Circumcision & Baptism

AN EXEGETICAL APPRAISAL OF COLOSSIANS 2:11-12

By Richard C. Barcellos*

Used here by permission of Author

“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.” (Col. 2:11-12)¹

Colossians 2:11-12 is a text used by paedobaptists to justify their practice of baptizing infants. This text is used to display the relationship between OT circumcision and NT baptism. The conclusion drawn is that what circumcision was, baptism is. As John Murray puts it, “baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.”² Simply put, in paedobaptist thought baptism replaces circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. Since infants were circumcised in the OT, infants should be baptized under the NT. A replacement theology between circumcision and baptism is argued by this understanding of the text.

It must be admitted that a prima facie glance at the text seems to give credibility to such an interpretation. Our purpose in this article, however, is to examine Col. 2:11-12 in the Greek text to determine its meaning in context and to compare our findings with the claim that it is a proof text for infant baptism. The approach will be as follows: first, to set the text in its context; second, to examine its syntactical structure and provide exegesis of its contents; third, to compare our conclusions with arguments used in The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism; and fourth, to draw some pertinent conclusions.

Colossians 2:11-12 in Context

Colossians 2:11-12 comes in a larger context where Paul is exposing error and giving its remedy (Col. 2:4-3:4).³ In the immediate context, Paul warns the Colossians: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (2:8). Verses 9-15 give the reasons why they are not to be led astray in ways not according to Christ.

Verses 9 and 10 give two (possibly three) reasons why Christ is the remedy against error. “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head of all rule and authority” (2:9-10). The first reason is Christ’s deity (2:9). The second reason is the completeness that Christians have in Christ (2:10). A third reason may appear in the final clause of v. 10: “and He is the head over all rule and authority.”⁴ This is surely added due to the complex heresy Paul is combating. Paul assures the Colossians that Christ is head of all rule and authority. T.K. Abbott adds:

He is the head of all those angelic powers to whose mediation the false teachers would teach you to seek. As they are subordinate to Christ, ye have nothing to expect from them which is not given you in full completeness in Christ.⁵

Christ is God and provides everything the Colossians need for their souls.

Verses 11-15 present the means by which completeness in Christ has come.⁶ The first means occurs in vv. 11-12 (see the syntactical and exegetical discussion below). Christians are complete in Christ by means of being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” Christ performs this circumcision or it is Christ’s circumcision in that it belongs to Him as Christian or New Covenant circumcision (see below). The second means by which completeness in Christ has come to the Colossians is found in vv. 13-15. It is due to what God did to them while they were “dead in [their] transgressions and the uncircumcision of [their] flesh.” He made them “alive together with Him,” that is, with Christ. This making “alive together with Him” was effected by God the Father. The verb sunezwopoi,hsen (“made you alive together”) implies a subject other than the “Him” of su.n auvtw/| (“with Him”). Christ, therefore, is not the subject of the verb. This would be a cumbersome tautology indeed. Taking o` qeo.j (“God” the Father) as the implied subject does away with the tautology and is supported by the parallel passage in Eph. 2:4-5.⁷

The Colossians were told that Christ alone was not enough. Paul argues against such anti-Christian teaching by highlighting Christ’s deity and the completeness Christians have in Him.

Syntactical Structure and Exegesis of Colossians 2:11-12

Having set the verses in context, we are now prepared to uncover the relationship and meaning of their parts. As we move through the text, the completeness Christians have in Christ will become clearer.

The first question is the meaning and function of the first three words in the Greek text, evn w-| kai., translated “and in Him” (NASB), “In Him …also” (NKJV), and literally “in [or “by”] whom also” (KJV). The “whom” (w-|) refers back to Christ in v. 10. Some commentators take this to mean union with Christ.⁸ For instance, John Eadie says:

…the formula evn w-| has its usual significance–union with Him–union created by the Spirit, and effected by faith; and, secondly, the blessing described in the verse had been already enjoyed, for they were and had been believers in Him in whom they are complete. Through their living union with Christ, they had enjoyed the privilege, and were enjoying the results of a spiritual circumcision.⁹

On the face of it, Eadie’s comments seem appropriate. Upon further examination, however, problems arise. Notice that he is arguing that the union under discussion is vital, experiential union with Christ “created by the Spirit, and effected by faith.” Commenting further, Eadie adds, “It is plain that the spiritual circumcision is not different from regeneration.”¹⁰ Assuming a causal order in Col. 2:11 (which will become clearer below), Eadie’s position would imply that the Spirit creates and faith effects union with Christ, thus, evn w-| kai,. which is then followed by spiritual circumcision or regeneration. Eadie understands union with Christ here in terms of a vital union (i.e., communion) “created by the Spirit, and effected by faith.” If this is so, then causally, faith precedes circumcision of the heart or regeneration. Communion with Christ through faith precedes regeneration by the Spirit. As we will see below, in this passage faith comes as a result of spiritual circumcision or regeneration (Col. 2:13; cf., Jn. 3:3-8) and is the means through which believers are personally united to Christ (i.e., vital union and communion).

Can Paul be alluding to union with Christ by evn w-| kai.? The answer is yes, but not without crucial qualification. To understand union with Christ here as commonly understood in the realm of the application of redemption effected by faith is unnecessary for several reasons. First, the idea of faith is not found in the text until the end of v. 12. Second, faith itself is a result of the “circumcision made without hands” (see the discussion below). Third, the concept of union with Christ is not limited to the application of redemption effected by faith elsewhere in Paul.¹¹ John Murray says, “It is quite apparent that the Scripture applies the expression ‘in Christ’ to much more than the application of redemption.”¹² Eph. 1:4, for instance, indicates that Christians were chosen “in Him before the foundation of the world.” This indicates a pre-temporal union with Christ apart from faith and void of communion with Christ. Vital union (i.e., communion with Christ), the type of union experienced in space and time, unites us to Christ in such a way that we experience personally the spiritual benefits of being saved (i.e., justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification). Fourth, assuming a causal sequence in the text and assuming evn w-| kai. refers to vital union, we would have an ordo salutis as follows: union with Christ by faith then spiritual circumcision (i.e., regeneration). Again, as we shall see, faith that unites one vitally to Christ is a product of the “circumcision made without hands” and proceeds from it, not the other way around. It may be better to paraphrase evn w-| kai. as “through your relation to Him”¹³ understanding union with Christ here in a non-vital manner. This would allow for a union apart from faith that corresponds with the broader meaning of union with Christ in many other places in Paul.¹⁴ Richard Gaffin argues for a “broader, more basic notion of union”¹⁵ in his Resurrection and Redemption. He lists three types of union: predestinarian, redemptive-historical, and existential.¹⁶

There are at least two other ways to understand evn w-| kai.. It could be understood like the evn auvtw/| (“in Him”) of Col. 1:17. The evn (“in”) would function like a dative of sphere. It would be paraphrased as “in the sphere of Christ’s activity you were circumcised.” Or it could be translated “by whom also.” The evn (“by”) would function like a dative of means or agency. Paul uses evn w-| 26 times in the Greek text. The NASB translates it “by which” in Rom. 7:6; 8:15 [“by whom” NKJV]; 14:21; and Eph. 4:30. He uses evn w-| kai. seven times in the Greek text. Though the NASB does not translate it “by whom also,” the NKJV does in 1 Pt. 3:19a and Clarence B. Hale suggests this translation for Eph. 2:22 (i.e., “…by whom you also are being built together…”).¹⁷ It would be translated as “by whom also you were circumcised.”

The union with Christ in Col. 2:11 may be understood best either as a union based on election “in Him” (Eph. 1:4) and true of all the elect prior to the personal application of redemption in space and time¹⁸ or in one of the last two ways suggested above. Either of these views fits the context of Col. 2:11ff. and is syntactically and theologically consistent with Paul’s usage elsewhere. And either view will allow for the causal relationship between circumcision and union with Christ effected through faith, which is clear in the passage (see the discussion below).

The evn w-| kai. refers back to Christ and our being complete in Him (v. 10). Verses 11 and 12 go on to describe just how Christians are complete in Him. The verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”) indicates a past action in which the Colossians were passive. They were acted upon by an outsider. They did not circumcise themselves. Someone else was the subject, the circumciser, and they were the objects, the recipients of circumcision. The rest of vv. 11 and 12 are subordinate to this verb and explanatory of it.

The first thing Paul tells us about this circumcision is its character or nature. It was peritomh/| avceiropoih,tw| (“a circumcision made without hands”). It was performed without human hands, unlike the circumcision of the OT and the type being promoted by Judaizers in the first century. John Eadie says, “The circumcision made without hands is plainly opposed to that which is made with hands.”¹⁹ It is a spiritual circumcision, a circumcision of the heart (cf., Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7; Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3).²⁰ Harris says, “It is spiritual surgery performed on Christ’s followers at the time of their regeneration.”²¹ The Colossians are complete in Christ due to being circumcised without hands.

The second thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its effect. This spiritual circumcision was evn th/| avpekdu,sei tou/ sw,matoj th/j sarko,j (“in the removal of the body of the flesh”). “[T]he body of the flesh” (tou/ sw,matoj th/j sarko,j) is also spiritual. Since the circumcision under discussion is spiritual, then its effect must be spiritual. The preposition evn (“in”) is best understood epexegetically (NASB). It could be stated as “consisting of the removal of the body of the flesh.” It exegetes or explains the “circumcision made without hands.” The effect of the spiritual circumcision was a spiritual “removal of the body of the flesh.” But what does Paul mean by “the body of the flesh”? The noun avpekdu,sei (“removal”) has a double prepositional prefix (avpo and e`k) which intensify the noun so that it can be translated “completely off from.”²² The “removal of the body of the flesh” was a radical and spiritual act effected by the “circumcision made without hands.” The “body of the flesh” is what is stripped off or radically affected. As noted above, “the flesh” (th/j sarko,j) is best taken as spiritual. In this case, sarko,j (flesh”) is used in an ethical sense. It refers to the sinful natures of the Colossians (cf., Col. 2:18; Rom. 8:5-7; 13:14; and Eph. 2:3 for similar uses). Eadie says, “Flesh is corrupted humanity.”²³ The fleshly body (i.e., the entirety of their sinful natures) was radically altered by this spiritual circumcision. Abbott adds, “The connexion requires it to be understood passively, not ‘ye have put off,’ but ‘was put off from you.’”²⁴ The sinful souls of the Colossians were radically changed. The body of the flesh was put off from them. This is a description of the radical effects of heart circumcision upon the soul within the complex of the grace of regeneration (cf. Tit. 3:5).²⁵ Discussing regeneration, Murray says:

There is a change that God effects in man, radical and reconstructive in its nature, called new birth, new creation, regeneration, renewal–a change that cannot be accounted for by anything that is in lower terms than the interposition of the almighty power of God. . . . The governing disposition, the character, the mind and will are renewed and so the person is now able to respond to the call of the gospel and enter into privileges and blessings of the divine vocation.²⁶

Regeneration involves both cleansing from sin (Tit. 3:5) and new life (Jn. 3:3-8). Paul is saying that the Colossians have experienced regeneration. They were complete in Christ because of the radical alteration of soul effected by the “circumcision made without hands.”

The third thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its author or owner. This is indicated by the words evn th/| peritomh/| tou/ Cristou/ (“by the circumcision of Christ”). This phrase has three possible meanings. The primary issue revolves around the function of the genitive tou/ Cristou/ (“of Christ”). One option takes it as an objective genitive and translates as “the circumcision performed on Christ” or “experienced by Christ.” This would refer either to Christ’s physical circumcision or “to his death when he stripped off his physical body.”²⁷ This is strained. Paul has been talking about what has happened in and to the Colossians not for them. Paul discusses what Christ did for the Colossians in vv. 13b and 14. Verses 11 and 12 discuss what happens in the Colossians and to them. Callow says:

Ingenious though this view is, it seems rather far-fetched to take circumcision as figuratively referring to Christ’s death. There is no suggestion of this in such passages as Rom. 2:28f. or Phil. 3:3. And in the nearer context of Col. 2:15, it is not said that Christ put off his body of flesh, but the powers and authorities. Further, in the ethical application of the teaching here which is given in chapter 3, Paul says (3:9) that the Colossians have “put off” the old man with his (evil) deeds, a statement which is very similar to the one used here.²⁸

Another option takes the genitive as subjective and translates as “a circumcision effected by Christ.” The NIV reads “done by Christ.” This makes Christ the circumciser of the Colossians’ hearts.

The last option sees the genitive as possessive. It is “Christ’s circumcision” or “Christian circumcision.” It is a circumcision that belongs to Christ. Either of the last two options fits the context better than the first option. The genitive of possession view, of course, does not preclude Christ from performing the circumcision, especially if we translate evn w-| kai. (2:11a) as “by whom also.”

In Tit. 3:5-6, God is said to have “saved us…by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Regeneration is by the Holy Spirit and through Jesus Christ and all is connected to God’s act in saving us. The Holy Spirit is the effective agent of regeneration; however, He is, nonetheless, the Spirit of Christ and God. In the economy of redemption, He convicts of sin and glorifies Christ by bringing the fruits of His redemption to the souls of elect sinners. And He does this as Christ’s emissary. The application of redemption is God’s act through Christ by the Spirit. Therefore, the genitive of possession option can be viewed in a way that encompasses the subjective genitive contention. It is Christ’s circumcision, as opposed to Moses’, the fathers’, or anyone else’s. It is Christian or New Covenant circumcision because it is under the authority and administration of Christ. He commissions the Holy Spirit to perform it, yet can be viewed as the author. As God uses means to save us, so Christ uses means to circumcise us.

An important observation to make at this point is that Christian circumcision, the circumcision of the heart, is the counterpart to physical circumcision. Harris says:

. . . v. 11 presents spiritual circumcision, not baptism, as the Christian counterpart to physical circumcision. A contrast is implied between circumcision as an external, physical act performed by human hands on a portion of the flesh eight days after birth and circumcision as an inward, spiritual act carried out by divine agency on the whole fleshly nature at the time of regeneration.²⁹

Just as everyone who was physically circumcised under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants became covenant members, so all who are spiritually circumcised become members of the New Covenant. Physical circumcision is replaced by spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant.

