Posted on 06/24/2017 9:53:18 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson
10 INFANT BAPTISM IS INDEED VALID
In what we have written thus far, we have proven well enough that the Re-baptizers have no grounds for teaching that infant baptism is without value. They profess to be certain that infants are baptized without faith. Yet of this they cannot be certain.
No, there is no scripture which in so many words says “You shall baptize infants because they also can have faith.” If someone demands such a passage f rom us, then we must yield and concede the point. The matter is not set forth in the Bible like that.
But pious and discerning Christians never demand such things. This is the sort of the thing demanded by quarrelsome, stubborn sects. They demand it so they can appear to be clever.
Yet they, for their part, can point to no scripture which says “You shall baptize old people but not infants.” We are convinced, though, that infant baptism is valid, that infants can indeed have faith, and this on the basis of many strong arguments.
Firstly, since infant baptism comes from the Apostles and has been observed since apostolic times, we are not at liberty to oppose it. We have to let it stand.
No one has ever been able to show that infants, in baptism, do not have faith, or that such baptisms are not valid. Even were I simply not sure, in conscience I would still have to allow them to be baptized. That would certainly be better than abolishing the practice in the case of uncertainty.
After all, if baptism is valid and useful and actually blesses children (as we believe), and I abolish it, I become guilty of the souls of those children lost without it. How dreadful and horrid is that!
On the other hand, if the baptism of infants is not valid, that is, pointless and useless, there would be no sin in infant baptism except that God’s word had been spoken to no purpose and his sign used to no purpose. But I wouldn’t be guilty of lost souls, only of the pointless implementation of God’s word and sign.
But God would easily forgive me for such a thing. I acted unknowingly, indeed, had to act f rom fear. I didn’t invent the practice. It was passed down to me from the very beginning. I could not demonstrate with any scripture that it was not valid, or that I acted regretfully when I endorsed it.
Besides, it would be practically the same as when I preach God’s word on the basis of his command. Among unbelievers, his word is often preached fruitlessly, as we read in Matthew 7:6. Pearls are cast before swine and holy things are thrown to the dogs. But what is one to do?
In preaching, I would, likewise, prefer to sin on the side of preaching fruitlessly, than not to preach at all. In fruitless preaching, I am guilty of no souls, but in not preaching at all, I may be guilty of many souls. And a single soul is too many.
I am saying this only to make clear what would be the circumstance if infant baptism were unsure, that is, if someone didn’t know if it ought to be done or not. We did not establish it ourselves. It is a practice received from the time of the Apostles.
A person should not abolish or change what he cannot abolish or change on the basis of the clearest word of God. God is marvelous in his works. He bears witness with clarity to what he opposes. And that against which he has not born witness, one should leave alone. It is his work.
As for us, we are without blame. He will not deceive us. It would be a nasty bit, would it not, if we actually believed infant baptism were to no avail, but we baptized babies anyway, like the Waldensians do. This is a mocking of both God and his word.
11 INFANTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BAPTIZED
Secondly, we must give weight to this consideration: Heresies have never endured. Always, and in short order, as St. Peter says, they are exposed and brought to disgrace. It is just as when St. Paul referred to Jannes and Jambres and their sort (2 Timothy 3:8-9). In the end, their foolishness became evident to everyone.
Now, if infant baptism were really invalid, why would God have allowed it to go on for so long and to become so universally accepted throughout Christendom? He wouldn’t. It would long ago have been disgraced before everyone.
The fact that the Re-baptizers now seek to disgrace it proves nothing. It remains a question yet incomplete and does not amount to its having been brought to shame before the world.
For God has so preserved Christians, that in all the world, they accept the Bible as the Bible, the Lord’s Prayer as the Lord’s Prayer and childlike faith as faith. He has preserved infant baptism in exactly the same way. He has not allowed it to be abolished.
Yet, all during that time, one heresy after another has fallen, heresies far newer, far younger than the practice of infant bap- tism. Such a miracle of God demonstrates that infant baptism must have validity.
After all, God has not acted in such a way with respect to the papacy. It is a new thing which has, for that reason, never been accepted by all Christians in all the world, as have infant baptism, the Bible, the Lord’s Prayer, and so forth.
