Infant Baptism

[tabcom]

Give your friend the following passages:

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.

The context of these verses, along with verse 14:

Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

. . . . is doing away with the rituals. What was once literal is now spiritual.

The word decrees is translated from the original greek word dogma.

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.

Before the Roman jailers household was baptized, Paul spoke the word to all in the house (v32), and they believed (v31,34). Can a baby comprehend what Paul spoke? (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11)

There is no mention of Lydia even being married, let along having children. (Acts 16:13-15,40)

1 Corinthians 1:16
(I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

16:15
I urge you, brothers–you know that the household of Stephanas is the firstfruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the holy ones–

By what capacity can an infant devote themselves to the service of the holy ones?

 

[ryanoneil]

Do infants really need to be baptized?

IMHO, NO.

What was the baptism of John?

The Baptism of Repentance (MARK 1:4, LUKE 3:3).

Infants do not need the baptism of John, infact no one does!

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” If you are trying to say that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin then you’re wrong. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God’s covenant family includes children. The word “children” that Peter used comes from the Greek word “teknon” which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that “teknon” includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Pax]

This citation betrays your infant baptism argument. The complete verse reads . . .

Matthew 19:14
but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Assuming for a moment that Jesus is calling forth infants (although that is not what the original greek text says), for whom does the kingdom of heaven belong to?

Infants.

Please try again on this. The verse in Matthew refers to the same events in Luke 18:15-16 which says:

"“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.’”

You are attempting to dismiss the fact that even infants were brought to Jesus and that he insisted that this be allowed. You are clearly mistaken about this and the text makes it quite clear that the infants were to be brought to him.

Likewise, you make a rather interesting assertion concerning infants and children that defies logic, grammar, and linguistics. Please be advised that all infants are children and fall into the generalized category that Jesus refers to. Children are not at all times infants, but there is nothing in this passage that excludes infants, and you are mistaken in your attempts to confuse the issue.

Likewise, you have an additional problem. You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on your distinction of child vs. infant which shows just how little you have thought about this set of passages. Please be advised that the classic argument by non-Catholics against infant baptism extends beyond infancy. The argument rests on the contention of the child reaching the age of reason and thus having the ability to make a profession of faith. Needless to say, the “children” in these passages if they fit your expressed personal view, would only need to be old enough to walk. There is nothing in the passage that says they have to be old enough to have reached the age of reason. I’m afraid your efforts to overly restrict the passages has just thrown your own view into a pit. A child that is old enough to walk isn’t necessarily in a better position to make a profession of than is an infant.

You also made earlier remarks concerning personal sin and used the example of the baptism of John. Please be advised that we are not speaking of the baptism of John. We are speaking of Tinitarian Baptism that removes original sin, as well as personal sin if there is any, and brings with it the gift of the Holy Spirit. John’s baptism did not accomplish these things and really has nothing to do with the topic.

Nevertheless, John the Baptist brings up a great example. We are told in Luke 1:15 that John would “…be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Do you really believe that such things are only for children that can walk forward on their own? Do you really believe that it only applies to children that have reached the age of reason? If you do, you clearly disagree with the testimony of scripture. And if you think John the Baptist was merely an anomally then you need to look a little more at others in the OT. Likewise, you might want to remember that Jesus said the following about John:

Matthew 11:11
“Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

What Jesus is pointing out in the first half of the statement is that John’s foreordained mission in the Old Covenant placed him as the greatest among men in that dispensation. And please remember that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. Nevertheless, Jesus says in the second half that even the least in the kingdom of heaven, which is the New Covenant, is greater than John. Jesus is saying in this statement that anyone that has received the grace of membership in the New Covenant has received something greater than that granted to John.

Infant baptism in the New Covenant wipes away original sin, it makes the infant an adopted son or daughter in the New Covenant, and the infant recieves the gift of the Holy Spirit. The infant/child is thus brought into the Christian family just as the Jewish infant was made a member in the Old Covenant family through circumcision.

I hope this helps.

 

[Pax]

The context of these verses, along with verse 14:

Col 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

. . . . is doing away with the rituals. What was once literal is now spiritual.
…
…

This is at best a huge stretch. I will include the entire passage in question again:

Col 2:11-14
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.”

Please note that your attack on what this passage says is erroneous because you are attempting to include NT baptism in the demise of the Mosaic and Levitical laws, particularly circumcision. This passage along with all of the other NT passages concerning baptism are supportive of the sacrament as opposed to what you call “doing away with rituals.” Baptism replaces circumcision and accomplishes things by way of God’s grace that circumcision never could do. This is utterly obvious from the context.

Before the Roman jailers household was baptized, Paul spoke the word to all in the house (v32), and they believed (v31,34). Can a baby comprehend what Paul spoke? (Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11)

There is no mention of Lydia even being married, let along having children. (Acts 16:13-15,40)

1 Corinthians 1:16
(I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

16:15
I urge you, brothers–you know that the household of Stephanas is the firstfruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the holy ones–

By what capacity can an infant devote themselves to the service of the holy ones?

Why would anyone attempt to dismiss these verses on the basis you do? It is perfectly natural for the evangelist in any age to speak with those in the household. Obviously, an infant would not be aware of the evangelist or what he might have said. So what? This does not mean that the infant would not have been baptized. Infants did not understand what was going on when they were enrolled in the OT covenant family through circumcision. Even so, infants were circumcised on the eight day and were members of the OT family of God. Even non-Catholics that don’t baptize their infants have enough on the ball to raise their infants in the faith.

It really doesn’t matter if Lydia was married and had any children of her own. If Jewish culture is indicative of what we might have expected it is likely that she was. Nevertheless, we could assume that she was not. She would still have slaves and others in her household, especially since she was an apparently successful merchant. Slaves have families and children…and even infants. When scripture refers to “entire households” it means everyone and that included the household servants and their family members.