The fourth thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its subsequent, spiritual concomitant or attendant. We are introduced to v. 12 by an aorist, passive participial clause, suntafe,ntej auvtw/| evn tw/| baptismw/| (“having been buried with Him in baptism”). The participle, suntafe,ntej (“having been buried”), finds as its antecedent verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”) of v. 11.³⁰ It indicates a further and subordinate explanation of the “circumcision made without hands.” Wallace calls this a dependent, adverbial, temporal participle.³¹ Wallace defines this type of participle as follows:

In relation to its controlling verb, the temporal participle answers the question, When? Three kinds of time are in view: antecedent, contemporaneous, and subsequent. The antecedent participle should be translated after doing, after he did, etc. The contemporaneous participle should normally be translated while doing. And the subsequent participle should be translated before doing, before he does, etc. This usage is common.³²

The antecedent option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised after being buried with Him in baptism.” This would make the “circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” causally dependent upon baptism and, therefore, a result of it. This would argue for post-baptismal (whether water or spiritual baptism) regeneration in the case of the Colossian believers. This seems far-fetched in light of our discussion thus far.

The contemporaneous option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised while being buried with Him in baptism.” This would argue either for baptismal regeneration or that burial with Christ in baptism is synonymous with and epexegetical of the circumcision made without hands. This should be discarded for the reasons mentioned in connection with the antecedent option above. As we shall see, aorist participles subordinate to aorist main verbs are not always contemporaneous. And equating circumcision and baptism is not warranted from this text as we have noted and will become more evident as our discussion proceeds.

The subsequent option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised before being buried with Him in baptism.” This view is best for the following reasons. First, according to Dana and Mantey, aorist participles subordinate to aorist verbs can express subsequent action.³³ Second, the burial referred to in this verse is subsequent to the death of the old man in v. 11, effected by circumcision. Eadie says, “It is plain that the spiritual circumcision is not different from regeneration, or the putting off of the old man and putting on the new.”³⁴ Though Paul does not use the same terminology as Eadie in this text, “the removal of the body of the flesh” effected by the “circumcision made without hands” does transform the old man into a new man, and thus implies the death of the old man (Col. 2:20; Rom. 6:6-7; Tit. 3:5). Third, this view maintains the death, burial, and resurrection motif of other Pauline texts (Col. 2:12, 20; 3:1, 3; Rom. 6:3-8). Fourth, this view comports with the rest of the verse, which sees faith as the means through which resurrection with Christ is effected (see the discussion below). Fifth, this view does not get one into the difficulties mentioned above in the other views. This argues for a causal relationship between circumcision and burial with Christ in baptism. The burial with Him in baptism was brought about causally subsequent to the circumcision. The subsequent, spiritual concomitant or attendant to spiritual circumcision, therefore, is burial with Christ in baptism. Burial with Christ in baptism came to the Colossians after being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.”

The application of redemption is a complex of interrelated and interdependent divine redemptive acts. Our text has shown this to be the case thus far with the relationship between heart circumcision and burial with Christ. This leads us, however, to another question. What does Paul mean by burial with Him in baptism? Lightfoot takes the position that Paul is referring to physical, water baptism.

Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life.³⁵

Commenting on suntafe,ntej auvtw/| evn tw/| baptismw/| (“having been buried with Him in baptism”), A.S. Peake says:

This refers to the personal experience of the Christian. The rite of baptism, in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ.³⁶

Peake makes a crucial distinction that is necessitated by the flow of our discussion thus far. He does not equate burial with Him in baptism with water baptism, as did Lightfoot. He says, “The rite of baptism [i.e., water baptism], in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ (emphases added).” Lightfoot links regeneration with emerging from baptismal waters. Peake says that water baptism typifies burial and resurrection with Christ. We have seen that the “circumcision made without hands” is the presupposition of and causal prerequisite to burial with Christ in baptism. On this ground we must reject Lightfoot’s view. The baptism in view here, though typified by water baptism, is not to be equated with it.³⁷

Another important and related question also arises at this point. Since the circumcision the Colossians underwent was “without hands,” was the burial in baptism they underwent and their being “raised up with Him” also without hands? In other words, is the baptism Paul refers to here water baptism or that which water baptism signifies – burial and resurrection with Christ or union with Christ in His burial and resurrection? From our discussion thus far, it seems obvious that it must be the latter. Paul is not teaching that burial with Christ in water baptism was immediately preceded by their “circumcision made without hands.” How could he know that? How could he know that they were water baptized immediately upon their regeneration? He could not. However, he could know that all who are circumcised of heart are buried with Christ in spiritual baptism and raised with Him spiritually, typified by their water baptism, effected through faith (see the discussion below). We must agree with Ross, when he says:

It is important to say at this point that in both verse 11 and verse 12 Paul is not speaking of any physical rite or ceremony. The baptism in view in verse 12 is just as spiritual as the circumcision in verse 11. The physical rite of baptism signifies and seals that believers are raised up with Christ by faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead, but water baptism in and of itself does not accomplish this.³⁸

Paul could know that the Colossians were buried with Christ causally subsequent to their “circumcision made without hands” because he knew that all regenerate persons immediately express faith and are vitally united to Christ in His burial and resurrection. Murray gives eloquent comment to this:

…there is an invariable concomitance or co-ordination of regeneration and other fruits of grace. …As we shall see later, this is a very significant emphasis and warns us against any view of regeneration which abstracts it from the other elements of the application of redemption.³⁹

We must not think of regeneration as something which can be abstracted from the saving exercises which are its effects. …The regenerate person cannot live in sin and be unconverted.⁴⁰

There are numerous other considerations derived from the Scripture which confirm this great truth that regeneration is such a radical, pervasive, and efficacious transformation that it immediately registers itself in the conscious activity of the person concerned in the exercise of faith and repentance and new obedience [emphasis added].⁴¹

Paul knew that regeneration was logically and causally prior to faith and is its immediate precondition. He knew that those circumcised of heart immediately expressed faith in the Son of God. This is why he tells the Colossians that upon being spiritually circumcised they expressed faith that united them vitally to Christ. This view is further substantiated when we understand the function of the next clause in the text.

The next issue is what to make of the evn w-| kai. clause, translated “in which you…also … (NASB)” of v. 12. Is it to be viewed as a second, parallel clause with the one in v. 11? If so, the Colossians’ completeness in Christ is argued first from their “circumcision made without hands” and second from their being “raised up with Him.” This view seems strained for several reasons. First, a general rule of the Greek language is that clauses and phrases modify the nearest antecedent, unless there is good reason in the text to go further afield. There is no compelling reason to go further than the immediate antecedent evn tw/| baptismw/| (“in baptism”). While some argue that the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 12 is grammatically parallel with the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 11⁴² (that’s the only apparently substantial argument for this view), grammatical (formal) parallels are not necessarily syntactical (functional) parallels. A second reason why this view is strained is because the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 12 continues with language normally connected to what precedes it. Paul continues, evn w-| kai. sunhge,rqhte (“in which you were also raised up with Him”). Paul is completing his thought begun in the beginning of the verse. The fact that Paul often speaks of burial, baptism, and resurrection with Christ together leans us in the direction that this clause is subordinate to evn tw/| baptismw/| (“in baptism”). Just as the Colossians were buried with Christ in baptism, so they were raised with Him in baptism.⁴³

The rest of v. 12, then, is subordinate to tw/| baptismw/| (“baptism”). Paul says that in spiritual baptism sunhge,rqhte dia. th/j pi,stewj (“you were also raised up with Him through faith”). The prepositional phrase dia. th/j pi,stewj (“through faith”) indicates the means through which the Colossians were raised with Christ. Meyer says:

Paul is describing the subjective medium, without which the joint awakening, though objectively and historically accomplished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be appropriated individually… The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with Christ, because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with Christ, just as also he has not the reconciliation, although the reconciliation of all has been accomplished objectively through Christ’s death.⁴⁴

Clearly, the faith here is that expressed by the Colossians. This is the first mention of human response in the text and this response comes as a result of being circumcised “without hands.” Those who already possess the circumcision “made without hands” experience this complex of spiritual events, being buried and raised with Christ in baptism through faith. This is another reason why Paul cannot be speaking of water baptism in the text. For many who are water baptized do not have faith. But the ones described here exercised faith as a means or instrument through which they were united to Christ in His burial and resurrection. Commenting on Eph. 2:5ff and Col. 2:12, Gaffin says, “being raised with Christ is an experience with which faith is associated in an instrumental fashion.”⁴⁵ Being raised with Christ, as with being buried with Him, is causally dependent upon being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” As the Colossians’ circumcision was without hands, so was their burial and rising with Christ.

The final words of v. 12 are subordinate to dia. th/j pi,stewj (“through faith”). There are two ways to understand the words th/j evnergei,aj tou/ qeou/ (“in the working of God”). The question concerns the function of the genitive tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). Either it is subjective or objective. If subjective, then Paul is saying that their faith is the effect of God’s working in them. God gave them faith. God worked faith in them. If objective, then their faith was in the power exercised by God in the resurrection of Christ. The working of God’s power in the resurrection of Christ, according to this view, is the object of their faith. The final participial clause of v. 12, tou/ evgei,rantoj auvto.n evk nekrw/n (“who raised Him from the dead”), is subordinate to tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). God is the one who raised Christ from the dead by His power. Though it is certainly true that faith is the effect of God’s working in the soul, it is best to understand th/j evnergei,aj tou/ qeou/ (“in the working of God”) here as objective, as the thing believed or the content of their faith. One reason for this view is that “the genitive after pi,stij [“faith”], when not that of the person, is always that of the object.”⁴⁶ Also, elsewhere Paul makes the resurrection of Christ effected by God the object of saving faith (cf., Rom. 10:9).

Christians are complete in Christ because they have received a circumcision made without hands – regeneration. Regeneration produces faith that vitally unites souls to Christ in the efficacy of His burial and resurrection. This vital union with Christ in burial and resurrection is a spiritual baptism. Vital union brings believing sinners into the orbit of redemptive privilege and power. Every sinner circumcised in heart immediately expresses saving faith in God’s power in raising Christ from the dead. Burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism cannot be abstracted from its causal prerequisite – regeneration. If one has been buried and raised with Christ in baptism, it is only because one has been circumcised “without hands.” The result of regeneration, faith, is the instrumental cause of union with Christ. And the union with Christ of Col. 2:12 ushers the believer experientially into the complex of redemptive privileges purchased by the Lord Jesus Christ for the elect. In other words, this is the experience of all believers, though not of all those water baptized. All of this may be typified by water baptism, though it is not effected by it. Christians are complete in Christ because of regeneration and its effects in the soul.

Colossians 2:11-12 in The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism

The Scripture index to The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism contains 17 entries for Col. 2:11-12. Space does not permit us to discuss every entry. However, we will examine a few of the uses in light of the exposition above.

Mark Ross, in his chapter “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals,” says:

It is imperative that we look more closely at this verse in the Greek text. Colossians 2:12 is a continuation of verse 11, which itself is a continuation of the sentence begun in verse 9. Verse 12 is a series of participial phrases, all of which are related to the main verb in verse 11, “you were circumcised.” Thus, in verse 12 Paul is explaining more fully just how it is that the Colossians have been circumcised in this circumcision made without hands. They were circumcised, “having been buried with [Christ] in baptism.” Thus, verse 12 explains how the Colossians were “circumcised.”⁴⁷

Colossians 2:12 in fact contains only two participles. The first, suntafe,ntej (“having been buried with”), is the first word of the verse and is immediately subordinate to the main verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”). The second is tou/ evgei,rantoj (“who raised [Him from the dead]”) and is immediately subordinate to tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). Though it is remotely related to the main verb, it is not in an immediate, adverbial relationship to it. Ross’ statement makes it appear so but it is not. He oversimplifies the syntax. Further, he claims that the participle suntafe,ntej (“having been buried with”) begins Paul’s explanation of “how the Colossians were ‘circumcised.’” However, we have seen that Paul already explained how the Colossians were circumcised before he got to v. 12. They were “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (v. 11). Verse 12 reveals to us the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of their circumcision, not “how the Colossians were ‘circumcised.’” It tells us when the Colossians were buried and raised with Christ in baptism.

On the next page, Ross says, “The baptism of Colossians 2:12 can only be the reality of the Spirit’s working to regenerate the heart and free the soul from the dominion of sin.”⁴⁸ But, as we have seen, v. 12 speaks of a spiritual, vital union with Christ effected through faith. This presupposes regeneration (v. 11). If both verses are describing regeneration, then Paul could be paraphrased as saying, “You were regenerated when you were regenerated.” This would certainly be a cumbersome tautology and does not respect the syntax of the text. The Bible uses other words and phrases to describe regeneration that Paul could have used here (i.e., born from above). However, it is clear from the exposition above that Paul is not speaking about regeneration in v. 12. He is speaking about the fruit of regeneration – union with Christ in burial and resurrection, effected through faith.

Cornelis Venema, in his chapter “Covenant Theology and Baptism,” says:

…it is not surprising to find the apostle Paul treating baptism as the new covenant counterpart to circumcision (Col. 2:11-13). …Baptism now represents the spiritual circumcision “made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh” (Col. 2:11).⁴⁹

Venema offers no exegesis, only assertions. Our exegesis above has made it clear that Col. 2:11-12 does not warrant such statements. The New Covenant counterpart to physical circumcision is spiritual circumcision. Venema’s claim, in essence, is that water baptism represents regeneration. The baptism of Col. 2:12, however, is spiritual baptism that represents vital union with Christ. Regeneration is presupposed and effects burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism through faith. Venema is assuming that baptism has replaced circumcision by this statement. Our exegesis has shown this to be an unwarranted implication of the text.

In a context discussing the household baptisms of the New Testament, Joel Beeke and Ray Lanning say:

Similarly, children of believing parents are addressed as members of churches at Ephesus (Eph. 6:1-4) and Colossae (Col. 3:20). These children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism “the circumcision of Christ.”⁵⁰

This appears to claim that Paul is speaking of water baptism in Col. 2:11-12. If this is what the authors are claiming, it contradicts what we have seen Ross claim later in the book, where he says, “It is important to say at this point that in both verse 11 and verse 12 Paul is not speaking of any physical rite or ceremony. The baptism in view in verse 12 is just as spiritual as the circumcision in verse 11.”⁵¹ Also, we have already seen that all who are spiritually circumcised are spiritually buried and raised with Christ, effected through faith. Beeke and Lanning’s statement would then imply that all the children Paul was addressing were also regenerated. But, of course, they do not advocate that. The main problem with their statement comes in its final sentence. “These children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism ‘the circumcision of Christ.’” They equate circumcision with baptism. But, as we have seen clearly, Paul does not do this.

