Infant Baptism and Circumcision

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.

What does the Bible say?

This past month, I’ve been amazed at how several things have come together to show how the Bible truly is “the Book of books.” One of the main things has been reading the book called The Heart of Anger, by Lou Priolo. I didn’t realize what the premise of the book was at the time I picked it up–I was just looking for something to read, and that looked like I could skim through it pretty quickly. While it is simple, it is extremely profound! Not only is it not something I could skim through, I think I’m going to have to read it several times to really be able to implement it. The best thing about it is that it is truly biblically based–I was astounded at how many references there were–it seemed like there was a Bible reference after every sentence sometimes. It really made me realize that if I knew my Bible better, I could find in it the answers to a lot of life’s disturbing questions.

Investing for the Future, by Larry Burkett, is another book–I’ve just started it, and am only a few chapters into it. But it also looks to the Bible for the basis of money management. I’ve read through the Bible more than once, so that’s not totally surprising, but still–Wow! the Bible which is so spiritual and heavenly-minded also talks about the physical realities and carnal concerns of man.

A third book that I’m almost done with is Lectures on Baptism, by William Shirreff. This man (who died during Charles Spurgeon’s lifetime–probably nearly 150 years ago now) was a Presbyterian minister who late in life became convinced that infant baptism was insupportable by the Scriptures, and left the church over whom he’d been a minister for decades, and was baptized–immersed–and became a Baptist. He wrote this series of lectures to explain to his much-loved former congregation why he left, and also hoped to convince them of their error in continuing in paedobaptism. I have found this book to be an extremely interesting read as well, also because of its strong recurring theme of “what does the Bible say?”

My husband and I are having discussions about something that is going on in our church. For most people it would be a non-issue–and it has been for me as well. However, what does the Bible say about it? Primitive Baptists have not historically had Sunday School. In general, our denomination says, if it’s in the Bible, we’d better do it; if it’s not, we’d better not. That’s why we sing a capella, have only male preachers & deacons, immerse, baptize only believers, don’t have missionary societies, etc. So we don’t have “Sunday School,” but for years on Wednesday nights, the children have come to the front and sung some Christian songs, and then had a little Bible lesson. It’s all done in the presence of the parents and the entire church, but it is “children’s church” even if we don’t call it that.

Sunday School started back before child-labor laws, when children often worked very hard all week and only had Sunday off, so some people decided to start teaching them reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic on their day off, so it was truly “school” on Sundays. Then, children were no longer employed, and most went to schools; and Sunday school evolved into teaching children on Sunday some of the “nuts and bolts” of Christianity, as well as songs, Bible stories, etc. What’s wrong with that?

Well, what’s wrong with it, is that it’s not in the Bible.

There is the concept of Christian liberty in the Bible, but before you can claim liberty in a matter, you have to determine what the Bible has to say about that matter–both by its words and its silence. What does the Bible say about the teaching of children? (This is a separate discussion from secular education.) It says that fathers and/or parents are to teach their children, to raise them in the fear of the Lord, to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Whenever the Bible talks about how children are to learn (religious/spiritual things), it is in the context of the family, and usually with the father doing the instructing, or at least superintending the education. In the Old Testament, there is the positive injunction of fathers to speak to their sons as they were working side by side in their daily work–to talk about the Law all the time–going in, coming out, walking along the road, etc. There is nothing in the New Testament that seems to change that, and certainly no hint that someone else’s father is supposed to teach that child. There is no account in the New Testament of children being separated from their parents and being taught a special sermon or a different gospel. In the descriptions of Christians meeting together, there are times when children would probably have been present (the meetings in houses, for example), but there is no hint of them being anywhere except with their own families.

“Well, how is my child supposed to learn stuff about the Bible, if he doesn’t have children’s church or Sunday school? He can’t understand what the preacher is saying to adults about the Bible–and the preacher shouldn’t have to stop and explain it to the kids the parts they can’t understand!” Very true. What does the Bible say? The Bible says that fathers are to teach and explain it to their kids. It’s the father’s job, not the preacher’s job, not the youth minister’s job.

“Well, I [or my husband] don’t know the Bible well enough for all that.” Well you should! If you’re a Christian, then you should. End of story.