Is christening in the Bible?

Let us now look at the significance of "water" as the means used for this cleansing: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). The expression "born of water," in connection with new birth, is taken by ritualists as teaching regeneration by baptism, so that thanks are given after the baptism of a child that it has been regenerated; that by it he is "made a member of Christ and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." But water cannot do this. The Baptist said: "I baptize you with water unto repentance;" but the Mightier than John was coming, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." There is the reality. "Born of water," in John 3, no more means baptismal regeneration than the eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood in the 6th chapter means transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper.

Hence too, when the Lord speaks of what livingly subsists as born, He says only "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and speaks no longer of water. Water cleanses what is, life begins when one is born. And if we give heed to the Lord's words, who tells Nicodemus that as a master in Israel he should have known these things, we cannot doubt that the Lord alludes especially to Ezekiel 36:24-27: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," etc. That is to say, there is a moral practical cleansing, typified by the word 'water,' and a new life given by the operation of the Spirit of God. No one could say that which is born of water is water; it has no sense. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit; it is the communication of life, like in its nature to its source; but that we are born of the Spirit by the means of the water, there is not the slightest hint of. And even "our church" has sense enough to see this when it has its eyes open: "Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin." Hence the scripture speaks of baptism as being for death, not life; as in Romans 6, Colossians 2, where at the utmost you make speak of resurrection being involved in it, after the death, unto the likeness of which we have been planted, through the faith of the operation of God who raised Him from the dead. Hence, if we take baptism as a figure, it is as, to the water, a figure of death - Christ's death; being born of the Spirit, a communication of new life.

True, God may quicken the soul at any moment—that of baptism or any other—but it is God’s quickening, and not baptism, that communicates the life. Hence it is neither baptism nor any outward form or ceremony whatsoever that can make us God’s children; and well it is for each true servant of God that he should, by all means, by pen and by word of mouth, seek to expose the terrible snare, to break the subtle spell, and do all he can to warn the unwary of the sad delusion. It is well for him to urge on their attention that which the Lord urged on Nicodemus—the new birth—to be “born of the Spirit,” yea, to be “born of water and the Spirit”—where “water” cannot mean actual water, otherwise birth must mean actual birth; but where “water” clearly symbolises the Word by which we are “born again” (1 Peter 1:23).

Take as an illustration the initiatory sign of Christian faith. We all know that baptism is this, without going into controverted points of mode and subject. What does baptism mean? Is it a sign of life? The Romanists will tell you so, and others who are like them, which they ought not to be. Baptism, contrariwise, is a sign of Christ's death. Hence the Lord instituted proper Christian baptism after, and not before, He rose from the dead. What then, is really taught in that initiatory institution? That one is buried with Christ. Is that life? Is it not plainly to be put in the place of death with Christ? Where also would be the propriety of being buried with Him through baptism into "life"? Were it a sign of life-giving to a soul destitute of it previously, one could understand the figure of the womb or the breast of the mother church; but how incongruous with the death of Christ, and with burial? The ordinary doctrine that connects baptism with new birth is unmitigated Popish error, or rather the delusion of the Fathers before Popery. Baptism is not even the sign (still less the means) of life, but of death and burial with Christ. The Old Testament saints had life, ages before baptism or circumcision. Christian baptism is the sign of a new and distinctively Christian privilege which none could enjoy before our Lord died and rose.

Now Nicodemus was no more converted to God at this time than the woman of Samaria when she first came to the well; he no more believed to life eternal than the crowd which came to Capernaum in quest of Jesus, or any others in their natural state of whom we read elsewhere. If the Lord in plain language invariably called on such to believe on His name, is it an intelligent interpretation that here only He prescribed an ordinance? Even when those who heard the preaching at Pentecost were pricked in their heart, and said, "What shall we do?" the apostle did not so interpret his Master's words. He said, "Repent, and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit " (Acts 2:37-38), a gift therefore over and beyond birth of the Spirit. But repentance toward God implies faith as surely as faith in Christ implies repentance. Compare Acts 16:31 and Acts 20:21. If it be an honest interpretation to suppose Christian baptism here set before an unrenewed Jewish teacher, it can only be in minds prepossessed by tradition and negligent of the unmistakable teaching of the New Testament.

But the Spirit's baptism is wholly distinct. It is the peculiar privilege of the church of God, and consequently never was till Pentecost and only is after men believe. See Galatians 4:6, Ephesians 1:13. Hence on the church's birthday the apostle Peter told the convicted Jews to "Repent and be baptised", and they "should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". It was a consequence for genuine faith, never a necessary accompaniment of the water. Indeed in Acts 10:44 we see the believers received the gift, attested by outward powers, before they were baptised in the name of Jesus Christ (ver. 48). So false is the ignorant and dangerous tradition which identifies the baptism of water and that of the Spirit. John 3:3-8 means no baptism at all.

That this was the Pentecostal gift none can surely doubt; and the Lord Himself defines this as the Baptism of the Spirit (Acts 1:5). The apostle Paul assures us that by this we are brought into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). This is certainly neither the effect nor the accompaniment of water baptism, as with the ritualists: for at Pentecost the hundred and twenty were not baptized with water, and the converts here in Samaria had all both faith and baptism, yet had not the Spirit. Moreover, while in Jerusalem baptism was a prerequisite, in the case of the Gentiles afterwards the Spirit fell on them before the baptism (Acts 10:47). Thus every way there have been distinguished for us things which should never have been confounded. The analogy between them manifestly is, that as water-baptism introduces into the outer sphere of profession, so that of the Spirit introduces into the inner circle of the Church of God.

The whole adult baptism view falls before my mind, as utterly unscriptural and ill-founded - scripture, moreover, in practice, never speaking of a testimony, but of a benefit conferred: "What doth hinder me to be baptised?" (the following verse, I apprehend, is not authentic scripture, though I doubt not in such a case very right, but not the then way of dealing, however), and "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Hence the question as to children is entirely changed. It is a simple question of who is to be received. All the arguments from the mere incapacity of the infant, have no weight. It is a question of grace, and whether the infant is to be brought into the place where the Holy Ghost dwells, or left in the world where Satan governs.

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.)

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.