Pertinent Conclusions

Baptism does not replace circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. We have seen clearly that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, replaces physical circumcision. Baptism in Col. 2:12 (i.e., vital union with Christ) is a result of spiritual circumcision. Burial and resurrection with Christ is not equivalent to but causally subsequent to spiritual circumcision. Physical circumcision has been replaced by spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant. The correspondence between the two, however, is not one-to-one. Paul tells us this by saying that New Covenant circumcision is “a circumcision made without hands.” Though physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision are related they are not equivalent. One is physical and does not affect the heart; the other is spiritual and does not affect the body. Both are indications of covenant membership. But only the circumcision of the heart guarantees one’s eternal destiny, for all the regenerate express faith and “are protected by the power of God through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5).

We must take issue with those who argue from this text that baptism replaces circumcision. The Lutheran scholar Eduard Lohse asserts, “Baptism is called circumcision here… The circumcision of Christ which every member of the community has experienced is nothing other than being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ.”⁵² We have seen, however, that the only replacement motif in this text is between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. Spiritual circumcision is not equivalent to baptism. Baptism (i.e. union with Christ) is the sphere in which burial and resurrection with Christ occurs, which is effected through faith, and a result of spiritual circumcision.

The Reformed commentator William Hendriksen says:

Evidently Paul in this entire paragraph magnifies Christian baptism as much as he, by clear implication, disapproves of the continuation of the rite of circumcision if viewed as having anything to do with salvation. The definite implication, therefore, is that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Hence, what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism. In the Colossian context baptism is specifically a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him [emphasis Hendriksen’s].⁵³

We take issue with Hendriksen’s view on several fronts. First, Paul is not magnifying Christian baptism in this text. He is magnifying Christian circumcision. This is evident by the fact that “you were also circumcised” is the regulating verb to which the rest of vv. 11 and 12 are subordinate. Second, there is not a “definite implication …that baptism has taken the place of circumcision.” Our exegesis has shown us this clearly. Third, it is not true that “what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism.” This is so because Paul is not arguing for a replacement theology between physical circumcision and water baptism and because the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). Fourth, Paul says nothing in Col. 2:11-12 about baptism being “a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him.” He does say that the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of spiritual circumcision is spiritual burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism effected through faith. There is no hint of baptism being a sign and seal as argued by Hendriksen. It is of interest to note one of Hendriksen’s footnotes to these statements. Notice the concession he makes.

I am speaking here about a clear implication. The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands, namely, the circumcision of the heart, as explained. But the implication also is clear. Hence, the following statement is correct: “Since, then, baptism has come in the place of circumcision (Col. 2:11-13), the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant” (Form for the Baptism of Infants in Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1959, p. 86). When God made his covenant with Abraham the children were included (Gen. 17:1-14). This covenant, in its spiritual aspects, was continued in the present dispensation (Acts 2:38, 29; Rom. 4:9-12; Gal. 3:7, 8, 29). Therefore the children are still included and should still receive the sign, which in the present dispensation, as Paul makes clear in Col. 2:11, 12, is baptism [emphases Hendriksen’s].⁵⁴

Hendriksen’s concession that “The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands” surely sheds doubt over his initial claim of “speaking here about a clear implication.” Again, we have seen that Paul is not arguing that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as a sign and seal of the covenant. It does not follow, then, that “the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant.” Paul does not say or imply that the sign of the covenant is baptism. Instead, the sign of the covenant is regeneration. All who are spiritually circumcised are immediately buried and raised with Christ in baptism, effected through faith. Colossians 2:11-12 is about the application of redemption to elect souls and does not imply infant baptism, some of which are not elect. If it implies anything about water baptism, it implies that it ought to be administered to those who have been circumcised of heart and vitally united to Christ through faith as a symbol of these spiritual blessings.

All who are circumcised of heart are buried and raised with Christ through faith immediately subsequent to their heart circumcision. Regeneration cannot be abstracted from its immediate fruits. All regenerate souls are immediately untied to Christ through faith. This is what Col. 2:11-12 clearly teaches. Our exegesis argues for an ordo salutus as follows: regeneration, then union with Christ through faith. And this experience is that of all the regenerate and has nothing to do with the act of water baptism in itself.

This text neither teaches baptismal regeneration nor implies infant baptism. In context, it is displaying the completeness believers have in Christ. It does not apply to unbelievers or to all who are baptized by any mode and by properly recognized ecclesiastical administrators. It has to do with the spiritual realities that come to souls who are Christ’s sheep. It has to do with the application of redemption to elect sinners. It has to do with regeneration, faith, and experiential union with Christ. These are the aspects of completeness in Christ Paul highlights here. We should gain much encouragement from these things. They were revealed to fortify believers against error. They were written to strengthen saints already in Christ. They were not revealed as proof for the subjects of baptism. They were not revealed to teach us that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. God gave us Col. 2:11-12 to display this fact: When you have Jesus, you have all you need!

1* Richard C. Barcellos is one of the pastors of Free Grace Church: A Reformed Baptist Congregation, Lancaster, CA, author of In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology, and co-author of A Reformed Baptist Manifesto: The New Covenant Constitution of the Church.

^ English Bible references are taken from The New American Standard Bible. Greek references are taken from The Greek New Testament, UBS, third edition.

2 Quoted by Joseph Pipa, “The Mode of Baptism” in Gregg Strawbridge, ed., The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003), 123.

3 See Murray J. Harris, Exegetical Guide to the New Testament: Colossians & Philemon (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 85-143 for his discussion on this section and reasons for his outline of this portion of the epistle.

4 This is a relative clause and should be translated “who is” (NKJV).

5 T.K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians in The International Critical Commentary, eds. S.R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C.A. Briggs (reprint ed., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1974), 250.

6 “Here in 2:11-15 Paul described in more detail the fullness believers have in Christ through salvation.” Sharon Gray, ed., Translator’s Notes on Colossians (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 2001), 61.

7 Cf. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, 106 and J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (New York: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1897), 183.

8 Cf. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, 101 and John Eadie, Colossians (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Klock & Klock, 1980), 149.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid., 151.

11 See the discussion by John Murray in Redemption Accomplished and Applied (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 161-173.

12 Murray, Redemption, 161.

13 Harris, Colossians and Philemon, 101.

14 Cf. Murray’s discussion as noted above.

15 Richard B. Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology (reprint ed., Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1987), 53. Gaffin relies heavily on John Murray at this point. Cf., John Murray, “Definitive Sanctification” in Collected Writing of John Murray, vol. 2, Selected Lectures in Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1984), 277-284.

16 Ibid., 57.

17 Clarence B. Hale, The Meaning of “In Christ” in the Greek New Testament (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1991), 32. Hale translates Col. 2:11 “in whom also.”

18 John Callow acknowledges that union can be understood “outside the categories of time (Eph. 1:4)” though he does not opt for this view. See John Callow, A Semantic Structure Analysis of Colossians, ed. Michael F. Kopesec (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1983), 140.

19 Eadie, Colossians, 150.

20 Ibid., 149; Harris, Colossians & Philemon, 101; and Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 181.

21 Harris, Colossians & Philemon, 116.

22 Ibid., 101.

23 Eadie, Colossians, 150. Cf. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. XXI, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 184.

24 Abbott, Ephesians and Colossians, 250.

25 Cf. Calvin, Colossians, 184 and Eadie, Colossians, 151.

26 Murray, Selected Lectures, 171.

27 Harris, Colossians & Philemon, 102. This is also Peter T. O’Brien’s view in David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 44, Colossians, Philemon (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1982), 117-118.

28 Callow, Semantic Structure, 141.

29 Harris, Colossians & Philemon, 103.

30 Ibid.

31 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 622-627.

32 Ibid., 623.

33 H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1955), 230.

34 Eadie, Colossians, 151.

35 Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 182.

36 A.S. Peake, The Epistle to the Colossians in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 3, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 525.

37 I am not claiming that Peake holds the view I’m advocating. I am using the distinction he makes and may be applying it in a different way than he would have.

38 Mark E. Ross, “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals” in Strawbridge, ed., Infant Baptism, 103.

39 Murray Redemption, 101.

40 Ibid., 104.

41 Ibid., 104-105. Murray’s comments come after discussing Jn. 3 and 1 Jn. concerning regeneration and its effects.

42 Abbott, Ephesians and Colossians, 251. This is Meyer’s view according to Abbot.

43 Ibid.

44 Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, and to Philemon (reprint ed., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1983), 301.

45 Gaffin, Resurrection, 129.

46 Abbott, Ephesians and Colossians, 252. Cf., Eadie, Colossians, 156; Harris, Colossians & Philemon, 105; Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, 183; Peake, Colossians, 526.

47 Ross, “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals” in Strawbridge, ed., Infant Baptism, 102.

48 Ibid., 103.

49 Cornelis P. Venema, “Covenant Theology and Baptism” in Strawbridge, ed., Infant Baptism, 222.

50 Joel R. Beeke and Ray B. Lanning, “Unto You, and to Your Children” in Strawbridge, ed., Infant Baptism, 52.

51 Mark E. Ross, “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals” in Strawbridge, ed., Infant Baptism, 103.

52 Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 101, 102.

53 William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 116.

54 Ibid., 116, n. 86.

Child Baptism

Tertullian—Baptism of Children in Africa—Origen—First Appearance
of Infant Baptism—The Clinics—Christianity in England.

We are now approaching the development of those corrupting influences which had been at work from the Apostolic age, silently sapping the foundations of personal piety. In adverting to the language employed by Justin Martyr and Ireneus, we endeavoured to clear those authors from the imputation of unevangelical sentiments, and to interpret their expressions in a sound and safe sense. But though it may be possible to hold them guiltless, it is feared that many of their cotemporaries were fairly open to the charge of holding unscriptural opinions. A notion had grown up, that baptism actually accomplished what was professed in it. As the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were often bestowed upon believers immediately after their baptism, men began to think that it was then first that the Spirit wrought on the soul. And as the act of obedience to the Saviour in the ordinance was commonly associated with spiritual enjoyments and manifestations, and happy converts, like the eunuch, “went on their way rejoicing,” there were some who came to the conclusion that what was connected with baptism was produced by it. If the convictions that led the candidate to the baptismal water, and impelled him to the act of dedication to the Savior’s service, were greatly strengthened at his baptism, so that he then experienced a more intensely satisfying consciousness of pardon and union with Christ, results were confounded with causes, and the new believer was taught to ascribe to baptism the blessings which he had in fact enjoyed before, but which he realized more vividly when he obeyed the Lord.

This step taken, the transition to yet more perilous errors and evils was easy. When baptism was thus invested with a kind of supernatural power, the outward act was soon substituted for the spiritual qualification. Instead of directing inquirers to the Atonement, and encouraging them to seek by prayer for the teaching and aid of the Holy Spirit, the religious instructions of that age expatiated on the vast powers of baptism. Tertullian, for example, a Christian writer who flourished at the close of the second and the commencement of the third century, “declares the following spiritual blessings to be consequent upon baptism:—remission from sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and participation in the Holy Spirit. He calls it the ‘sacrament of washing,’ the ‘blessed sacrament of water,’ the ‘laver of regeneration.’”¹ When such opinions as these were entertained, is it not evident that the door was open to manifold abuses, and that those who had so far departed from Christian truth, would be likely enough to interfere with Christian worship and obedience?

Tertullian was a native of Carthage in Africa, and spent most of his life in that city. It is supposed that he died about the year 220. His tract, “De Baptismo,” was probably written twenty years before his death. From that tract and from other writings of his, we learn that at the beginning of the third century, there were some strange additions to the ordinance of baptism. The new convert was placed among the catechumens, that he might be fully instructed in the faith. After a sufficient probation he was admitted to baptism. The following account of the manner in which it was administered is taken from the late Bishop of Bristol’s “Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian”:—

“The candidate, having been prepared for its due reception by frequent prayers, fasts, and vigils, professed, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, that he renounced the devil, his pomp, and angels. He was then plunged into the water three times, in allusion to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, making certain responses which, like the other forms here mentioned, were not prescribed in Scripture, but rested on custom and tradition. He then tasted a mixture of milk and honey—was anointed with oil, in allusion to the practice under the Mosaic Dispensation of anointing those who were appointed to the priesthood, since all Christians are, in a certain sense, supposed to be priests—and was signed with the sign of the cross. Lastly followed the imposition of hands, the origin of which ceremony is referred by our author to the benediction pronounced by Jacob upon the sons of Joseph.”²

The administration of baptism was at that early period encumbered by ceremonies of merely human invention; in fact, Tertullian complains, in another work, that “various forms and observances had been introduced into the Christian worship, of which some bore too close a resemblance to the customs and practices of the Gentiles.” The signing with the sign of the cross was a superstition early practiced among the Christians. They crossed themselves perpetually. Whatever they undertook or engaged in—when they went out—when they returned home—when they dressed themselves, or put on their shoes, or sat down to a meal, or went to the bath or to bed—the sign of the cross was associated with everything. We need not wonder that the heathen suspected it to savour of magic.

We have mentioned these particulars for the purpose of showing that, at the beginning of the third century, religious declension had considerably advanced. No one will now be surprised at hearing that an attempt was made to extend the administration of baptism in an unwarrantable manner. It is referred to by Tertullian in his tract, “De Baptismo,” in terms of strong disapproval. Some persons had introduced children (not infants) to baptism, or advocated the administration of the ordinance to them. Tertullian indignantly reproves the practice. “Let them come,” he says, “when they are taught to whom they may come; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why should this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins?”³ Now, is it not obvious that Ter�tullian was entirely unacquainted with infant baptism, and that this children’s baptism, which then first began to be talked of, was regarded by him as an unauthorized innovation? The sign of the cross, the giving of milk and honey, and similar ceremonies, were comparatively, small matters, trifling circumstances; they were uncalled-for additions to the ordinance, and were so far mischievous but they did not change it. It was still connected with knowledge, and repentance, and faith. But the admission of children, if they were not old enough to repent and believe, would change the ordinance. It would dissever it from those religious prerequisites with which it had been hitherto uniformly associated. The Gentile or Jewish rites which had been added to it tended to make it more imposing, and so attracted the notice of the weak-minded; but to allow children to be baptized, who were not subjects of repentance and faith, would be, in Tertullian’s opinion, to revolutionize the institute altogether. We act more wisely, he remarked, in temporal matters; surely we ought not to admit to baptism those whom we consider unfit to manage temporal affairs. So he argued.

