A Repudiation of Infant Baptism
The Questions of Asa Burton to Nathaniel Kendrick (1802).
Asa Burton was the "standing order" Congregational Minister of Thetford, Vermont in the late 18th century to early 19th century. Nathaniel Kendrick, a young Baptist preacher-boy placed himself under the tutelage of Asa Burton, a pedo-baptist, because there were no training facilities at the time for Baptists. In an effort to quench the dissention between their doctrinal differences, Nathaniel Kendrick's instructor, Asa Burton presented him with a series of Questions intended to "stump" Mr. Kendrick, and challenge him on his stand on baptism. Although we don't have a record of the answers of Nathaniel Kendrick, S. W. Adams records the nature of those answers:
...These were taken up in logical order, and the sentiments adopted, and the reasons in their support, were embodied in dissertations, lucidly expressed and carefully written. These papers all evince thoroughness, and a mastery of the subjects under examination, such a may surprise us. They are, in style, concise, and full in argument; none of them shrinking into more skeletons. They are liberal in length, and comprehensive, some even to prolixity, in their range of discussion... with his clear and penetrating views gave an easy and scriptural solution of them... (taken from: "America in Crimson Red" p. 528 {appendix K}, James R. Beller; Prairie Fire Press 2005)
Asa Burton's response to Nathaniel Kendrick's answer to his questions was; "You have almost persuaded me to be a Baptist". In 1819, Nathaniel Kendrick founded Hamilton Seminary, Hamilton New York, the first Baptist Theological Seminary in America. (ibid p. 529)
Because Covenant Theology and the doctrine of Infant Baptism is so prevalent today with Catholic, and Reformed Catholic Churches, it is necessary that there be a repudiation of the basic beliefs behind this damaging heresy. For the next half century after Nathaniel Kendrick wrote his repudiation of infant Baptism, his papers were used to instruct many in Bible doctrine. As I said before, we don't have a record of Nathaniel Kendrick's answers to Asa Burton's questions... But thanks to S. W. Adams, we do have the questions.
I will attempt to answer these questions which are the gist of the difference in their opposing views, and are the essence of the disputation which still continues today:
The Questions of Asa Burton:
1st. What warrant had Abraham to circumcise himself and his house?
2nd. What was the design of circumcision?
3rd. What is meant by one thing’s coming in the room in stead of another?
4th. Did not God command Abraham’s seed to circumcise their male children?
5th. Has Abraham a seed among the Gentiles, if he has, who are they?
6th. Are not God’s commands binding till revoked by Himself; and is not a revelation of God’s will necessary to revoke a command?
7th. What is the design of baptism?
On the supposition that "Infant Baptism" is not valid, how are the following questions to be answered:
1st. Infants were the subject of a religious rite under the Old Testament. What reasons can be assigned why they should not be the subjects of a religious rite under the New Testament, such as Baptism.
2nd. If it was the design of God that they should not be the subjects of a religious rite of baptism under the New, as they were of circumcision under the Old Testament, what reason can be given why God has not given express information on this subject in the New Testament?
3rd. As the Jews in the apostolic days warmly apposed the omission of ancient rites, among which washing or baptizing infants, as well as adults, with water, was one, what reason can be given for their silence, when they saw that this rite was omitted by the apostles, towards the infants of adult parents whom they had proselyted?
4th. If there be no arguments sufficient to destroy the validity of infant baptism, and no argument sufficient to establish it’s validity, in what light must we view infants, and why should they be more neglected under the New than under the Old Testament? How are we to understand 1Cor. 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, & c." And Acts 2:38?
The Faith of Abraham:
The Lord told Abraham that he would have an heir that would be born out of his own bowels and would be numbered as the stars in heaven. Abraham believed the Lord and his faith was counted to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6).
The account of the Covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 17 states that God told Abraham that He would establish an everlasting covenant "between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations" (Gen 17:7). This covenant was not just with Abraham, it was for Abraham’s seed also. The Covenant was that He would be a God unto Abraham and to his seed, and that He would give to Abraham and his seed all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.
First of all I would like to point out that the covenant God made with Abraham was made before the circumcision took place, so what preceded the covenant to justify Abraham before God to receive the covenant? In Genesis 15:6 the Bible says that "Abraham believed God and He counted it to him for righteousness". It was Abrahams’ faith that justified him. It was not the circumcision that justified Abraham but he was justified before the circumcision (Romans 4:9, 10)
It is this faith that parallels the Old Testament (or Covenant) to the New Testament. Abraham surely was to be a father of many nations as God said, and his seed was to inherit all the land of Canaan , but this is only the practical interpretation of the text. In the figurative sense, God was referring to those under the "New Covenant" that would inherit the heavenly promised-land, who (like Abraham) are justified by faith and not works.
