Most of what I am writing here is from a sermon one of my pastor gave when a church member lost a child in the womb. Although the parents of “Marie” felt assured of the final destination of their baby’s spirit, they had some relatives who were not so comforted, so they asked PW to preach on the topic at the funeral.

Let’s be honest. Despite the mass media, there are still people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ and so have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel in order to receive or reject it. Even in supposedly media-soaked culture (example, England) the gospel is not reaching much of the population anymore to the extent that people there have not heard enough about Jesus and the gospel in order to consider it one way or the other. Are those people condemned to hell for their ignorance?

From the first chapter of Romans we learn that everyone has seen a glimmer of God through His creation. By rejecting this revelation of God through nature (think idolatry) they are choosing divine condemnation. However, because they have not heard the gospel, their condemnation is not as great as those who have heard and rejected the truth of the gospel (Matthew 12:38-45; Luke 12:47-48).

There are, then, at least two categories of condemned people: (1) those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and refused it; and, (2) those that have not heard the gospel, but have received revelation about God from nature and rejected (or distorted) it. I would suggest there are also two categories of saved people. The first are those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and received Him as Savior. They believe they are sinners, condemned to eternal death, and have accepted the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as God’s only means of salvation. The second category is all those who have not yet reached the point of being able to grasp the gospel (some would call this the “age of accountability”), and thus to choose whether to receive or reject it. I believe such “little ones” to be recipients of the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Specifically, I am referring to the unborn and to very young children.

The Book of Jonah shows that God distinguishes between those children who are not yet accountable for sin from those people who are accountable. Sent to the sinful city of Nineveh to proclaim that God’s judgment was soon to come upon this wicked city, Jonah very much wanted the Ninevites (the enemies of his people, the Israelites) to be destroyed. When the Ninevites heard the warning of God’s impending judgment they repented of their sin, and God withheld His judgment on this city for a time. Jonah was furious! He not only wanted the whole city to be destroyed, he wanted to watch it and all of its inhabitant burn! God rebuked Jonah for his hatred while Jonah was having a temper tantrum over a shade plant that died, leaving him in the hot sun.

Then the LORD said, "You had compassion on the plant for which you did not work and which you did not cause to grow, which came up overnight and perished overnight. Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?" (Jonah 4:9-11, emphasis mine).

Jonah was rebuked for wanting to see these ignorant people die painfully. Surely this number included children who are so young they do not yet have the capacity to understand the revelation of God in nature or in the gospel. Jonah wanted every Ninevite to die, regardless of age or accountability, but God does not condemn those who are innocent by virtue of ignorance. Jonah was wrong for failing to distinguish the innocent from the guilty.

In Romans, the apostle Paul sought to show that all men are sinners, rightly under divine condemnation and the sentence of death, and desperately in need of salvation. Still, whether the heathen in some dark land who has only the revelation of God in nature (Romans 1:18-32) or the Jews who know God’s law very well (Romans 2:1-29), men are condemned for rejecting the revelation about God which He has made known to them. What of the unborn and the very young, who have never heard or grasped God’s revelation, in Scripture or in nature? Do they know the difference between their right and left hands? (Jonah 4:11).

Are innocent children condemned to eternal hell only because they are ignorant of their sin and of God’s salvation in Christ? I think not. This is why David found comfort in the death of his first child by Bathsheba.

“But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" And they said, "He is dead." So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate. Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:19-23).

As a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba, the first child of their union became gravely ill. David petitioned God to spare the child, but when the child died, David was comforted. His servants were amazed, and asked him how this could be. David informed them that while the child could not return to him (by coming back to life), David would join the child (by spending eternity in heaven with him). David found comfort in his assurance that he would join the child in heaven.

How can anyone be saved without hearing the gospel and accepting it? The only way that this can be is if the blood of Jesus Christ reverses the curse Adam has brought upon his offspring, all mankind. Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection is that which saves these little ones. Because they are too young to know about their sin and about God and His salvation, they are not held accountable for responding to the gospel. The saving work of Jesus Christ saves them, before they are even able to know it. Such children who die go to heaven. This is what comforted David.

