Hi. Today, we're going to be looking at some more questions that have come in from listeners. I appreciate the interest and the questions that people have sent. It's another really excellent group of questions. So I'll just start with the first one. This brother wrote, " I spent years researching infant baptism. I read Zondervan's four views of baptism and watched various debates. And after consideration of the biblical evidence, I came to the personal conclusion that infant baptism is unbiblical.
I was about to finally get to arrange my adult baptism, but then I came across the Irenaeus quote. This led me down yet another venture of trying to understand not only what the Bible says, but also the early Christians. I watched various videos, including David Bercot's explanation of Church history and the contrary responses to his videos. At the end of the day, I'm still uncertain about the subject.
And I understand that because I think one thing we all have to recognize is that there is probably no doctrine of Christianity that there is no controversy about. In other words, you can take very basic teachings like dealing with salvation, the meaning of baptism. Are we once saved, always saved? What happens to us when we die? Is there a literal hell? How does the Atonement work? Why did Jesus have to die on the cross? And on and on.
I mean, every one of the things I've mentioned, there are at least several views on the subject. And each side has proof text. They have scriptures they can point to to show why it should be this way. Each side can make a decent argument for their position. I mean, I saw this when I was just a young man, that, wow, you can take the Scriptures and you can come up with a whole bunch of different explanations. And that's what led me to looking at what the early Christians taught.
Now, what I found is the early Christians, probably from my background, I was expecting this, I'd get all of these dogmatic answers. It doesn't work that way at all. When you read the early Christians, you find that they were less dogmatic than any group I know today. And that the further back you go, as you get closer and closer to the apostles, the less defined dogma there is.
So people who want just everything nailed down without any ifs ands or buts, you're not going to really find that on most doctrines in the early church. In other words, that's not how the historic faith was presented. The apostles is why we don't have a statement of faith in the Bible you know with all of these explanations.
I wondered for years, why didn't the apostles just give us one of these statements of faith that so many churches have that explain exactly what they believe about salvation and about life after death and about end times and all of that? Why didn't they just do that? Well, it's because that's not what the apostolic faith consisted of. So so many of the things that we fight about today and that people are so dogmatic, it's this way and nothing else, they weren't even issues that the early Christians argued about.
So I understand your uncertainty about infant baptism. It fits in with the others, except that it's even more uncertain than the ones that I've already mentioned. And one of the reasons why there's uncertainty on infant baptism, why there's different views among Bible-believing Christians, and then in the general Christian world, is that the Scriptures never specifically discuss the subject of infant baptism.
I mean, there's no place you can go in the New Testament and say, " Oh, here's a discussion of infant baptism. " You can find verses here and there that draw meaning to the subject, that have some relevancy to the subject, but the subject itself of infant baptism is never discussed. And the New Testament never tells us at what age the children of believers were baptized. We read all of these descriptions in the Book of Acts about new believers getting baptized. And all of the specifics are of, again, believers.
They're all adults. But we know in there it talks about often, or sometimes anyway, that it was that person and their whole household. All right, we don't know who their household consisted of, if it included children, how old those children were, were there infants there. It doesn't tell us any of that. And we never read about the baptism of the children of those believers that we read about in Acts. You know, we don't come back later and then find that the Philippian jailer, let's say he was married.
We don't know if he was, that then he and his wife had children later, and those children got baptized. And at what age? We don't ever have that. So there's a lot of things that are just not revealed in the New Testament on that subject as well as many other subjects. And you know for so many actually decades, I stayed away from the whole subject just because I felt there wasn't the degree of certainty that I like to see.
I mean, I like things to be spelled out in the Scriptures, fairly black and white, and then find that the early Christians are saying exactly what the Scriptures say. And most of the subjects that I've done messages on, that's exactly how it works. It's very black and white in the Scriptures. If you take those verses literally, you'll find that's what the early Christians taught as well.
So you have the New Testament as your authority, and then you have the verification from the early church that they took those verses literally. Or if there seems to be a contradiction in some of the verses, we see how they harmonized those verses. We don't quite get that with infant baptism. So like I say, the New Testament doesn't discuss it. And we don't have any huge controversies in the early church where people are laying out the subject. And of course, I have good friends who are on both sides of this issue.
