How Infant Baptism Changed Christianity

We can begin to pass out the handout for the sermon. So we have a handout for everyone. We can start distributing that now. I mentioned to you two weeks ago that we would be covering this subject about how infant baptism changed Christianity. This is a subject that we generally cover. I've never heard someone cover it as long as I've been around in the church. But it is a vital subject, and we are taught to examine Scripture and also search everything that we do, make sure it is in accordance to God's Word. And so in the first part, two weeks ago, I basically covered in the Old and the New Testament dealing with the subject of baptism. We covered John the Baptist and his requirements for baptizing people. We covered Jesus Christ and his requirements for baptizing persons. Then we went through, looked at what the apostles did in the book of Acts and also in the epistles. What is the evidence about baptizing and whether we found any evidence or permission to do infant baptism and child baptism? We also covered five instances where household were baptized into the faith. And we covered each one of them to see if children are mentioned there, if this is a new teaching, because after all, Apostle Peter in Acts 2, 36-38 told them that you had to repent for the forgiveness of sins and that you had to have that requirement. A child is not able to do so. So through the book of Acts, we do see people being baptized, but I've baptized households before as they come to the truth, but certainly not the children. And we're not going to make exceptions or else you would have something clear in God's scriptures about it. So we covered those five instances, and we found that nowhere in the Bible do you have authorization to baptize infants. But I left out the church history part of it. So in this second sermon on the subject, we're going to cover church history from the first century all the way to our times, because as you can see, this is one of the doctrines that did transform Christianity and changed it from what Jesus Christ and the apostles envisioned for the church, but they thought the church would follow. And there's a lot of material, so I thought I would just give you the quotes so that you would have them, because if somebody ever asks you about it or the subject comes up, you have here the quotes of historians and also going through the basic history, so you become familiarized with it. One of the things we do teach in church is about church history, how things became teachings, how they went through and eventually became traditions of men. But I want you to see it for yourself.

And so in this second message, I'm going to be covering what we have in the handout and then make comments about it, and we'll go to the scriptures as well. So we begin with a basic question. When did infant baptism first appear? When does it appear in history, in church history?

We have a book by Kurt Allen, one of the church historians, in his book, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?

He mentions that adult baptism was the norm in the early church and that infant baptism was introduced around AD 200, but the practice did not become the regular practice until the end of the fourth century. Now remember, when it talks about fourth century, it's not talking about the 400s, it's actually talking about the 300s, which ends at the beginning of the 400s. So it's talking about the period of the 300s. These authors mention this practice, and this is the prevailing view of the latest scholarly studies on the subject. So if you look at the more modern studies on the subject, they have shifted from before everybody saying that no, infant baptism was practiced by the apostles. That's no longer the norm. That's no longer the majority view. It has become a minority view. Karl Barth, a famous theologian, he said, Nowhere in the New Testament is infant baptism either permitted or commanded, because infants and little children cannot experience conversion. They do not qualify for baptism. Of course, Karl Barth is a famous Protestant teacher, so he's going against his own denomination and saying what the biblical evidence is about. One source that we're going to be using quite often is Samuel Bakiyoki. He's a Seventh-day Adventist historian, died probably about five, six years ago. But he had the courage to tackle a lot of these issues. He wrote a book that we distributed here probably about at least 10 years ago called Popular Beliefs. Are they biblical? In one of those chapters, he covers the subject of infant baptism. Like I mentioned, he's only one of the few that had the courage to face this directly and bring out the evidence. So, Bakiyoki says, the English word baptized comes from the Greek verb baptizo, which means to dip in or under water. When applied to water baptism, it signifies an immersion or dipping of a person underwater. Since the very meaning of the verb baptized presupposes the immersion of the believer underwater, a practice attested in the New Testament and early Christian literature, babies can hardly be baptized by immersion without endangering their lives. This explains why baptism by sprinkling was introduced later on to accommodate babies. But as J.K. Howard, another New Testament scholar, observes, the New Testament offers no evidence that sprinkling was ever an apostolic practice. Indeed, the evidence all points to it being a late introduction. Centuries later, they started baptizing infants. And of course, you can't just immerse completely an infant. They don't know how to hold their breath.

So they changed the ceremony to sprinkling the little baby. How many people were sprinkled here in this infant baptism? Yeah, I was too. Of course, I don't remember it, but it happened to me too. And supposedly, with that, I received God's Spirit. And my original sin had been forgiven in all of this, without me being conscious of it.

