Hi, I'm David Bercot, and today we're going to be talking about what the early Christians believed about infant baptism. For most Christians, this is a black-and-white subject: either they're for infant baptism, and they refuse to objectively look at any evidence that would argue against it; or they're against infant baptism, and they refuse to look at any evidence that would support it. And that's the very thing I don't want to do today.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that I don't have any opinion on this highly divisive subject; I have a very decided opinion. However, unlike most people who speak or write on the subject of infant baptism, I can honestly make the following two assertions. Number 1: I have looked at virtually all the existing evidence, both scriptural and historical, on the subject of infant baptism, from the time of Christ through the time of Augustine. I've looked beyond that, but that's as far as we're going to be going today.
Number 2: I've looked at this evidence from both sides of the issue. And saying this, I don't mean that I've tried to be honest and objective; I mean that I've literally embraced both sides at different times. You see, I was once an ordained Anglican priest, and during that time I baptized a number of infants, and I argued vigorously on behalf of infant baptism.
So I think I'm familiar with most of the arguments that proponents of infant baptism use, and like I say, I've embraced most of them myself; I've argued them. On the other hand, I am now a strong proponent of believers' baptism, and I have been for about 25 years now. But I embraced believers' baptism only after months and months of soberly examining the biblical and historical evidence concerning this subject. I didn't just rush into my views on it.
So no one listening to these messages can say, "Well, David, you just haven't impartially examined all the evidence." I have examined all the evidence, impartially. Like I say, I've been on both sides of it. When I was an Anglican priest and I argued on behalf of infant baptism, I actually did it as a trial lawyer argues. Okay, what do I mean by that? Well, a trial lawyer collects together all the evidence that supports his or her case, ignoring or explaining away everything that doesn't support his case.
Now, that wins arguments, it wins trials, but it doesn't establish the truth. In contrast, when I wanted to know for sure what the truth was about infant baptism, I approached the issue from the perspective of a title lawyer. Now, I was once an attorney myself; in fact, I've embraced a number of different professions. When I was an attorney, I mainly practiced title law. Now, a title lawyer is only interested in objective truth.
The last thing on earth my clients would have wanted was for me to have been influenced by some kind of bias when I was examining land title for them and deciding who owned the coal or the oil and gas under a tract of land. The last thing they wanted was for me to make a case on behalf of somebody, or to indulge any presuppositions, or to come up with some creative interpretations of a document. They simply wanted to know the truth.
So when I decided it was time for me to know for sure whether infant baptism was apostolic, I put on my title lawyer's hat. I wanted to know the truth. I didn't want to play games with the evidence. I already knew I could make a persuasive argument for either side, but I didn't want to make a persuasive argument; I wanted the truth. So let's talk about the methodology we're going to be using today.
To be sure, I am going to be trying to make a persuasive case, in fact I hope a convincing case, on behalf of believers' baptism, because that is the conclusion I came to from my impartial research 25 years ago, or longer, the research part of it. But what I'm going to be sharing are the conclusions to which that impartial examination I did many years ago, the conclusions it brought me to. I'm not going to be playing the trial lawyer game and only discussing evidence that supports believers' baptism.
We're going to look at both sides. So again, what is my methodology going to be? Well, first, we're going to look at Scripture in detail. I'm coming from the position that our only inspired, infallible source of authority is Scripture. It's not Scripture and the Church; it's Scripture alone. Now, in saying that, it's not because I haven't examined the Catholic/Orthodox position about Scripture and the Church, or just the Church. I've examined it and weighed it over a period of years.
In the end, after examining it, I remained unconvinced that the institutional Church is an infallible guide to truth. In fact, my conclusion is that it's been a very poor guide to truth over the centuries. But that's a topic for another message. Like I say, today the position we're arguing from, or discussing from, is the Scriptures are our only infallible source. At the same time, we will also thoroughly look at the practices and testimony of the early Christians, particularly the pre-Nicene Christians.
This will not be from the perspective that their testimony carries anywhere near the weight of Scripture. I mean, I know among the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, particularly their apologists, a quote from Irenaeus or Cyprian carries nearly as much authority as a quote from Scripture. But that's not how we're going to be looking at things. We're going to be looking to see what light the testimony of the early Church sheds on understanding Scripture.
