Infant Baptism

Infant baptism has been the majority practice of historic Christianity, and is still practiced today by the majority of Christian denominations. These are irrefutable facts!

I was raised under Dispensationalism. I held to the concept of believer's baptism for years. The only infant baptism I knew of was that practiced by the Roman Catholic church, and I utterly reject their heretical practice thereof, which is full of superstition (that baptism protects against demons) and false doctrine (that even if your child lives the life of a devil, he/she will still make it into heaven because he/she was baptized).

Many individuals who have come out of paedo-baptism have done so because of two reasons: (1) poor teaching of the subject on the church's part, which has relegated it to a mere tradition of men, and (2) inadequate and incomplete study of the subject on their part. If these individuals understood hermeneutics or how to properly study the Bible in the first place, they would not make such blunders in their private personal studies. No matter how wrong they are in their conclusion, nevertheless they are brothers and sisters in the faith and we should treat them as Augustine treated Pelagius, even after he was deemed a heretic: love them and hold out hope for them. It may be a secondary issue that does not affect their salvation, but God still desires His children to conform to every biblical truth—not just those that meet their fancy.

Many former credo-baptists have since become paedo-baptists. Some attempt to argue that it even happens the other way around, which it does. But this argument is not in their favour. For example: Many former Catholics have since become Protestants. But one could also argue that some former Protestants have since become Catholics, which they have. I have even talked to former "Christians" who have since joined cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. The question that needs to be asked is, Which changes in belief are actually based on Scripture and proper in-depth biblical study? Guess what? Both cannot be. The Holy Spirit is not divided and does not and will not lead two of God's children in two completely different directions. Everyone claims conviction of and leading by the Holy Spirit, but some of those claims are false and are merely based on personal feelings and opinions (as well as poor biblical study, if any at all). Scripture will decide the case between the two every time!

Most Christians avoid studying a given subject or doctrine because they are afraid that Scripture will not confirm their views and/or support their position. Rather than be like the Bereans and search to see what Scripture has to say and gladly conform their life and beliefs to it, they would rather be disobedient and rebel. Sadly, most Christians' primary obligation does not include being faithful to God's Word and maintaining a clear conscience before Him.

We have historic records of the practice of infant baptism from as early as the second century A.D. The first objection against the practice of infant baptism does not appear until the 1500s. If the Apostles never taught and/or practiced infant baptism, as some individuals attempt to argue, and from the second century on we have evidence of everyone practicing it, what happened during the 100 years or so between the Apostles and the second century practitioners? If it was something that was never supposed to have been practiced, and suddenly in the second century onward everyone is practicing it, where are the voices who raised objection to its sudden development? If infant baptism was not practiced by the first century church, how and why did this departure from orthodoxy happen so fast and so pervasively? Not only was the spread rapid and universal, but the extant literature from that time does not reflect any controversy concerning the issue. How do credo-baptists explain this? This is their greatest issue to confront.

In the 5th century A.D., Pelagius argued that children were born sinless. Augustine replied something along the lines of, "If children are born sinless, then there's no need for us to baptize children." Pelagius then responded something along the lines of, "I know of no one who would withhold baptism from children and such a person should be held in anathema." Baptism was seen as a Christian act of consecration.

God has always dealt with His people via covenants. Circumcision was instituted under the Abrahamic covenant—not the Mosaic covenant, which has been made obsolete (see Hebrews). Abraham was an unbeliever who came to faith as an adult. He came to faith before he was circumcised. As an adult who had come to faith, he had the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision) applied. Isaac, however, received the sign and seal of the covenant before he had the faith that the sign signified. This was also the case of every other future son of the covenant. In the New Testament, we see former unbelievers who came to faith as adults. These came to faith before they were baptized. As adults who had come to faith, they had the sign and seal of the covenant (baptism) applied. Now, while we do not see it presented in Scripture (at least not with absolute words), one would expect to see the sign and seal of the covenant being applied to children before they had the faith that the sign signified, which is exactly what we see from early church history.

One quarter of the baptisms mentioned in Scripture indicate that entire households were baptized. This strongly suggests (though it does not prove) that infants were included among those baptized. It is highly unlikely that households that consisted not only of your immediate family members, but also of extended family members and of servants, that not one single individual in these households had any children or infants. Children, who were included in the former covenants, would naturally be assumed to be included in the new covenant. If children were no longer included in the new covenant, that puts them in a worse condition and makes them worse off than they had been under the previous covenant.

The new covenant is far more reaching and much more inclusive. Hence the Gentile inclusion. Does it make sense that God, Who included children in all His previous covenants, would suddenly exclude children from His new covenant? Essentially equating them alongside the heathen and their children? If children were no longer to be included, there would be such a command, a "thus says the Lord," found in Scripture. There is nothing! Since the covenant sign and seal of circumcision could only be applied to male children, would it not make sense that the covenant sign and seal of baptism would include female children, rather than eliminating children altogether?

The new covenant is more inclusive than the old, yet those who dispute the validity of infant baptism would make it less inclusive with respect to children, relegating their children to an equal position with heathen and their children.

Many of the arguments of credo-baptists against paedo-baptists are also arguments against themselves and their own position. The arguments from silence to the one are also the same arguments from silence to the other. It is argued that there are no examples of children being baptized in Scripture, yet it is failed to be acknowledged that there is likewise no examples of children of believers growing up and being baptized as adults. Until you study the subject of baptism more broadly, seeing what Scripture has to say about children and covenants, rather than blindly limiting it to a mere look at the word "baptism," you will fail to understand baptism correctly in all its depth and meaning.