Infant Baptism of Pagan Origin
Dearly beloved, I am burdened to write to you what the Scriptures teach concerning Infant Baptism otherwise called Paedobaptism. Truth is: CHILDREN of any true Protestant or Calvinist are not automatically justified by some mysterious ‘covenant relationship’! Election does not run in the family in that sense! The new birth is “not of blood,” that is to say, it is not a matter of heredity, for regeneration does not run in the veins; “nor of the will of the flesh,” the will of the natural man though he be born to truly saved Christians is opposed to God, and he has NO WILL GODWARD until he has been born again; “nor of the will of man,” that is to say, the new birth is not brought about by the well-meant efforts of parents in either catechizing or ‘Sunday-schooling’ them!
Sadly, Article 17 (Canons of Dort) says that the children of the elect are also elect. I’m not sure where they got this from because there’s nothing IN THE BIBLE that says this. Besides, even a casual look at this issue will show NOT ALL children of Christian parents become Christians. Many a Christian would tell you even weeping how a dear child of his died with an oath on his lips, notwithstanding all their prayers and Christian upbringing.
If children of Christian parents are elect, then Ishmael (son of Abraham) should have been part of the elect and so should all of his descendants (the Arab nations). Again, if the children of the elect are elect, Esau should also have been one of the elect. Yet, one of the strong points of Calvinist Theology is the phrase, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13). ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh’ applies to Calvinist’s too!
The ‘Regeneration without the Word’ theory propagated by W. G. T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology) and Louis Berkhof (in his Systematic Theology) was apparently designed to accommodate the supposed regeneration of the infant children of believers to whom the supposed blessings of the “covenant” are allegedly vouchsafed. This theory reasoned that if infants are regenerated, then it must take place apart from the Gospel as an instrumentality, which infants are not capable of hearing. We ought to bear in mind that GOD HAS NO ‘GRANDCHILDREN’ only children! THE SECOND GENERATION ‘KNEW NOT THE LORD’ [Judges 2:10].
John the Baptist being born again in his mother’s womb and King David being made to hope when he was just a tiny baby are but exceptions, not the rule. We should not follow the example of those who quote the ‘thief on the Cross’ as a justification for death-bed conversions or a refusal to comply to the obedience of water–baptism.
The requirement for salvation has always been the same- i.e. hear, understand, repent and believe the Gospel. Only those children who are capable of doing this are qualified candidates for ‘water-baptism’. Agreed some children by divine grace are enabled to perceive and comprehend these things much earlier than others, but to contend that INFANTS can do this is foreign both to Scripture and common sense. Sure God can regenerate an infant. But this is a very rare exception, I might say as rare as the ‘death-bed’ conversion.
Dearly beloved, I know that many are established in the truth that only the elect children of the elect will be saved! And this is Scriptural. But I know of many out there who are very sound concerning every other doctrine of God and man, but are woefully wrong in matters pertaining to the salvation of the children of believers. What the Apostle said concerning the seed of Abraham can rightly be said of our own children too –
“They which are the CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, these ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD: but THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE are counted for the seed”. [Rom 9:8]. We know not who amongst our children are elect, so we teach them as though everything depended on our teaching and pray for them as though everything depended on our praying. We honestly wish that God would save them all! But our God has not changed! He is still the God who hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth!
It is indeed sad that those who have rightly rejected the errors of ‘Common Grace’ and a ‘well-meant offer’ in order to remain consistent in their theology are not consistent when it comes the truth of the salvation of their own children!
If one truly believed that only the ‘elect children’ will be regenerated then why don’t they WAIT till their children can say with the Ethiopian Eunuch ‘I believe with all my heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’ and THEN baptize them according to Scripture?
Canons, Confessions and Catechisms are but the product of men’s minds. It can never be said of them that ‘holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost’! Especially when no scriptural warrant can be found for what is taught in them.
Abraham was SPECIFICALLY COMMANDED to circumcise all male infants. But there is no Scriptural warrant to baptize infants of believers in the New Testament. No matter what excuses or hermeneutical gymnastics people may use to justify it, the truth cannot be denied – INFANT BAPTISM IS OF PAGAN ORIGIN!
Where did this infant baptism come from?
Once has to go back to Genesis 10 and 11 where we read of Noah’s Great grandson, NIMROD, and his wife SEMIRAMUS, who started the great pagan BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION at the Tower of Babel. This great pagan religion was later known as ‘BAAL WORSHIP’ in the Old Testament, simply another name for Nimrod. The great book, TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop gives us a little background on this Babylon Mystery Religion of ‘BAAL WORSHIP’ started by Nimrod and Semiramus.
BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION
In this mysterious Babylonian Religious System, Nimrod and Semiramis, along with their priests, were the only ones who understood ‘The great mysteries of God’ and since it was the only true religion… all others were false… therefore, only the Babylonian Priests could forgive and absolve sins…and administer salvation. Salvation could be achieved thru various Sacraments performed during the person’s life time. These SACRAMENTS were so-called ‘Channels of grace’ whereby salvation could be achieved. These Sacraments, necessary to salvation began at birth with Infant Baptism, other sacraments throughout life, ending with a final anointing with oil at death to prepare one for the hereafter. Now Since the Babylonian Priest was the only one who could administer these ‘sacraments’, the person was ‘bound’ to the Babylonian system helplessly for life! The first essential sacrament Semiramis taught was Baptism by water. The fact that such “Baptism” was practiced 2000 years before it was even mentioned and practiced in Christianity is an established fact, and it can be traced right back to Babylon and Semiramis herself!
The ancient historian Bryant (vol.3 p2l,84) traces this pagan baptism back to the practice of commemorating Noah and his 3 sons deliverance through the waters of the flood, emerging from the ark and entering a New life. To commemorate this event, the Priests of Nimrod would ‘baptize’ new-born infants the fathers chose to keep, and they would become ‘born-again’ and become members of the Babylonian Mystery Religion. (Hislop,Two Babylons, p134) The fact that the Devil practiced the ritual of Baptism over 2000 years before it was even used in Christianity has truly amazed historians!
Armitage’s History (p73) explains the pagan civil law and social customs of that day. These pagans had no standard of morality as you and I have. Their marriage rites were not on the basis ours are. One man might be the husband of a hundred women, and he might be the father of several hundred children. The mother had no right at all to determine whether the child she bore was to live or not, that was le ft up to the FATHER. Just as the farmer would go down to the pigpen and pick out the pigs he wanted to keep and do away with the runts, so was the father the one who decided if the child was to be kept and allowed to live. The mother could not even name the child if it was kept, the pagan priest did that. If the child was decided to be kept, the daddy would take it down to the pagan priest and the ceremony would be arranged. The Priest first must ‘exorcise’ evil spirits from the infant by anointing the baby’s head with OIL.
With the oil the priest puts the occult mark of Tammuz on the child’s head by marking a “T” with the oil. (later to become the ‘Sign of the Cross) The Priest then put SALT and SPITTLE on the baby’s tongue to preserve it from future influence of evil spirits. “HOLY WATER” is now sprinkled or poured over the baby’s head, and the baby is said to be cleansed from any original sin and is now “born-again” and a member of the Babylonian Religion. This process was known as INFANT CHRISTENING and was practiced hundreds of years before Christ, (Hislop,pl38) and is found NOWHERE in the Bible! There is not a single example of a baby being ‘baptized’ or ‘christened’ in the Bible! Knowing what you do now, WOULD YOU WANT YOUR BABY CHRISTENED?
This was called ‘Baal Worship’ in the Old Testament, and God called it an abomination!
Scriptural baptism as opposed to the Pagan Ritual.
Scriptural baptism is preceded by faith and repentance. Infant baptism is preceded by neither. To practice baptism before there is faith and repentance is to pervert the gospel. Anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed (Galatians 1:6-9). When one practices Infant baptism he is going beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).
It is a truth that Infant baptism is responsible for sending more people to Hell than any other false doctrine. It is a dreadful thing to baptize a baby and let him grow up believing that by that baptism he has been saved and is on his way to Heaven. I cannot tell you how many I have personally preached the Gospel to who were baptized as Infants who saw no need for Christ and His forgiveness. Though not in so many words, their excuse for rejecting the Gospel is the same as the circumcised Jew- “We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free”? [Jn 8:33]. The attitude is definitely there. “We are the ‘children of the Covenant’, and have already been baptized. We are already Christians”!
Both secular and Christian historians have written about the pagan origins of this ungodly tradition. Even Spurgeon, with all his compromises saw the need to speak out against this delusion of the devil. So we see though the PRCA avows to dissent from the teachings of Rome, at least in this aspect of Infant baptism they walk HAND IN HAND with them.
The sincere seeker of truth should read Church history to see how many Christians were butchered (martyred) for opposing this pagan ritual! Come now, for a Christian to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE rather than comply with a Pagan practice, it must indeed be NO SMALL ERROR!
So let us stop justifying this Pagan practice, even if the early ‘Reformers’ incorporated it from the Roman Whore from whence they came out; and most of all let us quit quoting Scripture out of context to justify this obvious error!