INTRODUCTION:
God, in His great mercy and lovingkindness, has offered us the means of attaining salvation, namely by repenting of our sins and living according to His law. By submitting to His will and believing in His Son, Jesus Christ,, we may be cleansed of our first birth and be born a second time spiritually and invisibly. Our first birth was a physical birth in a corrupted body, which was then transmitted into a corrupted physical world, but by means of baptism, we’re washed of all our former sins and are born again spiritually, being clothed with Christ and granted citizenship in heaven.
But by the instigation of Satan, this straight and narrow path to salvation has been twisted and divided into many confusing paths, which all lead away from the truth. Many factions of protestant evangelical pastors have been incited to bite the hand that feeds them and attack the very thing that saves us, killing both themselves and all those who believe in their false doctrine as they lie to their congregations about the true meaning of baptism. The same men who ought to be drawing people TOWARD God are instead striving to SEPARATE them from God’s grace and make them enemies of God by convincing them that, “All of us are saved already, simply by believing in the name of Jesus. No repentance from sin is necessary, nor any baptism with water, but simply faith alone.”
They have the audacity to tell new converts to the faith that it’s impossible to ever stop sinning, and they say baptism accomplishes nothing. “Only believe that Jesus died for your sins,” they say, “and be baptized afterwards if you want to, but just understand that it’s not necessary.” These so-called pastors will tell anyone who desires to be baptized that if they dare believe baptism is necessary for salvation, then they’ve invalidated their faith by adding unnecessary works, and therefore CANNOT be saved! They say the only way to be saved is to disbelieve in the necessity of baptism or any other action for salvation!
And so, when these priests of Satan are about to baptize anyone, they compel the new believer to DENY the true meaning and purpose of baptism before they receive it, so that by denying Christ’s words instead of believing in them, they’ll be d***ed rather than saved. These men teach that baptism is a purely symbolic ceremony that merely REPRESENTS washing away sin, but doesn’t actually DO anything, despite Christ’s clear teaching to the contrary.
This is a false gospel, and that’s why this video is being made, to show you why baptism with water is the ONLY means given to us by God of being born again, of being washed of our sins, of receiving the Holy Spirit, and of being adopted as God’s children. Although it’s very easy to grasp the concept of baptism for anyone reading the Scriptures with a good and honest heart, the false teaching concerning baptism is becoming more popular than the true one, and so videos like this are necessary to help those who are indoctrinated into lies, whether they’re knowingly resisting the truth or are genuinely confused. I pray God will assist me in opening your eyes, both to the truth of baptismal regeneration, and then also, to the orthodoxy of infant baptism.
If you are one of those who already accepts these tenets of the faith, then God bless you. You have no need of a treatise like this. But if you are honestly seeking truth and have yet to be firmly established in the necessity of baptism for all, including infants, then listen on.
SINS MUST BE WASHED:
The holy Scriptures are clear enough on the subject of baptism, showing that a person’s sins must be taken away for there to be any hope of salvation (John 1:29, Luke 5:31-32) ). John the baptist, when he saw Jesus approaching, declared, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” And Jesus Himself said, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” And thus, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” Romans 5:8-9
Furthermore, we must each receive the Holy Spirit to be sealed into God’s covenant and be declared one of His children. “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” Romans 8:9
In addition, many proofs will be given to assure you that the Scriptures are being interpreted correctly on this point, that baptism is the means of obtaining the forgiveness of sins and the regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and this is necessary to prove, because while Christians generally agree that the Scriptures are divinely inspired, they cannot agree on how to interpret the Scriptures correctly, but have been at war with each other over how to properly interpret the Bible on virtually every possible doctrine since the Reformation in the 16th century. This has given rise to thousands of denominations, who all claim to interpret the Scriptures correctly, but none of whom bear any real authority.
If anyone finds themselves lost and confused in this world of warring viewpoints regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture, let him find solace in the enduring light of the early church fathers, the men who were taught the meaning of the Scriptures by the apostles themselves, and who handed down the Scriptures to us in their complete form, many of whom suffered martyrdom for the sake of the gospel. These men unanimously testify that the apostles taught the form of baptism I’m about to show you, and I will provide numerous quotes to prove this, as well as a timeline showing when this doctrine began to be impugned, after I’ve shown the plain teaching of it in the Scriptures.
THE MEANING OF WATER:
Firstly, it must be explained why God chose to save us through water and not by some other means. After all, God could have easily said that we must perform some other random act to be saved, such as spinning around three times, or clicking our heels on the ground three times. Why must we be immersed in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?
It’s because God created water to possess certain unique qualities that represent all of the things we need to be saved. Water was the first element God created, and from the very beginning, God caused His Holy, life-giving Spirit to be associated with the life-giving waters, as it says, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.” God didn’t arbitrarily choose water as the catalyst for salvation when Jesus appeared on earth. Rather, He specifically designed water for this most important use at the beginning of creation and always planned to make it central to a new believer’s entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
Water is known to be life-giving, as no creature or plant can live without it. All of us know that after a seed has been planted, water must be poured on the soil in order for the seed to come alive and sprout into a new plant. “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (John 12:24). In the spiritual sense also, water causes a new believer to be born again, because water represents the Spirit, as Christ explains, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5), and Paul alludes to baptism by saying, “I planted, and Apollos watered, but God caused the growth” since Paul preached the gospel, but another one baptized those whom he preached to (1 Corinthians 3:6).
We also know that water is used for washing away dirt. A dish must be thoroughly cleaned of all its old filth for it to be useful, especially if something very valuable is going to be poured into the vessel. And thus the apostle Paul declares, “‘Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness.’Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.”
Likewise, when any person is plunged into a pool of water, there is a feeling of being buried underneath it, and God prepared this image as a symbol of death and resurrection, as the apostle says, “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection.”
Water also has the unique quality of reflecting images like a mirror, revealing a sort of parallel world adjacent to our physical world. This symbolizes the Holy Spirit revealing things to us about ourselves through God’s word as it shows us who we really are and invites us to wash off our filth, which is our sin. After all, this is the purpose of a mirror, to show us our faults and defects so that we can amend them, and we continually refer back to the mirror to make sure we’ve not becoming dirty again, as the apostle James says, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.”
So you see the spiritual symbolism in water, that it gives life, that it washes off dirt, that it acts as an image of burial and resurrection, and that it reflects an alternate dimension as a symbol of the Holy Spirit revealing the spiritual realm to us.
SYMBOLS OF CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:
Let us also take notice of the numerous types and symbols of baptism found throughout the Old Testament, starting with the very beginning, when the Holy Spirit was brooding over the waters, and all subsequent life was born from the waters, and of the flood which cleansed away the wickedness covering the earth, causing it to be born afresh:
“… When the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but a request to God for a good conscience….” – 1 Peter 3:20-21
When the water came upon the earth, Noah let out a raven from the ark, and it flew back and forth and never returned, which symbolizes sin and the evil spirits departing from a person when they are baptized. Afterward, Noah let a dove fly out of the ark three times, symbolizing the trinity being invoked over the new believer, and on the third time, it brought back an olive branch, symbolizing the Holy Spirit declaring peace between God and the newly baptized believer. Last of all, the eight persons in the ark represent the eighth day, which is also the first day of the week, the day of the resurrection.
Let us also consider the patriarchs Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses, who each portray Christ, meeting their respective wives at a well of water, representing Christ becoming joined to His church at baptism. Even after Jacob had met his wife at the well, he multiplied his sheep in a mystical way, using a combination of water and rods of wood. He took all of the gray and spotted sheep away from Laban, who represents Satan, and set up the wood over the water troughs, which is an illustration of sinners looking to Jesus’ cross as they come to drink of the Holy Spirit at baptism.
“Thus it came to pass, whenever the sheep conceived, that Jacob placed the rods before the sheep in the gutters, so they might conceive according to the rods,” that is, that they might be spiritually conceived through belief in Jesus. – Genesis 30:41
Later, Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt through the Red Sea, which represents Christians being washed in Jesus’ blood, and they all subsequently received a cloud which overshadowed them, representing the Holy Spirit descending on us after we are washed of our sins.
Then the Lord said to Moses… “Now lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it; and let the children of Israel go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.” – Exodus 14:15-16
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” – 1 Corinthians 10:1-2
Likewise, Joshua baptized the Israelites in the Jordan river and circumcised them all a second time with knives of stone, after God gave permission for them to enter the promised land.
Naaman the Syrian too was commanded by Elisha to be washed in the Jordan river in order to be healed of his leprosy.
Alongside these instances of baptismal foreshadowing, we also see the number 40 appearing in conjunction with the water. The number 40 represents a period of testing which follows our entrance into God’s covenant. Moses flees Egypt and arrives at the well of water, then lives as an alien in Midian for 40 years. The Israelites are baptized in the red sea, then they roam the wilderness for 40 years. After Noah enters the ark, rain falls on the earth for 40 days. Jonah is thrown into the water, then preaches in Nineveh for 40 days. Jesus is baptized, then fasts in the wilderness 40 days. These and many more types show a clear foreshadowing of baptism in the Old Covenant. The only question is, does baptism really save you, or does faith in Jesus alone save you?
WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY IT?
Let us consult holy Scripture. If baptism really saves you, you would expect the Scriptures to plainly say, ”Baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but a request to God for a good conscience.” And what do you know? The apostle Peter plainly says that our conscience is cleansed at baptism, because our sins are washed away (1 Peter 3:21).
But if baptism really washed away sins, you would expect there to be a verse that says, ”Get up, be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16) or perhaps, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
But if we really receive the Holy Spirit at baptism, and God officially opens up heaven to us as our home, and adopts us as His own child, there should be some place in Scripture where our perfect model, Jesus Christ, makes it clear to us that that’s what happens in baptism, such as, “After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17).
But if being born again as God’s adopted child really took place at baptism, you would expect God’s only-begotten Son to expressly state that, like when He says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
But if we are truly buried with Christ and raised as a new creation in baptism, you’d think there’d be a Scripture that said, ”Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection.”
But if baptism were the very means by which we experience God’s mercy, there would be a verse that said, ”He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”
But there are those who disbelieve in Christ’s words, and who say baptism is unnecessary for salvation. To these, Christ responds, ”Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.”
I now ask you, what kind of language does God need to use to convince you that baptism is required for salvation? This is a question you must ask yourself. Hypothetically speaking, if God were to make salvation conditional on our being baptized with water, what specific words would He have to say to make that abundantly clear? What has He not already said?
Today, tens of millions of people have been indoctrinated into the idea that baptism is nothing but an outward show that a person puts on as a way of saying they’re ALREADY saved, not that it actually does anything useful. This empty and worthless version of baptism was created by the devil to give gullible people a false sense of security, as they confess Jesus as their savior but deny Him as their Lord by their actions.
Anyone who approaches the baptismal waters while claiming to already be washed of their sins is prevented from receiving the saving effect of baptism, because only dead faith is involved, and the words pronounced are from Satan, not from God. They say “I believe I am already saved by Jesus apart from repentance, and that all of my sins have already been forgiven apart from baptism, and that this baptism will have no effect.” This is Satan’s creed, and those who obey the false shepherds who teach such d***able heresies do NOT receive the forgiveness of their sins, because they have no faith that God is working through baptism to save them, nor do they even ask for the forgiveness of sins at baptism, because they believe they’re already righteous, and so their baptism is only a bath, not the true washing of regeneration.
“But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” – James1:5-8
“You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly.” – James 4:2-3
This evil baptism, which is fully embraced by the protestant evangelical church, has caused many spiritual miscarriages in new believers, who were on the verge of being born again, but through the evil teaching of satanically inspired men, they were instead prematurely delivered malformed and dead.
IS BAPTISM A WORK?
And how else does the Devil exterminate the unborn child than by convincing its mother that the birth of that child is an inconvenience? The church, which is the mother of the new believer, is responsible for birthing every new believer into God’s kingdom by the sacrament of baptism, but instead the church of this modern age is guilty of aborting many of its newly conceived babes, whose faith in Christ is still immature, and who have no firm root in the Scriptures so as to defend themselves from the devices of the Protestant abortionist. And like the two soils in Jesus’ parable that produced immature plants too quickly which were scorched by the sun, and plants that were choked by thorns, these new believers who fall into the snare of protestant churches are strangled to death as they succumb to the arguments which convince them not to be born again.
Of these arguments, there are hundreds, and new heresies are being devised by Satan all the time, because falsehood is always being multiplied into an infinite number of contradictory opinions. Whatever is true, on the other hand, is always singular, and remains the same forever.
“But since they differ so widely among themselves both as respects doctrine and tradition, and since those of them who are recognised as being most modern make it their effort daily to invent some new opinion, and to bring out what no one ever before thought of, it is a difficult matter to describe all their opinions.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 21, paragraph 5
The most quoted Scripture that protestants use to refute the necessity of baptism hardly even qualifies as an argument, and like most attempts made by Satan to twist Scripture into saying something contrary to the truth, upon closer examination, this passage actually PROVES the very thing they’re trying to disprove. The argument I’m referring to is that wicked teaching that claims, “Since Paul said salvation is not a result of works, we have no need to be baptized.”
But Paul never says baptism is a work, nor does any Scripture, and to even suggest that baptism is a work of righteousness contradicts Scripture, which says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”
There is nothing difficult about being baptized. It is an act of pure self-preservation, and it requires no effort or painful sacrifice. God ensured that the washing of regeneration would be available to all people everywhere on the earth, because the sacrament of baptism only requires water, and no one can even live without access to water. What a gracious God, one might say, that he makes salvation so easy to access! But the protestant complains that this is “work” and that they ought to be exempt from washing in the waters that spring up to eternal life, just as Naaman the Syrian spurned Elisha’s command to wash in the Jordan river to heal his leprosy.
But as I said, the Scripture which is most often quoted to prove faith alone apart from baptism, namely Ephesians 2, actually DOES refer to baptism, but not as a work. Rather, baptism is referred to as God’s grace, and Paul uses this terminology frequently in his letters. Pay close attention to the parallels in Paul’s language between Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, and Romans 6.
In Ephesians 2, he says:
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
And now let’s compare this passage with Colossians 2:
And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions…
And then at the end of Romans 5 and the beginning of chapter 6, he says:
For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many…
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
In all three of the quoted texts, there are three recurring phrases.
when we were dead in our transgressions, raised us up with Him, made us alive together with Christ
When you were dead in your transgressions, raised up with Him, He made you alive together with Him
by the transgression of the one the many died, raised from the dead, in newness of life
It’s clear that when Paul mentions being “raised up” with Christ, he’s referring to our being brought up from the waters of baptism, as he plainly states in Colossians 2 and Romans 6:
“Having been buried with Him in baptism in which you were alsoraised up with Him“
and…
“Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”
There’s no other time that we’re “raised up” with Christ than in baptism, when we lay down in the water and then rise up. It’s not a contradiction or denial of the role of faith, because baptism obviously only has its effect if it’s accompanied by genuine faith:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith”
and
“having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God.”
… Meaning, it is God who performs the work in baptism, not us, and it’s only through our faith in the working of God that we receive what we ask for. We can’t receive it if we don’t ask for it, or if we believe we ALREADY have it, or if we specifically DENY the reception of it through the ordinance God commanded! This sacrament of baptism is a free gift from God, which is why the pastors of the early church used to refer to it as “the grace of baptism.”
“For if men be quickly turned to repentance, and remember and fear the future judgment, the punishment of death is remitted to those who are converted to God by the grace of baptism.” – Peter, Recognitions of Clement, book 9, chapter 7:
“It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted.” – Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of Children
“O Lord God, who hast made them worthy to obtain remission of sins through the laver of regeneration of [the] Holy Spirit, send into them thy grace, that they may serve thee according to thy will.” – Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition
“Look down from heaven, and sanctify this water, and give it grace and power, that so he that is to be baptized, according to the command of Your Christ, may be crucified with Him, and may die with Him, and may be buried with Him, and may rise with Him to the adoption which is in Him, that he may be dead to sin and live to righteousness.” Apostolic Constitutions, book 7
“All indeed who attain to the divine gift and inheritance by the sanctification of baptism, therein put off the old man by the grace of the saving laver, and, renewed by the Holy Spirit from the filth of the old contagion, are purged by a second nativity.” – Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 2, par 23
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! – John Chrysostom, quoted by Augustine, Against Julian
For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up (seeing the whole is the free gift of God), teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is “the righteousness of God.” – John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on 2 Corinthians, chapter 5
“He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.” – Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 3, par 4
Therefore, baptism is not to be confused with works of righteousness. It is a work of God, and not a work of man. We are saved by grace through faith, not of works, and then after we’ve received the forgiveness of all our past sins and the adoption as sons, we’re called to walk in newness of life, having died to sin, and pledging to obey all of Christ’s commands, bearing fruit as good and faithful servants.
