My question in short is: What does God say, in His Word, regarding baptism?
Feel free to use (or not use this) this article making a case for infant baptism which I was recently given.
A: Another really great and important question! Before reading this post, I encourage everyone to read the article linked to by Pastor Bucher above in full. You can get a feel for the arguments being made. I will necessarily have to summarize. I would hate to have anyone think that I have mischaracterized the case he makes.
The author of the article makes an important observation at the beginning. He points to the reality that this issue has Christians on both sides. Each claims their position is the one presented in the Scriptures. Concluding his case, the author claims that he has decisively shown that the Scriptures are on his side. To disagree with his conclusion is to cast your lot with "Lord Reason." That is, with your own human intellect and not with the Lord Jesus.
After considering his case I can say with confidence that his concluding statement is stronger than his arguments merit.
The Questioner is asking about this particular article. Let's start with a brief interaction of the points made.
"Christ commanded infant baptism in Matthew 28:19"
The argument is made that the phrase "all nations" is understood elsewhere to mean everyone "regardless of race, color, sex, age, class, or education" in the Scriptures. That's pretty true as far as it goes. More specifically, it means non-Jewish persons. But it doesn't really prove the point he is making. Yes, the covenant of God is no longer just for the Israelites. It is now also for "the nations" in fulfillment of God's promise that all nations on earth would be blessed through Abraham (e.g. Genesis 12:3 and Galatians 3:29). However, I'm sure that Pastor Bucher isn't advocating that the Lord Jesus was commanding His followers to go into the world and forcibly baptize everyone regardless of race, color, sex, age, class or education.
So why should this text then teach that infants should be forcibly baptized? Pouring water on an infant or dunking it are not done in response to the babies own wishes.
To conclude from Christ commanding His followers to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them that Christ was commanding infant baptism is simply not warranted from the text. Such an assertion could only convince those who are looking for a proof-text for their position. If you already believe that infant baptism is the right practice, then this text may be "obvious" to you. However, none of the apostles went around forcing anyone to be baptized through the book of Acts in response to this command from our Risen Lord. So, it seems that jumping to the conclusion that Christ commanded infant baptism in Matthew 28:19 is inaccurate at best. It's poor exegesis.
"Babies need forgiveness"
Just because everyone is born in sin and in need of a Savior does not itself prove anything about the effectiveness of infant baptism for forgiveness of sin. Pastor Bucher assumes that baptism remits sin for infants. Particularly, that it remits original sin inherited from Adam. He then asserts his conclusion based on his assumption. This is a common logical mistake called begging the question. Of course you reach the conclusion you want when you assume your answer in the beginning! You end where you began.
Here's the problematic section in full:
Like everyone else, they desperately need forgiveness. If infants die before they believe in Jesus, they will be eternally condemned. They, like everyone else, need to be baptized so that they can be born again. Jesus said, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). We believe that baptism is God's special means of grace for children by which He causes them to be born again. To keep them from baptism is to keep them from forgiveness and to endanger them with damnation.
Did you see the leap? "We believe that baptism is God's special means of grace for children by which He causes them to be born again" is the statement that allows him to arrive at his intended conclusion. He believes this to be the case. Therefore baptism is necessary for infants to be saved. However, that is a controversial statement. Asserting that John 3:5 is referring to water baptism requires some more work to be done. Certainly not everyone agrees with that! I know I don't.
Keep John 3:5 in context. Why should Nicodemus, a Pharisee under the Old Covenant understanding, have any idea that Jesus is speaking to him about the New Covenant sign of baptism? How can we make that leap?
Instead, it seems like Jesus is challenging Nicodemus' understanding of what it means to be a part of "the people of God." Nicodemus has just admitted that Christ has come from God as a teacher (John 3:2). Nicodemus was operating under a works-based religious mentality. He was assuming that he was part of the people of God simply because he is an Israelite. But being a descendant of Israel does not necessarily make you one of God's people (Jeremiah 9:25-26; John 8:31-47; Luke 3:7-9; Romans 9:6-8). As Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, clearly Nicodemus is taking him very literally on the whole "born-again" thing. He is asking how a person is supposed to climb into their mother and then come back out again in 3:4.
Jesus' response about water and Spirit need not have anything to do with "baptism." It can very likely be interpreted as the first birth ("water") being natural birth (you're either Jew or you're Gentile) and the second birth being the one that matters ("Spirit"). This second birth occurs at the moment of conversion. To merely claim that this passage asserts baptism and that Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel who wouldn't be teaching about baptism, would be expected to understand these things is difficult to believe. I'd need more reason to change my mind than the article presents. God has spoken through His prophets about physical birth not being all that important as to who belong to Him. It is more reasonable that Jesus would expect Nicodemus to understand this truth than a sign for a Covenant that hadn't been instituted yet. (For more, compare John 3:9 with Isaiah 1:11-15 and Isaiah 19:23-25).
