Why Do People Disagree With Infant Baptism?

1. They believe that the new covenant is made strictly between God and regenerate people only. But if this were true, why does the new covenant repeatedly warn against apostasy? Hebrews 10:28-30, for example. There is absolutely no sense warning about apostasy if the new covenant is only between God and regenerate people because we know for a fact that, if you are a genuine convert, it is impossible for you to lose your salvation. Apostasy is committed by those who claim to have belonged to or believed in that faith and have since rejected it. The genuine convert can do no such thing. Ergo, such warnings would be senseless, useless, and worthless.
2. They believe that the new covenant is a brand new covenant that replaces the old covenant. In truth, the word for "new" does not mean "brand new" but rather "fresh" or "renewed." Therefore, the new covenant is a renewed covenant that expands the former covenant. Some try and quote Hebrews 8:13 here, but the context of chapter 9 rebukes them. Anything that was a type or shadow and found its fulfillment in Christ is obsolete. Basically, the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Covenant. No one would contend that the Noahic Covenant is now obsolete, because we still have God's sign and seal of that covenant to this very day. Otherwise, He could flood the world again. Likewise, you could not contend that the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:7) is obsolete because Peter contends for it in Acts 2:39 ("The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself") and Paul contends for it in Galatians 3 ("If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise") and Ephesians 2 ("You were...strangers to the covenants of promise . . . you are no longer strangers"). The new covenant is a further expansion and final revelation of the covenant of grace that was first made with Adam.
3. They believe that there is no explicit warrant (an example or a command) for infant baptism. Likewise, there is no explicit warrant (an example or a command) against infant baptism. On this point, both are arguing from silence. Further, there is no explicit warrant (an example or a command) to exclude children from baptism, which would be required if God changed His dealings with His people. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with those who are against it. For over 2000 years the Jews practiced the rite of the sign, seal, and pledge of circumcision with regard to the promise of the covenant of grace. Had this changed, there would be express command, by word or sample, in the Scriptures. The Jews would have objected to such a thing because their children would have been in a worse condition under the gospel than they had been under the law, which would have strengthened their prejudices against it. For everyone in their household to be included except for their children would have outraged them. Really, there is explicit warrant for the inclusion of children in the new covenant (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:36-37), in the church (Eph. 1:1 with 6:1-4; Col. 1:2 with 3:20; 1 Cor. 7:14), and in the kingdom (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16).
4. They believe there are no examples of infant baptism in the Scriptures. Likewise, there are no examples of believer's children later believing and being baptized. You would think that considering the book of Acts spans like 40 years you would have such examples, but you do not. They are no better off for explicit verses to teach their practice. However, the examples of household baptisms do support the inclusion of children. It would be incredulous to believe that none of the members of these households had any children whatsoever (considering households consisted of spouse, children, slaves, and any relatives living with you). It would be even more incredulous (but not necessarily impossible) to state that every single one of them expressed faith. What we see is the heads of these households believing and their entire households being baptized. The household baptisms also demonstrate that God still deals with people according to households and headship representation. Adam was our head and represented us all when he sinned. Abraham was head and represented his entire household (children, slaves, relatives). Korah's entire household perished because of his rebellion. The man who stole silver brought his entire household under judgment and they were all stoned. The two sons that brought strange fire to the altar caused their father's house to be judged. David's house was judged because of his sin with Bathsheba. Individualism and its selfishness did not exist until the Renaissance. The entire globe, and many cultures still today, operated under the familial unit. We cannot take our mindset and way of life and impose it on the Scriptures!
5. They believe that such a practice intimates that the child is a born-again believer. If that were the case, then the practice of circumcision to the 8-day-old infant meant that he had expressed faith like Abraham (Rom. 4; Gal. 3) and was himself a believer. Any argument against infant baptism is necessarily an argument against infant circumcision. The sign and seal of circumcision and baptism does nothing for the individual's salvation. It merely sets them apart for God's use. The condition to be met of the covenant in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament is, has been, and always will be faith. When that condition is met, then the blessings that accompany the covenant belong to that individual. When that condition is not met, then the curses that accompany the covenant belong to that individual. Only the heresy of the Roman Catholic Church attests that baptism saves and regenerates. This is why the warnings of apostasy under the new covenant exist. Because that child may be set apart for God by his parents, but reject God entirely. Everything that belongs to the believer is set apart for God's use, and God wants to redeem everything connected to the believer. The creation never sinned, yet it waits to be redeemed. Why? From what? It gets redeemed in connection to man's redemption. God has always wanted to redeem man, man's household, and man's society. Case in point, Noah is said to have been the only righteous man on the earth, and yet God redeemed his family with him.
6. They believe that baptism and circumcision are completely different from each other in every way. The truth is, only the external practice of each is different. The internal representation of each is exactly the same. Both are initiatory rites (Gen. 17:10-11; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13); both signify an inward reality (Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:2-12; Phil. 3:3); both picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); both represent repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41; Acts 2:38); both represent regeneration (Rom. 2:28-29; Titus 3:5); both represent justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-14); both represent a cleansed heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7); both represent union and communion with God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; Heb. 8:10); both indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen. 17:4; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 2:12-13; 4:5); both indicate separation from the world (Ex. 12:48; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 2:12); and both can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom. 2:25; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; 11:28-30). Baptism replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. This fact is seen in Colossians 2:11-12 where Paul refers to "circumcision of Christ" as "baptism": "In [Jesus] you were also circumcised . . . having been buried with Him in baptism..."
7. They believe that infant baptism is not biblical and was not taught by the Apostles. In his book Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable, Samuel Miller consults church history. He quotes several church fathers from the third century who speak on the issue of infant baptism. He even refers to a discourse between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius denied that children are born with a sinful nature. So Augustine argued with him that if that is the case, then there is no need to baptize infants. Pelagius agreed to infant baptism and said he knew of no one who denied such a practice. Now, if infant baptism is unbiblical and was not taught by the Apostles, then somewhere in the 200-some years between their deaths and these church fathers of the third century, infant baptism somehow miraculously and mysteriously became the predominant practice without anyone noticing. One minute they were not practicing it and *POOF* the next minute they were, without anybody noticing the slightest change. How stupid do these people think we are?!? The first group of people to question infant baptism were an offshoot of the Waldenses, under a man named Peter de Bruis, referred to as Petrobrussians, 1200 years after Christ. The next group of people to question infant baptism were the Anabaptists 1500 years after Christ. Then later the Baptists under the erroneous interpretations of Dispensationalism and its dividing of Scripture, creating disunity between the Testaments by separating them and creating a "God of the Old Testament" and a "God of the New Testament" when there is only but one God of the whole Bible—in unity! So, for over 1600 years (excluding the Catholic perversion of the practice), until the Baptists came along, the entire Christian church was in unity over the teaching, practice, and defense of infant baptism.

