Infant Baptism Apology

Throughout this site you will find bits and pieces of this complete version. This page just ties the pieces together into a more coherent form. It is an apology against infant baptism and in some respects against Catholicism. I believe the persecution of Nero, where Paul and Peter were killed by Roman authorities in 64-67, led to changes in the Roman Church that would evolve into Roman Catholicism. I never understood why the Romans would kill the apostles while leaving the rest of the church leaders intact. I believe the evidence is clear they didn't.

When you realize Rome had at least ten congregations at the close of the century, it would be difficult to know which were actually connected to the apostles and which were corrupted. So, the rise of a false Roman body is pretty obvious to have happened. The question,was today's Roman Catholic Church from the true or an outgrowth of the false.

There were earlier groups who were persecuted by Rome, Jewish Christians were forced to leave Rome, but the church survived under faithful leadership. Since Claudius died in 54 AD this would be ten years prior to Nero.

Act 18:2  And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. 

I believe the church groups that came out of the Neronian  persecution were allowed to continue because they were willing to support Roman leaders and policy. Besides the Apostles, other leaders within the church structure were killed, "To their names may be added, Erastus, chamberlain of Corinth; Aristarchus, the Macedonian, and Trophimus, an Ephesians, converted by St. Paul, and fellow-laborer with him, Joseph, commonly called Barsabas, and Ananias, bishop of Damascus; each of the Seventy." http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/FBOM/fbom-chap_02.htm

 Since the persecution was widespread, it would effect many locations, so that it could lead to change among the entire Roman Empire. That is how it went from a local Roman problem to an empire problem. Structural and doctrinal changes could be empire wide.

The persecution undoubtedly led to more compliance with Rome simply by removing the leaders who were road blocks to change. Plus there were plenty of Romans who were covetous of church leadership,

Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 

Rom 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 

Paul had ordered the Roman faithful not to submit or support changes, thus highlighting the stress the church was beginning to come under. It also supports the idea that secondary groups were present in Rome, less faithful groups of Christians the Romans could work with. The persecution may not have led to immediate wholesale change in the faithful, but it did weaken leadership and opened the door to secondary groups to work with government.

1Jn 2:19  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: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

There were groups who were already off shoots from the true church that Rome could work with.

I believe the Roman Catholics came from those who chose to work with the Emperors. As time went by false church leaders began to replace true doctrine with that fashioned after Rome..With leaders killed in major centers, Ephesus to Damascus, etc, it opened the door for change.

This is evidenced by Revelation, where a few years later Christ told the churches,

"you have left your first love"

"thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. "

 "because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. "

It is clear from such statements that elements in the Church were leading others to mix with Pagan religion. The Churches of Asia were beginning to fall into Roman hands by mixing with the pagans. They were being seduced.

Christ did not promise they would come back, but let them know if they continued down their path their lampstands would be removed. If so, we can know of certainty Christ no longer considered them the church he had built.

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Thus Christ had considered them fallen, it wasn't that they would fall, they were already fallen and Christ simply gave them a period of repentance before formal removal of their light. It is also clear they had departed from the first works, those first preached by the apostles. The church had fallen in making changes from Christ's institutions.

One example is that Church Canon was adopting one Bishop per city, and later one Bishop per region. This was far different than the Apostolic example.

Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Catholics might counter by saying Elders weren't Bishops, but priests called presbyters, but they were used interchangeably in Titus.

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

You can also see the word priests are used together in New Testament verses with presbyters, thus presbyter did not mean priest as taught by Catholics. see Matthew 16:21 Matt. 26:3 It is clear priests were not the elders(GK presbyter) 

The use of multiple Bishops per city is confirmed in the Phillippean letter,

 Phil 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Thus we see from the example clear changes from the Apostolic commandments.

This was later confirmed in several texts, including Lateran IV Canon 9,

SUMMARY: In cities and dioceses where there are people of different languages, the bishop must provide suitable priests to minister to them. If necessity requires, let him appoint a vicar who shall be responsible to him. There may not, however, be two bishops in -the same diocese.

Thus the clear evolution of Roman Catholicism from Apostolic command and example.

The churches of Asia had summarily left the first works and many changes became Canonized.

Infant baptism is just one of those doctrines that would eventually be forced into churches.

Those who promote infant Baptism do so based upon several arguments that we will cover. Both Catholic and Protestant groups use these, so that my rebuttals will answer the Roman Catholic as well as the Methodist and such like.

Here is a list of topics used by pro-infant baptizers. I will cover with rebuttals in bold black.

