Infant Baptism

There have been a few of us talking about infant baptism, more specifically the reformed view than the catholic view. So i figured i'd put down my views on it and try to offer another view.

here's the pro-paedobaptism site that has most been referenced: click here

to start, i figured i'd address some issues i had with that website. first of all, i'd like to start with the premis that this whole thing is based on. "Thus if baptism replaces cirumcision as the sign and seal of the one covenant of grace then the case for infant baptism can be clearly demonstrated from a number of texts, since while the sign may change, there is no biblical evidence that the thing signified changes." This whole argument is born from a view that isn't even biblically backed in the Bible. The infant baptism view would say that infant baptism is in direct continuity with the covenant of circumcision in the Old Testament. There are a few problems with that. The first is that circumcision was not a spiritual sign but a physical sign connecting the person to a physical body. New Testament baptism is a spiritual sign connecting one to a spiritual body. As we know, Israel was very rebellious and there were millions of Jews who have lived in opposition to God and now are in Hell. Circumcision just connected the people to the physical body that God had made a covenant with. it didn't have any spiritual implications. Men were justified by faith in the Old Testament, just as they are today (Habakkuk).

the new covenant, described in Jeremiah 31:34 is a new system where everyone included will know God. Under the old covenant, it was with a physical nation, but the new covenant is with an invisible body of believers, meaning not a tangible body. babies cannot be apart of the new covenant because they do not have the ability to have faith or believe.

another reason i do not believe that baptism is a continuation of circumcision is because it is NO WHERE said to be in the New Testament. Acts 15 and Galatians has been brought up, but wouldn't that be the perfect time to say to the Judaizers 'Hey! you don't have to do that anymore! We don't have to be circumcised anymore because it has been replaced with baptism!' but that isn't said anywhere. though the view for infant baptism says that it has biblical support, i just don't see it. instead, they more draw from the fact that it 'isn't condemned'. but at the end of the argument, the Bible just doesn't support or directly speak about infant baptism. It didn't even take place in the early church until the 2nd or 3rd century.

supporters of infant baptism would say that when it speaks of houses believing and be baptized (Acts 10, 16, 18, I Corinthains with Lydia and Stephanas) they assume that children had to be apart of that. but we know that the all who believed and the all who were baptized would have to be the same people and we also know that infants are incapable of belief and incapable of repentance. Two interesting things about that list, too. Lydia was probably a single lady with no husband and then in I Corinthians when it speaks of Stephanas it says 'All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints.' so if infants were baptized, they would have to be included in those who were devoted to the ministry of the saints, and that is obviously impossible because infants are incapable of devoting themselves to the ministry of the saints.

another reason i don't believe in infant baptism is because i believe that the biblical form of baptism is a believer's baptism. i believe baptism is a commanded ordinance for those who are confessing Christians to outwardly proclaim an inward change. in all of those instances in Acts, believing was followed by being baptized. it was their way of outwardly proclaim their faith. it is an act reserved only for those who have confessed with their tongues and believed in the hearts that Jesus Christ is Lord.

a final closing note. pro-paedobaptism believers would say that I Corinthians 7:12-14 speaks to favoring infant baptism, saying a family is sanctified by a spouse that believes when the other spouse does not. a problem with this is that infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in the passage! all it is speaking of is that the family is blessed because they are living with a persevering Christian who is blessed by God. they get the spillover blessing from God.

the reformation produced a lot of good things, but it also didn't go far enough in some areas, as you had hundreds of churches who were suddenly out on the their own and still held to some catholic views and practices. instead of holding to traditional practices, we should look solely to the Bible for our authority and for our spiritual practices.