Infant baptism

Infant baptism is the practice of baptizing infants or young children. In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism, or pedobaptism, from the Greek prefix παιδ- paid-, in παιδίον paidion, meaning, "child". This is in contrast to what is called "believer's baptism", or credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe"), which is the religious practice of baptizing only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding underage children. Anabaptists and Baptist groups reject infant baptism as not supported by the Bible.

Denominations that practice infant baptism

Branches of Christianity that practice infant baptism include Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and among Protestants, several denominations: Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, Methodists and some Nazarenes, and the Moravian Church. For Presbyterians, Baptism is a sacrament, seal, and outward symbol of “inward grace”, which also grants membership into the Christian community. The Oneness Groups believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Both Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals use full immersion and do not practice infant baptism.

Earliest historical mention of infant baptism: A.D. 185

The earliest explicit mention of infant baptism is found A.D. 185 in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 22:4.

"For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (boldface emphasis added)

This is a direct reference to John 3:3-5:

“

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. —King James Bible

”

The Greek New Testament word for "man" here is τις tis "anyone".

See interlinear text of John 3:5. No human being is excluded. Age is not mentioned.

Controversy based on interpretations of Scripture

The Bible does not explicitly command the practice of infant baptism.

The Bible does not explicitly forbid the practice of infant baptism.

Infant baptism is an explicit part of Apostolic Tradition. The necessity of baptism for salvation is seen by the majority of Christians as divinely revealed by God in the following Bible texts:

John 3:3-5; Matthew 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-39; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:21.

Luke 18:15-16

"They were also bringing their babies to him" Luke 18:15—KJV "infants".
Greek καὶ τὰ βρέφη ἵνα αὐτῶν kai ta brephe ina auton "also infants to him".
The word βρέφη brephe means, "an unborn or a newborn child, infant, babe, child in arms", children not yet able to walk. From the Greek vocabulary of this passage, these are helpless babies who cannot of themselves come to Jesus by their own power.
See Strong's number 1025 βρέφη brephe "infant".
Compare the interlinear text of Luke 18:15. Compare the parallel versions of Luke 18:15.

"Allow the little children to come to me, and do not hinder them" Luke 18:16.
KJV "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not".
This passage in verses 15-16, is often used to argue in favor of infant baptism, with the reasoning that if the grace of blessing by Christ can be received by the soul of an infant, by "babies", as here in this text of Luke, then the grace of baptism unto salvation can also be received by the soul of a baby, and no one is justified in hindering or opposing the practice of infant baptism, which the ancient church fathers testified comes from the teaching of the apostles, traceable by tradition back to the first century of the early church.
Compare John 3:5 and commentaries.
See 1 Peter 3:21 and commentaries.

Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists argue that infants, "babies", are incapable of repentance and of committing any personal sins, and therefore baptizing them once, as infants, as an act never to be repeated, deprives them of obeying the commandment to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38. All Christians admit that the New Testament teaches that believers, "the saints", can sin after being baptized ("post-baptismal sins") and that they can again "repent" and confess their sins and be forgiven and be saved, according to 1 John 1:8-9 and John 20:21-23; Matthew 18:15-18; James 5:13-20. Catholics teach that for those who have been baptized as infants, as well as adults who have been baptized, sins committed after baptism can be forgiven, and for this purpose the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation called Confession was instituted by Christ. For this reason Catholics respond that infant baptism does not deprive the baptized person of obeying the commandment to repent, having already been baptized. They are baptized, being Christians "from infancy", and they repent, fulfilling the command "Repent, and be baptized". They repent, and they are (already) baptized, both together, the one and the other being fulfilled. "I am baptized, and I repent of my sins." The church fathers have also called Sacramental Confession a "laborious form of baptism", a "second baptism". Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are not persuaded by this argument, which seems to them to be an exercise in casuistry.

According to the Bible, even infants and those in the womb are able to praise God or go astray from him by sin. See the following:

Job 31:18; Psalm 8:2; Psalm 139:16; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 21:16; Luke 1:41; Luke 18:15; Acts 2:39; Acts 17:27; 2 Peter 3:9; compare Psalm 58:3; Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 9:13.

