WHY DID THE ANABAPTISTS REJECT INFANT BAPTISM?
THE REFORMATION REACHES THE BAPTISMAL FONT
Luther challenged Rome.
Zwingli challenged Rome.
Both appealed to Scripture.
But both continued a practice inherited from the medieval church:
INFANT BAPTISM.
Then some of the people around Zwingli began asking an uncomfortable question:
WHERE IS INFANT BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
That question helped produce what historians call the Anabaptist movement.
And it divided Reformers who had previously been allies.
1. “ANABAPTIST” WAS NOT THEIR CHOSEN NAME
The word Anabaptist means:
RE-BAPTIZER.
Their opponents used the term because these Christians baptized people who had already been baptized as infants.
But the Anabaptists rejected the reasoning behind the name.
They argued that an infant cannot personally believe, repent, or choose to become a disciple.
Therefore, they said, infant baptism was not the baptism described in the New Testament.
So when an adult believer was baptized, they did not consider it:
A SECOND BAPTISM.
They considered it:
THE FIRST REAL BAPTISM.
Whether they were correct must be tested from Scripture.
But we should first understand their argument.
2. THE CRISIS BEGAN IN ZÜRICH
In Switzerland, Zwingli was leading reform in Zürich.
Some of his associates wanted reform to move faster and further.
Among them were:
CONRAD GREBEL.
FELIX MANZ.
GEORGE BLAUROCK.
They increasingly disagreed with Zwingli over baptism and the relationship between the church and civil government.
If Scripture was the authority, they asked, why should Christians continue baptizing infants merely because the church had done so for centuries?
The issue came to a head in:
3. THEN SOMETHING RADICAL HAPPENED
In January 1525, after Zürich authorities rejected their position, a small group met together.
According to an early account, George Blaurock asked Conrad Grebel to baptize him upon his confession of faith.
Grebel did so.
Blaurock then baptized others.
That meeting helped launch the Swiss Brethren movement.
To modern Christians, baptizing an adult believer may not sound revolutionary.
In 1525, it was.
Because baptism was connected not only with religion.
It was connected with:
SOCIETY ITSELF.
4. WHY WAS INFANT BAPTISM SO IMPORTANT TO SOCIETY?
For centuries, most people in Western Europe had been baptized as infants.
Church membership and membership in the surrounding Christian society were closely connected.
Baptizing an infant helped mark the child as part of that Christian community.
Reject infant baptism, and something larger begins to happen.
The church is no longer understood simply as:
EVERYONE BORN INTO CHRISTIAN SOCIETY.
Instead, it becomes a community of people who personally confess faith and choose discipleship.
That was a major change.
And it challenged both Catholic and Protestant authorities.
5. SO LET’S ASK THEIR QUESTION
Forget the Anabaptists for a moment.
Forget Luther.
Forget Zwingli.
Forget later Baptists.
Forget Churches of Christ.
Open the New Testament.
WHO WAS BAPTIZED?
At Pentecost, Peter preached:
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
— Acts 2:38, KJV
Then Luke tells us:
“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”
— Acts 2:41, KJV
Notice the sequence:
THE WORD WAS PREACHED.
THE WORD WAS RECEIVED.
PEOPLE WERE BAPTIZED.
That is what Luke explicitly records.
6. WHAT HAPPENED IN SAMARIA?
Philip preached in Samaria.
Luke writes:
“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”
— Acts 8:12, KJV
Again:
PREACHING.
BELIEVING.
BAPTISM.
And Luke specifically says:
MEN AND WOMEN.
He does not mention infants.
That observation matters.
But we must also be careful.
The absence of infants in this particular verse does not, by itself, prove that infants were never baptized.
We need to examine all the evidence.
7. WHAT ABOUT THE ETHIOPIAN?
Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian official.
As they traveled, they came to water.
The man asked:
“See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”
— Acts 8:36, KJV
Luke then writes:
“And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
— Acts 8:38, KJV
The Ethiopian had heard the gospel.
He requested baptism.
Philip baptized him.
Once again, the person receiving baptism had first heard the message about Jesus.
A textual note is worth remembering: Acts 8:37, which contains an explicit confession of faith in the KJV, is absent from some of the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts. The surrounding account nevertheless describes an adult who heard Philip preach Jesus and then requested baptism.
8. WHAT ABOUT SAUL?
Saul encountered the risen Christ.
Ananias came to him.
Later, Paul recalled Ananias telling him:
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
— Acts 22:16, KJV
Saul was personally involved.
He had encountered Christ.
