Most of those who practice “infant baptism,” actually do not baptize their infants. No, they usually sprinkle, pour, or dab small amounts of water on the infant.   According to its very definition, to baptize means to immerse.  As one notices the cases where folks were being baptized by first century teachers (including Jesus and John the immerser), they went to the water, then went down into the water and came up out of the same. More about this “mode” later in our study.

   Edward T. Hiscox says: “One of the customs held and upheld by Pedobaptist churches, which Baptist seriously condemn, is infant baptism. It is  practiced  by  both  Roman Catholics and Protestants as a religious institution; and though not held as sacredly, or practiced as widely as formerly, it still prevails to a wide extent throughout the Christian world.  And yet it was not instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His
apostles, nor known in the primitive churches, and has neither sanction nor recognition in the word of God.  It is for this reason that Baptist utterly reject and condemn the custom, as not simply useless and without authority, but as a most pernicious and hurtful usage; that it is injurious both to the child that receives it, and to the churches which allow it, can be shown.  Baptism before faith, and without a profession of it, contradicts and does violence to all New Testament teaching.” (The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, Edward T. Hiscox, D.D. Chapter XII, Page 129,130).  It so happens that on this matter my brethren and I are in agreement with Mr. Hiscox and our Baptist friends.  2 John 9  teaches  “if we do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, we have not God.”  To act without authority from
Christ is sinful (Colossians 3:17; 1 John 3:4; 2 John 9-11).   It is a sinful act to “baptize”  infants or any other unbeliever since Jesus stated His will in the following passages (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew  28:18-20; Luke 24:45-47).  It is interesting to note that later in his Standard Manual, Mr. Hiscox argues and repudiates baptism as being a part of the “new birth” of the water and of the Spirit , as the Scripture plainly teaches (John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:20-21; Galatians 3:26-29; Acts 22:16).  If as our Baptist friends contend, baptism is a command one is not obligated to obey as our Lord ordered it, why do you suppose they spend so much time arguing over the action “mode” involved?

   While Hiscox says Scriptural baptism is only to be administered to a believer and that only immersion qualifies as baptism, I now call to your attention Luther’s teaching as found in his catechism on this subject: “What is the meaning of the word “baptize?”  Baptize means to apply water by washing, pouring, sprinkling, or immersing,” (Page 170 Luther’s Small Catechism.)  Luther then asked a question and gave his opinion about infant baptism, saying, “How do you prove that infants, too, are to be baptized? Infants, too, are to be baptized because they are included in the words all nations.”  He gives the “great commission” passages as  “proof” of infant baptism. Those very passages refute the practice, as they clearly say, “teach and baptize believers, and then teach them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-20).

   What do we have here?  Mr. Hiscox is right to teach that baptism is only immersion.  He is right that it is only for believers.  He is wrong as to its design or purpose.  Luther was wrong as to the action of  baptism.  He was wrong as to who should  be baptized. He was correct as to the biblical design or purpose for which one who is the proper candidate should be baptized, “to be regenerated” or born again. But even that quote shows some fallacies. “Because Holy baptism is the only means whereby infants, who too, must be born again, can ordinarily be regenerated and brought to faith...”(Ibid, page 173).

  Consider what I say now. Both Hiscox and Luther believed that an infant is “born in sin,”  or hereditarily totally depraved.  Luther was consistent if his major premise was correct that children are born sinners. Recognizing baptism as the final act of the “new birth,” of which Jesus spoke in (John 3:3-5).  But herein lies the problem for those who practice “infant baptism,”  they are as wrong as can be about the state of children at birth!  Infants are “safe” they are pure, they are totally sin free at
birth and will so remain until they have the mental capacity to know and to choose between right and wrong (James 1:13-15; 1 John 3:4; Ezekiel 18:20; Matthew 18:1-3; 19:14). Please read these passages.   Notice the dilemma!  Mr. Hiscox has an infant a depraved child of the Devil at birth.  He knows he can’t baptize him because he is an unbeliever, but he also doesn’t believe baptizing a believer saves him as Peter by inspiration wrote (1 Peter 3:20-21; Acts 2:38).  What happens to Mr. Hiscoxs’ infant who dies before faith?  Some hold to the Calvinistic view which says “there are babies in hell not a hand span long.”  See how confusing it is when uninspired men write human creeds and others use them to determine what to believe and practice in serving Christ?  Why not just take the word of Christ?  We can unite on that. Whatever the New Testament teaches you on  this subject, it also teaches me.  Paul wrote, “..God is not the author of confusion,  but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1
Corinthians 14:33).  Paul said we should “study and rightly divide God’s word” (2 Timothy 2:15). He further said “when you read you may understand...” (Ephesians 3:4). Paul also said we should “be not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:17).  Peter said if we twist the Scriptures, we “do so to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).  Hiscox continued to write about the practice of infant baptism.