• 1. Baptism is New Testament Circumcision

  2. Households were Baptized in the New Testament

  3. Infants will be lost without being Baptized

  4. Iraneus taught infant Baptism

  5. Polycarp taught infant Baptism

  6. Catholic Church upholds New Testament Tradition

  7. Faith follows baptism as Faith followed circumcision

1. Baptism is New Testament Circumcision, therefore infants can be enjoined as they did with circumcision in the Old Testament.

The idea that both circumcision and baptism pertained to physical birth is one of the great mistakes of the Catholic church, such reasoning doesn't make a whole lot of sense and doesn't match scripture. Circumcision correlated with physical birth, baptism to spiritual birth ; Circumcision based upon physical birth was rendered as a choice in the New Testament that did not pertain to salvation. Paul even said those who made it an obligation for salvation had fallen from grace. Gal. 5:2. 

So baptism did not displace circumcision, sons of Abraham could be circumcised (If not for salvation) and be baptized (for salvation), baptism was a different purpose.

Many baptist groups use Gal.5:2 against baptism as well, but it pertains to circumcision and the fleshly ordinances of the Law of Moses. Gal. 5:2 pertains to circumcision, not baptism. Baptists make the same mistake as Catholics in confusing an ordinance that is fleshly (circumcision)with one that is spiritual (baptism); they twist the verse pertaining to fleshly to cover a spiritual commandment.

Many might contend that baptism is fleshly as well, since it is applied to the body, but they forget that baptism has a clear mental component that is explicitly spiritual.

Peter showed this distinction in I Peter 3:20-21 concerning Baptism

"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"

Baptism is an act "toward God", just like prayer. 

Paul shows the distinction in Galations by upholding baptism as part of adoption, while not upholding Circumcision.

Galations 3:26-27 vs Galations 5:2

Paul also shows in Colossians that baptism was concerned with "sins of the flesh" vs the flesh itself. Catholics are incorrect in baptism to remove original sin, because Acts 2:38 and Colossians 2:11 speak of sins plural.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

this was performed after becoming dead in trespasses, some versions leave out "sins of the flesh", but it is clear a bit later in the letter that it is part of the thought.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Forgiveness occurred while they were physically uncircumcised, but at the time they had been spiritually circumcised. Spiritual circumcision is forgiveness of sins, not original sin.

Even if you believe in original sin, infants don't have personal sins, which is the focus of New Testament circumcision or baptism. 

This forgiveness occurred after they had personal sins (trespasses), not as infants. In the act of baptism they were made alive, death coming through trespasses against God as Ezekiel confirmed,in Ezekiel 18, "the soull that sins, it shall die", this being the affirmation of Paul.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Paul saw baptism removing personal sin, not original sin.

It is obvious baptism is not tied to physical birth as was circumcision, Paul would say the flesh profits nothing. Thus, baptism was not based upon removal of flesh or physical impurity, having a physical connection to Abraham couldn't save without a spiritual birth as well.

Baptism is based upon a spiritual birth, not a physical. Christ taught this in John 3:3-16

"must be born again"

Thus the physical birth and corresponding circumcision was not sufficient even if physically tied to Abraham or Israel, it was a symbol of Abraham's faith, in the Old Testament a baby only had to be born physically into Abraham's family to receive circumcision. Also, circumcision could not meet Christ's demand for new birth, Circumcision wasn't the New Birth and Christ did not accept it as a birth. Christ demanded of Nicodemus, who was certainly circumcised already, you must be born again.

John 3:5

"must be born of water and Spirit"

Thus, Jesus never tied baptism to physical birth, but a new birth.

In the old testament circumcision was commanded the eighth day, in the New Testament no specific command is given for babies.

Since baptism is tied to New Birth, when one hears and believes the Gospel, it is immediately after being born again spiritually.

1Jn 5:1  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 

One mark of New Birth is believing Jesus is the Christ. It is not the point of salvation, but it is the beginning of becoming a new person, for without knowledge of Christ we have no path to the true Love Christ has shown us.

1Pe 1:23  Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 

One must be born through the word about Christ, and  the word from Christ.

So, the answer is very simple, baptism pertains to spiritual birth, not physical, it follows the beginning stages of faith in Christ. It immediately follows our spiritual birth. Circumcision was shortly after physical birth, baptism during spiritual birth.

This is explained in Colossians 2, where baptism and circumcision are connected, not connected to say they both follow physical birth, but they follow the birth assigned to each. Those practicing infant baptism have erred in assuming they pertain to the same birth, the passage never says they have the same birth but clearly differentiates between the two.

circumcision = physical birth and connection to Abraham, it removes flesh.