"Baptism Replaces Circumcision"
The analogy between the Old Covenant people of God and the New Covenant people of God is not exactly one-to-one, with each having an exact counter-part and equivalent. Circumcision was only for males, baptism is for everyone. Circumcision was commanded to be done on the 8th day, baptism is commanded for all who believe. Never will you find in the Scriptures the statement "be baptized and believe" but always the reverse order, "believe and be baptized." This follows the logical order of being baptized after you have believed as a fruit (or demonstration) of your faith.
Circumcision was a sign of the covenant people of God, given to the nation of Israel. Entrance into the community of the people of God happened as a result of physical birth. The community undertook the sign of circumcision in obedience to the expressed commandment of God. On the other hand, Pastor Bucher acknowledges that the entrance into the New Covenant people of God is done through faith. Therefore, the sign of the New Covenant for those who've entered (not by birth, but by faith) is applied after their faith, whether male or female, whether young or old. This is important for the next argument given as well.
"Infants Can Believe"
However, this case was not convincingly made. To merely cite a passage about infants coming to Jesus and His response that the kingdom belongs to such as these and concluding that this proves Jesus believed that they had faith is weak. I've covered this passage in detail elsewhere. In my article, I provided an exegetical case that Jesus is not pointing to the faith of the children at all! Christ is talking about something else entirely.
Keep that passage in context. It is more likely that Jesus is teaching nothing about a child or infant's ability to believe but instead is rebuking the idea that there are some who are "worthy" of the kingdom and others who are not. It's not about faith. It's about worth.
If we are to make disciples of "all nations" (that is, "everyone"!) as Pastor Bucher has already rightly pointed out, then it would be a huge hindrance if we only went looking for those whom we deem as worthy of being discipled. Confessing we are unworthy of the gift of everlasting life and worthy of condemnation for our sin is a prerequisite for repentance. No one will enter the kingdom of heaven without repentance (Luke 13:2-5).
Pastor Bucher acknowledges that this passage isn't directly about baptism. If he is incorrect that Jesus is teaching that children have the ability to believe, then his entire argument here falls apart. Of course, Pastor Bucher argues against himself further by stating that baptism is the necessary means of grace which allows the children to believe. The passage he cited would not likely have included any baptized children. Further, he has yet to cite any passage that teaches baptism provides any grace to open the eyes and hearts of sinners to believe.
His assertions are piling up. They lack foundation in the Scriptures.
He asks why we would deny baptism to those who can believe. But we must never mistake a supposed "ability" to believe with belief itself. Are we to assume that everyone who is able to believe something actually believes it? I find that hard to believe. I suppose I am able to believe it - I just don't believe it.
Without a profession, how are we to know which infants do believe and which do not? The argument asks why would we "deny" them baptism as if a baby ever asked to be baptized and we said, "no!" Instead, he is arguing that we baptize infants who have never asked for it, and who never could. Because, well, they're babies. In such a case, no one is being "denied" anything.
The most problematic statement that Pastor Bucher made is this one:
Someone might ask, "If babies can believe then why do they need baptism?" Answer: it is through baptism that faith is created in the infant's heart.
There is no passage anywhere in Scripture which affirms that baptism creates faith in the heart of an infant. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone who is not already indoctrinated to believe the opinion of Pastor Bucher on this particular matter.
To merely list proof-texts without analysis is always dangerous. Acts 22:16 is given. But does this passage say baptism washes away sin or is it calling on His name which washes away sin? 1 Peter 3:21 is cited as proof that baptism saves. But doesn't 1 Peter 3:21 also say "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but the appeal to God for a good conscience"? What if you're reading something into the text and that the "baptism" that is expressed isn't done with water, but by the Spirit (Ephesians 4:4-6)? Wouldn't that severely undermine the assertions being made? Shouldn't those objections be addressed?
Furthermore, what of the passages that fail to mention baptism as necessary? Should we just leave these out of the discussion or should we assume that the Apostles merely forgot this extremely important aspect of the call to salvation? If being born-again is an act of the Spirit of God and is tied to repentance and faith, then it makes more sense that some passages would ignore water baptism while others would include it as the next step for those who have believed. If it is the necessary prerequisite, then it's absence in these passages is shocking and irresponsible by the inspired preachers.
