Does the Bible Teach Infant Baptism?
by David K. Bernard
Podcast recording (no venue stated in the delivered transcript)
Kind: teaching
Scripture: Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8, Acts 18:8, Colossians 2, Romans 2:29, Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 5, Romans 5:13

Source: https://acts238.life/repository/sermons/david-k-bernard--does-the-bible-teach-infant-baptism
Published by Acts 2:38 Life from the sermon transcript on that page.
Free to copy and share with attribution.

------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let's start with what the New Testament actually teaches and then we'll talk about the underlying theology or the underlying assumptions. But the New Testament is very clear that water baptism as well as spirit baptism requires two things.

Repentance and faith. So you see this Jesus Mark 16:16, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned. And he doesn't have the extra reference to baptism because obviously if you don't believe, you're not going to be baptized. Or if for some reason you got baptized without believing, it wouldn't do any good. So Jesus very strongly connects believing with baptism. Acts 2:38, the birthday of the church, the first sermon, all the twel apostles, responding to the question of how to be saved. It says,"Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." I believe that every one of you attaches to both repentance and baptism.

I believe for the remission of sins attaches to both repentance and baptism. So that you must repent in order for the bapti baptism to be effective. And then we find this carried out in the New Testament. So in Acts chapter 8 when Philip preached in Samaria, it says many believed and were baptized. And then Simon the sorcerer, it says he also believed and was baptized. And then later in Acts 8, although this is a disputed text as far as the underlying Greek text, uh Philip preached to the Ethiopian unic. He says, "What does hinder me to be baptized?" Well, and and Peter Philip said, "Well, if you believe, you can be." And so, he said, "I believe Jesus is the son of God." So, there's a very clear example.

First, you must believe. Then, in Acts uh 18:8, Paul's ministry in Corinth, it says, "Many believed and were baptized." So it's very clear in the New Testament that water baptism is for those who have repented of their sins and water baptism is for those who believed on Jesus Christ. So why would anybody think there should be infant baptism? Well, as you uh pointed out, one of the ideas is this theory uh that it's u comparable to circumcision. Well, it is true in Colossians 2, the Apostle Paul likens our new birth experience of being baptized in water and then raised by the spirit to circumcision under the old covenant.

But notice the parallel but also the contrast. In the Old Testament, God was calling out a physical nation and separating them so that they could uh receive the word of God and and carry it to the world and ultimately the Messiah would be born in that nation, carried to the world. So he had to preserve that physical nation. So he established the covenant uh which was based on male circumcision and that would be done to to children to infants. But under the new covenant, God is not trying to preserve a physical nation. He is bringing together a spiritual people out of every nation. So the basis is not physical circumcision but a spiritual circumcision.

And Colossians 2 includes both water baptism and the the receiving the Holy Spirit. Well, obviously an infant doesn't receive the Holy Spirit. So the spiritual circumcision is not just the baptism but it's baptism of water and spirit both of which are based on repentance and faith. You also see this in the other discussions of circumcision in the New Testament. For example, in Romans chapter 2 at the very end verse 29 Paul explains that under the new covenant we're not talking about physical circumcision but it's circumcision of the heart. Well, obviously there again that's a change of heart. So the old testament circumcision was symbolic of what would come under the new covenant is that your old life would be cut away and you would be filled with the spirit.

So I would I would agree that water baptism is the New Testament counterpart, but I would say it's water baptism and spirit baptism. And the water baptism and spirit baptism involve a change of heart, i.e. repentance and faith. So to fulfill the typology, you shouldn't baptize infants, but you should wait until they're capable of a spiritual circumcision of heart, capable of having their sins washed away in in um upon their faith and capable of receiving the Holy Spirit. So when you look at how the Bible treats circumcision, it actually would indicate to you New Testament circumcision is the new birth experience which is based on repentance and faith.

Now another thought related to this would be, well, what about all these infants? You know, they're they're going to die because of Adam's sins, so we got to get them in the covenant. And I think that's a misunderstanding. We do inherit the nature of sin uh as human beings, which goes back to Adam and Eve. But I do not think we inherit personal guilt apart from our own personal actions. You see this in Ezekiel 18:20. He says, "The children won't be punished for the sins of the father. The sins the father won't be punished for the sins of the children, but the soul that sins shall die." So it's individual personal responsibility.

in Romans chapter 5 which does explain how we all became sinners because of Adam's uh sin and then we can all become righteous because of Christ's atonement. Well, even there it's talking about the nature of sin because in that context the apostle Paul says I think it's chapter 5:13 he says now that sin is not reckoned uh when there is no law. So, so even there he's saying, "Well, if you weren't if you you might have been born in sin, you might have a nature of sin, but if you weren't told that something was wrong, then you're not accountable if you violate it." Well, that would be true of every infant because they have no knowledge of God's law.