The case is quite clear. Children (not infants, but probably children from six to ten years old) are first mentioned in connection with the ordinance at the beginning of the third century, and then with disapproval. “Tertullian’s opposition,” the learned Baron Bunsen remarks, “is to the baptism of young, growing children; he does not say a word about new-born infants.”⁴

Some writers have laboured hard to prove that Origen referred in his writings to infant-baptism as a then existing fact, and that he assigned to it an Apostolic origin. Origen was the most learned Christian of that age. He flourished from A.D. 203 to A.D. 254, and attained high repute, both as a teacher in the catechetical school of Alexandria and as an author. But his references are to child-baptism, not to infant-baptism; and the difference between him and Tertullian is, that the latter decidedly objected to the practice, while Origen spoke of it with approbation. How far, however, did that approbation extend? Only to the baptism of such children as were capable of instruction, and gave indications of piety; for he uniformly taught that “the benefit of baptism depended on the deliberate purpose of the baptized.” His reply to an objection of Celsus expresses his views. That heathen writer, having stated that “intelligent and respectable persons” were invited to initiation in the heathen mysteries, proceeds thus:—“And now let us hear what persons the Christians invite. Whoever, they say, is a sinner, whoever is unintelligent, whoever is a mere child, and, in short, whoever is a miserable and contemptible creature, the kingdom of God shall receive him.” Origen answers him in the following manner:—“In reply to these accusations we say, it is one thing to invite those who are diseased in the soul to a healing, and it is another to invite the healthy to a knowledge and discernment of things more divine. And we, knowing the difference, first call men to be healed. We exhort sinners to come to the instruction that teaches them not to sin, and the unintelligent to come to that which produces in them understanding, and the little children to rise in elevation of thought to the man, and the miserable to come to a more fortunate state, or (what is more proper to say) a state of happiness. But when those of the exhorted that make progress show that they have been cleansed by the Word, and, as much as possible, have lived a better life, THEN we invite them to be initiated among us.”⁵

Such children as Origen here describes would be “initiated,” that is, baptized by any Baptist in these days. If they have been “cleansed by the Word,” what more can we require? Tertullian’s objection seems to have arisen from the undue eagerness of some persons to hurry children to the baptismal water before they could fully understand and receive the truth. But neither of these fathers refers to infants. They ascribed influences to baptism which are nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. They used language implying that an outward ceremony produced an inward, spiritual effect. They taught the necessity of baptism in order to pardon and salvation. And yet they also maintained the necessity of repentance and faith; and therefore they demanded, that, if young children were baptized, they should not be admitted to the ordinance till they were “able to know Christ,” and were “cleansed by the Word.”

We have at length arrived at the origin of Infant Baptism. Its birth-place was a district of Northern Africa, one of the least enlightened portions of the earth in that age; the time, the middle of the third century; the occasion, certain unscriptural notions which had gradually gained prevalence respecting the design and efficacy of the baptismal rite. Having adverted to those extravagances in a former section, it is unnecessary to adduce further proof. But the reader can easily trace the pro�gress of error. When believers, newly baptized, rejoiced in the forgiveness of sin, and exhibited satisfactory evidence of a regenerated state, men soon began to regard pardon and regeneration as the effects of baptism. Hence sprang the opinion of its necessity to salvation. That being admitted, the question of time came next under consideration. Was it not desirable to obtain pardon and regeneration at the earliest period possible? And besides, were not infants circumcised under the Jewish law? These questions were in the mind of Fidus, a bishop of some place in Northern Africa. We can have no doubt as to his duty under such circumstances. He ought to have searched the New Testament, if he had one (we cannot be sure of it, for books were scarce and dear in those days), and inquired into the differences between the Old and the New Dispensations, the carnal and the spiritual Israel. If he had carried on the inquiry fairly, his difficulties would have been removed without further reference. But he either could not or would not conduct the requisite investigation. Cyprian was at that time Bishop of Carthage, and was reverenced as a great authority in all Church affairs. Fidus wrote to Cyprian. Certain persons, he said, had advised the baptism of infants immediately after birth; but he could not agree with them, and particularly for this reason, that whereas it was customary to receive the baptized with a brotherly kiss, a newly-born infant could not be so received, being treated as unclean for several days after its coming into the world. He thought it best, therefore, to wait till the eighth day, and to baptize the infant at the same time at which, under the law, it would have been circumcised. But he asked advice of Cyprian, who laid the case before a council which had assembled at Carthage, in the year 252, for the settlement of various ecclesiastical matters. Sixty-six bishops met on that occasion. The answer is given in a letter written by Cyprian, from which the following extract is taken:—

“None of us could agree to your opinion. On the contrary, it is the opinion of us all, that the mercy and grace of God must be refused to no human being, so soon as he is born; for since our Lord says in His Gospel, ‘The Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s souls, but to save them,’ so everything that lies in our power must be done that no soul may be lost. As God has no respect of persons, so too He has no respect of age, offering Himself as a Father with equal freeness to all, that they may be enabled to obtain the heavenly grace. As to what you say, that the child in its first days of its birth is not clean to the touch, and that each of us would shrink from kissing such an object, even this, in our opinion, ought to present no obstacles to the bestowment of heavenly grace; for it is written, ‘To the pure all things are pure;’ and none of us ought to revolt at that which God has condescended to create. Although the child be but just born, yet it is no such object anyone ought to demur at kissing it to impart the divine grace and the salutation of peace, since each of us must be led, by his own religious sensibility, to think upon the creative hands of God, fresh from the completion of their work, which we kiss in the newly formed man when we take in our arms what God has made. As to the rest, if anything could prove a hindrance to men in the attainment of grace, much rather might those be hindered whose maturer years have involved them in heavy sins. But if even the chief of sinners, who have been exceedingly guilty before God, receive the forgiveness of sin on coming to the faith, and no one is precluded from baptism and from grace, how much less should the child be kept back, which, as it is but just born, cannot have sinned, but has only brought with it, by its descent from Adam, the infection of the old death; and which may the more easily obtain the remission of sins, because the sins which are forgiven it are not its own, but those of another?”⁶

This is very misty theology. In fact, the religion of great numbers, in the third century, was a compound of Judaism and Paganism, with a slight seasoning of Christianity. Gaudy ceremonials were delighted in, and the strange power which had been ascribed to magical influences was transferred to the ordinances of the Gospel. The immersion in water, the eating of the bread, and the drinking of the wine, were associated in their minds, as producing causes, with spiritual transformations and blessings. The bodily act was substituted for the mental, and “faith was made void.” We do not affirm that every professing Christian was enveloped in this darkness; but it is too evident that the views of the majority were confused, and that, under the leadership of such men as Cyprian, the churches were fast drifting into dangerous notions.

Nevertheless, they were consistent in some things. They did not separate baptism from the Lord’s Supper, as is done by all P�dobaptist in these times. They held that those who were entitled to the one had an equal right to the other. When the infant had been plunged into the baptismal water, it was considered a member of the Church, and received the Lord’s Supper. If it was too young to eat the bread, they poured the wine down its throat. This, too, originated in Northern Africa, and there only we find it, in the period now under notice.⁷

Another innovation is traced to the third century. We allude to clinic baptism, that is, the baptism of sick persons, confined to their beds. It was not baptism, properly so called, as they were only sprinkled with water, or had water poured on them. The reason alleged for this departure from Apostolic practice, was the necessity of baptism to the salvation of the soul, and the consequent danger of deferring it, lest the sickness should terminate in death. Thus one error led to another. If those clinics recovered, they were not baptized afterwards; but they were not admitted to the ministry. Novatian, however, was an exception to this rule. He had been sprinkled or received a pouring on his bed, when his dissolution was hourly expected. After his recovery, his eminent qualifica�tions for the ministry induced the churches to deviate from the established custom, and he was ordained. Subsequently he took a high stand as a reformer.

We are now brought down to the year 254, the date of Origen’s death. The downward tendency is before us. Baptism, at first the voluntary act of a believer in Christ, has become, in numerous instances, the performance of a ceremony upon an unconscious infant. In all these cases the design of the Christian profession is subverted. Members are introduced into the churches who are necessarily destitute of the spiritual qualifications enumerated in the New Testament. It does not require the gift of prophecy to foretell the disastrous consequences. Religious declension was both the cause and the effect of the introduction of infant-baptism. The cause, inasmuch as so great a change could not have taken place if the Christian mind had not previously lost a due sense of the spiritual nature of religion: the effect, since the unholy mixture arising from the new arrangement could not but prove injurious to the interests of piety. “What communion hath light with darkness?”

It may be expected that some account of the introduction of Christianity into England should be given. It is highly probable that the Gospel reached this country at an early period, by means of merchants of Gaul in the first instance, and of missionaries afterwards. But dates and details are wanting. The statements of Tertullian and others are rather rhetorical flourishes than truthful records. That Joseph of Arimathea went to England, with several companions, and built a church “made of rods, wattled or interwoven,” in which they “watched, prayed, fasted, preached, having high meditations under a low roof, and large hearts betwixt narrow walls,”⁸ is now generally acknowledged to be a fable. That the Apostle Paul visited Britain when he traveled “to the extreme bounds of the West,” as Clemens Romanus expressed it, is more easily said than proved. That Claudia, mentioned by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:21, was of British origin, is a conjecture, and nothing more. The story of King Lucius, as Dean Milman observes, “is a legend.”⁹ We must be content to remain in ignorance of the special instrument employed for the enlightenment of England, and can only remark that the Christian Church, when planted there, harmonized, in its doctrines and services, with the churches of Gaul, from which country missionary expeditions naturally took their westward course.

1 Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 432.

2 P. 434.

3 De Baptismo, chap. 18.

4 Christianity and Mankind, ii. p. 115.

5 See Christian Review, April, 1854, containing an article by Dr. Ira Chase on the “Opinions of Origen especting Baptism.”

6 Labbe and Kossart, Concil. i. pp. 742-744.

7 Bingham’s Christian Antiquities, book xii. chap. i. sect. 3, and book xv. chap. iv. sect. 7.

8 Fuller’s Church History, cent. i. sect. 13.

9 History of Latin Christianity, book iv. chap. iii.

CopyRight http://www.reformedreader.org

The Truth about Baptism

October 28, 2003

By Jessica McCreary
Recently I watched from the rear pew as a newborn baby was baptized at my home church, Eden United Church of Christ. The parents of this baby, whom I had never seen before, were not regular church attendees. I watched as the parents recited their rehearsed words, and the pastor sprinkled water on the infant in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The baby had on her white christening gown, and she cried for a moment as the pastor introduced her to the congregation. This baptism differed greatly from that of my roommate’s last September. Outside, in the parking lot of Two Rivers Non-Denominational Church, Amanda, my roommate, was dunked under water by her pastor. The pastor asked her if she had accepted Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior, and after her affirmation, he submerged her in the horse trough filled with water. It is apparent that the practice of baptism is viewed very differently by dissimilar denominations.

The controversy surrounding the theology and practice of baptism is as old as baptism itself. Fortunately, God promises answers to the questions and solutions to the problems in the Bible. Some questions that have been raised include: What is the significance of baptism? Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is infant baptism appropriate? Is submersion better than affusion? Those questions will be answered according to the Holy Scriptures. The confusion will be obsolete in the light of God’s truth.

First, an understanding of the significance of baptism is necessary. Why do Christians get baptized? First of all, knowing that Jesus lived the exemplary Christian life, Christians must realize that they are to follow Jesus and be baptized like him. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan river. The story of Jesus’ baptism is told in the third chapter of Matthew. Not only does God provide a perfect man for Christians to model their lives after, but God also commands us in the scripture to be baptized. In Acts, Peter tells believers living then and now, to “repent and be baptized.”

Baptism is also a symbol. Baptism is essential not only to obey the Lord’s commands, but also to show an outward sign of inward growth (Steffy 367). Baptism is a public confession of the Lordship of Christ in an individual’s life. A verse in Matthew says, “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before my father in heaven” (NIV). Arguably, baptism also depicts the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus and the believer. Often churches that practice baptism by submersion understand this to portray death to sin, burial of the old life, and resurrection of new life with Jesus on the throne (366). Yet another reason to be baptized is acceptance into the church. Often, salvation and baptism must precede membership in a church and participation in the Lord’s Supper (367). There are numerous reasons for a Christian to be baptized. Hopefully all of these reasons are included in one’s desire to be christened. If there are not biblical reasons for being baptized, then it is meaningless.

The Lutheran Church, and other churches also, feel that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, the Bible teaches something different. Certainly, if baptism were necessary for salvation the Bible would have stressed that in all the places where the gospel message is presented. There are numerous verses which say, “Believe and be saved,” not “Be baptized and find salvation” (NIV). Romans 10:9 says “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (NIV). That scripture is proof that believing is the key to the kingdom of heaven. Baptism is not the way to eternal life. Paul fought a legalistic similarity in the first century: circumcision. He stressed to Jews and Gentiles that following Jewish traditions was not essential to Christianity. There are many places in the gospels and Acts that say that believing comes before baptism. A newly born-again Christian must then be baptized, publicly professing their faith. Baptism marks the end of a life searching for a god and the beginning of a new life with God (Lumpkin 61).

Knowing that belief precedes baptism provokes another question: Should infants be baptized? It has already been established that believers are baptized to imitate Jesus, to obey the commands of God, to publicly confess Jesus as Lord and to symbolically represent both their own and Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism of an infant does not fulfill those purposes. An infant is incapable of being born again or regenerate, and thus, has no need for baptism.

Is infant baptism scriptural? The answer is “no,” but some might debate. There are many places in the Bible that say that an entire “household” believed and was baptized. Many proponents of paedobaptism say that surely there were infants in those households. The key is that the Bible says that the families believed and then were baptized. Therefore, there may have been some children but even these children were old enough to believe. If one is old enough to be a believer, then one is old enough to be baptized; that is what baptism is all about. Additionally, it is essential to note that during the apostolic age, it was unheard of to baptize infants (Lumpkin 60). The first case of infant baptism took place after the apostles were dead (60). Up until then, only adults were baptized because of their profession of faith (60).

Why is it that so many denominations practice infant baptism if there is no scriptural support? Many churches have a misconception about original sin. The majority of mainline denominations feel that a baby will go to hell at death unless baptized. This belief can be refuted in many ways. First, notice how David reacts to the death of his baby. David says, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him but he will not return to me.” It is quite possible that this scripture can be proof that babies go to heaven when they die. David is anticipating the time when he will go to be with his son. He is no longer mourning.

