Infant Baptism or Believer's Baptism?

This topic has been heavy upon my heart for months and I was recently engaged in a discussion on the same. {Note, I have slightly modified my opening paragraphs, the other content remains the same.}

The question is not:  Which one is right?  Rather, what does the Word state and/or show?  And, if I am not lined up, am I willing to set aside my preconceived ideas and/or denominational teaching to sit and learn at the feet of the Master?

While I held to Believer's Baptism, I had to know for myself what the Holy Word said regarding the issue.  I am simply sharing what I discovered in my journey.

The article which got the ball rolling:  The Sin of Infant Baptism.  If you'd like an overview of both Infant Baptism (IB) and Believer's Baptism (BB),  follow the links provided.  This is my offering, prayerfully submitted in hopes that unity amongst brethren would be the first priority and that fellowship would be maintained and enhanced.  That we would all grow in our wisdom and knowledge of our Lord and HIS Holy Writ.

Depending upon the length of my response, right now I am going to deal with the verses which detail some type of baptism and/or filling of the Spirit, as evidence against household baptism including infants.

Let me start with this verse:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  (Romans 10:13)

Let me stress stringently that context is KING.  A verse CAN NOT, MUST NOT, be taken out of context.  We all are prone to do this, but to truly understand what our Father is saying it is IMPERATIVE that we read the verses before and after, and if necessary the chapters before and after.  In the case of the verse stated above one must read Chapters 10 and 11 to fully grasp the magnitude of what Paul is stating.

Taking verses out of context can lead to error.  This is where I believe some of the verses presented in defense of Infant Baptism fall.

Several passages have been listed regarding baptisms post-Pentecost, they are:

Acts 2:41, 8:12, 8:13, 8:26-40, 9:1-30, 10:1-48, 16:13-15, 40, 16:16-39:, 18:8, 19:1-7, 1 Corinthians 1:14 and 16.

Before I delve into each incidence, let us frame our mind about what the apostles and disciples were instructed prior to Jesus' ascension to the Father.

For John truly baptized (G907) with water; but ye shall be baptized (G907) with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.  (Acts 1:5)

Baptized - G907 - From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism.

• G911 - A primary verb; to whelm, that is, cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye).

My point here is not the method of baptism, i.e. immersion versus sprinkling, but the fact that the same word is used for both water and the Holy Ghost.  So baptism could be either or both.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized (G907): and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.  (Acts 2:41)

They who?  To understand this verse we have to go back to 2:5 - And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Did they have their families with them?  Possibly.  Pentecost was one of the 3 feasts which required all the males to appear before the LORD in the place HE designated (Exodus 23:17 and Deuteronomy 16:16).

Recorded in Scripture are a few incidences of families traveling to Jerusalem for a feast.  1 Samuel records Elkanah and Hannah, Joseph and Mary (specifically Passover - Luke 2:43).  Gill's commentary on 1 Samuel 1 notes that families may have traveled for the spring feast (Passover/First Fruits) and/or possibly the fall feast (Tabernacles).  Pentecost is the summer feast.  As women were not required to appear before the Lord, I could conjecture that traveling once in a year might be all that was feasible for the whole family (think vacation and if I had to opt for one, it would be Passover).

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  (Acts 2:37)

Heard what?  Wonderful acts of God (Acts 2:11).  In the last days God will pour out HIS spirit upon all flesh, sons and daughters prophesy, young men see visions, old men dream dreams, servants and handmaidens will have the Spirit poured out upon them and prophesy (Acts 2:17-18).  Wonders in heaven, signs in the earth, blood, fire and vapor of smoke, sun turned to darkness, moon to blood (Acts 2:19-20).

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.  (Acts 2:21)

Men of Israel, not men and women, not men, women and children, just men.  To find out what else they heard read Acts 2:22-36.

Now they are under conviction by the Holy Ghost (verse 37) and Peter's answer:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  (Acts 2:37)

They had to hear, they showed that there was an inward change, "What must we do?"

IB proponents use the next verse to show that children are part of the covenant.  The verse does not state that, it is a conditional clause.

For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.  (Acts 2:39)

Could Father save their biological children?  Absolutely.  Is it a guarantee?  I would say no.  The position of children of believers having a 'right' to be included in the covenant befuddles me, primarily because all the reformed folk (doctrine of election) I know would state unequivocally that regeneration is by grace through faith.  An infant can not have faith UNLESS Father grants him/her the ability.  Then there would be some outward manifestation.  ALL conversions recorded in the Writ indicate that when a person is filled with the Holy Ghost there is something physical that happens which gives credence to the transformation.

