Infant Baptism: Seven Reasons Against It! Is infant baptism a valid?

Its practiced by several denominations (Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist), and denied by others. Should our children be "baptized" as babies? If we neglect it, and they die, will they be lost? Is this practice the position of God, or of men (Matt. 15:8, 9; 2 Thess. 2:15)? What does the Word of God teach regarding them? Let us turn to Him who has "the words of eternal life" (Jn. 6:68; 14:6), and see whether the Scriptures will support the supposition of infant baptism. Here are seven points to consider. First: Most of those who practice infant baptism, actually do not baptize their infants. No, they usually sprinkle, pour, or dab small amounts of water on the infant. Its important to understand what the word baptism means. Our word "baptism" comes from the Greek words "BAPTIZO" AND "BAPTISMA" which mean immersion, not sprinkling or pouring as some have come to think of it. Note that the words "baptize" and "baptism" are not actually translations of the Greek words but are transliterations (where Greek letters in a word are simply given their English equivalents). When translated into English, they can only mean to immerse and immersion. In fact, the words sprinkle and pour come from completely different words in Greek. The biblical examples of water baptism suggest the same as they went down into the water and then came up out of it. (Ac. 8:38-39; Mt. 3:16). Why did they both need to go down into the water if Philip was only going to sprinkle or pour? The very mode (immersion) makes infant baptism illogical and impractical. To sprinkle or pour renders the commandment of God to be immersed (baptized) of no effect! Second: The teaching surrounding baptism automatically prohibits it. According to Rom 3-5 and Col 2:12 baptism is a burial, a likeness of His death, and the baptismal candidate is to arise and walk in newness of life. Paul's use of such figures of speech would make no sense if baptism were either pouring or sprinkling. Those buried and raised in baptism were expected to "walk in newness of life" in contrast with their former manner of life. How does a baby's lifestyle change after his baptism? He lives and acts the same as he did before he was baptized, but this is not true of those who received New Testament baptism. The doctrine of infant baptism cannot be found in the New Testament without adding to it. Third: Bible baptism requires FAITH - Ac 8:35-38. Notice the eunuch's question, and Philip's response. "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" "If you believe with all your heart, you may." If one believes, they may be baptized - cf. Mk 16:16. Thus, belief must precede baptism. The gospel is designed to save "everyone that believeth" (Ro. 1:16). Infants, however, are incapable of belief! If infants cant believe, then they are not among the number of those who were baptized. Forth: Bible baptism requires REPENTANCE - Ac 2:38. If one is a penitent believer, they may be baptized, but infants are incapable of repentance! Thus, belief must precede baptism. The gospel is designed to save "everyone that believeth" (Ro. 1:16). Infants can

neither believe nor repent, and the Bible records no examples of infant baptism. Fifth: In David Bernard's book The New Birth he wrote, Some people point to household conversions as evidence for infant baptism. For example, Lydia's household and the Philippian jailer's household were baptized (Acts 16:15; 31-33). However, Cornelius' household received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues (Acts 10:24, 44-46; 11:14-17), yet it is evident that infants did not speak in tongues. The household literally included domestic animals, but no one contends that animals were baptized. The Bible explicitly records that the jailer's whole house believed and that Crispus' whole house believed (Acts 16:34; 18:8), but any infants present did not have conscious faith. We must understand household baptism to include only those scripturally qualified for baptism - those old enough to repent, have faith, and be saved. Lydia and her house, All that is said of Lydia is found in two verses, Act 16:14-15, and the passage contains not one word about an infant, or a child of any sort. It is stated that "she was baptized and her household." But it is not stated that she was a married woman, that she had any children, much less that she had any infants; and, therefore, there is nothing here about any infant baptism. The Philippian jailers household. Acts 16:33. "And they, Paul and Silas, spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And when they had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house." Here are two things stated of these that can not be said of infants. They spoke unto him--the jailer--the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. The jailer rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. Here it is asserted of the household that they rejoiced, believing in God. The word of the Lord was spoken to them, they rejoiced and believed in God. This cannot be said of infants. Cornelius and his household. Acts 11:4. Here, however, is conclusive evidence that there were no infants, for the angel said, "Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell the words whereby thou and all they house shall be saved." Infants are not told words whereby they are saved. Those who practice infant baptism do not tell them words whereby they may be saved, and to not believe they are saved in or by baptism. The household of Stephanas. There is but one other household mentioned in the New Testament, in connection with baptism. That is "the household of Stephanas." 1Cor 1:16. In the same letter we find one thing affirmed of this same household that cannot be affirmed of infants. "They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints."1Cor 16:15. This is a thing infants cannot do. Sixth: In The New Birth David Bernard also stated, Some persons teach infant baptism on the grounds that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. However, baptism is a spiritual and not physical circumcision and it involves a spiritual and not physical cleansing. Past sins and the old lifestyle are cut away, which necessitates conscious faith and repentance. Colossians 2:11-12, the passage that describes baptism as a spiritual circumcision, teaches that this spiritual work takes place through our faith in

the working of God. Furthermore, circumcision typifies both water and Spirit baptism; the candidate for water baptism should be ready to receive the Spirit. In the Old Testament God dealt in a special way with a nation that was physically identified and separated from the world. Today God deals on an individual basis rather than on a national basis; His chosen people are those who have been born again and spiritually separated from the world. Seventh: Authority That the first recipients of baptism were adults. Infant baptism was a later development that led to sprinkling. - Chambers Encyclopedia, Vol 2, Pg.112. There's no direct evidence in New Testament for infant baptism. - Interpreters Bible Dict. Vol 1, Pg. 352. The earliest Christian literature makes no reference to baptism of infants. - Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol 3, Pg 138. The first mention of infant baptism was about 185 A.D. Not universal until 6th Century. History of Church, by WALKER, Pgs. 87-88. "Infant baptism was established neither by Christ nor the apostles. In all places where we find the necessity of baptism notified, either in a dogmatic or historical point of view, it is evident that it was only meant for those who were capable of comprehending the word preached, and of being converted to Christ by an act of their own will." - JACOBI, Article on Baptism in Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Vol. I, p. 287. Conclusion: Should infants be baptized? The answer is "No" The Biblical facts are (1) There is not one example of infant baptism in the N.T.! (2) Infants do not meet the prerequisites of faith and repentance required of all those baptized in the N.T. (3) Babies cannot know the Lord somehow before they enter into the relationship baptism places them, and so do not need to be taught to know the Lord. What if you were "baptized" as an infant? Most likely you were not actually baptized (immersed), simply "sprinkled." Even if immersed, it was not "Bible baptism", which requires faith and repentance. Thus you are still in need of obeying the Word of the Lord! Though sincere, one is not necessarily right; we are right only when we do the Father's will! (Mt 7:21-23). Jesus said, If ye love me, keep my commandments (Jn 14:15; 15:10,14). Infant baptism was not instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His apostles, nor known in the New Testament churches, and has neither sanction nor recognition in the word of God. Please never place your faith in the traditions of men, or in the doctrines of some church; place your faith in God's Word, and obey it accordingly!