“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” – Ephesians 2:10
While it is true that God requires no works from us prior to baptism, God DOES require good works from us AFTER baptism. When Paul says we are saved by grace and not of works, he means you can never DESERVE or EARN remission of sins by doing a certain amount of good works, because the gift of eternal life is too great for any of us to deserve it, especially because we’ve already sinned and deserve punishment. Rather, we only bring our faith and repentance to baptism, and after God grants us a new start at life, we dedicate ourselves to His service and strive to maintain the purity of our souls until death.
BAPTISM AND CIRCUMCISION
Notice that baptism is also referred to as a type of circumcision, a circumcision “made without hands,” because baptism accomplishes in us what circumcision of the flesh never could. Baptism is a fulfillment of the fleshly circumcision.
And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism… – Colossians 2:11
This is in contrast to the circumcision that IS made with hands, as Paul reminds them:
“Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called “Circumcision,” performed in the flesh by human hands— remember that you were at that time separate from Christ…”
“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. … For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” – Galatians 3:23, 26-27
You see, in the Old Covenant, God required the Israelites and all Gentile converts to be painfully circumcized in their foreskin, which symbolized putting the flesh to death, because the male member represents the sinful impulse in a man’s body, which always seeks pleasure and rebels against him. So it was fitting that this member would be cut in a way that signified repentance from the sinful deeds of the flesh. However, this mark didn’t actually change the heart of the person being circumcized; it only acted as a symbol of purging sin from the body until the spiritual circumcision would be delivered in the New Covenant. God promised to usher in that new covenant at a future time, refusing to give it to the Israelites because of their stubbornness and immaturity.
“For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord.
When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” – Hebrews 8:7-13
Thanks be to God, that we who live in the times of the New Covenant have been graciously offered entrance into His kingdom without shedding any of our own blood, but simply by stepping into water with a penitent heart and confessing our faith in Him who died for us, we receive adoption as God’s children. Just as an Israelite man’s circumcision was counted as sufficient for the salvation of his wife, and his wife was spared from being circumcized, Christ’s death on the cross spares us from suffering the penalty for our sins, as long as we are united to him as His faithful bride, the church. And Paul contemplates this mystery when he says:
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water by means of the word,that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.”
This is truly a manifestation of God’s grace, and it shows why the New Covenant is superior to the old, because in these last times God has fully revealed His word to us and freely offered forgiveness of sins and adoption into His divine family to everyone who believes in Jesus. We no longer have to keep the Old Covenant law, but instead we keep the superior New Covenant law, which is summed up in two statements: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” and, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
It therefore behooves us not to be arrogant toward God, as so many are, refusing to even lift a finger to save their own souls, and who say that being baptized is too much “work,” when they ought to be thanking God profusely for sparing them from circumcision and the many other miserable aspects of the Old Covenant law, and what’s more, from eternal d***ation. It takes a very ungrateful and entitled person to reject God’s free gift of salvation on the basis that God’s grace should be easier to access!
If this is your mindset, then you’ll soon find that there’s much more that’s required of you than this, as baptism is only the beginning of God’s requirements for those who wish to be saved, AND it’s the easiest one. But on the contrary, we are commanded to keep all of Christ’s commandments and bear righteous fruit to be saved.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,teaching them to keep all that I commanded you…”
“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned… My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love.” – John 15:5-9
In order to remain in God’s love, you must obey Christ’s commandments. This is not a contradiction of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son,” but rather it’s a contradiction of the false teaching about God’s love that is prevalent today. Love is not merely a feeling, but an action. God is love, and God constantly manifests His love with actions, by giving us countless gifts that we’re unworthy of, such as a human body and a soul, food and drink, marriage and children, beauty and music. He gives these things even to evil people to show his general love for all of mankind, and to motivate them to return the favor, but He reserves salvation only for those who turn from their sin and keep his commandments.
“The soul who sins, he shall die. But the man who is righteous and does justice and righteousness… who will give his bread to the hungry and cover the naked, and who will not lend his money with interest, but will turn his hand from wrongdoing, and do righteous judgment between a man and his neighbor, and walk in my ordinances, and keep my requirements to do them – this man is righteous. He will surely live!” says the Lord.
“The righteousness of a righteous man will be upon himself, and the lawlessness of a lawless man shall be upon himself. But if a lawless man turns from all the lawless deeds he commits, keeps all my commandments, does righteousness and shows mercy, he will surely live and not die. None of the transgressions he commits will be remembered. In the righteousness he does, he shall live. Do I ever will the death of a lawless man,” says the Lord, “since my will is for him to turn from the evil way and live? But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits a wrongdoing, according to all the lawlessness a lawless man commits, then all the righteousness he does shall not be remembered. In the transgression he falls into and in his sins he commits, in these he will die.” – Ezekiel 18:4-9, 20-24
You see, the God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New Testament. They’re not two different Gods. Jesus Christ didn’t come to save us from some far-distant, unloving, wrathful Father, but from His own righteous judgment, as indeed He IS the “the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). Therefore it is HIS wrath you ought to flee, not just the Father’s, as David warns you in the Psalms, “Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice in Him with trembling. Lay hold of His instruction, lest the Lord be angry, and you perish from the righteous way, when His fury shall be quickly kindled. Blessed are all who trust in Him” (Psalm 2:11-12).
God is the same yesterday and today and forever. He has never changed the definition of righteousness or reversed His doctrine concerning the relationship between faith and works. Faith is not superior to works, and works are not superior to faith, but rather, faith is completed by works, or else it is dead and useless, as the apostle James says:
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has no works? Can his faith save him?If a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warm and be filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what use is it? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. But do you want to be shown, you foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. – James 2:14-26
We who have come to believe in Jesus must not be deceived into believing the Old Covenant was made by a different God who had a different mind than Jesus Christ, but rather we believe that Jesus Christ is the perfect image and exact representation of God the Father, as His only-begotten Son, and that they agree in everything. It was Jesus who gave the Old Covenant law, and it is Jesus who fulfilled it by delivering a superior law, which frees us from sin permanently, while the old law was only meant to act as a temporary tutor, teaching us how to live righteously by gradual degrees, but not delivering the highest standard of righteousness, because the nation of Israel was too stubborn to receive it.
By participating in the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus through baptism, we put off the body of sin and are clothed with Christ, being filled with the Holy Spirit, and being regenerated as a newborn child of God. Anyone who has received the grace of baptism must walk in newness of life, no longer allowing sin to reign in his mortal body.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” – 1 Corinthians 6
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.” – Romans 5:1-2
We receive our justification by faith at baptism, which is also our introduction by faith into God’s grace, as Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 clearly say. Those who misinterpret Paul should heed the warnings of Peter:
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. – 2 Peter 3:14-16
But if anyone is inclined to be contentious on this interpretation of Scripture, I now present to you the belief and practice of the entire early church for over 1500 years. The pastors and teachers of the early church never knew of the doctrine that a man could be saved by faith alone, because that wicked idea hadn’t been invented yet. The righteous pastors I’m about to quote, all of whom are only passing down the tradition they received from the apostles, contradict that heretical view of baptism, repeatedly and unanimously, with the clearest and most explicit language possible.
CHURCH FATHERS ON BAPTISM:
The Apostle Peter (as recorded by Clement), around 50 A.D.
But when you have come to the Father you will learn that this is His will, that you be born anew by means of waters, which were first created. For he who is regenerated by water, having filled up the measure of good works, is made heir of Him by whom he has been regenerated in incorruption. Wherefore, with prepared minds, approach as sons to a father, that your sins may be washed away, and it may be proved before God that ignorance was their sole cause. For if, after the learning of these things, you remain in unbelief, the cause of your destruction will be imputed to yourselves, and not to ignorance. And do you suppose that you can have hope towards God, even if you cultivate all piety and all righteousness, but do not receive baptism? Yea rather, he will be worthy of greater punishment, who does good works not well; for merit accrues to men from good works, but only if they be done as God commands. Now God has ordered every one who worships Him to be sealed by baptism; but if you refuse, and obey your own will rather than God’s, you are doubtless contrary and hostile to His will. – Recognitions of Clement, Book VI, Chapter VIII
But you will perhaps say, What does the baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God? In the first place, because that which hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation. – Recognitions of Clement, Book VI, Chapter IX
Letter of Barnabas, 74 A.D.
Let us further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the water and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should procure another for themselves. The prophet therefore declares, Be astonished, O heaven, and let the earth tremble at this, because this people has committed two great evils: they have forsaken Me, a living fountain, and have hewn out for themselves broken cisterns.
Furthermore, what says He in reference to the Son? “His water is sure; ye shall see the King in His glory, and your soul shall meditate on the fear of the Lord.” And again He says in another prophet, “The man who does these things shall be like a tree planted by the courses of waters, which shall yield its fruit in due season; and his leaf shall not fade, and all that he does shall prosper.”
For these words imply, “Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time.” This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear and trust in Jesus in our spirit. – Letter of Barnabas, 11:1–10
The Shepherd of Hermas, 90 A.D.
“I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin anymore, but to live in purity.” – The Shepherd of Hermas, book 2, commandment 4, chapter 3
Clement of Rome, 95 A.D.
“For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his commandments…. With what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?” – Second Clement 6:7–9
Ignatius of Antioch, 110 A.D.
He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. – Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 18
Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. – Epistle to the Trallians, chapter 2
“Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply” – Letter to Polycarp, chapter 6
“It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” – Letter to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 8
Justin the Martyr, 151 A.D.
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” – First Apology, Chapter 61
“By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred; and, lo! the body is pure.” – Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 14
“But there is no other way than this: to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountains spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins and for the rest to live sinless lives.” – Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 44
Irenaeus, 180 A.D.
“And when we come to refute them [the gnostics], we shall show in its fitting place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith… For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.” – Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21:1-2
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself… seven times in the Jordan’. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” – Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 34
Theophilus of Antioch, 180-192 A.D.
“Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration—all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God.” – To Autolycus, 12:16
Clement of Alexandria, 180-200 A.D.
“When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal…. ‘and sons of the Most High.’ This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation.
For what ignorance has bound ill, is by knowledge loosed well; those bonds are with all speed slackened by human faith and divine grace, our transgressions being taken away by one medicine, the baptism of the Word. We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing. – Instructor of Children, book 1, chapter 6
Tertullian, 200-220 A.D.
“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sinsof our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life…. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!” On Baptism, chapter 1
“Baptism itself is a corporeal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins.” On Baptism, chapter 7
“A sinner is bound to bemoan himself before receiving pardon, because the time of repentance is coincident with that of peril and of fear. Not that I deny that the divine benefit — the putting away of sins, I mean — is in every way sure to such as are on the point of entering the (baptismal) water; but what we have to labor for is that it may be granted to us to obtain that blessing…. However some think that God is under a necessity of bestowing what He has promised to give, even on the unworthy, so they turn His liberality into His slavery. For do not many afterward fall out of grace? Is not this gift taken away from many?” On Repentance, chapter 6
Hippolytus of Rome, 225 A.D.
I preach to this effect: Come, all you kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism. I bring good tidings of life to you who tarry in the darkness of ignorance. Come into liberty from slavery, into a kingdom from tyranny, into incorruption from corruption. “And how,” you may say, “shall we come?” How? By water and the Holy Spirit. This is the water in conjunction with the Spirit by which paradise is watered, by which the earth is enriched, by which plants grow, by which animals multiply, and—to sum up the whole in a single word—by which man is begotten again and endued with life. In this also Christ was baptized, and in this the Spirit descended in the form of a dove. – The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, chapter 8
“And the bishop shall lay his hand upon them [the newly baptized], invoking and saying: ‘O Lord God, who did count these worthy of deserving the forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit and send upon them thy grace, that they may serve you according to your will.” – The Apostolic Tradition, 22:1
Origen of Alexandria, 235 A.D.
“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism.” – Exhortation to the Martyrs 30
“I, he says, baptize you with water unto repentance, purifying you, as it were, and turning you away from evil courses and calling you to repentance; for I have come to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for Him, and by my baptism of repentance to prepare the ground for Him who is to come after me, and who will thus benefit you much more effectively and powerfully than my strength could. For His baptism is not that of the body only; He fills the penitent with the Holy Ghost.
Regeneration did not take place with John the Baptist; however with Jesus through His Disciples it does occur. What is called the bath of regeneration takes place with renewal of the spirit. For the spirit as well now comes. It comes from God and is over and above the water. Yet it does not come to all after the water.
Matthew alone adds the words ‘to repentance’ teaching us that the benefit of baptism is connected with the intention of the baptized person. To him who repents it is saving, however, to him who comes to it without repentance it will produce greater condemnation.” – Commentary on the gospel of John, book 6, chapter 17
Commodianus, 240 A.D.
“In baptism the coarse dress of your birth is washed…. You have once been washed: shall you be able to be immersed again?” – On Christian Discipline, chapter 46-47
Cyprian of Carthage, 246 A.D.
“He who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism and has been spiritually reformed into a new man has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit.” – Epistle 73
“While I was lying in darkness… I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe… that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind…. But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man.” – To Donatus 3–4
“Peter showed and vindicated the unity of the church by commanding and warning that we can be saved only through the baptism of the one church. Just as in that baptism of the world by which the ancient iniquity was purged, the one who was not in the ark could not be saved through water, so now anyone who has not been baptized in the church cannot be saved, for the church has been founded in the unity of the Lord, as the sacrament of the one ark.” – Letter 74
“By baptism the Holy Spirit is received. The Lord speaks to the Samaritan woman saying, ‘Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will not thirst forever.’ By this He signified the very baptism of saving water, which indeed is once received and is not again repeated. The Lord, when He came, manifested the truth of baptism in commanding that this faithful water, the water of eternal life, should be given to believers in baptism.” Letter 75
Novatian, 250 A.D.
Of Him [the Holy Spirit] the Apostle Paul says: For he who has not the Spirit of Christ is none of His. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. He it is who effects with water the second birth as a certain seed of divine generation, and a consecration of a heavenly nativity, the pledge of a promised inheritance, and as it were a kind of handwriting of eternal salvation; who can make us God’s temple, and fit us for His house; who solicits the divine hearing for us with groanings that cannot be uttered; filling the offices of advocacy, and manifesting the duties of our defense — an inhabitant given for our bodies and an effector of their holiness. Who, working in us for eternity, can also produce our bodies at the resurrection of immortality, accustoming them to be associated in Himself with heavenly power, and to be allied with the divine eternity of the Holy Spirit. – On The Trinity, chapter 29
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 260-270 A.D.
[See] John the Baptist as he baptizes One [Christ] who needs no baptism, and yet submits to the rite in order that He may bestow freely upon us the grace of baptism. Come, let us view the image of our regeneration, as it is emblematically presented in these waters. – Homily 4, On Christ’s Baptism
He was baptized in Jordan, not as receiving any sanctification for Himself, but as gifting a participation in sanctification to others. (Twelve Topics on Faith, chapter 12)
Lactantius, 304 A.D.
“Man is born mortal. He afterwards becomes immortal when he begins to live in conformity with the will of God. That is, he begins to follow righteousness, and this takes place when man, purified in the heavenly bath, lays aside his infancy along with all the pollution of his past life, then having received an increase of divine vigor he becomes a perfect and complete man.” – Divine Institutes, Book VII, chapter 5
Pamphilus of Caesarea, 309 A.D.
In this we have also the instruction delivered by Peter, and passages from the prophets on the subject, and on the passion and resurrection and assumption of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost; also of the faith of those present, and their salvation by baptism; and, further, of the unity of spirit pervading the believers and promoting the common good…. – Exposition on the Acts of the Apostles, par 3
Methodius, 311 A.D.
It was for this cause that the Word, leaving His Father in heaven, came down to be “joined to His wife;” and slept in the trance of His passion, and willingly suffered death for her, that He might present the Church to Himself glorious and blameless, having cleansed her by the laver, for the receiving of the spiritual and blessed seed, which is sown by Him who, with whispers, implants it in the depths of the mind; and is conceived and formed by the Church, as by a woman, so as to give birth and nourishment to virtue. – Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 3
Athanasius, 328 A.D.
“For He has bid us be baptized… into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for with such an initiation we too are made sons verily….” – De Decretis, chapter 31
Aphrahat/Aphraates, 337 A.D.
“From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit….” – Demonstration VI (Of Monks) par 14.1
Hilary of Poitiers, 359 A.D.
These are not our own conjectures which we offer, nor do we falsely put together any of these things in order to deceive the ears of our hearers by perverting the meaning of words; but holding fast the form of sound teaching we know and preach the things which are true. For the Apostle shows that this unity of the faithful arises from the nature of the sacraments when he writes to the Galatians. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” – On the Trinity, book 8, par 8
Basil of Caesarea, 370 A.D.
And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism. How else could we be? And after recognising that this salvation is established through the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, shall we fling away “that form of doctrine” which we received? – On The Holy Spirit, chapter 10.26
John Chrysostom, 387 A.D.
Wherefore were the heavens opened? To inform you that at your baptism also this is done, God calling you to your country on high, and persuading you to have nothing to do with earth. And if you see not, yet never doubt it. For so evermore at the beginnings of all wonderful and spiritual transactions, sensible visions appear, and such-like signs, for the sake of them that are somewhat dull in disposition, and who have need of outward sight, and who cannot at all conceive an incorporeal nature, but are excited only by the things that are seen: that so, though afterward no such thing occur, what has been declared by them once for all at the first may be received by your faith.