Another scripture to ponder is Matthew 18:3. This is when Jesus says, “…Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” While this does not directly show that children go to heaven, it does show that little children have no sin to repent for and thus no need for baptism. Many Christians do not correctly interpret Romans 5:12 which says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way, death came to all men, because all sinned…” It is not the sin that is passed to children but death. Another scripture that supports this is Ezekiel 18:20, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share in the guilt of the father…” With this scripture there is no need to fret over the eternal resting place of a child. There is a common belief that says children are protected until the age of accountability.

After examining these scriptures, it is evident that infants are not damned to hell, and thus, have no need for baptism. Scripture proves that certain denominations have false beliefs on baptism that stem from false beliefs of salvation.

Another unbiblical reason for supporting infant baptism is the parallels between infant baptism and circumcision. However, there are no parallels to be drawn between the two. The basis of the New Covenant is one of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (Atkerson). In the Abrahamic covenant, God required that all male descendants of Abraham be circumcised on the eighth day (Atkerson). The physical descendants of Abraham were allowed to be in the Abrahamic covenant through physical circumcision while the spiritual offspring played a part in the covenant after “spiritual circumcision” or regeneration (Atkerson). Colossians 2:11 distinguishes between the two types of circumcision, “In him, you were also circumcised, with the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men, but with the circumcision done by Christ…” The next verse describes that once a believer is regenerate, or spiritually circumcised, they will be baptized. This does not support being baptized as an infant by any means. In fact, it says that baptism comes after belief. Possibly, paedobaptists are so rushed to find some scripture to support their heresy that they do not take the time to exegete the scripture correctly.

The exact words of Colossians 2:12 are these: “Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him in your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” Another passage that shows the correspondence between the death, burial, and resurrection, and baptism is Romans 6:4 – “Therefore we are buried in him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Apparently the scripture views baptism as a symbolic representation of Christ. However, do our modern practices of baptism view baptism in the same light? Unfortunately, many denominations do not baptize new believers by immersion. Sprinkling, or affusion, does not justly portray the symbolism in baptism.

The other reason Christians support immersion is that it was the method used by John the Baptist. He and all other early church leaders baptized and were baptized by immersion. This is evident in the scripture. In Acts 8, there is a story about Phillip baptizing a man who professed that Jesus was Lord. Phillip stopped and took the eunuch “down into the water.” When they came “up out of the water,” the Spirit of the Lord snatched away Phillip but the eunuch continued on his way. In John 3, John the Baptist picked a place where there was “plenty of water.” Even Jesus was submerged completely under the water in the Jordan River when he was baptized. This is alluded to in the first chapter of Mark, “As Jesus was coming up out of the water…” If baptism by immersion was good enough for Jesus, then it is good enough for all believers.

One more reason that baptism should be by immersion is the word baptism itself. The Greek word “baptiso” means to make fully wet, to dip, or immerse” (Steffy 374). When the Bible was originally translated into English in 1611, baptism by affusion was gaining popularity (374). Therefore, the translators of the King James Version Bible did not translate the word baptism to avoid ruffling any feathers in the church (374). Instead, they transliterated the word and created a new English word (374).

While immersion is better than affusion, baptism by immersion is not necessary for salvation. If a believer was baptized by sprinkling, it is not necessary for that person to be baptized again by immersion unless they truly desire to do so. However, a believer that was baptized as an infant really should be baptized again after committing their life to Christ. This is because, as an infant, that child was not capable of fulfilling the Biblical reason for baptism.

Baptism of believers is crucial for three reasons. First, Christians must imitate the man that led a perfect life and follow his example of baptism. Second, the Bible commands Christians to be baptized in numerous places throughout. Finally, baptism is a symbol, not only of the death, burial, and resurrection, but also of individual rebirth.

Baptism is not essential for salvation. Nowhere can it be found in the scriptures that baptism saves a person from eternal damnation. The Bible clearly states that believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is the way to heaven. Even babies cannot be baptized into salvation. Babies are guaranteed salvation so there is no reason to think that babies must be baptized for forgiveness of sins. There is no reason for infants to be baptized. Baptism is for those who can confess that Jesus is Lord. Once a believer makes that profession of faith, they should be immersed in the water to represent the death, burial, and resurrection. Also, this is the process of baptism that early Christians used.

Surely, there are no longer doubts about baptism. If this essay raises questions in any reader’s mind, then I pray that the individual will take it upon himself or herself to find the truth. The Lord promises to display His truth to those who seek Him because He is truth. Jeremiah 29:13 says, “You will seek me and find me when you seek with all your heart.”

Sources:

Atkerson, Steve. “Is Infant Baptism a Valid Practice?” New Testament Restoration Foundation. 7 April 2003. .

Holy Bible. New International Version.

Holy Bible. King James Version.

Lumpkin, William L. Meditations on Christian Baptism. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1976.

Steffy, Gerald R. Baptismal Manual: Making Baptism More Meaningful. Ozark, MO: Dogwood Printing, 1993.
Jessica McCrearyis a sophomore from Columbia, Illinois, majoring in Religious Education. After she finishes her education, McCreary plans to make a career out of Biblical counseling.

http://www.mobap.edu/student/collegian/mt/000185.asp

Infant Baptism a Catholic invention?

Infant BaptismInfant Baptism is one of the most critical doctrines of the Catholic church:

The Catechism tells us where this cornerstone doctrine originated:

Here, the Catechism admits that this doctrine is not based upon Scripture. It is a man-made tradition. Paul’s warning might fit well here:

Baptism in the Bible

What makes this practice especially disturbing is that the Bible does not record a single occurance of an infant being baptized. On the contrary, every mention of baptism involves people old enough to hear and receive the gospel.

Jesus was an adult when he was baptized:

Throughout the Bible, baptism always followed salvation. The Ethiopian eunuch who was led to salvation by Philip was an adult when baptized:

Others were baptized after they believed:

After people heeded John the Baptist’s message to “repent,” they were:

Obviously, newborn infants can not repent, believe or confess their sins. Therefore, they are never qualified to be scripturally baptized.

The Philippian jailer

When the Philippian jailer who guarded the Apostle Paul asked, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), Paul answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 31).” After the jailer believed, Paul baptized him (v. 33).

When Peter preached in Acts, chapter two:

When Philip preached to the people of Samaria, men and women were baptized, but no infants were baptized:

If God’s Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God’s Word should be baptized, then why does Catholicism demand that newborn infants be baptized? Is it to bring people into bondage to the church from shortly after their birth? You must settle this question in your own heart.

Conclusion

When you were baptized as an infant, were you really baptized, or did you just have some water sprinkled on you? It all depends on which side you will believe in – the Word of God or the traditions of men. Please keep in mind the words Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day:

“Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:9

A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism

A couple of weeks ago I gave a message on the issue of baptism and when I introduced that I was going to do that, I said that I wanted to give a follow-up message on the issue of infant baptism and I’m going to do that this morning. Now, I confess that this may seem a little more like a theological class lecture; you may feel like you’ve just enrolled at the Master’s Seminary—that’s O.K. I warn you in the back rows there, who may tend to wander anyway, because you’re so far away—hang in there. This is really, I think, a provocative, and important, and far-reaching issue to deal with.

Let me explain for some of you who might not understand. There is a widespread belief in the Church that babies are to be baptized. And so, soon after their birth, they are taken to the church whether it’s a Roman Catholic church, or whether it’s a Presbyterian church, or whether it’s a Reformed church, or a Lutheran church, an Anglican church, an Episcopalian church…They are taken to the church and they are sprinkled with water on the head—a little bit of water is dripped on their head and that constitutes their “Christian” baptism. This is very widespread. This is all over the world, in fact. This is the influence of the post-reformation European church and it has spread wherever that influence has gone.

Now, the result of this is that you have baptized non-Christians all over the world. They were baptized as infants with what they believe was a Christian baptism and an initiation into the church—and an initiation into salvation. Yet, they are not Christians; they have never come to personal confession of faith in Christ and so they were baptized but they’re non-Christians. On the other hand, you have the same group of people who are actually not baptized at all because that baptism is not New Testament baptism. So, they are baptized non-Christians who have never really been baptized at all, in the true sense.

It is also true that many people are—particularly in that movement—many people do come to true faith in Christ. They may start by being baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian, or Lutheran, or Reformed church, or Anglican, or Episcopalian church, or whatever church it is that does infant baptism…they are baptized as a child, they do come to true faith in Jesus Christ, but are never baptized by immersion because the church teaches that that is not appropriate. In fact, after the Reformation, if somebody was rebaptized, who was baptized as an infant, they were labeled an “Anabaptist” and persecuted.

It was not uncommon for that persecution to reach a fever pitch so that after the Reformation, you had Protestant people who believed in infant baptism persecuting people who believed in believers’ baptism. It became a serious issue, even to the point where some people who believed in adult immersion after confession of faith in Christ and were rebaptized, were killed. So, this was a heated issue. We can be glad it isn’t quite that furious today, but it is still an issue of immense importance in the church, because as I said, you have baptized non-Christians and unbaptized Christians. In both cases you have a problem, a serious problem.

We have, certainly, the present largest unbaptized population of professing Christians ever. That unbaptized population would be made up of people who were baptized as infants and don’t feel they need to be baptized; therefore, they are really unbaptized in the true way. All those other people who are hearing the gospel today through television and radio and in the sort of “seeker-friendly” churches where baptism is not practiced. So, you have this massive population of unbaptized professing Christians everywhere.

Now, few things in the New Testament are more unmistakable than the issue of baptism. It’s just plain and simple. Jesus said, “Go and preach the gospel and baptize.” Peter said, “Repent and be baptized.” It couldn’t be much more clearly expressed than that. Even so, we have wide-spread noncompliance to this issue.

Now, this is of great importance to me, because I feel that as a Christian preacher, as a Christian pastor, as a shepherd of God’s flock, as somebody who’s responsible to the Lord for ministry, I need to preserve what is precious to the Lord, right?…in the church.

Now, there are only two ordinances the Lord gave us—just two. He gave us baptism and the Lord’s Table. And He said, “Just do these two things. They are symbols.” Baptism, as we know, is a symbol depicting the death of an individual in Christ, the burial, and resurrection in the newness of life. The Lord’s Table is a symbol of the cross—both the body of Jesus Christ, symbolized in the bread, and the blood of Christ, symbolized in the cup and we are enjoined to carry those out in the church.

This is important to me because it’s part of the stewardship of responsibility that I have to discharge before the Lord. It grieves me that there are some churches, like the Quakers’ church and the Friends’ church, that will not practice communion. It also grieves me that there are many, many churches—many of them—thousands upon thousands of them—tens of thousands of them all over the world, that will not properly practice Christian baptism in spite of what the New Testament says. This is a matter of obedience—this is a matter of honor to the Lord and it’s of great importance to me.

Some years ago I was invited to be the president of a great educational institution here in our country and as I was contemplating whether I wanted to leave the pastorate, here at Grace Church, some years ago and go do this, the thing that stuck in my mind most was if I was there, I wouldn’t be able to discharge my calling from the Lord to lead the church. It struck me, and I said this to the people at the time, “I can’t do this because I need to lead the people of God in the ordinances that the Lord has commanded us, because I believe he’s given me to the church. How am I going to baptize people and how am I going to lead them to the Lord’s Table in that environment?” This is always been very important to me because the Lord didn’t give us that much that we would get confused about it and He wants us to carry the responsibility out.

Baptism is critically important and I went into that two weeks ago. Baptism is critically important. It is to be understood and it is to be practiced. Standing in the way of that understanding is a huge barrier and that huge barrier is infant baptism. As I said, most of the mass evangelized TV/Radio stadium converts are left to themselves and maybe never even hear about baptism. They don’t have any accountability for baptism; not under any church authority…but, in addition to them, you have this huge crowd of millions of people who believe in infant baptism. That too, confuses the issue greatly and acts as a barrier to a true understanding of baptism and to obedience to that understanding.

It’s not a minor matter—it has never been a minor matter. As I said, during the time of the Reformation, people were called heretics if they were baptized in a New Testament way, by those who were infant baptizers. They were persecuted and, as I said, in some cases, executed.

Now, as years have gone on, we’ve gotten kind of comfortable and just sort of said, “Well, they believe in infant baptism and we don’t, and they’re our brothers and sisters,” and that’s true, and it’s certainly not a reason to call them non-Christians, and it’s certainly not right to call them heretics, and it’s certainly not appropriate to not have fellowship with them, but it is right to truly understand what Scripture says, so that they can come into obedience and compliance with the Word of God. Time has come, after all these years since the Reformation, to strip off these remnants of Catholicism that never got dealt with during the Reformation and have been perpetuated, and return to the simple New Testament design—and I want to address that with you this morning.

Now, there are five reasons why I reject infant baptism. I’m telling you folks, I can’t get all that I want to say out this morning so you’re only going to get, I hope, the best of what’s here. But, these are very important points.

1. Point number one, and this ought to end the argument: infant baptism is not in Scripture.

Infant baptism is not in Scripture, and against that statement, there is no evidence—there is no refuting of that statement. Scripture nowhere advocates infant baptism. It nowhere mentions infant baptism. It doesn’t exist in the Bible; there is no example of it, there is no comment on it, it’s not there. It is therefore impossible to prove that infant baptism is valid, from the New Testament. It’s impossible to support it from the New Testament or for that matter, from the Old Testament.

A German theologian, Schleiermacher, wrote, “All traces of infant baptism which have been asserted to be found in the New Testament, must first be inserted there.” He’s right. The host of German and front rank “Theologs” and scholars of the Church of England—the Church of England, the Anglican Church, which believes in infant baptism—a host of their scholars have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but from apostolic and post-apostolic times. It isn’t in the New Testament and it didn’t exist in the earliest church. They believe it arose around the 2^nd or 3^rd century.

A Lutheran professor, Kurt Aland, after intensive study of infant baptism, says, “There is no definite proof of the practice until after the 3^rd century,” and he says, “This cannot be contested.” A Catholic professor of theology, Hegerbocker (sp.), writes, “This controversy has shown that it is not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one’s argument on the Bible.” Good. B.B. Warfield, who is no mean theologian, was an astute and really a great, great theologian who, again, influenced my life in my seminary days…B.B. Warfield affirmed—he was, by the way, an advocate of infant baptism—but, he affirmed the absence of infant baptism from the Bible.

