Why do born again Christians, and some other Christian denominations put down the practice of infant baptism?

Question

John the Baptist was baptized in the Holy Spirit before he was born.
Samuel was dedicated to the temple and to God after he was weaned.
Christ told his own disciples to "let the little children come to me". And women were even bringing their babies to Him for Him to bless.
I think it's both biblical and prudent, and our world would be a much better place if every infant was so treated. It's a blessing that lasts their entire lives, and not a horrible burden. It is a mark of God, not the devil.

Answer 1

I think babtism should be a adult who understands the decision he is making.
How can a baby make that kind of decision?
John the Babtist was not babtiseing infants. Those who came to him were adults.

Answer 2

You're right, Christians should not put down the practice of infant baptism. But neither do they look at it as a covenant between God and man, replacing circumcision. I do have to differ with you though, on some of your points:

- John the Baptist leaping in the womb was a regeneration by the Holy Spirit. If this is baptism in the Holy Spirit, then we agree.
- "Let the little children come to me" is indicative of babies needing a Savior, not just a blessing.
- I also think it's biblical and prudent to baptize, but not just because it's the "nice thing to do." It is a mark of God, and God owns the covenant as he did with circumcision. He can choose to accept or deny that baptism, but I believe that it is imperative that Christians realize that this is God's mark upon his people, not just a profession of faith. An announcement to the world as to who you are is a secondary or even tertiary result of this rite.

Answer 3

I don't think there is anything wrong with dedicating your child to the Lord. I have had all my children dedicated by the laying on of hands and prayer- I would not see anything wrong with annointing them with oil or if you prefer, holy water. But this is not to be confused with the symbolism of Christian baptism. The difference comes when the parents (or others) feel that baptizing an infant is for their SALVATION. We cannot do something to save someone else. They must personally accept Christ when they are at an age of accountability. That kind of baptism should happen only after they have made an independent decision for the Lord, and it should be a symbol of their re-birth as a new creation. =)

Answer 4

Differences regarding baptism are more rooted in European history than in religion. In the Middle Ages, there were no national censuses. If a king had to go to war, the only way he could determine how many men were in a diocese was by checking the diocesan baptismal registries. As the protestant movements formed and grew, the emphasis was on having a believer's baptism. In other words, the person being baptized would make a statement of his own belief rather than his parents doing it for him. This was usually done around the age of 16. Since they were not registered at birth, the king had no source for knowing how many troops would be following him into battle. The king(or emperor) did not understand this new teaching and was particularly perplexed because it left him with little or no basis for recruiting. Many people were slaughtered, unnecessarily. This made the king very angry with the protestants whom he deemed as uncaring. Their beliefs took precedence over his war strategy. He had a point. The Muslim Empire got as close as Lyon, France. If not for the illness and death of the Khan, the Mongolian hordes would have overrun Europe. If either of these enemies had conquered Europe, we would be living in a very different, today.

Answer 5

Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless.

Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism.

If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

Answer 6

I personaly understood them to be two different things. I was both christened as a baby and baptized as an adult and the difference to me is the christening is a blessing that the church will look after you and help you on your spiritual journey. The baptism is a personal sign of my faith and choice to follow Christ. I am symbolically buried and raised into new life but it is all symbol and public profession.

The issue is choice, as an infant I could not choose to be christened but when I was an adult I chose to make the public profession. That is the difference that most people get hung up on, if a person has reached the point in their lives where they can make an informed and rational decision of their own free will.

Answer 7

Many Christians denounce infant baptism because a lot people think it will get the child into heaven. At that age, children don’t even understand the concept behind baptism, so what’s the point? Those references in the Bible were just a means of blessing the child’s life, and nothing more.

Answer 8

The Holy Spirit and baptism do not necessarily go together. Baptism by immersion is redundant, in the fact that the word baptism means immersion {baptizmo in the Greek means}, so it is as saying, immersion by immersion or baptism by baptism. The reason I say this, is because the very act of baptism symbolizes the burying of the old man, or complete surrender to Christ. An infant has no knowledge of this very thing, they are not making a conscience decision to follow Christ, all that is taking place is a tradition that has been established. Baptism tells the world that you have accepted Christ and His life, and that your life is dead-the infant does not even have the capacity to know who Christ is. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" Rom 6:3-5. We better beware, lest we substitute the principles in the word of God for the traditions of man. "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Mk 7:13.

Answer 9

I agree with you, but maybe instead of infant baptism, it should be called "Dedication." You could still do the whole sprinkling water on the head thing, but the promise would be to "Bring up the child in the ways of the parents/church/commumity."

I've always viewed baptism as a conscious decision by a reasoning person, to give his life to God and accept grace and salvation.

Answer 10

Well, babies are born without sin. They can't sin, they don't know how to sin, or even what sin is. Baptism is a symbol of washing away your sins, so to baptize an infant is showing that they have sin, and need remission for their sins. Since I don't believe that infants are born with sin, there is no point in baptizing them.

I respect those who believe in this practice, and don't knock them for doing it, but I don't believe in it, so I won't have it done. We all have to practice our own religions- or lack there of- as we see fit. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean everyone who practices it is wrong. If you feel there is validity in doing it, then by all means, do!

Answer 11

There are some people who did just that in another question today.

I think it's because they don't understand the practice and seek to "judge" instead of trying to seek understanding.

And just because you understand why someone does something doesn't mean you're required to agree to do it yourself.

I will say that I don't understand it fully but as I understand it the process is not intended to "save" the baby but is simply down as a celebration of birth and to "introduce" or maybe present the baby to God.

I think Michelle M used a great word: dedication.