Why Baptize by Pouring and Baptize Babies

When God made a church covenant with Abraham for the generations to follow He made an everlasting covenant and in it He included children. This covenant was to continue as long as the human race. Read Gen. 17:7: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee In their generations for an everlasting covenant." Again, Gen. 17:9: "And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations." Circumcision was the sign or "token of the covenant." Read Gen. 17:10-11. While other covenants God made with the people were local and temporary, like the one made with Noah (Gen. 9:9), and the one at Sinai (Ex. 34:28), etc., this covenant was universal and everlasting as much so as the atonement. God organized the church to last until the end of time and this covenant was to be coextensive with it. It was an unalterable covenant and could never be abrogated. This covenant was made with Abraham 1911 years before Christ was born. Another covenant was made with Moses 1481 years before Christ or 430 years after the covenant with Abraham. Read Gal. 3:17, also Acts 8:25. Alexander Campbell says concerning this covenant: "This covenant, then, was ratified with Abraham concerning the Messiah and unalterably settled. Consequently, the law, or covenant with the whole nation of Israel, 430 years after this time, could not disannul the promise in another covenant, concerning persons not present, and, therefore no party In that covenant."

Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the visible church before Christ came. It was the sign or "token of this covenant." Before Christ came the sign or token of the Passover was the paschal lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs and wine. Under the new economy Christ left off the peachal lamb and bitter herbs and perpetuated the sacrament of the Lords Supper with only two of these elements-bread and wine. In like manner water baptism alone took the place of the whole ceremony of circumcision. Under the former or old economy when a Gentile family was proselyted into the Jewish chnrch, the only visible church and the church that contained the above covenant, the males were circumcised and baptized with water and the females, old and young, even babies, were only baptized with water. Chrysostom, one of the early Christian writers of the first centuries after the apostles, says: "There was pain and trouble in the practice of Jewish circumcision; but our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain as this is for infants as well as men." No Bible scholar can produce a single clear-cut pas.. sage of scripture to prove that John the Baptist, any of the twelve apostles or any of the eight writers of the New Testament, except Paul, were baptized by any mode in mature years. Where were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc., baptized if not in infancy? Here we believe is the solution to this question. If they were ever baptized at all it must have been when babies at eight days of age.

THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS AND THE CHURCH OF TODAY ARE THE SAME-BOTH UNDER THE SAME COVENANT

Those who oppose infant baptism as a rule deny the fact that there was a visible church organization back of the coming of Christ. When Christ was on earth He did not organize a visible church, neither did He suggest any name for a visible church. Why? Because one was already in existence. It was the church of the "everlasting covenant." The Christian Standard holding the belief of Alexander Campbell, carried the following statement January 1, 1932: "People came in under the old covenant at the age of eight days by circumcision. That is, they came in before they were able even to 'know the Lord into whose covenant they were entering. Consequently each and all of them had to be taught subsequently the most elementary things, to 'know the Lord." The form of church government which God gave to the Jews, that which Christ lived under, we live under today. The moral laws which God gave to Abraham and Moses are binding upon us today as they were upon them then. Certain sacrificial laws were nailed to the cross but no moral law was ever revoked. The visible church of today is the church God started with Abraham (see Gen. 17:7 and Ps. 105 :8-10). Some of our friends do not like to acknowledge this fact because that church included children. Jesus said this church would be taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles (see and carefully read Matt. 21:33-43). The "vineyard" God planted was the visible church. He "let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen." See Rom. 11:13-25. It was not a new visible church. Paul, writing to the Ephesians (Eph. 2:20), says they were "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone." The gospel message was in "the church in the wilderness" as it is in the church today. Peter, addressing a multitude of Jews on the day of Pentecost, said (Acts 2:39): "For the promise is unto you and to your children." These Jews had been taught to receive children and give them the token of the Abrahamic covenant. The Jews did not have to be taught such a thing. They had already been educated along this line. Genesis 17:7 and Acts 2:39 harmonize, "to thee and thy seed" and "to you and to your children." See also Gen. 12:3 and Acts 3:25. When the disciples asked Jesus "Who Is the greatest In the kingdom of heaven?"--the visible church-He "called a little child" and "set him in the midst of them" and said, "Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me" (Matt. 18:5). Pray tell us how some churches receive little children in the name of Jesus? They take them into the Sunday School and record their names and count them, but they will not take them into the church. They take the old sheep into the warm fold, but the little lambs must lie out on the porch or under the shed until they are grown. God nor Jesus treated them this way. God Included them in His covenant with Abraham and said it was to be an "everlasting covenant." Jesus said (Matt. 19:14): "Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven"-visible church.