Among the Calvinists—among the Reformed people—there is a very important principle which many of them like to use. It’s called the “regulative principle” and it says this, “If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden.” Now, if they would just stick with that, they would be all right. If Scripture doesn’t command it, it cannot be introduced into the church as normative. The theme of the Reformation, of course, “sola fide,” “sola gratia,” “sola Christus“—that is faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone—also, “sola scriptura,” Scripture alone. The theme, the great byword of the Reformation was “Scripture only, Scripture only, Scripture, Scripture, Scripture.” And yet, if you go to Scripture, you cannot find one single solitary word about infant baptism—it’s not in the Bible.

It still is defended, however, amazingly, and still practiced as if it was Biblical. It’s really amazing. I can understand how people within the Protestant church can disagree about an interpretation of Scripture…I really find it very hard for myself to understand how they can argue about something that isn’t in the Bible, as over-against what is. It’s one thing to say, “Well, I understand that passage this way and you understand it that way…I understand that doctrine this way and you understand it that way,”—it’s another thing to say, “I believe what’s in the Bible,” and, “I don’t. I believe what’s outside the Bible.” That’s a completely different issue, but that, in fact, is what we have.

Now, I would expect Roman Catholicism to engage in that practice because Roman Catholicism has two sources of authority. On the one hand, they have the Bible; on the other hand—and it’s as empty as my right hand—they have tradition. You see where the weight is. But, in the Catholic system, there is what is called “tradition.” It is known as “tradition” or the “magisterium.” It is the accumulation of materials outside the Bible that bear equal authority with the Scripture. Now, we’re not surprised then, that the Roman Catholic system—because they believe that the Catholic Church is the unique recipient of post-Biblical revelation—that is to say, God has given His Word to the church beyond the Bible and, therefore, it carries equal weight with Scripture. We’re not surprised that a system that believes there is extra-Biblical material that has equal weight with Scripture, would come up with infant baptism and make it an absolute in their system…not surprising.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church asserts, that it is, the only recipient of revelation beyond the Bible…not only is it the only recipient of revelation, but it is the only and infallible interpreter of all revelation, both traditional and Biblical. So, when we know that Roman Catholics baptize babies, that fits into their magisterium, but when you come to Reformation people who say, “Scripture, only Scripture, only…” and they had a Reformation and they basically dumped tradition and they dumped the magisterium and they said, “It’s the Bible! It’s the Bible! It’s the Bible!” how come they hung onto infant baptism? It’s not there. It’s a relic of Popery.

Now, we would understand the church history would be Rome’s hermeneutic—”hermeneutic” is word that has to do with an interpretation—we would understand that history can interpret the Bible for Rome, but history can’t interpret the Bible for us. It doesn’t matter to a Bible interpreter what history has done, what some counsel said, what some Pope said; it doesn’t matter what some visionary said—the way you interpret Scripture is not by something outside of it, but by what is in it, right? The Bible is it’s own interpreter. Use normal historical, grammatical interpretation—you take the words as they are, you interpret the Scripture with the Scripture…you don’t need tradition…you don’t need the magisterium of some religious system.

Church history can be Rome’s hermeneutic. In other words, they interpret the Bible from their tradition. But, it has never been the hermeneutic of the Reformed. It has never been our hermeneutic to say, “Well, I don’t know what that means so let me consult some Pope.” The Jews did that in the Old Testament. They say, “Well, we’re not sure what this means so let’s ask Rabbi so-and-so.” If you don’t know what the Bible means, you don’t go to somebody who has infallible revelation as to it’s meaning; you dig into the text to discern it. God does not interpret Scripture through history. God does not interpret Scripture through tradition, through rights or ceremonies or doctrines that are true simply because some religious system says they’re true. Only an honest interpretation of Scripture in which you exegete the text itself can yield the meaning of that Scripture. Reading traditional history back into the Bible is not a legitimate way to interpret it. History is no hermeneutic.

Now, it is also true that Scripture—they will bring this up—they’ll say this, “Yes, it’s not in the Bible, but it’s also true that Scripture no where forbids infant baptism. Now, if I can get into debate and we’re going to debate that point, I think I can win. You’re telling me that it’s O.K. because it’s not there? It should be an ordinance of the church because it’s not there? Do you realize how much is not there? You could make an ordinance out of everything that’s not there! I mean, just use your imagination and figure out where that could go.

That’s nothing—that’s nothing but an argument from silence which is no argument at all. It provides no basis for acceptance, certainly no basis for a mandate for infant baptism as some kind of ubiquitous, divinely-ordained ordinance that all children of believers or all children of church members ought to engage in. The fact that it is not there proves absolutely nothing—expect it proves that it’s not valid. It certainly doesn’t prove anything on it’s behalf. To justify that sprinkling of babies should be done because it’s not forbidden in Scripture is to standardize what’s not in the Bible as if it were standard, for the church. It’s to imprint with divine authority something that men invent—to open the way to any ritual, any ceremony, any teaching, any anything that isn’t forbidden specifically in Scripture.

In fact, at the time of the Reformation. . .we all associate Martin Luther, you know, the monk who saw the truth of the gospel by faith and grace and confronted the Roman Catholic Church—went up one day and you know, nailed his thesis to on the door of Wittenberg there. . .the 1500’s and this was a big moment. He was calling the church to take a good, hard look at, of course, selling indulgences—they were telling people that you could get forgiveness of your sins if you paid enough money to the church. You could buy an indulgence and, in other words, you could buy forgiveness. He didn’t like that and we don’t blame him for that. Then, he went from there to understanding justification by faith.

Martin Luther said the only way you’re redeemed is through faith and grace, and we all understand that and that’s what gave birth to the Reformation. And Luther went so far as to say that it has to come out of the Bible. Luther really fought the Catholic system. Let me quote what he said. “The church needs to rid itself of all false glories that torture Scripture by inserting personal ideas into the Scripture which lend to it their own sense. No!” he said. “Scripture! Scripture! Scripture! For me, constrain, press, compel me with God’s Word!” That’s Martin Luther.

Martin Luther—he wasn’t just some stumbling, bumbling, local monk—he was a brilliant doctor of theology. Martin Luther was one of the brightest theologians in the entire Catholic Church at the time. He was saying, “It’s Scripture, Scripture, Scripture!” for him. Well, there is nothing in the Scripture about infant baptism. In a minute, I’ll tell you what happened to Luther in the transition from what he just said to, eventually, capitulating to do infant baptisms.

Another thing the baby-baptizers use for support is they try to go to Matthew 18, where Jesus said in verse 3, “Except you become as a little child, you can’t enter the kingdom.” Well, that’s not talking about babies; that’s talking about believers. You have to become like a little child to get into the kingdom. What does that mean? Well, if you’re going to come into God’s kingdom, you don’t come with the record of all your great achievements. You haven’t got any—a little child has no achievements, right? A little child has accomplished nothing, done nothing. They are not productive; have you noticed? They don’t do anything. They just have to have things done to them all the time. They don’t achieve anything, accomplish anything…they don’t make any contribution at all except just the sheer joy of their presence.

That’s what the Lord is saying: you come into the kingdom without any achievements, without any accomplishments, without any curriculum vita, without having achieved anything or accomplished anything…you come in naked and bare and stripped and needy. That’s how you come.

He’s talking to the religious leaders and he’s talking to the disciples and saying, “Don’t expect that somehow all the stuff you’ve achieved is going to get you into the kingdom. Remember the apostle Paul, Philippians 3, “You know I was of the circumcision, circumcised the eighth day, of the tribe of Benjamin, of the people of Israel,” you know, “zealous as to the law”…went through the whole deal and he said at the end: it’s manure. Right? It’s manure; I can’t bring that list of achievements. That’s all Jesus is saying.

In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, you remember Jesus said to disciples, “Let the little children come to me”…remember the little children came to him? That’s another Scripture they like to use and it says, “Let the little children come to me. Don’t forbid them for such is the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus gathered up the little children, there in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 (both record it), and He blessed them. Well, in the first place, how could that advocate infant baptism—He didn’t baptize them. That’s no evidence of anything about baptism…He just picked up some little children and said, “God has a special care for these little ones who are too young to either reject the truth or accept the truth…God has a special care for them,” and He pulled them into His arms and He demonstrated that special care by blessing them.

They weren’t, necessarily, the children of believing parents—we don’t even know who their parents were! For all we know, some of them could have been Gentile kids and they might have been uncircumcised pagans. The idea that you baptize all these infants of believing parents or of church member parents, based upon that Scripture, is just beyond connection. Jesus didn’t baptize them. Jesus didn’t cause them to be baptized. He didn’t suggest that they be baptized. He didn’t say anything about their parents, whether they were believing or non-believing parents. All He said was, by what He did, “Children are precious to God; He takes care of them; He blesses them.” That’s all.

Then, the people who believe in infant baptisms, try to advocate it, from two books: Acts and I Corinthians. In Acts and I Corinthians, you have five mentions of a household—and they say, “Well, in a household you must have babies and it says that households were baptized; therefore, babies were baptized.” Well, certainly that’s an inference. It doesn’t say that. There’s never an incident of a baby being baptized in any of those households—it never identifies them. “Households” simply mean—could mean “family, could mean “servants” who were a part of that household.

They suggest that some babies were baptized in those households as an act of solidarity. The father, they say, served as a surrogate for the faith of the children. Surrogate faith? What is that? You mean I can believe, and my child is saved by my faith? That’s not what the New Testament teaches. That’s a severe challenge to individual salvation as well as an insertion into the text because no babies are ever mentioned and no babies are ever mentioned being baptized. Look at these five, I’ll just run them by quickly:

1. Cornelius’ house—Acts 10. The gospel was preached by Peter, Cornelius heard it…it says, “They all heard the Word…they believed it…the Spirit fell…they were all baptized.” All heard, all believed, the Spirit came on all, they were all baptized.

2. In the jailer’s house—Acts 16 is the next one…Philippian jailer. Paul, you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, “All heard the gospel…all were baptized.”

3. Chapter 18, it was in the house of Crispus, “All believed…all were baptized.”

The other two occur in I Corinthians. The other two are the account of Lydia and Stephanas—Lydia is in the book of Acts.

4. But, in the case of Lydia, it’s the same thing. We must understand the same thing must have occurred—they heard, they believed, they were baptized.

5. Stephanas: They heard, they believed, they were baptized.

I mean, it’s all basically the same pattern. They all hear the gospel, they all believe, they all receive the Spirit, they all are baptized. That excludes infants because infants can’t hear and believe. The “household” then is defined—it is defined as “those capable of hearing, understanding, believing.” That’s the definition of the “household.”

In Stephanas’ household, which is in I Corinthians, chapter 1, “All who were baptized,” it says, “All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints.” Babies can’t be devoted to the ministry of the saints. It says, “All who were baptized were helping in the spiritual work of the church.” It’s impossible for infants.

In the case of Lydia, in Acts, “her heart was opened when she heard the gospel. The gospel was preached and her heart was opened,” it says. So, we understood she heard the gospel, she believed…others must have heard the gospel, their hearts were opened, and they believed and they were baptized. By the way, to assume there were children in the house is maybe stretching it since, apparently, she had no husband. She, apparently, was a single person.

In John 4, in verse 53, it says about a nobleman—you know, whom Jesus talked with and He healed his son—it says about that man, “He himself believed and his whole household.” They all believed. Household belief, then household baptism. Where there is no faith, there is no baptism.

In Acts 2:38—let me show you this. Turn in your Bible for a minute to Acts 2:38. Here is another Scripture which they use to defend infant baptism. Acts 2:38—Peter is closing the sermon on the day of Pentecost and he says, in verse 38, “Repent…let each of you be baptized!” So, we see the sequence: repent, be baptized. “And, you’ll receive forgiveness and you’ll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…” Then, in verse 39, “For the promise,” he says, “is for you and your”—what?—”children.” “Oh,” they say. “See, the promise here for the children. This is an important Scripture.” “Repent and be baptized and the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.” Now, they see “your children” as an allusion to the baptism of children. And, of course, that’s a stretch. There’s nothing about baptism of children here whatsoever.

Well, what is being said here? Do you understand what’s being said? He’s talking to some Jews, O.K.? And, there gathered around him…it’s the day of Pentecost and they’re in the city of Jerusalem…and he said, “Look. I’m saying to you, ‘Repent, come to faith in Christ, be baptized in His name…you’ll receive the forgiveness of your sins, you’ll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and this promise is not only for you, but it’s for your children.”

Now, how obvious is that? What is he saying? He’s saying, “This isn’t isolated to the crowd today—this is for anybody who comes into the future.” Right? This is for your children, and your children’s children, and your children’s children’s children…He’s simply saying this promise goes on and on and on, and for all who are far off, it’s for Gentiles too. So he’s saying, “For your children, Jews in the future, and for Gentiles as well in the future.” Anybody who repents of sin, anybody who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, anybody who receives the forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit—that promise is fulfilled to anybody whether they’re Jew or Gentile.

That’s all he’s saying here. There’s nothing about babies here. The children he’s speaking about are the offspring of crowd there. This is for all future generations to be called to the same salvation promises and the same salvation blessings.

Now, one other Scripture they use is I Corinthians 7 and I’ll show you this one and then I’ll make some more general comments. I Corinthians, chapter 7, verses 12-14, is another Scripture they like to use. Again, it doesn’t say anything about baptism at all, none of them do, but this is where they have to go if they’re going to try to find a Biblical foundation.

Now, he’s talking to people in various marital situations here and in verse 12, he says, “Look, this is something I’m going to say to you; it’s not a direct quote of Jesus—it’s still inspired and it’s from God—but it’s not directly quoted from Jesus.” He’s been saying some things that come right out of the instruction of Jesus, but he says, “I’m saying this. This isn’t quoting the Lord here, but here’s the principle. If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever”—OK, you’ve got an unconverted wife; your wife’s not a Christian and she wants to live with you. She doesn’t want to separate. She’s not a Christian; she doesn’t believe, but she wants to be with you—”then, you shouldn’t send her away.” You shouldn’t send her away. That means divorce; that’s the word for divorce in the Greek. “Don’t divorce her.”

You see, the idea was: Christians were coming to Christ and they were saying, “Wow! You know, I don’t want to be unequally yoked with an unbeliever,” he just got through saying that in chapter 6, you know, and you don’t want to be connected up with anybody who’s sinful…so maybe you’re married to an unbeliever and you don’t want to continue that relationship, you want to marry a Christian…Well, look. If that unbeliever wants to stay, you keep that marriage together. The next verse says, in the reverse, if the woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, don’t send him away. So, stay in that marriage even though you have an unconverted spouse.