Since the dove itself at that time therefore appeared, that as in place of a finger (so to say) it might point out to them that were present, and to John, the Son of God. Not however merely on this account, but to teach you also, that upon you no less at your baptism the Spirit comes.
Not until then, assuredly, were either the heavens opened, nor did the Spirit make His approach. Because henceforth He leads us away from the old to the new polity, both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours. – Commentary on Matthew, Homily 12, chapter 3, 4
BUT I FEEL SAVED!
This is the testimony of the original, worldwide church, unbroken for 1500 years, and these quotations are from the first 300 years of the church’s history. This is the original understanding of baptism, handed down by Jesus Christ to the apostles, and the apostles delivered it to the men they ordained as pastors. There are only two options to choose from: Either this form of baptism is correct and true and it always has been, or the entire church was deceived from the very beginning, and Christ’s apostles failed to teach the true meaning of baptism to the men they appointed as bishops throughout the world, and the true meaning of baptism was only recently discovered by some protestant cult leaders, like Menno Simons and John Smyth. One of these notions is true and obvious, while the other is preposterous and satanically inspired. But many a protestant will still respond by saying,
”But I’ve experienced the Holy Spirit’s presence in my life, so I know I’m saved apart from baptism.” While you may have felt the influence of the Holy Spirit before, personally experiencing the presence of the Holy Spirit is not proof that you are a Christian. The Spirit clearly works in people before they are saved, as Paul says, ”No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3). But that’s not the same as being indwelt and sealed with the Holy Spirit. The men of the Old Testament were filled with the Holy Spirit temporarily numerous times, but the Spirit always left them again, because the Spirit refuses to permanently dwell in an unregenerate vessel stained by sin. It will only come for a visit, if God has a purpose for sending it.
But what kind of an argument is it to say, “I trust in my own heart, and it doesn’t bother me if I’m opposed by the entire apostolic church, because I feel confident in my own feelings”? There are numerous denominations of professing Christians, who excommunicate each other when they believe the other to be guilty of heresy, which is where all of these denominations originally come from, and yet all of these people who hold wildly different views about God still believe they are the only ones who have the Holy Spirit, and would die confidently with that belief. They all disagree with each other about the correct interpretation of Scripture, even about which writings qualify as Scripture, and they accuse each other of distorting the Scriptures constantly, but none of them ever considers that they might be deceived.
All of these people can’t be filled with the Holy Spirit. Not even most of them can be filled with the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit doesn’t contradict Himself or lead God’s children to create opposing factions and sects. The very existence of so many contradictory views is proof that ALL of these groups are under the influence of demons, and have fallen away from the true faith, including the Catholic and Orthodox denominations. God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, and the Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth, as Christ says.
Any teacher who asserts their authority without relying on the unanimous testimony of the early church, but who dares to condemn the early church, is a heretic. And any teacher who contradicts a doctrine that was universally held by the early church, let alone the most fundamental sacrament of initiation into the body of Christ – baptism – is part of a cult and has separated themselves from the church of God.
By definition, a heretic is one who believes in heresy, and heresy is “a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox doctrine.” And what is orthodoxy? The word “orthodox” means “that which is traditional and established from the beginning,” and the word “doctrine” means “a teaching.” Orthodoxy is the original teachings of the church. Therefore, anyone who comes along and introduces a new doctrine that contradicts the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints is guilty of heresy. These many heretics were prophesied to appear in the latter times, as we read in Scripture:
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep.” – 2 Peter 2:1-3
“But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” – 2 Timothy 3:13
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” 2 Timothy 4:3-4
“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” – Galatians 1:6-9
All protestants who read these verses want to believe that these statements only refer to the Mormons, who deny the divinity of Christ, or to the Catholics, who worship Mary and pray to graven images. But these verses apply to all heretics. And so, we must humbly submit to the Scriptures and to the rightfully-ordained teachers of the early church if we are to escape the modern heresies that dominate the world today. If anyone finds a passage in Scripture that is difficult to interpret, they should immediately consult the first pastors, who have already answered their questions long ago, and should submit to their unified testimony.
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15
WHAT ABOUT THE THIEF ON THE CROSS?
But there are many retorts a protestant will make in opposition to the clear teaching of baptism, and the first is always this: “But what about the thief on the cross? Didn’t Jesus say He would be saved, even though he hadn’t been baptized?”
Let us examine this question to see whether it can possibly be asked with a sincere heart, or whether it is only ever asked by those who’ve already been indoctrinated into the Protestant heresy of salvation by faith alone, and who stubbornly hold to their preconceived notion.
Two criminals were crucified alongside Jesus, one of whom insulted him, but the other felt remorse and defended Jesus from the other’s accusations.
And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” And He said to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.” – Luke 23:43
How foolish it is to use this passage as a refutation of baptismal regeneration, against all the rest of Scripture, including Jesus’ own words, which are so clear about the necessity of baptism, and against all of the church’s testimony and practice, as if an extraordinary circumstance like this was enough to make baptism ineffectual for all people!
At the time of this man’s death, baptism of the Holy Spirit hadn’t even been given to the world, as Christ hadn’t even died yet! How could this man receive baptism if no one was baptized for the forgiveness of sins until after Jesus’ resurrection? They had only received John’s baptism, which didn’t impart the Holy Spirit, but only existed to prepare the way for Jesus’ baptism. That’s why he said:
“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I… He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” – Matthew 3:11
Perhaps what you fail to understand is that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Son of God has authority to forgive sins AT ANY TIME! Jesus doesn’t depend on His OWN sacraments, which HE instituted by his own authority, to forgive sins. There was never a time when Jesus said, ”Well, I WISH I could forgive you of your sins, but I’m incapable of forgiving anyone’s sins unless I have some water to help me.” Jesus can forgive sins whenever he pleases, and He can require that a certain act be performed in faith before the person receives forgiveness, or He can choose to require no act whatsoever. It was His OWN power that He imbued in baptism just before He ascended into heaven, and He left His apostles with the divine sacraments, which impart forgiveness of sin to those who partake in them, instead of only being reserved for those individuals who were privileged enough to meet Jesus in person.
If anyone wishes to rely on exceptional circumstances like the thief on the cross to refute the necessity of baptism, why don’t they use an even more unusual and extreme example?
And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.” And some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” And he got up and went home.
Here we have a man whose sins were forgiven by the Son of God, who saved him in an even MORE unusual way than with the thief on the cross! You see, protestants deny that baptism is necessary for salvation; they say that a person only needs to believe that Jesus died for their sins, and to ask God for forgiveness in order to be saved. But this man received forgiveness of sins WITHOUT believing Jesus died on the cross for his sins, and without even ASKING for forgiveness! In fact, this person doesn’t say a single word, nor do the Scriptures say he had any faith, but rather, it says Jesus only saw the faith of his friends. Many other people were healed before this, and Jesus always told them, ”Your faith has made you well,” but not this man! What an extraordinary event!
Clearly, what this man received was not meant to serve as the rule for how EVERY man receives forgiveness of sins, because he had the unique privilege of meeting Jesus in person, and by one act of faith, which was performed by HIS FRIENDS, his soul was saved. The thief on the cross, too, was saved, but in an exceptional fashion. The RULE of faith, which was put in effect AFTER Jesus’ resurrection, is that every person must receive baptism in order to obtain remission of sins.
Yes indeed, Jesus forgave sins while He was still on earth, and He did it apart from the sacraments, but are you really going to say that just because Jesus forgave people IN PERSON, apart from the sacraments, YOU are somehow able to receive forgiveness of sins apart from both the sacraments AND Jesus pronouncing forgiveness with His own mouth? Notice that Jesus isn’t here to pronounce the forgiveness of YOUR sins like He was with the paralytic or the thief on the cross, so you’re not in a comparable circumstance.
BUT CORNELIUS GOT THE HOLY SPIRIT!
Another objection frequently raised by protestants against the grace of baptism is the story of Cornelius and His family receiving the Holy Spirit before He was baptized with water.
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ – Acts 10: 44-48
Again, this was not the rule set forth by Christ, that if anyone merely believed they would receive the Holy Spirit. Peter himself says a little while before this:
“Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” – Acts 2:38
Rather, the reason God poured out His Spirit on these Gentiles in this extraordinary display of His grace and mercy at the beginning of the New Covenant was to show Peter that the heathen nations were all candidates for salvation, not just the Jewish nation. And Peter announces this realization upon seeing the gentiles being filled with the Holy Spirit, which is why he immediately commanded them to be baptized, so that they would be forgiven of their sins and receive the adoption as God’s children.
This exceptional case of Cornelius and his family receiving the Holy Spirit was not according to the established rule, nor was it an automatic seal of salvation. There are multiple instances throughout Scripture, both in the Old and New Testament, where people receive the Holy Spirit temporarily to speak on God’s behalf, but it is not an automatic sign of salvation.
In Numbers chapter 24, a heathen prophet named Balaam is summoned by a Canaanite king to curse Israel, and it says God filled Him with the Holy Spirit to prophesy in favor of Israel.
“And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and saw Israel encamped by their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him…” etc.
Here is another example from the gospel of John, chapter 11:
“But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.’ Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”
Here we have Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus to death, prophesying by the Holy Spirit, despite rejecting Jesus completely and becoming fuel for the fires of hell. Thus, it should be obvious that prophesying or speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit does not automatically mean someone has been sealed into God’s covenant.
Those who hold to a heretical view of baptism, asserting that Cornelius was washed of his sins and adopted as God’s son prior to baptism with water, have the audacity to say that belief in itself IS a form of baptism, a sort of mystical, invisible baptism, which has nothing to do with water baptism, and they call this “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” They derive this concept from their misinterpretation of Christ’s words, when He promises the disciples that they “will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now,” which eventually took place at Pentecost. But again, they twist the Scriptures, just as they do with the thief on the cross.
This interpretation of Jesus’ words is indefensible, because even after Cornelius is supposedly “baptized with the Holy Spirit,” Peter commands him to be baptized with water! Is Peter commanding him to be baptized twice? Of course not. Thus, there are not two separate baptisms, as the evangelicals falsely assert, but only one baptism, to be reborn as a child of God and sealed in His covenant.
“There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
The Holy Spirit hadn’t yet been poured out on believers until the day of Pentecost, because Christ hadn’t yet ascended to heaven, but after Christ’s ascension, it became the rule for the Holy Spirit to be poured out on anyone who was properly baptized. And God proves this to us beyond any doubt in Acts 19:
It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. – Acts 19:1-6
It’s obvious that every believer is supposed to receive the Holy Spirit after being baptized with water, which is the only baptism instituted by Christ, and you know this for a fact because the men in this scenario were asked by Paul, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” and when they said they hadn’t, he immediately asked, “Into what then were you baptized?” indicating the specific benefit of baptism. Clearly, belief wasn’t enough for these men to receive the Holy Spirit. They needed to receive Jesus’ baptism, which He instituted before His ascension by saying:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I commanded you….”
WHAT IF I DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED?
The protestant’s interpretation of the story about the thief on the cross and the story of Cornelius seems to be based on the idea – the HOPE – that God will make a special exception for literally every person on earth, including the lazy and the rebellious, which defies the very definition of an exception. The majority of these people are not even in an exceptional position that would prevent them from being baptized.
No one is making the argument that God can’t make exceptions, but your REFUSAL to obtain the remission of your sins through the most simple method of baptism is an affront to God’s mercy and lovingkindness. Or do you imagine the Lord Jesus will be pleased when He asks you why you didn’t wash away your sins through baptism, and you say, ”Ah ah ah, Jesus… remember the thief on the cross?” And do you imagine Him saying, “Whoops… you got me. Come on in then”? His true response will be much more terrifying.
But there is oftentimes a deeper, unspoken reason for why so many people refuse to believe in baptismal regeneration. It is because it’s too painful for them to believe that their deceased friends and family members, who never received baptism, are likely condemned for eternity. But if this is the case, are you really going to let them prevent you from being baptized? Here you are, aware that their souls are in jeopardy, but now you’re considering the idea of REFUSING to be baptized on their account? They might be in fiery torment right now BEGGING God to let them come back and convince you to be baptized, but you’re instead going to let them drag you to hell along with them?
What a legacy they’ve left behind them, keeping their family members from being saved, even though they would tell you to be baptized themselves if they could speak to you! Hear the words of Christ when He describes the regret of those who lived evil lives and found out what their end would be.
“And the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Why not do BETTER than your foolish family members did and break this cycle of self-destruction? Why not leave judgment up to God and save your own soul, setting a new example for the rest of your family to follow? Don’t let someone else be the cause of your d***ation. Or do you think that you will INCREASE the chances of them being saved if you refuse to be baptized? Imagine that scene on judgment day: “Lord, let me into heaven,” you say. “But did you receive the washing of regeneration?” He asks. “No,” you say, “because I knew my dead family members weren’t baptized, and it hurt me to believe baptism was necessary for salvation, because it felt like I was condemning those who haven’t received it. But I was hoping you would pardon them for refusing to be baptized.” “So then, the reason you aren’t baptized right now is because the unrighteous legacy of your family members convinced you not to be baptized… and you think that will help them be PARDONED?”
No, it won’t help them.
EXCEPTIONS FOR BAPTISM:
Now, in the case of those who are martyred before they’re able to be baptized, the early church held that these would still be saved by being baptized, not in water, but in their own blood, and they derive this belief from Christ’s words about the martyrdom which he was about to undergo at His crucifixion, and which most of the apostles also attained to, although the apostles received baptism with water first.
The church fathers on the baptism of blood:
“We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote, so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood…. This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost.” – Tertullian, On Baptism 1
“[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized.” – Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 72
“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood” – John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian 2
If any man receive not baptism, he hath not salvation; except only martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, “Can ye drink the cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? – Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 3 par 10
And likewise, the church fathers also pass down the tradition that if anyone is unable to be fully immersed in water, due to having insufficient water or a person being bedridden, they would pour or sprinkle water on their head. But immersion was the rule of faith, because it properly represents burial and resurrection, and it was done three times, at the invocation of each name.
The Didache, 100 A.D.
Baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if they have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou cannot in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. – The Didache, chapter 7
Tertullian, 200-220 A.D
When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. – De Corona (The Chaplet), chapter 3
He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names. – Against Praxeas, chapter 26
Hippolytus, 215 A.D.
When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?” And the one being baptized shall answer, “I believe.” He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. Then he shall ask, “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?” When each has answered, “I believe,” he shall baptize a second time. Then he shall ask, “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?” Then each being baptized shall answer, “I believe.” And thus let him baptize the third time. – Apostolic Tradition, chapter 21, verse 12
Cyprian of Carthage, 246 A.D.
You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought of those who obtain God’s grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. In this point, my diffidence and modesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any from feeling what he thinks right, and from doing what he feels to be right. As far as my poor understanding conceives it, I think that the divine benefits can in no respect be mutilated and weakened; nor can anything less occur in that case, where, with full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver, is accepted what is drawn from the divine gifts. – Letter 75, chapter 12
THE BAPTIST BAPTISM:
And now to address the most ardent haters of baptism, those who are enemies of their own souls, the sect of protestants who call themselves “Baptists” – these people identify themselves by a supposed belief in baptism, and even name themselves after it, but deny the meaning of baptism altogether. They appropriately call themselves baptists, because they perform a baptism that has no regenerative effect, like John the Baptist’s form of baptism, which was a forerunner to Christ’s baptism. Except, John’s baptism had more meaning than theirs, because at least in John’s baptism, he was calling people to repentance, and those who came to be baptized were “confessing their sins,” but there is no confession of sins before baptism in the cult of baptists, nor do they take repentance to heart. They only teach that the greater sins should be avoided, and that the lesser ones are impossible to stop doing.
These self-murderers say that baptism with water is an OUTWARD sign you ought to perform after you’ve already been reborn inwardly, meaning, baptism with water symbolically REPRESENTS the cleaning of our sins, but it’s something you do AFTER you’ve already received the new birth by saying a prayer, sometimes even YEARS after you’ve been saved, according to them.
Of course, the Lord and His apostles state the true purpose of baptism many times, contradicting this notion at every turn. For example, the apostle Peter says:
“Corresponding to that [water], baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” – 1 Peter 3:21
And what is the conscience? The conscience is that which convicts us of our sin. It tells us we’re guilty of wrongdoing, and it pushes us to repent of our sin and make it right. If we’ve lied, our conscience torments us until we tell the truth. If we steal, our conscience tells us to return what was stolen. If we injure someone, our conscience tells us to make up for what we’ve done. Here in this passage Peter is saying that baptism is a request to God for a good conscience, implying that a person’s conscience is tainted by sin until they come to baptism. But the protestant says a person should make this request for a good conscience AFTER they’ve already been washed of their sins and had their conscience renewed by saying the sinner’s prayer! This is satanic delusion.
