Resources on believers' baptism

1. Wherein the Baptism of Water is proved to be that intended in the Commission, and so a standing Ordinance till the End of the World.


2. Shewing what Baptism is from the literal and true genuine and proper Signification of the word Baptism.


3. Proving that Baptism is dipping, plunging, and covering the Body all over in Water from the Practice of the Primitive Times.


4. Proving that Baptism is Dipping, Plunging, or Burying the whole Body in Water, In the Name, &c. from the Spiritual or Metaphorical signification of this Gospel-Ordinance or Administration.


5. Proving Baptism to be Immerging or Dipping, from those Typical and Metaphorical Baptisms spoken of in Scripture.


6. Proving Believers, or Adult Persons, only to be the Subjects of Baptism, from Christ's great Commission, Matt. 28.


7. Proving Believers to be the only true Subjects of Baptism, from the Apostles Doctrine, and the Practice of the Primitive Churches.


8. Proving Believers the only true Subjects of Baptism from the special ends of this holy Sacrament.


9. Containing several other Arguments, proving, why not Infants, but Believers only, are the true Subjects of Baptism.


10. Wherein the great Arguments, and pretended Scripture-Proofs for Infant-Baptism, concerning the Covenant Circumcision, and Infants Church-membership, are Examined, and Answered.


11. Wherein many other pretended Scripture-Proofs and Arguments for the baptizing of Infants are answered, as that, Suffer little Children to come unto me, &c. and, Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God, &c.


12. Containing an Answer to several other Arguments brought for Infant-Baptism.


13. Shewing the evil Consequences, Absurdities, and Contradictions, that attend Infant-Baptism, as 'tis Asserted and Practiced.


14. Proving Baptism a great and glorious Ordinance, and that 'tis initiating or an In-let into the Church.

Keach spends near half of the book rebutting common arguments in support of infant baptism, particularly those put forth by Calvinistic paedobaptists. He seems to cover every paedobaptist argument, prooftext, and objection I have ever encountered:

• Was not circumcision a seal of the Covenant of Grace then as baptism is now?
• Objection: The Promise and Covenant of God was to Abraham and his natural offspring
• Objection: Doesn't baptism replace circumcision?
• Question: Why may not children be baptized as they were circumcised heretofore?
• Objection: Children were members of the Jewish Church with their parents and they are still so
• Objection: Jews and their children were broken off, but the Gentiles and their children were ingrafted in their place
• Objection: If the children of believer don't receive baptism then this makes them less privileged than children under the Law
• Objection: What hope do we have of our infants if they are not to be baptized nor that they are church members?
• Objection: The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to infants, therefore, baptism must also belong to them
• Objection: There is no other way to regenerate infants than by baptism, therefore, they should be baptized
• The Proof from whole Households examined
• Objection: Whole Households were baptized, therefore some children were also baptized
• The Philippian Jailor and his household (Acts 16:33)
• Crispus and his household (Acts 18:8)
• Stephanus and his household (1 Corinthians 1:16)
• Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14-15)
• The Promise is to you and to your Children (Acts 2:39)
• The Proof for Infant-Baptism--("Else were your Children unclean", 1 Corinthians 7:14) answered
• Objection: The children of believers are federally holy and thus are to be baptized
• A proof from Mark 16:16 (argument that infants are believers)
• Objection: Infant-Baptism is proved by consequences
• Objection: The New Testament says nothing against Infant-Baptism
• Objection: Our Savior took little children in His arms, but does not admit them into His Church?
• Objection: Infants were commonly baptized before the Great Commission and thus is something common
• Objection: The Jews were accustomed to baptize proselyte parents and children
• Objection: But there are divers very learned Men who hold Infant-Baptism
• Objection: The Anabaptists lie under great reproaches
• Objection: Anabaptists were stigmatized and refuse to obey kings and oaths. What about the Munster-Story
• Objection: But you lay too much stress upon Baptism?
• Objection: Nowhere is it said that women received the Lord's Supper, in the same way we should baptize infants
• Objection: Baptists have no ground to baptize children grown in Christendom as those in the New Testament were converts from Judaism or Paganism
• Objection: How can baptism be by dipping if some were baptized in houses?
• Objection: There were a multitude of children baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10:2)

The "Munster-Story" refers to the Anabaptist rebellion in the German city of Münster in 1534. That, with the previous two points (very learned men hold infant baptism, Anabaptists lie under great reproaches) amount to ad hominem arguments against those who reject infant baptism.

