infant baptism

[ibetrippin07]

I find it very much so impossible to hold the theology of baptizing infants in the name of Christ to accomplish second birth.
Without even going into scripture just think about it.
When one wants to become saved, THEY decide to get baptized. if you 20 years old and decide that you wanna follow Christ its not your parents who decide you should be baptized its YOU. also when becoming baptized, you are knowledgeable of what is going on are you not supposed to be? is this not supposed to be THE biggest decision of ones life? now if you decide to baptize your son or daughter who is now making that decision? your deciding that this individual who knows nothing about what is happening should be baptized. and if you think that just by deciding your infant should be baptized and you force him to become baptized then is this not the same equivalent of grabbing a man off the street and forcing him to be baptized? how can you say that man is born again if he has not even accepted Christ into his heart? seriously it is like saying the parent has control over what will happen to the child’s soul! This is not real scriptural doctrine. name a prophet called to follow under 10 years old. Jesus Did not even become baptized until he was of priest age? If God is ok with infant baptism why did his own son not get baptized shortly after leaving the womb? Is Christ not the ultimate example and authority for all things? He knew what he was getting into and he was ready to take that step and receive the holy spirit.
The hardest part i see here is how can a child who has barely been living and certainly not corrupted by evil yet become born again so soon?
sorry about the length but its just something to ponder.

 

[narrowpath]

In the Bible the graces of Jesus, and the promise of salvation is given “unto you AND YOUR CHILDREN”! Entire households are baptised, and this would include adults, their children, and the servants/slaves and their children. Plus, Jewish children entered into the covenant between God and Israel when they were eight days old! Why would God restrict the new fulfilled covenant to only adults? It would have been unthinkable to Jewish converts.

For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.:grouphug:

• Acts 2:39

 

[narrowpath]

Oh, one other thing, baptism is the ‘second birth’ in which we are born again by water and the Spirit, but the graces only continue if the child keeps on faithfully serving God, and receiving the other sacraments. Otherwise, the baptismal robe is tainted.

 

[tobias]

This is not real scriptural doctrine. name a prophet called to follow under 10 years old. Jesus Did not even become baptized until he was of priest age?

  i think John the Baptist is the answer.  He was called to be a prophet from before birth. 
  Jesus fulfilled the old covenant so was circumsised on the eigth day. Systematically it was impossible that Jesus, in His human nature, could have been baptized before his forerunner brought the baptism for repentance to Istrael. Jesus was baptized at the start of His public revelation as the anointed one.      
  
 Scriptural silence on specifics of age does not scriptural negation make.

 

[trustinyou]

I find it very much so impossible to hold the theology of baptizing infants in the name of Christ to accomplish second birth.
Without even going into scripture just think about it.
When one wants to become saved, THEY decide to get baptized. if you 20 years old and decide that you wanna follow Christ its not your parents who decide you should be baptized its YOU. also when becoming baptized, you are knowledgeable of what is going on are you not supposed to be? is this not supposed to be THE biggest decision of ones life? now if you decide to baptize your son or daughter who is now making that decision? your deciding that this individual who knows nothing about what is happening should be baptized. and if you think that just by deciding your infant should be baptized and you force him to become baptized then is this not the same equivalent of grabbing a man off the street and forcing him to be baptized? how can you say that man is born again if he has not even accepted Christ into his heart? seriously it is like saying the parent has control over what will happen to the child’s soul! This is not real scriptural doctrine. name a prophet called to follow under 10 years old. Jesus Did not even become baptized until he was of priest age? If God is ok with infant baptism why did his own son not get baptized shortly after leaving the womb? Is Christ not the ultimate example and authority for all things? He knew what he was getting into and he was ready to take that step and receive the holy spirit.
The hardest part i see here is how can a child who has barely been living and certainly not corrupted by evil yet become born again so soon?
sorry about the length but its just something to ponder.

think of this one…I know christians(church going) of adult age in other denoms.,that believe they dont have to be baptized?! and they think their as scriptual as any other denom.,…the pillar and bulwark of truth…is the church…

 

[jmcrae]

I find it very much so impossible to hold the theology of baptizing infants in the name of Christ to accomplish second birth.
Without even going into scripture just think about it.
When one wants to become saved, THEY decide to get baptized.

