An Examination of Bishop Jerry Hayes’s “A Study in Infant Water Baptism.”

A recent Facebook discussion and blog post has prompted me to write this response to Bishop Jerry Hayes’s article “A Study in Infant Water Baptism.” Bishop Hayes, as early as 2012 (article “Manifesto of the Disciples of the Way (Apostolic),” has advocated infant water baptism (IWB), but (to my knowledge) his 2018 blog article is his first attempt at formally defending this position.

Before I jump into my disagreement with Bishop Hayes on infant water baptism, I would like to express and praise Bishop Hayes on an area in which we agree. Bishop Hayes offers a powerful examination of so-called “Christian homes” when compared to Muslim and Jewish households. I agree with Bishop Hayes to the extent that raising our children to live as Christians is not an option. As children (even as teens), they do not get to decide whether or not they will attend church services and/or live according to the principles of Christ. As parents, we are commanded to raise our children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesian 6:4). However, I disagree with Bishop Hayes’s conclusion to this principle. Although “one is born a Muslim” or “one is born a Jew,” the fact that they were “born” a Muslim or Jew does not automatically necessitate that they will “remain” a Muslim or Jew. Circumcision for Jews does not guarantee that they will remain faithful to their Jewish faith (the same can honestly be said in regards to infant water baptism). It is because a child has been raised in a household of faith and develops their own relationship in the faith to their God that they then remain in that faith; not the fact that they were circumcised or baptized as an infant. “TRAIN UP a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

In his blog, Bishop Hayes offers one of the most shocking confessions I have ever read from a minister who claims to be Apostolic. Bishop Hayes proclaims, “Yes, I confess that the New Testament teaches to be ‘Born Again.’ However, I AM NO LONGER SURE of the need of each succeeding generation of Christians being required to have the EXACT new birth experiences as did the first” (bold emphasis mine JLW). So, in other words, Bishop Hayes is saying that the second generation does not necessarily have to be “born again” in the same manner as their parents. I wonder if this includes being “born of the Spirit?” Bishop Hayes argues that the parents’ faith transposes to the infant child to the extent that the infant (and by “infant” we really mean a baby who is unable to speak; Latin infans = “speechless’) is a proper candidate for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, who never needs to be rebaptized as an adult. Then by this same token, is Bishop Hayes willing to say that a Holy Ghost-filled parent’s spirituality also transposes to their infant child to the extent that the infant child is already “filled with the Holy Spirit” to the extent that they never are required to experience the baptism of the Holy Ghost as an adult? If not, why not.

Bishop Hayes claims several times in his blog, “The challenge arises when we must admit that the New Testament gives no example of any but first generation converts. I mean, we have no biblical example of how second and succeeding generation were made Christians.”  However, this statement overlooks the fact that the New Testament DOES instruct us how second and succeeding generations ARE TO BE MADE Christians!

 

Acts 2:38–39, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. FOR (gar – because) the promise is to you (first generation), and to your children (second generation), and to all that are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

 

The Gospel Call to REPENT and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is not limited to first generation converts. In fact, this Gospel Call is not limited to third or fourth generation converts. This Gospel Call is unto “as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Whether your parents, grandparents, or even great-grandparents were all tongue-talking, Holy Ghost-filled, Jesus Name-baptized believers; you, yourself, need your own experience of Repentance, Baptism in Jesus’ Name, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

As with most of Bishop Hayes’s so-called “Orthodox” doctrines, he strongly appeals to Church history, and by that we mean the writings of the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene “Church Fathers.” In my opinion, it is highly inconsistent for a man to claim to uphold the historical Modalistic (Monarchian) doctrine of the Godhead, and then claim that the 2^nd and 3^rd Century opponents of Modalism represent true, historical, Apostolic teaching. Bishop Hayes claims, “Infant Water Baptism was universal in Christian society from the first century onward and was not brought into question until the Anabaptist [16^th century].” This statement is factually inaccurate on several accounts.

First of all, NOTHING has been “universal” in Christian society – every! Even in the 1^st century church, there were divisions concerning doctrines, whether it be concerning keeping the Law, eating meat sacrificed to idols, or even whether the resurrection had already taken place. Even when the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb and other prominent Apostles such as Barnabas, Paul and James the Lord’s brother were still alive, there was division in the church. So the idea that any particular doctrine has been “universally” taught from the 1^st century is just incorrect.

