation of the example that Jesus Christ set. Thus the significance of Jesus’ baptism adheres to the baptism of his followers today. The baptism of a Christian serves as a symbol that one has dedicated his life to God and has vowed, like Jesus: ‘I am come to do your will, O God.’
Those who believe that water baptism washes away sins often quote Acts 2:38 as support. This verse contains the apostle Peter’s words: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins.” Here Peter, at Pentecost, was talking to those who had sinned against Jesus. How could they gain forgiveness? They needed to repent and to accept Jesus and his cleansing blood and show this by getting baptized in Jesus’ name. Not that the baptismal water would itself wash away their sins; if that were the case they would have had to get rebaptized after every new sin. But as Acts 22:16 explains: “Now why are you delaying? Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his name.” How are sins washed away? Not by the water itself but by “calling upon his name.”
So water baptism for Christians is a symbol of having repented of sins and of having accepted Jesus and of having dedicated one’s life to do Jehovah’s will faithfully, as Jesus did.
FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED
The command given by Jesus was: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.”—Matt. 28:19, 20.
Did this term “people of all the nations” include babies? Manifestly not, for that would have changed the meaning of the baptism Jesus instituted! Babies cannot make a personal dedication to God, based on faith and knowledge. Further, baptism is not that which removes one’s sins. The apostle wrote: “Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” (Heb. 9:22) It is Christ’s ransom sacrifice and the Christian’s repentance and acceptance of that ransom, as proved by his changed course in life, that makes such forgiveness possible. Moreover, the apostle explains: “For ‘anyone that calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved’. However, how will they call upon him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?” (Rom. 10:13, 14) No, the “people of all the nations” that were to be baptized did not include babies; they had to grow up first so they could understand the value of Jesus’ ransom sacrifice and put their faith in it, after hearing about the Messiah.
One of the reasons for the misunderstanding about Christian baptism is the belief that the “water” of which Jesus spoke at John 3:5 is the water of baptism. Said Jesus: “Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Those who read farther can see that this water is not the water of baptism. This water is mentioned at John 4:14 and also at Revelation 22:1, 17 as “water of life” and “life’s water.” In each of these instances it is not the water of baptism but is something that one is symbolically to drink. Instead of being the water of baptism it is the water of truth, the refreshing, life-giving, cleansing knowledge of God’s Word. This water of truth remakes a person’s disposition and opens the way to everlasting life.
Search as you will in the Holy Scriptures, you will never find a single example of the baptism of a newborn baby! Supporters of baby baptism try to defend the doctrine by saying that entire families accepted Christianity in the apostles’ days and were baptized. But if these families included tiny babies, the apostles failed to say so—despite the excellent opportunity this would have given them to underline the importance of such a doctrine.
CHILDREN HOLY WITHOUT BAPTISM
But what if a baby dies before it is able to grow up and learn about God’s way to salvation? In answering this question, the Scriptures spotlight a striking reason why the baptism of babies is not necessary: God views a baby as “holy” by reason of its having believing, Christian parents. What if only one of the parents is a believer? Declares the apostle Paul: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would really be unclean, but now they are holy.” (1Â Cor. 7:14) So babies are made “holy” in God’s eyes, not by a sprinkling ceremony, but because of their having a believing father or mother.
Instead of being concerned about baptizing their baby, Christian parents will heed the advice of the inspired Scriptures and bring up their child “in the discipline and authoritative advice of Jehovah.” (Eph. 6:4) Teach the child the will and commandments of Jehovah God. Do as the inspired proverb says: “Train up a boy according to the way for him; even when he grows old he will not turn aside from it.” (Prov. 22:6) If parents have been diligent to teach their children God’s truth, then when they grow up they will be able to make a personal decision to dedicate their lives to God. After having made this decision, they will, like Jesus, symbolize that dedication by water immersion. By being faithful to that dedication, they will prove worthy of enjoying everlasting life on earth, under the kingdom of heaven.
What if the child dies before it is old enough to make a personal dedication to God? We can be sure that since God views the children of believing parents as “holy,” any child of such faithful parents who dies will be certain to be resurrected from the dead. Parents who obey and follow Jesus’ example never go wrong. Even the evildoer who was put to death on the torture stake next to Jesus was promised a resurrection and the opportunity of gaining everlasting life in the righteous new world. “You will be with me in Paradise,” said Jesus. (Luke 23:43) If this evildoer, up till then an unbaptized person, will be there when paradise is restored on earth, then certainly the children of believing parents who follow Jesus’ example, instead of having them baptized as babies, will enjoy a similar blessing.