Now, you might think such arguments don’t really prove anything. They haven’t demonstrated that infant baptism is certain because they don’t rest on a specific passage of scripture. Fair enough. On such a basis, we will allow that a person would not be justified in instituting infant baptism now.
But at the same time, such arguments prove enough that no one today, with good conscience, can cast aside infant baptism or let it fall from use. God has not merely permitted it, but preserved it from the beginning so that it has not been lost. When man sees the work of God, he has to yield and believe, just as when he hears God’s word.
So the burden of proof lies with those who would abolish So the burden of
it. These are the ones who ought be compelled to point to plain scripture showing that we ought to flee it.
It is similar to the question of the papacy. We let it stand as a work of God, yet since scripture is against it, it must be seen not as a work of his grace, but of his anger, a work one ought to avoid. Similarly plagues are God’s work too, works of his anger, not of his grace.
To some Christians, presenting their infant for baptism is a dedication by them, not the infant, to raising that child in the Christian Faith. such a baptism is for the parents to dedicate, so when the child reaches an age to reason out identifying with the Life, death and Resurrection of Jesus, the child grown to awareness should present their self for baptism of personal dedication of self to Christ.
12 THOSE BAPTIZED AS INFANTS POSSESS SPIRITUAL GIFTS
Thirdly, it is clear that infant baptism is a work of God for this reason: God, throughout history, has given to many who were baptized as infants, many great and holy gifts. He has enlightened them and strengthened them with the Holy Spirit. He has given them an understanding of scripture and has done great things through them in Christendom. John Hus and his colleagues at the time, and so many saints before him, are examples of this.
God still does the same today. He doesn’t urge all these people to be baptized again. Undoubtedly, he would do this if he believed his institution of baptism were not being validly practiced.
God does not act contrary to himself. Why would he confirm disobedience to his institution of baptism by giving to people thus baptized such gifts?
Since God gives these gifts, gifts we must recognize as his own, it is obvious that he confirms infant baptism and regards those who are thus baptized as validly baptized.
So it is clear that the first baptism is valid; the second must, then, be invalid. Consider Acts 15:8-9. Here, St. Peter and St. Paul prove that God has accepted the gentiles and that these gentiles need not keep the law of Moses. How? By pointing out that God had given holy gifts to these very gentiles. We argue the same way.
Fourthly, if the first, or infant baptism, were not valid, it would follow that for over a thousand years there would have been no baptism and no Christendom. This is
... it would follow that for over a thousand years there would have been no baptism
impossible. For if this were so, then that article of the faith which says: “I believe in the holy Christian church” would be false. In more than a thousand years, there has been almost nothing except infant baptism. If all these baptisms were invalid, then Christendom would have existed for that exceedingly long period without baptism. And if she existed without baptism, then she would be no Christendom.
Christendom is the bride of Christ. She is subject and obedient to Christ. She has his spirit, his word, his baptism, his sacrament, and all that Christ has.
If infant baptism were not common throughout the world, if, say, it had only been received by a few, as was the papacy, for example, then perhaps the Re-baptizers would have a point. In that case they could justly struggle against it just as we struggle against those spiritual individuals who have made of the sacrament an offering to God. They teach this, though it remains a sacrament to the laity. But since in all of Christendom, throughout the world, infant baptism has been practiced to this very day, there is no hint that it is invalid, but instead, a strong demonstration that it is valid.
Fifthly, the scriptures agree with this. Paul says of the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that he will “sin in the temple of God.” As we have heard, if it is God’s temple, then it is not a den of heretics, but genuine Christendom. If it is genuine Christendom, then it must have a valid baptism. There can be no doubt about its genuineness.
Just consider: In the land of the Turks, under the Papists, and throughout the entire world, we hear of nothing but infant baptism. Why? Because Christ (Matthew 19:14) beckons little children to come to him. He compels them to be brought. He even says that “of such as these is the kingdom of God.” Furthermore, the Apostles themselves baptized whole households (Acts 16:15, 1 Cor. 1:16).
And beyond all this, St. John had faith, even in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:41) showing that infants can indeed believe. We have mentioned this already.
