Does the Bible Teach Infants Should Be Baptized?
Should infants be ‘baptized”? This question comes in response in particular to the common view of the Lutheran religion. I will have a two-fold thrust in this article. First, my objective will be to prove that the term “infant baptism” is an oxymoron; they are actually completely contradictory in the Lutheran sense of the term. Infants are not subject to the Biblical command to be baptized for the remission of sins (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:1-6, 1 Peter 3:21, et al.). Only those guilty of sin can be the subject of baptism for the remission of sins. If infants do not have sin and baptism is for the remission of sins, then infant baptism is oxymoronic.
What is Baptism?
Moreover, the biblical mode of baptism is full immersion, which is not the practice of the Lutheran church when they “baptize” infants. The New Testament uses the koine Greek word baptizo (βαπτίζω), which is where we get the English word baptism. This word is defined in Strong's Lexicon as follows: From a derivative of bapto; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. Fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially of the ordinance of Christian baptism (see reference below). So, properly we would understand that in the New Testament, full immersion is commanded, which would leave out the practices of sprinkling or pouring. If baptism is full immersion by definition, then infant baptism is oxymoronic. We must also note that baptism must be by a fully cognizant person. How else would we be able to comprehend the significance of the occasion? The Holy Spirit described it as where the sinner dies to that sin and is buried in the watery grave, raised to walk in the newness of life.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin.
(Romans 6:1-6)
Can an infant understand the circumstances of baptism and what it is a figure of? Even if those of the Lutheran religion decided to start immersing every infant, it would still not have a biblical basis. I suppose it might be similar to the proxy baptism of the dead, for both are not cognizant nor able to obey the command. The dead are no longer living, and the infant is incapable of understanding enough to be baptized.
The Lutheran View of Infant Baptism
The remaining thrust will be to answer the comparison of circumcision under the Mosaic covenant and the practice of baptism under the New Covenant. While conducting my research, I found this statement from the official website of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod,
Our need for Baptism (Psalm 51:5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Rom. 3:23; Rom. 6:3-4). According to the Bible, all people–including infants–are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). King David confesses, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die–sure proof that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, Baptism (somewhat like Old Testament circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies – see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins – even the sins of infants – without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious God.
I must begin with the refutation of infants being born in sin. This error has permeated from the days of Augustine of Hippo, who is perhaps the father of the original sin heresy, which was repackaged and reclaimed by the Reformers, such as John Calvin, with his doctrine of Total Hereditary Depravity. What does the Bible say? For starters, these issues are addressed in full in this article (https://www.ironworkspress.org/articles/dismantling-total-depravity). So why does an infant not need to be baptized? It is because an infant has not and is incapable of sin. The Word of God rather says that man is created good (Gen 1:27, 31). Ecclesiastes 7:29 reads, “Behold, this only have I found: that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” If God makes man upright (just, straight), how can he be born totally depraved? The second clause declares they have sought out many inventions, implying they are willing participants rather than inheritors of the guilt of sin.
Does Colossians 2 Teach Infant Baptism is Equal to Circumcision?
For the remainder of this article, we will turn our attention to the claim that infant baptism is somewhat like circumcision that was administered to 8-day-old-babies. The LCMS cites Colossians 2:11-12,
in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Can we conclude from these two verses that baptism is the New Testament equivalent of Old Testament circumcision? Well, the first thing that we would have to consider is who was subject to circumcision. All Jewish males were to be circumcised on the eighth day (cf. Lev 12:3). This would obviously exclude all females because of their physical reality. So what do we make of this? Were females excluded from the covenant and thus lost? No, they were not; the Bible is replete with examples of godly women who walked faithfully with Jehovah. So, just based on this, we would understand that it is not an exact equivalent.
Certainly, the circumcision argument does not take what Paul is saying into consideration. The Inspired Apostle is not saying that baptism is the new circumcision, but rather that it is a comparison between the former (the cutting of flesh) and the latter practice (baptism as the putting off of the body of the flesh (sin). Circumcision is simply used as a figure here to teach a deeper truth. We might consider how similarly Jesus taught from an Old Testament figure regarding his crucifixion and the ramifications of it.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(John 3:14-16)
Was Jesus suggesting that he would become the serpent on the standard (cf. Num 21:7-9)? No, He was using a figure to teach us that all who will be saved will look to the one who was lifted (on the cross) and became the propitiation for all mankind. So, why not understand the comparison to the old covenant of circumcision with the command to be baptized? One removed flesh, the other removed works of the flesh.
A type does not carry the fullness of the antitype. For instance, baptism in the New Testament is compared to the ark of Noah.
Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
(1 Peter 3:18-21)
So, if eight souls were saved by water (the ark as the place of salvation), is an ark made of gophar wood necessary for every one to be saved? No, we understand the baptism is independent of the ark but both in their times were the only place of salvation.
(More about baptism and salvation: https://www.ironworkspress.org/articles/you-must-be-baptized )
Baptism is Submission to God’s Will
Finally, we want to turn our attention to the last part of the above statement. They claim that baptism is not with any cooperation of our own. Does the Bible teach this idea?
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.And with many other words, he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls. (emphasis mine)
(Acts 2:37-41)
If there is no human component in obedience to the Gospel, why would Peter say save yourselves from this crooked generation? Our Lutheran friends are not far from the truth in their understanding of the fact that baptism is a work of God and not of man. I appreciate that they see the value and importance of baptism in the scheme of redemption, where so many others have gone awry. They are quick to point out that baptism is not a work or a public declaration of their saved condition, as many Protestant groups do. However, they mistakenly suggest that man has no part in his obedience. I believe many honest Lutherans, when presented with the truth on this matter, would be willing to study the Word themselves concerning this matter. In passing, let's turn our attention to verse 39.
Why Does Peter Mention Children if Infants Were Not Baptized?
The question may be raised as to why Peter mentions children if children are not able to be baptized. This verse does not suggest that innocent infants would be sprinkled. It actually directly affirms that the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit would be promised to the following generation from those who obeyed the Gospel in Acts 2. This gift was given by the laying on of hands of an Apostle (Acts 8:17). This promise was necessary when the New Testament was not complete.
Let us also recognize that the promise of salvation in Christ was open to the generation that first obeyed on that day of Pentecost, and the promise of salvation remains available to all subsequent generations. How so? Should we reckon that infants were numbered in the about 3,000 that day? No, we can appreciate that this language was used similarly elsewhere. One such example is in Deut 5:29, “Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!” The children of the Hebrews would receive benefits if their parents kept the commands of God. The children would receive the benefit of being taught those commands (cf. Deut 6:4-6). The children would then keep those commands themselves to continue God’s intended plan for the family. Has anything changed under the New Covenant? No, the method is the same. Faithful parents keep the New Testament law, they teach it daily to their children, their children use that information to choose God’s way, and teach it to the next generation. Thus, the promise to children is understood to be complete.
Our attention must remain focused on the fact that infants are not subject to the biblical command to be baptized because they were born sinless and only cognizant sinners can hear the Gospel and believe it (cf. Rom 10:17; Heb 11:6). Only they can repent of their sins (cf. Acts 3:19), and confess Christ (Rom 10:9), and make the choice to be buried (immersed) in the watery grave to be raised to walk in newness of life (cf. Rom 6:3-6). Go through the plan of salvation and ask yourself, even if an infant were a sinner, could they do any of those things? No, that would be impossible. Thus, the term infant baptism is an oxymoron and unfounded in Scripture despite great efforts.
Baptizo: (https://biblehub.com/greek/907.htm).
