|
I'll approach the answer to this question
by asking two fundamental questions. By finding the answers to these
two questions we'll understand the teaching of the Bible regarding infant
baptism. Fundamental question #1: Is an infant in sin?
Fundamental question #2: Can an infant fulfill the requirements for
baptism as outlined in the New Testament? If the answer to both
is yes, then an infant must be baptized. If the answer to either
is no, then an infant cannot be baptized according to the pattern outlined in
the NT.
Let's turn to the book of Ezekiel as we
consider the answer to our first question. Please consider carefully Ezekiel
18:1-25. We see in verse
1 that what Ezekiel is about to write is the word of the Lord. In verse
4, Ezekiel introduces the idea of souls, sin, and death. He states
that the soul of the father and of the son belong to the Lord. However,
the soul that sinneth shall die. In verses
5-9 Ezekiel deals with the soul of the father that follows the statutes
of the Lord. If the father is obedient, he shall surely live (verse
9). But, this father may have a wicked son. We read of this
wicked son in verses
10-13. Such a son shall surely die (verse
13), but his father shall live (verse 9). But what happens if the
father is wicked? Will the son pay for the sins of the father? We
read the answer to this vital question in verses
14-17. We see the son has a wicked father (verse
14). But the son sees the sins of his father and does not follow
his wicked example (verse 14). Is such a son doomed to die because he
has a sinful father? No! Ezekiel tells us the son shall not die
for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live (verse
17)! The father, on the other hand, shall die for his iniquity (verse
18). Ezekiel asks a question that I believe many people ask
today. Notice what he says in verse
19. "Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity
of the father?" Many people today teach that man is born with an
Adamic nature, that is, born in sin due to the sins of the father. I
copied the seventh article of the Methodist discipline, and have pasted it
here for your consideration: (http://www.umc.org/genconf/pets/bd92/text/d0067.html)
Article VII--Of Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth not in the following
of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the
nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam,
whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own
nature inclined to evil, and that continually.
Not knowing what a Pelagian was, I
searched for the meaning of this word and found the following:
Pelagianism
(http://hwmin.gbgm-umc.org/churches/bdumc/TheoTerm.htm)
Beyond the classic heresies of Arianism
and Gnosticism, there are several other heresies that are of particular
influence even in modern day Churches. One of them is Pelagianism.
Pelagianism is the belief that Adam and Eve's Fall from Grace didn't bequeath
to humans anything other than a bad example. According to Pelagians, humans
don't HAVE to sin, and can -- if we attain the proper knowledge of God's Will
-- by our own free will, DO what God wants us to do, not sin, and achieve
salvation. According to Pelagians, Jesus doesn't give us anything except (1)
forgiveness of sins, and (2) a good example of how to live in God's Will. For
Pelagians, NO Grace is needed to BE a Christian. For Pelagians, salvation
depends entirely upon the human's will to respond to Jesus' teachings.
Most Pelagians today are legalists who view Christianity as more a set of
rules and regulations than a living relationship with a Risen Lord. They
don't deny the resurrection, but they do deny the normative Christian
understanding of the purpose of the death and resurrection of Jesus. While
Jesus' death does pay for our sins, we do not need anything other than right
teaching and a good example for us to be able to be "good
Christians." These three ideas -- Arianism, Gnosticism, and
Pelagianism -- are theological ideas that we, as a denomination, oppose.
Jesus is Fully Human, Fully Divine, and died so that we might live ... and
live with the power and life of Christ within us.
(The above definition was taken from a
Methodist minister's website.) So, a Pelagian believes that the sin of Adam
and Eve did nothing other than bring sin into the world ("bequeath to
humans anything other than a bad example"). Unfortunately for this
Methodist minister, Ezekiel
18:20 says something along those lines. We know from Romans
5:12 that sin entered the world through Adam, we know from Ezekiel 18:20
that the son will not die for the sins of the father. So, the son has
the opportunity to look at his sinful father and decide not to follow his
sinful ways (Ezekiel
18:14). Does this mean the son will never sin? No!
Romans 5:12 (along with other verses) tells us that all have sinned.
However, one is not born with sin, one commits sin of his own free will and
suffers the consequences of his own sin should they go unforgiven. One
does not suffer the consequences for his father's sin. What does
article VII of the Methodist discipline say about Methodist doctrine?
Man is born with sin ("Original sin... is the corruption of the nature of
every man"). What does Ezekiel 18:20 say? "The son
shall not bear the iniquity of the father." Who should we
believe? (A rhetorical question). Other tenets of Pelagianism are
false (assuming a Pelagian would agree with the definition a Methodist minister
used for them). For example, if a Pelagian believes he/she can live a
sinless life, they are wrong (Romans 5:12, 1
John 1:8-10). But those who state an infant is born suffering the
sin of his/her father are equally wrong. I've published an extensive
study on original sin elsewhere on
my site. Please take a few moments to review this vital topic.