To real Christians the words and example of Jesus Christ carry far more authority than the traditions of men. Real Christians follow the example of Christ closely. They see from a study of the Holy Scriptures overwhelming evidence that (1) no baby was ever baptized by the first-century Christians; (2) Christian baptism is not for washing away sins but is a symbol of a personal dedication to God, and (3) children of believing parents, without baptism, are viewed by God as “holy.”
Babies, then, need not and should not be baptized. Baptism is a ceremony that marks a personal commitment, a commitment that no one else can make for you and that certainly a babe-in-arms cannot make for itself. The Biblical doctrine of water baptism, and therefore the one water baptism that God really accepts, remains the same today as it was when Jesus began it.
[Footnotes]
Histoire dogmatique, liturgique et archéologique du sacrement de baptême, Vol. 1, p. 380.
Should Babies Be Baptized?
The infant hardly looks like a sinner. Yet washing away sin is what this age-old rite is all about. The godfather thrice renounces Satan and his works. A priest then takes a small vessel and gently pours water upon the forehead of the child three times, saying, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
FOR nearly two millenniums infants have been baptized in a ceremony like this. Parents may describe it as a deeply moving experience. However, does the practice find its origin in God’s Word? Catholic theologians admit that it does not.—See the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 69.
Read the Bible book of Acts for yourself, and you will quickly see that among early Christians, baptism was for those capable of ‘hearing and receiving words’ with understanding and of ‘doing penance.’ (Acts 2:14, 22, 38, 41, Douay Version) Hardly things an infant could do! True, the Bible does speak of whole households, such as that of Cornelius, being baptized. But even then, baptism was for those “hearing the word”—not for infants.—Acts 10:44-47.
A Tradition of God or of Men?
Unable to point to a Biblical precedent, the Vatican says, “The practice of baptizing infants is considered a rule of immemorial tradition.” But was this tradition laid down by Jesus Christ? No, for infant baptism did not catch on until quite some time after the death of the apostles. At the end of the second century, church father Tertullian argued, “Let [children] become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.”
The apostle Paul warned, however, that eventually there would come a time “when people will not tolerate sound doctrine.” (2Â Timothy 4:3, The New American Bible) After the apostles died and were no longer able to ‘act as a restraint,’ unscriptural practices began to creep into Christian worship. (2Â Thessalonians 2:6) Among them was infant baptism. But infant baptism did not become the rule until the fifth century. At that time a fierce debate took place that forever changed Christendom.
It started when a British monk named Pelagius made a trip to Rome. Appalled at the corruption he saw there among so-called Christians, the cleric set out to spur men on to “more moral effort.” Man could not blame his weaknesses on ‘original sin,’ said Pelagius. “Everything good and everything evil . . . is done by us, not born with us.” Pelagian doctrine quickly became the talk of Christendom.
But not for long. Church leaders viewed this abandonment of ‘original sin’ as heresy. And Pelagius unwittingly played right into their hands by favoring what was by then a popular custom—infant baptism. A bishop named Augustine saw this as a glaring inconsistency. ‘If infants must be baptized,’ argued Augustine, ‘what of those unbaptized?’ The seemingly logical conclusion was that such ones would suffer the fires of hell because they were unbaptized. This point apparently established, Augustine struck the fatal blow: Since unbaptized infants indeed suffered damnation, what else could account for this but ‘original sin’?
Pelagian doctrine collapsed. A church council at Carthage subsequently declared Pelagius’ teachings heresy. ‘Original sin’ became as much a part of Catholicism as the confessional. And the church was now steered in the course of promoting mass conversions—often forced—to save people from the ‘fires of hell.’ Infant baptism went from being a popular custom to an official instrument of salvation, an instrument Protestantism would inherit.
‘At the Border of Hell’
Augustine’s doctrine raised some embarrassingly difficult questions: How could a God of love cause innocent babies to suffer in hell? Would unbaptized babies receive the same punishment as hardened sinners? Coming up with answers has not been easy for theologians. Says Catholic priest Vincent Wilkin: “Some have committed unbaptized infants to the full fury of the flames of hell, others believed they were not consumed by the flames but merely heated to a temperature of real discomfort; others would make the discomfort the very tiniest possible in hell . . . Some would place them in a terrestrial paradise.”
The most popular theory of all, though, has proved to be that the souls of unbaptized infants are housed in limbo. This word literally means “border” (such as the border, or hem, of a garment) and describes a region that supposedly stands on the borders of hell. For theologians, limbo is a very convenient notion. It at least modifies the horrifying specter of suffering infants.