And there have been notable Christians through the centuries who were on different sides of this issue. Now, unfortunately, it's one of those subjects that the rhetoric tends to be very intense, very judgmental, very dogmatic. And that's not the spirit this should be discussed in. And I believe it was about two years ago when I did this series on what the early Christians believed about believers ' baptism.
And the irony, the only reason I even got into that was because people were illegally, I will say, distributing or putting out a message I had done 30 years ago when I had a different view of infant baptism. That was a copyrighted message that I did not ever choose to share publicly. It was never presented on scroll publishing or anything like that. And I changed my view about a year, perhaps two years after making that recording. And I let the recording go.
Anyway, so as I was saying, because it's not one of those issues that, wow, I can just lay it out black and white, I just felt like it was a topic. I would just not even go there. But because of one's distributing that message, then I was asked, " Hey, can you respond to it? You know These people are making it look like you support infant baptism. " And that was very annoying since that was a position that I had totally changed my views on. And those people knew that.
So when we get to the early Christians, like I say, in the New Testament, you don't have a clear discussion of the subject. Now, you have verses that are very relevant you know about make disciples and baptize them. I mean, everything in the New Testament points to believing first and then being baptized. So you can make a good case. But again, none of the verses are in the context of, " Oh, is it okay to baptize our infants? " It's just never discussed, okay?
So you mentioned the Irenaeus quote changed your perspective. And in a minute, I'm going to read that quote. And it's amazing that that quote has received so much publicity, and it's been used very effectively by the proponents of infant baptism to make it appear like, oh, the early Christians practiced infant baptism in the second century, which is not clear at all, at all. And it's amazing that that quote is so often people come across it.
And yet there's an earlier quote probably 20 years earlier from Justin Martyr that would indicate the exact opposite. So Justin Martyr, this is what he wrote. He said, " At our birth, we were born without our own knowledge or choice, but by our parents coming together. " So in other words, our first birth, our physical, literal birth, we had no say in the matter. Our parents made that decision for us.
And then he says, " In order that we may not remain the children of necessity, " in other words, this was forced on us and of ignorance. This was done without our knowledge, but may become the children of choice and knowledge and may obtain in the water the remission of sins previously committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and in the name of Jesus Christ, and in the name of the Holy Spirit.
Now, to me, that passage, it's hard for me to believe that if infant baptism was commonly practiced in the days of Justin Martyr, that he could make a statement like that. And the statement is in the context of discussing baptism, how Christians baptize what's involved in baptism, what it means. That's his subject. This isn't a stray quote where he's talking about something else. He's specifically talking about baptism.
And like I said, I cannot imagine someone making those statements if infant baptism were common in his day. But that gets hardly any publicity. The Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, it's not out there in their books and on the internet and all of the things that they put out. They just leave that, quote, " hidden. " And I regret very much to this day. It's included in my dictionary of early Christian beliefs, but it's not included under the subheading about infant baptism.
It's just there under the general subject of baptism. And yeah, if I had control of that work, unfortunately, it's not published by Scroll Publishing. It's published by Hendrickson Publishers. And yeah, I don't have the editorial control. I would move that quote into the subheading about infant baptism, and that's where it should be. But anyway, so we have that quote first. And there's nothing preceding that quote in years.
In other words, from the earlier writers like Clement of Rome or Ignatius or the Didache, that would give any indication that they're practicing infant baptism. And so this is our first discussion on the subject where age comes into being. And he indicates that baptism is given to people old enough to choose to be born again and old enough to have repented of their sins. Okay. Then, like I say, about 10 to 20 years later, we have the quote from Irenaeus that this brother has mentioned. Let me read that quote.
It says, " For he came to save all through means of himself. All I say who through Him are reborn to God, infants, children, boys, youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, he talking about Jesus, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants, a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age. Being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission. A youth for youth, becoming an example to youth, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.
