“Why Baptize My Child?” is an 8-page document that is published by the “Basilica of Saint Ambrose and Saint Charl es in Rome.” Only a few of the teachings will be commented upon here, beginning with page 1, where the first heading is: “What is baptism?” Part of their answer is that it is “one of the seven sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ”; it is further “the door which opens the access to the other sacraments.”
None of these words make sense to anyone who has just been reading his Bible. The word sacraments (either in the singular or the plural form) never appears in the Holy Scriptures. Nor is there anything equivalent to it. One needs to go elsewhere to look for a definition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994, provides a definition:
Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies (292).
The other six “sacraments” (confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and marriage) are not under discussion here, but the reader will note that confirmation, extreme unction, and holy orders are likewise foreign to the New Testament. The Eucharist refers to the Lord’s Supper, but the Bible does not call it that. Penance pertains to forgiveness, but the Biblical word is repentance; penance as practiced by Roman Catholics is not Biblical.
Neither baptism nor marriage was instituted by Jesus. What Jesus taught on marriage was that people should respect God’s original design (Gen. 2). Concerning baptism, John came first, baptizing people for the remission of their sins (Mark 1:1-4) in preparation of Jesus’ work. His baptism was from heaven (Matt. 21).
The first thing that one must come to terms with is that this document deals with the traditions of men (which Jesus condemned—Matt.15:1-9) rather than what the Bible teaches. The tract does not agree with the Scriptures, but it does follow the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, which also says unequivocally that “the sacraments of the new law were…all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord” (289). One finds quotes from Catholic Church leaders, which are taken as authoritative. But God only inspired the Bible—not the Catechism, which contains only the thoughts of men.
The writer of this booklet is correct in saying that baptism is “the foundation of communion among all Christians,” but he does not explain the reason, which is that baptism for the forgiveness of sins is essential to becoming a Christian and having one’s sins removed (Acts 2:38; 22:16). It puts us in fellowship with one another (Acts 2:47, 1 Cor. 12:13). Communion, as some refer to the observance of the Lord’s death, is to be partaken of by those who have been redeemed (1 Cor. 11:22-29), but that does not include children.
Pouring
The tract continues that baptism “consists of immersing the candidate in water or in pouring water over his head” and doing so in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are correct when they use immersion because that is the very definition of the word baptism, as any Greek lexicon which defines Greek words would explain. Even without a definition, the Bible demonstrates that baptism is immersion.
John was baptizing in Aenon because there was much water there (John 3:23). One needs much water for immersion, not pouring.
Baptism is a burial in water, as Paul explains in Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12.
In Acts the Ethiopian eunuch desired to be baptized. Both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water for the baptism. After Philip baptized him, they both came up out of the water (Acts 8:35-39).
These three points establish that baptism is immersion—even if we did not know the meaning of the word itself, which we do. But where is the Biblical precedent for pouring water upon someone and calling it baptism? That definition of baptism cannot be found in any reliable Greek lexicon. Furthermore, the New Testament provides no example of water being poured upon anyone. Various things were poured out, but water was not one of them. A woman poured out fragrant oil on Jesus’ head and body (Matt. 26:7, 12), but this was to anoint His body for burial—not to baptize Him. Jesus had already been baptized by John.
Jesus poured out the changers’ money (John 2:15), which obviously has no reference to baptism. The “gift of the Holy Spirit” was poured out on the Gentiles in Acts 10:45. This action, however, was not baptism, because they were afterward baptized in water at Peter’s command (Acts 10:44-48). In Revelation 14:10, what is poured out is “the wine of the wrath of God,” which is for punishment rather than salvation. The seven remaining references are the angels pouring out the contents of their vials (Rev. 16). Thus the words associated with pouring have no association whatsoever with baptism.
The claim that baptism can be accomplished by pouring water on someone is utterly without proof or merit. Sprinkling water upon someone was not mentioned in the booklet, but it is not baptism, either. The Bible defines and demonstrates what baptism is, and neither sprinkling nor pouring fits those definitions. No one in the entire New Testament attempted to baptize by such means. Only at a later time did men begin to substitute for immersion sprinkling and pouring, erroneously calling it baptism.
Authority for Baptizing Children
What are the reasons that the brochure gives for baptizing children? The first one, which is discussed on page two, is that it was “the ancient practice of the Church.” Well, if that were the case, then all one would need to do is cite passages of Scripture where children were baptized. The only problem with that solution is that such verses cannot be found in the New Testament. Nothing is said about children being baptized on the Day of Pentecost. In fact, none were. How do we know that? We know because those who were baptized had the ability to believe. Peter told those who asked what to do: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…” (Acts 2:38). Children do not have the ability to believe (on the basis of evidence) or to repent of their sins (which they cannot understand). For this reason not one child is specified as being baptized. So the church did not practice this idea at the beginning; it was one of the things that changed later.
Nevertheless, the booklet states: “The Baptism of Children constitutes an immemorial practice both in the East and the West” (2). This is not true, or Scriptures would be cited. None are. Instead, Origen and Augustine are cited: Augustine considered the baptism of children “a tradition received from the Apostles” (2), but he lived from A. D. 354 to 430. Although he claimed the apostles handed down the tradition of baptizing children, no evidence for such a practice can be found.