Paul says it best in Romans 4:11 "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" Abraham is a figurative father of all those who walk in faith, being uncircumcised, just as he had faith before he was circumcised (Romans 4:12).
The situations in the Old Testament were figures of the things to come, and the covenant God made with Abraham was no different. Abraham’s faith was toward God in that he believed God when God said "so shall thy seed be" (Gen. 15:5). God said that He would make Abraham the father of many nations. Even though Abraham was old, and Sarah’s womb was barren and it had "ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women", Abraham believed God. Abraham was old, and his body was dead as to reproduction, and his wife Sarah’s womb was dead. This was prophetic in that Abraham believed God and did not consider the deadness of his body or the deadness of Sarah’s womb but believed God that He was able to perform what He said He would (Romans 4: 19-21). In the same way in the New Testament, if we believe God, who raised up Jesus from the dead, our faith in Him will be counted to us for righteousness, so the resurrection was for our justification (Romans 4:24). The parallel here is that the deadness of Sarah’s womb was the figure of the death of Christ to come, and the conception of Isaac was the figure of the resurrection.
Since Abraham was justified by faith, it could not have been by the circumcision that God’s Covenant was given (Romans 3:28). So, what was the circumcision if it was not a means of obtaining grace? Genesis 17:11 says: "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." The circumcision was a "token of the covenant", that is all. It marked those of Abraham’s household, and Abraham’s seed as having received the covenant, and as beneficiaries of the inheritance of Canaan . This too was a figure of things to come.
The Covenant:
The account of the covenant God made with Abraham, and the token of the covenant which was the circumcision in Genesis chapter 17 parallels the "New Covenant" or Testament as recorded in John chapter 14. In verse 1 Jesus says "ye believe in God, believe also in me", here Jesus is requiring faith as Abraham had (he believed God, Gen. 15:6). Directly after this statement, in John chapter 14 we see that Jesus is promising an inheritance, "I go to prepare a place for you" (John 14:2, 3); just as God had promised Abraham and his seed an inheritance (Gen. 17:8) in the land of Canaan .
John 14:6 through John 14:14 is explaining that Jesus will be their God. Verse 14:13 says "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son".
This statement by Jesus proves, that the same God that promised to be the God of Abraham and his seed, is the same God that is promising to be the God of those of the faith in the New Testament. Jesus is not a new God with a new promise, He is the fulfillment of the old promise and the old covenant with Abraham, and the same God that made that covenant is glorified in the Son.
So, if Jesus is glorifying the Father and not Himself, it would stand to reason that by His statements He is come to fulfill the "Old Covenant".
In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Look at these verses in Romans chapter 3:
28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29. Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30. Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
The New Testament is not actually a brand new Covenant, but the Old Covenant fulfilled. So, the pedobaptists are accurate in their connection with the regeneration of a New Testament believer and the covenant made with Abraham, but are inaccurate in their interpretation of Genesis 17, and how this regeneration occurs in the New Testament.
In John 14 we can see God’s plan for salvation, as I previously stated, the covenant takes effect by faith, then we see Jesus, speaking as God, promising to be a God to those who will have faith.
The Circumcision:
The Circumcision, as was stated in Genesis 17:11, was a token of the Covenant between God and Abraham. A token, is defined by Webster as: "A sign; something intended to represent or indicate another thing or an event.
So, the circumcision, being a token of the covenant, is a picture of what the covenant was. But, the token doesn’t mean anything to someone who doesn’t understand what the token represents. The token of the circumcision represented a changed heart; it is an illustration of repentance.
Romans 2:29 says: "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God". Paul is referring to the circumcision of the heart.
The next event that takes place in John chapter 14 is that Jesus says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments". This is following the same pattern that we see in Genesis 17, in that God told Abraham to keep His commandment, "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised."
The commandment that came to Abraham was to repent. God had told him to circumcise himself and every man child. In a New Testament believer’s life, the Holy Spirit is the one who speaks to the heart and gives the commandment to live a pure life, and this leads to repentance.