The theological basis for David’s comfort and hope was described by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, Chapter 5: “How can men be saved by believing in one person, Jesus Christ?” Paul’s answer was that it was one man, Adam, who brought sin and condemnation upon the entire human race. It is therefore through one man, Jesus Christ (called the “last Adam” by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45), that God has made salvation possible for lost men. Paul’s entire argument was based upon the premise that Christ in His righteousness has outdone Adam in his sin. Whatever Adam had done to bring condemnation upon the human race, Jesus Christ had outdone, making salvation available to the human race. If God were to condemn an unborn child to suffer eternally in hell, it could not be for the willful sins that child has committed. The condemnation of such a child would have to be the penalty for Adam’s sin, not the child’s. But if Christ has outdone Adam, then the death and resurrection of Christ has rescued all mankind from the penalty for Adam’s sin. Any man who comes under divine condemnation is condemned for his own sins, not for Adam’s sin. Therefore, I believe that Paul taught that the unborn child and the infant are saved by the work of Christ. Just as the world involuntarily became participants in the sin of Adam, so the unborn and young child becomes the beneficiary of Christ’s saving work at Calvary.

Obviously, there comes a time when we are held accountable for our own sins. Paul talks about it in Romans, that as he learned the law, he became a slave to sin. Thus, theologians talk about an “age of accountability.” It’s not a term found explicitly in Scripture, but it is an implicit and abstract concept that is Biblical. Passages like Acts 17:31 and Romans 14:12 indicate we will be required to give an account for our sin. Yet study in the Bible suggests that young children are not held accountable for sin, yet. Like the doctrine of the triunity of God, the Bible doesn’t explicitly spell it out, but it does leave hints that lead us to arrive at the conclusion that there is some age of accountability, but it would seem to vary with the individual.

Some believe the age of accountability could have been around 20 years old because this was the age when young men in Israel became accountable to serve in the army of Israel. I think that’s a bit legalistic. Others believe the age of accountability is around 12 or 13 due to this being the age when Jesus went up to Jerusalem with his parents and was found in the temple discussing the Law and asking questions. This was also the normal age for being received into Judaism as a “son of the law,” which would make him a full member of the religious community. Again, kind of legalistic for me.

All of this is conjecture since Scripture does not deal with the topic directly. In my inexpert opinion, a person becomes personally accountable when he or she reaches a point where they have the spiritual and mental facility to grasp the issues. This does not mean they are not sinful, but only that they have not reached a place where they can understand the consequence of and cure for their sin.

Of course all men are born spiritually dead (without the natural ability to respond) and under the condemnation of sin, but Christ seeks to draw all men to Himself through the ministry of the Spirit. He bore the condemnation for man by His death on the cross. The accountability issue then is turning from self-trust in good works or from apathy and a denial of accountability to God to trust in Christ (John 16:8). The Spirit’s ministry of convicting and giving demonstrable proof to men relates to their trust or rejection of Christ .

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; (emphasis mine).  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 16:8-9

So when is the age of accountability? The primary issue seems to be response to the revelation God has given. Personal accountability would vary according to one’s ability to understand the most fundamental issues. That would happen for some when they are quite young, while others may be much older. My daughter was perhaps four years old (we realized in retrospect) while an FAS kid adopted by some friends of ours is just now becoming aware of sin at age 16. The issue boils down to that point in time when one has the intellectual capacity to understand and respond to the convicting work of the Spirit as described in John 16. Christ died for the world and paid the penalty for sin (1 John 2:2); the issue is one of response to the revelation of God in creation (God consciousness) and in Christ. Young children are not responsible for their sin because Christ loves them and protects them, but at some point, they will be responsible. This is why witnessing to our children is of great importance.

So why not baptize infants? If it is merely a symbol, what difference does it make if it is done before or after salvation? Well, first, I don’t think we’re at liberty to play fast and loose with God’ symbols. He’s given them to us for a reason. We should reverence them for no other reason than that He gave them to us. Second, while it doesn’t convey grace leading to salvation that is the impression that is given. I think that can set up a stumbling block for many because they think the outward symbol is what saves them when they have not yet experienced the inward change that is salvation. I have found in conversations with people who were baptized as infants and are now living lifestyles of sin that often they feel they have their “fire insurance” because they were baptized as infants. In college I had a Lutheran minister, head of the Lutheran Campus Ministry, tell me that a separate act of faith was not necessary because baptism indicated that faith had already taken place.  I remember standing in the Student Union and asking, loud enough for people to hear me, how he knew what was in the mind of an infant he had baptized. It’s telling that he flipped me off (oh, yes, and oh, my!) and walked away. I was a smart-aleck, but he couldn’t answer me from the Bible.