Those who oppose infant baptism claim that there Is no specific command to do so. Neither is there a spe cific command in the Bible to give the Lords Supper to women. Nothing is said about sex or age. If our friends are honest in this matter of not baptizing Infants because there Is no specific command to do It, why do they not quit giving the Lords Supper to women? Women belong to a class that Jesus had in mind when He said, "Do this in remembrance of me." There is an axiom that, "Whatsoever is commanded of a class, may be commanded of each Individual In that class." When God said, "And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children," He meant males and females. When Christ said, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," He Included children. Are not children a part of all nations? Christ meant, of course, all who were and would become subjects of His kingdom. Christ said of children, "For of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children are in a saved state through the atoning merits of the blood of Christ until they reach the age of accountability. Requirements of faith are made upon those only who can exercise it. All others are saved without faith. Idiots who have been idiots all their lives are in a saved state through the merits of the blood of Christ. Small children are in a saved state and God commanded that they should have the sign of it. Acts 3:25 says: "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant, which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."

Psalm 105:8-10 reads: "He hath remembered His covenant forever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations, which covenant He made with Abraham, and His oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant." Until Christ were only forty-two generations (see Matt. 1:17). So you see that this covenant of "a thousand generations" did not cease when Christ came. Jesus first commanded His disciples to go "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." These disciples knew, and all who are familiar with Jewish history know, that when a Gentile family was proselyted into the Jewish church, all were baptized (sign of purity, for which all sprinkling and pouring of water was done in ancient times), men, women and children. When later, some two years, Christ said again to His disciples, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," these men who were familiar with infants being baptized certainly did not understand that this practice should cease. Christ did not tell them to quit it. The reason this may not seem specific to some is because this was a familiar custom among the Jews and why should Christ say any more about it?

We are giving a panoramic view of cases of infant baptism in the Bible as proof of this practice. In the establishment of the visible church God commanded that children be initiated into it. A penalty was imposed if they were not initiated, "That soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:14). The Lord commanded circumcision and baptism takes the place of circumcision-a sign of spiritual purity. Christ instituted baptism with water alone, leaving off the ceremony that related to circumcision or the cutting of the flesh. Circumcision, instituted of God, had its place before Christ as did sacrificial laws. Christ instituted infant and adult baptism with water alone in these words: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Now let us see what God says about the matter. Joel 2:16: It is "saith the Lord"; "Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breast." Does this not take all in-big, little, old and young? What does the word sanctify mean here? One passage for intelligent minds will suffice. Heb. 9:19: "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people." Please do not forget that water baptism was in use for fifteen hundred years before Christ. Turn to 1 Cor. 10:1-2. Verse 2 says: "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." There were at least 100,000 small children in this company. God did the baptizing. Paul calls this baptism, and David says the water was "poured" upon them. Now what condemnation will our friends who oppose infant baptism heap upon God for baptizing 100,000 children? Why condemn us for following not only the command of the Lord but the Lord Himself?

Now we come into the New Testament, but this book did not exist in the days of Christ on earth. When it was finally written, however, it contained certain records. Here is one of the first: John the Baptist was initiated into the church-the only church in the world, Gods visible church-at eight days of age. If he ever had any other baptism except infant baptism at eight days of age, no record was ever made of it. The same is true of all the apostles and all the writers of the New Testament except Paul. Paul was considered a proselyte, otherwise his infant baptism no doubt would have been accepted. Mary had Jesus initiated into the same church at eight days of age. This was His church baptism. Peter, a Jew, raised in this church that baptized infants, which church God commanded to baptize infants, preached on the day of Pentecost these words: "For the promise is unto you and to your children." If Moses in this same church and under this same covenant, took a hyssop weed and dipped it in water and baptized all the people, men, women and children; and God baptized 100,000 children with their parents at the Red Sea, why should we doubt the fact that Peter who was familiar with the Scriptures baptized children among the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost? He certainly was not ignorant of the customs of his church. The apostles baptized whole families. John Wesley, commenting on Lydia, who was "baptized and her household," says: "Who can believe in so many families there was no infant? or that the Jews who were so long accustomed to circumcise their children would not now devote them to God by baptism?" Paul baptized "the household of Stephanas" and the jailor and all "his house." The words "household" and "family" mean that there are children in them. A Syrian manuscript of the New Testament, claimed to be the oldest version in the world, relating the baptism of Lydia "and her household" and the jailor and "his house," Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33-34, reads: "Lydia and her children" and the jailor and "his children" were baptized.