But this repentance cannot be mustered up by our-selves, it is God that grants repentance (Acts 11:16-18), and it was God who granted the ability for Abraham to administer the circumcision. Abraham could not have known to circumcise himself and his household unless God had given the commandment.
In the New Testament, the commandment works repentance.
Paul writes in Romans 7:7: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."
There are a couple of statements I would like to make about the illustration that the book of Genesis gives us in circumcision that I think are relevant: First, the circumcision was a "permanent" mark on the body of the one under the covenant, Second, it was done in a circular fashion to symbolize the eternal or never ending nature of the covenant, and Lastly, it was administered to the reproductive organ of the male.
This is an act to symbolically put away the filth of the flesh, or repentance. The foreskin that was cut away at the time of circumcision symbolized the filth of the flesh. Not only was it an unsanitary and therefore unhealthy part of the organ, and a good health practice to remove it, it was a prophetic act of repentance.
Abraham was commanded to circumcise every male that was born, and this was done as a token of the covenant between God and the seed of Abraham. This was done in the physical sense to typify what was to come when Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets.
In the physical sense, (speaking of the circumcision) it is the male that brings the seed to the woman, and the woman bears the child and nurtures that child. In the New Testament, it is God’s plan that men be the vessels that carry the Gospel and share it with others (Mark 16:15), and it is the Holy Spirit that gives new life to a born-again believer, in the spiritual sense this being fruitful and multiplying (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Cor. 4:17, Phm. 1:10, 1 Tim. 1:2, 1 Pet. 5:13, Titus 1:4).
So, Abraham was not circumcising his male children because they had faith, he was circumcising his male children because he had begotten them by his seed, they were his offspring and they were given life by his wife (and not just he and his wife, but all those who were his posterity).
New life in the Body of Christ is transferred in the same way: a believer shares the Gospel with an unbeliever (the seed), and the Holy Spirit gives life, and nurtures the "babe in Christ" (John 14:26, 1 Cor. 3:1, Heb 5:13, 1 Pet 2:2).
The evidence of a "Born again" believer is the act of obedience of putting off the filth of the flesh. This is the circumcision of the heart that the Prophets were earnestly looking for (Duet. 30:6, Jer. 4:4). It was this circumcision of the heart that the Apostle Paul was referring to in Romans 2:29, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Likewise the evidence of one under the Old Testament covenant was the circumcision. But if a child was failed to be circumcised (or anyone else), that person would be cut off from his people (Genesis 17:14). This is no different than salvation in the New Testament. In John 15:6 we also see that one who refuses separate themselves as one of God’s people will be cut off. This does not mean that they will lose their salvation; we have already established that the act of the circumcision was not salvation itself, but a token of it. If a person failed to be circumcised, he was illustrating the failure to accept the grace of God. Those people are those who never had the faith of Abraham to begin with (1 John 2:19a "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us:")
So, we see the correlation between Genesis and John 14, the faith counted as righteousness (Genesis 15:6, John 14:1). The promise of eternal life (Genesis 17:8, John 14:2, 3). The Commandment to put away the filth of the flesh, which is the gift of God to circumcise in the Old Testament, and the conviction by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament (Genesis 17:9, John 14:15). This was a call, by God, for repentance.
Moreover, the circumcision was an illustration of God’s mercy and grace. Abraham did not deserve to be justified, and he could not have earned justification, but God was merciful and counted his faith as righteousness. Likewise (speaking in respect of the circumcision of the heart) we don’t deserve to be justified, but God was merciful in that He gave His son Jesus to die in our stead, and Christ, being the end of the law, fulfils the law in that the only sin left, is the sin of rejecting Him (John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God). Rom. 3:25, Gal. 3:14, Eph. 2:8,
Romans 8:1, There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Baptism:
On the day of Pentecost, in Jerusalem , when the gift of the Holy Spirit was given, Peter was preaching to the Jews:
Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Verse 37 clearly depicts a people who were convicted by the preaching of Peter. Verse 38 accounts Peter telling the Jews to repent. They believed first, which is supposed, because they were pricked in their heart, and since they believed they were justified;
Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Notice that in Acts 2:37 the men that were pricked in their heart after hearing the preaching of Peter said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" They were apparently willing and eager to be obedient as they were convicted or pricked in their heart. They did not only call them men, but also brethren. Indeed this salutation was commonly given as a term of endearment to fellow countrymen, but in the case of the preaching of Peter in Jerusalem the message being preached was contrary to the Dominion oriented Covenant the Jews were familiarized with. Had the Jews in Jerusalem not accepted the Gospel that Peter preached they surely would not have addressed them dearly as brethren, but they would have labeled them heretics as they did Jesus.