Baptists have the audacity to say that baptism is nothing more than a rite to be performed before a person becomes a member of the BAPTIST denomination. It doesn’t actually affect your relationship with GOD! It only affects your relationship with the baptist church!
They are so deluded that they don’t realize they’ve admitted they’re not part of God’s church when they deny a person membership in the baptist church until they’ve been baptized, because on the one hand they have the nerve to say someone IS SAVED and therefore part of GOD’S church as SOON as they say the sinner’s prayer, but that apparently isn’t enough for the baptists to let you in! You have to perform the special “baptist” rite of baptism to enter THEIR church, even though you’re already part of GOD’S church! So they admit that there’s a difference between God’s church and the baptist church! They aren’t the same church!
INFANT BAPTISM
But where did this heretical sect originate from? The baptist church was founded by a man named John Smyth in 1609, who was promptly excommunicated by his own congregation as soon as he introduced his outlandish views to them. Because he rejected the meaning of baptism, he naturally also rejected the practice of baptizing infants, because – according to him – baptism should only be administered to someone who confesses their faith in Christ, and an infant can’t do that. Therefore, in his view, every person who was ever baptized as an infant had an illegitimate baptism. Of course, he also denied baptismal regeneration, so in his view, even a legitimate baptism had no effect. There were other famous heretics living around the same time who said the same thing, such as the founder of the Mennonite sect, Menno Simons, who rejected the saving effect of baptism and consequently taught that anyone who was baptized as an infant should eventually be rebaptized whenever they reached adulthood – not that they were REQUIRED to, but they could if they wanted to. Hence, they were called anabaptists, meaning “re-baptizers,” and since then, some of them have shortened their name to “baptists.”
We shall now refute these heretics who cast doubt on the legitimacy of infant baptism, as there ARE some people who believe that we are born again through baptism, but who struggle to understand the purpose of infant baptism, due to the influence of heretics like John Smyth and Menno Simons.
THE NEW COVENANT
Let the veil be torn away then! The necessity of infant baptism, and the very saving nature of baptism for all ages, can be established in one fell swoop by understanding the correlation between the initiatory rite of circumcision in the Old Covenant and the rite of initiation into the New Covenant, which is baptism. God replaced circumcision with baptism, and He makes that clear in the Scriptures.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” – Jeremiah 31:31-34
“Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” – Deuteronomy 30:6
“And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” – Colossians 2:11-13
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. – Romans 2:28-29
For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh. – Philippians 3:2
You see, only the outward sign and ceremony that initiates a person into God’s covenant has been changed and fulfilled. God hasn’t changed His mind about the necessity of having a seal altogether! Even though circumcision of the flesh has been abolished, God still requires that we receive the seal of our faith at baptism when we’re washed of our sins. Some, however, deny that circumcision was the seal of the Old Covenant, for fear of acknowledging the legitimacy of infant baptism. But the Scriptures refute them very plainly:
“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised.” – Romans 4:11
Baptism, on the other hand, is the seal of the New Covenant, which the Holy Spirit brings about.
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us…. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise….” – Ephesians 1:8,13
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption….” – Ephesians 4:30
Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge…. – 2 Corinthians 1:22
But when are we sealed by the Holy Spirit? At baptism, as the Scriptures testify:
After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him…. – Matthew 3:16
He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” – Acts 19:2-3
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” – Acts 2:38-39
The early church fathers had this same view, that baptism is the seal of the New Covenant, and that the Holy Spirit descends on a person at baptism, and this is why the early church universally practiced infant baptism, testifying that it came directly from the apostles, because infants had always received the seal of the Old Covenant by being circumcised, so naturally they ought to receive the seal of the New Covenant. In this next list of quotes, we will establish that the early church fathers taught that circumcision was not altogether abolished, but rather fulfilled by a spiritual circumcision of the heart, which begins to take place when we repent of our sins, and is sealed by the Holy Spirit at baptism.
QUOTES ABOUT BAPTISM AND CIRCUMCISION BEING A SEAL:
Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book VI, Chapter VIII:
Now God has ordered every one who worships Him to be sealed by baptism; but if you refuse, and obey your own will rather than God’s, you are doubtless contrary and hostile to His will.
Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9:
For, he continued, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.
Letter of Barnabas, Chapter 9. The spiritual meaning of circumcision:
For He declared that circumcision was not of the flesh, but they transgressed because an evil angel deluded them. He says to them, These things says the Lord your God — (here I find a new commandment) — Sow not among thorns, but circumcise yourselves to the Lord. And why speaks He thus: Circumcise the stubbornness of your heart, and harden not your neck? And again: Behold, says the Lord, all the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but this people are uncircumcised in heart. But you will say, Yea, verily the people are circumcised for a seal. But so also is every Syrian and Arab, and all the priests of idols. Are these then also within the bond of His covenant? Yea, the Egyptians also practice circumcision.
Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For [the Scripture] says, And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household. What, then, was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted — Ten by Ιota, and Eight by eta. You have [the initials of the, name of] Iesus – Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter Τ, he says also, Three Hundred. He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that you are worthy.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, book 2, chapter 12-18:
12. You have now need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh….
14. By reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life.
18. Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you — namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.
19 This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and dug for yourselves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former.
41. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.
And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it.
44. So that it becomes you to eradicate this hope from your souls, and hasten to know in what way forgiveness of sins, and a hope of inheriting the promised good things, shall be yours. But there is no other [way] than this— to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives.
114. Blessed therefore are we who have been circumcised the second time with knives of stone. For your first circumcision was and is performed by iron instruments, for you remain hard-hearted; but our circumcision, which is the second, having been instituted after yours, circumcises us from idolatry and from absolutely every kind of wickedness by sharp stones, i.e., by the words [preached] by the apostles of the corner-stone cut out without hands. And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.
Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, chapter 7:
First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God….
Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 16):
1. Moreover, we learn from the Scripture itself, that God gave circumcision, not as the completer of righteousness, but as a sign, that the race of Abraham might continue recognisable. For it declares: God said to Abraham, Every male among you shall be circumcised; and you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, as a token of the covenant between Me and you. Genesis 17:9-11 … These things, then, were given for a sign; but the signs were not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning nor to no purpose, inasmuch as they were given by a wise Artist; but the circumcision after the flesh typified that after the Spirit. For we, says the apostle, have been circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.
Clement of Alexandria:
For it is said, Put on him the best robe, which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately when he had touched the font And put a ring on his hand. Here is the mystery of the Trinity; which is the seal impressed on those who believe. – Fragments, chapter 6
The noble apostle circumcised Timothy, though loudly declaring and writing that circumcision made with hands profits nothing. But that he might not, by dragging all at once away from the law, to the circumcision of the heart through faith those of the Hebrews who were reluctant listeners, compel them to break away from the synagogue, he, “accommodating himself to the Jews, became a Jew so that he might gain all.” – The Stromata, book 7, chapter 8
Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 36:
One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer.
Tertullian, On Repentance, chapter 6:
That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already. For the first baptism of a learner is this, a perfect fear; thenceforward, in so far as you have understanding of the Lord faith is sound, the conscience having once for all embraced repentance. Otherwise, if it is (only) after the baptismal waters that we cease sinning, it is of necessity, not of free-will, that we put on innocence.
Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, chapter 3 and 9:
In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practised circumcision, and were thus rendered friends of God. For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges?
For, as the carnal circumcision, which was temporary, was in wrought for a sign in a contumacious people, so the spiritual has been given for salvation to an obedient people; while the prophet Jeremiah says, Make a renewal for you, and sow not in thorns; be circumcised to God, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart: and in another place he says, Behold, days shall come, says the Lord, and I will draw up, for the house of Judah and for the house of Jacob, a new testament; not such as I once gave their fathers in the day wherein I led them out from the land of Egypt. Whence we understand that the coming cessation of the former circumcision then given, and the coming procession of a new law (not such as He had already given to the fathers), are announced…
… Therefore as we have shown above that the coming cessation of the old law and of the carnal circumcision was declared, so, too, the observance of the new law and the spiritual circumcision has shone out into the voluntary obediences of peace.
… And accordingly we, who were not the people of God in days bygone, have been made His people, by accepting the new law above mentioned, and the new circumcision before foretold.
An Answer to the Jews, chapter 9:
For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world aforetime) into the land of promise, flowing with milk and honey (that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law’s discipline), but through Joshua (that is, through the new law’s grace), after our circumcision with a knife of rock (that is, with Christ’s precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock); therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord’s name, even so as to be named Jesus.
Origen, Homily 3 on Genesis:
We, therefore, instructed by the apostle Paul, say that just as many other things were made in the figure and image of future truth, so also that circumcision of flesh was bearing the form of spiritual circumcision about which it was both worthy and fitting that “the God of majesty” give precepts to mortals.
It remains for us to describe also circumcision of the heart. If there is anyone who burns with obscene desires and shameful passions and, to speak briefly, who “commits adultery in his heart,” this man is “uncircumcised in heart.” But he also is “uncircumcised in heart” who holds heretical views in his mind and arranges blasphemous assertions against knowledge of Christ in his heart. But he is circumcised in heart who guards the pure faith in sincerity of conscience, about whom it can be said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
How, then, I ask, “will the covenant of Christ be in my flesh”? If “I shall have put to death my members which are on the earth,” I have the covenant of Christ in my flesh. If “I shall always bear about the death of Jesus Christ in my body,” the covenant of Christ is in my body, because “if we suffer with him we shall also reign with him.” If “I shall have been planted together in the likeness of his death,” I show “his covenant” to be “in my flesh.”
Origen, Commentary on Romans, book 2, chapter 12:
He says, “but if you are a transgressor of the law,” i.e., by failing to do good, as we have explained above, “your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” That is to say, even your apparent abstention from evil is reckoned to you as unbelief, since you do not do works of faith and righteousness. For it is not possible to convert someone’s fleshly circumcision back to uncircumcision, since obviously the flesh of the foreskin which has been cut off cannot grow back over. Therefore it will be understood more fittingly and plainly that if the refraining from evil deeds, which is signified by circumcision, is not accompanied by the works of faith, it must be reckoned as uncleanness. Moreover, if anyone in the Church who is circumcised by means of the grace of baptism should afterwards become a transgressor of Christ’s law, his baptismal circumcision shall be reckoned to him as the uncircumcision of unbelief. For it says, “Faith without works is dead”; and the lot of the wicked steward is with the unbelievers.
Cyprian, letter 58, chapter 4 and 5:
4. For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.
5. For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ…. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth….
6. And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all.
Novation, On the Jewish Meats:
But how perverse are the Jews, and remote from the understanding of their law, I have fully shown, as I believe, in two former letters, wherein it was absolutely proved that they are ignorant of what is the true circumcision.
Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book IV (Of True Wisdom and Religion):
In like manner, Isaiah thus prophesied concerning the abolition of circumcision: Thus says the Lord to the men of Judah who dwell at Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord your God, and take away the foreskins of your heart, lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it. Also Moses himself says: In the last days the Lord shall circumcise your heart to love the Lord your God. Also Jesus the son of Nun, his successor, said: And the Lord said to Jesus, Make you knives of flint very sharp, and sit and circumcise the children of Israel the second time. He said that this second circumcision would be not of the flesh, as the first was, which the Jews practice even now, but of the heart and spirit, which was delivered by Christ, who was the true Jesus…. For that circumcision of the flesh is plainly irrational; since, if God had so willed it, He might so have formed man from the beginning, that he should be without a foreskin. But it was a figure of this second circumcision, signifying that the breast is to be laid bare; that is, that we ought to live with an open and simple heart, since that part of the body which is circumcised has a kind of resemblance to the heart, and is to be treated with reverence. On this account God ordered that it should be laid bare, that by this argument He might admonish us not to have our breast hidden in obscurity; that is, not to veil any shameful deed within the secrets of conscience. This is the circumcision of the heart of which the prophets speak, which God transferred from the mortal flesh to the soul, which alone is about to endure. For being desirous of promoting our life and salvation in accordance with His own goodness, in that circumcision He has set before us repentance, that if we lay open our hearts — that is if we confess our sins and make satisfaction to God — we shall obtain pardon, which is denied to those who are obstinate and conceal their faults, by Him who regards not the outward appearance, as man does, but the innermost secrets of the heart.
Apostolic Constitutions, book 6, chapters 14-15:
Nor be circumcised in your flesh, but let the circumcision which is of the heart by the Spirit suffice for the faithful; for He says, “Be circumcised to your God, and be circumcised in the foreskin of your heart.” Be likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord.
Ambrose, On Abraham, 2,11:79 in JUR, 2:169 (only in Latin):
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins, so that he can be saved…. For no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism…. ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.”
John Chrysostom, Instructions to Catechumens, chapter 2:
But, if you will, let us discourse about the name which this mystic cleansing bears: for its name is not one, but very many and various. For this purification is called the laver of regeneration. He saved us, he says, through the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost… It is called also, baptism: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. It is called also burial: For we were buried says he, with him, through baptism, into death. It is called circumcision: In whom you were also circumcised, with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh.
John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on 2 Corinthians:
For instead of the Jerusalem below we have received that mother city which is above; and instead of a material temple have seen a spiritual temple; instead of tables of stone, fleshy ones; instead of circumcision, baptism; instead of the manna, the Lord’s body; instead of water from a rock, blood from His side.
John Chrysostom, Homily 6 on Colossians 2:
No longer, he says, is the circumcision with the knife, but in Christ Himself; for no hand imparts this circumcision, as is the case there, but the Spirit. It circumcises not a part, but the whole man. It is the body both in the one and the other case, but in the one it is carnally, in the other it is spiritually circumcised; but not as the Jews, for you have not put off flesh, but sins. When and where? In Baptism. And what he calls circumcision, he again calls burial. Observe how he again passes on to the subject of righteous doings; of the sins, he says, of the flesh, the things they had done in the flesh. He speaks of a greater thing than circumcision, for they did not merely cast away that of which they were circumcised, but they destroyed it, they annihilated it.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration on Baptism:
XXVIII. Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.
A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts, which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness.
Basil the Great, Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects
“For prisoners, baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption”
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 3, par 4
“He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven.”
WE STILL CIRCUMCISE:
You see, the command God gave to His people to circumcise their children did not cease at the New Covenant, but rather it took on a new and greater meaning, as the seal of God’s covenant transitioned from fleshly circumcision to spiritual circumcision. God first said to Abraham:
“In your seed, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you obeyed my voice.” – Genesis 22:18
And then Paul clarifies this by explaining:
He does not say, “And to seeds,” as to many, but to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. – Galatians 3:16-19
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. – Galatians 3:27-29
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. – Galatians 5:2-4
You see, then, that God’s covenant was first given to Abraham and that it was sealed with circumcision, but that the promise given to Abraham is available to ALL who attach themselves to his seed, that is Christ, and whoever is baptized is clothed with Christ, thus showing a clear progression from circumcision to baptism. Peter affirms this truth by using similar words spoken by God in reference to circumcision, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children,” just as God said, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations…. Every male among you shall be circumcised.”
As circumcision was the sign of the first covenant and was given to infants, it follows that the sign of the New Covenant should be given to infants as well. But some will contend that baptism should only be given to those who have repented of their sins, while an infant has no sins to repent of. Thus, the question is asked, how can a sinless infant be baptized when it neither has the ability to confess its sins nor does it have any sin to speak of?
The answer is this: Circumcision also symbolizes repentance from sin, yet God commanded that it, too, be given to infants, who have no sins to repent of. Clearly, there are more benefits to baptism than JUST the forgiveness of sins, or else the early church wouldn’t have practiced it from the beginning. If anyone denounces infant baptism on the basis that infants are innocent of sin, they should consider the fact that infants in the Old Covenant were also innocent of sin, and yet they received a sign that symbolized the cutting off of sins.
You who refuse to baptize your child on the basis of their innocence would no doubt have also refused to circumcise your child in the Old Covenant, saying to God, “My child is innocent of sin! He doesn’t need to be brought into your covenant!” What stubbornness!
“And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be cut off from his people, for he has broken my covenant.” – Genesis 17:15
And we know that the Lord sought to kill Moses, the lawgiver, after he had neglected to circumcise his son Gershom, when he knew full well that it was the seal of God’s covenant and that the Israelites were commanded to perform it or else be cut off.
This it came to pass on the way, at the inn, that the Angel of the Lord met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son, and fell at his feet and said, “The flow of blood from my son’s circumcision is stopped.” So he departed from him…. – Exodus 4:24-26
IS IT “CHILDREN” OR “DESCENDENTS”?
As we can see, the command to circumcise children is clear from Scripture. And just as the promise made to Abraham was graciously bestowed on every infant born in his household, the children of the new covenant are also baptized along with their believing parents, and this time, the covenant is made through water instead of blood.
“The promise is for you and your children….”