Apologists for the doctrine of infant baptism point to the next verse, Acts 2:39: "For the promise is to you and to your children..."; and they point to the fact that here in Luke 18:15 "They were also bringing their babies to him", and that Jesus himself, seeing his own disciples rebuking them for doing so, commanded them, "Allow the little children to come to me, and do not hinder them" Luke 18:16—"And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them" Mark 10:16—"And he laid his hands on them" Matthew 19:15.

In response, Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists argue that Jesus did not command the "bringing" of infants by others, but that he said, "Allow the little children to come to me, and do not hinder them"—the words "allow to come" and "do not hinder them" indicating to them that these little children are capable of walking, and therefore of an age to reason, understand, repent, and "be baptized", by their own choice, not the choice of their parents on their behalf bringing them to him before they reach an age to have any rational understanding of the meaning of being sorry for their own sins. This eisegetical interpretation utterly contradicts, or at the very least totally ignores, the Bible's word βρέφη brephe, which clearly means, "an unborn or a newborn child, infant, babe, child in arms", children not yet able to walk. Such an interpretation is a clear example of confirmation bias. From the context, Jesus' word, "allow the little children to come to me", means, "allow the little babies to be brought to me—don't exclude them!"

Apologists for infant baptism respond that Jesus was countermanding his disciples' refusal of infants, babies, being brought to him for his blessing, and that even infants, babies, incapable of conscious choice, can receive the blessing of Jesus from heaven in baptism. They also point to 1 Peter 3:21 and Ephesians 5:25b-27, teaching that according to the Bible baptism saves us now, and that Jesus sanctifies and cleanses his church with the washing of water with the word, to present the whole church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. They point to the fact that Paul teaches that baptism replaces circumcision, which is done when a child is only eight days old, which made that baby a member of the people of God, to be raised and taught the way of the Lord in truth. Colossians 2:9-14. They say this has always been the "tradition" by "word" as handed down from the apostles of the Lord, that whole "households" and "all their families" with all "your children" were baptized. Those passages of the New Testament do not exclude children and infants. No minimum age of accountability is mentioned in the New Testament as a requirement of eligibility for baptism into Christ. Nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized.

Romans 6:3-11; 1 Peter 3:21; Hebrews 10:19-22; Acts 22:16; Ephesians 5:25-27; Luke 18:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; Hebrews 13:17; 2 Timothy 2:2, 23-25; Jude 3; 2 Peter 3:14-18; Acts 2:39; 11:14; 16:15, 31, 33; 18:8.

The cleansing of the soul from sin and the supernatural faith implanted in the soul by baptism is, in the case of infants baptized, nurtured and encouraged by the upbringing and teaching of the parents and the Christian doctrine of the church they belong to. Devout Christian parents who have their infants baptized, take upon themselves the duty to raise their children to understand that because of their baptism into Christ they are obligated to dedicate their whole lives to living the Christian life in obedience to Christ, and that to refuse to do so after they are old enough to understand is a very serious sin of rebellion against God himself, punishable by condemnation to hell for all eternity if, having known the truth, they do not repent of their conscious refusal to live a Christian life of holiness in obedience to Christ Jesus the Lord before they die.

1 Peter 3:21 in the King James Version states that baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God". The Greek word here translated as "answer" is έπερώτημα eperotema , which means much more than a mere answer to a question. It means primarily “question,” “enquiry,” “inquiry” as in a probing investigation or hearing and a trial by law before the examiners, the judge and the court. A true understanding according to the literal sense of scripture is found partly in the forensic use of the Greek word for question, έπερώτημα eperotema, as including, like our word “examination,” both question and answer. Substantive evidence as an "exhibit" brought before the court is presented to the judge as an answer to the charge of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In a medical examination of the patient who has been healed the doctor can see for himself that the disease is cured, and the evidence is presented to the chief medical examiner at the head of a medical panel of judges to answer the question of the possibility of any remaining pathology which could pose a risk to the health of the patient and to the community as a whole. The "answer of a good conscience" by baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 is the New Testament antitype to the Old Testament type in the book of Leviticus, the examination by the Levitical priests of an Israelite healed of leprosy to establish proof of having been cleansed by God, after which the ritual of cleansing was performed.