Likewise Paul, when preaching in Antioch referred to those in the Synagogue as brethren (Acts 13:38). Here Paul used the term not to address his fellow countrymen, as Paul was not from Antioch , he was from Tarsus . Paul used the term brethren to address his fellow brethren in the faith. We can also be assured the congregation at Antioch was a Christian congregation because Paul was asked to address the congregation (which was not customary of strangers in a Jewish synagogue), and also that there were gentiles in attendance (Acts 13:42, 43).
In the case of Paul’s own conversion, when at Damascus in the house of Judas was blind and praying was visited by Ananias;
Act 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Ananias referred to Saul as brother, not because Saul’s past actions persuaded Ananias to associate himself with Saul, but because there was evidently a kindred spirit of obedience to Christ. Saul at the time of the meeting with Ananias was already saved, and immediately after receiving his sight he was baptized;
Act 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
There are several baptisms mentioned in the Bible, and the word is not meant to be all-inclusive, or to always be used in the same sense when it is used.
For example, John the Baptist said;
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier that I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.
When John the Baptist was baptizing with water the sacrifice of the Lamb of God had not yet been made, and the Jews were still under the Old Testament law. He said he was baptizing with water unto repentance. John the Baptist was symbolically baptizing un-repented people. He was prophesying the Baptism that was to come (Matt. 3:11), and preparing the hearts of the Jews for the ministry of Jesus.
There also exists, the baptism of Jesus (a spiritual baptism).
Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Baptism does not always mean to immerse in water, it means to "make whelmed", which can be to immerse in water, but in the above text it means to completely forsake the bondage of sin (repentance), trust Jesus Christ as the propitiation for your sins and follow Him (death), and He will give you new life (resurrection). (Matt. 20:22, 23)
Paul explains this nicely:
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with 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.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
The baptism that Paul is referring to here is the immersion into the body of Christ that occurs when a person accepts Christ as their saviour. Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose again on the third day, when He did this He paved the way for men to once again commune with God as Adam did in the garden.
The only way for man to fellowship with God, is through the "narrow gate" that Jesus opened and initially passed through. This is the same baptism Jesus was referring to when He said "Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with:" (Matt. 20:23)
Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Paul gives us another illustration of the baptism of Jesus:
1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
Moses, by putting his staff in the water, parted the red sea and opened the way for Israel to pass through. Moses went through to the other side, and the others followed. This is what is meant by, they were "all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea".
Water Baptism:
In 418AD, the Catholic church determined that it was necessary to baptize infants in the Milevitan Council. This decision comes from the idea of "original sin" (another teaching of Augustine). This teaching says that Adam’s sin was imputed to all subsequent humans, and therefore we have unconditionally inherited sin, and eminent judgment. Consequently, (according to the Catholics) all humans are in need of mercy, and this includes infants from the moment they are born. Since they believe baptism to be the means to grace, the next logical step is to baptize infants; this is called pedal-baptism.
In the light of the previous scriptures, it seems a little nonsensical that water baptism by aspersion (sprinkling) or effusion (pouring) would be practiced intelligibly as a viable means of emulating the spiritual baptism of Jesus Christ.
The only valid means of baptism is by immersion, and the scriptures unquestionably support this claim. Although the aforementioned illustrations should be adequate proof, I trust the "Pedo-baptists" will continue to dispute the Biblical mode of baptism in favor of effusion to endure their doctrine of infant baptism… as baptizing infants by immersion would not be an attractive event for most loving mothers.
The primary "proof verse" for pedo-baptists (aside from those clarified as spiritual in the preceding section), is the "Great Commission" of Christ.
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands us to: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Jesus is commanding us to evangelize and baptize, but according to the illustrations above, baptism is a decision one makes to follow Jesus Christ through the death, burial, and resurrection. Matthew 28:19 seems to be depicting a baptism that is administered by man. So, there must be another baptism apart from the spiritual baptism of Matthew 20:23. This baptism is water-baptism.
Since Matthew 28:19 calls for baptizing "all", the Pedo-baptists assume this statement to include infants. Ridiculous assertions such as this should need no additional clarification than the text itself, but in order to avoid further conflict when opposing the contentious, a valid argument is necessary.
