Infant baptism: Suffer the little children to be born again, or forbid them?

Question

Jesus' described baptism as being born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3). But Christians who interpret being born again as making a decision to accept Jesus as one's personal savior (a concept not found in the gospels) reject infant baptism. If we can't decide to be born the first time, why does personal decision become a crucial factor in the second birth?

The link Genghis provided is well worth clicking for scriptures on infant baptism--especially for those who only follow the Bible.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-III

Answer 1

Baptism freely conveys God's unmerited favor to anyone of any age, simply because God desires all to be saved.

Jesus left his church behind on the earth for the purpose of our salvation, and baptism is the beginning of that process ... for everyone ... of any age.

Infant baptism, as practiced in the Catholic church, is the most significant demonstration of salvation without works that there ever was, or ever will be ... and it's always 100% effective at achieving it's stated purpose.

Those who qualify God's grace and tie it to works, or faith, or anything else, do greatly err.

Answer 2

Fundamentalists have the notion that "born again" (regeneration) and "saved" (sanctification) are the same, and a "decision for Christ" is not something an infant can make. In their mindset, neither is accomplished by baptism, and yet because Scripture says we are to baptize, they're between a rock (so to speak) and a hard place if they don't baptize ... so it has become a ceremonial "outward sign of an inward change" or "following the Lord in baptism" that essentially admits them to church membership once they have been "saved". Thankfully, those who are baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit DO receive sacramental graces whether they acknowledge it or not -- and the Church accepts such baptisms as valid.

They do a similar thing when it comes to the very clear words of Christ concerning His Body and Blood; can't possibly be a sacrament (they really, really don't like that word), or taken literally, yet Jesus instructed His followers to "do this"; so again, it is observed, although not sacramentally -- reduced to passing around grape juice and crackers. Unfortunately, there's no "receiving" involved in this symbolic meal even when partaken with sincerity and love for the Savior; at most, it unites a particular body of believers in fellowship. Not a bad thing, certainly, but also not Scriptural.

Answer 3

Infant baptism 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 babies are guilty of sin, what laws 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.

The fact is, according to the Bible, babies have not spiritually died in sin, therefore they do not need to be born again.

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 mere 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 4

You've made a very good point, but infant baptism shouldn't be performed because inability to make a decision is a necessity! Rather it is a sign and a seal of God's covenant with His own, replacing circumcision and differing only in its administration. I think you are partially correct, the ability to make a decision is irrelevant, otherwise circumcision itself would have to wait until the age of reason to make sure the young man really wanted to be a Jew. There was no such provision in the Old Testament, as there should be no provision for "age of reason" today.

Answer 5

It's simple. Infants don't have the mental capacity to realize their need for baptism for the remission of sins. Therefore, it takes a decision based on proper training by the parents (NOT a forced one!), and the individuals heed of God's voice. The fact that we don't choose to be born has nothing to do with our capacity to choose baptism and etc. at birth!

Answer 6

You are misinformed on what the Bible teaches and how some of us Christians interpret the Bible, and that we reject infant baptism. I suggest that, first of all, don't state that all Christians 'think' the same. Different demoninations interpret the Bible differently, but all do it to the glory of God. Jesus says, "If they are for Me, they are not against Me." If you are going to make a point, I suggest that you list what each Demonination believes and teaches. To just make a blanket statement makes the statement false. And your statement, making a decision to accept Jesus as one's personal Savior, as not a 'concept' in the Gospels, is just flat wrong! The age of accountablility comes in on making a personal decision to follow Jesus. We have free will. God isn't going to just pull a string and make us His child. He died for all but he gave man free will to make our own decision to follow or not follow.

Answer 7

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

Answer 8

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

God Bless
Robin

Answer 9

Like most you have misinterpreted the passage. Nicodemus was a man and was thinking physical (born of a woman) Jesus was talking spiritual (born of God) Verse 3 he said born again must be a 2nd birth. Ver 5 Jesus tries to explain it to him after he doesn't understand what Jesus said. being born of water (1st birth, natural childbirth when the water breaks) and of the Spirit (salvation and spiritual birth thru God) Verse 6 he explains what is born of the flesh (natural childbirth we all have) and born of the spirit (of God) the Jews confused physical with spiritual so often. Verse 11-12 explain it further saying you didn't believe earthly things how can you believe heavenly? It is 2 births not baptism. Common mistake. Baptism is left out of John 3:13 Rom !0:13 and many other salvation Scripture. If it was needed to be saved it would be there. The thief on the cross was saved without baptism> If you come on a man dying in a car you gonna look for a lake to lead him to Christ? That is silly. NO WATER NEEDED

Answer 10

The scriptures say that Paul baptized "entire households." This would obviously include infants.

Since the old covenant of circumcision included infants, why would infants now be left out? They wouldn't. There was no need to mention infants separately since no one would have ever thought to leave them out.