Infant Baptism?

The idea of 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 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.

For extra-biblical evidence, early first century writers, such as Didache (c. 100), show evidence that baptism was for adults and not infants. This is much earlier than the third century writers that you have referenced!

But in spite of what we can each quote from un-inspired men, we should look to the scriptures, the Word of God, as our source of doctrine. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

As I have shown, the BIBLICAL evidence teaches baptism is for repentant believers (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:36-38), not infants!

If you read before and after Luke 18 15-16 the reason that jesus said this is because his apostles were trying to stop the children from reaching jesus. To use that scripture in logic for your argument is irrelavant that like looking at a peice of the puzzle not the whole finished picture.

I do not think they should because I feel each person should make their own choice in life, if my child want to be atheist and never do anything holy then thats her choice and she alone will face whatever consquences there are to that path.

Do you worship a god that would punish a child for the sins of their parents. So if a parent choses not to baptise a child what does it matter it is only the parent that would suffer the consequences of not baptizing the child not the child, or does your god really punish the children. If so....maybe you need to reevaluate who you put such faith in.

Personally I am not a christian, but one of my reasons being is to be a christian means you belong to an exclusive club christian or die, If my child is a wiccan (I'm not nor is she just an example), but harms no one, and does true good in life, and god would punish her for nor being christian then I choose to not worship, and die or suffer along side the 1,000's of wonderful non-christian people in the world. I belong to nothing that is not willing to learn change or grow with new truths.

The Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults. Some just conclude that's what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text doesn't explicitly support such a view. Naturally

enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and there aren't many who are individually identified) are adults because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just starting out and there were no "cradle Christians," no people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:15-16).

As you can see, the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him", and following this are the same words as in Matt. 19:14. The word "infants" was specifically used --children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."

Mark16:16 says that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Can a baby believe? The scip Luke18:15-16 doesn't say anything about baptism the scrip says they just wanted Jesus to touch there babies. If they where baptized God would have had Luke write that in the bible.

Where in the Bible does it say that children cannot be baptized?

The fundies are clueless about early Christian history. Infant baptism was practiced by the early Christians. The fundies must do some research instead of insisting their twisted interpretation of scripture.

Part of the 'problem' that you will have is people looking for a deed to justify 'such and such'; rather than a 'word'. (Christian apex; Col. 3:17).

It also puts a lot of pressure on maintaining tehpurity of God's word; and improving ours.

The Bible teaches that salvation is through faith in CHrist. Get unbelieving infants wet does nothing for their salvation, nor does any fleshly ritual.

Catholicism preaches a different gospel than that which is taught in the Bible.

And as for the passage "Let the children come to me", unbelieving infants are not coming to Jesus in baptism. Rather they are being force to get wet regardless of their will. The verse is meant for those who out of their own free will seek Jesus.

Faith in Jesus is sufficient for salvation. You don't have to do anything. Christ has done it all. However, baptism is very important and all believers should be baptized.

There are Christian denominations that believe baptism is necessary for salvation. The arguments used, on the surface, seem to be powerful. However, upon examination, baptism is found to occur after conversion, and is not in any way a cause or part of it. Take, for example, Acts 10:44-47. While Peter was witnessing, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message...and they were hearing them speaking in tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"

This passage shows that baptism happens after salvation. How do we know they were saved? They were speaking in tongues -- which is a gift from God to believers (1 Cor. 14)and they were exalting God. Non-believers do not exalt God. Also, Peter said they had received the Holy Spirit. That is only for Christians, and it happened before baptism. (Note: speaking in tongues is simply a sign of salvation. It is not necessary that a Christian speak in tongues as a proof of salvation. Not all speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30).

Another set of verses applicable to this issue is 1 Cor. 1:17. Paul says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." The gospel is what saves, and it is explained in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Baptism is not part of the gospel; it is something that the believer does after salvation.

Baptism is only a symbol of that which saves, and symbols don't save.

They don't have to be baptised because the original sin that the baptism washed away has already been paid for with the blood of Jesus.

Of course, I am not a Christian, so I could be mistaken about the reason for a Baptism.

I disagree.

Dedicate a baby and when they are old enough to make the decision that Jesus is their savior, then they can be baptized.

Baptism is an outward declaration that we have accepted Jesus as our savior. We can not make that decision as a baby.

Also, Genesis 10:23 has nothing to do with baptism, and there isn't 10:39

Here's what Peter tells us about baptism...1 Peter 3:21

21 And that water is a picture of baptism , which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. NLT

Also, your reference to John 3:5 is taken out of context, back up to verse 3.

Hope that helps!