But some heretics will point to the word “children” and say, “That word can also be translated as ‘offspring,’ or ‘descendants,’ not just children. So it’s more likely that Peter is referring to their adult offspring, not literal children.” Let’s examine this objection. What would be the purpose of Peter telling the crowd that their ADULT offspring can also receive baptism? Why would he need to specify that? Had it previously been assumed that only adult parents and not adult offspring could be saved? Aren’t ALL adults technically offspring anyway? What would be the purpose of saying, ”That’s right, not only can all of YOU adults be saved, but even your ADULT offspring!” Doesn’t it make more sense for Peter to be saying, “Not only can all of you be saved who are hearing this message, but even your CHILDREN?” just as God specified that all male children must be circumcised along with their fathers?
Whenever modern commentators and scholars talk about the Scriptures, they repeatedly bring up the fact that we must read the Scriptures in light of ”the Jewish mind,” because the issues Paul was accustomed to addressing in his letters required a particular method of resolving conflicts, in light of the practices the Jews had been firmly established in for over 2000 years. Paul could not simply introduce the fulfilled New Covenant law that replaced the Old Covenant laws without being sharply opposed by Jewish converts to Christ, who were still set in their old ways, so he always had to carefully address the fulfillment of the New Covenant and the abandoning of inferior ceremonies of the Old Covenant, ESPECIALLY with regard to circumcision, as we see from most of his letters.
It should be obvious that the people living in the apostolic age – especially those of Jewish descent – would have IMMEDIATELY asked the question, ”If circumcision has been done away, how do we seal our children into God’s new covenant?” It would have been the first question on their Jewish minds, since it was primarily infants who were circumcized in times past. And after they were told that baptism was replacing circumcision, they would have all seen the obvious continuation of sealing children in God’s covenant.
Or do you really think that the Jews, after 2000 years of circumcising their infants, would have suddenly and inexplicably adopted YOUR mindset that, ”A baby can’t be baptized, because they don’t have any faith?” That protestant idea never existed in ancient times. They would have had absolutely NO qualms about baptizing their infants apart from them having personal faith. But do you know what they would have instantly and vigorously resisted? The idea that children need to have their own faith to be sealed in God’s covenant! If Paul had introduced THAT idea, it would have been the biggest controversy of the early church, but we hear of no such controversy. The silence on this issue is deafening, as it indicates perfect acceptance over the issue of baptism replacing circumcision, once Paul responded to the Jewish Christians in Rome and Galatia and Colossae, who wished to continue the rite of circumcision, because they didn’t yet understand that circumcision was being fulfilled by baptism! This is why Paul repeatedly assures the Jews that they are not simply abolishing circumcision, but receiving a SUPERIOR circumcision.
“But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.” – Romans 2:29
Do you realize that in Israel, circumcision used to be given almost exclusively to infants? It was only a small number of gentile proselytes who were converted to Judaism each year by receiving fleshly circumcision. Until Christ came, practically all circumcisions in Israel were performed on male infants. And yet Paul tells us that the seal of the New Covenant, baptism, is now offered to FAR MORE groups of people than in the Old Covenant.
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:27-28
But you anabaptists would have us believe that the seal of the new covenant, which is now offered to more candidates than ever before, now EXCLUDES those who used to be the PRIMARY recipient, namely infants, and that this reversal happened overnight without a single Jew taking issue with it!
BUT BABIES ARE INNOCENT OF SIN!
Again, the anabaptist justifies their position by pointing to the innocence of infant children, saying their salvation is secure because infants don’t know sin. On the one hand, they’re right that babies are innocent of sin, as the Scriptures and also the church fathers attest, but they are wrong on another point.. First, let us hear the testimony of the early church affirming the innocence of little children:
HERMAS: Those who believed are such as these: They are like innocent infants, in whose heart no wickedness enters and who do not know what evil is but always remain in innocence. Such as these will undoubtedly live in the kingdom of God, because in no way did they defile the commandments of God but innocently remained in the same frame of mind all the days of their life. As many of you then who will continue and be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more honored than all others, for all infants are honored before God and are in the first rank before him. Blessed are all of you, therefore, who remove evil from yourselves and put on guiltlessness. – (Similitudes 9.29.1-3=106.1-3)
I, the angel of repentance, judge all of you to be blessed who are as innocent as infants, because your part is good and honorable before God. – (Ibid. 9.31.3= 108.3)
Have sincerity and be innocent, and you shall be as children, who do not know the evil which destroys the life of men. (Mandate 2.1=27.1)
BARNABAS: Since he renewed us in the forgiveness of sins, he made us into another image, so as to have the soul of children, as if he were indeed refashioning us. (6.11)
ARISTIDES: And when a child has been born to one of them [Christians], they give thanks to God; and if it should die as an infant, they give thanks the more, because it has departed life sinless. – (Apology 15.11)
ATHENAGORAS: Although all human beings who die are resurrected, not all those resurrected are judged. If justice in the judgment were the only cause of the resurrection, it would follow, of course, that those who have not sinned nor done good, namely quite young children, would not be resurrected. – (On the Resurrection 14)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: We have shown that not only are all of us called children by Scripture, but also that we who have followed Christ are figuratively spoken of as babes. – {Instructor 1.7.53.1)
The righteous Job says: Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there; not naked of possessions, for that were a trivial and common thing; but, as a just man, he departs naked of evil and sin, and of the unsightly shape which follows those who have led bad lives. For this was what was said, Unless you be converted, and become as children, pure in flesh, holy in soul by abstinence from evil deeds; showing that He would have us to be such as also He generated us from our mother — the water. (Miscellanies 4.25.160.1.2)
IRENAEUS: Who were those who were saved and received the inheritance? Those, obviously, who believed in God and kept their love for him, such as Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun, and innocent children, who have no sense of evil. Who are those now who are saved and receive eternal life? Is it not those who love God and believe his promises and “in malice have become little children”? (Against Heresies 4.28.3)
CYPRIAN: Nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another. – Letter 58, chapter 5
PSEUDO-CLEMENT: Thus, although we are born neither good nor bad, we become one or the other; and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from them. – Clementine Homilies, homily 8, chapter 16
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM: We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins. – Ad Neophytos (only in Latin)
HILARY OF POITIERS: He calls infants all who believe through the hearing of faith; for such follow their father, love their mother, know not to will that which is evil, do not bear hate, or speak lies, trust what is told them, and believe what they hearto be true.
EPIPHANIUS: Here the Lord not only repressed the apostles’ thoughts but also checked the ambition of believers throughout the whole world, so that he might be great who wanted to be least. For with this purpose Jesus used the example of the child, that what he had been through his nature, we through our holy living might become—innocent, like children innocent of every sin. For a child does not know how to hold resentment or to grow angry. He does not know how to repay evil for evil. He does not think base thoughts. He does not commit adultery or arson or murder. He is utterly ignorant of theft or brawling or all the things that will draw him to sin. He does not know how to disparage, how to blaspheme, how to hurt, how to lie. He believes what he hears. What he is ordered he does not analyze. He loves his parents with full affection. Therefore what children are in their simplicity, let us become through a holy way of life, as children innocent of sin. And quite rightly, one who has become a child innocent of sin in this way is greater in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives such a person will receive Christ.
It’s true, babies are innocent of sin. But again, infants were innocent of sin in the Old Covenant as well, yet they were still circumcised by God’s command. Thus, a child’s innocence doesn’t exempt them from the necessity of baptism. And why is that? Because being innocent doesn’t make one perfectly complete in righteousness. Faith in God is counted for righteousness, not innocence. Adam and Eve were innocent and ignorant, but not exactly good, because they hadn’t been tested. To be ignorant of evil doesn’t make one good. An infant simply hasn’t sinned YET, and is considered the ideal disciple because of its simplicity and humility in receiving instruction to worship the Lord and obey His commands, not that they’re born in that state naturally.
But on the contrary, innocence is quickly corrupted, and that is why parents are commanded to instruct and discipline their children to save their souls from death. Your baby will only be innocent for a short period of time, and then he will begin to know sin, because its cognitive faculties will develop and its bodily senses will awaken to the pursuit of pleasures. Before it gains the ability to walk and think and talk, a baby is not capable of sinning, as it doesn’t have the mental or physical capacity to be blamed or praised for any of its actions, just as the scripture says, “Before the child shall know enough to choose good and turn away from evil….” But at the same time, innocence doesn’t make one good. It only means one hasn’t done anything good or evil YET, but you will as soon as you’re able to, which is what Adam and Eve did, despite their initial innocence.
12. But man was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected; wherefore also he was easily led astray by the deceiver. – Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, chapter 12
14. And Adam and Eve—for that is the name of the woman— were naked, and were not ashamed; for there was in them an innocent and childlike mind, and it was not possible for them to conceive and understand anything of that which by wickedness through lusts and shameful desires is born in the soul. – Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, chapter 14
37. The Word of God was made flesh by the dispensation of the Virgin, to abolish death and make man live. For we were imprisoned by sin, being born in sinfulness and living under death. – Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, chapter 37:
These statements come from the same person, and yet the protestant would say they’re contradictory. But these two concepts are not contradictory. The early church always held to the innocence of infants AND to the practice of infant baptism, and this was long before Augustine ever invented his heretical idea of original sin, where an infant is blamed for the sins of its ancestors. While it is possible that God might save all those who die as infants on the condition of their being innocent, this is never explicitly stated in Scripture or in the early church, and the possibility of it does not invalidate the command to baptize.
Even if all infants ARE saved based on their innocence, again, innocence only lasts for a short time before it’s corrupted by sin, and very few people die as infants. Why delay baptism for years, even up to a decade or longer, as so many do, based on the possibility that God might be gracious to those who die as infants? There’s no consistency in this argument. Rather, Christians ought to assume their children who have recently come into the world are embarking on a struggle that will last a full lifespan, and properly equip them with everything they need to be saved.
Let us hear, then, the testimony of the early church on infant baptism, so that we may know for certain that the practice was apostolic. And afterward, the objections to infant baptism will each be answered in their turn.
Church Fathers on Infant Baptism
Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book 7:
Whence, also, I find fault with very many, who, when they are themselves baptized and believe, yet do nothing worthy of faith with those whom they love, such as wives, or children, or friends, whom they do not exhort to that which they themselves have attained, as they would do if indeed they believed that eternal life is thereby bestowed. In short, if they see them to be sick, or to be subject to any danger bodily, they grieve and mourn, because they are sure that in this destruction threatens them. So, then, if they were sure of this, that the punishment of eternal fire awaits those who do not worship God, when would they cease warning and exhorting? Or, if they refused, how would they not mourn and bewail them, being sure that eternal torments awaited them?
Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book 10, chapter 45:
Therefore let every age, every sex, every condition, hasten to repentance, that they may obtain eternal life. Let the young be thankful that they put their necks under the yoke of discipline in the very violence of their desires. The old also are themselves praise-worthy, because they change for the fear of God, the custom of a long time in which they have been unhappily occupied.
Let no one therefore put off. Let no one delay. For what occasion is there for delaying to do well? Or are you afraid, lest, when you have done well, you do not find the reward as you supposed?
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:4:
Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master…. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.
In anticipation of anyone who would object to Irenaeus on the basis that his words are too ambiguous, the context of this quote is that Christ came to be baptized, and that He was baptized to “save all through himself, all who through him are born again to God.” If anyone finds this quote to be too vague, then listen to six more quotes from Irenaeus, in which he calls baptism “the new birth” and “regeneration,” which are synonymous. You will find that all the other church fathers use the same language.
It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. – Fragments of the lost writings of Irenaeus, chapter 34
[The Holy Spirit] was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God. And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. – Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, chapter 7
This class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God…. – Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21:1
And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, Go to Siloam, and wash; thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver. – Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 15
And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. – Against Heresies, book 3 chapter 17
This baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God…. – Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, chapter 3
It is clear that baptism is rebirth and regeneration unto God, and that Irenaeus is referring to baptism when he says Christ was baptized to bring about the new birth in all ages, including infants.
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16:
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them”
Origen, Commentary on Romans, book 5, chapter 9:
Therefore our body is the body of sin, for it is not written that Adam knew his wife Eve and became the father of Cain until after the sin. After all, even in the law it is commanded that sacrifices be offered for the child who was born: a pair of turtledoves or two young doves; one of which was offered for sin and the other as a burnt offering. For which sin is this one dove offered? Was a newly born child able to sin? And yet it has a sin for which sacrifices are commanded to be offered, and from which it is denied that anyone is pure, even if his life should be one day long. It has to be believed, therefore, that concerning this David also said what we recorded above, “in sins my mother conceived me.” For according to the historical narrative no sin of his mother is declared. It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed were aware that in everyone was sin’s innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit. Because of this defilement as well, the body itself is called the body of sin; it is not because of sins the soul committed when it was in another body, as they who introduce the doctrine of reincarnation imagine. But because the soul was fashioned into the body of sin, and the body of death and lowliness, and just as he said, “You have lowered our soul to the dust.”
Origen, Homilies on Luke, chapter 14:
Thus, it was fitting that those offerings that, according to the law, customarily cleanse stain, should be made. They were made for our Lord and Savior, who had been “clothed with stained garments” and had taken on an earthly body. Christian brethren often ask a question. The passage from Scripture read today encourages me to treat it again. Little children are baptized “for the remission of sins. ‘ Whose sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation we spoke of a little earlier? “No man is clean of stain, not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day.” Through the mystery of Baptism, the stains of birth are put aside. For this reason, even small children are baptized. For, “unless a man be born again of water and spirit, he will not be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3:
Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin…. In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.
Cyprian, Letter 58:
2. But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man.
5. But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.
6. And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat.
Apostolic Constitutions, book 6, chapter 15:
But he that says, “When I am dying I will be baptized, lest I should sin and defile my baptism,” is ignorant of God, and forgetful of his own nature. For do not delay to turn unto the Lord, for you know not what the next day will bring forth. Do you also baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God. For says He: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.
Ambrose, On Abraham, 2,11:79 in JUR, 2:169 (only in Latin):
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins, so that he can be saved…. For no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism…. ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.”
John Chrysostom, quoted by Augustine, Against Julian:
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members.”’
John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (only in Latin):
“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.”
Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic”
Augustine, Letter 166:8:23
“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth…. He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born.”
Jerome, To Oceanus
The Spirit of God above moved, as a charioteer, over the face of the waters, and produced from them the infant world, a type of the Christian child that is drawn from the laver of baptism.
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration on Baptism:
IV. We call it, the Gift, the Grace, Baptism, Unction, Illumination, the Clothing of Immortality, the Laver of Regeneration, the Seal, and everything that is honourable. We call it the Gift, because it is given to us in return for nothing on our part; Grace, because it is conferred even on debtors; Baptism, because sin is buried with it in the water; Unction, as Priestly and Royal, for such were they who were anointed; Illumination, because of its splendour; Clothing, because it hides our shame; the Laver, because it washes us; the Seal because it preserves us, and is moreover the indication of Dominion.
Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin.
VIII. For, to say it all in one word, the virtue of Baptism is to be understood as a covenant with God for a second life and a purer conversation.
IX. For it is a strange thing to substitute for a painless remedy one which is more painful; to cast away the grace of mercy, and owe a debt of punishment; and to measure our amendment against sin.
XVII. Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and of how little faith! Why, Anna even before Samuel was born promised him to God, and after his birth consecrated him at once, and brought him up in the priestly habit, not fearing anything in human nature, but trusting in God. You have no need of amulets or incantations, with which the Devil also comes in, stealing worship from God for himself in the minds of vainer men. Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Guard.
XXVIII. Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.
A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts, which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness.
XVI. But are you afraid lest you should destroy the Gift, and do you therefore put off your cleansing, because you cannot have it a second time? What? Would you not be afraid of danger in time of persecution, and of losing the most precious Thing you have — Christ? Would you then on this account avoid becoming a Christian? Perish the thought. Such a fear is not for a sane man; such an argument argues insanity. O incautious caution, if I may say so. O trick of the Evil One! … For, being unable to persuade you to despise Baptism, he inflicts loss upon you through a fictitious security; that in consequence of your fear you may suffer unconsciously the very thing you are afraid of; and because you fear to destroy the Gift, you may for this very reason fail of the Gift altogether.
Let us be baptized today, that we suffer not violence tomorrow; and let us not put off the blessing as if it were an injury, nor wait till we get more wicked that more may be forgiven us….
The Point of Baptism is to Receive the Holy Spirit:
These quotes will suffice in showing the practice of the church for the first 300 years. But now we will answer objections as to the purpose of baptizing infants.
There is much confusion on the part of the anabaptists as they incessantly point out that baptism represents the forgiveness of sins, and therefore a child has no need of it, since they’re innocent of having committed any sin. But the Bible doesn’t say the main purpose of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, but rather to prepare the body for the reception of the Holy Spirit BY washing away the sin, because the Spirit will not dwell in a filthy temple. It must be washed of its sin first, if it has any, and then the Holy Spirit will take up permanent residence, as John Chrysostom explains in his commentary on Acts,
But why does Christ say, You shall be baptized, when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided. – Homilies 1 on Acts, par 17
Yes indeed, John Chrysostom says, the more essential part of baptism is receiving the Holy Spirit as a seal of the New Covenant and a pledge of our future glorification as sons of God. Having your sins washed away is only the prerequisite of receiving the Holy Spirit. When an adult is baptized, their conscience is cleansed of all the sins they’ve committed over the course of their life, and they become like an infant. Therefore, since infants are born with no guilt and no sin, they are the perfect vessel to be inhabited by the Holy Spirit.