In the book, baptism in the early church, the authors state, the patristic literature—these are the early writers of the church— of the first four centuries clearly shows how infant baptism developed. Probably the first instances known occurred in the latter part of the third century, which means they're in the two hundreds, mostly in North Africa. But during the fourth century, infant baptism became more and more accepted. And though believers' baptism of people responsible age still continue in many areas— these are the adult baptism—the development of the church after church and state became reconciled into a more unified body controlled by the sea, where the headquarters of Rome provided a theological base for infant baptism to be accepted. So again, we see it was very timidly accepted, first of all, in North Africa in the two hundreds. And then eventually in the church of Rome, it started being adopted and promoted until it became more of the regular practice. Now we come to a word. It's called sacralism. It comes to the word sacra, which means holy. And this is the way you make people holy. It's called sacralism.

Now the view that all citizens of a particular country or state should be bound together by loyalty to the same religion is known as sacralism. In such societies, religious dissent becomes political subversion. In the Roman Empire, the people were bound together in the worship of the emperor as Lord and God. So sacralism is where basically the nation has a state religion and children are baptized or in some way made members. This happens in Muslim countries under Islam. You don't have a choice. That baby goes through certain rights and before they even get to choose, they already are Muslim and will be unto you if you change your beliefs. So in the Middle East and also Asia, where they still have Muslim countries, that's sacralism. The child is automatically adopted into the state church. But this happened in Europe as well. Bacchiolchi mentions, When Christianity became in the fourth century the official religion of the Roman Empire, Christian sacralism replaced pagan sacralism as a political and religious creed of Catholic Christianity. Now, it was normal and natural that the emperor Constantine, when he adopts the Roman Catholicism, he had been the god of the Roman Empire. And everybody that was part of the Roman Empire was expected to worship the emperor. It's called emperor worship. And when he became now the head of the Roman church, as far as at least the ruler of it, the secular ruler, then it was easy to transfer this emperor worship now into the worship of what the Catholic church was, with the papacy directing it. It was very natural to go from one state religion to another state religion. People didn't really have much of a choice in the matter. That was decided by Constantine and his followers.

Notice, it says, Not surprising, this gave added support to the growing practice of infant baptism, because baptism into the church became almost the same as birth into the state. Just like you're put in the roles of the state or the country, and you're also put in the church roles. That's why I had no idea, but I was placed into the church roles, being a Catholic, since my baptism as an infant. I was already adopted into the church. I was part, I was a member of it. I didn't have a choice. So this is what it's saying. It says, They wanted to retain that system, but it was a way of multiplying people without much effort. The child was born, baptized. You had an instant member there. But it not only happened in the Catholic countries, it happened in the Protestant countries. They retained this type of sacralism. It says, but also in Protestant areas, which retained state churches as well. So you had the German church, which is called the Lutheran church. Well, people, little Lutherans were baptized as infants. Also, the Calvinists, where you get more of the Presbyterian churches, they also did the same. They wanted to have their own state church be with infants joining in without having conscious decision about the matter. The result was that during the Middle Ages and the time of the Reformation, those who rejected infant baptism and practiced believers, or we would call them adult baptism, faced both religious and political intolerance. You'd be persecuted if you didn't have your child baptized. They cried for freedom from oppressive rulers who sought divine support for their tyranny. They cried for freedom from powerful religious leaders who used political force to impose their will upon the dissenters. You didn't have a choice in the matter. You were going to be persecuted either by the Catholic church or by Luther or by Calvin or Swin-Glee, who is the other one.

So what were the results of accepting infant and child baptism? There was untold damage done to the Christian cause. This is bakioki. When infant and child baptism was adopted, the rationale for this new practice was provided. I'm sorry, this is my writing here. It wasn't bakioki. The new practice was provided primarily by Augustine of Hippo. He taught that all humans carry the original sin of Adam, believing all souls were inside Adam's seed, and therefore are born in sin and with the corresponding condemnation. Hence, Augustine reasoned it was vital to baptize children to remove this supposed stain of sin to prevent eternal damnation.

Here we have the ideas behind infant baptism. It was Augustine, back in the fourth century, who devised this belief because he was very much a supporter of one head over all the religion, the Christian religion. As the emperor was one head over the Roman Empire, and he actually said in one of his writings that just like there is one God in heaven that's over everything, we have one pope on earth that should be over everything. And so the way to do that is to baptize infants so that the numbers swelled in Roman Catholicism by virtue of just being born.

The Augustinian view of infant baptism as essential to remove—let me read this paragraph above.