The
Catholic Perspective
(http://www.cin.org/docs/infbapt.html)
The main argument for the perennial
practice of the Church regarding infant Baptism is the absolute necessity {necessity
of means) of the Sacrament for entrance to heaven. If Baptism is necessary
for salvation, it must be administered to infants as well as to adults. If
not, we would be guilty of thinking that God had deprived infants of every
means of salvation.
We can find many examples of infant
Baptism in the New Testament. For example, when Paul baptized Lydia and her
household (ACTS 16:15), there were obviously children in that group. A jailer
and his whole family (ACTS 16:33) and the household of Stephanas (1 COR 1:16)
are other examples. The probability is that in these households there were at
least some young children.
The Fathers of the Church also testify
to infant Baptism: St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, and Pope Siricius, to mention
only a few. Even in those countries where for a time it became a custom to
defer Baptism so that the recipient, having the use of reason, might benefit
more from its effects, still the Sacrament was administered to infants in
danger of death.
In the SCDF's Instruction on Infant Baptism
of 20 October 1980, we are given two clear pastoral principles with regard to
infant Baptism:
1.
"Baptism,
which is necessary for salvation, is the sign and the means of God's
prevenient (guiding) love, which frees us from original sin and communicates
to us a share in the divine life. Considered in itself, the gift of these
blessings to infants must not be delayed.
2.
"Assurances
must be given that the gift can grow by authentic education in the faith and
Christian life, in order to fulfill the true meaning of the Sacrament.
As a rule, these assurances are to be given by the parents or close
relatives, although various substitutions are possible within the Christian
community. But if these assurances are not really serious there can be ground
for delaying the Sacrament; and if they are certainly nonexistent the
Sacrament should even be refused."
Interesting. Let's
evaluate the Catholic view in light of the scriptures. First, they
state that baptism is an "absolute necessity" for entrance into
heaven. Under section 1 they clarify the stance they take on baptism
and what it does for the recipient: it "frees us from original sin
and communicates to us a share in the divine life." As we've seen
in our study thus far, original sin is not a scriptural concept. Again,
the son shall not bear the iniquities of the father. Section 2 of the
same paragraph makes some interesting points as well. The
acknowledgment is made that an infant cannot fulfill the requirements necessary
for baptism as outlined in the NT. Note the statement that's
made: "Assurances must be given that the gift can grow by
authentic education in the faith and Christian life..." If such an
education is necessary, then does the one being baptized truly understand the
reason for their baptism? Can they believe as they must? (Mark
16:16) Can they repent of sin they don't know they have? (Acts
2:38) Can they confess Jesus as the son of God before men if they
are unable to speak the language? (Romans
10:10) If one cannot be sure that serious attempts will be made to
teach the newly baptized infant one has a "ground for delaying the
sacrament; and if they are certainly nonexistent the sacrament should even be
refused." Evidently the granting of baptism to a Catholic infant
is based more on the parents than on the needs of the infant. If the
Catholic church is in doubt as to whether the infant will receive the
teaching he/she needs from "parents, relatives, or various substitutions
within the Christian community" the baptism "should even be
refused." Doesn't this seem odd? Baptism is required for
salvation, but another person may prevent one from being baptized! So
the Catholic view on baptism requires understanding, but is backwards on when
the understanding should occur. As we've seen in many scriptures,
understanding is required before one is baptized. We will cover
this in more detail when we address question #10.
The Catholic doctrine lists
"examples" of infant baptism. But are they really
examples? They mention the conversion of Lydia and her household, the
Philippian jailer and his house, and the house of Stephanas. Notice the
language used in this paragraph of the Catholic doctrine. After Lydia
the word "obviously" is used when referring to the likelihood that
infants or young children were part of her household and received
baptism. However, after all three examples are mentioned the language
used is that the "probability is that in these households there were at
least some children." "Probability" is much less certain
than "obviously." It's quite a leap to base a doctrinal
position on something as important as baptism on something so open to
doubt. Since no children were specifically mentioned in the scriptures
do we know children were present? How old was Lydia, the jailer, or
Stephanas for example. Do we know their children weren't grown and of
an age to submit to baptism, if they even had children? Are these
insignificant points? Certainly not! Remember our study of
opinion earlier? What was an opinion: a "belief stronger
than impression and less strong than positive knowledge; a generally held
view." Is the language used expressing positive knowledge, or
something less? I believe we can all see that something less than
positive knowledge is expressed in this statement. Therefore, what is
it? An opinion. Do you wish to base the fate of your eternal soul
on an opinion? In the doctrinal statement above the sources of the
opinion are mentioned: St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, and Pope Siricius,
to mention a few. What did Jesus say in Matthew
28:18? "All authority is given unto me (Jesus) in heaven and
in earth." In order to believe the opinions of other human beings
we must show where Jesus has given them the authority to express opinion as
doctrine. He is the only one who is in a position to grant such
authority to a man. The Apostle Paul (who was certainly given the authority
to speak for Jesus, rf Acts
9:15, 1
Corinthians 14:37) warns in Galatians
1:6-9 against any who would speak a gospel other than that the Galatian
Christians had received from Paul and other men with the authority to speak
for Jesus. Jesus Himself in Matthew
15:9 tells us that those who teach for doctrine the commandments of men
worship Him in vain! Are the doctrines we've examined above of men or
of God? If not of God, of what value are they?
