Br. Rich SFO:
You begin with the Old Testament showing that ALL infants were presented in the Temple on the eighth day after birth. That Baptism replaces circumsicion as a means of entry into the people of God. etc, etc.
Next ask specifically where in Scripture does it forbid the Baptizing of infants in the New Testament?
Yeah, unfortunately that argument’s not likely to hold. I’ve checked the Bible and it NEVER equates infant baptism as a substitute for OT circumcision.
As for the issue of where in the NT is infant baptism forbidden, you won’t see the Bible come out and say,
“Infant baptism is forbidden.” What you WILL see, however, is a sort of qualification process for lack of a better term. The apostles didn’t baptize you until they were certain that you understood the significance of what it meant to be baptized.
In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized. This was done as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him, but if they didn’t fully understand what the significance of baptism entailed, they were refused. A good example of this can be found in 1 Corinthians 1:10-15. The Apostle Paul, seeing that people were already getting confused about who they were following, set the record straight in his letter and even expressed relief that, out of the lot, he only baptized two people
(Verse 14).
Another good place to review is in Acts 8 as much of that chapter deals with baptism. In verse twelve on Acts 8, it reads: *"*
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,
they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12
(bold and italics mine)
**
Only adults were baptized and all had to believe beforehand. By the time you reach verse 26, you come to the story of the eunuch. Philip is led to the Ethiopian eunuch who is seated and trying to understand the significance of prophetic verses
(concerning Jesus). Philip asked the eunuch if he understood what he was reading. He responded by hinting that he could use a little help, so Philip explained the verses to him. Once he understood that it was referring to Jesus, the eunuch asked Philip a question:
Verse 36 - And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Verse 37 - And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Verse 38 - And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
The few times I’ve ever heard the Catholic church try to justify infant baptism, they use the
“household” argument; that being that a couple of times in scripture, mention is made of a certain household being baptized. They assume that an infant must be in these households. Unfortunately, this is a very reckless assumption to make (my household consists of myself, my wife and my mother and father-in-law who are staying over for a few months as they’re from another country). We have a household, but no infant.
An infant obviously can’t UNDERSTAND anything about the Kingdom of God and an infant can’t make the CHOICE to ACCEPT the truth about Jesus.
This probably wasn’t what you were looking for, but there’s no sense in denying what scripture says about the matter. Anyway, I hope this helped elucidate the true significance of a baptism.
