Matthew chapter 28, 16 through
20. Then the eleven disciples went
away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. When they saw him, they worshipped
him, but some doubted. Jesus came and spake unto them,
saying, All powers given unto me in heaven and in her. Now watch. Go ye therefore and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, our Spirit. teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo,
I am with you always, even unto the end of the world or age as
it is. Now, I propose this evening to
raise the question about infant baptism. No one should be surprised,
being Baptists, that we take a Baptist view of baptism, both
as to its mode and also as to its subject. But we'll work our
way to that in the meantime. First let me say, begin by saying,
there is and has been a long-standing feud, a strong disagreement in
Christendom over the issue of baptism, and particularly over
baptism as concerning who is entitled unto baptism, who can
or who should be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. And the question is, can it be
administered to any and all indiscriminately? Or is there laid out in the Scripture
a specific requirement that qualifies one as a candidate for the right
of baptism in the means that it is set forth in Scripture.
Then the other question is, how should baptism be performed? What is the mode of baptism that
ought to be followed? What's the manner of baptism
as it is given? Is it by sprinkling a few drops
of water on the face or on the brow? Or is it the immersing
or dipping of the whole entire body into the water? Or can it be done simply by pouring
water upon the head and saying, I baptize you? In short, does
baptism consist in sprinkling, in pouring, or in immersing? That will be our question of
the evening. Now, we admit, these two issues
that we've mentioned, who and how, in regard to baptism, have
not been resolved over hundreds and hundreds of years now. The battle has been raging. And I'm thinking that neither
will they be resolved in hundreds more years to come, if the world
should stand. Only one, now and then, does
cross over having a change of mind about the mode and the subject
of baptism. We confess that there will be
no agreement on these issues for the most part. We hold out
no hope of bringing many away from their preconceived conditions
and beliefs about it. We hold no hope of bringing many
over from one side unto the other simply by the use of one study
or one sermon from their long held position. Only God can give
one another mind upon matters such as these. Therefore, we
consider them this evening, not in the hope of bringing back
great change, but for our own edification and for our own profit
with regard to the subject. Let's consider the question,
first of all, in the beginning. What is the purpose of baptism? Why baptize is another way to
ask it. Surely it is done with some purpose
or intent that is behind it. Surely there is some reason that
all hold. Why? they baptize, it is not
done without purpose or without reason. It must be intended for
some purpose or some end or some benefit in some way. It must
be intended to accomplish something or else it is simply an empty
right with no meaning whatsoever. For example, some say that baptism
is a necessary part of salvation. That as the Jews said, except
one be circumcised, he cannot be saved. There are those who
say, except one be baptized in water, they cannot be saved. I remember years and years ago,
and Brother Joe, you were there with me at the time, when a United
Pentecostal friend, these are the ones that are called Oneness,
once told us there concerning water baptism, he said this,
quote, we meet the blood of Jesus in the water, unquote. In other
words, in going down in the water, one then comes in contact also
with the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. if the blood that was
to be found mixed in with the water. Still, some baptized a
newborn as an act of dedication and devotion and consecration
of that young child unto God. To devote the young child's life
unto God, they say. Then we remember Hannah back
in the Old Testament in 1 Samuel 1. who promised and who gave
her son up to the Lord without any baptism or ritual of any
kind, without any sprinkling. Still, on that subject of baptism,
others teach that baptizing or sprinkling washes away original
sin and puts grace in the soul for the very first time. Now,
if that were true, what the Catholics say, how is it then that if original
sin is removed, that the child is still capable of dying, and
many do. And with others, baptism is a
symbol of the covenant privilege and status that the children
of believers those who are believers, are to be reckoned in covenant
with their parents and therefore entitled to baptism, as they
call it. And some only baptize believing,
consenting ones who profess their faith and repentance in the Lord
Jesus Christ, such as have been discipled on matters concerning
gospel principles, those that are believing. Not baptism goes
first, but believing goes first according to the Scripture. In
Acts 8 and verse 12, they believed the preaching of Philip and they
were baptized. They believed prior to their
baptism. In Acts 18 and verse 8, Crispus
believed and was baptized. In Mark 16 and 16, whosoever
believeth and is baptized. Then we remember that John insisted
on evidence of repentance to those that he baptized in Matthew
chapter 3 and verse 8. Bring forth fruits, meat for
repentance. On the other hand, there is a
very large segment of Christendom that baptize, sprinkle if you
will, and for the sake of it I'll probably, we'll call it
baptizing during our service, but it is really sprinkling.