“But can a baby receive the Holy Spirit,” you might ask? Yes.
“… And he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.” – Luke 1:15
“But does a baby NEED the Holy Spirit?” you ask. Yes.
“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” – Romans 8:9
BABIES ARE THE PERFECT IMAGE OF DISCIPLES:
But there are some who quote Jesus words’ about making disciples of all nations, who say, ”But an infant can’t believe, so an infant can’t be a disciple, and therefore an infant shouldn’t be baptized, because it is only those who believe that should be baptized!” But the depth of this fallacy is immeasurable. How is it that Christ would tell us ALL to be as little children in order to enter the kingdom of God – referring to the humility and teachable nature of a child, who believes everything he is told and trusts his parent unwaveringly – but would refuse to recognize little children themselves as being like little children?
How much closer to being childlike can an actual child be? Why would Christ tell us to adopt the NATURE and MIND of a child, but view ACTUAL children, who are born into Christian families for the sole purpose of becoming Christians, as if they were wholly different from literal disciples? You must imagine Jesus as saying, ”Yes, I want you disciples to be like little children. Yes, VERY much like children! Almost EXACTLY like a child! But I wouldn’t want one of my disciples to actually BE a child!”
In reality, a baby is the perfect image of a disciple. Each of us is commanded to be like an infant in humility, to be like an infant in faith, to be like an infant in innocence, but you don’t think the children of believers should be counted as disciples? Or do you think they’re TOO worthy, and that they need to lose that perfect degree of humility, faith, and innocence they were born with, by learning to sin and develop bad habits first, so that they can receive the remission of sins after they’ve already sufficiently defiled the temple of their bodies? What do you think, that the disciples are commanded to be like infants, but the infants themselves need to grow up and cease being infants in order to become disciples? Is that right? No! You’re commanded to be like an infant because an infant is the closest you can get to being a disciple!
Rather than seeing someone as needing to become a disciple FIRST, and THEN be baptized, we ought to see discipleship as beginning whenever one person submits to another to be instructed by them. A child is inherently the disciple of whoever is raising them. They have no ability to resist, and it is by God’s design that they’re completely in the power of their parent by necessity.
Some of you will even admit that you teach and discipline your young children at home, but you turn around and say you don’t believe they’re disciples. So why are you teaching and disciplining your little children? Would you teach and discipline a non-disciple? You can only discipline someone who is a disciple, by definition of the word.
THE FAITH OF OTHERS SAVES
Instead, we not only see the command to make disciples of all nations, but we even see Jesus saying, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” because baptism takes place at the beginning of discipleship, not afterwards. Answer this question, you anabaptists: When would YOU say discipleship begins? At what age? Why can’t you answer this question? In reality, discipleship begins immediately after birth. In a Christian home, prayers of blessing are invoked on the child even BEFORE it’s born, but much more after it’s left the womb and is exposed to the world, observing and participating in prayer, hearing the name of Jesus and learning to love Him, being taught patience, gentleness, self-control, and respect for his parents. The child is commanded to obey, and is punished for disobedience. This is discipleship! Would a baptist dare say these things should be withheld for years? If so, you insane person, I ask, how many years?
Christians are commanded to dedicate themselves to the Lord’s service. Shouldn’t we also dedicate our children to Him? Look at the example of Anna dedicating her son Samuel to the Lord’s service, apart from his personal decision, even before he was born. Look at Joaquim and Mary, or Manoah and Samson, whom God chose beforehand as His servants? But you would ask, “How could they dedicate their children to the Lord’s service without checking to see if they’d choose to believe in God first? That was so premature!” You’re wrong. It was the most righteous thing they possibly could have done with their children.
After Abraham died, God told Isaac, “And sojourn in this land; and I will be with you, and bless you, for I will give to you and to your seed all this land; and I will establish my oath which I swore to your father Abraham. And I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven; and I will give to your seed all this land, and all the nations of the earth shall be blest in your seed. Because Abraham your father hearkened to my voice, and kept my injunctions, and my commandments, and my ordinances, and my statutes.”
It was through Abraham’s righteousness that Isaac and the ENTIRE nation of Israel was blessed, a nation that inducted EVERY one of its new infants into God’s covenant, despite none of them having proved their own worthiness of the heavenly gift!
And how many families have been saved throughout history because ONE family member answered the call? Noah saved his whole family by his own righteousness, Abraham was found righteous and subsequently given an everlasting covenant that would apply to his future descendants, Moses brought all of Israel out of captivity to worship the one true God, Rahab the harlot saved her family by her righteousness, and many other examples prove that we would all perish in our sins if it weren’t for God pouring out His grace on us while we are completely unworthy. How much more is God willing to induct one into His covenant who has never sinned at all, and whose parents have pledged to bring him up in the fear of the Lord?
Christ healed the servant of the Roman centurion based not on his own faith but on the faith of his master. Christ exercised a demon from a boy based on the father’s faith. Christ forgave the sins of the paralytic through the faith of his believing friends who lowered him through the roof. How many examples like these must be named before you abandon this idea that only personal faith saves and not the faith of others whose care we’ve been entrusted to?
Have you never seen that God frequently inducts people into the faith without asking them if they’re interested first, throwing immense responsibility on them very suddenly and while they’re still young? Oftentimes he makes people LEADERS, before they’ve even pronounced any faith in him! Gideon was called to be the leader of Israel’s army while he and his family were still heathens, and God never gave him the choice of relinquishing this responsibility on someone else; He simply directed him in what he was to do. David was anointed king of Israel by Samuel when he was only a boy, and it happened completely out of the blue. Likewise, the virgin Mary was made to bear the Son of God at the age of 16 without being given any choice in the matter.
You are rewriting history and subverting God’s will, you who are claiming that each of us ALONE is responsible for our salvation, and who deny that we each have the power to save our fellow man by laboring over them with constant exhortation, teaching, and discipline. God tells us to pray for our fellow man, calling them to repentance, even chasing after them when they fall away from the faith. Just as we are capable of saving a person from physically killing themselves, we can also prevent others from committing spiritual suicide, and God credits US for this good work of saving them, even though they’re the ones who answer the call after we’ve labored over them.
And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire. – Jude 22-23
My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. – James 5:19-20
If anyone sees his brother committing sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. – 1 John 5:16
There’s no one who lives their life without ever being cared for and influenced by others, either for good or for the worse. When we’re born into a family that knows the Lord, and we have a father who teaches us to obey and fear God, it’s the ultimate gift of God’s grace. But when a person is born into a family that mistreats them, and their parents neglect to impart the divine teachings to them, they almost never deviate from the path their parents set them on. Even though a person is able to make free will choices later in life, there’s no denying that the beginning of one’s life will set them on a course that’s hard to break away from, either toward salvation or d***ation, and that the assistance of a teacher or evangelist for such a person is essential to their coming to faith.
The diligent parent imparts a comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures to their children, just as they have received the gospel from others before them, and so on for generations past. This is how you and I have heard the gospel, because others before us have passed it down to us over the centuries. Our children receive the faith of their parents as the most valuable inheritance, promised to them the moment they were conceived, and by the legacy of faith preserved from generation to generation, they too become believers even from their tenderest years. If, by some wicked turn of events, your children are NOT believers while they’re still children, you as their parent are entirely to blame, not the child, because God has caused every child to believe what their parents tell them.
BABIES ARE BORN FOR SALVATION:
But this brings us to the most contradictory of all notions espoused by the anabaptists, namely that, on the one hand, all infants belong to God because they’re born in a state of perfect sinlessness and are therefore saved apart from baptism, BUT that they should not have Christianity thrust upon them. Is this not a contradiction? So the infant’s name is written in the book of life, and if they died, they would be with the Lord and counted as a son of God, but at the same time, they should not be given the Holy Spirit, because it’s some kind of infringement on their personal right to reject God if they so choose? How can they BE both saved AND be a non-Christian at the same time? And why do you stress the importance of them being given the choice to reject God when you simultaneously believe they are born as His children? If you believe they’re already saved, isn’t baptism just a confirmation of what you already believe about the infant, namely that they’re saved? There are some anabaptists who are so deceived on this issue that they insist on calling infants “atheists,” because they have no personal belief in God!
This is such a deviation from the mindset we are supposed to have as Christians. We are supposed to be conceiving children for no other purpose than to fill up heaven. Our children are brought into existence for salvation, not for our own personal enjoyment, or for them to share in the world’s lusts and pleasures. Our mandate is to bear fruit for God’s kingdom, the greatest of which is to bring others into the faith through evangelism and by bearing children. The children of believers are most holy and blessed, because they will be perfectly adapted to all of God’s ways from their earliest years.
But this mindset is not embraced by most professing Christians, because they don’t see the purpose of sex to be for the begetting of godly children. They don’t see children as a living extension of their Christian parents. Due to the American mindset, which puts a heavy emphasis on personal freedom and individuality, people see their children as foreign entities who appear in their houses randomly, who are entertained for a while and then kicked out once they turn 18, so that they can have the freedom to be whatever they want to be.
This mentality of complete independence is worsened when some people come to discover the true apostolic faith, because it almost always results in our having to break away from the religion of our parents, and it just happens naturally, that after becoming accustomed to being an outsider and a loner in this day and age, some might see their children as only POSSIBLE converts to Christianity, but not necessarily, because so few people embrace the faith, just as we have no doubt shared the truth with others and only received a scoffing reply.
But we ought not to see our own children the same way as we see heathens and atheists! Children are not born with evil habits or prepared arguments against the truth. Our job is not to give them a choice from the outset, as if they were owed the freedom to rebel against us or wise enough to correct us. They have no sacred right to revolt against their parents, who gave them life. They are commanded by God to obey their parents! They derive their flesh and blood from their parents! Their spiritual AND physical life depends on their parents! What then? Should parents provide every physical need to their children, but not their spiritual needs? Giving them the option to live Godlessly would be like allowing them to eat poison. This is not why you brought them into the world! It is your responsibility as their parent to snatch them from the fire and save their soul!
BUT CATECHUMENS HAD TO WAIT!
But in response to this, someone might point out the practice of the early church in regard to making disciples. New converts in the early church were called “catechumens,” and it is recorded that they were oftentimes made to wait up to three years before being admitted to baptism, and so it is fair to ask, if new converts in the early church were often forbidden from baptism until they had gone through a period of teaching and testing, why were infants baptized so quickly? Are infants not catechumens?
The answer is, no, infants are not catechumens. A catechumen is not just someone who is new to the Christian faith, but someone who has been fully immersed in sin, serving a false religion or heretical sect, who must unlearn the false beliefs and practices they were brought up in, and show repentance from sin by their works. Those who were made to wait three years before baptism in the early church had previously been prostitutes, sodomites, magicians, observers of the gladiatorial games, soldiers, and pagans. They were not pure infants.
Some people in the early church, such as Clement’s mother, were given access to baptism early on because they demonstrated extraordinary purity and virtue even during their time as heathens. And likewise, all of the Jews, who were brought up in the old covenant, were allowed to be speedily baptized because there were no false doctrines for them to unlearn. The Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius and the jailor also demonstrated exceptional faith at the time of their conversions, and they too were allowed to be baptized quickly. Is this not a case in favor of infant baptism? A catechumen longs to return to a pure way of life, to be washed thoroughly of their sins in order to receive the Holy Spirit, but a baby has no need to undergo rigorous change in their lifestyle and beliefs. They’re already at the point that a catechumen longs to arrive at.
SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN:
Or else, what DOES Jesus mean when He says, ”Suffer the little children to come unto me?” Does He only mean that He’d like to hold them? Certainly more than that. It says He was blessing the children. Well, Jesus is not presently on earth to bless the little children, and yet it is still a command that applies to us. So how do we suffer the little children to come unto him, practically speaking? Is it by letting them come to church? Are infants benefited by hearing people talk in church?
When Jesus said to let the little children come to him, he didn’t just let them sit on his lap. He laid hands on them and blessed them. Is this not something we should do for our infants? Would you really tell Christ that children have no need to be blessed because they’re innocent of sins? That’s silly. When a person is blessed, they are given grace that will benefit them in the future, as is the case with all people. Even if all infants will be saved despite dying without baptism, should we not bless them with the blessing that remains with them for the rest of their lives and unto eternity? Is blessing our infants with an appeal to God to send down His Holy Spirit on them an unrighteous act in your eyes?
But perhaps you would respond, ”Well, Jesus says LET the little children come unto him. He doesn’t say MAKE them come unto Him. So what He REALLY means is that we need to let the infants come to Jesus of their own volition!” I have actually heard an argument such as this. But Christ does not make a request to the paralyzed infants, but a command to his disciples. Jesus commands us to allow the little children to have hands laid on them and be blessed. And how do we do that? Do we hinder them from receiving baptism, in which hands are laid on them and they are blessed? Is that how we fulfill the Lord’s command? Certainly not.
THE FOOLISH ANABAPTIST MINDSET:
The first anabaptists made the statement, “it is better that the Baptism (of children) be omitted than to baptize in the faith of the Church alone those who do not believe by their own act.”
The first article of the Schleitheim confession, released by the anabaptists in 1527, and still adhered to by most anabaptists today, reads:
“Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him and to all those who with this significance request it (baptism) of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the Pope.”
Is infant baptism really the CHIEF abomination of the pope, the most evil thing practiced by the Catholic church? Not the selling of indulgences? Not the worship of Mary? Not the papacy itself, which split Christendom? Not the crusades, which killed millions? Or burning countless people at the stake? What in the world is so harmful and abominable about baptizing infants? Does this delirious hatred come from God? Do you really think the Lord is as disgusted by infant baptism as He is by all of the heresies that run rampant in the Catholic church, or the notorious sexual abuse of boys? This sentiment toward infant baptism clearly does not come from God, because it is neither historically accurate nor does it reflect the mind of Christ.
First of all, infant baptism existed long before the bishop of Rome claimed authority over the other churches, so to call it the chief abomination of the pope is to accuse the entire early church of heresy.
And secondly, there is no sin that occurs when an infant is baptized. Or else, if there is, why haven’t the anabaptists ever named it? Despite 500 years having elapsed since the anabaptists invented their heresy, none of them have ever been able to give an explanation as to how an infant is HARMED when they’re baptized; they’ve only ever said that anyone who was baptized as an infant ought to be RE-baptized, because their first baptism was illegitimate. So then, rebaptize them if you’re so worried that the baptism didn’t count! The early church rebaptized many who had received baptisms in heretical sects. But no one has ever been harmed by being baptized as an infant.
What a contradictory position. On the one hand, you claim that infant baptism is completely ineffectual and useless, which means nothing happens to the infant at their baptism, but then you say that it’s the CHIEF ABOMINATION OF THE POPE to baptize an infant, all because they’ll have to be rebaptized if they come to faith as an adult. Oh, what a great tragedy!
But what’s most evil about this anabaptist perspective is when they claim that a baby is innocent of sin and therefore automatically saved. But then, if you ask the anabaptist WHEN the child should be baptized, they’ll say, ”When he’s old enough to commit sins! He should be baptized after he’s committed a sin that needs forgiving!” So you believe you should wait until your child is accountable for his sins and no longer saved based on his innocence (which happens at an unknown time), and THIS is the safest and most righteous way to raise our children? What would you say to your child who requests to be baptized but hasn’t yet reached this elusive age of accountability? “I’m sorry, my son. I can’t baptize you yet, even if you desire baptism, because you haven’t committed any serious sins yet. I’m forbidding you because I think it’s foolish and dangerous to be baptized when you’re on the right track in life. So we’re going to wait until you ARE guilty of enough sins that you OBVIOUSLY need to be baptized, and we’ll just hope you don’t die unexpectedly until that time.”
SHOULD WE LET CHILDREN CHOOSE?
Is this pleasing to God? Should Christian parents refrain from commanding their children to do righteousness and justice, and from believing in the Lord Jesus, and instead wait until their child is old enough to read the Bible for themselves, perhaps sometime in their teenage years, and then let them decide whether they believe the truth or not? And what if your child decides NOT to believe it? What if they choose to rebel against all of God’s laws, and against yours? Is that really something you would allow? Is that something you think God allows?
“Yes, my son, I hereby give you permission to sin freely until you reach a certain age. You may scream and throw tantrums whenever you wish, and I will not punish you or govern your conduct according to God’s law. You may lie and steal and act violently toward your siblings. You may curse and revile us, your parents. You may use obscene language and even blaspheme God at your leisure. We’re not going to force you into anything. You just live your life however you please until you reach a certain unspecified age, and then we might suggest you become a disciple of Christ.”