They have no knowledge of sin. So, by that principle, God would not hold them accountable for something they had no control over. Now, this becomes another subject. But then, how does God treat infants? And the Bible doesn't explicitly say, but I believe that he has a plan for them. Uh though we we we have this idea we call the age of accountability, which could be individual, which could vary by each person, but I think in general what it indicates is a child is covered by God's grace um before they're really accountable for their sins. Then once they're accountable for their sins, whatever that is, only God knows.

As as I said, it could be different for each person and based on their background, experience, knowledge, training, and and I'll hasten to add, some might receive the Holy Spirit, might be capable even before they would really be accountable in that sense. Um, but anyway, certainly at some point, God will say, you are accountable for knowing what's right and wrong and for deliberately violating that. Then you then you will be guilty. But before that time I do believe God has some plan as we there are various indications in scripture u that children even Jesus said um you know let the little children come to me such is the kingdom of heaven.

So he indicated that there is some age where a child is covered by the grace of God because they don't have the true ability uh to repent and have faith and receive the Holy Ghost. So I my aunt so I I went to that to say I don't think we need baptism to try to take care of those kids. I think God has a plan of taking care of those kids. It doesn't require our involvement. It's also quite strange because a lot of these churches that teach that they teach very strongly justification by faith. Well, uh, so if on the one hand, if they say baptism is not necessary, you know, or if they say baptism is necessary, then okay, how is that by faith?

And Martin Luther did believe baptism was necessary, by the way. So he equivocated uh one time he said, well, it's the parents faith, which of course that doesn't fit the rest of the Bible, so you can be saved by somebody else's faith. And then he said, well, God gives faith to them. So God requires it, but they don't know it. He just gives faith to them. But that that did fit his doctrine of unconditional eternal security. But that kind of uh wipes out our the the biblical concept of faith. If faith is something you don't have any part of of of uh exercising, then in what sense is it faith?

If God is something God just gave you in order to save you, it's it's like it's a mechanical exercise where you know it's all external to you. It has nothing to do with you. So if baptism is necessary, where's the faith? if baptism is not necessary, why are we arguing about it, you know, don't baptize them, just wait. Uh it doesn't make any difference. So, I feel that we have to just go back to scriptural grounds and say clearly in the Bible, you're supposed to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of your sins, then we baptize you. Which, by the way, I think we should be careful not just have a mass invitation.

Oh, you want to be a Christian, you want to be saved, come get baptized. No, we should have a personal conversation, a personal prayer to ascertain to the best of our knowledge that person has truly repented of their sins and truly place their faith in Jesus Christ. To the point that when they come up out of the waters of baptism, we expect they would receive the Holy Ghost. And likewise, when small children want to be baptized, we should be very careful. I as a pastor would try to ascertain their level of understanding. And I would also ask the parents to ascertain the level of understanding because just because they hear a message I want to go to heaven, I don't want to go to hell or my friends are being baptized or my family is being baptized.

We should be careful. Is that child old enough to really understand faith and really understand repentance and have they truly repented? If not, I would not baptize them because I believe the grace of God will cover them. uh and so very small children I tend to discourage that until someone who is knowledgeable has personally prayed with them and affirmed we I really feel like they understand and have experienced this and I depend on the parents likewise. Uh but if they receive the Holy Ghost then I say well surely God would not have filled them with the spirit unless they did have faith and did repent to the level of their understanding.

So I would absolutely baptize them if they have definitely received the Holy Ghost with a sign of speaking in tongues. But I've had many cases over the years of people who came to me saying, you know, I was baptized as a child, but I don't really remember it. I just think I did it because I was told to. I don't feel good about it. My conscience condemns me. Would you baptize me? In those cases, I will because I want them to have a personal testimony. Uh but I I think but in other words, I would issue a caution about baptizing small children because we do need to uphold the priority of repentance and faith.