But we're going to keep in mind that their testimony is fallible, and it's never a substitute for the clear witness of Scripture. It's helpful where the Scriptures are not clear. Okay, so back to the Scriptures. I'm going to start with Jesus Christ, with the instructions He gave concerning baptism. Then we're going to go through Acts, in chronological order, and examine every baptism that is described there. We'll see if these baptisms help us to determine how the Apostles interpreted Jesus' instructions.
Finally, we'll look at all the New Testament passages that discuss the meaning of baptism. Does the meaning of baptism shed any light on the appropriateness of infant baptism versus believers' baptism? Now, once we've made this New Testament examination in detail, then we're going to ask ourselves: are there any gaps or unanswered questions from the New Testament record? Or is the subject addressed in such thorough detail in the New Testament that nothing more can possibly be said on the subject?
Okay, then once we're finished with the New Testament, we're going to look at the historical record of the Church of the 2nd century, once again going in chronological order. The primary question before us will be: did the New Testament Christians baptize infants, or did they only baptize believers? And we'll look at the testimony of the 2nd century Christians to see if their testimony helps us to answer that question.
Next, we're going to look at the record of the 3rd century, and then the 4th century, and finally the 5th. At that point, we will be three centuries removed from the death of the Apostle John. So the evidence of the 5th century will be of little value in interpreting the New Testament. The only reason we're going to be looking at it is to discuss the major changes that happened in the 5th century. Now, as you no doubt have realized by now, all this is obviously going to take a bit of time.
So this is going to be a series of messages. It's not something I can do in a one-hour message. I mean, if you're looking for a quick, shallow answer, well, then this series will not be what you're looking for. Now, perhaps later I will be able to summarize all of this information into a one-hour sermon or message, but if so, that's down the road.
Now, before we go any further, I want to mention some terms that I will sometimes be using throughout this series of messages, and they might be terms you're not familiar with. Before we go any further, I want to mention a couple of terms I will sometimes be using in this series of messages. The first is the word "paedobaptist." Now, the British pronounce it "pedo-baptist." Either pronunciation is correct.
It's based on Latin, and it literally means "child baptizer." However, it is used today—I mean, nowadays—to mean someone who practices infant baptism. Now, it's not a derogatory term. I'm fairly certain that it was coined by someone who actually endorsed infant baptism. I also want to define one of my own expressions. Throughout this series of messages, I will be using the term "mature believer." And by this term, I'm referring to a believer who is either a juvenile or an adult.
I'm using it in contradistinction to a "child believer." Okay, with those definitions, let's begin. We'll start with Jesus' instructions on baptism. The logical place, I think, to begin is with the instructions Jesus gave concerning Christian baptism. He didn't give these instructions until the very end of His ministry. It was after His resurrection, in fact. And these instructions are only recorded by Mark and by Matthew. And we're going to begin with Mark, and let me read that.
And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe. In my name, they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues, they will take up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." Okay, so what do we learn from this passage?
Well, before Jesus mentions baptism, He tells His Apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel. This implies that preaching precedes baptism. Secondly, Jesus specifically says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." So Jesus puts believing in front of baptizing. And He gives no indication that we can reverse that order, that we can first get baptized and then later on believe. So if we're going to be true to Jesus' command, we will baptize those who first believe.
Then, after telling His Apostles to baptize those who believe, Jesus describes what powers will be given to those who believe. In the New Testament, we see examples of virtually every one of these powers that He lists that His believers will have. He doesn't say that they're all going to have these. But like I say, there's examples of virtually every one in the New Testament. But we never read of any infants having these powers.
In fact, I have to ask, when we go over this list of powers that He just gave, is it believable that Jesus is describing infants here? Okay, let's move to our next one. This is Matthew, Matthew 28 verses 19 and 20. And there Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.