I think baptism regeneration is an example of presuppositions causing the cart to somehow come before the horse. The symbol of regeneration became, somehow, the means of regeneration in the minds of people who, unlike little Marie’s parents, were not so confident in where their children’s souls were going after death. They wanted assurances and baptism of infants gave them that. In employing that method, churchmen sent an unintended message that baptism is what saves you. If you think you’re already saved, why contemplate the consequences of sin and the need for repentance, those actions that are truly necessary for salvation? Moreover, it robbed people who did contemplate sin and repentance of a beautiful first step of obedience in their new life of faith. My church has baptized several adults from denominations that will not re-baptize adults who feel they have the need of this first step. They choose our church because we separate baptism from membership (we are mavericks in Baptist circles for this), thus allowing them to remain Lutheran or Catholic but take part in believer’s baptism as all Christians were meant to do.

And, therein is the primary issue! The Bible shows us examples of believer’s baptism and now overt examples of infant baptism. From the perspective of a Bible-believing Christian, where our doctrines are derived not from tradition but from what we find within the pages of God’s Word, baptism is always a believer’s activity. You can jump through all the mental and theological hoops you find necessary to arrive at some other conclusion, but the Bible always shows believer’s baptism of those old enough to be believers. And, that should be, and is, enough for me.

A Roman Catholic reader asked a couple of questions that require some response. As a Catholic, of course, he belongs to a church that practices infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. The second term refers to the belief that baptism is a part of salvation and that it confers grace on the baptized, sort of sealing them for later salvation. Part and parcel with this is the idea of original sin, the idea that we are all born under the penalty of Adam and Eve’s sin and that if we die before we are saved, we go to Hell, whether we are an 80-year-old reprobate or an 8-hour-old infant.

First, I want to look at baptism from a Biblical point of view. Baptism is probably the most controversial issue in the Christian church. Christians have killed and persecuted other Christians over the issue of baptism. Questions abound about it. What does baptism mean, how should it be performed, who should receive it?

Of course, the first place to look for Biblical doctrine is the Bible.  The word “baptism” occurs 116 times in the New Testament, often describing John the Baptist, so we won’t look at all of them. The definition of the Greek word baptizo (baptism is a transliteration because the KJV translators didn’t want to open this kettle of worms) is “to dip or to immerse or to destroy.” That third definition caused me some deep thought when I first encountered it in Strongs. I finally came to the conclusion that certain things, when put under water and left there, are destroyed. I don’t know if there is any thing more to say about that.

The word or the root of baptizo occurs 69 times in the Gospels, 27 times in the book of Acts; 16 in Paul’s writings, twice in the Book of Hebrews (both dealing with ritual washings as in ceremonial purification), once in 1 Peter, and one time in the book of Revelation.

I believe the Bible teaches about two types of baptism.  There is a physical baptism in water and a spiritual baptism. In  Mark 10:37-38, James and John came to Jesus and asked a favor, but Jesus told He could not grant their request because they could not be baptized with the baptism He would experience. Yet, this was long after Jesus’ water baptism, so clearly was not referring to water baptism in Mark 10. We later come to understand that He meant His own destruction, His death. Clearly, He spoke of baptism in a non-physical sense. Similarly Luke 12:50 recorded Jesus saying He had a baptism to undergo and would be distressed until He had completed it. The context demands that Jesus was talking about His death hanging on the cross and receiving the sentence of the world’s sin. In Mark 1:8, John the Baptist said, “’I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’” John the Baptist’s ministry was baptizing with water, but Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit. A Spirit baptism is clearly set apart from a water baptism in this passage, a notion repeated in all of the synoptic Gospels as well as in Acts 1:5, right before the Spirit of God came on Pentecost and the community of believers was baptized by the Spirit. They received the Holy Spirit; He was poured out on them.

For any Bible-believing church 1 Corinthians 12 is central to the doctrine of Spirit baptism. Verse 13 says “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.” The Spirit has baptized all believers into one body, which is Spirit baptism. This is apart from water baptism.

My church, indeed all Baptist churches, believe in full-immersion water baptism. We look to Jesus’ baptism for this model. The mode of Jesus’ baptism was clearly water and clearly a lot of it, because John selected that particular place because water was plentiful there (John 3:23). Matthew 3:16 and Acts 8:36 both depict baptisms involving the baptized going down into the water. Logically speaking, sprinkling or pouring would not require wading into the water, so why did they go down into the water and why would they need a lot of it? Immersion is the only thing that would require plentiful water and going down into it. There is also the symbolism of baptism which is supported by immersion. Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:12 all provide word pictures that suggest salvation is dying in Christ to be raised anew.  What better symbolism than immersion baptism for that?