Before I get there, what Augustine came up with was this idea that Adam had all the souls of everyone that would one day be born in his own reproductive system. And so since he took of the tree of the good and evil, he sinned. And so everyone also was involved in that sin. And so he called it original sin, going back to the Garden of Eden. So a child is not born innocent or sinless.

No, he's carrying Adam's sin and also condemnation. And so with this completely unbiblical idea, Augustine was able to pawn off this idea that you have original sin. I remember studying about original sin as a young Catholic and that through that ceremony of infant baptism that I had had that original sin removed. The second paragraph says, Augustine's doctrine of original sin—relates bakkioki—became the official doctrine of the Catholic Church and was later adopted with modifications by Luther, Calvin, and the majority of Protestant leaders.

Augustine took the argument of infant baptism to its logical conclusion by arguing that if baptized children were saved, then unbaptized children were doomed to hell.

And I recall in Chile reading such things in the newspaper where some priests would say, well, baptized infants just have a different makeup than those that are not baptized.

Well, I noticed that these baptized infants go to jail and become criminals in the same way everybody else does there, that there's not this special group that doesn't get into criminal activity.

But that's their reasoning, to scare people that somehow this is some mystical—this is some magical ceremony that's going to remove this and make that person saintly. Continuing on, it says, the Augustinian view of infant baptism as essential to remove both the guilt of the original sin as well as actual sin dominated in the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

Through the influence of Augustine, infant baptism won the day, and adult baptism almost came to an end.

The world was plunged into the dark ages as bakiyoki, which endured for more than 12 centuries until the Reformation.

So if you were born during that time, you were automatically baptized as an infant. You didn't have a choice.

And if you happen to be one of those groups that dissented or resisted that, you were going to be hounded and persecuted all the way to death.

The Church wanted to stamp any other opinion, and they had the power to do so.

This is why it's so huge today, because it stamped out in all of its national churches any differing opinions on things.

The result of this belief was a series of new practices invented to offset the long-term implications of infant baptism.

Bakiyoki says, with the triumph of infant baptism, the baptismal schools, which were established in early Christianity to prepare candidates for baptism This is what you did first before this wave. When people wanted to be baptized as adults, they studied. They had schools.

But those were transformed under Augustine, with giving instructions after the baby was baptized.

That instruction became increasingly difficult to accept, because growing up, these baptized infants found it difficult to believe that they had been cleansed of Adam's original sin of their own sins.

Their position in the church became increasingly insecure. To remedy the problem and provide the needed reassurance, the Catholic Church invented a vast system of salvation's aids.

Penances, pilgrimages, the intercession of the saints, the assistance of Mary, memorial masses, and indulgences.

All of these were designed to continue and complete the cleansing of the souls initiated of baptism.

So you see how one wrong practice in teaching leads to many more. They really went off on a tangent here.

Now remember, this had to be taught as the only teaching in your nation. You didn't have a right to disagree with this. Back to the perspective of history, we can see the incalculable damage that the introduction of infant baptism has done to the Christian Church.

Eventually, it radically changed the nature of the Church from a community of faith, independent of secular society, into a religio-political organization co-existent with society.

You had your own national teams that you liked of sports, and you had these different professions.

Now this was your religion, your state religion. This happens all the way to this day.

Now we can go over the evidence of those who did not practice infant baptism in the Middle Ages.

Somewhat different from the Waldensons are the Polysians.

They survived in the eastern borders of Europe and had a similar relationship to the Orthodox Church to that of the Waldensons toward the Catholic Church.

The Polysians were before the Waldensians and they dealt with the Greek Orthodox Church.

Most of them were in the area of Armenia.

As you know, Armenia was persecuted. They had at the beginning of the 20th century a terrible genocide by the Turks. They tried to wipe them out as a race. We have a lot of Armenian communities here in Los Angeles and other places, but this is where the Polysians hid in those mountains in that area. They endured merciless persecutions. Their origin went as far back as the sixth century in Asia Minor.

As late as 1828, a colony of their survivors settled in Armenia and brought with them an ancient doctrinal manual translated into English as the key of truth.

That's the one I've mentioned before. You can get a PDF of that book online. It doesn't cost a penny.

Now, of course, how much of that has been changed over? But you still see that they did not have infant baptism. They did not follow penance and all of these rites.

So they were much closer to God's truths.

Its author teaches that God has proclaimed three mysteries. First, repentance. Second, baptism. Third, holy communion.

These three he gave to the adults and not to catacomans, which are the ones that are children, learning, who had not repented or are unbelieving.