So likewise, he was an old man for old man that he might be a perfect teacher for all. So that is the quote. And as I've discussed in that set on believers ' baptism, when you look at the context of the quote, the context is not dealing with baptism at all. It's dealing with Irenaeus ' view of the Atonement that is sometimes called recapitulation. And he believed that in the incarnation, as he says here, that by becoming an infant, Jesus sanctified infants, by becoming a boy.
He sanctified boys all the way up to mature men. And of course, the same would apply to females as well. So that is what he is talking about here. The subject of baptism isn't there. Now, I noticed that from the very beginning, when I was reading the early Christian writings just out of the blue, for myself, you know without any kind of background knowledge about them, any preconceptions, and just seeing what they had to say, I came across the Justin Martyr quote.
I noticed that, what Justin Martyr said about the meaning of baptism, which was new to me, and then what he said about the implied age. Now, when I got to the Irenaeus quote, that, to me, did not strike me as talking about baptism. There was nothing in that I mean, there's a long passage that that's just, you know, one sentence out of. And it wasn't dealing with baptism.
It was only many years later when I began getting literature from the Orthodox and from the Roman Catholics and some of their reference works, that then this quote was continually thrown out there from Irenaeus. And personally, it had not seemed to me to be a quote about baptism, but I thought, " Okay, everyone is using it for that. " And I included it in the dictionary because it was you know so used, even though to me, it didn't seem like that really was what Irenaeus was talking about.
And so when I did the message on this subject, I was very surprised because I had not known this before, that Kurt Aland, who is very famous for his work on the critical text, whether you agree with the critical text or not, he is certainly a very well-respected Bible scholar and also a strong proponent of infant baptism. He's Lutheran. And he came to the same conclusion I had that this is not Irenaeus is not talking about baptism here.
There's no reason to infer that from something that he says when he never mentions it. So I realized, hey, I'm not alone in that. And so I was able to mention that. Does that prove Irenaeus isn't? No. If you're looking for black and white absolutes, they just don't exist. Now, some people want to find a shortcut. And so they want these absolutes. I mean, that's what everyone, of course, would like to have. I mean, we wish the apostles were right here with us.
So there are churches who claim we are the one true church and God speaks through us. And so we can give you an infallible answer on many, many topics. The Catholic Church would claim that. The Orthodox Church would claim that. I think the Seventh Day Adventists perhaps claimed that as well. And there would be a number of others. Jehovah's Witnesses claimed that to an extent, not infallibility, but the ability to speak on behalf of God. And a lot of people are drawn to that. That's what they want.
Rather than acknowledging, look, everything isn't black and white, absolutely clear, and certainly not on the subject of infant baptism, the things that were absolutely clear and beyond dispute are the things contained in what we know today as the Apostles ' Creed. And it is a very short statement. And if you don't agree with the things mentioned in it, it's because you don't believe in the New Testament. It's not because you interpret the New Testament differently. You just don't believe in it. Okay.
The other thing that none of us know, okay, well, let's just say, for example, that Irenaeus is talking about infant baptism here. All right? Is he saying this was a general thing that most infants got baptized if their parents were believers? Or is he talking about emergency baptisms given to infants who were on their deathbed, who were about to die? Because we see very clearly in the third century the practice of emergency baptisms for the dying. And it doesn't matter what age they are.
And you find some are infants, although not necessarily newborn infants. Often they're you know nine months old or something like that. And then children of different ages and teenagers and so forth. So it's obvious not everyone was baptized as an infant because you find this wide range. But Irenaeus could be referring to the fact that some infants got baptized as infants because they were about to die. See, we don't know.
The other thing we don't know is most of the quotes and most of the evidence about infant baptism is from the third century. The only item I know from the second century is this single quote from Irenaeus that is far from clear. All right, so is it possible that this is a corruption that came into the church around the year 200, that we're seeing infant baptism now being practiced for the first time, or if you want to put it back to 180 with Irenaeus, it's still the same issue.
