Paedo-Baptism Argument Debunked

By
Jason Robertson
Posted in: Baptism

The following is an excerpt from the Prince of Preachers’ sermon on Mark 10:13-16 entitled “Children Brought To Christ, and Not To The Font.” His first point in the sermon is to prove that this text has nothing to do with baptism, much less paedo-baptism. He begins by explaining that the children had neither been brought to Jesus nor His disciples to be baptised. He focuses on the fact that the disciples apparently did not baptize children because they did not even want the children there. I think you will be blessed by the exegetical logic of Spurgeon’s following points:

Moreover, and here is an argument which seems to me to have great force in it, when Jesus Christ rebuked his disciples, then was the time if ever in his life, to have openly spoken concerning infant baptism, godfathers and godmothers, and the whole affair. If he wished to rebuke his disciples most effectually, how could he have done it better than by saying, “Wherefore keep ye these children back? I have ordained that they shall be baptized; I have expressly commanded that they shall be regenerated and made members of my body in baptism; how dare you then, in opposition to my will, keep them back?” But no, dear friends, our Savior never said a word about “the laver of regeneration,” or, “the quickening dew,” when he rebuked them — not a single sentence. Had he done so, the season would have been most appropriate if it had been his intention to teach the practice; in the whole of his life, there is no period in which a discourse upon infant regeneration in baptism could have been more appropriate than on this occasion, and yet not a single sentence about it comes from the Savior’s lips.

To close all, Jesus Christ did not baptize the children. Our Evangelist does not inform us that he exclaimed, “Where are the godfathers and godmothers?” It is not recorded that he called for a font, or a Prayer Book? No; but “He took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them,” and dismissed them without a drop of the purifying element. Now, if this event had any connection with baptism whatever, it was the most appropriate occasion for infant baptism to have been practiced. Why, it would have ended for ever the controversy.

There may be some men in the world who would have raised the question of engrafting infants into the body of Christ’s Church by baptism after all this, but I am certain no honest man would have done so who reverently accepted Christ as his spiritual leader. I, my brethren, would sooner be dumb than speak a single word against an ordinance which Christ himself instituted and practiced; and if on this occasion he had but sprinkled one of these infant s, given him a Christian name, signed him with a cross, accepted the vows of his godparents, and thanked God for his regeneration, then the question would have been settled for ever, and some of us would have been saved a world of abuse, besides escaping no end of mistakes, for which we are condemned, in the judgment of many good people, for whom we have some affection, though for their judgment we have no respect.

So you see the parents did not ask baptismal regeneration; Christ did not personally baptize; the disciples were not in the habit of baptizing infants, or else they would not have rebuked the parents; Christ did not speak about baptism on the occasion, and he did not baptize the little ones.

I will put a case to you which may exhibit the weakness of my opponents’ position. Suppose a denomination should rise up which should teach that babes should be allowed to partake at the Lord’s Table. Such teaching could plead precedents of great antiquity, for you are aware that at one period, infant communion was allowed, and logically too; for if an infant has a right to baptism, it has a right to come to the Lord’s Table. For years children were brought to the Lord’s Table, but rather inconvenient accidents occurred, and there fore the thing was dropped as being unseemly. But if some one should revive the error, and try to prove that infants are to come to the Lord’s Supper, he might prove it from this passage quite as clearly as our friends can prove infant baptism from it.

Moreover do not forget that even if infant baptism could be proved from this text, the ceremony prescribed in the Prayer Book is quite as far from being established. Whether the baptism of infants may or may not be proved from other Scriptures I cannot now stay to enquire, but even if it can be, what are we to say for godfathers or godmothers, or the assertion that in baptism children are made “members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven?” Truly I might as well prove vaccination from the text before me, as the performance which the Prayer Book calls “infant baptism.” I do not hesitate to say that I could prove any earthly thing, if I might but have such reasoning granted to me as that which proved infant baptism from this passage. There is no possible connection between the two. The teaching of the passage is very plain and very clear, and baptism has been imported into it, and not found in it. As a quaint writer has well said, “These doctrines are raised from the text as our collectors raise a tax upon indigent, nonsolvent people, by coming armed with the law and a constable to distrain for that which is not to be had.

Certainly never was text so strained and distrained to pay what it never owed; never man so racked to confess what he never thought; never was a pumice stone so squeezed for water which it never held.” Still hundreds will catch at this straw, and cry, “Did not Jesus say, ’Suffer the little children to come unto me?’” To these we give this one word, see that ye read the Word as it is written, and you will find no water in it but Jesus only. Are the water and Christ the same thing? Is bringing a child to a font bringing the child to Christ? Nay, here is a wide difference, as wide as between Rome and Jerusalem, as wide as between Anti-christ and Christ, between false doctrine and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(source: Spurgeon, C. H. Sermons Vol. 10: #581)

Guard that which has been entrusted to us.

About the Author

Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers. Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University. You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.