But like any man-made theory, limbo has its problems. Why is it not mentioned in Scripture? Can babies get out of limbo? And why should innocent babies have to go there in the first place? Understandably, the church makes a point of saying that limbo “is not official Catholic teaching.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Debate Heats Up Again
For centuries Catholics basically held to the Augustinian viewpoint and ‘limbo proofed’ their children by baptism. However, since the 1950’s there has been a dramatic revival of the infant-baptism debate. Catholic scholars have begun expressing serious doubts that the practice is Biblical. Others admit that they can accept neither Augustine’s hellfire notions nor limbo.
At first, though, conservative church leaders refused to budge. In 1951 Pope Pius XII made a speech to a group of midwives. Reaffirming the belief that “the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation,” he encouraged the midwives to perform the baptism rite themselves if it appeared likely that a newborn child was going to die. “Do not, then, fail in performing this charitable service,” he urged. Similarly, in 1958 the Vatican issued a stiff warning that “infants are to be baptized as soon as possible.”
Nevertheless, controversy erupted again following the famous Vatican II council. In a surprise move, the church tried to straddle conservative and liberal positions. ‘Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation,’ said the council. Curiously, though, salvation was also possible for those “who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ.”
As a follow-up, the church then revised the infant baptism rite. Among other things, priests now had the option of refusing baptism if the child’s parents failed to promise to raise him as a Catholic. Had the church finally moved away from Augustine’s doctrine? Some thought so and began to question the need for infant baptism.
Then the Vatican issued its “Instruction on Infant Baptism,” which stated: “The Church . . . knows no other way apart from baptism for ensuring children’s entry into eternal happiness.” Bishops were ordered to “bring back to the traditional practice those who . . . have departed from it.” But what of babies who die unbaptized? “The Church can only entrust them to God’s mercy.”
Infant Baptism and Your Child
Doubtless, many sincere Catholics are genuinely perplexed by all of this. Still, some may feel that, Catholic doctrine notwithstanding, baptism at least gives a child a good start religiously. But does it? One Catholic mother said: “I have two very young children, both baptized as infants, and I don’t see one shred of grace in them, quite the opposite really.”
Baptizing a small child does not help him develop in faith. In fact, it violates Jesus’ command: “Go therefore and make disciples [or, “make learners”] . . . baptizing them.” (Matthew 28:19) Baptism is meaningless unless one is old enough to be a disciple. True, there is an “immemorial tradition” for infant baptism. But did not Jesus condemn those who ‘made the word of God invalid because of their tradition’?—Matthew 15:6.
Consequently, the Bible encourages parents to train their children in spiritual matters “from infancy.” (2 Timothy 3:14-17) Jehovah’s Witnesses thus take seriously the Bible’s admonition to bring up their children “in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah.” (Ephesians 6:4) Often this is done by carrying on a regular program of family Bible study. Such parents teach their children to attend and participate in Christian meetings. (Hebrews 10:24, 25) They encourage their youngsters to make “public declaration” of their faith. (Romans 10:10) In time, their children may be moved to make their own dedication to Jehovah God and to symbolize it by water baptism. This is Scriptural and is far more meaningful and satisfying than is watching a formalistic rite performed on an uncomprehending infant.
If a Christian’s child should die before baptism, parents need not fear that he burns in hell or lingers in limbo. The Bible teaches that the dead are unconscious. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) Parents can thus take comfort in Jesus’ promise that “the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out” with the prospect of life in a restored Paradise. (John 5:28, 29; Luke 23:43) This Bible-based hope is of far more comfort than are changeable—and confusing—human traditions.
[Footnotes]
At times the term “household” in the Bible obviously excludes infants. For example, Titus 1:11 speaks of apostates “subverting entire households.”—See also 1 Samuel 1:21, 22.
Augustine himself suggested that unbaptized infants “will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all.”
When an 18th-century church synod tried to declare limbo “a Pelagian fable,” Pope Pius VI issued a papal bull condemning the synod as heretical. Though short of fully endorsing limbo, the papal bull kept the theory alive.
Catholic theologian Tad Guzie called the new position of the church “a rather ludicrous sacramental schizophrenia in which water baptism is an essential first stage of salvation for infants, but the final stage of a larger process for anyone else.”