There are many that sprinkle infants that can neither believe,
nor understand, nor repent, nor consent unto that right. They
can have no reason or understanding on the matter whatsoever, and
yet they are baptized or sprinkled. Now they are given and involuntary
rite which supposedly conveys spiritual blessing and yet the
infant child is not able to realize it or to lay hold upon it. It
could be when they hear us talk like that and involuntary baptism,
that supporters of infant baptism would argue back with us on this
basis and on this ground. They might say to us, listen,
Abraham was commanded by God to involuntarily baptize all
of the males and the infants in his household. And to that
we would reply that the physical circumcision that was administered
in Abraham and his seed did not make so much as one a spiritual
child of Abraham or an elect of God. That their physical circumcision
in their infancy did not make a single one of them a spiritual
seed of Abraham. And Paul is very clear on that
in Romans chapter 2 and verse 25 through 29, and also in Romans
9, And verse 6 through verse 8,
he makes a distinction between the children of promise and the
children of the flesh. Besides, circumcision has nothing
to do, no connection to infant baptism. One is not the basis
of the other, which lets us make the point. It shows the weakness
of the argument for infant baptism, that they must seek their support
for it, not in the New Testament, but out of the Old Testament.
as did B.B. Warfield. Some of you are acquainted
with the writings and books of B.B. Warfield, a Pato Baptist. And he said this, and I quote,
It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in
the New Testament, and no express record of the baptizing of infants
and no New Testament passages from which we might infer from
them that infants were baptized." Now this is an admission made
by several of the older paedo-baptists. I have read literally dozens
of statements exactly like this, saying this same thing from some
of the older paedo-baptists or infant-baptizers. However, they
do not, therefore, on that give up the practice, even though
they cannot find support for it in the New Testament. So what
does Warfield say? Warfield says on the very same
page, quote, for infant baptism, is not to be sought in the New
Testament, but in the Old Testament." And the place is Studies in Theology,
page 399, if you want to trace it out. John Murray also admitted
that infant baptism is not clearly established in the New Testament,
saying, quote, if we had an express command or even a proven case
with apostolic sanction, unquote. Now this quote from his book,
Christian Baptism, is found on page 72, if you'd like to trace
that out. And so determined are they to
maintain and to justify the practice of infant baptism that they actually
grasp at straws for support of their position, such as what
John Gill referred to them holding to, quote, ecclesiastical tradition,
unquote. That is, such as put the traditions
of men on an equal footing with the Scripture. Now the Jews did
that and the Lord rebuked them for it. You'll find it in Mark
7 and 8 and Colossians 2 and verse 8. How much heresy, how
much tradition has been brought over into Christendom and installed
as if it were according to the Scripture. Such things as the
veneration of Mary, the use of images and of relics, the saying
of the Mass, prayers for the dead and prayers to the saints,
not the least of them infant baptism in that number. Gill
wrote a strong treatise against infant baptism. On page four,
he had this to say, quote, the first person that asserted infant
baptism and approved it represents it as a tradition from the apostles,
unquote. And he quotes the translator
of Origen, one of the early writers, quote, For original sin, the
church has received a tradition from the apostle even to give
baptism unto infants." And speaking of Avarajan, one of the earlier
writers, the Evangelical Dictionary had this to say about him in
writing up his record, quote, he held that certain cardinal
principles were clearly laid out in the scripture while on
other matters Christians were free to speculate, unquote. I'm not kidding, it's there.