What a ridiculous idea! You who say that we shouldn’t force the true faith onto our children, would certainly force your own earthly laws and household rules onto them! How much more should you force them to keep GOD’S laws, as you are commanded to! God tells you plainly to “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). Elsewhere He says, “He who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently” (Proverbs 13:24). We know with certainty that teaching and disciplining our children is necessary for their salvation because God explicitly says so: “Do not hold back discipline from the child. Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod and rescue his soul from Sheol” (Proverbs 23:13-14). This verse clearly indicates that disciplining your child will save their soul! Doesn’t that mean that their soul is in jeopardy?
It is an insane thing to suggest that parents should refrain from teaching their children that God exists and that Jesus is His Son, and that there will be a judgement day, and that we must all abstain from sin, until the child is old enough to dispute these things. Rather, a parent is OBVIOUSLY commanded by God to teach these things as a fact, and to take advantage of their child’s simple faith and impressionable mind, and to instill all of the Scriptures into them from a young age. Your children are not supposed to be given the optional lifestyle of disobedience to God’s law and disbelief in God. Their behavior is to be strictly regulated and controlled, and if (God forbid) they should turn from the truth when they grow older, it will be on their head, not yours, just as it would be if they had been baptized as adults and then subsequently fell away from the faith. But if you fail to teach them as a child, and if you fail to bring them into God’s covenant in the very beginning of their life, you have neglected your responsibility as a parent and have broken God’s covenant, just as Moses did.
CHILDREN ARE SINNERS:
In truth, if you really believed your child was saved based on their innocence alone, you would immediately baptize them as soon as you observed them committing sins for the first time, because they would no longer be innocent. But you anabaptists refuse to baptize them, even when you know your children are very capable of sinning and DO sin frequently in the years following their infancy.
A child only a year old is capable of violence, angry outbursts, greed, envy, ungratefulness, and defiance toward parents. By the age of two, they can lie, steal, and deliberately hide their sin. The youngest murderers in the world are three years old, children who strangled and drowned other children, and who even killed their parents. So what is your response to these, you anabaptist? Is it really a child’s sinlessness that automatically saves them? If so, then in the instant that your three-year-old commits their first sin, is their soul instantly cut off from God’s grace and their name removed from the book of life?
In response to this weak position, anabaptists have come to lean on a made-up doctrine called “the age of accountability,” the idea that all children, regardless of whether their parents are believers, are secure in their salvation until they’re old enough to answer for their sins. Many who hold to this belief are forced to concede the obvious fact that children can and do sin, especially as they approach adolescence (in which they become capable of committing all of the same sins that adults commit, including sexual immorality), and so instead of defending the notion that all children are innocent, they’ve developed a new version of this doctrine that says children are simply excused for the sins they commit until they reach the age of accountability – an age, they will admit, which has never been defined, nor CAN be – and any sins committed after this time are suddenly counted against them. Strangely, this doctrine – which is nowhere mentioned in Scripture – is held only by those who adamantly assert that Scripture alone should dictate every doctrine we believe in, and who say infant baptism must be rejected because it isn’t EXPLICITLY commanded in Scripture.
But where do the Scriptures say that everyone would automatically go to heaven if they died unexpectedly up until they reach a certain age? In truth, God has decreed that it’s the faith of the believing parent that makes a child clean and holy (just as it was in the Old Covenant). The child is saved not only because they happen to have Christian parents, but because their parents induct them into God’s covenant and discipline them so that they don’t sin, but live according to the spirit. Every Christian is called to be light to the world, starting with their family members.
If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. – 1 Corinthians 7:14
Again, Paul mentions our ability to save our family members by our good example and exhortations, telling believers who are married to an unbelieving spouse that they ought not to leave them, but rather abide with them in hopes of converting them.
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? – 1 Corinthians 7:16
Paul says the faith of a believing parent makes the children clean and holy. Otherwise, they are necessarily unclean and unholy. Already, your belief that a person’s own, personal faith is the only thing that can save them is proven to be false. By the example of the paralytic who was lowered down through the roof by his friends (which is quite an appropriate example in symbolizing an infant, because infants, too, are paralyzed), it is demonstrated that people CAN be saved apart from their own actions if they are powerless, but have believing friends or family who bring them to Christ.
We of the apostolic faith understand that it is not only sin that separates us from God, but also our ignorance of Him. We recognize that if someone doesn’t know God, they must come to know him in order to be saved because there is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved except the name of Jesus.
“For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to God” – 1 Peter 4:6
Therefore, we understand that a child is grafted into God’s family and tastes of His grace while alive on earth by having Christian parents, or else, if they die before baptism, they may receive salvation by some other means even after death, if God wills, but this possibility must not be used as an excuse to neglect the sacrament of baptism, when there is neither confirmation of it in Scripture nor any guarantee that your infant will die before committing their first sins.
THE AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY
But let us now debunk the heresy called “the age of accountability,” which declares that all sins a person commits are automatically forgiven them until they reach an unspecified, unknowable age, even if their sins are blatantly obvious and very wicked. It must be pointed out that in modern times, those who deny infant baptism still occasionally administer baptism to children, sometimes as young as seven years old, whenever they’ve made extraordinary confessions of faith and have requested baptism. Some children in the baptist church are still baptized as young as five years old! Of course, these sects teach that faith alone saves and that water baptism has nothing to do with salvation, but it still begs the question: Do you anabaptists admit that the age of accountability can be as young as seven years old?
Do you honestly believe that a confession of faith from a seven-year-old is that much more meaningful to God than no confession at all? Or do you think that God sees a child’s faith as being truly independent from his parents? True independence would be if the child came to faith while his parents were atheists, and he had to search out the truth all by himself by reading the Scriptures and fasting and praying, even having to sift through heresies until he found the true faith. But who would ever suggest that a seven-year-old should be allowed to hear alternate teachings from other pastors who contradict their parents, and that the children should rely on their own wisdom to interpret Scripture? Who would even say a ten-year-old should do this? If this is what you think is right, I ask you anabaptist, have you given your child this choice to reject the anabaptist denomination, and to investigate other denominations and religions? Would you let your seven-year-old attend another church if they so chose?
Of course not. They attend whatever church you attend, and they are indoctrinated to believe whatever you believe. This is by God’s design, that a child would depend on their parent to take care of them. Most parents abuse this position by neglecting their children or teaching them lies, but it is still the natural order God has set in place.
Essentially, this idea of independence is a farce because in order for a child to be fully independent, they would have to be ejected from the home, which only becomes legal once they’ve reached 18 years of age, if they live in the United States, and by this time, there is no denying that they’ve passed the age of accountability, as they are capable of having their OWN children long before this. And in truth, people used to be married at 12 years old in ancient times, and even presently in many places around the world, because that’s when a boy becomes a man. Before they’re 18 years old, they’re bound to go where their parents go and do what their parents command. Is it really necessary to give a child total independence for their faith to be valid? Is purely independent faith really what God desires from a child? Does the Lord truly discount the perfect submission a child shows to their Godly parents in repeating the prayers they’re taught and believing the words of Scripture with simple faith?
No. The parents don’t NEED their seven-year-old to have an independent faith from them. They only need to model Christ and the church in their marriage, and it is by observing this dynamic between their parents that the child will come to know God, because His parents are representatives of God and are supposed to demonstrate God’s personality and love by setting a righteous example. This is how a little child comes to know God: by having Godly parents. It makes no difference to God whether your child mumbles out a prayer you dictate to him, which he doesn’t even understand. That sinner’s prayer has nothing to do with their salvation. You should know, from common sense, that it is God’s favor on YOU, the believing parent, that is being transferred to the child by His grace.
But if it really exists, this age of accountability is truly a terrifying thing. According to you, a child is born into the good graces of God, and is considered His son unconditionally until he reaches a certain, unknowable age. Then, on that fateful day, when the child commits their first sin, they are STRIPPED of their inheritance as a begotten son of God, and IMMEDIATELY consigned to the status of SINNER, CONDEMNED, CHILD OF WRATH, ENEMY OF GOD. What a terrible thought, to go from being God’s legitimate child to suddenly being disowned, without any warning! One day, they’re committing sins like normal, with no condemnation, then on the next day, they’re found guilty – and without any message to inform them of this changed status! Is this really what God does to children after they’ve lived an undetermined number of years?
You see, it is the doctrine of arbitrary condemnation coming from the anti-infant baptists that is twisted and evil, not the ancient doctrine of baptismal regeneration for all, coming from mother church. We do not deny God’s right as the sovereign king of the universe to save whomever He wishes and make exceptions when He pleases, but this will not impede us from obediently baptizing our infants as the rule of our faith, not testing Him by insisting He owes salvation to all people until they reach the age of 18.
The age of accountability is a protestant myth. The church fathers do not call infants “innocent” due to their being exempt from accountability for the sins they commit! They’re called “innocent” because they don’t HAVE any sins! This is a very different mindset from the anabaptists. Babies lose their innocence once they gain control over their bodies, which happens not long after they become toddlers, and certainly by the time they can speak.
Some people mistakenly think of being drafted into God’s covenant while still an infant as if it was some kind of cheat, like they’re bypassing all of the work involved in Christian living and getting something they didn’t rightfully acquire, and while it is true that being born in a Christian family is the best possible way to enter this life, it still comes at the cost of many challenges and dangers. With the knowledge of God comes the responsibility to live righteously and the reality of persecution.
When the church fathers commentate on the story of the babies who were slaughtered by king Herod in Bethlehem, they refer to those children as “martyrs.” What a strange thing to call them, you might say, since none of those children had shown any faith or devotion to God. And yet they ARE fittingly called martyrs, and have received a martyrs reward, because they suffered for the sake of Christ, instead of Christ even! It turns out that you CAN be a martyr unwillingly, according to the church fathers! You can also be sealed in God’s covenant unwillingly.
It is certainly a burden to be inducted into the faith from infancy, but who would be so ungrateful as to wish they hadn’t been baptized as an infant, and had instead grown up in a sinful family with no knowledge of God? Christ’s easy yoke in childhood is much to be preferred over the weight of sinful habits contracted for years prior to conversion.
BAPTIZING INFANTS IS IMPLIED IN SCRIPTURE
So what if the Bible doesn’t expressly state that infants are to be baptized? Are you not aware that there are many things we accept as fact which are not expressly stated in the Bible?
Jesus Himself, when challenged by the Sadducees to give reason for the resurrection, proves it by using what YOU would consider to be an obscure Scripture, quoting Exodus 3:6, where no reference to the resurrection is made whatsoever. Paul does the same thing when proving that salvation is by faith and not by the works of the law when he quotes Abraham’s faith as being credited as righteousness, without relying on any Scripture stating the idea in plain terms, but rather concludes it by drawing from various other Scriptures that imply it.
In the same way, we too are able to prove that it is permissible and obligatory to baptize infants when we see that entire families were baptized after the head of the household was converted, and that the promise of remission of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit is “for you and your children.” Besides this, it’s hypocritical for Protestants to require passages which state the efficacy of infant baptism when they themselves believe many things not expressly stated in Scripture, such as the inerrancy of Scripture, or the Biblical canon itself!
If baptism is necessary for salvation, and all of Christ’s disciples are commanded to be baptized, and children are disciples, then of course children should be baptized. But baptists deny that we are reborn in baptism, so it’s unsurprising that they forbid their children from being saved. It is no surprise, then, that those who have an orthodox view of baptismal regeneration have always unanimously agreed that babies should be baptized as well, until recent times, when Satan’s deception has been perpetrated even on the more conservative.
This argument against infant baptism is fallacious at face value because it holds a double-standard as to how we should apply the precepts given in the Scriptures. These haters of Christian baptism will say that no specific mention is made of baptizing infants, but the same argument from silence could be made about MANY other topics in the Bible! For instance, there is no special precept given in the Bible which allows women to partake of the Lord’s supper, and yet the lawfulness of it is proven as a consequence of other Scriptures directed at all Christians in general. However, if we are to only do the things which are specifically commanded in Scripture, and to ignore what is implied, then by that logic no woman should ever be admitted to Communion.
Because Jesus never made any exceptions as to who should be baptized when He said, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them,” we should not make any distinctions either, whether a person be young or old, male or female, Jew or gentile, especially because the rule of the faith in the Old Covenant was that the head of the household was required to induct all of his household into the faith as well, including his children.
On top of this point, we have even more reason to believe infants and children were being baptized in the New Testament because there are multiple places that imply it, with no exception of the infants being given. Again, a double-standard is employed by baptists, because they often baptize children who are old enough (in their eyes) to make a genuine confession of faith, even going as young as five years old, and yet the Bible never specifically mentions children being baptized; only adult men and women. Thus, we have a choice between following the spirit of the law (as they hypocritically do by baptizing SOME children), or of forbidding the little children from coming to Jesus.
But Tertullian said babies should wait!
But still others will use a quote from the church father Tertullian, against all the other explicit endorsements of infant baptism as an apostolic tradition from other church fathers, where Tertullian proposes that sponsors should wait to baptize their children until they’ve grown up quite a bit, because, according to him, it would be a great loss for a person to be baptized and then to fall away from the faith, since it will be harder for them to obtain forgiveness. Tertullian says:
And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary — if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood?
The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem to have given to him that asks. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred — in whom temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom — until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation. – On Baptism, chapter 18
This highly unusual quote, which will be addressed momentarily, does not invalidate the regenerative effect of infant baptism! On the contrary, Tertullian says it’s DANGEROUS to give baptism to a baby, BECAUSE it will have its intended effect and can never be repeated again.
This quote is not problematic for the doctrine of infant baptism because it does not reflect a tradition of the church, but rather a personal opinion, and a foolish one at that. We must not forget that Tertullian is one of the few church fathers (among others, like Tatian and Novation) who were later excommunicated from the Universal, Original church for having overly-strict practices, and in a surprising twist, they were all excommunicated for similar reasons. In fact, Novation was excommunicated for the exact same reason Tertullian was!
Both of them refused to receive back into the church those who had denied the faith under persecution or had committed some other grievous sin, such as adultery or murder, because according to their extreme view, it was impossible for a baptized Christian to receive forgiveness after falling away, except by being martyred, and this is why Tertullian considered it to be extremely dangerous to allow anyone to be rashly baptized.
It is prudent for us to be cautious when reading the writings of any church father who ended up being excommunicated at the end of his life, and ESPECIALLY when reading his opinions ON THE VERY SUBJECT MATTER HE WAS EXCOMMUNICATED OVER! Clearly, Tertullian is warning against infant baptism here because he was beginning to lapse into a heresy that resulted in the loss of his salvation.
If there is anyone who rejects this interpretation of Tertullian’s difficulty with infant baptism, I’ve selected two early church scholars who give a fuller perspective on Tertullian’s quote and offer their own corroborating view of it, in a way, summing up what I’ve already said. You may accept this anecdote from the scholars if you value their consensus, as they clarify Tertullian’s unusual opposition to the church’s tradition of infant baptism, or you may reject it. A scholar’s opinion holds no special authority.
The first quote is from Phillip Schaff, one of the foremost early church historians and translators of the 19th century.
SCHOLARS ON TERTULLIAN’S QUOTE:
Phillip Schaff’s fuller treatment of infant baptism, § 73:
Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism. Heretics also practised it, and were not censured for it.
The apostolic fathers make, indeed, no mention of it. But their silence proves nothing; for they hardly touch upon baptism at all, except Hermas, and he declares it necessary to salvation, even for the patriarchs in Hades (therefore, as we may well infer, for children also). Justin Martyr expressly teaches the capacity of all men for spiritual circumcision by baptism; and his “all” can with the less propriety be limited, since he is here speaking to a Jew. He also says that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age have been from childhood disciples of Christ. Polycarp was eighty-six years a Christian, and must have been baptized in early youth. According to Irenaeus, his pupil and a faithful bearer of Johannean [the apostle John’s] tradition, Christ passed through all the stages of life, to sanctify them all, and came to redeem, through himself, “all who through him are born again unto God, sucklings, children, boys, youths, and adults.” This profound view seems to involve an acknowledgment not only of the idea of infant baptism, but also of the practice of it; for in the mind of Irenaeus and the ancient church baptism and regeneration were intimately connected and almost identified. In an infant, in fact, any regeneration but through baptism cannot be easily conceived. A moral and spiritual regeneration, as distinct from sacramental, would imply conversion, and this is a conscious act of the will, an exercise of repentance and faith, of which the infant is not capable.
In the churches of Egypt infant baptism must have been practised from the first. For, aside from some not very clear expressions of Clement of Alexandria, Origen distinctly derives it from the tradition of the apostles; and through his journeys in the East and West he was well acquainted with the practice of the church in his time.
The only opponent of infant baptism among the fathers is the eccentric and schismatic Tertullian, of North Africa. He condemns the hastening of the innocent age to the forgiveness of sins, and entrusting it with divine gifts, while we would not commit to it earthly property. Whoever considers the solemnity of baptism, will shrink more from the receiving, than from the postponement of it. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves as much in favor of infant baptism as against it. He meets it not as an innovation, but as a prevalent custom; and he meets it not with exegetical nor historical arguments, but only with considerations of religious prudence. His opposition to it is founded on his view of the regenerating effect of baptism, and of the impossibility of having mortal sins forgiven in the church after baptism; this ordinance cannot be repeated, and washes out only the guilt contracted before its reception. On the same ground he advises healthy adults, especially the unmarried, to postpone this sacrament until they shall be no longer in danger of forfeiting forever the grace of baptism by committing adultery, murder, apostasy, or any other of the seven crimes which he calls mortal sins.