[Chart on page 7]
Highlights of the History of Infant Baptism
Date (C.E.) Event
c. 193 .. Tertullian argues for adult baptism
253 .. Council of Carthage declares that ‘babies
should be baptized immediately’
412-417 .. Debate between Pelagius and Augustine
regarding ‘original sin’
417 .. Council of Carthage condemns Pelagian view
as heresy. Infant baptism becomes a fixture
in Catholicism
1201, 1208 .. Pope Innocent III writes in favor of
infant baptism
1545-1563 .. Council of Trent pronounces “anathema”
upon anyone denying infant baptism
1794 .. Papal bull Auctorem Fidei condemns
Jansenist Synod, which called limbo a
heresy
1951 .. Pope Pius XII stresses necessity of infant
baptism by encouraging midwives to
perform the rite in emergencies
1958 .. Vatican decrees ‘infants are to be
baptized as soon as possible’
1963-1965 .. Second Vatican Council decrees salvation
possible without baptism. Orders infant
baptism rite revised
1980 .. Vatican reinforces custom of infant
baptism, saying it ‘knows no other way for
children to enter eternal happiness’
What Is the Bible’s View?
Should Your Baby Be Baptized?
BAPTISM has been part of Christianity from its beginning. Jesus himself was baptized, and he directed that others undergo baptism.
If you will soon become a parent, or recently became one, perhaps you have wondered whether your baby should be baptized. Would this be necessary in order for your child to meet God’s approval?
The churches of Christendom have different opinions about this. Some practice infant baptism. But others will baptize only those who are old enough to demonstrate belief in the principles of religion taught by their church.
The Bible is the only dependable source of information about baptism, for it alone is “inspired of God.” (2Â Tim. 3:16) Does the Bible advocate baptizing babies?
The earliest references to baptism in the Word of God are related to the activity of John the Baptist. Concerning him, Mark 1:5 states: “All the territory of Judea and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem made their way out to him, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan River, openly confessing their sins.” This would, of course, require that they be old enough to recognize their sinful state.
Concerning Jesus, we read: “In the course of those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.” (Mark 1:9, 10) At that time Jesus was “about thirty years old.”—Luke 3:23.
During his earthly ministry Jesus did not personally baptize anyone. But, under his direction, his disciples baptized quite a number of people. Did they include babies? The Gospel of John reports: “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.” (John 4:1) So Jesus had his followers baptize only persons who had already become disciples.
Knowing this helps us to understand Jesus’ command at Matthew 28:19, 20: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” Jesus did not mean to make disciples of people, even infants, by means of baptism. This command clearly means that a person would be baptized only after becoming a disciple.
It was the same after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Those baptized at Pentecost of 33Â C.E. had “embraced [the apostle Peter’s] word heartily.” (Acts 2:41) A group of Samaritans who were baptized was made up of “men and women” who had “believed” the Christian message. (Acts 8:12) The Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip baptized was already a worshiper of Jehovah. (Acts 8:27, 38) Of the ones gathered in the house of Cornelius, holy spirit fell upon “those hearing the word” and they were baptized.—Acts 10:44.
In the days of Jesus and his twelve apostles, baptism was performed by complete immersion in water and was a symbol of something that had already taken place in the heart of the one being baptized. For example, John’s baptism was “in symbol of [in token of, The New English Bible] repentance.” (Mark 1:4) Baptisms that the Bible records as taking place after 36Â C.E. symbolized the dedication of the individual to do Jehovah’s will. This could not apply to infants.
But today it is common for babies to be baptized. Also, many churches baptize by sprinkling or pouring instead of by complete immersion. What brought about these changes?
Infant Baptism Appears—Why?
The apostle Paul foretold that a general “apostasy” from Bible Christianity would occur after the death of the twelve apostles. (2Â Thess. 2:3, 6-12) At 1Â Timothy 4:1 Paul wrote: “The spirit says expressly that in after times some will desert from the faith and give their minds to subversive doctrines.”—NE.
How did “subversive doctrines” appear with regard to baptism? It was due to the adoption of beliefs from pagan Greek religion (Hellenism). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says of the period following the death of the apostles:
“Alien elements came in from the outside world. Hitherto these had been carefully held in check by the filter of prophetic and N[ew] T[estament] religion. But now, using external agreement as a channel, they came in full flood. Baptism became a syncretistic mystery.”
As a result, early in the second century C.E. the pagan idea that baptism washes away sins and brings about “regeneration” crept into the Christian congregation. Illustrating this are the comments of Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E., concerning candidates for baptism: “They are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated.” “We may . . . obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed.”