And as seen by some of his speculation, we can see how wide this opens
the door to all kind of false speculation and tradition and
heresy to be entered into the church. And then there are some
Protestant paedo-baptists who are willing to insist that infant
baptism may have been taught, get this now, infant baptism
may have been taught in some of the unwritten sayings and
traditions of Christ and the Apostle." In other words, they
are saying it is possible that the Apostles did baptize infants,
but the Holy Spirit did not inspire the writers of Scripture to include
it in the Scripture. This is desperation to establish
a doctrine. For example, consider what a
man named Fuller said, I quote, we freely confess that there
is no express precept or precedent in the New Testament for the
baptizing of infants, unquote. Then that same man quotes, John
21 and verse 25, which says, and there are also many other
things which Jesus did which are not written in this book. And Fuller's argument then is,
the baptisms of infants may well have been one of those things
that are not written up in the scripture. In this way, they
argue from silence, as some do regarding the Sabbath day, saying
there is no express command that it is abrogated. Now we would
say to those who use this argument that actually the silence is
fatal to their position. And this silence is as fatal
to their position as would be an express prohibition. Because on other matters the
argument is made by these same men that Scripture Scripture
only and Scripture alone is the only authority for doctrine and
for belief and for practice. Many quotes were compiled by
the Baptist Abraham Booth and from others. Quotes from Pado-Baptists
to this effect. Number one, only Scripture is
a safe guide. You'll find them saying that
over and over and over. Secondly, there is no express
command to baptize infant children to be found in the New Testament. So to still insist then on infant
baptism in face of these admissions means, number one, either they
are willing to go outside of the Holy Scripture and take on
tradition and unwritten practices to support their position. Or
secondly, it means they try to make scripture fit the belief
or the practice, to bend the scripture in such a way to make
it say what they want it to say. You ever seen a little child
dump his puzzle out on the floor? start putting it back together,
they just make it fit. They don't get it right, but
they just press it and bend it and make it fit. And in the case
of infant baptism, presumption is not enough to establish or
confirm it, nor can it stand by what some would call a strong
probability. I've read that some say there
was a strong probability that infant baptism might have been
practiced by this or that. In reading Alexander Carson,
there is this quote that I lifted, quote, It is self-evident that
in every question the burden of proof lies on the side of
the affirmative. An affirmation is no authority
without proof. An affirmation requires evidence. He that denies the thing has
nothing to do until he hears what it is that is offered as
proof." Now we can see the affirmers of infant baptism willing to
go outside of the written revelation of the scripture in order to
support their practice. I ran across this, a man named
Lee, in the Portsmouth Disputations, brought forth the suggestion,
much like a former one, and that is that though infant baptism
is not found in the writings of the Apostle Paul which are
in the Scripture, that is, that are in the Bible, it might have
been in some writing of the Apostle which are lost and not available
to us now." Boy, is that grasping at straws. So again we would
ask, what else might Paul have taught in those lost epistles? What else might be there that
we might want to bring into the church and say, it's possible
that Paul might have taught this in an epistle that we no longer
have. What about purgatory? Maybe we
could do that with purgatory. How about women ministers? Maybe we could say that Paul
likely probably had women ministers in some of the other epistles.
What about baptizing for the dead? Perhaps Paul wrote something
on that in another epistle, we can see that this is a very dangerous
and a very slippery slope for one to go down. So let's focus
upon those who baptized as recorded in Scripture. How? Who did they
baptize? We have actual examples of baptism,
many baptisms in the Scripture, so let's weigh our question in
the light First of all, John the Baptist. Let's deal with
John the Baptist. For in his baptism, I think we
can see both the subjects and the mode in the way that John
baptized. As to the subjects, Who did John
baptize? As to the Moab, in John 3 and
23, John baptized in Enon, near to Salem, it said, because there
was much water there. John baptized, John chose a place
where there was much water. And they came there and were
baptized. And the word baptized, by the
way, means to immerse in water, does not mean to sprinkle. The
man sent from God, John by name, John the Baptist he was, not
John the sprinkler he was not. Much water was there, plenty
of water, a good supply where John chose to baptize. Now as
to the subject of baptism, Did John baptize indiscriminately? One, come one, come all. Any
and all that came, John said, come on, come down into the water. Or did John make a sharp distinction? Did he baptize randomly anyone
who submitted? All who came? No. True, he was
sent to baptize, John 1.33. In Matthew 3 and verse 6, he
baptized many, but he only baptized such as brought forth fruits,
meat for repentance. Those who gave evidence of repentance
in their life. Matthew 3, verse 8 and verse
9. Acts 19 and verse 4. And listen, he called the Pharisees
and the Sadducees, quote, old generation of vipers, unquote,
when they came to his baptism. Many of those were offended and
they went away unbaptized. Luke chapter 7 and verse 30. Our point being this, since John's
baptism was by immersion, and since he required repentance,
there is no proof of any kind that John engaged in the baptism
of infant children as he baptized. For they were incapable of meeting