And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Now, this dovetails with the instructions we just read back in Mark. Once again, Jesus talks first about making disciples and then baptizing them. So He's talking again about baptizing believers. So in summary, those are Jesus' instructions about baptism. They're fairly brief. But if we went no further than these instructions from Jesus, there would seem to be no place for infant baptism. But we're not going to just stop there.
Let's see how the Apostles interpreted these instructions in real life. Now, the first Christian baptism described in the New Testament is in the second chapter of Acts. So let's read that together. That's Acts chapter 2, verses 5 through 8. We read, "And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred"—this was of the rushing wind—"the multitude came together and were confused because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
When this multitude gathers together, Peter preaches to them about Jesus.
And he concludes his sermon by saying this"—now we're jumping down to Acts 2 verses 36 through 42—"and there he says, "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Continues, "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is to you and to your children and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.'" And it says, "And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation.' Then those who gladly received his word were baptized, and that day about 3,000 souls were added.
And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers." So what do we learn from this passage that is pertinent to our topic of infant baptism? Well, Peter and the Apostles don't first baptize people and then afterwards try to make believers out of them. Rather, Peter first explains to them who Jesus is, and he convicts them of their own sin. It says that his listeners were cut to the heart.
So they were old enough to understand what he was saying and to be feeling pangs of conscience. In fact, it is they who asked Peter and the other Apostles what they should do. And Peter tells them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." So again, these people are old enough to repent. They're old enough that they have sins that need to be remitted or forgiven. So what did they do in response to Peter's call to them?
Verse 41 says, "Those who gladly received his words were baptized." Let me ask you, who were baptized? It says, "Those who gladly received his word." So these were people who heard and who responded. And then afterwards, it says they continued steadfast in the Apostles' doctrine. That means teaching and fellowship and in the breaking of bread and in prayers.
So the passage is obviously talking about persons old enough to have understood Peter's preaching and who were old enough to continue in his teaching and to join in breaking of the bread and prayer. Okay, now let's return to verse 39. This is a favorite proof text of paedobaptists, and I used to use it myself when I embraced infant baptism.
There in verse 39, Peter said, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." Now, when I was Anglican, I used to point to this verse and say, "See? Peter said, 'The promise is to you and to your children.'" But you know, later I came to the realization that this wasn't an earnest argument for infant baptism. Why? Well, first, Peter talks about children, not infants. It's two different words in the Greek.
Furthermore, there is no mention of any little children who got baptized at that time. As we just saw, the ones who got baptized were those who had gladly received his word. So if there were children, they were children old enough to have gladly received his word. They weren't infants. Additionally, the word "children" has different meanings, both in Greek and in English. I mean, it can mean a young person between the period of infancy and puberty. That's one meaning. Or it can mean the offspring of a parent.
I often talk about my children, but my children are all adults. Or "children" can even mean a person's descendants. The Jews of Jesus' day called themselves the children of Abraham. But they were Abraham's descendants. They weren't his literal children. So in this passage, "children" appears to mean the offspring or the descendants of those who were there present. And how do we know that? Because Peter said that the promise was to your children and to all who are afar off.
Now, clearly, those who were afar off weren't in a position to get baptized right then and there. They hadn't even heard the gospel yet. So here in verse 39, Peter is obviously talking about events in the future.
He was saying that the promise of being baptized for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit was not just for that group of people who had just heard his message, but it was an enduring promise that would be available for their offspring, their descendants, and even for those people who were far away who had not even heard about Jesus yet. Okay, now our next passage doesn't specifically use the word "baptize." It's in the very next chapter of Acts, Acts chapter 3, when the church grew to 5,000.
And once again, Peter addresses a crowd with the words "men of Israel." This is Acts 3 verse 12. And he says, "Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." So once again, the crowd are told to repent so that their sins can be blotted out. Now, infants can't repent. Okay, in this same passage, we're going to move down to verse 4 of chapter 4, but it's the same sequence.
It says, "Many of those who heard the word believed"—okay, calls to mind Jesus' words back in Mark, "He who believes and is baptized." Many of those who heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to be about 5,000. So once again, it is believers who are being baptized. These are persons old enough to repent, to be converted, to hear the word, and to believe. Okay, the next recorded baptism is in the eighth chapter of Acts. This is when Philip went down to Samaria.