The tragic case of "crack babies" formed in the womb and born of mothers already addicted to "crack cocaine" is a very strong analogy to the doctrine of inherited sin. Just as these innocently addicted babies need curative medical treatment for a defect not chosen by themselves as individuals, so every individual human soul at the moment of conception is afflicted with the deadly terminal defect of original sin for which they are not personally responsible, already in "lifelong bondage" to the devil. They are innocent, but they need salvation from the collective death of sin inherited from their parents descended in the direct lineage of Adam and Eve.

Calvinist and Anabaptist doctrines of predestination and credobaptism alone are represented by their opponents as holding a doctrine of "monstrous evil" which arbitrarily and without mercy condemns to an eternal hell all who by default do not believe, simply because they are too young to understand or, because of the accidental circumstance of a lack of any kind of opportunity to hear it, have never heard about the Gospel of salvation, and do not believe. This includes all pagans and babies, infants, all those whom Luke 18:15 calls βρέφη brephe, "an unborn or a newborn child, infant, babe, child in arms", not yet able to walk. Apologists for this view respond that this is because their opponents do not grasp the fact that because of the fall of man, the whole human race became totally depraved, and as a consequence of their totally depraved nature are deprived of the power of free will, and are "by nature the children of wrath". According to this doctrine, the Sovereign God, just and compassionate and merciful, is in his supremely sovereign, prefect, absolute justice under no obligation to save creatures who by nature have no love for him and are by their very nature destined for hell because of their depravity. But to manifest absolutely his goodness before all creation, the Sovereign Lord God has predestined for glory all those chosen souls whom he has sovereignly elected to receive the unmerited grace of salvation for the praise of his glory and honor as the absolute Lord of all creation in heaven and on earth.

However, according to the Bible, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9. "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John 3:17. This indicates clearly that a sovereign willingness on the part of God to not provide for all souls in the world any possible opportunity for salvation, even ignorant pagans and infants, is not a doctrine supported by the Bible.

Many Christians reject the arbitrary doctrine that babies who have died, who have not been baptized, who did nothing, either good or bad, and did not believe, are automatically doomed to an eternity in the lake of fire. Those Christians who at the same time also reject any need for infant baptism, who have been told that infants are ipso facto totally innocent of all sin, that there is an "age of innocence", and have heard cited the phrase "below the age of innocence" with reference to very young children, have searched in vain for this phrase in the Bible. Their doctrinal belief is not found in the New Testament, that the baptism of infants is utterly unnecessary, because they have accepted the belief that the Bible itself teaches that all babies in the womb and those infants and children "below the age of innocence" are already "covered by the saving blood of Jesus" because they are innocent of any sin, and are already saved up until the age of understanding and accountability, at which time they must choose on their own to make a decision for Christ to be saved. Theologians and apologists who have been challenged to defend this doctrine with support from scripture are not able to cite a single text that explicitly states that an unborn or a newborn child, infant, babe, child in arms, a child not yet able to walk, is saved by the covering blood of Christ apart from the baptism mentioned in the New Testament, John 3:3-5; Matthew 28:18-19; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-39; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 Peter 3:21. This is simply from reading the whole text of the New Testament alone sola scriptura. Such a doctrine appears to be only a "tradition of men" outside of the Bible alone. They are unwilling to consign unbaptized infants to hell, yet "as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:12 (KJV). It is a belief in the universal compassionate mercy of God for all mankind, coupled with a doctrinal rejection of the apostolic tradition of infant baptism received by mainstream Christianity, Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and among Protestants, several denominations: Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes, and the Moravian Church.

According to scripture the whole of mankind was defiled by the guilt of Adam and Eve (Romans 5:12; Wisdom 2:23-24) which broke off the intimate communion of their whole being with the Lord, severing them and the collective whole of the heritage of all their offspring from the spiritual life of God. Moreover, not only are we born as members of the whole community of the fallen race of man defiled by the terminal defect of this original sin—and for this reason every human being dies, even innocent babies in the womb—we also each of us as natural descendants of fallen man commit our own sins against God and our fellow human beings, against our own parents, children, friends, enemies, against truth, mercy and justice, and against ourselves whether we intend it or not (Romans 3:23; 7:15, 19). Even little children have regrets about what they have done, and tiny babies display anger and stubbornness when they don't get what they want. As we mature in age and come to know the holiness of God we become even more aware of our inherent imperfection and our guilt before Him. Even atheists, against their will, struggle with feelings of guilt, knowing that they are not what they should be, even by their own personal standards.