Secondly, Bishop Hayes’s statement that infant water baptism “was not brought into question until the Anabaptist [16^th century]” is equally incorrect and unfactual. All you have to do is read the end of Bishop Hayes’s article and see where; even he admits that, Tertullian opposed infant water baptism. So, Bishop Hayes actually presents contradicting information in his blog – originally says it was not disputed until 16^th century, but then admits Tertullian (155–205) also rejected infant water baptism. And here is food for thought on this supposed “universal” practice of infant water baptism: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, etc. do not represent early Oneness (modalistic) Apostolic theology. So, it seems that Bishop Hayes finds himself at odds with the church history he likes to quote. As mentioned earlier, it is highly inconsistent to claim that you identify with the historical, Modalistic view of the Godhead, which the early “Church Fathers” opposed, and then claim that these Trinitarian opponents to Modalism represent the Orthodox-Apostolic position on infant water baptism.

These Catholic writers often wrote in opposition to such sects as the Monarchians, Montanist, Donatist, etc. especially in regards to baptism, and since we know for sure that Tertullian opposed infant water baptism (On Baptism, chapter 18) and he also converted to the Montanist, then what other groups (Donatist, Monarchians, Novatianist, etc) likewise opposed infant water baptism? What we do know from Tertullian at least is that infant water baptism was not “a universal practice that was unquestioned by Christian authorities until the time of the Protestant Reformation” as Bishop Hayes claims. As usual with Bishop Hayes, his misrepresentation of Church history overshadows his theology.

Before moving on to Bishop Hayes’s Scriptural arguments he thinks affirms infant water baptism, let’s address his comments on the New Birth of John 3:5. Bishop Hayes proclaims, “Jesus told Nicodemus that the Jewish people must be born again (John 3:1-8).” The new birth experience of John 3:5 is not limited to Jewish people. In fact Jesus’s final “Great Commission” proclaims that this New Birth message of water and Spirit baptism is to be preached to ALL NATIONS (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15–16; Luke 24:47). Bishop Hayes concludes his assessment of the New Birth by stating, “The children of Christians are holy seed, and, as a result are born Christians, and are eligible for all Christian prerogatives …” Of course, he offers no Scriptural support for such statement. Being born into a Christian home does not automatically make you a Christian. Unlike the Jewish faith, Christianity is not a “family” that you are born into; rather it is a “family” that you are BORN AGAIN into. No passage states or even implies that a parent’s faith and belief automatically transfers to their children. John 3:16 states “Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish.” Belief is on the part of the “whosoever,” not someone else. No Scripture indicates that a parent’s belief automatically transposes to their children or stands in proxy for their children.

Question # 1 ––  Bishop Hayes’s Question #1 does not really give any Scriptural proof for infant water baptism, but simply directs the reader to Questions # 2 and 3.

Question # 2 –– Question 2 addresses why some oppose infant water baptism in regards to belief and repentance being prerequisites for water baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:36–37). Bishop Hayes responded, “The first thing we must do is to knowledge [sic] that the New Testament is silent on how second generation Christians were made.” As mentioned earlier, the New Testament is NOT silent on how second generation Christians are to be made. The command to repent, be baptized in Jesus’s Name and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost is declared upon “you” (first generation) “and to your children” (second generation). Thus, we should readily expect a second generation Christian, such as Timothy (Acts 16:1) to have likewise repented of his own sins, been baptized in Jesus’s Name and received the gift of the Holy Ghost (2 Timothy 1:6). It does not seem likely that a Jewish convert (Timothy’s mom) who did not have her son circumcised would then allow her infant child to be baptized. Obviously the context of Acts 2:38–39 has BOTH first AND second-generation conversion in view.

Bishop Hayes further postulates that the command to “repent” as a prerequisite for baptism in Acts 2:38 was “crowd specific” only to those Jews present for killing Jesus Christ. Bishop Hayes likewise asserts, “Moreover, Acts 2:38 is the only New Testament text that associates water baptism with repentance … But there is only ONE text that connects repentance and water baptism (Acts 2:38)” (upper caps emphasis – Bishop Hayes). Actually, Acts 2:38 is NOT the only passage that connects repentance to water baptism! The Great Commission recorded in Luke 24:47 indicates, “REPENTANCE and remission of sins should be preached to ALL NATIONS beginning at Jerusalem.” Thus, repentance as a prerequisite to water baptism is not crowd specific to only those 1^st century Jews, but is a prerequisite to ALL NATIONS. We likewise understand from Acts 10:44–48 and 11:15–18 that repentance was a prerequisite for the Gentiles to receiving the Holy Ghost and being baptized in the name of Jesus.