   Now, that infant baptism is not of Scriptural authority, and was not known in the first Christian ages, nearly all its advocates and defenders have with considerable candor admitted.  Only a few of their historians and scholars can be cited here.  Dr. William Wall, a learned divine of the English Church, who wrote the “History of Infant Baptism,” a work so able that the clergy in convocation assembled give him a vote of thanks for his defense of the custom, says: “Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infants.” (Hist, Inf. Bap., Intro. pp. 1, 55).
 
  Thomas Fuller, the historian, says: “We do freely confess  there is neither express precept nor precedent in the New Testament for the Baptism of  Infants,”  (Infants’ Advoc., pp. 71, 150).
 
  Luther says: “It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by first Christians after the apostles.” (Vanity of Inf. Bap., Part 11., p. 8.).  Having read this far, the last quote by Luther must seem strange seeing we just read why he said earlier infants should be baptized!  Luther must have gotten used to not getting too disturbed over practicing things not found in Scripture, as a Roman Catholic Priest.  If something seemed to “work” it was often embraced for this reason alone.

    In debate on the subject of this tract once, a Protestant preacher who could  not defend the practice successfully from the word of Christ, told the audience that infant baptism was “like the ox yoke; They had tried it, it worked, they liked it, and they were going to continue to practice it.” Read on for more evidence against the practice from “church historians.” Neander says: “Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith as strictly connected.  We
have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution.” (Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., p. 311; Plant, and Train., Vol. 1., p. 222).

   Professor Lange says: “All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the Apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament.” (Inf. Baptism, p. 101).  I could multiply page after page of such evidence from Hiscox and others, but this should suffice. I do desire to give some evidence from history as to the time in history when the practice arose.

   Since the New Testament knows nothing about infant baptism, and since it was neither instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His apostles, what was its origin, and when did it come into use? Tertullian is the first who mentions the custom, and he opposes it.  This was at the close of the second century, or about A. D. 200.  His opposition to it proves two things: First, that it was in occasional use, at least.  Second, that it was of recent origin, since had it been long used some earlier record of it could be found. (Neander, Ch. Hist., Vol. 1., p. 311).
   
  Bingham could find no earlier allusion to it than that of Tertullian, though he believed it arose earlier.  It must, therefore, as is generally agreed, have had its origin about the beginning of the third century.
Curcellaeus says: “The baptism of infants in the two first centuries after Christ was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few.  In the fifth and following ages it was generally received.” (Inst. Christ Religion, B.I., Ch. 12).

   As noted earlier in this study, the real reason behind infant baptism is the false notion that they are born in sin.  It was almost universally accepted that baptism of a penitent believer upon confession of faith in
Jesus Christ, was an essential element in the system of redemption in Christ until men changed it many years later. The only logical thing in their minds,  if they were to accept the idea that infants were black with sin, was, they must do something to remove this “depravity” in case they should die in this terrible state! Baptism became the “ritual” to which they attributed this almost magical power!  Talk about “water salvation!”

     Baptizing an unconscious incompetent infant against his will, (I’m told they almost always cry) is certainly placing lots of power in “water!”  I do not believe in what some call “baptismal regeneration”  if that is what it is.  I do not believe baptism alone, nor faith alone accomplishes the “new birth.”  No, it takes faith, repentance, confession of faith in Jesus and water baptism to remit alien sins. Baptism is the final act of the “new birth” which changes one’s state or one’s relationship from “out of Christ,”  “into Christ.” It removes one from the “kingdom of Satan” and translates one “into the kingdom of the Son of God’s love” (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12- 13; Colossians 1:13-14; Acts 2:22-38, 41,47; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 2:13- 16).