Truthfully, the Bible is not clear on the mode of baptism. Water, absolutely. It appears as though the proper New Testament means of baptism involved immersion or dipping, not sprinkling or pouring. But we cannot be entirely dogmatic about that. It is never completely spelled out for us, so we encourage immersion baptism as a church, but we also understand that there are extenuating circumstances where a person might have to be baptized in a different way. I can imagine places where water is scarce and immersion baptism is not feasible. Alaskan Native villages usually have rivers so cold you can get hypothermia in them in July. Pouring or sprinkling as an alternative to immersion would, I think be acceptable in some extenuating circumstances. My church is firm on immersion baptism, but our constitution allows for an alternative means due to medical necessity. The earliest church teachings outside the New Testament were the Didache and Tertullian, both written less than a century after the close of the New Testament. Both talked about immersion. The Didache said it is also permissible to pour on the new believer. Both of them, incidentally, talk about immersing three times -- in the name of Father, the name of the Son, the name of the Holy Spirit.

I believe in believers’ baptism. My church does not practice paedobaptism, or infant baptism and we do not embrace baptismal regeneration. We do not believe that baptism is part of the gospel, or a means to salvation.

Again, we turn to the Bible for our doctrine. Were infants baptized in the New Testament? My husband was raised Catholic and was baptized as an 8-day-old infant. He was baptized again about 21 years later after trusting Christ as his Savior and Lord. I want to show you the passages that certain denominations use to support infant baptism. You can draw your own conclusions about the strength of their argument based on the evidence. Acts 16:14-15 records that a woman named Lydia heard the gospel, believed what Paul was preaching and she and her whole household were baptized. I did not see any infants in this passage. I saw “household.” “Household” could mean a lot of things. It could mean her and her husband and some servants, maybe some parents and siblings, potentially some cousins, grown children, teenagers, children or infants, but it does not necessarily mean infants. It is only possible that infants were involved in that baptism.

In Acts 16, the Philippian jail asked Paul and Silas what was required for him to be saved. Paul told him to believe in the Lord Jesus and he would be saved along with his household. In order to understand the passage though, you can’t stop reading there. They then spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house. First, Paul didn’t mention baptism at all here, which seems strange if it is required for salvation. Second, the gospel was preached to the entire household, which may or may not have included infants and, then, they were baptized.  You find that specific order throughout Acts – preaching, belief, then baptism.

Acts 18:8 records how Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized.” This is talking about household salvation, not necessarily household baptism, but I have heard this passage used to support infant baptism. The Bible says he and his whole family believed, which tells me there were no infants there if they in fact believed, which is something infants cannot do.

In I Corinthians 1:16 Paul wrote “I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.” My points from above apply here also.

Four passages talk about household salvation or household baptism. Infants are not mentioned explicitly in any of them. These are the only passages that even imply the doctrine of infant baptism. If infants were meant to be baptized, you’d think God would have seen to it that it was put somewhere in His Scriptures. I think this is a case of presuppositions being applied to the Bible rather than the Bible informing church practice.

Some denominations practice infant baptism, principally the Roman Catholic, Lutheran and the Presbyterian. We need to draw a distinction between them before we go further. The Roman Catholic Church believes in baptismal regeneration of infants. Baptism is one of their seven sacraments or ordinances. When you receive baptism in the Roman Catholic Church, they believe that you are receiving grace that will assist you in your journey toward salvation. Baptism is considered one of the necessary steps toward salvation. They baptize infants and believe in baptismal regeneration because they believe that through baptism a person receives grace toward salvation.

The Lutheran church holds a similar view. The Lutheran church has taught baptismal regeneration from the time of Martin Luther. Remember Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, but he held onto certain of their doctrines. The Lutheran church embraces baptismal regeneration, but they also teach that we are saved by faith alone. How do you reconcile those two? Luther came up with an idea that Lutheran theologians have maintained ever since, that infants have a mysterious ability to exercise unconscious faith. Infants can actually trust Jesus Christ unconsciously, so therefore they are saved and can be baptized.

The Presbyterians also practice infant baptism, but they do not teach baptismal regeneration. The Presbyterian church views present-day infant baptism as being similar to Old Testament infant circumcision. In the Old Testament, when an infant was eight days old, he went for circumcision as a sign of the covenant, thus bringing the infant into the covenant community. Was that infant saved by circumcision? No, circumcision does not save. It just meant that he became a member of the community through this outward sign of the covenant. Presbyterians believe baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament and that baptism of infants is a way of entering them into the covenant community. Are they saved because of baptism? A biblically literate Presbyterian today would say no, baptism of that infant does not save them.

