Raccoon John Smith was one of our brotherhood’s more colorful evangelists in the early 1800s. One day he was passing by a Methodist camp meeting and he watched as a young Methodist preacher sprinkled water (for baptism) on a baby who was kicking & screaming at the top of its lungs. When the service was over, Raccoon Smith stepped to the front of the crowd and, introduced himself. Then he took the Methodist preacher by the arm and started dragging him down toward a nearby creek. The young preacher protested “What are you trying to do? Are you out of your mind?” Raccoon Smith looked surprised: "What am I trying to do? Why, sir, I going to baptize you by immersion into the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Methodist preacher cried out "I have no desire for such baptism. I know you; you are called 'The dipper.' But you are not going to dip me. I'm a Methodist; you let me go!" But Smith tightened his hold on the man's arm and asked "Are you a believer?" "Well, of course, I'm a believer," the preacher said. "But I'm not willing to be immersed. It would do no good for you to baptize me against my will. IT WOULD BE WRONG." "I don't understand," said Smith. "Only a few minutes ago, you baptized a helpless baby against its will although it screamed and it kicked. Did you get its consent first?" And the crowd broke into laughter, as Smith again pulled the preacher toward creek. Then he suddenly released him and he motioned the audience to be silent. "Friends, I will be in the neighborhood for a little while visiting among you; let me know if this poor, misguided man ever again baptizes another without his consent. For you have heard him say that it would do no good, and that IT WOULD BE WRONG."
It would be wrong to baptize someone (like an infant) who hadn’t given consent? Really? Well, yeah… it would be wrong! But the question is: why?
Well, many churches "baptize" their infants as a way to "dedicate" them to Jesus. The idea is that the parents are publicly proclaiming that they will promise to raise their children to honor Christ. Now, that sounds nice... except such a practice was never mentioned in the New Testament nor in the history of the church for the first 1500 or 1600 years of its existence. That would mean that neither God, nor the early church considered it a practice it wanted to encourage. It's a fairly modern invention of churches and really has no Biblical value.
By contrast, by the year 200 A.D. there were numerous churches who were baptizing their children and infants to make sure they went to heaven. By the time of Augustine (around 400 A.D.) it had become so common that someone asked him “What about babies who died before they were baptized?” His conclusion was that … without being baptized, they would go to hell (see footnote). He taught this because of a growing belief in “original sin” in the Catholic church. And while there had been instances where churches baptized infants, Augustine opened the floodgates to this way of thinking in the church. Those who taught this insisted that babies MUST be baptized to get into heaven.
And, while not every church (that sprinkles babies) believes that teaching, many still do.
ILLUS: I read of one preacher who was visiting a hospital where he met a woman who was anxious to talk about the salvation of a child that she’d lost 18 years before. It seems that her own preacher had come to call on her, and she’d asked him what would happen to her child after it died. He told her her baby was lost because she had failed to have it baptized. (Glenn Pease, sermoncentral.com)
Many parents (who’ve had their babies “sprinkled” for baptism) have done so because they are afraid that – if they don’t – they won’t see their children again. And that’s a powerful motivation.
But IT’S WRONG… just plain wrong. Notice what Acts 2 tells us: REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED. Not just BE BAPTIZED – because baptism without repentance… is just a ritual. It’s a ritual that says that all you need is the right person (the priest) = Saying the right words (the blessing); in the right way (applying water to the baby’s head); This RITUALIZED baptism implies that there is no need for a changed heart and no need for faith in Christ, and no need to trust Jesus for mercy. Without faith and repentance and confessing Jesus as our Lord and Master you can be joined to the church without even giving your consent.
And that’s one of the reasons that infant baptism is wrong: The Bible teaches that you cannot become a Christian (let alone a member of Christ’s church) without giving your consent (that practice is like shoe-horning people into the pews).
ILLUS: Rod Cameron (who was the manager of our local summer church camp) was once a missionary to Africa and he told of the time he was approached by a leader of a nearby town named John. John wanted his 2 children baptized and came to Rod to perform the baptisms. Rod asked how old his children were, and John responded “ages 3 and 5.” Rod thought on that a moment and replied, “John, why do you want your children baptized?” John replied: “My wife and I have been reading the Bible and we believe that we need to have our children ready to go to Heaven.” “Oh,” said Rod, “well then, why don’t we just baptize everyone in the village? You’re a strong man, and I’m a strong man… we’ll just drag them down the river one by one and put them under water.” Puzzled, John asked “Why would we want to do that? They may not want to be baptized!” “That’s right,” said Rod, “You need to WANT to become a Christian to be baptized, and your children aren’t ready for that yet. But now, how about you and your wife? Are you ready to make that commitment?” Sometime later, John and his wife were baptized and raised their family to love God.
So salvation is something you have to want. It’s something you have to consent to and to commit to.
But wait – there’s more: Jesus had a view of children that DENIED the need for infant baptism.
In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke we read that parents “were bringing children to (Jesus) that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked (these parents). But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them. (Mark 10:13-16)
The Kingdom of God BELONGS to children. Kids don’t need infant baptism to qualify because they’re already qualified. “To Such Belongs The Kingdom Of God.”
ILLUS: Commenting on this story about Jesus and the children, there was an important church leader around 200 A.D. named Tertullian who wrote “Our Lord says, indeed, do not forbid (the children) to come. Therefore, let them come when they are grown up. Let them come when they understand, when they are instructed whither it is that they come. Let them be made Christians when they KNOW Christ.”
