 The
Proclaimer
"Infant Baptism"
Not long ago I was asked several questions about “infant
baptism.” When did it start? Why are infants “baptized?” Why do some
denominations do it even though they do not believe in the necessity of
baptism? First of all, we must understand there is rarely a practice of
infant baptism performed today. The fact is, that when the procedure
referred to as “infant baptism” is done today the infant is not immersed in
water. Instead, a few drops of water are poured or sprinkled upon the
child. Obviously this is not “baptism” of the Bible, for the Greek word
baptisma “consists of the process of immersion or submersion (from
bapto ‘to dip’).”
So where did the practice come from? There is nothing
in the New Testament that remotely suggests that infants had water applied
to them by sprinkling or pouring. In fact, there is no command, example or
inference (reasonable or necessary) in the New Testament that would sanction
any procedure (even immersion) meant to either secure or demonstrate
salvation on the part of an infant.
“Infant baptism” had its beginnings in the
post-apostolic era in the 3rd century, some 200 years after the
establishment of the church. When it began, infants were immersed. History
records only one case of sprinkling as early as A.D. 251, and it was not
recognized as valid. It wasn’t until A.D. 1311, in the Council of Ravenna,
that the Catholic Church first ordained these substitutes and sprinkling and
pouring became accepted. As Protestant churches developed during the
Reformation Era, infant sprinkling and pouring was also embraced.
History records that “infant baptism” developed because
of the idea of the hereditary total depravity of the entire human race. The
notion that babies are born into this world as sinners held accountable for
the original sin of Adam came from such early theologians as Augustine. The
result was the doctrine that infants needed to be saved from their inherited
sin and, therefore, need to be baptized.
While Catholics today continue to sprinkle babies so
that their sins might be forgiven, the irony is that most denominations that
practice “infant baptism” today do not do so for this reason, for they do
not believe in the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins. I
suspect that the vast majority of religious people in this day do not
understand what this doctrine really is, even the millions who belong to
churches that have this doctrine as a foundation in their denominational
system. What many today call “infant baptism” is often regarded only as an
act of dedication. While they are not sprinkling water on the babies, some
Churches of Christ (I’m told even here in Tyler) have begun dedicating
babies to the Lord in a similar fashion as denominations.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts
2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they
were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes
the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly
show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of
sins. But the practice of “infant baptism” is not authorized in the New
Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in
the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too
young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
-- Clark Dugger
The Proclaimer
|