Hebrews 10:1-2 clearly testifies that the sacrifices and washings of the Law of Moses can never make perfect the conscience of those who draw near to God, because even after offering sacrifices and cleansing their bodies according to the regulations and ordinances of the Torah blamelessly, without fault in their performance of them, they are still conscious of sin, for if they had actually been cleansed they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. But Christ through his blood in the washing of baptism with the word makes those who are members of his body sanctified, cleansed, without spot or wrinkle or any such defect, so that each one as members of the one body of Christ might be holy and without blemish, and this purity of a clean soul and clean conscience is the evidence of innocence in answer to the charge of guilt, "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (KJV). On the Reformation principle of sola scriptura itself, the belief that sin remains in the soul of every Christian cleansed and saved by the Lord contradicts the scriptures that say both that they are "in Christ", and that "in him is no sin".

According to Catholic doctrine, baptism into Christ removes entirely the inherited defect of the original sin of the whole collective human race descended from Adam and of the individually personal guilt of all sins personally committed before being baptized. Thus the effect of sin and its removal is not merely juridical as a legal decision exonerating the guilty by a decree of amnesty. In an absolute reality affecting the whole person, the removal of sin through the blood of Christ in baptism is instead ontological, affecting the very being of the individual soul, the "creature" itself, as the cure of a deadly disease is a real healing of the whole physical body, the image of which in the New Testament was the cleansing of leprosy by Christ and the apostles (Matthew 9:2-8; Mark 6:13; Acts 5:14-16; 19:11). The defiling disease is removed.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV, boldface emphasis added.)
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." (Galatians 6:15 KJV, boldface emphasis added)

A legal declaration of amnesty cannot cure the physical being of the guilty carrier of a deadly disease, only the medicine of the practicing physician administered properly can do that. Sin is not merely covered up, as in the sacrifices of the old covenant, which cannot take away sins, as the author of Hebrews 10:1-22 clearly says, but is in reality washed away, removed, according to Ephesians 5:25-27 and Hebrews 10:22 and 2 Peter 1:9; see Acts 22:16.
All that remains is the leftover temporal damage caused by the disease of sin. Romans 6–8; 2 Corinthians 4:16–5:4; 1 Corinthians 15:42-54. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, those leftover temporal defects afflicting reconciled sinners who have been forgiven in Christ, remaining defects which they have not yet in justice fully rectified and overcome by grace-filled virtue during life on earth, will be purged away afterward to fully cleanse them of all unrighteousness in preparation for their entrance into heaven.

According to Catholic doctrine, baptized infants and babies who have died innocent of personal sin are saved and enter immediately into heaven. Those who die in the womb or who have not been baptized before death took them, are commended to God, who alone knows what they would have done if they had lived to hear the Gospel, and whether in their souls and hearts they were resisting or not resisting the saving grace of salvation poured out on all the world through Jesus Christ alone. Their salvation can be assured by what is called, "baptism of desire", God knowing whether or not in their souls they would have been personally willing to do his will, whatever it is; and therefore the grace of baptism by the blood of Christ is imputed to them by the mercy of God, "who is not willing that any should perish" 2 Peter 3:9. This "baptism of desire" is called an "extraordinary" means of salvation, provided by God, baptism by water and the word being the ordinary means of salvation ordained by God through Christ by the Holy Spirit for all mankind, including baptism unto salvation of those the Gospel of Luke 18:15 calls βρέφη brephe, "an unborn or a newborn child, infant, babe, child in arms", innocent children not yet able to walk.

Doctrine of Satan and the Antichrist

Fifth century: Council of Mileum II, A.D. 416, Council of Carthage 417 or 418

One of the earliest mentions of an anathema of those who prohibit the practice of infant baptism is found in the Canons of the Council of Mileum II [A.D. 416]:

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3).

The Canons of the Council of Carthage (417 or 418) in condemnation against the views of Pelagius and Celestius included an anathema of all those who rejected the practice of infant baptism.

“Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.” (Canon 2 of 418 Synod)

Sixteenth century

This practice of infant baptism together with all elements of apostolic tradition not found explicitly taught by the Bible alone according to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura is unequivocably condemned as a Catholic doctrine, and therefore as being manifestly a satanic lie promulgated and promoted by the Antichrist, most evidently evil and obviously destructive to anyone with eyes to see, a deceptive doctrine of devils straight out of the pits of hell. This warning clearly condemns to hell all who accept infant baptism as necessary: all of mainstream Christianity, Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and among Protestants, several denominations: Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes, and the Moravian Church.

Foremost with their strong objection to infant baptism were the Anabaptists, who were persecuted and condemned as heretics by the majority of Christian believers, Catholic and Protestant. Zwingli found their theologies to be contradictory, Luther found their entire organization confusing, Calvin labeled them as “poor fools”, “scatterbrains”, “ignoramuses” and “enemies of government”, and the Catholics associated them with the Devil, labeling them “messengers of the Antichrist”.

The term "ana- (again) baptism" referred to being “rebaptized,” and it was a punishable offense. Since the establishment of the Byzantime Christian Empire, rejection of infant baptism, and re-baptism of those who had been baptized as infants as a repudiation of infant baptism, was condemned as anathema by local synods of bishops and the affirmation of their discernment by the judgment of the ecumenical councils of the whole catholic church east and west. In response to their ecclesiastical anathemas against heretical rejection of the doctrine and practice of infant baptism, repudiation of the practice of infant baptism had been made a capital offense by the civil authority of the Byzantine Christian Emperors. This relationship of mutual support between the institutional church and civil authorities formed a kind of “Christian” kingdom, ideally intended as a realization of the doctrine of Romans 12–13, 1&nbsp:Corinthians 12, Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 2:13–3:17. Thus, the Catholic Church’s spiritual authority was connected to civil authority. Through baptism, one became a part of the church and a citizen of the state. One’s baptismal record functioned as a kind of birth certificate. Christendom provided a way of understanding the world that seemed to bring it into a harmonious whole. The state handled civil life, and the church offered more important eternal life through counselling a prudent application of apostolic traditions of ethical and moral doctrinal practice, prayer, scripture and the sacraments. Each ruled their respective sphere and supported the other. Even reform-minded leaders found it difficult to imagine a legitimate church refusing to baptize infants. Anabaptists stood alone in being willing to challenge the practice of infant baptism.

The development of abuses of power and scandalous disregard of Christian moral principles by corrupt individuals holding high office in government and church prompted many to question the legitimacy of the authority of both. And this prepared the ground for the Protestant Reformation and the response of the Counter Reformation of the Council of Trent. By baptizing each other, Anabaptists denied the Catholic Church’s claim of spiritual authority and challenged its relationship to civil authority. They declared their true citizenship to be in the kingdom of heaven rather than to any kingdom or ruler of the world. Anabaptists argued that their primary allegiance was always owed to Christ alone. This was a form of Christian anarchism rooted in secular antinomianism for the evident purpose of destabilizing and overthrowing civil govenment. Their pacifism was viewed as giving passive aid and comfort to the enemy forces of Islamic terrorism. Civil and religious authorities throughout Europe moved quickly to quell what they viewed as a dangerous movement, similar to the modern governmental response to a clear and present danger. Wherever groups of Anabaptist believers emerged, in the Swiss and German regions of Europe and as far north as the Netherlands, they met with great opposition. Thousands were imprisoned and put to death by burning at the stake or by being drowned in a local river. Drowning was considered a particularly appropriate death for Anabaptists. The authorities said they had sinned through the use of baptismal water, so by the water they would lose their lives.

Baptist churches adopted the same views of infant baptism and the absolute need for confessional credobaptism of adult believers. Many other Protestant and independent churches profess their opposition to the doctrine of infant baptism as diabolical and satanic, while others among them accept it as being supported by the Bible because the scriptures do not explicitly condemn the baptism of infants and young children, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, Presbyterians, Methodists, (some) Nazarenes, and the Moravian Church. Compare the Mennonites.