Why? Verse 14, “The unbelieving husband is sanctified,” what does that mean? “Set apart,” set apart to what? To blessing. What happens to that unbeliever is, by being married to a believer, he gets the spillover of God’s work in your life. He gets the spillover of God’s blessing. God is so kind and God is so gracious! For the sake of that unbeliever, God would like him to just hang around so he could enjoy the blessings that God pours out on you.

And, then he winds it up at the end of verse 14 and says the same is true with children. If you separate, then you’ve got a problem of the children. Otherwise, your children are unclean, but now they are holy. The word means “separate.” What happens is you’ve separated your children from blessing. If you keep that home together, even with an unconverted husband or an unconverted wife, the blessing that God pours on the believer is going to spill on the husband or wife and it’s going to spill on the children.

It doesn’t mean that the child is a believer. It doesn’t mean the child is in the covenant community. It doesn’t mean the child should…where’s baptism? It isn’t here! A very simple principle: it’s good to keep a marriage together if an unbeliever is willing to stay there, because then blessing will come down on that unbeliever and down on those children. Who knows, but what that blessing could lead them to faith. No mention of baptism; absolutely none. Just don’t get separated and divorced if it’s not necessary, so that unbelievers and children can enjoy the spillover of God’s blessing on the believer in that marriage.

Well, the full counsel of God is either expressly set forth in Scripture—listen carefully—it’s either expressly set forth in Scripture or it can be necessarily, compellingly, and validly deduced by good and logical consequence. I’ll say that again. The full counsel of God is either expressly set forth in Scripture or can be necessarily, compellingly, and validly deduced by good and logical consequence. In other words, it’s either there explicitly or it’s there implicitly and you can easily draw it out, like the doctrine of the Trinity, for example. But, this issue of infant baptism just isn’t there in any way, shape, or form and it is not necessarily, compellingly, and validly deduced by good and logical consequence. It’s just not there.

2. The second reason is really the other side of the issue. I don’t believe in infant baptism because infant baptism is not Christian baptism.

What is in the Bible is Christian baptism. I already dealt with this two weeks ago; I’m just going to comment on it briefly. Christian baptism is this: somebody believes as an adult, they repent of their sin, they confess Jesus as Lord, they acknowledge Him as Savior, they are saved, then they are baptized. That is New Testament Christian baptism. It’s definitive. It’s meaning is clear. It’s mode is inescapable. The word “bapto,” “baptizo,” means “to immerse” or “submerge.” Every single time it is used in the book of Acts, it is talking about the immersion of a believer. Even John Calvin said, “The word ‘baptize’ means ‘to immerse’ and it is certain that immersion,” he says, “was the practice of the early church.” Of course, that’s what the word means.

They had a different word for sprinkle, it was the word “rhantizo.” This ordinance was very clearly designed by God. When a person believes, here’s a public way to confess their faith: put them down in the water and bring them out. Why? Because it’s a symbol of their death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. Remember, we went through that two weeks ago. It is a picture, an object lesson, a symbol, a visual analogy of a spiritual truth. Clearly unmistakable.

The only distinctive—if you were to go through everything to the core of the Christian faith, it would be this: I am in Christ and Christ is in me. Right? That’s it. I’m in Christ. It’s a great doctrine of imputation—my sins imputed to Him, His righteousness imputed to me. God treats Him as if He lived my life and He died on the cross bearing my sins. God treats me as if I lived His life; God sees me perfectly righteous and takes me into His glorious heaven. It’s that I’m in Christ and Christ is in me. I was buried with Him in baptism, Romans 6 says, and I have risen to walk in newness of life. Galatians 2:20, “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless, I live.” Galatians 3:27, “We were baptized into Christ.” Colossians 2:12 and 13, same thing.

Baptism pictures the fact that, by the divine power of God, when you come to faith in Christ, you’re joined with Christ and you die in Him. Your old life dies at the cross with Him and you rise in His resurrection to walk in newness of life. That is symbolized in immersion very obviously. We are literally immersed into Christ—into his death, into his burial, and into his resurrection and now we are joined with Him in one life.

That’s why the Bible can say, “Go and make disciples, baptizing them,” because baptizing was synonymous with evangelizing, synonymous with saving faith. They were inseparable—one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Baptism became, really, the expression—the word used to define salvation…they were inseparable. We know what New Testament baptism is; it’s a person repenting, believing, embracing Christ—spiritually they, therefore, are united with Christ and that is symbolized as they go down into the water and rise. Their old life dies and they rise in newness of life with Christ. I think the Church needs to get back into this understanding of baptism. The fact that the church doesn’t do this is tragic. It needs to be restored. I’m going to give you some reasons why it needs to be restored.

One, in our day an open, public, solemn confession of the crucified risen Lord is necessary. All who experience the reality of the power of the risen Savior should give this public testimony to His glory.

Secondly, by Biblical baptism in the New Testament manner, believers give a witness also to careful obedience to Scripture in which nothing can be treated as unimportant. We say, when we are baptized, “Yes. The Bible says it and I’m doing it.” Therefore, you tell people you’re not only joined with Christ, but you are obedient to Him.

Thirdly, by Biblical baptism believers testify—this is crucial—to a redeemed church. I’ll say more about that later. By Biblical baptism, believers testify to a redeemed church. The point there, just as a hint, is you’ve got all kinds of people who were infant baptized, who, at the time of their infant baptism, were supposedly ushered into the church. They have nothing to do with the church now, what are they? They’re a part of an unredeemed church, confused by infant baptism.

Fourthly, by Biblical baptism, believers give fundamental rejection of all human regulations through which, clear Biblical teaching has been obscured or curtailed or supplemented. Baptism becomes an apologetic for the truth and a denunciation for error.

Number five, by Biblical baptism the church signifies a public renunciation of the nominal and mass Christianity of our day. We make it real and personal in believer’s baptism.

Finally, in Biblical baptism the church calls for the reintroduction and practice of Biblical New Testament church order and discipline.

Those are reasons why its so very important. The great commission makes it very, very clear—for Jesus the order was very clear. You preach the gospel, they believe, they’re baptized, and they obey. That’s it.

Do you know, in 1955, the Anglican Church—which baptizes babies—the Anglican Church did a study on baptism. This is what it says—1955 report, “Every expression in the New Testament concerning the rights of baptism assumes that the convert receives them with living faith and a renunciation of his old former life.” That’s right! “It is clear,” it says, “that the New Testament doctrine of baptism is established with reference to the baptism of adults.” Adults with living faith—that’s New Testament baptism.

Where in the world does this infant thing come from then? It’s not in the Bible; Christian baptism is in the Bible and it’s very clear what it is. It’s the immersion of people who have believed as adults.

3. Third point, why I reject infant baptism: it is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision.

Now don’t get too carried away here; this isn’t going to be as complicated as you think. Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision. Now, let me give you the bottom line. Infant baptism says this. This is the theology of it: the old covenant sign was a baby circumcised. That introduced them into the covenant. So, we need a parallel. The parallel sign is baby baptism. That’s in the new covenant; that introduces them into the new covenant. Sounds good. In the old covenant, they had a circumcision which introduced them into the covenant community. In the new covenant, we have the baby baptism which introduces the infant into the covenant community. That’s the logic.

You know what? Those two things just don’t go together ever in the Bible. It’s a nice thought; just isn’t Biblical. Scripture never makes that connection. There’s not a verse they could point to. There’s not a passage they could point to, either by explicit terms or by implicit. There’s not one place in the Bible where baptism is ever connected to circumcision, period…no place.

So, any connection is purely manufactured. So, without Scriptural support, without Scriptural connection, they infer that baby baptism is the new covenant equivalent of old covenant circumcision. Now, let me make a very simple few statements so you’ll understand just exactly what the difference is.

It’s true. In the Old Testament, little boys, on the eighth day after their birth, were circumcised. Girls weren’t so that poses a real problem in paralleling the new covenant since girls can come into the new covenant too. But, little boys were circumcised the eighth day. Now, that introduced them—listen carefully—that introduced them into an earthly, temporal community of people. That introduced them into the nation Israel, as it were. It was physical and it was temporal. That’s what it was.

In the new covenant, there is no “physical” community. We don’t have a nation; we don’t have a land. We aren’t a duly constituted people, ruled over…We don’t an order of priests. We don’t have a king. We are a spiritual community. There’s a big, big difference. Circumcision was the sign of ethnic identity. It was the physical participation in the temporal features of the Abrahamic covenant. Listen carefully: it didn’t have any spiritual implications at all. None! Because most of the people who were circumcised—the vast majority of Israelites who were circumcised, went to hell. You understand that? They rejected the true and living God; they worshipped idols. Right? That’s the history of Israel. In the present, most of the Jewish people, who are circumcised, will perish without the knowledge of God. In the future, two-thirds, it says, of the nation Israel, will be purged out and be judged eternally by God and He’ll save a third and bring them into His kingdom. The vast majority of Jews will perish without the knowledge of God.

Not all Israel is Israel. What did God say? Circumcise your—hearts. You see, the spiritual promises and realities that God offered Israel didn’t come to them by any right or ceremony or ritual. All circumcision did was mark them out as a part of the nation Israel. They entered into the physical participation, the ethnic identity, the temporal features of the nation Israel that was under blessing, promised by God to Abraham. It was an earthly blessing, not salvation. That’s why Paul said, “I was circumcised the eighth day and that’s manure. That did nothing for me savingly; I was on my way to hell and I had been circumcised,” Philippians 3.

A person born in Israel of Abrahamic seed was physically related to temporal, external privileges; nothing more. Now you come into the New Testament—the new covenant—this is dramatically different. There is no physical participation. There is no temporal, earthly feature attached to this—we don’t have a land, we don’t have a place. Under the old administration, the Abrahamic covenant during the Mosaic era, you entered the earthly, natural, covenantal community by birth, and by circumcision you took the sign of that people. But, there was a small remnant in Israel that really believed, wasn’t there? They entered into the special, spiritual blessings.

But, in the new covenant, there are only those who believe, there are only those who have come by repentance and faith. This is not the same at all. There is absolutely no connection. All in the new covenant are believers. All in the new covenant know God. Now, if the early church thought that baptism was a replacement—baby baptism was a replacement for circumcision—why isn’t that in the New Testament?

And then, why did the Judaizers who were going around telling everybody they had to be circumcised, why didn’t Paul say to them, “Hey, you guys, that’s over; baptism has taken it’s place. We don’t circumcise babies, we baptize them.” He could have put an end to the Judaizing deal with just one comment. Now, why would they go into the Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15 and had this big, long debate about what do we do about the circumcision…what do we do? Why didn’t somebody just get up and say, “Oh…no, no. That’s out and baby baptism has taken its place.” That’s never said. Nobody ever says that.

The Abrahamic covenant had a unique feature: circumcision. All that meant was you identified with the nation of Israel. Circumcision had a second benefit: it was physically beneficial. Up until very modern times, Jewish women had the lowest rate of cervical cancer of any people in the world because circumcision does help prevent the passing on of certain diseases. God knew that that would be a preservative in His people and He wanted to preserve His people Israel because of His ultimate purpose for them. Also, it was a sign of how desperately they needed to be cleansed on the inside…it’s symbolic of that. But, the point was it just introduced you into the nation; it didn’t save you. There is no parallel to this in the New Testament. There is nothing that sort of ushers you into some earthly group. There’s just the believers and they’re all in the new covenant.

You see, Jeremiah 31:34—Jeremiah in 31, is talking about the new covenant. Listen to what he says; here’s the character of the new covenant, they are very different from Israel under the old. Here’s what he says; this is the most salient feature of the new covenant. Here it is—Jeremiah 31:34, “They shall all know Me.” That’s the difference. Under the old covenant, they didn’t all know God. They didn’t know Him. Remember when Jesus came, He said, “If you knew My Father, you’d know Me,” didn’t He? “You don’t know My Father, you don’t know Me.”

In the new covenant, they all know God. You’re not even in the new covenant unless you know God and the only way to know God is through Christ. That means that all those who are members of the new covenant community know God savingly. Membership in the new covenant is limited to those who have been saved. Jeremiah is making a dramatic statement here. He’s saying, “I know under the old covenant there were lots of folks who had the sign of the covenant, there were lots of folks in the covenant community who didn’t know God. But, in the new covenant, everybody in it is going to know God. That’s distinctive. That’s conclusive. Circumcision was never a spiritual sign of anything. Baptism is a spiritual sign of true inclusion in new covenant salvation by grace through faith.

4. Well, let me give you a fourth reason. I reject infant baptism because infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church.

I hinted at this earlier. Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church. This opens up proverbially Pandora’s box. There is so much chaos at this point, it begs discussion.

It’s just impossible to solve the problem unless you go back to rejecting infant baptism. Here’s what I mean. You have, for example, in the Roman Catholic Church, millions and millions and millions of people who were baptized. At their baptism, it was stated that this baptism ushered them into the kingdom of heaven.

Are they part of the church? Is the church responsible for these people? Are we responsible to shepherd these people who don’t believe? The vast majority of those people obviously have no knowledge of God, no knowledge of Jesus Christ. Millions of them have no connection to the church whatsoever. They go about living their lives…are they a part of the church? Are we responsible to shepherd these people? Should we discipline them?

You see, what happens is pedo-baptism destroys the redeemed church idea. It just completely assaults the idea that this is a redeemed community of people who have come to personal faith in Jesus Christ. Now you’ve got something that’s so vast, that’s so ubiquitous [universal] that it’s impossible even to define, let alone deal with. It confuses the visible church with the invisible church and such confusion is not helpful. If people, when they’re baptized as babies whether it’s in an Anglican church or an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian church or a Lutheran church or whatever it is, if that includes them in salvation in the kingdom of God and in the church and they go on to live dissolute lives of sin and just carry on just like the pagans that they are, are they really a part of the church? What in the world is the church then? Is the church not redeemed?

You see, infant baptism perpetuates the same thing it did in Israel. You had a whole bunch of circumcised kids who didn’t know God. Now, we have a whole bunch of baptized babies who don’t know God either. If we’re going to carry that over, we get the same result. The true church, however, unlike Israel—Israel was a nation of people, earthly people—the true church is a nation of believers. Whether somebody was baptized as a baby, whether they were confirmed at the age of 12 or not, if they don’t know God personally through faith in Jesus Christ, they do not belong to the Redeemed church.