He had received instruction.
He was told to be baptized.
And he responded.
9. WHAT ABOUT CORNELIUS?
Peter preached the gospel in the house of Cornelius.
Luke writes:
“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.”
— Acts 10:44, KJV
Peter then commanded them to be baptized.
Read Acts 10:47–48.
Once again, the account describes people hearing the gospel and responding to God’s message.
This pattern appears repeatedly in Acts.
But we should not assume that every baptismal account supplies every detail about every person present.
That becomes important when we reach household baptisms.
10. WHAT ABOUT LYDIA?
Now we come to evidence often raised in support of infant baptism.
Luke writes:
“And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there.”
— Acts 16:15, KJV
There it is:
A HOUSEHOLD.
Could that household have included infants?
Possibly.
Does the text say it did?
No.
Does the text say it did not?
No.
We are not told the ages of the people in Lydia’s household.
Nor are we told whether Lydia had children.
So this account establishes that Lydia and her household were baptized.
It does not establish the presence or absence of infants.
WE MUST NOT TURN WHAT IS POSSIBLE INTO WHAT IS PROVEN.
11. WHAT ABOUT THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER?
The jailer asked:
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
— Acts 16:30, KJV
Paul and Silas answered:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
— Acts 16:31, KJV
Then Luke writes:
“And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.”
— Acts 16:32, KJV
The household was baptized.
Then Luke tells us that the jailer:
“rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
— Acts 16:34, KJV
Notice the connections.
The word was spoken to the household.
The household was baptized.
The account also connects the jailer’s believing and rejoicing with his household.
Christians who practice believer’s baptism understand this as supporting baptism following a personal response to the gospel.
Christians who practice infant baptism may argue that the household language does not exclude young children and that the head of a household could respond on behalf of his family.
But the passage does not explicitly identify any infants.
Nor does it describe an infant receiving baptism on the basis of a parent’s faith.
WE MUST DISTINGUISH WHAT LUKE TELLS US FROM WHAT WE INFER.
12. WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSEHOLD OF STEPHANAS?
Paul wrote:
“And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.”
— 1 Corinthians 1:16, KJV
Again:
HOUSEHOLD.
But later Paul wrote:
“Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.”
— 1 Corinthians 16:15, KJV
The household is associated with serving the saints.
Could there have been infants in that household when Paul baptized it?
Possibly.
Could its membership have changed between the two letters?
Possibly.
But again:
THE TEXT DOES NOT SAY.
Household baptism establishes that households were baptized.
It does not, by itself, establish infant baptism.
Neither does the word household automatically exclude infants.
13. WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT CHILDREN?
Those defending infant baptism have sometimes pointed to Jesus welcoming children.
Jesus said:
“Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”
— Mark 10:14, KJV
That certainly tells us something important about Jesus and children.
Children matter to Him.
We should never build a theology that treats children as unimportant to God.
But look at what Jesus did.
Mark writes:
“And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.”
— Mark 10:16, KJV
What does the passage not say?
IT DOES NOT SAY JESUS BAPTIZED THEM.
So this passage establishes Jesus’ welcome and blessing of children.
It does not explicitly establish infant baptism.
Those who appeal to it in support of infant baptism are drawing a broader conclusion about children’s place in God’s kingdom.
That conclusion must be distinguished from what Mark directly records.
14. WHAT ABOUT THE GREAT COMMISSION?
Jesus said:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
— Matthew 28:19, KJV
The next verse continues:
“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
— Matthew 28:20, KJV
Baptism belongs to the making of disciples.
Mark’s Gospel also records:
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
— Mark 16:16, KJV
A textual note: Mark 16:9–20 is absent from some of the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts. We should acknowledge that when using Mark 16:16 in a discussion where the precise wording of the text matters.
The connection between hearing, believing, repentance, and baptism is also present elsewhere in the New Testament.
So the Anabaptists asked:
WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLICITLY DESCRIBE BAPTIZING SOMEONE WHO CANNOT YET BELIEVE OR RESPOND TO THE GOSPEL?
That is a legitimate textual question.
But it is not the only question in the debate.
15. BUT LET’S NOT DECLARE VICTORY TOO QUICKLY
Someone from a believer’s-baptism tradition may be ready to say:
“CASE CLOSED.”
Not so fast.
Christians who baptize infants have historically offered arguments more substantial than:
“WE’VE ALWAYS DONE IT.”
Some connect baptism with circumcision.
Paul wrote:
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
— Colossians 2:11–12, KJV
The argument is that circumcision marked entrance into God’s covenant people under the old covenant, including infants.