The second quote is from W. D. Killen, another well-known church historian of the 19th century who wrote extensively on the first 300 years of church history.
W. D. Killen, The Ancient Church, Section 3, pp 284-286:
The only writer of the first three centuries who questions the propriety of infant baptism is Tertullian. The passage in which he expounds his views on this subject is a most transparent specimen of special pleading, and the extravagant recommendations it contains sufficiently attest that he had taken up a false position. “Considering,” says he, “everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delay of baptism is more advantageous, but especially in the case of little children. For what necessity is there that the sponsors be brought into danger? Because they may fail to fulfill their promises by death, or may be deceived by the child’s proving of a wicked disposition. Our Lord says indeed – ‘Do not forbid them to come unto me.’ Let them come, therefore, whilst they are growing up, let them come whilst they are learning, whilst they are being taught where it is they are coming, let them be made Christians when they are capable of knowing Christ. Why should the innocent age make haste to the remission of sins? Men proceed more cautiously in worldly things; and he that is not trusted with earthly goods, why should he be trusted with divine? Let them know how to ask salvation, that you may appear to give it to one that asketh. For no less reason unmarried persons ought to be delayed, because they are exposed to temptations, as well virgins that come to maturity, as those that are in widowhood and have little occupation, until they either marry or be confirmed in continence. They who know the weight of baptism will rather dread its attainment than its postponement.” [475:1]
In the apostolic age all adults, when admitted to baptism, answered for themselves. Had additional sponsors been required for the three thousand converts who joined the church on the day of Pentecost, [475:2] they could not have been procured. The Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailor [475:3] were their own sponsors. Until long after the time when Tertullian wrote, there were, in the case of adults, no other sponsors than the parties themselves. But when an infant was dedicated to God in baptism, the parents were required to make a profession of the faith, and to undertake to train up their little one in the way of righteousness. [476:1] It is to this arrangement that Tertullian refers when he says- “what necessity is there that the sponsors be brought into danger? Because even they may fail to fulfill their promises by death, or may be deceived by the child’s proving of a wicked disposition.”
It is plain, from his own statements, that infant baptism was practised in the days of this father, and it is also obvious that it was then said to rest on the authority of the New Testament. Its advocates, he alleges, quoted in its defence the words of our Saviour- “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not.” [476:2] And how does Tertullian meet this argument? Does he venture to say that it is contradicted by any other Scripture testimony? Does he pretend to assert that the appearance of parents, as sponsors for their children, is an ecclesiastical innovation? Had this acute and learned controversialist been prepared to encounter infant baptism on such grounds, he would not have neglected his opportunity. But, instead of pursuing such a line of reasoning, he merely exhibits his weakness by resorting to a piece of miserable sophistry. When our Lord said- “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not,” He illustrated His meaning as he “took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them;” [476:3] so that the gloss of Tertullian- “Let them come whilst they are growing up, let them come whilst they are learning” -is a palpable misinterpretation. Nor is this all. The Carthaginian father must have known that there were frequent instances in the days of the apostles of the baptism of whole households; and yet he maintains that the unmarried, especially young widows, cannot with safety be admitted to the ordinance. Had he been with Paul and Silas at Philippi he would thus scarcely have consented to the baptism of Lydia; and he would certainly have protested against the administration of the rite to all members of her family. [477:1]
Though Tertullian may not have formally separated from the church when he wrote the tract in which this passage occurs, it is evident that he had already adopted the principles of the Montanists. These errorists held that any one who had fallen into heinous sin after baptism could never again be admitted to ecclesiastical fellowship; and this little book itself supplies proof that its author now supported the same doctrine. He here declares that the man “who renews his sins after baptism” is “destined to fire;” and he intimates that martyrdom, or the “baptism of blood,” can alone “restore” such an offender. [477:2] It was obviously the policy of the Montanists to discourage infant baptism, and to retain the mass of their adherents, as long as possible, in the condition of catechumens. Hence Tertullian here asserts that “they who know the weight of baptism will rather dread its attainment than its postponement.” [477:3] But neither the apostles, nor the early church, had any sympathy with such a sentiment. They represent baptism as a privilege – as a sign and a seal of God’s favour – which all should thankfully embrace.
We have the clearest evidence that, little more than twenty years after the death of Tertullian, the whole Church of Africa recognised the propriety of this practice. About the middle of the third century, a bishop of that country, named Fidus, appears to have taken up the idea that, when administering the ordinance, he was bound to adhere to the very letter of the law relative to circumcision, [478:2] and that therefore he was not at liberty to baptize the child before the eighth day after its birth. When the case was submitted to Cyprian and an African Synod, consisting of sixty-six bishops, they unanimously decided that these scruples were groundless; and, in an epistle addressed to the pastor who entertained them, the Assembly thus communicated the result of its deliberations.
THE FINAL NAIL IN TERTULLIAN’S COFFIN:
I believe God actually INTENDED for one solitary voice against infant baptism to be found among the church fathers’ writings, and that it would be Tertullian, the condemned heretic, who was excommunicated for this very belief of his, so that all those who forbid little children from coming to Christ based on his foolish statements would have a confirmed heretic as their leader, so they would know whose camp they belong to, and they wouldn’t be able to plead ignorance as the cause for their false doctrine. All those who cite Tertullian’s single quote against all the other voices of early Christendom have made a clear choice as to which side of the church they’re on: the heretical side that was excommunicated.
But that’s not the final nail in Tertullian’s coffin. The greatest proof that Tertullian had lapsed into heresy when he wrote this heretical statement actually comes from his own mouth, from statements he made at another time, which ENDORSE and REQUIRE the administration of baptism for infants. I now present to you Tertullian, writing at an unknown date, urging Christian parents to baptize their offspring from infancy, in his book A Treatise On The Soul, chapter 39 and 40:
Chapter 39:
Hence in no case (I mean of the heathen, of course) is there any nativity which is pure of idolatrous superstition. It was from this circumstance that the apostle said, that when either of the parents was sanctified, the children were holy; and this as much by the prerogative of the (Christian) seed as by the discipline of the institution. Else, says he, were the children unclean by birth: as if he meant us to understand that the children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation; in order that he might by the pledge of such a hope give his support to matrimony, which he had determined to maintain in its integrity. Besides, he had certainly not forgotten what the Lord had so definitively stated: Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; in other words, he cannot be holy.
Chapter 40:
Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.
And here is an alternate translation for even more clarity:
So there is almost no being born clean, that is of heathens. For hence the apostle says, that of either parent sanctified, the children that are born are holy, by reason of the prerogative of that seed, and also the instruction in their education. Else, says he, were they unclean. But yet meaning to be understood thus: that the children of the faithful are designed for holiness, and so for salvation; that by a pledge of such hope he might plead for those marriages which he would have to be continued. Otherwise, he knew well enough what our Lord had determined, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God, that is, he shall not be holy. Thus every soul is reckoned as in Adam, so long till it be anew enrolled in Christ, and so long unclean, till it be so enrolled, and sinful because unclean, etc.
BUT ORIGINAL SIN IS A FALSE DOCTRINE!
But there are some anabaptists who point to Augustine’s idea of original sin, introduced around 400 AD, which he frequently mentioned as a good reason for baptizing infants, and they will say, “Since we all know the doctrine of original sin is a heresy, we must reject infant baptism!” But this is a self-refuting argument. If you are indeed aware that Augustine invented the idea of original sin around 400 AD, and you observe that the church fathers endorsed infant baptism four centuries BEFORE Augustine ever came up with that idea, then you MUST recognize that the early church had different reasons for practicing infant baptism than the heretical doctrine of original sin.
Augustine actually admits all of this in letter 166, a letter he wrote to Jerome, where he mentions that there are other reasons to baptize infants apart from his idea of original sin, and that he’s not sure if anyone else agrees with his new reasoning for it. He does know, however, that the church has been baptizing infants from the beginning. and rightly holds to that ancient tradition.
Unfortunately, Augustine was the first and most famous of the post-Nicene bishops who began to pendulum-swing too hard in opposition to perceived heresy and develop extreme new ideas to combat the heresies of their day. In Augustine’s case, the doctrine of original sin did great damage to the church because after it was eventually embraced by the whole Roman Catholic denomination, the anabaptists who rightly opposed it after the reformation ended up going too far by taking the position that all infants are not only sinless but even that their sins are completely excused well beyond their adolescent years. And thus, these anabaptists who rejected baptismal regeneration literally threw the baby out with the bathwater.
BUT THERE ARE INSCRIPTIONS ON TOMBS!
Another lofty argument raised up against the practice of infant baptism runs thus: There are certain inscriptions found on the walls of ancient catacombs, clearly written by Christians, but at an unknown date, that commemorate the emergency baptisms of children and infants who passed away unexpectedly, and some of these inscriptions specifically state that the reason these infants were given baptisms was because they were approaching death due to a sudden illness, and thus, anabaptists theorize that infant baptism must have been invented by foolish parents who wrongly thought that their babies would be d***ed without baptism.
What a creative trap that’s been laid! On the one hand, these anabaptists see clear evidence of infant baptism in the early church, but they say it’s evidence AGAINST infant baptism, and yet if there hadn’t been any inscriptions in these catacombs which showed infants being baptized, the anabaptists would have no doubt pointed to that as well and said it proves infants were never baptized in the early church! It’s impossible to reason with them.
First of all, it’s very foolish to make an argument that doesn’t sufficiently prove the doctrine you’re purporting in and of itself, from Scripture and from tradition, because if your argument were to be struck down, you would continue in your belief, saying that there are better arguments in favor of it. Inscriptions don’t prove anything! You know full well that even if there were thousands of inscriptions in the catacombs which showed infants being baptized apart from any emergency, you would still reject the practice, because a bunch of inscriptions written by a bunch of people at an unknown time doesn’t prove the legitimacy of someone’s belief or practice. It is the teaching and traditions of the church, passed down from the apostles, which are to be regarded as authoritative, not the practice of SOME of the laity.
It does appear that some of these infants were given emergency baptisms, but this does not invalidate any of the arguments made thus far. For all we know, those parents might have been ignorant or foolish, or some of them might have been pagans, and it might have been a Christian family member that intervened and baptized the infant, as one of the inscriptions says:
Dedicated to the departed. Florentius made this inscription for his worthy son Apronianus who lived one year and nine months and five days. As he was truly loved by his grandmother and she knew that his death was imminent, she asked the church that he might depart from the world as a believer.”
It’s amazing that these haters of infant baptism will go to such great lengths to theorize reasons to justify their rejection of it – which has nothing to do with these inscriptions, because their minds were already made up against infant baptism, and these inscriptions are not a convincing argument either for or against it – but they never go to any lengths to theorize a simple explanation that favors infant baptism, of which there are many.
This lack of objective reasoning carries over to a similar argument they raise in reference to some of the post-Nicene church fathers living in the 300s, namely John Chrysostom and Augustine and Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, who were not baptized until they were adults. But it is well-known that Augustine’s father was a pagan, and his mother didn’t become a Christian until he was a youth. John Chrysostom’s mother may have been a pagan, but practically nothing is known about his childhood. Similarly, Basil and the two Gregorys lived in tumultuous times of persecution and were not even raised by their own parents, so it’s impossible to know exactly why they weren’t baptized by their parents. What we DO know is that ALL of these men believed in and practiced infant baptism when they became bishops!
The truth is, even if it could be proven that infant baptism WAS universally rejected by the church in the fourth century, it STILL wouldn’t prove that infant baptism is illegitimate, since the church fathers of the prior centuries say it comes from the apostles! So why use the example of Augustine and Chrysostom’s mothers not baptizing them? The early church didn’t even ALLOW women to baptize. It’s a desperate attempt to escape the irrefutable truth when you use examples like these do disparage something so obviously correct. How desperate are you to hang onto your anabaptism that you would rather listen to the MOTHERS of these men than the men themselves, who are bishops and wrote extensively in support of infant baptism, as if the mothers had any authority to define Christian doctrine!
Furthermore, you do realize the Roman Catholics and Orthodox use similar arguments, pointing to inscriptions on tombs written by Christians living at an unknown time to prove the legitimacy of praying to Mary and the saints, don’t you? This is not where the doctrines of the Christian faith originate from. If you can’t find your doctrine in the ancient traditions of the church, then your doctrine is false.
Let this suffice as a refutation to those who would attempt to use the church fathers to condemn infant baptism.
The Burden of Proof is on YOU:
The baptism of infants is not a new development in history. On the contrary, it is you anabaptists who are coming along with this new, twisted view of personal accountability and parental duties, inventing theories about how infant baptism developed over time, ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. You’re the ones who are confused and deceived, asking foolish questions like, ”How can a child be filled with the Holy Spirit?” and “Does a child NEED to be filled with the Holy Spirit?” and ”Why does a child need to receive a sign of repentance if he’s innocent of sin?” You have absurd beliefs, such as, ”We should let our children grow up and choose whether to believe in God or not. We should give them the choice to do evil. They have to have their own personal faith, not their parents’ faith.”
These objections prove you don’t understand how God’s covenants work, nor do you have the mind of Christ in regard to your duties as a parent. The truth is, the burden of proof is on YOU. You’re the ones who need to prove that God has changed so much between the old and new covenants. You’re the ones who need to prove that infants can no longer be inducted into the faith. It’s the protestants who claim God’s method of dealing with His people and enacting covenants RADICALLY changed between the old covenant and the new covenant. It’s a very protestant mindset to say we should believe God COMPLETELY reversed His feelings about personal faith and parental responsibility.
The burden of proof is on you anabaptists to show when and where God announced an age limit for receiving the sacrament of initiation, which had been practiced for 2000 years by the Jews. If God really completely changed His mind about the necessity of children having their own faith and repentance in order to be joined to His covenant, it must be proven from Scripture, because He never required infants to have faith or repentance to qualify for circumcision, which was the seal of faith and repentance in the Old Covenant.
FINAL ARGUMENT:
The “anti-infant-baptists” must eventually admit that the entire notion of their cult relies on the existence of the age of accountability, which has never been proven from the Scriptures, or from reason itself, and MUST be proven for anabaptism to be legitimate. The specific age of accountability MUST be shown from Scripture, but it has not, and it never will be. The church fathers never knew of it.
It should be clear that the originators of this heresy were led by Satan to bring spiritual death to their own children under a false pretense of wisdom and caution, not only by neglecting baptism but also by refusing to make Christian disciples out of their children, which couldn’t be more foolish and unloving. You anabaptists have not only rejected the saving bath, but you’ve literally thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
It’s amazing that the anabaptists, who put such a heavy emphasis on rebaptism, are not concerned with rebaptizing those who have received the adulterated form of baptism practiced by the protestants! Of ALL the people who stand MOST in need of rebaptism, it’s those ADULTS who have received the so-called “believer’s baptism,” which explicitly denies baptismal regeneration, not the infants!
In conclusion, I leave you with the words of the church fathers, who address those who have received the baptism of heretics.
Irenaeus:
“And when we come to refute them [the gnostics], we shall show in its fitting place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith… For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.” – Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21:1-2
Clement of Alexandria:
Accordingly it is added: For he has forsaken the ways of his own vineyard, and wandered in the tracks of his own husbandry. Such are the sects which deserted the primitive Church. Now he who has fallen into heresy passes through an arid wilderness, abandoning the only true God, destitute of God, seeking waterless water, reaching an uninhabited and thirsty land, collecting sterility with his hands. And those destitute of prudence, that is, those involved in heresies, I enjoin, remarks Wisdom, saying, Touch sweetly stolen bread and the sweet water of theft; the Scripture manifestly applying the terms bread and water to nothing else but to those heresies, which employ bread and water in the oblation, not according to the canon of the Church. For there are those who celebrate the Eucharist with mere water. But begone, stay not in her place: the place is the synagogue, not the Church. He calls it by the equivocal name, place. Then He subjoins: For so shall you pass through the water of another; reckoning heretical baptism not proper and true water.
Tertullian:
Heretics, however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of their excommunication testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we have not the same God, nor one–that is, the same–Christ. And therefore their baptism is not one with ours either, because it is not the same; a baptism which, since they have it not duly, doubtless they have not at all. – On Baptism, chapter 15
Cyprian:
We put forward our opinion, not as a new one, but we join with you in equal agreement, in an opinion long since decreed by our predecessors, and observed by us — judging, namely, and holding it for certain that no one can be baptized abroad outside the Church, since there is one baptism appointed in the holy Church. And it is written in the words of the Lord, “They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewed out broken cisterns, which can hold no water.” – Cyprian, Letter 69, chapter 1
But we say that those who come thence are not re-baptized among us, but are baptized. For indeed they do not receive anything there, where there is nothing. Cyprian (A.D. 250) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.5 pg. 377
Formularbeginn
Formularende