Tags
Where Scripture Has No Tongue
If infant baptism had been any appointment or ordinance of Jesus Christ, there would have been some precept, command, or example in the Scripture to warrant the same; but inasmuch as the Scripture is so wholly silent therein, there being not one syllable to be found in all the New Testament about any such practice, it may well be concluded to be no ordinance of Jesus Christ; for where the Scripture has no tongue, we ought to have no ear; according to that known maxim:
To practice anything in the worship of God, as an ordinance of His, without an institution, ought to be esteemed will-worship and idolatry.
– Henry Danvers, A Treatise of Baptism, first published 1674
5 Pt. Salt 
“for where the Scripture has no tongue, we ought to have no ear; according to that known maxim”
Unless one holds to the “normative principle” which puts man’s imagination in control of how one approaches and worships and obeys God. Kinda like Nadab and Abihu worked it – for about half a day, before God killed them.
Those who profess a valid baptism of the infant children of believing parents base their belief on an extensive assemblage of perceived scriptural inferences. If we are to rule out such inferences as constituting sufficient basis for accepted practice, we must surely do the same with the mode of baptism of believers, for total immersion is also based on such perception of scriptural inferences. There is here, too, “not one syllable to be found in all the New Testament about any such practice.”
But if we will recognize that the “one baptism” to which Paul refers in Eph.4:5 is that by which the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into the body of Christ (1Cor.12:13), and does not refer to our correct outward form in the act of obedience, we may get on with the work of proclaiming the Gospel to, and making disciples of, every nation, and leave off the vain exercise of seeking bones to pick and details over which to quibble and sustain unnecessary divisions.
Manfred’s point gives me a chuckle, but I’m missing al H’s point; I gather then that I’m ignorant on this point. The word baptism is in fact the word immersion, is it not? If it were not for a transliteration instead of a translation many years ago, would we even have this problem today?
Anyhow I too believe baptism is for believer’s only, but to be fair saying infant baptism is not in the Scripture misses the argument of the paedobaptists.
Even with the arguments however, I think they fail to meet any “good and necessary” standard. Possible, maybe; necessary, not a chance.
One might point out that “trinity” and “rapture” are not in the Bible either (and those are also points of contention with various groups).
Robert,
Good point…however 🙂 Truth in Scripture is sometimes spread throughout the canon itself as opposed to specific ‘proof texts’ such as the Trinity, etc. However, there is no such panaroma of texts that support infant baptism is there? No, there is not, not even a single instant!
Excellent!