The doctrinal stand of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is strongly opposed to Catholicism. In 1852, Robert Boyt C. Howell wrote a paper he delivered to the Southern Baptist Publication Society "The Evils of Infant Baptism" in which he set forth in nineteen chapters the following arguments against infant baptism:

CHAPTER 1

Infant baptism is an evil because its practice is unsupported by the word of God

CHAPTER 2

Infant baptism is an evil because its defense leads to most injurious perversions of Scripture

CHAPTER 3

Infant baptism is an evil because it engrafts Judaism upon the gospel of Christ

CHAPTER 4

Infant baptism is an evil because it falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity

CHAPTER 5

Infant baptism is an evil because the doctrines upon which it is predicated contradict the great fundamental principle of justification by faith

CHAPTER 6

Infant baptism is an evil because it is in direct conflict with the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration

CHAPTER 7

Infant baptism is an evil because it despoils the church of those peculiar qualities which are essential to the church of Christ

CHAPTER 8

Infant baptism is an evil because its practice perpetuates the superstitions that originally produced it

CHAPTER 9

Infant baptism is an evil because it subverts the scripture doctrine of infant salvation

CHAPTER 10

Infant baptism is an evil because it leads its advocates into rebellion against the authority of Christ

CHAPTER 11

Infant baptism is an evil because of the connection it assumes with the moral and religious training of children

CHAPTER 12

Infant baptism is an evil because it is the grand foundation upon which rests the union of church and state

CHAPTER 13

Infant baptism is an evil because it leads to religious persecutions

CHAPTER 14

Infant baptism is an evil because it is contrary to the principles of civil and religious freedom

CHAPTER 15

Infant baptism is an evil because it enfeebles the power of the church to combat error

CHAPTER 16

Infant baptism is an evil because it injures the credit of religion with reflecting men of the world

CHAPTER 17

Infant baptism is an evil because it is the great barrier to Christian union

CHAPTER 18

Infant baptism is an evil because it prevents the salutary impression which baptism was designed to make upon the minds both of those who receive it, and of those who witness its administration

CHAPTER 19

Infant baptism is an evil because it retards the designs of Christ in the conversion of the world

Where do unbaptized departed infants go?

Among believers in the necessity of baptism for salvation there is no universal consensus on the fate of dead infants who have not been baptized, the souls of those whom the New Testament Greek text of Luke 18:15-16 calls βρέφη brephe, "an unborn or a newborn child, infant, babe, child in arms". There are three conflicting doctrines:

• They go to Hell.
• They go to Limbo.
• They go to Heaven.

They go to Hell

This is based primarily on Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (KJV) An unborn or a newborn child, infant, babe, child in arms, who does not and cannot understand, does not believe. And that little child shall most certainly be damned by dying because that child did not believe and was not baptized. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5. Therefore, according to a literalist "plain, simple and obvious" reading of the Bible sola scriptura, unbaptized infants are damned.

John Calvin in his Institutes of Christian Religion states most clearly that only those predestinate souls elected irrevocably to the blessed glory of salvation by the irresistible grace of the Sovereign Will of God alone will attain heaven and stand in the presence of Almighty God. All others, men, women, children, babies, infants, the unborn in the womb, who die, are destined by their unregenerate wicked nature of total depravity for the ruin of hell apart from the presence of God, because "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity". Habakkuk 1:13

“

Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin (Gal. 5:19); while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed--viz. that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due. Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another's sin (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent), at the same time asserts that it is each individual's own sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," (Rom. 5:12); that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt. —Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 5.8 Definition of original sin.

”

Thus, the ordinance of baptism avails nothing for those who are not already appointed unto salvation and do not believe, "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" Acts 13:48 (KJV), "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:9 (KJV). Saint Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 9:

“

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonor? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said, unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. —Romans 9:18-26 (KJV)

”

They go to Limbo

This is based primarily on Romans 2:15; 1 John 3:21; Revelation 20:12. Medieval Christian theologians, unable to reconcile the mercy and justice of a good and loving God the Father, and the necessity of baptism according to John 3:5, had recourse to the word of Jesus in Luke 12:48 in which those who did not know or hear or understand the Gospel, and had personally of themselves done nothing either good or bad, would receive a light punishment, that loss solely due to the defect of the original sin of Adam, placing them on the very outer edge (Latin limbo) of hell, the state of simply being deprived for all eternity of the beatific vision of the saved in heaven, but also of being spared the torment of the wicked. Among Catholic theologians this doctrine of limbo has remained a philosophical and theological speculation only, and has never been approved as an official doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in an affirmation of the Council of Trent on the question of the fate of unbaptized infants:

“

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ″Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,″ [Mk 10:14; cf. 1 Tim. 2:4.] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church′s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

”

They go to heaven

This is based primarily on Matthew 18:14 "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (KJV)
—"for to such belongs the kingdom of God." (RSVCE) Luke 18:16, Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14.