One should understand that “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 grammatically modifies BOTH “repent” and “be baptized.” This is where Catholic error comes into play. Catholics teach that the “work” of baptism (without faith) is what remits sin. Baptism alone is not “for the remission of sins.” The text clearly states, “Repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins.” Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ without repentance does not grant remission of sins. Thus, since an infant (infas = speechless) does not possess the ability or knowledge to repent, then baptizing them in Jesus’s Name does NOT communicate “remission of sins.” Likewise, in Mark 16:16, “HE that believes AND is baptized shall be saved,” BOTH belief AND baptism result in salvation –– and that is personal belief i.e. “he that believes,” not some sort of unbiblical proxy belief. An individual must believe for themselves and be baptized in order to be saved. Thus, because an infant in incapable of believing in Jesus Christ, then they are not a valid candidate for baptism.

Bishop Hayes’s affirmation of infant water baptism is directly linked with his misunderstanding of “original sin.” Bishop Hayes states, “The sin of Adam, is not a sin that can be repented of, whether one is an infant or an adult – it can just be remitted.” I will not even begin to get into the errors of Hayes’s doctrine of original sin. However, this ideology is contrary to Acts 2:38 in which “remission of sins” grammatically modifies both “repent” and “be baptized.” Any sin that is not repented of cannot likewise be remitted! “Remission of sins” is dependent upon BOTH repentance AND baptism.

Question # 3 –– Here Bishop Hayes offers his affirmatives for practicing infant water baptism. The first of which is an appeal to Old Testament Circumcision. Bishop Hayes argues that since infants were circumcised in the Old Testament and (according to Hayes) “Christian Covenant Theology views Water Baptism as Christian circumcision (see Colossians 2:11–12)” then infant water baptism is valid. However, there are several problems with this argument. First of all, water baptism in and of itself is not New Testament circumcision. New Testament circumcision is the “remission” or “cutting off” of sin that takes place through repentance and water baptism. If Bishop Hayes truly believes that Old Testament circumcision is the “type and shadow of baptism (i.e. circumcision)” then by this same token infant water baptism would only be valid for male infants when they are eight days old. Does Bishop Hayes limit infant water baptism to only male infants? If not, then he is not truly following the example of his so-called type and shadow of Old Testament circumcision. Likewise, Colossians 2:11–12 offers no proof for infant water baptism because verse 12 indicates that those who are water baptize express their faith of the operation of God (“YOU are risen though the faith”). Infants are incapable of expressing their faith of the operation of God, and therefore are not valid candidates for water baptism.

Once again, Bishop Hayes argues his doctrine of “original sin” by appealing to Psalm 51:5, “Behold I was shapen in inquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” However, commentators indicate that “shapen in inquity” is explained by “in sin did my mother conceive me” and indicates that David was conceived in sin through an adulterous relationship with a concubine. Many commentators refute any idea of “original sin” or “Adam’s sin” being the subject of Psalm 51:5.

Bishop Hayes’s next argument for infant water baptism is the so-called “apostolic example … provided for IWB in the fact that  whole households were water baptized in the book of Acts of the Apostles (10:24, 44, 48; 16:15; 16:31–34; 18:8; see also First Corinthians 1:16); it is logically assumed that the households included small children and infants.” Bishop Hayes’s first reference does not say anything about a “whole household” being baptized, let alone small children and infants. This is actually all based on an illogical conclusion. Acts 10:24 denotes that Cornelius called together “his kinsmen and near friends.” Nothing said of infants and children. Acts 10:44 indicates that the Holy Ghost fell on “all of them which heard the word.” Now because Luke penned the word “ALL” (pas), will Bishop Hayes have us to believe that the Holy Ghost fell on the infants and small children who likewise spoke with tongues and magnified God (Acts 10:46)? Peter’s command to be baptized was only to those who had received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:47). Thus even if there were infants and small children in the crowd, Peter’s command for baptism was only to those Gentiles who received the Holy Ghost and had spoken with tongues:

 

Acts 10:47, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

 

As far as Bishop Hayes’s “logical assumption” that these households included children, Hayes further states that to argue that these households may not have included infants and children is “to take a mischievous, if not an outright dishonest, position.” Thus, Hayes has already (falsely) set up any critique of his position as dishonest. I think it is more dishonest to firmly argue that any of these households would “logically” include infants and small children. While the idea is certainly “possible,” this is a far cry from a so-called “logical assumption.” In fact, Bishop Hayes’s doctrine depends upon these household including infants –– which he cannot firmly establish. We can cite many “households” throughout the Bible that did not include children. For example, for most of their lives Zacharias and Elizabeth’s “household” did not include a child. A “household” in 1^st century times could have comprised of a Matriarch/Patriarch and adult servants. The fact is that Bishop Hayes’s so-called “apostolic example” is nothing more than a false assumption.

            Even in the case of these “households,” the context does not demand that infants were baptized. Take for example, Lydia. Before Lydia was baptized she “worshipped God” and  “the Lord opened her heart.” There were prerequisites Lydia met before being a valid candidate for baptism, prerequisites that are impossible for an infant to meet. In the case of the Philippian jailer’s house (Acts 16:33–34), Luke indicates that the jailer “rejoiced, believing in God WITH ALL HIS HOUSE.” Does this mean that even the infants in his house rejoiced and believed in God? Well, obviously not, because they are incapable at that young age to rejoice and believe in God. Thus we understand that references to “all his” are qualified to be those who have the capacity to “rejoice” and “believe” in God.

The same is true with Crispus and his house in Acts 18:8. The text CLEARLY says that Crispus “believed on the Lord WITH ALL HIS HOUSE” and “many Corinthians HEARING BELIEVED, and were baptized.” This obviously establishes that “hearing” and “believing” the word (which infants are incapable of) are prerequisites to be water baptized. Again, is Bishop Hayes suggesting that even infants “believed on the Lord?” No, he does not because Bishop Hayes promotes some strange doctrine that the parents’ faith and belief somehow transfers to their children as proxy, which makes them valid candidates for baptism. Such is NEVER taught in the Bible.

Bishop Hayes mentions 1 Corinthians 1:16 where Paul indicates that he “baptized also the household of Stephanas” as some proof of infant water baptism. Again, Hayes’s argument is built upon an assumption that he cannot prove –– that there were infants in Stephanas’s house; but even if there were infants in his house, it would not necessitate infant water baptism because also declared that “the house of Stephanas” had “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” Does this also include infants? Did infants who cannot even speak “addict themselves to the ministry of the saints?” Obviously not.

Lastly, Bishop Hayes appeals to Paul’s allegory in 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 of how the Israelites (including children) all passed through the Red Sea and were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. This is actually an argument he read from a Facebook post on his thread on the topic of Infant Water Baptism. Bishop Hayes thinks this is proof that infants are valid candidates for water baptism –– the “water” of the New Birth. However, Bishop Hayes conveniently overlooks the fact that, not only did they pass through the Red Sea, but were also “under the cloud” and “baptized unto Moses IN THE CLOUD and the sea” and “did ALL drink the same spiritual drink.” The “cloud” and “drink” are obvious allegories of the baptism of the Holy Ghost (see 1 Corinthians 12:13). Once again, since babies also passed under the cloud and drank of that spiritual drink, does this mean in the New Testament that somehow the parents’ Holy Ghost baptism experience (like their faith and belief, as Hayes claims) somehow mystically transfers to the infants? Obviously not! Then to force New Testament infant water baptism into the context of 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 is not only poor exegesis, it id false theology.

Thus, the doctrine of infant water baptism must be rejected as false theology, and NOT a component of the “apostles’ doctrine.” Every argument submitted to promote infant water baptism is either based upon assumption and conjecture or false Catholic theology and history. There are no examples in the book of Acts of infants being baptized. As a matter of fact, the Bible specifies that in the revival in Samaria, those that were baptized were “men and women” –– not infants. The doctrine of infant water baptism promotes a false hope to those persons who were baptized as infants –– without faith, without belief, without repentance, and thus without the remission of sins and salvation.