It’s not “if one wants to become saved” - it’s if Christ wants you in His family, or not. It’s not up to us to decide; it’s up to Christ.

Infants who are born into Catholic families are baptized because Christ wants them to be members of His family, too, and not only members of their natural family. Since our parents have authority over us that comes from God, they also have the right to decide for us that we will be baptized, and that we will become members of Christ’s Church, right along with them.

if you 20 years old and decide that you wanna follow Christ its not your parents who decide you should be baptized its YOU. also when becoming baptized, you are knowledgeable of what is going on are you not supposed to be? is this not supposed to be THE biggest decision of ones life?

If you are 20 years old and you want to be French instead of American, that is your decision to make, but it doesn’t change the fact that when you were born, you automatically became an American citizen.

If a child who is baptized decides as an adult that he would rather be an atheist, that’s his decision to make - the fact that he was baptized and raised in the Church doesn’t take anything away from his later atheism.

now if you decide to baptize your son or daughter who is now making that decision? your deciding that this individual who knows nothing about what is happening should be baptized. and if you think that just by deciding your infant should be baptized and you force him to become baptized then is this not the same equivalent of grabbing a man off the street and forcing him to be baptized?

No, because the man on the street isn’t going to have to live with me for the next 18-25 years.

how can you say that man is born again if he has not even accepted Christ into his heart? seriously it is like saying the parent has control over what will happen to the child’s soul!

Yep, just like it - because the parents have authority from God to make these kinds of decisions on behalf of their children.

This is not real scriptural doctrine. name a prophet called to follow under 10 years old.

Jeremiah, St. John the Baptist, Micah - there are probably others. That’s just off the top of my head.

Jesus Did not even become baptized until he was of priest age? If God is ok with infant baptism why did his own son not get baptized shortly after leaving the womb?

He was circumcized at eight days, and presented in the Temple with a sacrifice to redeem him, at 40 days - all without asking His opinion of the matter at all.

and Is Christ not the ultimate example and authority for all things? He knew what he was getting into and he was ready to take that step and receive the holy spirit.

Jesus told the disciples to “baptize them and then teach them” - if we want to teach them, we gotta baptize them.

The hardest part i see here is how can a child who has barely been living and certainly not corrupted by evil yet become born again so soon?

So - the child is being ripped off because he doesn’t get to live a life of debauchery before he has to begin the Christian life?

Or what?

Personally, I think it’s a very good thing that children are brought into the Church straight away, and taught to live the Christian life right from day one. Who knows where our society would be, if we didn’t have these kids out there setting a good example to others.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Case For Infant Baptism

Here’s the article I wrote on this for my Catholic blog.
I hope it helps.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I am very surprised the fundamentalist Protestants could ever be against infant baptisms. Here is one case where I can smile and tell fundamentalist in response to the question “Why do you baptise infants?” and reply “Because the bible tells me so”.

Luke 18:15–16
“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’”.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

The better question to ask is why people who attain the age of adult reason and mind still can not see the clear teaching in scripture that even a child should be able to see? Some should thank God that age nor reading comprehension are requirements for salvation.

James

 

[Church_Militant]

I am very surprised the fundamentalist Protestants could ever be against infant baptisms. Here is one case where I can smile and tell fundamentalist in response to the question “Why do you baptise infants?” and reply “Because the bible tells me so”.

Luke 18:15–16
“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’”.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

The better question to ask is why people who attain the age of adult reason and mind still can not see the clear teaching in scripture that even a child should be able to see? Some should thank God that age nor reading comprehension are requirements for salvation.

James

Interesting point James.

 

[Strategery]

I am very surprised the fundamentalist Protestants could ever be against infant baptisms.

I’m not surprised at all. The basic objection, as I see it, is that the core of Christianity - the acceptance of Christ as savior – is something that clearly an infant can’t do, and that truly is an adult level decision. I fully understand that and for a time agreed with it.

It’s worth looking at what the Catechism itself says about infant baptism:

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. ***By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here. ***

Note the bolded part. Baptismal grace flowers in personal growth. Where does that flowering occur? Conversion!

This is a lot of reading, but it explains the Catholic position:

II. WHY A SACRAMENT OF RECONCILIATION AFTER BAPTISM?

1425 "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has “put on Christ.” But the apostle John also says: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And the Lord himself taught us to pray: “Forgive us our trespasses,” linking our forgiveness of one another’s offenses to the forgiveness of our sins that God will grant us.