To what did this blending of pagan beliefs with the Bible’s teaching about baptism lead? Greek scholar A. T. Robertson explains:
“Out of this perversion of the symbolism of baptism grew both pouring as an ordinance and infant baptism. If baptism is necessary to salvation or the means of regeneration, then the sick, the dying, infants, must be baptized.”
By the third century C.E. infant baptism had become a general church practice. Origen, in the third century, wrote: “Because by baptism native pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized.” Origen even claimed, incorrectly, that baptizing babies was “a tradition from the apostles.”
Helping Children Meet God’s Approval
While the Bible does not allow for baptizing babies, it does show what parents must do to help their children to meet God’s approval. The Bible, at Proverbs 22:6, exhorts parents: “Train up a boy according to the way for him; even when he grows old he will not turn aside from it.”
The most important aspect of this training process is found in the apostle Paul’s words to parents at Ephesians 6:4: “Do not be irritating your children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah.” That means that parents must acquaint their children with the Holy Scriptures, which set forth Jehovah’s mind on matters.—1Â Cor. 2:16.
Infant baptism is not taught in the Bible. It stems from the pagan superstition that baptism “regenerates” a person and cleanses him from past sin. However, the Bible teaches that it is, not baptism, but ‘the blood of Jesus, God’s Son, that cleanses us from all sin.’ (1Â John 1:7; Acts 22:16) Also, it is not baptism, but “the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah” that qualifies a child to meet God’s approval. (Eph. 6:4) If you are a parent, will you make sure that your child receives that training?
[Footnotes]
Blended from the beliefs of different religions.
The Bible’s Viewpoint
Baptism—Is It for Infants?
“WHEN I had my babies,” said one parent, “I hurried to have them baptized. . . . I wonder sometimes if I did the right thing.” Why? Two of her three children have rejected her faith.
Perhaps you as a parent have entertained similar doubts about initiating an infant into your religion. If so, you likely know that church leaders—Catholic and Protestant alike—have done little to put your mind at ease. They nurture skepticism by arguing over infant baptism. Reformers call it a vestige of medieval superstition. However, traditionalists call denying baptism “repugnant to Christian feeling.”
By reasoning that way, church leaders have merely “indulged in rhapsodies of emotion as a substitute for substantial argument.” (Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, by Paul K. Jewett) Where, then, can you look for authoritative answers to your questions about infant baptism? These answers must be looked for in God’s Word.
Consigned to Hell?
Infant baptizers for the most part attempt to base their case on Jesus’ words at John 3:5: “Unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” They argue that since water baptism is a requirement for entrance into heaven, infants should be baptized to avoid suffering in a fiery hell—or lingering in limbo.
However, the Bible says that “the dead . . . are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; compare Psalm 146:4.) Since the dead are unconscious, they are incapable of any sort of suffering. Parents, therefore, need not fear gruesome consequences if they do not baptize their infants.
Still, there is the concern that unbaptized ones cannot enter heaven. This, however, does not mean that they cannot be saved. Jesus said: “And I have other sheep, which are not of this [heavenly] fold.” (John 10:16) Here, and in a parable recorded at Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus indicated that there would be saved ones who would not go to heaven. Where would they go? Jesus told the wrongdoer impaled alongside him: “You will be with me in Paradise.”—Luke 23:43.
Had that wrongdoer ever been “born from water” by baptism? Obviously not, and heaven was thus closed to him. Where, then, would “Paradise” be? Recall that God placed the original human pair in an earthly paradise, with the prospect of living there forever. (Genesis 1:28; 2:8) Adam and Eve, though, chose to rebel and were put out of their beautiful garden home. Was earthly Paradise lost forever? No, for the Scriptures make plain that God will eventually restore Paradise on earth. (Matthew 5:5; 6:9, 10; Ephesians 1:9-11; Revelation 21:1-5) And it is to this earthly Paradise that most of those who have died—including infants—will eventually be resurrected.—John 5:28, 29.
Must an individual be baptized to share in this earthly resurrection? Not necessarily. Many have died in spiritual ignorance. (Compare Jonah 4:11.) Since they never had an opportunity to learn about God, they never dedicated themselves to him. Are such ones forever lost? No, for the apostle Paul said: “There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Doubtless included among those resurrected throngs will be infants. Therefore, claims that baptism is necessary to save infants are entirely unfounded.
Circumcision and Baptism
Those favoring infant baptism, however, point out that infants in Israel were circumcised shortly after birth. (Genesis 17:12) They reason that baptism has taken the place of circumcision as a means of saving infants.