They rejected any form of infant baptism, and some of them preferred to delay baptism until the age of 30 so as to resemble Christ more fully.

So during the Middle Ages, it was just a very small group that had not gone over the right of infant baptism. That was the norm. You just got baptized as a baby.

Now what happened during the Reformation period? It started there in the 1500s with Martin Luther.

Just regarding the Reformers, their noble accomplishments must not obscure the limitations of their Reformation.

They were not prepared to complete their Reformation by returning to the teachings and practices of apostolic Christianity.

In their Reform, they brought with them two major Roman Catholic errors. 1. The union of church and state. They established their own state churches.

2. Infant baptism. We could add Sunday worship.

3. Moreover, when they consolidated their rule or power because of the union of church and state, they themselves became little popes, persecuting in their territories those who would not conform to their ways.

Those who were just trying to follow the apostolic teachings found themselves to be like the middle part of a sandwich. You had the Roman Catholic Church on one side and you had the Protestants on another. They were both persecuting these minority groups.

The most tragic example is the conflict that developed between mainline Protestants and the Anabaptists. In this conflict, baptism became a major issue. The Anabaptists, which means rebaptizers, condemned the Reformation as half-hearted and incomplete. They rejected infant baptism and baptized or rebaptized only those who were prepared to make a conscious commitment to accept Christ. For them, infant baptism stood for an un-biblical practice that served to consolidate the sacramental power of the Catholic Church as well as the corruption of Protestant state churches. These Anabaptists didn't go along with the Protestants in this way. Some of them were Sabbath keepers and, at the same time, did not follow the Catholic Church's teachings. Today, we are a minority, but we should be honored to be part of the minority living in these times because we don't accept infant baptism, which is one of the few groups on earth that doesn't. So, Luther, Calvin, and Swingley, Bakiyoki mentions, each in his own way opposed the adult baptism promoted by the Anabaptists, largely because of political consideration. So here, Bakiyoki, a church historian, studied deeply all of these centuries what was going on, and he says, well, it wasn't because of biblical teaching. It was for political considerations that they adopted.

Infant baptism.

The Reformers had the support of local princes or rulers who, for a mixture of religious, political, and personal motives, supported their conflict with Rome and permitted them to influence the churches that came under their control. This meant that to abandon infant baptism meant to undermine the whole political and religious organization that supported their reforms. As we know, Luther would have been just one more dissident that would have been burned at the stake. But before the Catholics could get a hold of him, it was the German princes that formed an alliance and actually kidnapped Luther and took him out of harm's way and hid him in one of the castles there in Germany.

He spent a whole year writing a German version of the Bible, but the Catholic Church couldn't find him because, again, the German princes were protecting him. Calvin did the same with the Swiss protecting him and Swingley as well. So they needed the protection of those armies, and they knew that if they went along with the Anabaptists, they weren't going to have as many followers. And then the princes weren't going to go along and support them, so they needed this to instantly create followers. This is why in Germany the majority are still Lutheran, not because they consciously decide that, because that is the main state church.

And in other areas, you have the Anglican Church in England, and they baptized little children as well, and that's the way you win followers. That's the way the Muslims gain followers. That's how in Japan you also have ancestor worship. Why? Because that's taught, and you become a member from a child on. So it's not the true faith where you come up with a decision once an adult to follow Christ, to take up his cross, to be willing to put him first in your life, even at the pain of death.

That's not the type of people we're talking about here. So let's go to some scriptures. Again, Luke chapter 14 is very important. Luke chapter 14 verse 26. Christ told the multitudes if they wanted to follow him. He says in Luke 14 verse 26, if anyone comes to me and does not, and the term here should be hate, instead of hate, it should be loveless, his father and mother and wife and children, brothers and sisters.

Yes, and his own life also. He cannot be my disciple. Those are conditions for baptism. That's what we go over a person before he's baptized. Have you counted the cost? Have you examined? Are you going to put Christ first, or are you going to put him second, third, fourth in your priorities? He goes on to say, and whoever does not bear his cross, talking about the sufferings of following this way of life, and come after me cannot be my disciple.

It also means that you're willing to die, if necessary, for the faith. And then he compares it. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it, lest after he has laid the foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build and was not able to finish.

So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has, cannot be my disciple. So again, these are the conditions that Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, set up. None of us have the authority to change that and to impose an automatic baptism of a little child that has no idea behind it. And it's not just infants. It's up to the point where the person has already now gotten to be at least 18, and he is aware of what sin is and is able to repent of breaking God's holy, perfect, and just law.