Baptism, some Christians argue, functions as the covenant sign under the new covenant.
Therefore, they conclude, children of believers may receive it.
Other traditions that baptize infants emphasize God’s gracious action in baptism rather than describing baptism primarily as a covenant sign.
We should not assume that every infant-baptism tradition gives exactly the same explanation.
The arguments deserve examination.
16. DOES COLOSSIANS 2 SAY THAT BAPTISM REPLACED INFANT CIRCUMCISION?
Read carefully.
Paul certainly connects:
CIRCUMCISION
and:
BAPTISM.
But what kind of circumcision?
He says:
“the circumcision made without hands”
— Colossians 2:11, KJV
Then he describes being:
“Buried with him in baptism”
— Colossians 2:12, KJV
And notice what follows:
“wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God”
— Colossians 2:12, KJV
The passage itself connects baptism with faith.
So the connection with circumcision is real.
But does Paul say:
“SINCE JEWISH BOYS WERE CIRCUMCISED AS INFANTS, CHRISTIAN INFANTS SHOULD THEREFORE BE BAPTIZED”?
He does not explicitly say that.
That conclusion is an inference from a broader understanding of the relationship between the old and new covenants.
It may be defended.
But we should identify it as an inference rather than quote Paul as though he said it.
17. THERE IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE
Physical circumcision identified a person with Israel under the old covenant.
But Jeremiah foretold a new covenant unlike the covenant made when Israel came out of Egypt.
Read Jeremiah 31:31–34.
The writer of Hebrews quotes that prophecy.
In the new covenant:
“And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.”
— Hebrews 8:11, KJV
That raises an important question.
Is membership in the new covenant based on:
PHYSICAL BIRTH?
Or on knowing the Lord through faith in Christ?
Christians who practice believer’s baptism see this passage as important evidence that new-covenant membership involves personal knowledge of God.
Christians who baptize infants understand the relationship between covenant membership, children, faith, and baptism differently.
Some distinguish membership in the visible covenant community from personal saving faith.
Others emphasize that baptism is God’s gift and does not depend upon the recipient first being able to express faith.
Those arguments require further examination.
But Hebrews 8 must be allowed to speak in its own context.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE NEW COVENANT KNOW THE LORD?
That question belongs directly in the baptism discussion.
18. PAUL CONNECTS BAPTISM WITH FAITH
Paul wrote:
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
— Galatians 3:26, KJV
Then:
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
— Galatians 3:27, KJV
Notice the connection:
FAITH.
BAPTISM.
UNION WITH CHRIST.
Likewise, Colossians 2:12 speaks of being raised with Christ through faith in the operation of God.
The New Testament repeatedly places baptism in a setting of personal response to the gospel.
That is significant evidence.
But Galatians 3 was written to people who had already become Christians.
It does not directly discuss the baptism of infants.
So we should distinguish the pattern Paul describes from the additional conclusion we draw about those who cannot yet personally respond.
19. BUT THE ANABAPTISTS DID MORE THAN CHANGE WHO WAS BAPTIZED
This is where their story becomes much larger.
If the church consists of people who personally choose to follow Christ, then the church cannot simply be identical with:
THE POPULATION OF THE STATE.
That challenged the medieval arrangement.
And it challenged Protestant Reformers too.
Lutheran territories could have Lutheran churches supported by their rulers.
Zwingli’s Zürich could establish Reformed worship through civic authority.
But many Anabaptists increasingly asked:
SHOULD CIVIL GOVERNMENT DETERMINE THE RELIGION OF ITS PEOPLE AT ALL?
That was a radical question in the sixteenth century.
20. FAITH CANNOT BE FORCED
Many Anabaptists argued that Christian faith must be voluntary.
The government cannot create believers.
A sword cannot produce faith.
A law cannot create repentance.
Jesus said:
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
— John 18:36, KJV
Many Anabaptists understood Christ’s kingdom as a community of disciples who should not use coercive force to establish or defend the faith.
That put them at odds with both Catholic and Protestant authorities.
But the Anabaptists were not all identical in their views about civil government, military service, or the use of force.
We must examine particular groups and their teachings rather than assign every Anabaptist the same position.
21. THEY WERE PERSECUTED BY BOTH SIDES
This is one of the sadder parts of Reformation history.
Catholic authorities persecuted Anabaptists.
Protestant authorities also persecuted them.
Felix Manz was executed in Zürich in 1527.
He had continued to practice and advocate baptism of professing believers in defiance of the authorities.