There’s this huge confusion about: what is the church? Infant baptism just totally throws this into chaos because the world is full of these baby-baptized adults who range anywhere from the hypocritically religious through the indifferent, to the blasphemous. They’re not in the church; they can’t be included in the church and if infant baptism saved them, then salvation doesn’t change anybody.

You say, well why is it in there then? Let me give it to you. Infant baptism is a holdover from absolutist state church systems in Europe. I’ll give you a little history here. Here’s what happened. Catholicism reigns till the 1500’s. . . 1500’s comes the Reformation. Catholicism built it’s power this way: back in the 4^th century, Constantine takes over (325 AD); he makes Christianity the state religion and starts to persecute the people who aren’t Christians—this is kind of a switch. It feels good for the Christians for a while, but pretty soon it’s serious.

He decides that the greatest way to have power over the people is to have religious power over the people, so he makes Christianity the State Religion of Holy Roman Empire—starts calling it the Holy Roman Empire from about 325 AD on. Then he determines that we have to include everybody within the purview of the Roman system. Everybody in their vast world kingdom has to be included under this great power so we’ve got to baptize everybody and that’s where infant baptism is introduced (in about the 3^rd century or 4^th century).

In comes infant baptism. Infant baptism serves the power of the government very well because now everybody is automatically in the kingdom of heaven, which is the same as the government. Everybody is now in the church; therefore, the government has power over them all. It creates national solidarity. It allows the church and government to be one, the church and the military to be one, the church and the body of politic to be one…and so they can use the big club of God on everybody’s head.

So, now God is ruling through the Roman Empire…everybody’s a baptized convert, everybody’s a baptized part of this thing, and you get this massive monolithic, great kingdom that perpetuates itself for a thousand years. You know, that’s remarkable. The great Babylonian kingdom, the first world empire, lasted two hundred…the Medo-Persian lasted two hundred. These world kingdoms…then the Greek kingdom came along—the third world came—it lasted two hundred. But, the Roman system lasted a thousand years! Actually more than a thousand years and they did it because they had this monolithic religious structure, and infant baptism was the key to it because everybody was baptized into the system; therefore, God was their authority as wielded to the power of the system, and the Roman church took that power.

So, what happens is the Reformation comes…now, all of a sudden, the Protestants pull out and they’re these little, sort-of weak groups of Christian people and they feel over-powered. The Reformation starts to gain some momentum, gain some ground…larger numbers of people join in the Reformation and they want some power. How are they going to get it? How are they going to unify their people? How are they going to have a state that has the power that can counteract the Roman state. You have a state, a government, that’s Catholic, like France—what’s Germany going to do to stand against France? They don’t have the solidarity, so they decide, “Well, we’ll have a state church here and we’ll baptize everybody as infants.” So, you have a Reformation state church developed so that it has the political clout and the solidarity internally to stand against the power of France, which is Roman Catholic.

That’s how they began to work that infant baptism: because of it’s political power. It’s a holdover from absolutist state powers. The absolute church system, national sovereign church power, and with it came, by necessity, the persecution of people who didn’t buy it. The people who didn’t buy it said, “We don’t believe it. We don’t believe the Bible teaches infant baptism. We reject that! We believe in believer’s baptism,” and they called them Anabaptists and they persecuted them.

The state church denied the right of conscience to the individual and to the community, denied the right of freedom, the right of thought. The government was going to control everything to create the solidarity that would give them a base of power to stand militarily and politically against the Catholic states. So, you had state Christendom: Catholic state Christendom, Old Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, State Christendom.

Now, at the beginning, Luther had a lofty idealism. He was against it. He contended for a Christianity of churches that would embrace freedom—Christianity of churches that would renounce force and live only by the Word and the Spirit, he said. He said that the Scripture is the only standard for all issues of personal life. We’re going to stand with the Scripture. Luther says this, “I say that God wants no compulsory service. I say it a hundred thousand times: God wants no compulsory service. No one can or ought to be compelled to believe. But, a soul of man is an eternal thing above all that is temporal; therefore, only by an eternal Word, must it be governed and grasped.”

Boy, he’s right on, isn’t he? Just the Word…Just the Word. Neither the Pope, nor a bishop, nor any other man has a right to decree a single syllable concerning a Christian man, apart from his consent. All that comes in the spirit of tyranny and you know what? That was right. Luther was right. By 1527, he caved in and he turned back to the state church and he allowed for infant baptism and the state church. And the state church grew into great power and buried the true church and the Reformation began to disappear.

There was no real building of New Testament churches because they were persecuted. They were seen as non-Conformists, as they were called in England. They were threatening the state church. Infant baptism, you see, saved the state church and served them well, as it had the Roman Catholic Church because it initiated everybody into that solidarity and allowed them to wield the God-club over everyone. They even did battle against each other; sometimes Protestants against Protestants. The state church was a great tree, far-reaching with its branches, but rotten to the core and fruitless and intolerant of the true church.

So, in Europe today, true Christianity is very, very, very small. It was buried, not only under Catholicism, in say, France, but just completely buried under Protestantism is Martin Luther’s own country of Germany. That’s why they developed infant baptism, not because it’s in the New Testament. It is a relic of Popery drawn in to serve the Protestant churches politically. The state church and the Biblical Christianity are and always will be completely opposed to each other. The true church is not of this world and doesn’t incorporate the unconverted.

I’ll tell you, one of the strategies that Hitler had—I told you this in the past—Hitler knew the power of bringing everybody under the state church, so he, literally, swallowed up the state church of Germany. Adolf Hitler did and it capitulated completely to him and anybody who didn’t capitulate was put into prison and executed. Guys like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who stood for the true church against the state church, went to a concentration camp and eventually was executed in a concentration camp. That’s a Protestant church environment that Hitler, literally, took over and used for his own power. That’s how apostate that system had become and any true surviving Christian in the midst of that was fuel for the fires in the furnaces of Hitler’s concentration camps.

There is no connection, no divine connection, between the true church and any state power. “The true church,” Jesus said, “is not of this world,” and it doesn’t incorporate the unconverted. Infant baptism serves the state church well; it horribly confuses the true church. Neither Luther nor even Melanchthon, two great reformers, opposed the assault on the Anabaptists and others who rejected the national church. They even said that anybody who rebaptizes is infested with heresy—that’s what was said in those days. A Strasbourg reformer, a Matthias Zell, said, “He who confesses Christ as his own Lord and Savior shall, in spite of anything else, share our table and I will also share with him in heaven.” He was right and he was going against the grain.

Infant baptism, mass communion, which you see in the Roman church and in some Protestant environments…infant baptism and mass communion efface the contrast between the believer and the unbeliever, between the church and the world. So, we have to reject those kinds of things. As the nature of the church became corrupted, so the ordinance of baptism became corrupted. Well, I think you get the point.

5. One last point and I’ll let you go. Infant baptism is not consistent with the gospel.

It’s not consistent with the gospel. Maybe this is the most important point of all. You say, “What in the world happens when a baby is baptized?” Shall I read you the Heidelberg Catechism? This is a great German catechism that defines the meaning of infant baptism. This is what it says, “Yes, for they,” speaking of children, “as well as the old people appertain [relate] to the covenant of God and His church and in the blood of Christ, the redemption from sins and the Holy Spirit who works faith and its promise not less than to the older.” So, they’re really saying in the Heidelberg Catechism that children enter the covenant of God, His church, receive the benefit of the blood of Christ, the redemption from sin, the Holy Spirit, and faith.

“Therefore, shall they also though baptism, as the sign of the covenant, be incorporated into the Christian church, be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as in the Old Testament took place by circumcision, in the place of which, in the New Testament, baptism is appointed.” See that connection? That illegitimate connection? But, they’re actually saying they’re in the church.

And they go further than that. Luther finally affirmed, because he said salvation is by faith…they say, “Well, how can a baby be saved if he doesn’t have faith?” So, Luther finally affirmed the infant does have faith. He does have faith. He said, “Children are to be baptized. They must be able to believe; they must have faith.” Luther said, “It’s not the vicarious [substituted] faith of the godparents or the church”—he rejected that. “It is the children themselves who believe,” Luther said. Someone says, “How is that possible?” “The Holy Spirit helps them to believe,” he says. “The Holy Spirit comes to the child in the holy baptism. By this bath of regeneration, He is richly poured out upon us.” This is a bath of regeneration in which the Holy Spirit comes and gives faith to an infant? Some even call it “unconscious faith.” Some call it “surrogate faith.”

In any case, it is not what the gospel is about, which is personal faith, right? The great mark of the Reformation was salvation by faith alone accompanied by personal repentance! A baby can’t do that. A baby doesn’t have any faith. A baby doesn’t have any part in baptism. It’s no different than circumcision; a baby didn’t have any part in circumcision. In fact, if you’d asked him, he’d probably vote against it. Baptizing a baby has no spiritual meaning to that baby. They got into a confounded viewpoint that somehow faith, and grace, and salvation, and regeneration, and entrance into the church is all dumped into that little baby at the point of which water’s dumped on his head. It has nothing to do with the gospel of faith. That’s why we have to call it into question.

I wrote down 25 quotes or so out of reformers that answered the question, “What happens at a baby baptism. “Baptism,” one of them says, “declares the inward regenerated operation of the Holy Spirit.” Wow. “It signifies the regeneration ministry of the Holy Spirit.” “Infant children of believers are rightful heirs of the covenant.” “It is the witness and attestation to their salvation.” This produced all kinds of confusion as the doctrine of justification by faith. Only a person old enough to understand can believe. Right?

Well, there’s more, but I think you get the message.

Baptism

Introduction

Most of the methods used for Baptism today, are based purely on tradition. Others are based on part Scripture and part tradition, while yet some others are based on Scripture wrongly interpreted. This state of affairs is mainly due to the fact that people bind themselves to religious organisations, which in their turn are bound to their registered constitutions and doctrinal statements from which they cannot and may not deviate. The honest seeker after Truth will only find the Truth in this matter by severing him- or herself from all stated organisational doctrines and relying on the Bible and the Bible only. A true and sincere believer should honestly believe in the Bible as the only Foundation and accept the fact that the clear Guidelines given therein have Divine Authority, not to be taken lightly. Then and then alone will the true believer realise the enormity of the frightening Words that Messiah Himself spoke to all those who profess to be followers of Him, yet practice customs and ceremonies contrary to His Instructions, when He said:

Mark 7:6-8 “. . . Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honour Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the Precepts of men’. You leave the Commandment of the Almighty and hold fast the Traditions of men!”

The Bible emphatically states that there is “One Master – One Faith – ONE “BAPTISM” (Ephesians 4:5). This should leave no doubts that the believer has but ONE WAY that Baptism can be administered. Only this ONE Baptism could be truly acceptable to the Most High. All other ways are merely traditions of man and Messiah Himself said that such were ‘in vain.’ Baptism based on tradition and not on the Bible, is therefore administered -’In vain’.

This study is addressed to all lovers of Truth, those who are prepared to place Messiah above mother, father, brother or sister, church or tradition, If you love Him with your whole heart, and accept His Word as the only means by which you will serve Him, then you will find this study a blessing and light in a world of darkness.

Should Baptism be performed at all?

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to the positive response to this question. This is proven by the fact that all christian denominations have some or other form of the Baptismal Ceremony. Even in Judaism, ritual immersion in a Mikveh or Baptismal Pool is a common traditional ceremony, testified to by the numerous remnants of ritual pools that have been excavated, in small grottos, skirting the walls of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem.

The various Christian denominations differ greatly though as to whether this religious Rite should be performed by sprinkling or bodily immersion. The New Testament leaves one in no doubt that the first New Covenant Baptisms were performed by bodily immersions in the Jordan River and in pools. Even the Messiah was thus immersed in Baptism by John the Baptist. This fact alone should be sufficient proof to the earnest seeker after Truth!

Is Baptism to be administered to children or to adults?

The Bible is very clear on the fact that Baptism was never administered to children, and the churches that do so, are following a tradition brought forth by the Roman Catholic Church. This tradition has absolutely no Scriptural authority whatsoever. The spiritual pre-conditions preceding baptism, makes it very clear as to why an infant cannot be baptised, and why it is limited to people who are required to take responsible decisions for themselves. Such people should be mature enough to accept the Plan of Salvation which the Almighty has worked out for those who believe the Gospel. Baptism is a part of the Salvation Plan and can only be beneficial to persons who are prepared to subject themselves to the spiritual meaning and purpose of Baptism. The Saviour said, “He who believes and is baptised will be saved” (Mark 16:16) .

These conditions of Baptism are recorded in –

Acts 2:37-41 “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptised everyone of you … for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit … So those who accepted His Word were baptised“.

Thus it was only after the hearers understood what was required of them to be saved, that they accepted the Divine Plan of Salvation. Then only were they baptised.

The Holy Scriptures make it very clear to whom baptism was administered by Philip in Samaria.

Acts 8:12-13 “But when they believed Philip as he preached the Good News about the Kingdom. . , they were baptised, both men and women“.

Acts 8:36-39 “And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water, what is to prevent my being baptised?’ And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’…,and he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water … and he baptised him.”

From these Scriptures, it is absolutely clear that the person to be baptised, first had to be preached to so that he or she could come to a repentance. Secondly, the candidate had to believe and accept. Thirdly, the person had to be taught what was expected of believers according to Scripture. Fourthly, the Scriptures clearly teach that people were baptised for the Forgiveness of their sins.

Can any intelligent person associate any of these required attributes with that of an infant of a few weeks old that cannot even speak or think for itself? Let alone understand and repent of its sins – which are non-existent at that early age! The rite of Baptism is for the Forgiveness of sins. An infant of a few weeks old cannot even think sinful thoughts let alone commit sin.

Some preachers maintain, however, that a child is ‘born in sin’ and this is the reason why they baptise a child. This theory leads to the doctrine of concupiscence (original sin) which has been formulated by a Roman Catholic ‘father ‘, Augustine (354-430). He argued that, because of the ‘fall’ of Adam and Eve, ‘original sin’ is passed on by heredity so that, consequently, babies are ‘born in sin’. This would imply that the Messiah, at His birth, inherited sin! – How could He then be the True Saviour “without spot or blemish”?

Those who teach thus, fail to realise that “sin is the transgression of the Law” (1 John 3:4). “all unrighteousness is sin” ( 1 John 5: 17 ) and “the Commandments are righteousness” (Ps. 119:172). “Through the Law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Consequently such teachers find it convenient to do away with the Law of the Almighty with their teaching that “Grace has replaced the Law”