In other words, you can't trace that all the way back to the New Testament. Or was that something there from day one? Did they do emergency infant baptisms in the first century? Did parents baptize their children apart from emergencies in the first century? Well, there isn't any evidence one way or the other. You have to argue from verses and descriptions that aren't specifically dealing with that topic.
So ideally, I think if we could all learn to not be so dogmatic and judgmental, the problem is the one thing we know for certain in the pre-Nicene church and the church in the fourth century as well, is that a parent had the choice of baptizing their children as infants or waiting and letting them choose to be baptized when they made the decision on their own. No one was forced to baptize their infant children.
Okay, that part, we know for sure that believers ' baptism and infant baptism were going on at the same time. And you know today, like I say, it's such a fight issue. And there were no disputes about it. I mean, the only one you find is Tertullian writing against it. And he's not condemning it as heresy. He just says he doesn't think it's a very good idea.
He says, " Let them come to Christ when they're old enough to make that decision on their own and when they're old enough, when they've reached the age of accountability and they're old enough to take into account all of these things. " In fact, he recommends that they wait until they're even married when they're past the bloom of youth and they have all of the temptations and sins of youth behind them and then get baptized. Now, again, that's not a universal view.
But again, that's never quoted like the Irenaeus one is quoted. So in other words, you could quote Tertullian and say, " Hey, we should all wait until we're married or at least in our mid-20s or something like that. " But that's just you know an isolated view. So when I started that series of messages on believers ' baptism, ironically, my original plan, my original outline, was to present both sides. Okay, here's the evidence on the one side. Here's what we don't know.
And then here's the evidence on the other side. And you know here's what we don't know about that. The problem is the proponents of infant baptism who use the early Christians. Now, the groups like the Methodists and the Presbyterians, they don't usually quote the early Christians. Maybe some of them do, but normally they're just making their argument based on Scripture. But the ones who use the early Church, the Catholics and the Orthodox, they tend to not present the two sides.
They tend to just present the side that supports their view, the quotes that support their view. And they don't mention all of these things that, hey, both of them were allowed, and that the evidence would indicate that in the fourth century, most baptisms were not newborn infants. They were older children, four years or older, or even the majority might have been adults.
And the complaint was that people were waiting until they were way into their you know midlife to get baptized, just so with their sins being forgiven, they would have a lifetime of sins to get forgiven, which, of course, isn't how Christianity works. We don't try to put God in a box. So back to the brother who sent in the question. This would be my recommendation. Since you've got you know some question on this, obviously, as you've shared, you're going to be baptized as an infant.
But as you found out, that did not bring you into a living relationship with Jesus Christ. You only came to that later from Christians who you know were not Catholics or whatever your background was. I don't remember if you said no, you did say you were from a Roman Catholic background. So if I take your email correctly, it was non-Catholic Christians. It was through their influence that you came to a living relationship with Christ.
And there would be millions of people with a similar testimony, which to me would indicate that infant baptism does not give somebody a new birth when it's done without personal faith. Now, I'm not saying that dogmatically. What happens on the side of the invisible realm in heaven? I don't know.
I'm just saying, looking at the fruit, looking at the evidence here on earth, I'm convinced that the best practice is for people to be baptized when it's their own personal faith, when they are able to repent of their sins and give their life to Jesus Christ. Now, as I've said, like on so many subjects, this isn't a black-and-white issue where you can prove one side absolutely. You can poke holes in the arguments on both sides. And you could do that with so many subjects.
So my recommendation would be get baptized as an adult now that you have personal faith in Christ and can repent of your sins and make your own decision as Justin Martyr describes. But ask the brother who baptizes you to do it as a conditional baptism. And that is, he will say, when you're in the water, if you have not already been validly baptized, I hereby baptize you in the name of the Father. And you know He then immerses you three times.
So in other words, if your infant baptism was accepted by God, then you're not repudiating that. You're not trying to do two baptisms. On the other hand, you recognize there are serious reasons for questioning that baptism, and you want to make sure you are validly baptized, and that's why you're doing this. So that would be my recommendation to get baptized, but to do it, since you have some doubts in your mind, do it as a conditional baptism.
No materials available for this lesson.