An Answer to Baptistic Imaginations
Our Controversy with the Anabaptists
We have no small controversy with the Anabaptistic scheme. Sometimes these differences are represented as a mere opinion about the time or conditions for water baptism. This is emphatically not what lies at the root of the controversy. This is simply one small outworking of the radical differences at the root, and a stepping stone to even greater differences regarding the family, the home, how children are to be treated, and looking broader, the church, and what it is, and how it ought to be governed.
For two main reasons, we find (ana-)Baptistic theology offensive and gravely erroneous. This is why I plead with people to study the subject. First is that it is ultimately an aberrant manifestation of a denial of sovereign grace, and secondly, that it is an outright rejection of God's everlasting covenant of grace with us and our (elect) seed. I take this attitude and stance, because it is exactly that attitude which Christ showed to His disciples. Possibly the most powerful, unequivocal, incontrovertible passage on the subject is this:
“And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.” – Luke 18:15-17.
“Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.” – Matthew 19:13-15.
“And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.” – Mark 10:13-16.
Notice a number of things. One: that these were infants that were brought to Christ. Two: So helpless were these infants, that they had to be brought. Three: The disciples rebuked the people for bringing them. Four: Christ rebuked the disciples, and blessed the infants.
Pause for a moment and consider. What is it to be blessed by Christ? It is one thing - everlasting and full salvation by His cross on Calvary. Anything less would not be a blessing but only bring further condemnation. Christ is sincere when He blesses them. And so we see how this applies to baptism, since although not all who are baptised actually enter the kingdom, it remains that baptism is a sign of such entrance (cf. Nicene Creed), and if this speaks of the much greater thing, salvation/spiritual baptism, then it must also apply to the much lesser, the outward sign of water baptism. Now, why did the disciples rebuke the people for bringing the children? What can it be but the Baptistic error. Christ's answer to them highlights that the subject at stake here was receiving the kingdom of God. The disciples then were attempting to refuse the parents to bring their infants to Christ that these infants would receive the kingdom. Christ did not merely demonstrate His great displeasure with words, but proceeded to bless the infants - showing that they had indeed received the kingdom!
The disciples reasoned as the Baptists do, relying on human understanding rather than Scripture's revelation - that the infants could do nothing of themselves, and therefore could not yet receive the kingdom, at least until they were older. They would not have Christ bothered by infants incapable of any response. But Christ reprimands them sharply - they were totally wrong! He teaches here that the only way that we receive the kingdom is as such little children, that is, brought, and incapable of any thing of ourselves, but blessed by Christ. To refuse the infants then was a direct attack against the truth of sovereign irresistible grace. No wonder the disciples were so strongly rebuked!
Christ teaches that "of such is the kingdom of God". That is, the kingdom of God is made up of infants, completely without strength (Rom. 5:6). Not only so, but whoever does not come as an infant like this, cannot enter! So agrees the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5, for example. If we try to enter by our will or work, we are not being brought by Christ's work of blessing alone. Christ teaches this forcibly, even harshly again in Matthew 18:
“At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” – Matthew 18:1-11.
Why, such detestation for the refusal of baptism to the infant children of believers? Because in the church of Jesus Christ, the greatest are the infants who can do nothing for themselves. Why? Because no-one else in the church so clearly demonstrates the wonder of God's glorious and absolutely sovereign and free grace. All proud Pelagian heresy which tries to add our will or work to the accomplishment of salvation is utterly demolished by one such infant in the church. The infant has nothing with which to respond to Christ's grace - and therefore it is grace alone that the infant is saved. And if grace alone for the infant, then grace alone for the rest of us too.
So, then all who confess in their hearts this truth that salvation is all of grace, are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But Christ continues to expound glorious and awesome truths, which we could not imagine, were they not revealed to us graciously in Scripture. To receive such helpless, humble infants in Christ's name, is to receive Christ. And the following verses make abundantly clear what grievous sin Anabaptistic practice is (and we ought to tremble at the description of such punishment that we all deserve), and were it not that we are all so guilty, and yet fully cleansed once for all by the blood of Christ, we ought despair, not only of our dear and much loved Baptistic believers, but also of ourselves, for were we not also ignorant and foolish at one time? I even wanted to be re-baptised at one stage, thank God, that He kept me from that!
