The unbiblical practice of infant baptism: Why I won't baptize babies

Some hold infant baptism as a non-issue and a matter of conscience, but I hold that the practice is not only unscriptural, but has brought great harm to God’s people. Amazingly, some Baptist are not finding the practice as appalling as our forefathers did, and will stand in ecumenical unity with those who practice infant baptism. There are, no doubt, good brothers who are deceived about this issue, and some not so good wolves as well. As for me, this chapter is the reason why I do not baptize babies, and why I believe it to be not only unscriptural, but dangerous, and why I cannot fellowship, in church capacity with false churches or recognize their baptism. Baptist were called Ana-Baptist long ago, or RE-Baptizers, but actually they truly never “re”bapized anyone. We believe those who have false baptism were not really baptized to start with.

First of all, the premise that the infant baptizers hold to, is flawed. Baptism and circumcision are not the same thing. No reasonable person could say that the intention of circumcision was to make the way for baptism. Not even the Judiazers in the New Testament believed that. The difficulty with discussing baby baptism with someone who holds to that teaching is it’s not just a matter of the way they look at baptism, but the way they read the bible.

Those that hold to covenant theology read the bible through the glasses of their theology. Notice the following points made by J.I Packer concerning covenant theology.

“First, the gospel of God is not properly understood till it is viewed within a covenantal frame. Second, the Word of God is not properly understood till it is viewed within a covenantal frame. Third, the reality of God is not properly understood till it is viewed within a covenantal frame.”

In other words, if you do not first understand this theological system, you can’t properly know God, His word, or the gospel.

Those that read the bible and believe what it says are flawed, apparently, due to their lack of understanding the ‘covenantal frame’. Anyone can clearly see that baptism and circumcision are not the same thing. The only similarity that they share is the fact that they are tokens. They are different in their manner, candidates, purpose and meaning. Baptism is an act of obedience, whereas circumcision was required by the law. Baptism was given only to professed believers whereas circumcision was given to male Jews and Jewish citizens. Baptism is the answer to a good conscience given to one who is a child of God whereas circumcision was given so the boy may gain inheritance as a Jewish citizen, and not be cut off from their family. All believers are required to be baptized, but only males can be circumcised. Baptism signifies what God DID do for that person, being buried with Christ and raising in newness of life, to which an infant cannot declare, while circumcision shows what a Jew MUST be to be saved, circumcised in heart, which could be given to an infant in symbol. It is not necessary to be baptized to be saved, but it was necessary for one to be circumcised to be a citizen of Israel. So just a brief look at the two tokens, it is plain to anyone who wants to see it that baptism and circumcision are not the same thing, and anyone who tries is attempting to justify their belief by wresting the scripture. If baptism is a seal, and took the place of circumcision for the same purpose, then circumcision was a picture of a picture or a sign of a sign. God didn’t give a picture of a picture of the work of Christ. Circumcision was a token, so is baptism, but one didn’t replace the other. As J.R Graves stated “A SHADOW DOES NOT CAST A SHADOW!”

Another problem with baby baptism view of combining circumcision with baptism is not only does it contradict the bible, but you either have to believe in baptismal regeration, or contradict yourself. Notice the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 28 of Baptism.

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the NT, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. 3. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Do you see the contradiction? First it is a sign and seal of regeneration and the remission of sins, but then it is given to infants. A walk in newness of life in his church, but then given to babies? There is one meaning of baptism for the baby, another meaning for the adult, which makes two baptism.

The efficacy (Power to produce effects; production to the effect intended definition inserted by author, dpn)of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited (shown, displayed, when AT THE TIME OF BAPTISM, dpn) and conferred (Given; imparted; bestowed, dpn) by the Holy Ghost, to such whether of age or infants as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

There is really no way around this contradiction. Those that hold to baby baptism and this confession say, in their own words, there is grace imparted and shown to the recipient of that baptism and that by baptizing, God will save them, but then go on to speak of justification by faith.



Douglas Newell IV