If this verse is to be taken literally, as "all" are to be taught and baptized, there would also be a valid assumption that the "all" in question would be able to be taught, as the command is to "teach all nations". While it’s understood that infants do learn, the crucial question is; are infants able to fulfill Matthew 28:20?
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
Are infants really able to observe all things whatsoever Jesus has commanded us? The truth is, when a person has reached the sophistication level to observe all the things Jesus commanded us, he is then qualified to be taught. The "Great Commission" does not make baptism obligatory it only requires teaching; baptism here in verse 19, to be harmonious with the Gospel would be requisite only upon faith from consequent teaching.
In Acts chapter 8 we see an account of this water-baptism that was administered by Phillip after he taught the eunuch:
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. .
After Philip taught the eunuch the Gospel of Jesus from Isaiah 53:7, we see that the eunuch wished to be baptized. The only requirement for this baptism was that the eunuch believed with all his heart. Here is the key: the eunuch said "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God". The eunuch had believed, by which his faith was counted for righteousness. He had already been baptized with the baptism of Jesus, the eunuch was not asking for salvation, he already had that, he had a desire to submit to the ordinance of water-baptism, as saved people do.
Baptism should never be administered to someone who has not received the truth in knowledge.
In 1 Timothy 2:4, it is said about "God our Saviour": "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
An infant does not have the sophistication level to understand, and it should never be assumed that a child can understand, or will accept the teachings of Jesus. Like Phillip, we should investigate whether one has come to the knowledge of truth, and has believed and surrendered to Christ in their heart.
Biblically, water baptism was administered as an outward profession of ones faith, after they had received Christ as their Saviour.
The Apostle Peter was recorded saying:
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
A Water Baptism Church Membership?
The authority of scripture never implicates church membership with water-baptism. In Catholicism and Catholic Reformed denominations, regeneration is synonymous with church membership, if you are not a member of the church, you are not in communion with the worldly Trinitarian Church / Government, and therefore not included under the worldly "Covenant". Consequently, baptism was employed as an initiative to this worldly Covenant although obviously contrary to Biblical Doctrine. The Apostle Luke tells us in Acts 2:47b;
"And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
If salvation is the only pre-requisite for church membership, and water-baptism is not synonymous with salvation, then how are people added to the local church? The book of Acts tells us that the "Lord added to the church", this was an act of His good judgment executed by the Holy Spirit, not from necessity as the church was not an "all inclusive collective". So, water baptism is, a "work" or an "ordinance" with no saving power, nor can it "add" you to the local church. Water baptism is an act of obedience that is done for decency and order. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can take an obedient Christian and "baptize" him into the local church. The Holy Spirit is also the only one who can "baptize" a believer into the General Assembly.
The word "church" in verse 47 is not to be confused with the "General Assembly of the firstborn" described in Hebrews:
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
The "General Assembly" is not meant any particular or congregational church, nor any national one; but the church universal, which consists only of God's elect, and is evidently the distinct assembly that will occur in heaven as substantiated by the preceding verse:
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,"
So, the "Sacrament" of baptism holds no saving power at all, but is only a token, or a symbol of what a person has already done, and should be viewed as an act referring to the previous baptism in Jesus Christ.
I believe the first seven questions posed by Asa Burton have been satisfied adequately. Now, as to the statement made:
"On the supposition that "infant baptism" is not valid, how are the following questions to be answered:".
1st. Infants were the subject of a religious rite under the Old Testament. What reasons can be assigned why they should not be the subjects of a religious rite under the New Testament, such as Baptism.
Answer: The religious rite of the Old Testament of circumcision, as I stated earlier in this essay, was typical of repentance in a New Testament Christian. The "offspring" to receive circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized the fruit of a New Testament Christian's soul-winning efforts. The circumcision was an illustration of what was to characterize a New Testament conversion (faith in Christ Jesus) (John 7:23). The New Testament infants are not infants in a physical sense, but a spiritual sense. They are new Converts.
2nd. If it was the design of God that they should not be the subjects of a religious rite of baptism under the New, as they were of circumcision under the Old Testament, what reason can be given why God has not given express information on this subject in the New Testament?
