Isn’t it ironic that
the
Why doesn’t a church that is
named after something not believe in what it is named after?
Have you ever wondered why?
The reason is because the baptist
church was named after a practice that has since changed over the last several
hundred years, mainly since the time of the Reformation. You see, up until the
time of the Reformation, baptism was always “for the forgiveness of sins”. Up
until the time of the Reformation, there was no other practice of baptism
except baptism for the removal of sins. That was the reason behind the practice
of infant baptism. The practice of infant baptism arose because of the false
doctrine of “Original sin”—the idea that if a baby dies without first being
baptized it will be lost and go to hell. Before modern medicine, infant
mortality rates were extremely high. In order to supposedly prevent infants who
died from going to hell, the Catholic Church baptized them. This whole idea
came about because of the false belief that infants are in a “lost” state to
begin with. On the contrary, the Bible teaches infants enjoy a “saved” state to
begin with. The Bible teaches babies are born into the world in an innocent
state. For example, Jesus said, in reference to little children, the “the
kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14)
The bible teaches faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism
The concept of infant “baptism” is totally foreign to
the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of
“original sin.” The Bible does not give one single example or command of
any baby being baptized anywhere. The Bible does not teach
babies are born separated from God.
To explore the topic of
infant baptism we must also look into the erroneous teaching of “original sin.”
The idea behind baptizing a baby is to remove “original sin”, i.e., the sin of
Adam and Eve.
But if humans are “born in sin”
and separated from God, then Jesus would
not have been sinless. Jesus was not
50% God and 50% man. He was 100% God and 100% man. And “He committed no sin…” (1Peter 2:22; See also Hebrews 4:15) Sin is something we commit. Sin is not something we are born with or “in”.
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also
the law:
for sin is the transgression of the law. - 1John 3:4
The process of falling
is a step-by-step process in which we turn away from God and commit acts
contrary to His will:
but each one is
tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away
and enticed. Then,
after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is
full-grown, gives
birth to death. –
James 1:14-15
Notice in the above verses nowhere
does it even imply we are born in sin.
Paul taught that we
fall short because we sinned-
“For all have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God”-Romans 3:23
The word “sinned” is an active
verb. It means
we did something. We sinned. Although we have a disposition to sin, we are not born lost and separated
from God. How can babies who can’t even yet speak, sin?
Paul reiterates this idea again:
Therefore, just as
sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way
death came to all men, because all sinned—Romans
5:12
Notice this does not say men were born into
sin. It says death comes because we all sin.
The word “sinned” is an active verb. This means we have an active hand
in our own demise. It is something we do to ourselves. Sin is an act. We commit sin; We are not born condemned.
But since the false doctrine of
“Original sin” was so rampant and widespread and had invaded so much of the
church, the only “solution” to high infant mortality rates was to “baptize”
babies so they wouldn’t “go to hell”. But in God’s Truth, there was no need
because the Bible teaches infants who die go to be with God:
"Why didn't I die from the womb?
Why didn't I give up the spirit when my mother
bore me? Why did the knees receive me?
Or why the breast, that I should suck?
For now should I have lain down and been
quiet. I should have slept, then I would
have been at rest –Job 3:11-13
The Bible often uses the
term “sleep” and “rest” to describe a person who has died and gone to heaven.
See 1Cor 15:6,18,20
The
reasoning behind the error of baptizing babies and infants is to remove
“original sin” so that if they die they will go to heaven. But the Bible teaches
each man is accountable to God for his own sins, not the sins of others. Ask
your Jewish friends. The concept of “original sin” is foreign to Judaism.
Yet say you, Why
does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? when
the son has done that which is lawful and right, and has kept all my statutes,
and has done them, he shall surely live. The soul
who sins, he shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,
neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness
of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on
him. –Ezekiel 18:19-20
and
"Fathers shall not be put to
death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers;
everyone shall be put to death for his own
sin," --Deuteronomy 24:16
We are not held responsible
to God for Adam’s sin. Babies are not born separated from God. Therefore there
is no need to remove “original sin.” Baptizing an infant is an attempt to remove
sin that is not there. Sin is disobeying God’s commands. Sin is falling short
of His laws. What command has a baby disobeyed? Babies are not lost.
So once the “problem” of
infant mortality is “solved” (because infants who die go to heaven), there is
no need for infant baptism. But this was not the case for the erring Catholic
Church. The Catholic Church did mistakenly believe (and still does) babies who
die end up in hell if they are not baptized.
So now, enter the
Reformation—men were starting to get a hold of translations of the Bible they
could read in their own language and, through careful study of the Scriptures,
came to understand baptism was for people who had faith. This gave rise to the “Anabaptists”, which meant “re-baptizers”. So the “re-baptism”
they were re-baptizing for was the only baptism that was practiced up until
then—and that was baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
The difference for the “re-baptizers”, most appropriately, was that this
“re-baptism” was the same baptism for the forgiveness of sins, except that it
was administered only to adults or to those who were old enough to have faith
and believe the gospel—something an infant could not do. It was also immersion
and not sprinkling or pouring. Nonetheless, the reason and purpose of the baptism was the same as it was for
infants—for the forgiveness of sins.
This was where the practice and term “believer’s
baptism” came from. “Believer’s baptism” became a core belief to all
variations of baptist churches. A lot of effort went into trying to “save”
those who were not lost to begin with (infants), while missing out on trying to
save those who were now lost (adults).
So when the baptist church
started out, it practiced a different baptism then what is practiced today in
most modern “baptist” churches. Then, in
the very early days, baptist churches practiced a baptism for the forgiveness
of sins because they were trying to correct the erroneous practice of infant baptism with believer’s baptism. The difference was not in the reason and purpose of baptism, the difference was in who the baptism was administered to (infants vs. adults, i.e. believers). So to put in it other words, both baptisms were for the forgiveness of sins, but the
difference was that one was administered (wrongly) to infants and the other was
administered (correctly) to believers—those
old enough to have a personal faith in Jesus Christ.
Sadly today, the “baptism”
that is administered in most modern “baptist” churches is not the ONE baptism
in the New Testament (Ephesians 4:4-5). It is a man-made tradition that is not
found in the Bible. The “baptism” administered today in most modern baptist
churches is a baptism to “show” you’ve “already been saved”, a “public
confession of faith” as is sometimes called. But is it not to “wash your sins
away” (Acts 22:16) It is not “for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38), it
is not to “save you” (Mark 16:16, 1Peter 3:21), it is
not to “rise to new life” (Romans 6:3-5) and it is not to be “born again” (John
3:3-5). It is nothing more than a man–made tradition and practice that is
contrary to sound Biblical doctrine.
Although both Baptists and Catholics
share the same false belief in “original sin”, the Catholic Church had a “solution”
to save babies—infant baptism. But, using Baptist doctrine, the
For Further Study:
How
baptist churches got from where they were then to where they are today: Ulrich Zwingli Repudiates the Biblical View on Baptism
See also:
●The Undeniable Facts—Historical Records and Writings of Early Christians
●Questions for those
who insist babies are born “lost”