We read about it in Acts chapter 8 verse 6. And it says, "The multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did." So the multitudes were people old enough to heed the things Philip spoke and to actually see his miracles. Again, we're not talking about infants. Okay, then that passage continues, verses 12 through 17.
"But when they believed Philip, as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized." So once again, we see the same pattern. People first believe and then they are baptized. Also, Luke, the one who penned the book of Acts, he points out that both men and women were baptized. But significantly, he doesn't say men and women and children were baptized, let alone any mention of infants.
Okay, next, just going chronologically through Acts, we come to Acts 8 verses 35 through 38. This is the Ethiopian eunuch. It says, "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached Jesus to him." This is on the road where Philip accosted the Ethiopian eunuch in his chariot. We continue now, "As they went down the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, 'See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?'" Now, Philip had just been witnessing to him.
He didn't just come up and, oh, get baptized. They had had this discussion. And the eunuch was a man very well-versed in the Bible. He was sitting there reading from the book of Isaiah. Okay, so he says, "What hinders me from being baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he, the eunuch, answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." So he commanded the chariot to stand still, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
So again, we have the same pattern. The Ethiopian first believes, and then he is baptized. And there's also an important exchange here. The Ethiopian asks, "What hinders me from being baptized?" And Philip tells him—and there's a lot of things he could have said—well, nothing hinders you. Anyone can be baptized. But he didn't. Philip tells him, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." So it's not just an idle belief, but a belief with all your heart.
So Philip indicates that belief is a necessary prerequisite to baptism. All right, next we go to Acts chapter 9. And here we have a discussion of Paul's conversion and his baptism. I'm not going to read that whole chapter. I think we all know that Paul had certainly been converted before he was baptized. He was clearly a believer in Jesus Christ. Okay, then chapter 10, we come to the baptism of Cornelius. Let's read this, Acts 10 verses 43 through 47.
And this is Peter talking, and he tells Cornelius and the group, "To him all the prophets witness that through his name whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins." And it says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." And then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" All right, once again, Peter tells the group who had assembled that whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins. Here, the only thing that is reversed from all of the other baptisms is that the group first receives the Holy Spirit, then they are baptized.
But they didn't first get baptized and then believe later on. No, they believe first. And the only reason the Holy Spirit came on them before baptism instead of after is that Peter wouldn't have baptized them because they were uncircumcised Gentiles. So that was the sign from God that, yes, it is fine to go ahead and baptize these people. And again, the ones who were baptized were not only old enough to believe, but also to speak in tongues and to glorify God. All right, next we have Lydia.
This is Acts chapter 16 verses 14 through 15. It says, "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' So she persuaded us.'" Again, we have the exact same pattern. Lydia hears the gospel preached.
The Lord opens up her heart to heed the things spoken. Only then is she baptized. However, there's a new thing mentioned here. Luke says that not only was Lydia baptized, but also her household. And this obviously raises the question, did her household include children? This obviously raises the question, did her household include infants and/or young children?
Now, the Greek word that is translated "household" is "oikos." The term "oikos" in the ancient world included not only family members, but also slaves and servants. To demonstrate this, let me read to you two different quotes from the early Christians. These writers both wrote within a few decades after the New Testament was completed. The first one, the first passage is from Barnabas, and he writes this.
For the scripture says, "And Abraham circumcised 10 and 8 and 300 men of his household." Now, obviously, Abraham didn't have 318 children. We know that from the scriptures. So the men of his household are his servants. I'll read to you another example. I mean, I literally could produce hundreds, but I'm going to just give one more. This one is from Ignatius.
His letter to Polycarp says, "I salute all by name, and in particular the wife of Epitropus, with all her household"—that's the word is "oikos"—"and children." The Greek word is "teknōn." So this is interesting. He salutes the household, but he makes it clear by household, he's obviously talking about the servants because he goes on and says, "and the children." But we do know from other quotes that "oikos" can include children as well or offspring as well as servants.