Those who succeeded the apostles left behind written records that clearly prove the custom of Infant baptism among the apostles and early churches of our Christian era. Origen, a Greek, born A.D.185, whose father, grandfather and great grandfather were Christians, extending back to the time of the apostles, says they received the custom of baptizing children from the apostles and that it was a universal custom among the churches. He says: "According to the usages of the church, baptism is given even to infants." He records that he himself was a baptized child. Justin Martyr, born in Palestine at Shechem, who very likely saw the Apostle John, wrote in A.D. 138 that there were then "Christian persons of both sexes, some sixty, some seventy years old, who had been made disciples from their infancy." What did he mean by being "made disciples from their infancy"? Simply that they were baptized in infancy. He says further: "We are circumcized by baptism with Christs circumcision." Read again from Justin Martyr: "We also who by Him have had access to God, have not received the carnal circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed, but spiritual circumcision; and we have received it by baptism." In A.D. 250, Cyprian and others were In a church council meeting and Fidus, one of the early fathers, wrote to them that infants should not be baptized until they were eight days of age, "and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded," to which they answered: "To our Brother Fidus greeting: That whereas you think that the rule of circumcision should be observed, and that children were not to be baptized before they were eight days old, we were of a contrary opinion; and as the grace of baptism is to be withheld from no one and especially from children, our decisIon is that they may be baptized not only before they are eight days old, but as soon as they are born." Hermas (see Rom. 16:14), a contemporary with the Apostle Paul, speaks of infants receiving the seal of baptism in these words: "Now that seal is the water of baptism." Clement, whom Paul mentions in PhIl. 4:3, advised parents: "Baptize your infants and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." He did not advise "carnal circumcision." Wby? Christ did away with that part of the old ceremony. Irenaeus, born A.D. 97, a pupil of Polycarp, who was a convert of the Apostle John, says: "The church learned from the apostles to give baptism to infants." He says again: "For He (Christ) came to save all persons by Himself-all, I mean, who are regenerated (baptized) unto God; infants and little ones and children and youth and elder persons." This throws light on Jewish customs concerning proselytes-all were baptized, parents, young people and children. Augustine says again: "The whole church has of old held to infant baptism." Pelagius, a contemporary with Augustine and one of the most learned men of the church of his day, in a letter to Innocent said: "Men slander me, as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants. I never heard even an impious heretic say they ought not to be baptized." He continues: "For who is so ignorant of evangelic writing as to have such a thought." Jerome said: "Baptism was given to infants according to the practice of the church." Both Ambrose and Chrysostom tell us that "infant baptism may be traced to apostolic times."

ORIGIN OF OPPOSITION TO INFANT BAPTISM Our friends who oppose infant baptism assert that it is a Romish doctrine originating in the Roman Catholic Church-a "child of popery," they call it. History refutes such an idea. It was hundreds of years after the birth of Christ before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence. We have produced overwhelming evidence that the apostles and early church fathers baptized children. We have writings of a lot of them and they all agree. No evidence is clearer than that of the early church confirming the baptism of children. Augustine, one of the early Christian leaders, said: "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded or counted needless: nor believed to be anything else than an ordinance delivered to us by the apostles." He says again, "It was not in stituted by councils but was ever in use." Such statements by Augustine and others were made before there ever was a Roman Catholic Church. Now we propose to show how and when opposition to infant baptism originated. We quote from Dr. Wall, known as one of the greatest authorities on infant baptism in the world. He says: "For the first four hundred years after Christ, there appears only one man (Tertullian) who advises the delay of infant baptism in some cases; one Gregory, who did, perhaps, practice such delay in the case of his own children; but no society of men so thinking, or any one man saying It was unlawful to baptize infants; so in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found who either spoke for or practiced such delay, but all to the contrary. And, when about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses, or Albigenes declared against the baptism of infants as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected this opinion, and those of them who held that opinion quickly dwindled away and disappeared; there being no more persons holding that tenet until the rising of the German Anabaptist in the year 1522." In the above statement you have the origin of opposition in a nutshell. Tertullian, born A.D. 145, died A.D. 220, was a believer in infant baptism, but he believed in baptismal regeneration, and his idea was to delay baptism until just before death, because he believed it washed away sin. He advised infant baptism in the case of a child dying. He is the only one who even advised delay in baptism to infants for a thousand years or more after the apostles. Today five per cent of nominal Christians of the world oppose infant baptism. Three hundred years ago one per cent opposed it, and about six hundred years ago there was, you might say, no opposition to It at all.