I am not bothered by the fact that a handful of raving spirits are not satisfied by these passages. It is enough if only these passages silence those who say infant baptism is nothing. Even if the result of considering them were mere uncertainty, this would be sufficient. In the face of uncertainty, infant baptism must be allowed to remain.
To us, however, these are sufficiently clear to demonstrate that infant baptism is not contrary to scripture. On the contrary, it is in perfect harmony with it.
Sixthly, God has established his covenant with all the gentiles through the gospel. He has established baptism as its sign.
Who will close the door on little children? If circumcision, the sign of the old covenant, made believers of Abraham’s children, that is, if by it they were, and were called, God’s children (Genesis 17:7), then this new covenant and sign must also be powerful, and make into God’s people those who receive it.
On the basis of such a commandment (for no one is excluded) we baptize everyone. We do this confidently and freely, excluding no one, except only those who set themselves against it, and don’t wish to receive such a covenant. When, according to Christ’s universal command, we baptize, we let him worry about the faith of those baptized. Our work is to preach and baptize.
No, we do not have a particular passage which speak of the baptism of infants. But they, also, have no passages which command that the elderly ought be baptized.
What we do have is the command regarding a baptism that is common to all. We have a command about preaching the gospel, likewise, a gospel common to all. We are commanded to reach out to all. Under the word “all” infants must be included. We plant and we water, and let God give the increase (1 Cor. 3:6).
13 BAPTISM IS INSTITUTED BY GOD
To summarize, the Re-baptizers are brazen and shallow. They do not regard baptism as a Godly institution or commandment. They believe it is but a human invention, as were many other church usages under the pope. They think it is like the consecration of salt, water, and herbs. For if they regarded it as a di- vine ordinance and command, they would not so blasphemously and shamelessly speak of it while simultaneously misusing it.
Now, they hold the foolish opinion that to baptize is something like the consecration of salt, or the wearing of hood and cowl. They go even further and call it a “dog’s bath,” “a handful of water,” and many other dreadful things.
Suppose someone holds the gospel for the genuine word of God. Will he lightly blaspheme it? No indeed. Even though there may exist many who do not believe it or receive it. Still others may falsely make use of it. This makes no difference to him.
On the other hand, a person who does not hold it as God’s word might easily cast it aside, blaspheme it, and even say it is a fable or a bunch of foolish nonsense and the like. But the person who believed it was God’s word would be willing even to dispute scholars who believed blasphemous opinions about it.
It should be clear that had the Re-baptizers sought initially to prove their contentions with good arguments, they would not have seduced so many people, nor enticed them into their counsels. For they have nothing firm or sure in their favor.
So their technique has been the following: They simply hurl enormous, pungent, blasphemous words against baptism. For the devil knows well that if the foolish mob hears these foul, blasphemous words, it responds in droves.
The crowds don’t bother to ask for the foundation or the source. For example, when they hear that baptism is a “dog’s bath” and that those who baptize are “false, mischievous bath servants,” they conclude “Well, then let the old devil baptize himself and God will bring to shame the false servants of baptism” etc.
That is their foundation: Invective. Upon this they stand. They have nothing more with which to fight.
Those who are willing to speak with me of such matters, when these bold blasphemous words, “dog’s bath,” “bath servant,” or “a hand full of water” and the like, are taken away, stand as a shaven little men. Nothing stands behind all the talk; nothing with which they can defend their errors.
It is identical in every respect to the way the devil has also deceived the blasphemers of the sacrament. He senses well that he can bring up nothing certain to substantiate his lies, so he flails away and fills first the ears of the foolish rabble with enormous blasphemies. He says the sacrament of the altar is but a “flesh gobbling,” “bloodsucking,” and so on.
When such monstrous words are out, then all their artistry is also at its end. And they draw these conclusions regarding the sacrament of the altar on the basis of Christ’s ascension!
The same is done by Jewish leaders to this very day. In order to preserve their children in their faith, they horribly blaspheme Christ. They call him Thola and lie about him boldly.
This terrifies an innocent tottering heart. It deceives that heart, as St. Paul says in Romans 16:18.
Thus, they have accomplished much. They have been able to lead the people with enormous blasphemy just as they wished. But have avoided having to show any certain ground for their false beliefs. If they had first firmly and well set out to defend their position, then it would have gone the other way and their lies would have suffered reverse and been painted with more accurate colors.