Someone either speaks in tongues, prophesies or is pricked within their heart to ask.  An infant, to my knowledge, can not ask or 'call' out to the Lord to be saved; baby talk does not qualify as tongues; and since they can not articulate speech, can not prophesy.  One could give the gospel message to an infant, but I doubt they would do what the 3000 (in this particular passage) did:  gladly received his word.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.  And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  (Acts 2:41-42)

While a young child may give evidence of the outward transformation and begin to continue steadfastly in doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers, an infant is incapable.

Next up:  Acts 8:12-13:

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

This is obviously a water baptism, as the infilling of the Holy Spirit does not occur until Peter and John come down from Jerusalem.

Let's start with 'they' who?  The folks in Samaria.  Phillip preached Christ and there was an outward physical reaction, to wit:

For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.  (Acts 8:7)

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.  (Acts 8:17)  They = Peter and John.

I might infer from the text that Simon was not a true convert.  Acts 8:18-24, though he was obviously water baptized.  Perchance the first example of someone baptized, but not truly regenerate?  By the apostles no less.

Acts 8:26-39 - Phillip sent by the Spirit to minister unto the eunuch, who was reading the Scriptures and desired to know of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke.  Phillip preaches Jesus.  The eunuch was a seeker:

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?  (Acts 8:36)

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  (Acts 8:37)

Which put me in mind of this verse:

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.  (1 Corinthians 12:3)

A little different terminology, Son of God, Jesus is Lord, however I think that the emphasis is correct in that one must have the indwelling of the Spirit to be able to give testimony of the inward change.  Notice that the last we hear of the eunuch:

And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.  (Acts 8:39)

I have yet to hear an infant call Jesus Christ the son of God, ask to be baptized, or state that Jesus is Lord.  Nor do I see them rejoicing in their baptism or inclusion in the covenant.

Moving along...Acts 9:1-30 - the conversion of Saul/Paul.  Paul persecuting the saints, seeking out men and/or women to hale them into prison.  Has a life changing experience, manifested in the physical:  He falls down, he acknowledges the Lord and seeks to know HIS will, blinded and fasting for 3 days.

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.  (Acts 9:17)

And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.  (Acts 9:18)

I am seeing a recurring theme of laying on of hands and/or Holy Ghost infilling.  I will have to chase that one down another time.

Acts 10 - Cornelius

This is one of the main, household baptized passages used by IB proponents.  I would contest that infants were baptized, unless of course they spake with tongues.  :-)

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.  And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.  (Acts 10:44-45)

For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?  (Acts 10:46-47)

So, Peter gives a presentation of the gospel to Cornelius, his household, friends, etc.  All of them which heard the Word gave forth a physical manifestation of the infilling of the Holy Ghost.  Circumcised hearts sounding forth, magnifying God.  I guess an infant, IF there were any there would/could do that, God is able to do amazing things.  Open blind eyes, cause deaf ears to hear, make the lame walk, cast out demons.  I am sure that IF any infants were in attendance, and they spoke in tongues and glorified God that they were then baptized with all the other regenerated folks.

Lydia - Seller of purple - Acts 16:13-15, 40

And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.  And when she was baptized (G907), and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.  (Acts 16:13-15)

A few observations about Lydia - she is not in her town/city of origin, sells purple (= wealth), worshipped God, willing to hear, heart opened BY the Lord, attentive to what was spoken, obedient to be baptized and HER household.  If she were married, it would have been HIS household.  She is either a widow or never/not yet married.  Thus no infants and/or young children.  She is a traveling woman, a wealthy, widowed woman *might* have children, but they are not observed and/or mentioned or they are grown.

The word baptized is G907, the same word for being baptized by either water or the Holy Ghost.  So in this instance were both performed upon her?  I previously made an assumption that she was water baptized, because they were near a river.  It is obvious that there was an acceptance by Paul that she was truly born again (filled with the Holy Ghost) as she uses the same word faithful that is used in other places to denote one who has been circumcised in their heart and/or has proven that they are faithful, true.

Faithful - G4103 - From G3982; objectively trustworthy; subjectively trustful.