1426 Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us “holy and without blemish,” just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is “holy and without blemish.” Nevertheless the new life received in Christian initiation has not abolished the frailty and weakness of human nature, nor the inclination to sin that tradition calls concupiscence, which remains in the baptized such that with the help of the grace of Christ they may prove themselves in the struggle of Christian life. This is the struggle of conversion directed toward holiness and eternal life to which the Lord never ceases to call us.

III. THE CONVERSION OF THE BAPTIZED

1427 Jesus calls to conversion. This call is an essential part of the proclamation of the kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.” In the Church’s preaching this call is addressed first to those who do not yet know Christ and his Gospel. Also, ***Baptism is the principal place for the first and fundamental conversion. ***It is by faith in the Gospel and by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.

1428 Christ’s call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, "clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal."This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a “contrite heart,” drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.

1429 St. Peter’s conversion after he had denied his master three times bears witness to this. Jesus’ look of infinite mercy drew tears of repentance from Peter and, after the Lord’s resurrection, a threefold affirmation of love for him.The second conversion also has a communitarian dimension, as is clear in the Lord’s call to a whole Church: “Repent!”

St. Ambrose says of the two conversions that, in the Church, “there are water and tears: the water of Baptism and the tears of repentance.”

IV. INTERIOR PENANCE

1430 Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.

***1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).

1432 The human heart is heavy and hardened. God must give man a new heart. Conversion is first of all a work of the grace of God who makes our hearts return to him: “Restore us to thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored!” Gd gives us the strength to begin anew. It is in discovering the greatness of God’s love that our heart is shaken by the horror and weight of sin and begins to fear offending God by sin and being separated from him. The human heart is converted by looking upon him whom our sins have pierced:

Let us fix our eyes on Christ’s blood and understand how precious it is to his Father, for, poured out for our salvation it has brought to the whole world the grace of repentance

***.

Note that the characteristics of the second conversion (which in name is confusing because it actually happens repeatedly throughout one’s life) are very similar to what many Protestants describe as being “born again.”

(Note: bolding and emphasis are my own)

 

[Pax]

Here is some more scripture for your consideration of infant baptism:

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (i.e.,baptism replaces circumcision and children were circumcised as infants)

Scripture describes entire households that were baptized such as those of the Roman jailer, Lydia, and Stephanes. Scripture does not indicate that children were not included.

Luke 1 :15
The angel Gabriel says that John the Baptist , “even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

LUKE 7:28
I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

1 Corinthians 10:1-4
“I WANT you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all** were baptized** into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.”

This is an abundantly clear OT prefiguring of baptism and being saved by baptism. The number of Israelites that left Egypt in Exodus is described as follows:

Exodus 12:37-38
And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very many cattle, both flocks and herds.

It is obvious from this account and Paul’s reference to passing through the Red Sea and baptism that the sacrament of baptism is for men, women, and children

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’m not surprised at all. The basic objection, as I see it, is that the core of Christianity - the acceptance of Christ as savior – is something that clearly an infant can’t do, and that truly is an adult level decision. I fully understand that and for a time agreed with it.

It’s worth looking at what the Catechism itself says about infant baptism:

Note the bolded part. Baptismal grace flowers in personal growth. Where does that flowering occur? Conversion!

This is a lot of reading, but it explains the Catholic position:

Note that the characteristics of the second conversion (which in name is confusing because it actually happens repeatedly throughout one’s life) are very similar to what many Protestants describe as being “born again.”

(Note: bolding and emphasis are my own)

Of course. I am Catholic too my friend.
What I mean is that there is every indication in scripture that Jesus calls the children to him. There is NO indication in scripture that children should not be baptised. Ergo - fundamentalists are looking outside the bible for reasons (in defiance to their fundamentalist perspective) to find an objection to Catholic doctrine and practise that does not exist in holy writ. We Catholics have tradition and reason to help us. But a fundamentalist must be consistent and only limit himself to scripture. Therefor their opposition to Catholic practise being neither scriptural nor consistent with their own tradition makes them wrong scripturally and philosophically.

From reason Catholics arrive at the necessity for Confirmation.

