What is the Biblical basis for infant baptism?

Question

First, I would like serious, and NOT insulting answers please. Second, I am a conservative Christian. I was brought up with adult baptism (and personally still agree with it, after studying all Biblical references.... baptism always happened after conversion). However, I have married into Lutheranism, which I don't mind in itself, except for when we have children and they are to be baptized as infants. Also, since baptism is not the way to Heaven, should I even be concerned with it, or should I just let it go???

Answer 1

Dear Lindz,

i don't think there is a basis for infant baptism (that actually seems to be a more Catholic practice). Baptism is identifying with the death of Christ and expressing publicly a desire to live like Christ- and so i think infants are not quite at a place where they can clearly understand that.

i do believe in baby-dedications (just like Hannah dedicated her baby Samuel to the Lord) and i think that is a very special and meaningful thing. At my old church we did baby dedications where the parents dedicated that baby to be used for the Lord- and those of us who were there to witness the event dedicated ourselves to help and encourage this baby grow in the Lord (as older brothers, uncles, etc.)

That would be my suggestion to you and your husband. i think Baptism will be a lot more meaningful for your children when they can appreciate and understand it as an act of obedience to the Lord.

Hope that helps. Kindly,

Nickster

Answer 2

I was raised Lutheran and on the 4th of July weekend, right after getting home from the Vietnam War I had a long talk with my Lutheran Pastor about this very topic.

First he admitted, very reluctantly that the Greek word translated "Baptism" really does mean "to immerse".

But he had to look it up in this huge Greek Lexicon the size of an unabridged dictionary the kind you only see at a library and was rather disappointed and what he found.

Second he admitted that according his study of the Bible no baby had ever been baptized.

When I asked why, his only answer was, "Tradition, this is the way we've always done it."

When I pushed him on the word "always", he fussed and finally in a very perjoritive way accused me of "adopting Billy Graham's religion" and he told me, "I don't agree with Billy Graham's religion!"

That was the day I decided I was no longer a Lutheran.

My pastor was a graduate of Luther Seminary in St. Paul.

The early church was baptizing babies by sprinkling at least by the time of St. Augustine which was about the late 4th and early 5th century, AD.

To me baptizing a baby is child abuse and I'll tell you why. Its becaue this child will grow up thinking that "I've been 'baptized' so I am a Christian so I don't need to make any decisions about Jesus like some people do." Hell will be full of people who never decided about Jesus because they had been "baptized" as babies.

I've included a link which has a history of when the tradition started.

If you type the three words on the next line into Google you get lots of hits:

beginning infant baptism

Pastor Art

Answer 3

Jesus said that no-one can enter the kingdom without being reborn through water and the spirit, an obvious reference to the holy sacrament of Baptism. He looked upon a group of babies and small children and said, "to such as these belongs the kingdom of God". So obviously if these children were in possession of the kingdom, and no-one can possess the kingdom without being baptized, these children were baptized. Which you would expect since that was the common practice of the early Christian (=Catholic) Church. Scrupture repeatedly describes the baptism of whole families. Never does it say "all the adults in the family", or "the whole family except the chuildren". This is also plainly evident in the writings of the earliest Fathers of the Church. Why Protestants avoid these informative and authoritative historical documents when looking for the answers to historical questions is a real mystery. Do they really want to know the answers?

Hippolytus, 214 AD: "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them"

Origen, 248 AD: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit"

Answer 4

Simple answer. There is none.

Sorry to say this but the Lutherans and Catholics have this doctrine wrong. It would be wise to search the Scriptures to see if this doctrine is true. Since it's not biblical, it should greatly concern you!

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so Acts 17:11

Biblical baptism is full submersion under water and this is for believers. In the Bible, once someone repented and believed they were dunked in water!

Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8:37-39

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matt. 28:19

God can't lie. Titus 1:2

Answer 5

It is related to the mistaken idea that babies are born with the guilt of inherited sin. If a baby is guilty of sin, the thought is that they should be baptized to wash away that sin.

The Bible however teaches that "sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4) If a baby is guilty of sin, what law have they transgressed? A baby is not capable of transgressing, or even understanding, any law.

But, what about inherited sin (guilt)?

This idea goes against many verses, including Ezekiel 18:20.

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

This verse clearly teaches that children do not inherit the guilt of sin.

Those who teach infant baptism many times point to the households that were baptized in the New Testament. They assume these households had infants and those young children were included in the baptism.