But the point is that where we today automatically think of family when we hear the word "household," people in the first century thought first of servants when they heard the term "household." So did Lydia's household include any offspring? Well, we simply don't know. But there is solid evidence here that if it did include any offspring, these would have been older children at best, not infants. And why do I say that? Because all the clues from the passage indicate that Lydia is a single woman.
First, there's no mention of her husband anywhere. In fact, Luke refers to the household as her household, not her husband's household or their household, but her household. Likewise, Lydia refers to the dwelling as "my house." Now, if she were married, she would have undoubtedly said "my husband's house" or at a minimum "our house." So Lydia is almost certainly either a widow or she had never married. So if the word "household" included her offspring, they would almost certainly not have been infants.
Most likely, though, her "oikos" are her servants. I mean, she was a businesswoman. It says she was a seller of purple. So she would have had an "oikos" or household of servants who would have worked for her. Okay, moving on. The next baptism is the Philippian jailer, Acts 16.
It says, "And he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' So they said"—this is Paul and Silas—"'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them that same hour of the night and washed their stripes, and immediately he and all his were baptized.
Now, when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them, and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household." So once again, we see that the Philippian jailer first believes and then he is baptized. Paul first preaches to him. And once again, we see an example of the baptism of a whole household. Now, could this have included children? Possibly. But he may not have had any children. I mean, we don't even know if he was married. The truth is, we know nothing at all about this jailer.
As I've already explained, the word "oikos" or household included slaves and sometimes referred only to slaves. The two things we do know from the passage is that Paul spoke the word to all who were in the house. That's verse 32. And we know that all those who were baptized had believed. That's verse 34. So we aren't talking about infants here. If the jailer's "oikos" included offspring, it was offspring who were old enough to hear and believe.
Now, most of my life, I had assumed that the household in this passage was the family of the jailer. That's because in verse 33, in many translations, it says that he and all his family were baptized. Now, just out of curiosity, when I was preparing this message, in fact, I thought I would check out what Greek word was used there for family. And guess what? I mean, to my utter surprise, the word "family" is not there at all.
The Greek simply says, "He and all his were baptized." And that's how the King James Version correctly renders it. But Bibles like the New King James, the ESV, and the NIV have all added the word "family" there. And they don't even put it in italics to let us know that they've added something that's not in the text. I mean, that is terrible. And why this is utterly unjustified is that nowhere in that passage is there any mention of the Philippian jailer having a family. All we read about is his household.
So these translations have taken the word "family" out of nowhere and inserted it into the text of scripture, altering the meaning of the text to fit the translator's preconceptions. Now, what's disturbing to me is that the New King James normally follows the principle of putting an English word in italics when that word doesn't actually appear in the Greek text.
But here they have inserted a word, a completely speculative word, and they didn't have the intellectual honesty to put it in italics to let us know, "Hey, we've added something to the text." Anyway, the next one, Acts 18 verse 8, talks about Crispus. We read, "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." Again, first these people believed, then they were baptized.
Once again, we have a baptism of a whole household. And like the other example of Philippian jailer, we know nothing about the composition of this household. But we do know this. Crispus believed on the Lord with all his household. So whether his "oikos" included both family or slaves, they all believed before they were baptized. Okay, let's go to our next one, Acts 19 verses 4 through 7. These are the disciples in Ephesus. I'm not going to read the passage.
These are the ones who had first been baptized with John's baptism. It describes them in the text as disciples, calls them men. I think there's no possibility of infant baptism here. There were just, I believe, 12 of them. The men had already, as I said, received John's baptism. They just lacked a Christian baptism. But once again, the men were told they had to believe in Christ Jesus before Paul would baptize them.
All right, our final passage is not from Acts, but from a brief reference in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. It does not describe a baptism, but I'm including it because it mentions the baptism of a household. This is 1 Corinthians 1:14 through 16. So let's read that. Paul says, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.
Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other." Now, paedobaptists point to this passage and says, "See, the whole household was baptized." Surely it included infants. But is this true? Well, as it turns out, we actually know something about the household of Stephanas. That's because Paul talks about them at the end of this same letter to the Corinthians. And this is what he says at the end of Corinthians.
