What does the Bible say about infant baptism?

It is therefore by the authority of the Lord, and according to the example of His Apostles, that believers are now to be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Pious persons sometimes baptise unconscious infants, and unbelieving households; but there is no word in the New Testament to warrant such practices, believers alone being the proper subjects of Christian Baptism. This to an unprejudiced reader is demonstrated by the fact that in every New Testament instance, baptism follows upon the hearing of faith. "He that believes and is baptised" — note the order. Baptism is in contrast with circumcision generally and not a complementary rite carried over into Christianity from Judaism; although by way of likeness, this may be noted, that as every circumcised Jew of necessity had natural life before circumcision, so in every case now real spiritual life precedes true Christian Baptism. But in the consideration of Christian Baptism it is absolutely essential that we keep the Lord Jesus Christ Himself clearly before us, so that the ordinance does not hide the Saviour, Whose death and burial, alone give point and meaning to it.

Baptists having baptised one who makes an unfounded profession of faith and subsequently believes do not as a rule baptise that individual again. (If they did it would be without meaning). On the negative side the Old Testament incidents which are adduced by the paedo-baptist in support of his view, viz., Noah and the flood, Abraham and circumcision, Moses preserved in the ark among the bulrushes, the passage of the Red Sea, Hannah's presentation of Samuel for service in the House of God, etc., are all capable of diverse expositions and prove nothing conclusively. Then as to the three households baptised relative to the apostle Paul's ministry, viz., those of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and Stephanas, there is no reference to the constitution of these and the inclusion of unconscious infants therein would be a speculative hypothesis On the positive side of the argument action is taken on "he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). In Peter's initial ministry at Pentecost his instruction is direct and unequivocal, "repent and be baptised every on of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"; also "they that received his word were baptised"(Acts 2:41). Again in the Cornelius incident "can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we" (Acts 10:47). Since the Holy Ghost had fallen on them all, there could not be any question about their baptism. Believing, repentance and baptism are indissolubly joined together in the Acts, To the argument that children of believing parents are holy (or set apart) and thus suitable for baptism (1 Cor. 7:14), the answer is given that they are holy because of relation with their believing parents and baptism would not make them less or more sanctified. It is denied that there is any sphere of divine favour instituted through baptism. The baptist views infant baptism as valueless just as John's baptism was invalid after the death of Christ. Thus would be like having paid a debt in counterfeit coin. The debt would still require to be discharged. So the individual would still need to be baptised and that would not reckoned "baptising again" in any real sense. (Unfortunately the majority of writings on the subject of baptist views are largely occupied with pouring ridicule on the views of various opponents and but little doctrinal evidence is offered. So from the mass of verbiage it is often difficult to extract thoughts of value in the argument).

It is proposed to bring the statements of this tract to the test of scripture. Though baptized myself as a believer, I cannot sympathize with such as are not only a sect but ignore scriptural light on baptism. On the other hand, who can fairly say that paedobaptism has been shown to be an article of faith? Tracts have been published, manuscripts lent about; but, as far as one can pretend to judge, we are far from having that warrant of holy writ which we justly look for before we accept any doctrine or practice as Christian. Yet one would think that of all matters, none would more seem to want the precious word of the Lord, who fails not habitually to provide for every need of the poor. These had, or might have, children from the first; yet not in one indubitable instance do we hear of their baptism. Even as to the nomination of elders, not nearly so constant a need as baptism, we have full instruction afforded. We know that the church never chose but only apostles or an apostolic delegate. Is the absolute silence as to children casual? Large-hearted and intelligent men on all sides admit that the households of scripture decide nothing as to this. There may have been no infants, or, if there were, the household might be said to be baptized without including them because of the nature of the case. We hear of people baptized, men and women, but not of children; we read of servants of the Lord brought on their way by the brethren with wives and children, but never of children where baptism is in hand. If it be a truth and a privilege intended for the children of the saints, does this appear like His provident wisdom and way? He knows that multitudes of His own are not subtle-minded but simple, and would prefer one word of clear scripture, in doctrine, or precept, or example, above all the theories that ever were spun, even if they could lay hold of them. They feel suspicious when one advocate rests much on the adverbial form πανοικί (Acts 16:34); another on the difference between οἶκον and οἰκίαν (1 Cor. 1:16, 1 Cor. 16:15), especially as those who ought to know as well, with similar views in general, reject these criticisms. When such evidence is caught at with eagerness, the candid must own that real proof must be sorely wanting. The believer will do well to wait for solid ground from God's word. Open and thankful to receive all that is certainly taught by the Holy Ghost, he may have the conviction that as yet infant baptism is "not proven." The tract before me will not commend it to spiritual or even sober minds, but, on the contrary, will serve to warn many of the danger and evil of speculating even on an outward matter like baptism.