James

 

[Strategery]

Of course. I am Catholic too my friend.
What I mean is that there is every indication in scripture that Jesus calls the children to him. There is NO indication in scripture that children should not be baptised. Ergo - fundamentalists are looking outside the bible for reasons (in defiance to their fundamentalist perspective) to find an objection to Catholic doctrine and practise that does not exist in holy writ. We Catholics have tradition and reason to help us. But a fundamentalist must be consistent and only limit himself to scripture. Therefor their opposition to Catholic practise being neither scriptural nor consistent with their own tradition makes them wrong scripturally and philosophically.

Didn’t mean to imply that you weren’t Catholic. I was just trying to throw the whole teaching out for discussion and raise the parallels between Protestant “born again” and the Catholic teaching of second conversion. I think very few Protestants understand that Catholics have that teaching. Maybe I’m a bit misplaced in throwing it out, but I’ve wanted to have the discussion somewhere.

I disagree with the first major point of your paragraph above. A fundamentalist can find several places in Scripture requiring/implying assent (ie, belief) for eternal life. It could also be argued that “children” doesn’t imply “infants”.

Put that together and you’ve got the question - can an infant truly be baptised? In my mind truly it’s a reasonable question, for which Scripture doesn’t provide an explicit answer.

I do agree with the second major point, that the objection isn’t founded in Scripture, and therefore goes against sola scriptura.

 

[Pax]

Actually scripture says “infants.”

See Luke 18:15 which says:

“Now they were bringing even** infants** to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.”

 

[Pax]

…
…
I disagree with the first major point of your paragraph above. A fundamentalist can find several places in Scripture requiring/implying assent (ie, belief) for eternal life. It could also be argued that “children” doesn’t imply “infants”.

Put that together and you’ve got the question - can an infant truly be baptised? In my mind truly it’s a reasonable question, for which Scripture doesn’t provide an explicit answer.
…
…

Catholics look at the same passages concerning belief and agree. We also believe that faith and salvation are gifts and that they are not earned. We place our agreement with this squarely on infant baptism where the infant has done nothing and receives God’s purely gratuitous gift. Should the child grow and decide not to believe then salvation will surely be lost.

 

[ibetrippin07]

I am very surprised the fundamentalist Protestants could ever be against infant baptisms. Here is one case where I can smile and tell fundamentalist in response to the question “Why do you baptise infants?” and reply “Because the bible tells me so”.

Luke 18:15–16
“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’”.

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

The better question to ask is why people who attain the age of adult reason and mind still can not see the clear teaching in scripture that even a child should be able to see? Some should thank God that age nor reading comprehension are requirements for salvation.

James

Luke 18 has nothing to do with baptism…
Matthew 19… again nothing to do with baptism…
Also because there is just so much opposition to me for no real reason, i can only sum all the posts i have read into one thing.
The Bible never says infants were baptized.
John the Baptist was not a prophet.
The bible does say when Jesus started his ministry and thats when he was baptized.
Some dude related being born again to deciding one wants to be french while hes American?
U cant decide for someone else for them to be born again. am i wrong? please show me where i am wrong, please show me where an unwilling person was baptized and after baptism was a born again Christian, please!

 

[ibetrippin07]

Actually scripture says “infants.”

See Luke 18:15 which says:

“Now they were bringing even** infants** to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.”

Stop quoting this scripture, it has nothing to do with baptism. no one is being baptized here

 

[ibetrippin07]

maybe i do need some more quotes here lol
Quote:
1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.
Note the bolded part. Baptismal grace flowers in personal growth. Where does that flowering occur? Conversion!

I agree with everything here except for the infant part! of course theres a need for spiritual growth after a person is baptized, otherwise there will be spiritual babes. furthermore, i do not take the church of rome to have any more a say of authority then the local chruch down the street. Ultimate authority is your bible and what it says. Not what some man says it says. but what God has to say for himself. of course that is a separate debate all together. which i would be happy to discuss.
I will dig out some good scriptures on this tomorrow

 

[Pax]

Stop quoting this scripture, it has nothing to do with baptism. no one is being baptized here

That is an opinion on your part and nothing more. Please consider what baptism does and what Jesus did with the infants. Then consider his rebuke to the disciples who thought as you do. Bringing infants to the Lord is no different than bringing anyone else, unless you do not believe that faith is a gift.