It appears that a disagreement
has existed in the past even within the Catholic church regarding the
validity of infant baptism. Notice the doctrinal statement above. The statement
is made that "Even in
those countries where for a time it became a custom to defer Baptism so that
the recipient, having the use of reason, might benefit more from its effects,
still the Sacrament was administered to infants in danger of death."
What? So some
countries baptized all infants, and others didn't. Those who didn't
felt that the one baptized, having use of reason, might benefit more from its
effects. But the justification for infant baptism by the modern
Catholic church is made on the grounds that these countries baptized infants
in danger of death. What infants weren't in danger of death? The
infant mortality rate centuries ago was astronomic compared to today's
standards. It seems illogical to acknowledge that one who is baptized
later benefits more, but those who are about to die, even though they won't
benefit as much, still should be baptized. Why not baptize all infants
and allow them to grow into their knowledge (evidently the current teaching
of the Catholic church). But why would the current church fall back on
the illogical acts of those within its ranks from the past to justify its use
of infant baptism today? I still wonder about the large group of
apparently healthy infants who weren't afflicted with a mortal illness.
Actually, a place has been designated for them should they die. A place
called "limbo." However, Catholics don't agree on this
doctrine. The information below is taken from the Catholic Pages (http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=20433)
Infants who die without Baptism cannot
go to heaven. This does not mean, however, that they go to hell.
Infants cannot have Baptism of Desire.
The reason for this is because it requires the use of reason. And in our
times, infants have a very small chance of being slaughtered out of hatred
for Christ, and so rarely can they have Baptism of Blood. Therefore they must
have the Baptism of Water, and if this is not given them, they die unbaptized
through no fault of theirs and can never go to heaven.
This doctrine that an unbaptized
infant can never enter heaven and live with God may at first sight seem
extremely harsh and cruel. This divine design becomes still more difficult to
understand and more mysterious if we consider also that the child's failure
to be baptized would be due to no fault of his own. But Christ's word
regarding the necessity of Baptism is absolute: "Unless a man (that is,
a member of the human race or species) be born again of water and the Holy
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (JOHN 3: 5)
9. What Is Limbo?
Go to Table of Contents
Limbo is the place where unbaptized
infants go. It is a place of natural happiness surpassing the most exquisite
joy of the present life. When we stated in the previous question that
unbaptized infants (that is, below the age of reason) cannot go to heaven, we
are not implying that they either go to hell or purgatory.
Hell and Purgatory are places of
expiation for those who have committed actual or personal sins. Infants only
have original sin. Not having the use of reason, they cannot be guilty of
personal sins. And so, they cannot be sent either to Hell or Purgatory.
They are in a place where they do not
see God, but where they do not suffer any pain. They are in Limbo.
Notice the sin infants
possess. They do not have "actual or personal sins", only
"original sin." As we've seen, original sin is not a
scriptural doctrine.
This information is also taken
from the Catholic Pages:
(http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/link.asp?ref=18838)
The condition of the Saints of the Old
Testament (Adam, Abraham, John the Baptist, etc.) before Christ's redemption
opened heaven to them is called the Limbo of the Fathers. As the Creed announces,
Christ went there to announce to them the glad news that redemption was at
last accomplished.
This is the only doctrine of Limbo
that the Church has ever held and still holds today.
The notion of a Limbo for unbaptized
babies never was a doctrine of the Church and the Church never taught it. At
most it was a speculation on the part of certain theologians, and one never
hears of it nowadays. There is no "official doctrine on the
subject." God has not revealed the destiny of babies who die before baptism.
One source will speak of
unbaptized infants who die going to this place of bliss, but outside the
presence of God. Other Catholics will state that "limbo" has
never been a doctrine of the Catholic church and we must leave the fate of these
infants in God's hands, since nobody knows what happens to them. But
both doctrines are listed within the same web site. The second states
that "one never hears of it nowadays", but it is still being
promoted within the web site to which he contributes. Who are we to
believe? Who do Catholics believe? It seems like they have a
choice of belief, whichever doctrine they prefer.
Fundamental question #2: Can an
infant fulfill the requirements for baptism as outlined in the NT? A
brief review of our earlier study shows the answer must be no.
What is necessary for belief? The ability to understand. If one
cannot understand what one hears, one is incapable of the belief necessary
prior to baptism. Does an infant need to repent? Again, from our
study one sees an infant has nothing of which to repent. When they
reach an age of accountability (that is, an age where they understand the
difference between right and wrong, and choose to commit wrong), they then
are sinners and must repent. At this point they are capable of
understanding, believing, and are in need of repentance. They are then
able to obey.
What is the answer to question #7?
No! An infant should not be baptized. They cannot
be baptized in the manner outlined by the Lord in the New Testament.
The answer to both fundamental questions is no! An infant is not
in sin, and is incapable of following the requirements prior to baptism as
outlined in the NT.
|