However, did circumcision serve as a means of salvation? No, it was a visible “sign of the covenant” that God made with Abraham. (Genesis 17:11) Further, only males were circumcised. If baptism parallels circumcision, would it not be logical to refuse baptism to baby girls? Clearly, the parallel is invalid. It must also be remembered that the Scriptures specifically ordered Jewish parents to perform circumcision on their sons. If salvation were involved, why no similar command to Christian parents regarding baptism?
True, Jesus did say: “Let the young children come to me . . . for the kingdom of God belongs to suchlike ones.” (Mark 10:14) But Jesus was hardly saying that heaven would be populated by children. Interestingly, Protestant theologian A. Campbell said regarding the heavenly Kingdom: “It is not composed of children, but of those who are like them in docility, humility and meekness.”
Children of a Believer Are “Holy”
Jesus instructed his followers to “go . . . and make disciples [or, taught ones] of people of all the nations, baptizing them.” (Matthew 28:19) It is therefore those old enough to be disciples, or taught ones, who should be baptized. Thus, true Christians today endeavor to train—not baptize—their children from infancy. (2 Timothy 3:15) As children are brought up “in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah,” they develop their own faith.—Ephesians 6:4.
In the meantime, parents need not fear that the eternal welfare of their young children is endangered if they are unbaptized. At 1Â Corinthians 7:14 the apostle Paul provides assurance that the children of a Christian parent are “holy.” This is not because of their undergoing some formalistic rite but because God mercifully extends a clean standing to them—as long as at least one of their parents remains faithful as a Christian.
The faithful example of parents, along with the Biblical training their children receive, can in time move young ones to make a dedication of themselves to God and symbolize this by baptism. Their appreciative hearts move them to follow through by rendering ‘a sacred service with their power of reason.’ (Romans 12:1) These are things a tiny infant simply cannot do.
[Footnotes]
States the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967): “In case of danger of death one should not wait to baptize until actual birth. A skilled person is permitted to baptize in the womb . . . through the use of a syringe or some other irrigating instrument.”
The Bible’s Viewpoint
Confirmation—Is It a Christian Requirement?
“Confirmation is the sacrament which confers on the baptized Christian the full perfection of Christian life, making him spiritually an adult, a soldier, and a witness of Christ.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia for School and Home.
MOST Protestants reject the idea that confirmation is a sacrament. However, the 13th-century Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that “confirmation is a final perfecting of the sacrament of baptism.” Either way, the questions arise: Did the earliest Christians practice confirmation? Is that ceremonial act a Christian requirement today?
“Absolutely nothing in the Gospel indicates that Jesus Himself instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation,” admits the New Catholic Encyclopedia. So why did church teachers later promote the idea that following baptism, a second rite, which may include anointing with oil and laying on of hands, was needed to make the person a fuller member of the church?
How Did Confirmation Begin?
Infant baptism was one of the key factors that led to the need for another sacrament. “Aware of the problems caused by baptising babies,” says the book Christianity, “churches . . . remind those who have been baptised of what this means by ‘confirming’ them later on in life.” Does confirmation truly remind them of what baptism means, or does it obscure the truth about baptism?
The fact is that infant baptism finds no support in the Scriptures. Sprinkling water on a baby, for example, does not free the baby from original sin; only faith in the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus can do that. (John 3:16, 36; 1 John 1:7) Water baptism is an outward symbol that the one being baptized has made a complete dedication through Jesus to do the will of Jehovah God. Water baptism is for disciples—‘believers’—not infants.—Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:12.
“Where did Baptism end and where did Confirmation begin?” asks the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It answers: “Perhaps we should not try to distinguish too precisely, for we are dealing with a single rite in the early Church.” Yes, in the first century, the “single rite” that brought full membership in the Christian congregation was baptism.—Acts 2:41, 42.
Is the ceremony of confirmation, with its imposition of hands, needed before one can receive the holy spirit? No. In the early Christian congregation, the laying on of hands following baptism normally was to make special appointments or to impart miraculous gifts of the spirit. These gifts passed away with the death of the apostles. (1Â Corinthians 13:1, 8-10) And the laying on of hands is often linked, not with water baptism, but with specific tasks to be done in connection with the Christian missionary activity. (Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3) Thus, the idea that confirmation continues such apostolic laying on of hands and is, as Basics of the Faith: A Catholic Catechism says, a “sacrament that changes a person in so profound a way that it can be received only once,” does not stand up to scrutiny.