I was raised with the Baptist view of baptism. After looking thoroughly at Scripture and church history, I have become convinced that infant baptism is right, proper, and biblical. Some people have it done out of tradition, some have it done out of the beauty of the ceremony, and some have it done out of erroneous misconceptions and superstitions that it will somehow magically protect their child from hell. None of these reasons is sufficient for believers to baptize their children. We do so because God commands it and wants to be a God to us and to our children.

Those who disagree with and deny infant baptism do so apart from the Scriptures. They do so based on their pre-suppositions, their traditions, and their personal feelings. All of Scripture and church history stands against them. They disagree with and deny it out of rebellion and disobedience. By doing so, they count their own precious children to be among the pagans, where even Scripture made a difference between the children of believers and pagan adults. Children were always considered under the umbrella of their parents' faith in the Bible, until they either embraced it themselves or rejected it, at which point they would receive either the blessings or the curses of the covenant. If God denies the sign and seal to infants of believers, it is because He denies them the grace signified by it. That means that all children of believers who die in their infancy must be hopelessly lost because God does not want them baptized. Ergo, He does not want them to have salvation. But that is not what the Bible teaches us. The Bible teaches us that children are proper subjects of Christ's kingdom (Matt. 18:6; 19:13-15; 21:16; Luke 10:21; 18:15-17). 1 Corinthians 7:14 only makes sense when considered under the covenantal view. I pray that believers would study this debated subject with joy in their hearts, seeking to know the truth so that they may happily conform their lives to it. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Riddle me this... Despite all the facts we have just examined, if infant baptism is wrong and unbiblical, why are so many Baptists who are studying the subject honestly with open hearts converting and teaching, practicing, and defending it? Many who have adamantly written arguments against it have since refuted all their previous works and shown where their works were in error. Why is that? Let me say this... God rewards those who diligently seek Him and reveals His truths to those who earnestly and honestly want to know them. God bless!