Answer: It seems, by a careful study of the scriptures, that in the early days of the church, this was understood. The correlation between circumcision and repentance were understood by the Old Testament prophets as well as the Apostles (Duet. 30:6, Jer. 4:4). It was this circumcision of the heart that the Apostle Paul was referring to in Romans 2:29, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
The idea that infants should be the subjects of a religious rite is a perversion of the teachings of Christ, and the teachings of the Apostles in the early days of the church. The early church understood that circumcision was an illustration of a New Testament conversion to Christianity, and this illustration was actually used to convert Jews in those days. (Romans 2:24-29, Acts 7:8)
3rd. As the Jews in the apostolic days warmly opposed the omission of ancient rites, among which washing or baptizing infants, as well as adults, with water, was one, what reason can be given for their silence, when they saw that this rite was omitted by the apostles, towards the infants of adult parents whom they had proselyted?
Answer: The Jews in the apostolic days were well aware of the prophecy of Isaiah, more specifically chapter one, in which God expressed His weariness of the ancient rites and customs (Isaiah 1:11-15). They should have realized that their vain oblations and solemn meetings, and observance of new moons and feasts, and their sacrifices would no longer atone for their sin, and that He was calling them to change in their hearts, and repent.
As the Jews in the Apostolic days were being converted to Christianity, they would have understood the preaching as it was done according to the only written word of God they had in those days… The Old Testament. Phillip, when he was directed to go south by the Holy Spirit, met the Eunuch who was reading from the Prophet "Isaiah". Then it is recorded that Phillip "preached unto him Jesus" (Acts 8:35).
In those days, a correction was n't necessary toward the Jews by the Apostles on this issue of omitting a religious rite to consecrate infants, because the illustrations of the Old Testament were used toward their conversion.
4th. If there be no arguments sufficient to destroy the validity of infant baptism, and no argument sufficient to establish it’s validity, in what light must we view infants, and why should they be more neglected under the New than under the Old Testament? How are we to understand 1Cor. 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,& c." And Acts 2:38?
Answer: First, to address the issue of 1 Cor. 7:14: Here Paul was addressing an issue of divorce with the Corinthians. As men and women were saved while in marriage, some found themselves unequally yoked with unbelievers, and as a result were choosing to dissolve their marriage.
An unbeliever cannot be sanctified by a believer. A person can only be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 7:16 states: For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? This statement alone should prove that sanctification is not possible through marriage.
The very meaning of the word "sanctified" should be a clue to what is intended in Paul’s statement. The marriage, and the family is an illustration of the nature of God, and that in itself is a consecration to a work for God. Paul was maintaining that being involved in the very institution of marriage was a sanctification, and for a believer to dissolve the marriage could be viewed as apathetic toward the sanctity of God’s institution, and what it illustrates.
The children were also sanctified in this institution of the family, and if a child or children were involved in this marriage, and the marriage dissolved, the believer could be accused of proclaiming the illegitimacy of the children and thus denying the sanctity of the marriage and what it illustrates.
Secondly, to address the issue of Acts 2:38: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
As I explained earlier in this essay, there are several baptisms mentioned in the bible, and for every instance the word is used, there is not to be an all-inclusive definition. The baptism spoken of here is the baptism of Jesus Christ affirmed in Matthew 20:22, 23. Also this scripture, as with all scripture, should be studied within it’s immediate text, and the overall text of the entire Bible.
The previous text Acts 2:37 states that they were "pricked in their hearts", Verse 37 clearly depicts a people who were convicted by the preaching of Peter. Verse 38 accounts Peter telling the Jews to repent. They believed first, which is supposed, because they were pricked in their heart. Secondly they were convicted "they were pricked in their heart", and they were willing and ready to know what to do to be saved. Peter said, "repent and be baptized". This is what the circumcision of the Old Testament accomplished to illustrate.
I consider the detailed explanation of the circumcision in the previous writings to be a sufficient argument to destroy the validity of infant baptism. The only arguments used to validate infant baptism that I have heard are misinterpretations of scripture taken out of the text of the Bible as a whole. These scriptures have been used to "stand alone" as truths to necessitate a presupposed insufficiency in propitiation to God. But, the grace of Jesus Christ has utterly destroyed works as a means to justification, and any effort to circumvent our High Priest Jesus Christ is to reject Him and His sacrifice. (1 Cor. 1:23)
John W. Hardin
(written Feb. 28, 2005; taken from "The Theocracy Conspiracy" John W. Hardin, copyright 2005, Gideon's Sword) Article may be reproduced for personal use, but no part of this article, as being derived from the above copyrighted book, may be reproduced for profit. No part of this article may be omitted or changed in any way without prior consent form the author.
Back To Top