The apostle Paul warned about deviation from basic Bible truth: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty . . . and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4, The Jerusalem Bible) Yet, those who believe in the rite of confirmation cite two Scriptural examples as proof.
A Scriptural Basis?
The account found at Acts 8:14-17 is often used as a basis for confirmation. However, this laying on of the hands to receive holy spirit was a unique occasion. How so? The Samaritans were not Jewish proselytes. Hence, they became the first non-Israelites to be added to the Christian congregation. When the disciple Philip preached in Samaria, many Samaritans “proceeded to be baptized, both men and women,” but they did not immediately receive the holy spirit. (Acts 8:12) Why?
Remember, it was to Peter that Christ Jesus entrusted “the keys of the kingdom”—the privilege of first presenting the opportunity for entry into “the kingdom of the heavens” for different groups of converts. (Matthew 16:19) So it was not until Peter and John went to Samaria and laid their hands on these first non-Jewish disciples that holy spirit was poured out on them as a token of their prospective membership in “the kingdom of the heavens.”
Some see in Acts 19:1-6 evidence that early Christians had a separate rite following baptism. In this case, however, it is obvious that the reason for withholding holy spirit from some disciples in the city of Ephesus was that these new believers were baptized “in John’s baptism,” which was no longer valid. (See also Acts 18:24-26.) When this was explained to them, they quickly “got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” And in this instance, the apostle Paul “laid his hands upon them” so that they would receive some of the miraculous gifts of God’s holy spirit besides being adopted as God’s spiritual sons.—Romans 8:15, 16.
Of these accounts, the New Dictionary of Theology says: “No direct continuity of usage can be traced to these occurrences, and, even if they do provide some precedent, it is doubtful whether they should be viewed as normative for Christian initiation in the way that water-baptism is. . . . The Acts of the Apostles has many instances of the use of water-baptism without a subsequent laying on of hands (so that these instances in fact appear as exceptions).” Yes, these were exceptional actions to cope with exceptional circumstances.
“The rite called ‘confirmation,’” concludes the New Dictionary of Theology, “has become a ‘rite in search of a theology.’” It is, in fact, an unscriptural ritual, a product of faulty teachings, and certainly not a requirement for Christians.
Infant Baptism—Why Some Priests Say No!
ALAN and Sonia simply wanted their baby to be baptized. It therefore came as a shock when their Anglican priest not only refused to perform the rite but also added this piece of advice: “Do it yourself.” The reason? Neither Alan nor Sonia were regular churchgoers.—The Christian Century, June 3-10, 1981.
Quite a few couples have recently experienced such rejection—a clear signal that some churches are changing their view of infant baptism. Consider the Roman Catholic Church. Following the Vatican II council, the church revised its infant baptism rites. Yes, the church is still baptizing babies, but now the parents must first give assurances that they will bring up the child as a Catholic. Decreed the Vatican: “If these assurances are not really serious, there can be grounds for delaying the sacrament; and if they are certainly non-existent, the sacrament should even be refused.”—L’Osservatore Romano, “Instruction on Infant Baptism,” December 1, 1980.
This is a far cry from the days when, according to Catholic priest Joseph M. Champlin, “zealous missionaries [would] baptize pagan babies abandoned along the road,” and priests “admonished parents not to delay an infant’s Baptism over a month under pain of mortal sin.”
What is behind such changed attitudes? For one thing, church leaders now recognize that baptism does not make a Christian. Sagging church attendance and a general lack of devotion among baptized Catholics have become a real source of concern. “Why should the church compound the problem by baptizing children who are practically guaranteed to be nonpracticing adults?” argues an article in U.S. Catholic.
The new hard line on baptism, though, also exposes a serious rift among theologians. As Catholic writer Joseph Martos observes, many clerics simply do not believe that infant baptism is a “magical rite with invisible effects on the soul.” To them, such a view is medieval, outdated.
No wonder, then, that many sincere Catholics are confused. Has not the church always taught that unbaptized infants could land in a fiery hell or linger in purgatory? If this is true, wonder some, why would baptism be denied under any circumstances? These are important questions. As Catholic priest Vincent Wilkin observed, the sum of those who have died unbaptized is “a vast and incalculable number indeed, that it is easy to imagine constitute the bulk of the human race.”
Therefore, let us take a brief look at infant baptism—historically and Biblically.
The Bible’s Viewpoint
Confirmation—Is It a Christian Requirement?