It can easily be argued from the Scriptures that the "one baptism" that is important happens at the moment of conversion. This is when the Holy Spirit immerses the believer "in Christ" and applies to the believer all the spiritual benefits of the Savior (Ephesians 1:13-14; 2:6). In this way, Jesus was baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). Not because Jesus needed to repent and be baptized, but because I do. And so do you. If He's going to be our perfect substitute, then He needs to do it all. This is why the thief on the cross (and any other genuine death bed conversion) could go directly to heaven without having to first be baptized in water.
The "one" baptism that matters, on my understanding of the text, is the one that happens at conversion. The thief on the cross and all other believers share in that one baptism described in Ephesians 4:5. I have been baptized once that matters (by the Holy Spirit into Christ). Two other times: once as an infant and once in obedience to Christ after I was born-again. Some strands of interpretation try and argue for a baptism in the Holy Spirit (I'm looking at you, Pentecostals!), which occurs some time after conversion. I disagree. We don't have time to discuss here.
"The Practice of the Early Church"
It is extremely important to understand that the New Testament documents themselves largely exist as a result of correcting wrong practices in the early church. None of the Fathers of the church should be considered inspired. Sometimes they received practices that were wrong, like Justin Martyr (Chapter 10) who wrote that he received the tradition that God formed the world out of unformed matter in the beginning. This is a heresy known as "creation ex materio." Such a view should be resisted, not embraced.
In short, the arguments from tradition and early church practice are only helpful when demonstrating agreement with clear biblical principles. That is not the case here. Interestingly, the Didache, which predates all of the authors mentioned and is supposedly an Apostolic document (the Didache is translated as "The Teaching of the 12") has a chapter on Baptism. This was written c. AD 100. This writing seems to apply baptism only to those who are old enough to make a profession of faith. It states nothing about baptizing children or infants who have not made a confession of faith.
One final note should be made regarding the quote from Irenaeus (the earliest writer). If you read that passage in its context, available online here, it has nothing to do at all with baptizing infants. Nothing. It should not be included in a case for baptizing infants since that's not what it's about. If you are swayed by historical quotes, you should at least eliminate this one from your consideration.
As pointed out in the very beginning by Pastor Bucher, this is an issue that both sides of the debate seem to think have passages which support their position. When the people of God come humbly to a text like Acts 16:33, what should we do?
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Should we assume that his household contains infants? Should we assume that it did not contain infants?
Probably neither. Instead, we should affirm what it does say. We should admit that we don't know how many people were baptized or what their ages were.
Pastor Bucher and I can affirm together in unity that repentance and faith are extremely important. So is baptism. When looking at history, it would be difficult to assert that Martin Luther (the father of the Lutheran denomination) based his view of infant baptism solely on sound exegesis of the Scriptures. He was influenced by the Roman Catholicism he was entrenched in prior to his being expelled.
If I'm basing my practice only on what the Scriptures say, then I think the admonition is to preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Therefore, as a parent, my utmost responsibility is not baptizing my children before they are converted but preaching the gospel to them. As often as possible. So that they have every opportunity to believe and then walk with the Holy Spirit all the days of their life.
I'm also the first to admit that I don't really know what happens to infants that die. Whether baptized or not. However, I do not believe that the Bible gives me any reason to believe that in those extremely sad situations where an infant dies that the parents would have any reason to be more comforted if their infant was baptized prior to death.
Since there is no explicit passage or passages which state plainly, "Thou shalt (not) baptize infants," Christians necessarily have to do some theological speculation. We must do our best to draw a sound conclusion from what the text does say. In this case, I still find that being baptized only after an explicit confession of faith has been made in response to the preaching of the gospel is more in line with the biblical teaching. I also take issue with the theological claims of Lutherans and some of the Fathers of the Church who claim that the stain of original sin is removed in baptism. There is no discernible difference in the conduct of baptized children and non-baptized children. That is completely contrary to what we should expect to see. If a child is baptized and cleansed from the stain of original sin, then they should not naturally lie and exhibit covetousness and selfishness like other, non-baptized children who retain the stain of original sin.
But they do.
Sadly, the conduct of all children (baptized and not) betrays the reality that we are all sinners from our youth (Genesis 8:21). The stain of original sin continues to corrupt our flesh even after our repentance, faith, and believer's baptism. To be cleansed from the stain of original sin sounds really good. But it is not the teaching of Scripture. And it does not match our human experience.
We can be set from the power of original sin if we walk with the Spirit. The stain remains in our flesh. But our Redeemer is mighty to save. And we can experience His freedom when we rely fully on Him.
I hope this has helped you to at least examine what the Bible does and does not say. This will help you be better equipped to know why you believe what you believe about baptism.