One who is truly a *child* of God desires to do that which is pleasing to the Father.  A small sampling:  Matthew 25:23, Luke 16:10, 19:17, John 20:27 (about Thomas believing), Acts 10:45 (Jewish believers), Acts 16:1 (Timothy's mother), Ephesians 1:1 (steadfast in the faith), 1 Timothy 4:10 (particularly of those that believe), Hebrews 2:17 (our faithful High Priest), Revelation 19:11 (Faithful, the Victorious Christ).

I was simply browsing through the different usages, but took great encouragement from reading all the instances of faithful/believer/believing/true as it solidified within me the confidence that He who begat a good work in us, will bring it to completion.  If one is truly regenerated, born again, circumcised in heart, filled with the Holy Ghost that person has no other recourse but to persevere.  No matter what the trial, tribulation, testing, God inside of a believer will see us through.

Phillipian Jailer - Acts 16:16-40 - Paul and Silas are persecuted for ruining a fortune telling business, beaten, put in prison, praise God through the night.  God shakes the prison apart, the jailer (keeper of the prison) about to commit suicide is told by Paul not to do himself harm for all the prisoners are still there.

His response to all of this magnificent* work:

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized (G907) he and all his, straightway.  (Acts 16:29-33)

So water or Holy Ghost baptized or both?

It did not occur to me, until I placed those verses, that the jailer only asks about himself.  Peter and/or Silas prophesy that he shall be saved, AND his house.  While there are no infants/children mentioned, one can not read into Scripture what is not there.  Households can be husband/wife, husband/wife/children, husband/wife/aged parents and/or relatives.  Man w/male or female servants, woman w/male or female servants.  It does not necessarily state infants and/or children made up this particular household.  I would caution to take great care in reading into the text what is not specifically mentioned in a desire to *prove* a position and/or point.

*I was prayerfully pondering about this:  The jailer observed Christianity in its finest form.  Paul and Silas, wrongly accused, condemned, stripped of their clothing, beaten (w/many stripes), cast into the inner prison, feet in the stocks...crying, shaking their fists at God and asking why?!?!  Uh...no.  Rather giving a proper estimate to all who could hear/see them by praying and singing praises to God.  What an awesome witness to the jailer.

Crispus - Acts 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:14

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized (G907).  (Acts 18:8)

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.  (1 Corinthians 1:14)

No conclusive evidence for infants.  The examples given of baptism seem to indicate that the Apostles were aware of an inward change based upon an outward manifestation.

Church at Ephesus - Acts 19:1-7

And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.   (Acts 19:1-7)

I was slightly amused by the fact that they were baptized into John, then into Jesus Christ, then Paul lays hands on them and they are baptized in the Holy Ghost, giving a physical, outward manifestation by speaking in tongues and prophesying.  No where does it state that they were married men, just disciples.

disciples - G3101 - From G3129; a learner, that is, pupil.

men - G435 - A primary word (compare G444); a man (properly as an individual male).  {Note this word can be translated as husband - that does not necessarily mean that any or all were.}

Assumptions are dangerous things...we must all take diligent care beloved of the Lord to NOT foist our perceptions upon the text.

Gaius - 1 Corinthians 1:14 - I thank God that I baptized (G907) none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.

Stephanas  - 1 Corinthians 1:16 - And I baptized (G907) also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Not conclusive as to who made up the household.

Households:  Cornelius, only if the infant spake with tongues and glorified God.  Lydia - highly questionable.  Jailer - debatable, no conclusive evidence for or against.  Crispus, believed with all his house, does not state who was in the house, obviously all that could make a profession.  Church at Ephesus - inconclusive that they were even married men.  Stephanas - inconclusive evidence given.

I would contest that the apostles, having already experienced the infilling of the spirit themselves, having observed it in others who were 'born again' would have a standard for accepting someone's statement of belief.

There seems to be a certain amount of concern amongst IBs that *they* need to make sure their children are *marked* as being in the covenant.  The covenant of grace is not a physical, outward sign, but an inward sign, evidenced by the outward workings.  As horrid as it would be to have an infant and/or young child die, baptizing them in no way changes the divine decree of the Heavenly Father to choose whom HE will to be in HIS household.  He can and has sustained a child from physical death, giving peace to parents that their child is indeed one of HIS flock prior to the child's departure.

I and IB proponents can agree in theory - I firmly believe it is the head of the households responsibility to bring the child to the priest to be circumcised.  Our difference lies in who represents the head, the household, the child, the priest.

Head = God the Father

Household = Of Faith

Child = Those chosen of Father

Priest = Christ Jesus

Circumcised by = Holy Spirit