This, however is just an assumption. It is risky to base your doctrine on a guess that cannot be proven from the Scriptures!

In fact, the context of many of these scriptures DISPROVE infant baptism. Notice for example the household of the keeper of the prison in Acts 16.

He was baptized with his household (verse 33). But notice also, all his household was taught ( verse 32), and they all believed (verse 34). An infant cannot be taught, and an infant cannot believe. Therefore, "household" here does not include any infants.

In fact, to be baptized one must first believe and repent, therefore, baptism is not for infants. (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38)

Notice the eunuch in Acts 8. He asked, "What hinders me from being baptized?” (verse 36) "Then Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.'" (verse 37)

A baby cannot believe, therefore a baby would not meet this requirement for one to be baptized.

I hope this information helps!

Answer 6

Infant, or paedo, baptism is a matter of weight of evidence of replacing circumcision, rather than pulling specific verses out of the Bible that can contradict each other if you believe in credo, or believer's, baptism.

I'm not exactly sure what Lutheran beliefs are pertaining to Baptism and how closely related they are to Reformed doctrine, but they would have to be pretty close. Lutherans wouldn't see it as removing original sin (Catholic belief) but they would infer entire households as including small children (simply the culture of the times, wife and servants and babies all held the same social status). Other observations: no forbiddance of those under the age of reason from receiving the sacrament; the idea of John the Baptist being physically unable to baptize the throngs of people that came to the river to see him; the way the Hebrews would naturally have understood the rite to apply to all Israelites; strong parallels to circumcision; being tied so closely to salvation that it was in some verses indistinguishable; and just plaing "making sense" when baptism is discussed. Read it in that light when you come across that word, and it fits no matter what context it's in.

White papers and books abound on the subject and you should be able to find apologetics easily enough via the web. Infant baptism would not be practiced today if there were not sound biblical exegesis to support such a belief.

But to answer your last question, I believe you should be very concerned with baptism, because it IS the way to Heaven in the same way that circumcision was the mark of a Jew, and being one of God's chosen people, His property as it were. I constantly refer to baptism when reminding my youngster of how I raised her as being ingrafted, stuck to Christ, if I can help it. She is different, my household is different. We belong to and serve the Lord. Baptism is the overarching principle by which we live our lives, it's not just a quick ceremony to profess one's faith.

Answer 7

Well, Jesus told the apostles to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them (Matthew 28: 18-20). He didn't say "except for the babies". Thus, even if the Bible doesn't specifically call for infant baptism, neither does it reject it. Those of us who believe in infant baptism could just as easily ask what the Biblical basis for NOT baptizing babies is.

Baptism washes away Original Sin AND initiates one into the Church. Both are excellent reasons for baptizing babies, and anyone else, for that matter.

Who said that Baptism isn't the way to Heaven? Jesus said, "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). It sounds like baptism IS necessary for salvation.

Answer 8

Bless your heart and your marriage.
Dear one, there is no Biblical basis for infant baptism.
It's parallel in other denominations like the Baptist etc. is infant dedication. It is all for the parents.

In the one case, the poor child just gets wet and doesn't know why, and in the other they usually get a little New Testament that they can not read and is usually put away as a keepsake for the parents anyway.

Biblical baptism (the water kind), is only for people who understand it's significance and willingly take part in it.

Let us never forget that REAL baptism and the only baptism that matters to God is found in 1.Cor.12:13.
If a person does not know, understand, or believe that verse, they can get baptized all they want, they're just wet.

Great question, and again God bless your marriage!

Answer 9

I think that RC Sproul could give you a more comprehensive answer to this concern. Look him up at www.ligonier.org. He (and I do too) believe in infant baptism. Not for salvation, but as a means of welcoming the infant into the earthly christian community. When the child is older, they have to make a choice to serve Christ for themselves.

Remember, Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day. Baptism took the place of circumcision in the new testament. Jesus had no clue that His parents had done this. But His parents did it out of obedience to the law of Moses. It had nothing to do with salvation, but identification with a community of believers and obedience to the Law of Moses.

If this is an act to attempt to "save" the soul of the baby, I can't support that neither does the scriptures support the practice of baptismal regeneration (salvation by baptism alone).

Answer 10

~It is not Biblically based. In the Middle Ages people believed that Baptism was the only way to salvation with God. Since the infant mortality rate was so incredibly high at that time, parents would have their children baptized as soon as possible to insure that they would make it to Heaven. As the years went by and the infant mortality rate went down, it just stuck as a tradition.