the standard that John set. The qualification for John's
baptism was repentance. and to take away all wiggle room
from our paedo-baptist brethren. The repentance was prior to their
baptism and not after. It was not that they would repent
later being baptized. It was that they repented and
then were baptized. Then there are those passages
sometimes used when children were brought to the Lord Jesus. This stands high in their estimation
as perhaps a proof text for infant baptism, that they brought young
children to Jesus, that He received them and that He blessed them,
that He rebuked those who said, send away these children. You'll
find it in Matthew 19, verse 13 through 15. You'll find it
again in Luke 18. and 15 through 17. Their appeal
is to this, has been by some, that they have made a support
for the practice of infant baptism out of this incident of Jesus
and the children. Here is a comment from J.C. Ryle, a Pater Baptist, on the
passage of Jesus receiving the little one. It's from his book
called Knots Untied. You'll find it on page 100. Quote,
A direct argument in favor of infant baptism, the passage certainly
is not. But a stronger indirect testimony,
it seems impossible to conceive." See the contrast? Direct and
indirect. Indirectly there may be something
here that led to infant baptism. There is no hint here that Jesus
Himself baptized these little ones, nor is there any hint that
our Lord commanded the disciples or apostles to do so. And if
infant baptism was to be instituted and was to be practiced, it would
be a good opportunity for our Lord to endorse it and command
it. or to exhort the parents to see
to it that it was done, or to address the question to those
that were gathered there and give them some instruction on
the matter. A good opportunity to instruct
them, but this we read not. Not a word of any of this do
we find? So let's consider the first passage
which we read, Matthew 28 and the Great Commission, which has
come to be known and which has likely been misapplied by a great
many over the course of history. It being originally given and
spoken unto the 11th by the Lord, after His resurrection and prior
unto His ascension. And also He who had authority
in heaven and in earth over all things. He that had given them
this great commission. Now three things we glean from
this text. Let's look at it. Number one,
they were to go forth and they were to teach the nation. The
word teach means to disciple. They were to go forth and disciple
the nation. They were to make disciples out
of hearers, people that listen. Literally learners. They were
to make learners, one who espoused with thought, that is, with clear
thought, intellect, a teaching, and followed it, making converts
of these people who became learners and heard them. Secondly, they
were to baptize those who learned and who were converted, and baptism
was to be done in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, Then they were to instruct
them further, instruct them more perfectly in the things they
had learned and heard from Christ. They were not to baptize indiscriminately,
but only the converts, the believers, as in Acts 2 and 41. They that
gladly received the Word were baptized, as did the eunuch in
Acts 8, 36 through 38. As was Lydia in Acts 16, 14 and
15. As did the Philippian jailer
in Acts 16 and verse 33. Her hearing of Christ and believing. Then they followed that with
baptism. In all of these, there is not
one instance of an infant being baptized. There is not one. It is clear that only believers
were baptized in all of these cases that we have mentioned. It is a weak argument made by
some that infants are included when we read statements such
as, so-and-so was baptized and all of his house. And they love
those passages like that. He and all of his. and her household,
as it said of Lydia. Infants are incapable of believing,
of repenting, of understanding the gospel and the things of
God. Then there are some paedobaptists
who use that very complicated and I do mean complicated argument,
that baptism replaces circumcision from the Old Testament. Therefore,
the children of believers are entitled to baptism even as Abraham's
children were entitled under circumcision. Now, we ask this
question. What profit is there in this
sprinkling for an infant? What can a few drops of water
on the brow do for a little infant? How can sprinkling water on that
child take away original sin and put grace in the soul? How can outward sprinkling, which
is quickly dried, mark one as a covenant child? We say there
is no spiritual benefit in it. In fact, John Gill called infant
baptism, quote, a part and pillar of potpourri. And he said, quote,
the basis of national churches and worldly establishment which
unites the church and the world." It is not a sacrament and may
only give a false hope, such as say to us, listen, I was baptized
when I was just a baby. Remember down there we meet someone
like that. We ask them, what profit is it?
What profit did you get out of it? For that matter, what good
can baptism do to an infidel except to deceive him in some
way? We therefore stand firm on believer's
baptism, that only one with a saving interest in Jesus Christ, a believer
in the Lord Jesus Christ, is a scriptural candidate for baptism,
which pictures or symbolizes their dying and rising again
in and with the Lord Jesus Christ. And in that sense, sprinkling
cannot be called baptism because it is not a good symbol of death
and of burial. It cannot answer the truth as
does immersion in the act of baptism. We would plead and we
would claim that baptism is their right to heaven and eternal life,
we would argue against them that say that it is. Who would say
that their baptism alone, baptism as a little child, when they
were unaware of it, gives them right and title to eternal life
in heaven and the glory of God forever and forever. They have admitted there is no
proof for infant baptism, no proof it was done in the scripture,
so they rely on other inferences or possibilities. That is a weak
argument while we have a clear, clear picture of believer's baptism
set out for us in the scripture.