Many Christians will “baptize” (that is, sprinkle water on) their infants, and believe that they are following the command of Scripture. I will refer such persons to a book by William Shirreff, entitled Lectures on Baptism. He lived probably about 150 years ago, and was a life-long Presbyterian, and a minister, until the end of his life when he began studying the practice of paedo-baptism, and came to the conclusion that it is not mandated nor even warranted by Scripture. He gave a series of lectures (compiled in this book) to those of his loving and beloved congregation who wondered how he could leave the Presbyterians and join himself to the Baptists, to explain his position, and to attempt to turn them from their error. While I agree with what he said, I make a further conclusion, and I think an important one.

Paedo-baptists (those who baptize, or sprinkle, their infants) will found their authority to do so based on the command given to Abraham to circumcise all of his offspring. Since it precedes the Law, I suppose that they believe that command to be still in force. (Click here for a fuller explanation of my position on that.)

Mr. Shirreff made many excellent points that are well worth considering, but I think that he allowed the waters to remain a little muddy in one point. The New Testament does liken baptism to circumcision (which Mr. Shirreff does allow). The point that I believe he leaves a little unclear is that all of the physical offspring of Abraham were to be circumcised, as a mark of their belonging to the Abrahamic covenant, just as all of the spiritual offspring of Abraham (otherwise called in the Bible, “true Israel,” “believers,” “the elect,” etc.) should be baptized, as a mark of their belonging to the New Covenant. The comparison holds. New believers are many times referred to as being in a state of spiritual infancy: in John 3 is the term “born again”; other passages mark a new birth, adoption, and newness of life, as well as Scriptures such as 1 Peter 2:2 which says, “as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word…..” Here, then, is the comparison: newborn natural descendants of Abraham were circumcised, while newborn spiritual descendants of Abraham are to be baptized.

Mr. Shirreff shows in many ways that infants cannot fulfill the prerequisites of baptism given in the Scriptures, including being taught, believing, confessing sin, etc. Since they cannot give evidence of being spiritually alive (born again, spiritual infants), then they cannot receive spiritual circumcision, that is, baptism. He further points out that many (perhaps even most) of the babies who were sprinkled grew up to be reprobates. They gave great evidence to their not being Christian, not being believers, never having been born again. They certainly were not believers when they received baptism. The Bible clearly says that believers are to be baptized. In sprinkling infants, that clear command is being violated in two ways. Not only are unbelievers being “baptized,” but if any of these children do grow up to become believers, they are refused baptism as believers, because of their having been sprinkled as an infant.

Is sprinkling water or pouring water over someone “baptism”? No. I don’t care how far back you can trace the practice of sprinkling or pouring water over anyone–whether an adult believer or the infant of a believer–it does not go back to the Bible, and is therefore not Scriptural. First of all, the English word “baptism” (and all derivatives) is not a translation but a transliteration of the Greek word which means to dip or immerse. Translators of the Bible were primarily sprinklers (or the king in charge was), and to accurately translate this word would be to condemn their form of baptism. The first time that baptism is talked about in the New Testament, we see John the Baptist at the Jordan River. Why was he not beside a well, if all he needed was enough water to pour over someone’s head? Other times that baptism is described show similar amounts of water, including the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (who was likely baptized in the Mediterranean Sea). In this account (Acts 8), it clearly says that both Philip and the eunuch went into the water. Why? If all that was required was for Philip to pour some water over the eunuch’s head, why was not a servant sent for a bowl of water? Nowhere is there a change outright described, nor even intimated.

The onus of proof rests with those who would countermand the clear words of the Bible, and change the obvious intent of what is stated by nebulous tangential arguments drawn from out-dated Old Testament practices and post-Biblical Catholic practices.

*Update* Since writing the above, I have finished typing out a pamphlet-sermon by Isaac Watts written in 1806 entitled, Infant Sprinkling No Baptism. It will soon be posted to the Mt. Zion PBC website, under “Articles and Books” (and there are many other works there, for your perusal). In the meantime, however, here is part of it which is pertinent to the last paragraph–that of when did sprinkling and/or pouring become used in place of immersion:
The church of Rome confesseth, by a learned pen, the Marquis of Worcester, in his Cortam. Relig. “The she changed dipping the party baptized over the head, into sprinkling upon the face.”That until the third century we find not any upon any consideration did admit of sprinkling.—The first we meet with is Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus, L. 4. Ep. 7, where he pleads for the baptizing of the sick by sprinkling, and not by dipping or pouring, called the Clinical baptism. Mag. Cent. 3 C. 6 P. 126. As also for sprinkling of new-converted prisoners, in the prison-house; and which by degrees afterwards they brought in use for sick children also, and then afterwards all children. Here you see its origin and its progress, oh! how is fine gold become dim, and the pure gold changed, when men lay aside the commands of God, and follow the traditions of men. Admission of persons to baptism, who are not visible saints, is a profanation of an holy ordinance, to proclaim an agreement between Christ and Belial; concord between light and darkness; an abuse of God’s ordinance; the highway to make the people Atheists, and to believe nothing that God hath declared.