Likewise, go back and look at my post #11. Put all of it into context. Simply connect the dots. Infant baptism has historically been done since the day of Pentecost. The first argument within the Church concerning infant baptism did not concern whether or not it should be done. The argument concerned whether it should be done on the eight day as was circumcision in the Old Covenant or not.

Check out the historical data and look at all of the scriptures presented as a whole. When you do this the scripture concerning “infants” being brought to Jesus comes into focus. If it has no application to baptism it would appear to be a rather meaningless verse in scripture. Out of all the things that could have been done by Jesus, and John tells us that they would fill all
of the books of the world, the inspired writer chose this incident to be included in the gospels. It is meaningful and it has application to children and infants coming into the family of God.

Circumcision marked the entrance into the OT family and baptism marks the NT entry into the family of God.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Luke 18 has nothing to do with baptism…
Matthew 19… again nothing to do with baptism…
Also because there is just so much opposition to me for no real reason, i can only sum all the posts i have read into one thing.
The Bible never says infants were baptized.
John the Baptist was not a prophet.
The bible does say when Jesus started his ministry and thats when he was baptized.
Some dude related being born again to deciding one wants to be french while hes American?
U cant decide for someone else for them to be born again. am i wrong? please show me where i am wrong, please show me where an unwilling person was baptized and after baptism was a born again Christian, please!

Luke 18 has nothing to do with baptism? Oh really?

I need to point out that you are using your own fundamentalist traditions and opinions rather than scripture to reject infant baptism. If you want to go extra-biblical and rely on your own common sense please do yourself a favor and be consistent as well as rational.

Case in point. Do you think a person born mentally handicapped, a retard, is able to intellectually decide for themselves on conversion? Are such as these, with the minds of infants prohibited from baptism and condemned to hell simply because of a deficient or undeveloped mental condition? Is salvation a matter of intellectual capacity and maturity? I think not. All that intellectual capacity governs is the degree by which a person is culpable for their personal sins and for setting the scope of expectations for what God requires of that person (e.g. ‘to whom much is given much is expected’).

Consider Matthew 21:16:
*But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and **the children **who were shouting in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant 16 and said to Him, “Do You hear what these children are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘**OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’?” ***

Let’s re-examine Luke.

Luke 18:15-16
“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God”.

Here Jesus is telling us that innocence and the trust of a child is required to enter into the Kingdom of heaven.

Notice in this verse what is missing. NO WHERE in this verse did The Lord require children and infants to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what biblical basis can you disobey Christ and prevent infants and young children to be excluded from the first step toward being a Christian by being baptized? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are you to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them? The anwer is there is no reason to disallow infants and children from coming to Jesus unless we want to disobey Jesus. Why do you want to do that?

Furthermore, Paul teaches that baptism replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). He refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law. Who made the decision for circumcision - the parent or the infant? The parent did of course! If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision. Let me ask you this. Did Jesus or Joseph and Mary decide on Jesus’ circumcision? The answer is Jesus’ parents did when he was an infant - traditionally 8 days after his birth. If Jesus was circumcised into the faith of his parents by his parents decision before Jesus was of the age of reason then why do you insist that infants can not be baptised into the faith of their parents on the decision of their parents?

In fact can you show us ANYWHERE in the bible where Jesus prohibits a child or infant from being baptised? No, you can not since Jesus never said this. Jesus told us exactly the opposite - “bring the children to me.”

If infant baptism were not the rule of the early church, then we should expect biblical references of children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason. But as you know there are no such records in the Bible. Hmm, so why do you want to hold children back from Christ? The truth is that in the early church ENTIRE households (Parents, children, infants, inlaws, aunts, uncles, cousins etc.) were all baptised together. Doubt that? If so, you better read Acts 16:15 where Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and “She was baptized, with her household”.

If you are willing to believe your own ideas about things that are not in the bible will you also accept historical fact? If so note that Origen, an Early Church Father wrote “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]).

Still not convinced? Read John 3:5 again. Did Jesus place a single restriction on age on baptism when he said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." ?

The Bible never says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants”; it simply says, “Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.” Why do you have contempt for infants and teach a different gospel than what Jesus and the apostles taught?

I might also mention that you should consider Luke 17:2:*
“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”* Let’s not trip up the children and infants who have every right to come to Jesus in baptism.

So, I suggest you conform to what Jesus actually taught and “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16).

James