That doesn't happen in these churches. And so it's very sad that we find ourselves in a very small minority dealing with these things. There's an example, an illustration that I read years ago, and I thought it was so clever and so interesting the way it was brought up. It's by Fred J. Maledog in his book, Why We Believe in Evolution and Not Creation. I got that book from Ambassador College Library as it was closing down. Because now our former association, which all of this calamity happened, they baptized small children.

And so people have gone that way. And look, it just caused a collapse when we started changing these doctrines. Fred Maledog says the following, and he illustrates it, to show the importance of having concrete evidence to determine a matter. He comments, the famous Rufus Koeit once engaged in a legal battle with the more famous Daniel Webster. Growing up in school, we read about the famous Daniel Webster, the lawyer of the 19th century. The case depended on whether or not two wagon wheels belonged to the same axle on the same wagon. Is it Koeit or Koeit? Do you remember? Koeit?

Koeit advanced a brilliant argument based on the theory of the fixation of points, that the wheels came from the same axle. He had the jury almost convinced. Then Daniel Webster took the stand. He asked that the wheels and the axle be brought forward. So the other one just had a theory. He actually brought the wheel and the axle, physically, in front of the jury.

It was evident they did not come from the same axle, for they were not the same size. To the honest and sensible jury, Mr. Webster simply said, Look at those wheels, gentlemen. Just look at them and see for yourselves that they did not, they could not, come from the same axle and wagon. That was all the argument he advanced. The fact was evident, and the jury men were moved by the facts, and he won the case.

In the same manner, we can also ask about the concrete, Biblical evidence for infant baptism. One can ask, can we find a case of infant or child baptism in the New Testament? Any concrete evidence? No. No concrete evidence comes up. You'd think that God being very careful to spell out what doctrine is, the teachings. If he wanted little children to be baptized, he would have just told Christ, this is what I want. Christ would have said, well, yes, little children can be baptized.

He had all the opportunity. He baptized a lot of people with his disciples. How about in the book of Acts? Why don't we have any instruction that now infant baptism was a practice of that time and have cases, concrete cases where it says, and their children were baptized? No, you can't find that. That's not the mentality of the first century. It was the father who basically determined for the household. And the wife basically went along, and any adults living in that area, once the father agrees with something, basically, the older people there do that. In Latin America, it happens, too. Where once the father and then the mother decides, basically the older children also accept the teachings, but they have to also come to a personal decision about it. In the first century, it was very important what the male head of the family determined.

So just as in the case which Daniel Webster won, when you examine the actual evidence, the ruling is clear on what was actually kept in the Bible. This isn't something that we've dreamt up or decided by men. This is the biblical evidence. We have concrete evidence that people had to repent of their sins, that people had to change their lives, that they had to produce fruits worthy of being baptized. It wasn't just John who talked about fruits being needed as well. It was the Apostle Paul, the book of Acts. I found this the other day. Sometimes we overlook it, but it's good to have here because it's concrete evidence.

He's here talking to the king.

And here in Acts 26, it says here in verse 17, I will deliver you from the Jewish people as well as from the Gentiles to whom I now send you to open their eyes in order to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me. Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem and throughout all the regions of Judea and then to the Gentiles that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. So it's not just adopting a religion. You have to produce the fruit of that religion, the deeds and works associated with them.

Let's go to the conclusion.

So one characteristic of those truly following the teachings of Christ is their, quote, love of the truth or the love for the original biblical doctrines. In fact, the church is aptly called the pillar and ground of the truth. First Timothy chapter three, verse 15. Biblical truth is and will be a defining test of those calling themselves followers of Christ. As Paul warned, the coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan with all power, signs and lying wonders and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish. There's a lot of unrighteous deception going and deceiving the world. God has opened our eyes to these wonderful truths, but the rest of the world just is following along. They're being deceived because they did not receive the love of the truth. That's something God has to give us, that they might be saved. That's what we call the opening of the eyes and the mind to God's precious truths. They can't even be passed on from one parent to their child. That has to be something that the child themselves, when they grow up, they want to change. They accept the calling and their eyes are open. It goes on to say, And for this reason, God will send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie. The lie has to do with the idea that all of this false system of Christianity is actually the truth that should be followed. We have not been hoodwinked anymore. We know the difference. That they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. They enjoyed breaking God's laws, following along, not be persecuted, conforming to this world's traditions. And so, to conclude, may we always have the faith and courage to preserve God's truths which make up, quote, the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.