Finally, let us listen to His admonition to take heed, that we do not despise the little ones. Why? Because their angels always behold the very blessedness of the face of the Father in heaven, as Psalm 91 also teaches concerning the elect of God. Christ is clear that we do not despise them at least in three ways, by suffering them to be brought to Him (Mark 10:14), by bringing them (Matt. 19:15), and by receiving them in His name (Matt. 18:5). Baptistic theology does not receive them, unless they fulfill certain conditions - and this is an inherent denial of sovereign grace (though I am not saying that they do not believe in sovereign grace, as thankfully many do). Even the common Baptistic mode is Arminian and Pelagian, since it is by immersion (and then emersion - though they usually don't like this pointed out), which involves the subject doing all the work/action of going under the water and up etc. But the biblical mode of sprinkling or pouring involves a subject who does nothing, while the element (water) does all the work/action. In the former the attention is on the subject who is doing this thing. In the latter the attention is on the water and what it symbolises. Ought not the sign correspond with the reality - that all the attention should be on God, since it is He who does all the work in salvation - washing us with the blood of Jesus, cleansing us with the Holy Spirit?
But the second way, and possibly even more grievous, in which this wrong and wretched human theology denies sovereign grace is implicit in the name that those of the Reformed faith have always given to them - Anabaptist. Ana- meaning "again", since not only do they refuse baptism to the infant children of believers, but they also reject such baptisms as meaningless, and invalid, such that they would require us to be baptised again (or properly as they would have it - their definition of proper being, when we are old enough to make a calculated, responsible, independent, response/decision)! But this is repudiated by one of the oldest creeds of Christendom, as the Nicene Creed says (or Eph. 4 if you prefer, being absurdly anti-creedal often accompanies Anabaptism) there is one baptism for the remission of sins. Incidentally, this also condemns the kind of neo-Pentecostal that teaches a second-baptism of the Holy Spirit after conversion.
If there is one spiritual baptism, and all who hold the truths of sovereign elective preserving grace dear ought to confess this loud and clear, then there must also be only one outward sign of baptism - otherwise we are saying, if not in words, but deed, that the one spiritual baptism is not enough. One spiritual baptism is sufficient, because God sovereignly keeps all His sheep and will raise them up on the last day. To demand a second baptism is then to declare to the world that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross for sins is not enough, it is, in the words of Hebrews 6, to crucify afresh the Son of God. May God protect us from this blasphemy, for He knows how much we already merit hell by our sinful words and actions everyday, may we depart from iniquity and exhort others to do likewise. This is no small calumny against the cross of Christ to require a second baptism, and it is a pernicious lie of Satan, by which he provokes otherwise godly men to defame their own salvation and subject the eternal God to mockery. If we are zealous for God to be worshipped rightly, we will oppose this error with vigour, "in meekness instructing those who oppose themselves" (II Tim. 2:25-26).
Finally, the Baptistic denial of the covenant of God is plain, though their practice is usually inconsistent. For example, they ought to know that the prayers of the wicked are an abomination to God, and therefore, by such a diseased theology, they ought not allow their children to even pray, lest God bring judgment upon the whole household, for the father's negligence in allowing such an abomination. But we know that our children are holy (I Cor. 7:14), because although there may be Esaus among them, God has promised to be a God unto us and our children (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39; 16:31). And we know that they all are be treated as members of the church of God, of His kingdom, and in His everlasting covenant, even if some may later make it manifest by their unbelief and impenitence that they never were (Hebrews 10:29). This area deserves even lengthier treatment than the first, but it will have to wait for another time. It is perhaps more obvious anyway. All these errors sadden me deeply, and I long to see the establishment of a true church here in Limerick to bear witness to these truths and oppose the many putrescent lies under which we are currently so heavily buried, and by which many have been held captive for so long.