The booklet then cites the “oldest ritual known”—from the third century. Once again, this time period is 200 years too late to be a sufficient authority. The fact that baptism is considered a rite is incorrect, also. Baptism, according to the Scriptures is “the working of God” (Col. 2:12)—not some kind of ceremony. The quote from this tradition of men is interesting:
In the first place, baptize the children: all those who can speak for themselves, should speak instead for those who cannot speak for themselves; the parents or one of their family members should speak for them (2).
Where in the New Testament is any such sentiment? Peter certainly did not speak these words on the Day of Pentecost. No one asked him: “What about our babies?” or the apostle would have told them, “Exactly how do you think a child can repent?” He linked repentance and baptism together as necessities preceding salvation. Anyone who cannot do the former is not ready for the latter.
Significant also is that not one Scripture is cited for the practice of baptizing children. Instead the author of the booklet cites as authority Roman Pontiffs, a couple of synods, and Paul VI—none of whom are in the New Testament. The latter wrote:
Baptism should be administered also to children who are not aware of any personal sin, so that they, who are born without supernatural grace, be reborn by water and the Holy Spirit to divine life in Jesus Christ (2).
Apparently, it did not occur to Paul VI that being born again can only be accomplished by someone who has a choice in the matter. Jesus was speaking to an adult, Nicodemus, when He told him he must be born again (John 3:3-5). The Bible is written to those old enough to understand it. Those who cannot understand what it teaches are not responsible to obey it. This principle is just common sense.
What about the one verse that is always cited, “Let the little children come to Me…” (Mark 10:14)? First, notice that they have the will to come to Him. Jesus did not say, “Let the children be brought to Me.” They come of their own free will. Second, how many conversations of Jesus or His apostles are there in which they are trying to baptize children? That’s right—none! How many times did Jesus admonish parents to baptize their children? The answer is the same—none.
Original Sin
There was an original sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:6). This was the first sin committed by human beings upon this earth, but this event is not what is meant by the phrase original sin. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a copy of which this writer possesses), “By baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins…” (321). The booklet says this and more. Concerning children, the author writes:
Since they are born with human nature that is fallen and contaminated by original sin, children also need the new birth in baptism in order to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of freedom of the children of God, to which all are called (4).
Once again, there is an utter lack of Scripture because the Bible does not teach the doctrine of original sin. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that children are born “contaminated.” In fact, they teach that we are responsible for our own sins—not others (Ezek. 18:20). (The one exception is if we should prove to be a stumbling block to others.) Where did Jesus or His apostles teach that babies are born “contaminated”? Nowhere! In fact, the opposite is true. In the same Scripture where Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto Me,” He also added, “…for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Mark 10:14). What? The kingdom of heaven is “contaminated by original sin”? No, the kingdom of heaven contains people whose souls are clean and pure—like those of little children.
The Unbaptized
One of the proofs that the Catholic Church is not the Lord’s church is that, while the truths of the New Testament never change, the doctrines of the Catholic Church do. The Council of Trent in the 16th century wrote this concerning infants who were not baptized:
Infants, unless regenerated unto God through the grace of baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to eternal misery and perdition.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994, there has been a reversal of the previous view:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entreat the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children…allow us to hope there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism (319).
The booklet does not quote this passage, but it uses some of the same words that are in it (8)
The Catholic Church has a problem because the baptizing of infants is not a Biblical teaching. On the other hand, if they take the view of the Council of Trent, that infants who die without baptism are doomed to misery and perdition, then they come off looking very callous because they intensify the grief and suffering of the child’s mother. However, if they say that the unbaptized child might be saved anyway, according to God’s mercy, then they have admitted that a person can be saved apart from baptism. Whoops.
Either way they go, they violate Biblical teaching, but the problem exists entirely because of the false doctrine of “original sin.” The truth does not involve itself in hopeless contradictions.
Children are born in a state of innocence; they do not know good or evil, just as Adam and Eve did not. Therefore, if an infant dies, he is safe because he has never committed a single sin of his own—and he is not guilty or accountable for what Adam or any other progenitor did. It is the demand for baptism to eradicate “original sin” that puts the Catholic Church—and every other denomination that teaches this error—in a dilemma. They want to baptize the infant to make sure it is saved, but then they must answer the question, “What happens if he dies without being baptized?” They have two choices, as shown above—neither of which is good.
The New Testament does teach that baptism is essential for salvation (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21). Adults who reject this message are lost, but it is of their own free will. We are always sad that people choose to be lost, but we realize it was their own decision to make. What we call unfair is the idea that an infant without the ability to comprehend such matters would be punished eternally. But if anyone can be saved without being baptized Scripturally, then why must anyone be baptized? Commands are different from suggestions. Only the blood of Christ can save people, and it can only be contacted in baptism (Acts 22:15; Rev. 1:5). The only exceptions are children who are not old enough to comprehend the truth or those who are mentally deficient.
Church Membership
According to the booklet, when a child is baptized, he is “incorporated in the Church, Christ’s body…” (2). Is that so? Paul and others wrote letters to members of the church; can the child understand those things? Is the infant going to suffer with other members and rejoice with them, also (1 Cor. 12:26)? How is he going to participate in edifying his brethren (Eph. 4:12)? Since every member of the body of Christ must do his share (Eph. 4:16), how is an infant going to pull his own weight?
Clearly, the church is designed for those who have the ability to think and reason for themselves; one never reads of children being members of the church in the Bible. They do not have the wherewithal to make the decision to obey the gospel, and they cannot function as a member of the body of Christ. May all of us stand where the Bible does on this and all other teachings.