Understanding Baptism: The Case Against Infant Baptism

Devotional

Sermon Summary

Sermon Clips


The domination, I think, of the church in recent years by psychology and in more recent years by pragmatism has produced, I think, a significant disinterest in baptism. Media ministries which so powerfully define and control evangelical consumerism are void of those ordinances. And that's one of the reasons why we've introduced baptism into our radio format because I don't want to be a part of that kind of disinterest. [00:03:34]

It is safe to say, I think also, that there is presently probably the largest unbaptized population of professing Christians in the history of the church. And for most of them, it isn't really something they're too concerned about. This reality, failing to take baptism seriously, is also I think likely symptomatic of the independence and unfaithfulness of professing Christians who function autonomously like consumers rather than under church theology and authority. [00:04:03]

And at the same time, few things could be more unmistakable than the fact that the command of Scripture is to baptize and be baptized. On that, we will agree. Jesus said, "Go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing them." And on the day of Pentecost, Peter said, "Repent and be baptized." And we remember that Jesus engaged in a baptism personally, then the Apostles followed, involving themselves in baptism, and of course, you know the rest throughout the book of Acts and the New Testament. [00:04:36]

In spite of this command, in spite of this mandate, in spite of New Testament clarity, there is still widespread non-compliance. And at the same time, a rather strange paradox in that you have a very large population of baptized unregenerate people. So, if there's anything that needs some clarity, I think it's this. I would venture to say that a person who claims to be a Christian and has a disregard for baptism, has not been baptized, would have to fall into one of several categories. [00:05:11]

Number one, infant baptism is not in Scripture. Against this fact, there is no clear evidence. Scripture nowhere advocates, commands, or records a single infant baptism. It is therefore impossible to directly prove or support this rite from the Bible. Schleiermacher wrote, and I quote, "All traces of infant baptism which one has asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there," end quote. [00:08:18]

And a host, I think, of German and front-rank theologues and scholars, including those of the Church of England, have united basically to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament but from Apostolic and post-Apostolic times. It first arose and arguably, I suppose, in the second and third centuries, the conclusion, for example, reached by the Lutheran professor Kurt Aland who has written on this after intensive study of infant baptism is that there is no definite proof of practice until after the third century. [00:09:21]

Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church. What happens with infant baptism is you now have confusion as to the identity of the church. Confusion stems from the failure to distinguish between the visible local church, including unbelievers, and the invisible universal church which is only believers. In fact, it is true that paedobaptism strikes a serious blow against the doctrine of a regenerate church. [00:45:52]

Further confusion lies in the failure to differentiate clearly between what it means to be a little member of the covenant as a baby and what it means to be a true child of God. It is my conviction that the Scripture teaches the true church is made up of only believers. That's unlike Israel. You can't make a parallel, it's unlike Israel. The rest of people apart from believers, whether baptized or not baptized, whether confirmed or not confirmed, do not belong to the redeemed church. [00:46:21]

Infant baptism is not consistent with Reformational soteriology. Now, that ought to rancor a few folks, but I'm just doing my part here on my side now. Infant baptism is not consistent with Reformational soteriology. I have through the years, I'm being a little personal, I have through the years tried to help fundamental evangelical Bible-believing Christians understand the gospel. Isn't that a sad thing? But that's what I've tried to do. [00:51:20]

I have—If there's any one single subject I have worked more diligently on than any other, it is the clarity of the gospel. And when you spend years and years and years of your life coming to a crystal-clear understanding of justification by grace through faith alone and what it means to affirm the lordship of Christ and all that is bound up in salvation, that becomes a very precious reality to you. [00:51:47]

And I don't want to be anecdotal and I don't want to make a point personally, but I can only tell you from my understanding and the broad picture of salvation, I cannot for the life of me find anything that infant baptism contributes to that but confusion because there is no faith in the child, there is no comprehension of the gospel, there is no repentance in the child. What then is this and what do you have? [00:52:28]

The confusion in Christendom would be greatly lessened. The church would be instantly purged. Christ would be honored if there weren't millions of people outside salvation running around with a false security and bearing an untrue symbol of an unreal condition. I really feel that we Reformed folks need to finish the Reformation here and I see this as a way to do that. [00:54:29]

Ask a question about this sermon