The difference between believer’s baptism and baptismal regeneration is enormous. Believer’s baptism follows a sequence: a person believes, trusts Christ, is saved and then is baptized. In baptismal regeneration, baptism is a part of salvation. You are baptized and that temporarily washes away original sin and imparts grace that will assist you toward salvation, which will happen at some point when you understand the gospel.

Which is right? Again, we must turn to the Bible for our answers, laying aside any presuppositions we might have.

Those who advocate baptism regeneration lean heavily on Acts 2:38. Having preached the first Christian sermon at Pentecost, Peter was asked by some in the crowd what they must do to be saved. “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Then in verse 41, we learn “So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand people were added.”  The question is was Peter teaching/preaching repentance plus baptism equals salvation or was he emphasizing the need to be baptized in Jesus’ name?

There’s a big difference. Either Peter was highlighting repentance and faith as necessary for salvation with baptism as an immediate outward symbol of this beautiful regeneration or he was teaching that baptism is a necessary part of the salvation equation. Of course, we must take the whole of the Bible together in context.  It’s important to know what else Peter had to say about baptism if we want to know what role baptism played in the gospel Peter preached. In Acts 3:19, Peter’s second sermon, Peter said “’Therefore, repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out ….’” He did not say, “Repent and be baptized and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out.” If baptism were a necessary part of salvation, you would think he would have mentioned it there, but he didn’t.

I think he cleared up the difficulty for us in I Peter 3:21. He wrote about Noah and the ark -- the ark’s saving them through the flood. “And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you -- not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ ….” Now I know some who will say this shows that baptism saves you, but lay aside your presuppositions for just a moment and read a little further. Peter immediately turned around and clarified -- and I am thankful for this parenthesis, “not the washing off of … dirt.” Baptism is not what saves us. Baptism represents a pledge toward God of a good conscience “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. It is that pledge, not the symbol, that saves us. This verse brings clarity to Peter’s theology, for he clearly did not believe or teach that being dipped, immersed, sprinkled, or poured (all the actions involving water) saves us. It is merely the beautiful representation of our salvation in Jesus Christ.

In Acts 22:16 Paul recounted his testimony, quoting Ananias “’And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’” Some people lean on this verse also to support baptismal regeneration. However, Paul’s statement here must be linked with Acts 9:17-18, which was the actual event that Paul was recounting. “So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, ‘Brother Saul ….’” That’s our first hint. Paul had already met Jesus on the Damascus Road. Now Ananias, a Christian, called him “Brother Saul”.  “’… The Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately, something like scales fell from his eyes and he could see again,” which often in scripture is a picture of redemption. Whereas I was blind, now I can see. Now you can see clearly. It is an image of having been saved. In the very next clause, “He got up and was baptized ….”

Did Paul believe that you were a believer first and then you followed Jesus in obedience through baptism or did he believe you were baptized as a part of salvation? Fortunately, with Paul, we have lots of other resources for his teachings. In 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul wrote “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel ….” Isn’t that an awesome passage, the way he divorces those two? If baptism were necessary for salvation, that would be part of the gospel. Paul says that is not the case. The gospel stands alone. It’s by faith alone, by grace alone, that we are saved. That is why Paul was been sent; not to baptize.

Think about the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Note that it says “Go and make disciples” -- believers, converts, followers of Jesus Christ. Then baptize them. Baptize whom? Baptize seekers? The unsaved? No! Baptize disciples -- people who are already followers of Jesus Christ. If baptismal regeneration is what the Bible teaches, then why didn’t the text say, “Go and baptize people in order to make them disciples”? It doesn’t say that. The assumption is that you become a disciple (a follower of Jesus Christ), and then you are baptized.

Some other passages to consider in this discussion are John 1:12, John 3:16, Romans 10:9, and Ephesians 2:8-9. Probably the clearest example of believer’s baptism is Acts 10. Cornelius heard Peter’s words, he trusted Christ and the spirit of God indwelt him. He even spoke in tongues as evidence that he had received the Spirit of God. Then, he was baptized.

Few Christian practices are as misunderstood as baptism. Few doctrines within the Christian church universal are more controversial. Yet the Bible’s teachings are really quite clear on the subject, provided you don’t force it to dance to the tune of your presuppositions. Baptism is a symbol of the transforming belief that Jesus is Savior. It is therefore something to be done by believers and not infants because infants are incapable of belief.

But, what about small children who die and go to heaven without salvation? Well, that will be another post.