Scripture says nothing about infant baptism, but it says much about household baptism. The distinction is very important, for if I baptize an infant as an infant I still have in mind his individuality. If I baptize him as belonging to a Christian household I have the household in mind, which is the Scripture idea. The household is a divine institution, and God loves it and delights to impart blessing to it as such. As a proof of this, see 1 Cor.7:12-14. So pleasing is the Christian household to God that if but one of the pair (the husband or the wife) is a Christian, it constitutes the household as Christian, and the children “are holy,” that is, they form a part of it along with their parents. The whole household is sanctified—that is, is a community separated to God from the world. Accordingly in Acts 16 we read of two households being baptized. In 1 Cor.1 another is mentioned. Two or three witnesses suffice to establish convincing proof according to Scripture, and here are three plain cases. It has been objected by some who are against household baptism that in two cases there are believers in the household. This, even though every member of the household were a believer, does not change the principle a whit. They were baptized, not simply as individuals, but as forming part of a household which God had set apart for Himself—a household in which was found the Kingdom of God, that is, subjection to God.

The next household brought before us is that of Crispus. "Crispus, the chief ruler of the Synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house." (Acts 18:8). Here we have the faith of the whole household recorded, in contrast to the silence regarding those we have already looked at. But it is striking to observe that the Scripture says nothing about the baptism of the household of Crispus, though Paul tells us that he baptized Crispus, but says nothing of his household. (1 Cor. 1:14). Please notice carefully that the households not spoken of as believing, were baptized: while another which did believe, is not mentioned as being baptized. Why is this? For surely the Scripture is absolutely perfect in what it relates, and what it withholds. Nobody would question the baptism of the household of Crispus: they all believed, and so of course were all baptized, even though the Scripture does not tell us so. But it might be questioned whether a household, in the absence of faith, had a right to be baptized. We believe that this shows forth the excellence and perfection of the Holy Scriptures in a way that speculations and surmisings never can.

In 1 Cor. 1:14-16, we read of still another household: that of Stephanas. "I baptized also the household of Stephanas." Nothing more is told us of this household until we come to 1 Cor. 16:15, when we read: "Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." It might seem from this latter Scripture that those in the household of Stephanas were old enough to minister to, or serve the saints, and so had passed the age of infants or children: but the word used in Greek for the household of Stephanas in the first chapter is a wider word than that used of it in the 16th chapter. This would intimate that all the house of Stephanas was baptized, but only part, a narrower circle, perhaps excluding little children, addicted themselves to the service of the saints. So once again the Scripture is entirely silent as to who composed the household of Stephanas, and silent as to their spiritual condition: yet Paul himself baptized it. If we are wise we will learn from these silences, as well as from what is revealed to us.

There was nothing further from my thoughts when I began than to touch on the vexed question of the baptism of our children; but in meditating on Scripture households, it seemed hardly upright to either pass over this remarkable series of households in the New Testaments, or to refrain from seeking to point out what appears to the writer to be the evident intention of the Holy Spirit in recording them in this particular manner for us. I know nothing of "Infant Baptism," or "New Birth by Baptism", in the Scriptures; but I do not believe any true Christian who believes the Scriptures can deny that the baptism of households is plainly taught in the Word of God. They may not like it. They may not believe in it. They may refuse to bow to it, as so many around us refuse to bow to clear truths in the Scriptures that they cannot deny. But I do not believe that any honest Christian can say that the baptism of households, entirely apart from any mention of their faith, is not plainly taught in the Word of God.O my loved ones, may God give us grace not only to hear His Word, but also to do it. (See Matt. 7:24.)

If the word of God has told us to baptize children, that would have been something that anyone could have taken hold of without faith. "The word of God is perfect." He who penned it knew what Christendom would be, hence we see the wisdom of God in withholding anything that nature could have appropriated, or that would have appeared to give countenance to that which now exists - a baptized Christendom without faith. But if there is nothing about children being baptized there is something and very much about the baptism of households, not because they were believers - they may or may not have been - but because they were households. There is a principle running through Scripture from beginning to end, and one may do well to examine it. You ask: How is it that these things are not known? That godly men refuse to baptize any but believers? That there was much darkness and confusion about that which concerns the simplest child of God?