I have already shown that there was no objection to Infant baptism for hundreds of years after Christ was born. I come now to modern objections to infant baptism, all of which comparatively is among immersionist churches. They assert that there is no command in the Bible to baptize children. I have produced sufficient evidence, It seems to me, to prove by the Bible that God commanded it in His directions to organize a visible church. God Himself baptized some 100,000 children at one time (1 Cor. 10:1-2). Christ commanded it when He said, "Go ye therefore and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Christ Himself commanded that children be received in His name (Mark 9:37). It is claimed that children cannot understand the meaning of baptism. Neither could Jewish children understand the meaning of circumcision and the other part of the ceremony which pertained to water baptism, notwithstanding the parents were required of the Lord to have their children so dedicated. It Is claimed, furthermore, that children do not have the right to choose for themselves. Do children choose for themselves in other matters, such as washing their faces, kind of food they eat, running out in the weather, rain, cold and snow, going to school? Parents look after their children in material ways and why not in religious matters? Why should children be left to chance in the matter of the welfare of their souls? God did not leave them to chance? He made it plain in His covenant with Abraham that children should have the protection of the church. It is asked, "What good will water baptism do a child?" What good will it do an adult? Answer this question and it will help you to answer the other one. Objectors say that children cannot keep the commandments, therefore they are not subjects of baptism. We read in Acts 15:24, "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law." Could an infant back there keep the law? Of course not. Infants at such an age are no more expected to keep the commandments today than Jewish children then were expected to keep the law. They were to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and led to "know the Lord." This is what the Lord expects of us now-have our children dedicated to Him, train them in the way of the Lord and lead them to "know the Lord." In conclusion we quote from "Infant Baptism" by Rev. C. W. Miller: "It thus appears that the church founded upon the covenant with Abraham, and which for nineteen hundred years, in administering the law of that covenant, received infants to membership and gave them the token thereof, is the church of God today, with no change in her great constitutional law or in her subjects. This being true, infant baptism follows inevitably as the law of Gods church now."

BENEFIT OF INFANT BAPTISM One question we often hear concerning infant baptism is, What good comes from it? This in substance is questioning Gods attitude toward infants, for anyone can see that He was so much concerned about children that He included them in the covenant with Abraham in the beginning of the organized visible church. Why dedicate a church building to God? Why dedicate a ship, stone monument, or anything else? Are not children of more value than stones and buildings? The tabernacle and sacred vessels in the tabernacle were dedicated, as well as the altar. Jacob set up a stone at Bethel and dedicated it. Saul, David, Solomon, Elisha, Jacob and Moses were all dedicated, and by the way all this was done by sprinkling and pouring. Go to the Bible and see for yourself. Mary had the little child Jesus dedicated. Dont question us about these things, question God and the Bible. In past years penitentiaries have been visited and search made regarding the effect that infant baptism had on individuals. Both Tennessee and Kentucky penitentiaries were visited and not an individual Protestant was found who had been baptized in infancy. Here is a statement from a preacher: "There was a statement made that there was not a Protestant in the penitentiary who was baptized in infancy. My son was guard at the penitentiary at Frank-fort and I told him to see if there was. He investigated that matter, and he never found a Protestant there who was baptized in infancy the several years he worked there as guard."

A FINAL WORD I want to pass on this part of my research: It seems that the male child was circumcised at eight days of age. In forty days after birth, the mother went up to the temple to be purified. At the same time the child was presented in the temple to be purified with the mother. See Luke 2:21-22, Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:6-7. Purification ceremonies in Old Testament times, use of water, had the same meaning as water baptism under the New Testament dispensation. Bible proof: John 3:25-26. "Then there arose a question between some of Johns disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." And last, the Lords Supper reminds us of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Water baptism, by affusion, is our only reminder of the Holy Ghost.

This is just the part from the article about paedobaptism. The argument for baptism by pouring can be found at the link.

Flame warriors, unite!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 10/06/2003 3:44:46 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)

4 posted on 10/06/2003 4:31:19 PM PDT by xzins (And now I will show you the most excellent way!)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.