“Confirmation is the sacrament which confers on the baptized Christian the full perfection of Christian life, making him spiritually an adult, a soldier, and a witness of Christ.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia for School and Home.
MOST Protestants reject the idea that confirmation is a sacrament. However, the 13th-century Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote that “confirmation is a final perfecting of the sacrament of baptism.” Either way, the questions arise: Did the earliest Christians practice confirmation? Is that ceremonial act a Christian requirement today?
“Absolutely nothing in the Gospel indicates that Jesus Himself instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation,” admits the New Catholic Encyclopedia. So why did church teachers later promote the idea that following baptism, a second rite, which may include anointing with oil and laying on of hands, was needed to make the person a fuller member of the church?
How Did Confirmation Begin?
Infant baptism was one of the key factors that led to the need for another sacrament. “Aware of the problems caused by baptising babies,” says the book Christianity, “churches . . . remind those who have been baptised of what this means by ‘confirming’ them later on in life.” Does confirmation truly remind them of what baptism means, or does it obscure the truth about baptism?
The fact is that infant baptism finds no support in the Scriptures. Sprinkling water on a baby, for example, does not free the baby from original sin; only faith in the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus can do that. (John 3:16, 36; 1 John 1:7) Water baptism is an outward symbol that the one being baptized has made a complete dedication through Jesus to do the will of Jehovah God. Water baptism is for disciples—‘believers’—not infants.—Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:12.
“Where did Baptism end and where did Confirmation begin?” asks the New Catholic Encyclopedia. It answers: “Perhaps we should not try to distinguish too precisely, for we are dealing with a single rite in the early Church.” Yes, in the first century, the “single rite” that brought full membership in the Christian congregation was baptism.—Acts 2:41, 42.
Is the ceremony of confirmation, with its imposition of hands, needed before one can receive the holy spirit? No. In the early Christian congregation, the laying on of hands following baptism normally was to make special appointments or to impart miraculous gifts of the spirit. These gifts passed away with the death of the apostles. (1Â Corinthians 13:1, 8-10) And the laying on of hands is often linked, not with water baptism, but with specific tasks to be done in connection with the Christian missionary activity. (Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3) Thus, the idea that confirmation continues such apostolic laying on of hands and is, as Basics of the Faith: A Catholic Catechism says, a “sacrament that changes a person in so profound a way that it can be received only once,” does not stand up to scrutiny.
The apostle Paul warned about deviation from basic Bible truth: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty . . . and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4, The Jerusalem Bible) Yet, those who believe in the rite of confirmation cite two Scriptural examples as proof.
A Scriptural Basis?
The account found at Acts 8:14-17 is often used as a basis for confirmation. However, this laying on of the hands to receive holy spirit was a unique occasion. How so? The Samaritans were not Jewish proselytes. Hence, they became the first non-Israelites to be added to the Christian congregation. When the disciple Philip preached in Samaria, many Samaritans “proceeded to be baptized, both men and women,” but they did not immediately receive the holy spirit. (Acts 8:12) Why?
Remember, it was to Peter that Christ Jesus entrusted “the keys of the kingdom”—the privilege of first presenting the opportunity for entry into “the kingdom of the heavens” for different groups of converts. (Matthew 16:19) So it was not until Peter and John went to Samaria and laid their hands on these first non-Jewish disciples that holy spirit was poured out on them as a token of their prospective membership in “the kingdom of the heavens.”
Some see in Acts 19:1-6 evidence that early Christians had a separate rite following baptism. In this case, however, it is obvious that the reason for withholding holy spirit from some disciples in the city of Ephesus was that these new believers were baptized “in John’s baptism,” which was no longer valid. (See also Acts 18:24-26.) When this was explained to them, they quickly “got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” And in this instance, the apostle Paul “laid his hands upon them” so that they would receive some of the miraculous gifts of God’s holy spirit besides being adopted as God’s spiritual sons.—Romans 8:15, 16.
Of these accounts, the New Dictionary of Theology says: “No direct continuity of usage can be traced to these occurrences, and, even if they do provide some precedent, it is doubtful whether they should be viewed as normative for Christian initiation in the way that water-baptism is. . . . The Acts of the Apostles has many instances of the use of water-baptism without a subsequent laying on of hands (so that these instances in fact appear as exceptions).” Yes, these were exceptional actions to cope with exceptional circumstances.
“The rite called ‘confirmation,’” concludes the New Dictionary of Theology, “has become a ‘rite in search of a theology.’” It is, in fact, an unscriptural ritual, a product of faulty teachings, and certainly not a requirement for Christians.