  Often we ask our Calvinistic friends who believe children are dead in sin at birth, “what happens if they die before they can believe?”  Guess what they answer, if you could call it an answer at all?  Something like, “a special providence of God watches over them, & even though they cannot believe, they are saved without faith.”  That may satisfy them, but it doesn’t satisfy the Lord and it is at odds with what His word which says, “..without faith it is impossible to please him...” (John 8:21-24; Hebrews 11:7).  The following quotes will prove that most all at one time in history knew that baptism was the final act in becoming a child of God, a “new creature” in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:16-18).

   Chrysostom, writing about A.D. 398, as cited by Suicerus, says: “It is impossible without baptism to obtain the kingdom,” and as cited by Wall he says: “If sudden death seize us before we are baptized, though we have a thousand good qualities, there is nothing to be expected but hell.” (Suicer., Thesaur. Eccl., Vol. 1., p. 3.)  Venema declares that “the ancients connected a regenerating power with baptism.”  He cites Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, and Cyprian as holding that opinion. (Eccl. Hist., Vol. 4, p. 3, Secs. 2).  Professor Fisher says: “Very early baptism was so far identified with regeneration as to be designated by that term. This rite was considered essential to salvation. (Hist. Christ. Ch., p. 83).  Bible students will recognize the names just cited as men who were known in church hisrory as  “early church fathers.”

   Mr. Hiscox did his research well, and set forth some important facts in opposition to infant baptism, with the exceptions I’ve already noted.  He likewise had no problem understanding that the action of the verb baptize is only immersion, not sprinkling, pouring, or any other action. Again I shall quote him from another page in Hiscox Manual For Southern Baptist Churches:

   What is Christian baptism?  This is the gravest question which enters into the baptismal controversy.  Other questions of moment there are in connection with it, touching the design, the efficacy, and the subjects. But it is of primary importance to know what constitutes baptism.

      Baptist answer the question by saying that baptism is the immersion. dipping, or  burying in water, of a professed believer in Christ, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Scapula says: “To dip, to immerse, as we do anything for the purpose of dyeing it.” Schleusner says: “Properly it signifies to dip, to immerse, to immerse in water.”

Parkhurst says: “To dip, immerse, or plunge in water.”  Robinson says: “To immerse, to sink.”  Liddell and Scott say: “To dip, repeatedly.” Grimm’s Lexicon of the New Testament, which in Europe and America stands at the head of the Greek lexicography, as translated and edited by  Professor Thayer, of Harvard University, thus defines baptize”  (1) To dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge. (2) To cleanse by dipping or submerging. (3) To overwhelm.

   The same Bible that teaches that we are saved by faith, (Romans 5:1,) likewise teaches that we are saved by baptism (1 Peter 3:21). Are we to accept one and reject the other as essential to salvation? Are the two ideas contradictory? Certainly not!  “..All of Thy commandments are  truth” (Psalm 119:151).

Baptism                                        Immerse       Sprinkle             Pour

Water (Acts 8:36                            Yes                Yes                    Yes

Much water (Jn. 3:23)                    Yes                 No                     No

Going to water (Acts 8:36)              Yes                 No                     No

Down In water (Acts 8:38)              Yes                 No                     No

Both people in (Acts 8:38)               Yes                 No                     No

A burial (Rom. 6:4)                         Yes                 No                     No

A resurrection (Rom.6:4)                 Yes                 No                     No

A birth (Jno. 3:5; Titus 3:5)             Yes                 No                     No

Body washed (Heb. 10:22)               Yes                 No                     No

Up out of water(Acts 8:39)               Yes                 No                     No

 One cannot be taught wrong and  obey right! A believer must repent of sin and error, confess Jesus as Lord and then his relationship is changed by the final act known as water baptism. This must be done from the heart to avail (Romans 6:3-6; 16-18; 1Cor. 15:1-4). Let us help you obey right. Call me at 1 (309) 347-5645 or the office at 1 (309) 347-3582.  Bible studies by appointment. Kenneth E. Thomas