Baptism = spiritual birth and connection to Christ, it removes sins of the flesh. 

Baptism is connected to the New Birth, where we are raised a new creature.

Col 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. 

Baptism works through faith to raise us, it doesn't precede faith.

Likewise, Peter distinguishes the difference between Conscience toward the resurrection vs circumcision of flesh. A baby doesn't have a conscience yet concerning the resurrection..

 Catholics tie the concept of "through the faith" to the priest's faith, but it doesn't mention the priest's faith at all. The same with conscience of the resurrection, being the priest's conscience. Yet it doesn't mention a Priest.

1Pe 3:21  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 

This is why Phillip told the Ethiopan Eunuch, if you believe with all your heart you may...

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.

This concept coincides with Christ's statement in John, where belief gave anyone the right to become a Child of God, belief did not make them one already. It opened to them the right.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

2. Households were baptized in the New Testament. Therefore this must include infants.

The word Household does no imply infants. If you think back to Abraham and his calling from God,

Gen 18:19  For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. 

Abraham couldn't command infants, he would have to wait until they were old enough to understand his teaching. This is an example where it is obvious the word household does not imply the infants in the household, the household is commanded to keep his instructions.

Baptism is also a command. See Acts 10:42 One can't command infants.

The verse says he commanded them to be baptized. So the Greek ties those commanded to those to be baptized. It was given to those receiving the command, not the infants.

Thus, the passages concerning households being baptized infer quite clearly infants were excluded, those of age of reason were meant, they were old enough to fear and believe. This is obvious from the following passages.

Act 10:2  A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Act 10:33  Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. 

 The house of Cornelius was for those mature enough to fear and receive commands.

Act 16:32  And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 

Acts 16:34 believing in God with all his house. 

In both cases infants aren't the context, the house was old enough to fear and believe, the word was spoken to all in the house, thus the house was at an age of reason.

In the greek language it is very clear the antecedent to baptism was those gathered to hear God's word, or those who had been spoken the word to. In both examples the greek makes the group very clear.

3. Infants will be lost without being baptized.

I could make the argument that Catholics cause children to be lost. By baptizing them as infants, and then convincing them they are saved, they never go through the baptism of faith and re-birth.

Thus Catholics cause their children to be lost.

The argument that all children will be lost is just to scare people into complying, parents wouldn't want to take a chance with their children.

4. The word translated infant by Catholics can mean child , "suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not", to them it always means infant, and nothing else. It means child up to age 12. 

Actually several examples show the word could mean a child old enough to learn the scriptures. Timothy for example knew the scriptures from a "child". So a child old enough to learn scripture. Plus, the child could come to Christ, so able to make the choice. In Luke 18 the word child and infant are used together, one speaking of age, the other a newly taught Catachumen, thus a spiritual newborn. The word infant refers to newborn in understanding as they began to teach young children in the temple.

Luke 18:16 ...suffer little children (age mature enough they can come)come unto me

Luke 18:17 ...receive kingdom as a little child (different word = spiritual infant)

So little children beginning to be taught and spiritual infants. Old enough to receive the kingdom but spiritual infants.

Peter used the word infant to newly taught Christians. As "newborn babes" desire the sincere milk of the word. 

The idea of not losing our humility, we should see ourselves as infants spiritually even if we have learned the basics and feel mature.

So they are teachable children physically, and infants spiritually, if being taught in the temple at age 5 to 12 which was normal in the temple. Jews began teaching of children publicly at age 5..

5. Catholics teach Iraneus, the Church Father closest to the Apostles, believed in infant baptism, based upon one quotation.

The truth is he never mentions baptism in the quotation. He never mentions infant baptism at all.

6. Polycarp a student of the Apostles was baptized as an infant according to Catholics.

This was proven false by a document called the Harris fragment, which showed Polycarp would have been baptized at age 18. This was confirmed by Irenaeus who noted Polycarp was converted by apostles, thus at the age of reason when baptized, otherwise he couldn't have been converted.

7. The Catholic Church upholds the Apostles teaching.

No, they teach the traditions handed down by men, the Apostles never mention infant baptism, not once. There are many doctrines the Catholics teach that the Apostles didn't deliver.

8. Faith follows baptism as faith followed circumcision.

Faith follows baptism, but it must also precede baptism. Several verses document faith before baptism, such as Acts 2:37 where their hearts were pricked before being commanded baptism. Some verses speak of ongoing faith after baptism, but some speak of our faith before baptism. Gal. 3:26-27