He was drowned.
The grim irony was obvious:
A MAN ASSOCIATED WITH BAPTISM WAS EXECUTED IN WATER.
Whatever we think about Anabaptist theology, persecution cannot determine whether their interpretation was right or wrong.
Truth is not decided by who has the power to punish the other side.
Nor does suffering for a belief automatically establish that the belief is correct.
We must examine the teaching itself.
22. WE ALSO NEED TO BE FAIR ABOUT THE WORD “ANABAPTIST”
There was no single organization called:
THE ANABAPTIST CHURCH.
Different groups appeared.
Some were committed to nonviolence.
Others took different positions.
Some held ideas that other Anabaptists rejected.
The violent events at Münster in the 1530s became especially notorious.
A radical group took control of the city and established a coercive religious regime.
But it would be unfair to take Münster and say:
“THAT IS WHAT ALL ANABAPTISTS BELIEVED.”
Many peaceful Anabaptists rejected such violence.
We should examine each movement by what it actually taught and did.
23. THE SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION
In 1527, representatives of Swiss and South German Anabaptists produced a document commonly called the:
SCHLEITHEIM CONFESSION.
It addressed subjects including baptism, church discipline, the Lord’s Supper, separation from evil, church leaders, the sword, and oaths.
It gives us a picture of the beliefs of an important group of early Anabaptists.
It should not be treated as a statement of what every Anabaptist everywhere believed.
The confession described baptism as appropriate for those who had learned repentance, believed in Christ, and desired to walk in newness of life.
Again we see the central idea:
DISCIPLESHIP BEFORE BAPTISM.
That was not merely a disagreement about the age of the person being baptized.
It reflected a different understanding of what the church was supposed to be.
24. DOES THAT MEAN THE ANABAPTISTS GOT EVERYTHING RIGHT?
That would violate the method of this entire study.
The fact that they challenged an inherited tradition does not prove every conclusion they reached.
The fact that they were persecuted does not make all their theology correct.
The fact that they practiced believer’s baptism does not establish everything else they believed.
So:
TEST THEM TOO.
That is our rule.
25. AND WE NEED TO TEST OURSELVES ESPECIALLY CAREFULLY HERE
Those of us who already practice believer’s baptism may feel very comfortable on this page.
That is precisely when we should become cautious.
Agreement with us is not evidence.
We may read Acts 2:38 and say:
“OF COURSE.”
But someone raised in an infant-baptism tradition may read the same verse differently.
So ask:
Why do I believe what I believe?
Because my parents taught me?
Because my congregation practices it?
Because my preacher explained it that way?
Because Alexander Campbell taught something similar?
Or:
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE TEXT ACTUALLY ESTABLISHES?
Our conclusion must be examined without relying on our tradition to prove it.
26. THERE IS ALSO A QUESTION THE ANABAPTISTS LEAVE FOR US
If baptism follows hearing, believing, and repentance:
WHAT IS BAPTISM FOR?
Is baptism simply an outward symbol showing that someone has already been saved?
Is it a public testimony?
Is it the moment at which God acts?
How do we understand Peter’s words:
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”
— Acts 2:38, KJV
And Ananias’ words to Saul:
“arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
— Acts 22:16, KJV
And Paul’s description of Christians as:
“baptized into Jesus Christ”
— Romans 6:3, KJV
Believer’s baptism answers a question about:
WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED?
It does not automatically settle:
WHAT IS BAPTISM FOR?
That distinction will become important as later Protestant movements develop.
27. SOMETHING BIG HAS NOW HAPPENED TO THE REFORMATION
Rome had developed one Western church structure.
Luther challenged Rome.
Zwingli differed from Luther.
The Anabaptists differed from both.
And all of them appealed, in one way or another, to Christianity’s original sources.
The Reformation was producing:
MORE THAN ONE REFORMATION.
The question was no longer merely:
CATHOLIC OR PROTESTANT?
Now the Reformers themselves were dividing.
And another major Reformer was about to give Protestant Christianity a theological system that would influence enormous portions of the Western world.
His name was:
JOHN CALVIN.
Calvin would agree with Luther on much.
But he would develop ideas about God’s sovereignty, election, predestination, salvation, the Lord’s Supper, and church government that would profoundly shape later Protestantism.
And that brings us to another question we will need to put beside the text:
DID GOD CHOOSE BEFORE CREATION EXACTLY WHO WOULD BE SAVED?
That is where we go next.
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: DID GOD CHOOSE BEFORE CREATION EXACTLY WHO WOULD BE SAVED?