He says, "I urge you, brethren, you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints, that you also submit to such and to everyone who works and labors with us." So we still don't know if this is a family or if it's servants or a combination of both. But the important thing is that we're not talking about infants here or even children. Why? Because Paul says that this household devotes themselves to the ministry of the saints.
Paul even tells the Corinthians to submit to them and to others like them. So up to this point, we've looked at all the descriptions of baptism in the New Testament. Are there any clear references to infant baptism in any of those descriptions? None whatsoever. In every case in Acts, the persons are described as persons who believed. The only exception I saw there, Lydia was baptized with her household. It doesn't mention that they believed. It doesn't say that they didn't.
But that's the only one where it's not specifically mentioned, and it's just a very brief passage. So does that close the case? No, it doesn't. When I was weighing all these matters 25 years ago, I realized that we have two unknowns here. Now, in many instances, as we've talked about, whole households were baptized together. And we've seen that the term "household" includes both family and slaves.
Assuming in some instances that family members were included, we don't know the age of the youngest persons who were being baptized. There is strong evidence that they were not infants because in each situation, other than Lydia, the ones who were baptized had first believed. In her case, it doesn't say they didn't believe. It just doesn't say. The only instance, well, the only other instance where this isn't mentioned either way about believing is the household of Stephanas.
But then we learn from the same letter that these were obviously adults, for they were assisting Paul in his ministry. So the practice of baptizing whole households presents a legitimate question. At the same time, all the evidence points to the fact that the ones being baptized were old enough to believe. Now, I realize that paedobaptists hang their hopes on this practice of baptizing households, but they're holding onto the slenderest of threads. Like I say, there's a thread there, but it's pretty slender.
All right, the second unknown concerns the offspring of believers. Every description we've looked at is about the baptism of initial converts. But what about the next generation? At what age were the offspring of believers baptized? I mean, we simply don't know. It's never mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. So paedobaptists cling to this silence. They argue that, sure, the new converts who were baptized were all believers. But when they later had offspring, they say they baptized them as infants.
Well, my response to that is, prove it. Show me some evidence of baptizing infants. And of course, their response to me would be, well, prove they didn't. Well, and that's why we have this whole issue before us today. It's the fact that the apostles gave no written instructions on what age to baptize our offspring. And we have no examples in the New Testament of the offspring of Christians getting baptized. We have complete silence.
Now, based on all the examples we have seen and based on Jesus' instructions to make disciples and then baptize them, I mean, the most obvious deduction, if we're going to be honest, is that the offspring of believers were not baptized until they were old enough to believe themselves. That's a logical and honest deduction. Yet it is still a deduction. As I said, there's nothing specifically written.
Now, in contrast, though, paedobaptists have no logical deduction to make from the evidence we have there in the scripture. They can only cling to the fact that there is silence. Now, I don't mean that they don't have any arguments that they throw out. I mean, they have a lot of arguments, arguments that I used to make. They liken baptism to circumcision. And Jesus said, "Let little children come." Things like that.
But in the end, they cannot point to one single example of an infant in the New Testament being baptized. We can point to a lot of believers being baptized, but they can't point to one single infant. They can't point to anyone who was baptized who did not believe. Now, we're not going to take time to go through all of these arguments that paedobaptists make trying to argue from scripture for infant baptism. At the same time, I'm not going to just dismiss them. I don't think that would be fair or honest.
But I'm not going to dwell on them right now as we go. We've been going through descriptions of baptisms, and we're about to go through discussions of the meaning of it. But when we've gone through the whole chronology, scripture, and then the early church, we are going to come back and address the various arguments that paedobaptists make to try to argue on behalf of infant baptism.
And the reason I don't want to just address them right now in this series of messages is that I'm retracing my own steps when I switched from being a proponent of infant baptism to being a proponent of believers' baptism. And as I've mentioned, I used a title lawyer approach. I did just what we're doing now. I went chronologically from Jesus' instructions to Acts through the early church on through. Now, when I examine land titles as an attorney, I always started at the beginning when the state owned the property.
And then I went forward in chronological order, deed by deed and will by will, up until the present date.