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon is professor of theology at Houston Christian University and previously New Testament professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, which is affiliated with the mainline Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA). Dr. Gagnon wrote the article on baptism for the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization. He explores the use of the word baptizein in ancient Greek in non-religious contexts, details its usage in the New Testament, relates the history of the practice of baptism from the early church through the Reformation, and addresses specific points of conflict, including the question of infant baptism, for which he finds no support in the New Testament or early Christian practice. He suggests that the demand for infant baptism arises from a desire for "a rite for
parents to dedicate their lives to the nurture of their children in the Lord" in contrast to "a rite for persons who want to make a conscious dedication of their life to Christ," and that both desires could be satisfied with a second rite:

Yet no violation [of the one-baptism doctrine] would arise if one understood a believer's baptism of immersion or drenching as the baptism to which the NT refers and treated as a proleptic or preliminary rite to real baptism a rite of light pouring or sprinkling of infants for parents who wanted to commit themselves publicly to raise the child in a godly manner. The rite of sprinkling or light pouring might aptly illustrate the parental hope for the full immersion of the child's life in Christ when he or she comes of spiritual age.

I have often described the practice of infant baptism in Presbyterian churches as a "moist baby dedication" because vows are taken by parents as in a Baptist baby dedication, while in Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman practice the same baptismal vows used for those making a profession of faith are taken by a proxy (the godparent) on behalf of the child, which vows are reaffirmed by the child himself in confirmation. The Reformed paedobaptist rite asserts nothing about the present or future salvation of the baptizand, but speaks vaguely of a covenant, in contrast to Lutheran, Cathoic, and Orthodox practices which assert the act's salvivic power. Because of these differences, Reformed paedobaptists cannot claim that their baptism is the ancient practice of the church; in its asserted significance it is a 16th century novelty without earlier precedent.

One of my qualms with the practice of baptism in evangelical Presbyterian churches is that it magnifies with ceremony and celebration the natural birth of a new child, but downplays the more momentous occasion of a young person coming to a personal faith in Christ. In a PCA congregation, when a young person, baptized as an infant, comes to faith, they make a profession of faith privately to the elders, who vote on whether to admit the child to the Lord's Table, thus attaining the status of communicant members and now permitted to take communion. While infants are baptized with much ceremony, one at a time, young people admitted to the Lord's Table are presented to the congregation as a group, often with adults joining the church by transfer of membership, with no opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate the momentous change that has occurred in the lives of these young people. The second birth is made to seem less significant than the first birth.

Contrast this with my experience in the Baptist church. Each of us who were baptized entered the water individually, each heard his name and the words, "Upon your public profession of faith, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life." Upon the first phrase of that last sentence, the pastor would guide the baptizand as he leaned backwards until he fully entered the water, and then the pastor would pronounce the second phrase as he helped the baptizand out of the water and back to a standing posture. In some churches, it is the practice for each baptizand to make a brief testimony of faith in Christ after he enters the water and before he is baptized.

The next to last objection Keach addresses is one more easily answered today with the help of recent archaeological discoveries. Mikvaot, ritual immersion pools, have been discovered in synagogues, homes, and elsewhere around Israel. Such pools are still in use today by observant Jews for ritual purification in accordance with the Law of Moses.

During a recent tour of Israel, we saw mikvehs from the Second Temple Period (prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70) at Korazim, Qumran, Tel Arad, Masada, Tzipori, and Jerusalem. The photo at the top of this page is of a rain-filled mikveh at Korazim National Park. On our previous tour in 2015, we visited the ruins of what is believed to be the high priest's mansion, in the Jewish Quarter, in what was known in ancient times as the Upper City, atop the western slope of the Tyropoean Valley across from the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. The palatial home, today part of the Wohl Archaeological Museum is believed to belong to a priestly family in part because of the presence of mikvehs within the home.

There are so many mikvehs on the southern approach to the Temple Mount (over 50 discovered thus far, among 200 found in Jerusalem and 700 nationwide) that Jerusalem Archaeological Park has established a mikveh trail. (Photos of the historical markers showing a map of the trail here.) These places of ritual self-immersion are adjacent to the southern steps leading to the Huldah Gates of the Temple Mount. As this is the path that pilgrims would have taken to ascend to the temple, it is where anyone seeking an audience would have set up shop. These steps are almost certainly where Peter preached at Pentecost. Paedobaptists often scoff at the idea that 3,000 new followers of Jesus could have been immersed on Pentecost, but this would be easily accomplished in an area thickly furnished with ritual immersion pools.

In years past, it seemed amazing that 3,000 could be baptized in a city after the pattern of John the Baptist and Jesus. The question that now occurs to me is how John's baptism, in the open, in a river, in the middle of nowhere, would have seemed to those accustomed to private ritual immersion in hewn and plastered mikvaot in their cities and towns.