But there is something much more positive than this. If a Jew married a Gentile, the wife was to be sent away and the children were to be rejected as "unclean," and not admitted into the house of God by circumcision. This question arose when one parent was converted, and instead of the Jew being relatively profaned, though still a Jew, so that his child was unclean, the heathen or Jew was relatively sanctified, so that the child was holy - not intrinsically, of course, but relatively, so that he would be received among the people - "else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." People have talked of their being legitimate, but this has nothing to do with it: the Jewish principle brought out in Nehemiah is perfectly clear. It is said, Why then not give them the Lord's supper? The Lord's supper is symbolic of the unity of the body, and it is by one Spirit we are baptised into one body; hence, I apprehend, it is he who is made really partaker of the Holy Ghost who can be properly partaker of the Lord's supper. Now, I admit that there is no command for infants to be baptised: it would suppose a moral effect. But there is none for adults - there is to the apostles, to go and baptise the nations they had brought into discipleship: and households are spoken of in scripture. We know it was the habit and thought of those sent. I am told that Christianity is the opposite of this in its nature. This is true as regards individual salvation. But I do not think introduction into "the house" the same thing as that. If one parent be converted, they are, it seems to me, entitled to that, and unjustly deprived of it, if it is refused to them. This thought was soon lost, and individual salvation connected with it and the new birth.

Made a disciple, Lydia was baptized as became her (John 4:1). Such was the Lord's command to His servants. Only the males among the Jews were circumcised; disciples, both men and women, were baptized (Acts 8:12). Not only Lydia was baptized but her household also: 'And when she was baptized and her house …' What is meant thereby? We do not hear of children or of husband; she may have been a widow without a family or never married. She had a household, and we hear (ver. 40) of the brethren there, believers therefore, and probably not men only but women. Of little ones we hear nothing; and the divine account, which is full and minutely exact to admiration in other respects, not even implies anything of the kind, so that the temerity of tradition, of intellect, of will, that would from this account extract a ground for supposing infants in this case at any rate, is as bold and manifest as unjustifiable.

The name in which baptism is enacted is more important than the mode, amount of water, period of life, or the person performing the rite. The usual "Believers baptist" standpoint is apt to be in collision with Scripture! The outstanding stumbling block is that the Apostle Paul baptised households. At once the critic asserts that the constituents were all converted. Scripture does not say so. In making the statement unconsciously he gives away his ground to the other side, who maintain that the trend of Scripture doctrine would justify household baptism. The Baptist is very upset when asked if his family of small children will go to heaven if the Lord came immediately. He will reply, "Yes, certainly"! On being asked for scriptural warrant for the statement he will probably make irrelevant remarks. He accepts the value of the death of Christ assuring a place in heaven for his children without Scripture, and denies them (with Scripture) a place on earth in the external sphere connected with the House of God where God dwells. We are quite sure that his young children will have a place in heaven due to the sovereign grace of God, but there is no specific Scripture saying so. The Baptist's great contention is that his opponent has no Scripture evidence for his action, but he cannot have his argument both ways!

Though baptised myself as a believer, I cannot sympathise with such or ignore scriptural light on baptism. On the other hand, who can fairly say that paedo-baptism has been shown to be an article of faith. Tracts have been published, but we are far from having that warrant of Holy Writ which we justly look for before we accept any doctrine as Christian. Intelligent men on all sides admit that the households of Scripture decide nothing as to this. There may have been no infants or the household might be said to be baptised without including them, because of the nature of the case. Never do we hear of Peter or any other proceeding to baptise in the first place but to preach, then those who received the word were baptised, but it was the receiving and confessing the name of the Lord, not the baptism which constituted them disciples, however certainly the initiator rite followed their confession. The word of God is too wise to insinuate that He (the Philippian jailer) was baptised before he believed because it is afterwards said that he rejoiced believing in God with all his house. It is remarkable while his joy is given in the aorist, his faith is described as implying the present or continuing result of what is past. Nothing can be more palpably erroneous than saying that "Baptism is a subjective thing," such indeed is the notion of the Baptists who reduce baptism to signify the state of the baptised, whether there is any subjective reality depends on the faith of the recipients." W.K.