But since we know that baptism is a divine thing, commanded and instituted by God, we pay no heed to the misuses of the ungodly. Instead, without fail, we look upon the command of God.
What do we see? That baptism, by itself, is a holy, blessed, noble, heavenly thing. It is to be held in all honor, fear and trembling, as are all the other commands and ordinances of God. What could be more fair and right? The fact that many people misuse baptism is not the fault of baptism.
One could also blaspheme the gospel as a useless babble, given that there are many that misuse it. This would be equally senseless.
So what is to be done? Since the Re-baptizers have nothing I have seen or heard so far, save empty egregious blasphemous words, everyone ought to avoid them and protect themselves from them. As false teachers, they are the devil’s certain messengers, sent into the world to blaspheme and reverse God’s word and ordinance. This they do that people might not believe in it and be saved. They are the birds that gobble up the seed cast along the path (Matthew 13:4).
14 FAITH IS SUFFICIENT
Finally, there is this: What if someone had never been baptized because no one had ever spoken of baptism to him? Or what if someone, who had never been baptized in the first place, believed that he had been? His faith would surely be sufficient, wouldn’t it? As he believed, so would it be before God. All things are possible to the one who has faith (Mark 9:23). Such a person could hardly be re-baptized without danger to his faith.
So how much less should those be re-baptized who know for a certainty that they have been baptized, whether at the time they had faith or not? Re-baptizers are not able to be sure that even their re-baptisms are valid, since they base the validity of these baptisms on the faith of those baptized. But this cannot be known. So uncertainty attacks even their re-baptisms.
Now, it is a tempting of God, a sin, to be doubtful and uncertain in divine matters. People are lying when they teach uncertain opinions as though they were certain truths. They are lying as surely as those who speak directly and publicly against the truth.
Imagine, they are unsure but wish to have what they teach held for certain truth. If only they would found baptism on God’s command and institution, they would soon recognize that there is no need for re-baptizing. The divine command in the first baptism was certainly sufficient.
Therefore, they blaspheme and deny both God’s command and his work. The first baptism is God’s institution. In that event, enough has already taken place.
Yet, they say it is invalid. It is a “dog’s bath.” What is this, except to say that God’s institution and work are invalid and a “dog’s bath”? They say this on no other basis than a desire to be certain of the faith of the one being baptized.
Yet they are never able to know this with certainty. So for the sake of an unsure opinion about someone’s faith, they shamefully, lightly, deny and blaspheme God’s certain institution.
What if I concede that the first baptism lacks faith? Just tell me, which ought to have first place, God’s word, or faith? Isn’t it true that God’s word is greater than
faith? More fundamental?
God’s word isn’t built on faith but faith on God’s word. Upon the word faith grounds itself. Faith is unstable and transitory but God’s word remains forever.
Consider, if one or the other ought change, which should it be? Faith, or God’s word? Faith fluctuates. God’s word is changeless. So if one or the other is to change, is it not more sensible that it be faith as opposed to the word? Indeed, the word may well strengthen and alter faith. Faith, however, does not change the word.
So if an infant baptism lacks for faith, and not for God’s word, it is not in need of a repeat of the word, but the addition of faith. So why don’t they simply preach the need for faith and leave the word alone? Should the word of God have no validity just because it is not rightly believed? If this is the case, there will hardly be a valid word of God.
If they wish to do justice to their own strange idea, they ought to establish not a re-baptism but a re-faith. For baptism is God’s word and ordinance and no repetitions or changes are permitted. But faith can change, namely, when it has not
been present. So they ought to be Re-believers and not Re- baptizers if they wish to make right that which is yet lacking.
To these devilish Re-baptizers, everything is uncertain. They will be found to be untruthful. They deceive and blaspheme God’s very ordinance on the basis of doubtful opinion.
They make what is near, distant, and what is distant, near. They want to base God’s word on human works and fickle faith. They seek re-baptism where they ought to seek faith. They are persuaded by their uncertainty in erring, convoluted spirits.
Pious Christians would do well to guard themselves from them for the sake of their own souls’salvation. May Christ our Lord help us. Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.