Infantile Logic by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Apr 10, 1879

Infantile Logic.

By Editor

The Pacific Churchman contains the following:—

“‘Believe and be baptized, and thou shalt be saved.’ Infants cannot believe, therefore, they ought not to be baptized. Exactly so.

“‘Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ Infants cannot repent, therefore they must all likewise perish.

“‘This we command you, that if any would not work neither should they eat.’ Infants cannot work, therefore, they must not eat.

“It is all equally logical.”

Will this “logic” bear analysing? Let us see. It is admitted that the command to work does not apply to infants; therefore the condition does not apply. And so it is admitted that infants may eat though they do not work.

It is admitted that the command to repent does not apply to infants. And it is admitted that infants may be saved. Therefore infants may be saved without repentance.

Baptism is, in the New Testament, inseparably connected with belief and repentance. But faith and repentance are not requisite to the salvation of infants. Therefore baptism is not requisite to the salvation of infants.

Baptism is related to sin and its remission. Infants have no sin to have remitted. Therefore baptism is not related to the condition of infants.

The truth is, and every one knows it, whether Baptist or Pedo-baptist, that the salvation of infants is not suspended upon conditions or duties. Or if it is, no infants can be saved. The death of Christ avails for them without conditions, because they have committed no sin. To make their salvation conditional, as the theory of “infant baptism” does, is to place it entirely in the power of other parties. Who will accept a doctrine leading to such results? We cannot.