Hebrews 8 tells us that same thing when it spoke about the New Covenant (to which we belong as Christians). This New Covenant says – you have to KNOW God! In Hebrews 8 God says “This is the (new) covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for THEY SHALL ALL KNOW ME, from the least of them to the greatest.” Hebrews 8:10-11
But why would Christians NOT NEED to be taught to know God? Well because, in order to belong to Him, you need to KNOW Christ. And that’s what Tertullian was getting at.
Now, in the Catholic church, their theology demands infant baptism because Catholic Theologians teach something called “ORIGINAL SIN”. This is the teaching that we have inherited the “original sin” of Adam when we’re born. And – unless children are “Sprinkled as children” because that sin of Adam (that they inherited) - they won’t make it to heaven.
But God tells us, in the book of Ezekiel, that we don’t inherit the sins of anybody. Ezekiel 18:20 (NKJV) says “THE SOUL WHO SINS SHALL DIE. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
You can’t BEAR THE GUILT (inherit the sins) of your earthly father. And IF you can’t inherit the sins of your earthly father, you certainly cannot inherit the sin of Adam. So it’s WRONG to baptize infants because - they don’t need it. They’re already qualified to enter into heaven just as they are. So says Ezekiel… So says Hebrews… So says Jesus
Lastly, it’s wrong to baptize infants because it DENIES THE MESSAGE of the Gospel. And what is the message of the Gospel? In I Corinthians 15:1 & 3-4 we’re told that the Gospel is this: “I would remind you, brothers, of the GOSPEL I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand… Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
THAT’S THE GOSPEL: Jesus died and was buried and rose from the grave. And He did all that so that he could pay for the guilt of our sins. And He did all this so our sinful past could DIE with Him and we could BE BURIED with Him, and we could RISE from the grave with Him.
That’s what Romans 6 says happened when we were baptized. When we were baptized into Christ we re-enacted the Gospel message. Romans 6:3-4 tells us “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his DEATH? We were BURIED therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was RAISED from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." But when churches “sprinkle or pour” water on infants, they ROB baptism of its meaning.
You see, there’s a Greek for sprinkling - "rantizo" ; and there’s a Greek word for pouring – “epicheo”; and there’s a Greek word for washing – “nipto”. But the Greek word that means to immerse is “Baptizo” (where we get baptism)
That’s why Martin Luther (Lutheran) wrote: “I would that those to be baptized would be altogether dipped.”
That’s why John Wesley (Methodist) wrote: "‘Buried with him in baptism’ - alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.”
That’s why John Calvin (Presbyterian) wrote: “The word ‘baptize’ signifies to immerse. It is certain that immersion was the practice of the primitive church.”
And - believe it or not, the great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) said, “In immersion the setting forth of the burial of Christ is more plainly expressed, in which this manner of baptizing is more commendable.”
The Douay (Catholic) version of the Bible had this footnote about Romans 6: “The form of baptism in the primitive church was immersion.” And that’s probably why the Catholic Church did not recognize other modes (other than immersion) until the Council of Ravenna, held in France in 1311.
SO, why would God use immersion in water as the way for us to appeal to Him for salvation? Because, when a person is scripturally baptized for the forgiveness of sins they proclaim the DEATH, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Christ.
CLOSE: So, what are you going to do if you’ve NEVER been immersed in the waters of baptism? What if you have been sprinkled or had water poured on you as an infant? A lot of people become troubled. Their parents loved them so much that they made sure that they took them to church as an infant and had the water applied to them by sprinkling/pouring. Many of these folks - when they were confronted by the truth that baptizo meant immersion - a baptism they’d didn’t consent to - well… they don’t like that. So, they refuse to be immersed in water. Not because of theological reasons… but because of emotional ones.
You see – for these folks - it seems like a betrayal of their parents - parents who loved them – and it’s almost like – by allowing themselves to be immersed in baptism that they would be denying their parents, and were somehow dishonoring the decision mom and dad had made. And so they don’t get rebaptized.
ILLUS: I once heard the story of a man who owned a meat shop. He was highly respected in the community because he was an honest man. The same customers came in every week or so, and they’d buy different cuts of meat, and then the meat would be weighed on the scales at the counter. And everyone KNEW that they got their money’s worth at the meat shop because this man was an honest man. Well one day he died and he left the store to his son. And now the shop belonged to the son. Business went on as it had before… except dad wasn’t there anymore. Then one day, someone from the government came to the shop to check the scales and they found that the scales weren’t accurate. They were off by a couple of ounces and needed recalibrated.
Now here’s the question – was the father dishonest? Had he robbed his customers?
Well, no. He honestly felt the scales were accurate, but they weren’t. The problem wasn’t the father… the problem was the scales. But now the son had a decision to make. His father HAD BEEN an honest man… but could the son claim to be honest if he didn’t get the scales fixed?
And so it is with baptism. Parents who had their infants sprinkled for baptism HONESTLY believed they were doing the right thing. But the problem wasn’t the parents… the problem was the practice of sprinkling and pouring water on an infant. Those Moms and Dads were honest and loving parents. But the question NOW is this – if you’ve only been sprinkled for baptism can you honestly NOT allow yourself to obey God by being biblically baptized – by allowing yourself to be buried in the waters for the forgiveness of sins.
INVITATION
FOOTNOTE: The concept of children going to hell as Augustine proposed “proved too much for the theologians of the Middle Ages who counter-proposed limbo – a place where the children infants would go not to heaven but to a cheery yet inaccessible outer parking lot, a locale where they would enjoy eternal happiness but be denied the actual presence of God. (Time 1/9/06 by David Van Biema)
In 1905, Pope Pius X made a definitive declaration confirming the existence of Limbo. However, this was not an infallible statement by the pope: "Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory."