"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." Mark 10:15.
"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." Luke 18:17.

Baptism for the dead

Mormon doctrine: baptismal salvation for the unbaptized dead

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints practices surrogate water-baptism for the salvation of the souls of the unbaptized dead, including infants, that they might be saved. This is based on their doctrinal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29

“

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead. (KJV)

”

"They" not "We"

Those who deny that baptism on behalf of the dead was ever part of Christian doctrine and apostolic tradition point out that Paul says, "they", in reference to others who believe in the resurrection of the dead. He does not say, "Else what shall we do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are we then baptized for the dead?" He does not say this. If baptism for the dead had been Christian doctrine they reason that Paul would have included it as a practice that "we" Christians perform on behalf of the dead as a work of mercy. There is no evidence from the first centuries of Christianity in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and the first seven Ecumenical councils of any mention of the practice of being baptized for the dead as being part of Christian doctrine and dogma. According to the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church this practice was never a part of Apostolic Tradition. No Protestant denomination practices baptism for the dead. It is unknown in the Church of Christ. For this reason the Mormon doctrine of baptizing for the dead is not Christian.

See also

Christian mysteries

Theosis

Heresy

Protestant Reformation

Great Apostasy

Salvation: declarational salvation and ontological salvation

Substitutionary atonement

External links

Infant baptism - Wikipedia

A Brief Defense of Infant Baptism, Kevin DeYoung (thegospelcoalition.org) —"...within two centuries of the Apostles we have clear evidence that the church was practicing infant baptism. If this had been a change to long-standing tradition, we would have some record of the church arguing over this new practice. It wasn’t until the sixteenth century that Christians began to question the legitimacy of infant baptism."

Infant Baptism - God's Ordinance, The Danger of the Doctrine of the Anabaptists, John D. Palmer - Reasonable Religion (reasonablereligion.com) —"...the Doctrine of the Anabaptists, in excluding Infants from Baptism, and shutting them out of the visible Church, makes all Infants to be of the visible Kingdom of Satan, and so leaves us no well-grounded hope of the salvation of any dying in infancy; and is therefore to be justly abhorred as false Doctrine."

Baby Baptism - Infant Baptism Facts - Should I Baptize My Newborn Baby? (atotheword.com) —"Baby baptism or infant baptism is not biblical. Jesus didn’t teach or practice it and none of his disciples did either. Nowhere in Scriptures, will you find any instructions concerning baby baptism. It’s not there!"

INFANT BAPTISM EXPOSED! - Jesus-is-Savior.com —"Infant baptism appeared in the Christian church history around the Second Century, coming from the pagan influences of Baal Worship..."

Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration Exposed! Their PAGAN Origin and Deadly History. INFANT BAPTISM EXPOSED! It’s History and Harm - Petersburg Gospel Center (how2becomeachristian.wordpress.com) —"Infant baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine. It is not found in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby being baptized. We will show that baby baptism is of pagan origin."

Lutheran Doctrine - Frequently Asked Questions - Baptism FAQs (lcms.org)
Topics include

What is the Lutheran view of Baptism and its purpose?
Does Baptism save?
Who can be godparents/sponsors?
How does faith play a role in infant Baptism?
What is the history of infant Baptism?
What about infants who die before being baptized?
Why do Lutherans use the “sprinkle” method for Baptism?
Do I have to be re-baptized to join the LCMS?
Does the LCMS baptize children of unchurched parents?
Why baptize infants?

Infant Baptism or Believer's Baptism: Which is Correct? Author: Brittany (equippinggodlywomen.com) (This article displays large blank areas between its several brief statements. After accessing this site, keep scrolling down to read each piece of the article in its entirety.) —"Early Church Fathers: Not a single church father found infant baptism unlawful, though of course, everyone had their own opinion on when the “optimal” time to be baptized would be. There was never any serious controversy surrounding it until the 16th century."

Which Religions practice Baptism and Which do not?, Beverley Byer (owlcation.com)