So what if the older members of the household of Stephanes devoted themselves to service of the Holy Ones? That is to be expected. Likewise, we wouldn’t expect children to be able to do that, but again…so what? There is no logical reason to make the connection you are stretching to make. This statement does not negate the baptism of the infants that would surely have been in “the entire household.”

Admittedly, neither of us can claim that scripture says that “there were” or that “there were not infants” in these households. The most logical and common sense view would be that there were. Surely scripture would not mention three specific “entire households” as baptized without also mentioning the exclusion of children and infants unless that were the case. I say this because it is such an important and basic baptismal teaching and practice.

 

[Bishopite]

Do infants really need to be baptized?

IMHO, NO.

What was the baptism of John?

The Baptism of Repentance (MARK 1:4, LUKE 3:3).

Only sinners are in need of repenting.

What is sin?

1John 2:1 -

My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin.

1 John 2:16

For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world.

Conclusion:

Until an infant develops an ego (greek for I), it cannot sin.

Specifically, an infant does not lust for what it sees, it does not lust for things to make it feel good, nor can it feel pride.

You don’t believe in original sin? Romans 5:12?
The Pelagians didn’t accept original sin either.

Since everyone is born from Adam, taking on the same fallen nature of Adam after the fall (Gen 5:3) where it says Seth was born in the likeness of Adam (meaning he took on the same fallen nature as Adam), ergo, everyone is born with original sin. Sin is a lack of divine grace, which means we need to be infused with God’s power of grace. Baptism brings us back into the covenant family of God as we are
“born again” John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Acts 2:38-39 and 1 Cor 6:11
“That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
“have had yourselves washed” is a reference to baptism. Notice sancified is before justified as they are used interchangably; baptism gives us sanctifying grace (saving grace), that’s why Paul says “you were justified…” Colossians 2:11-13
11"In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
12 You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions;"
The Old Testament covenant required circumcision in order to be in God’s convenant family, but it was inclusive and didn’t intrisically effect the person. Circumcision which was done “with hands” (verse 11–a reference to circumcision) didn’t do what Baptism now does; brings the adult or the infant “to life along with him [Christ] having forgiven us all our transgressions” (baptism wipes away all sin) ergo, we baptize infants as the early church did.
In fact, it was unanimous that the early church fathers agreed on infant baptism because they taught what was passed down to them from the Apostles.

 

[ash0001]

I would contend that the debates over infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling, or baptism by immersion are not debates worth breaking the unity we have in Christ.

Is baptism required for salvation?
In Luke 23:39-43 we have the situation of the theif on the cross that asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into his kingdom. Jesus responded, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” This theif had not been baptised yet. Now one can easily contend that this was a time of transition and that circumcision was the “baptism” of the thief, since it is likely that the theif was circumcised. On the other hand, circumcision, though a part of the covenant with Abraham, was not required for fellowship with God. Take Noah for example. Circumcision is not brought into the picture until chapter 17 of Genesis. Is Noah condemned because he is not circumcised? It’s possible, but I doubt it.
So then if circumcision was not required for salvation, though it was a part of the covenant to the Israelites, then circumcision had nothing to do with the salvation of the theif on the cross. And since I do not think that Jesus was lying to the theif on the cross, for obvious reasons, I believe that the theif is in paradise, even without baptism.

But what of the command, go make disciples, baptizing them…? First off, it is possible that this verse can be interpreted to say that baptism is necessary for salvation, but because of my reasoning above, I will make the assumption that it does not, and that these commands are simply commands in a series[If you are a believer, then be baptized]. Also, God also said that Love is the greatest commandment. He even said to “love your enemies” and “pray for those who persecute you.” This then is a greater commandment then baptism since nothing is greater than the “greatest command.” Yet I think that it is impossible, [outside of the power of God that is; nothing is impossible for God] to fully obey that command.
If we are condemned by not obeying a lesser command [baptism], then it stands to reason that we are condemned by not obeying the greatest command [Love]. Since I believe that God forgives those who lack full love which is the greater command, I believe God will forgive those who are not baptized, a lesser command. Now if I am wrong in this, their are far, far less Christians in this world than we suppose, for “there is none righteous, no not one” and “all of the law and the prophets are based on these [Love]”

As an additional point, baptism does not save. We are saved “by God’s grace, through faith” and by our repentance from our former sinful life [which will result in the obedience to God’s commands] There are far too many who have been baptized that now think they have “fire insurance” from the gates of hell. Though it may be useful to, get baptism out of the way early. I think it may do more harm than good in some cases of those who are “Christian” in name only, but in fact are not. [Similar to the pharisees who were Jews in name only, but Jesus openly condemned them]

It is important to have answers to these questions for oneself, yes. But it is far more important that we openly seek to obey God and to share the hope that we have with the world around us.
Far be it from me to win an argument with someone while watching them slide to hell.

 

[tabcom]

Pax . . . I do appreaciate your comments (along with everyone else within this thread). I want to take a moment to bring out this point before continuing.

The argument rests on the contention of the child reaching the age of reason and thus having the ability to make a profession of faith.

Yes, that is what I’m arguing.

With respects to John’s Baptism of Repentance, yes, it is done away with, as with the immersion into water (Disclaimer: This is off topic and need not be argued within this thread – I’ve commented in great detail my opposition to water baptism elsewhere within the forum – do a search on tabcom AND baptism to read about it). I do believe in a blood baptism.

With respects to original sin, does everyone inherit Adam’s sin and must atone for his sin? Or, does everyone inherit Adam’s sin nature and must atone for their own sin?

:coffeeread:

 

[Pax]

Scripture firmly establishes water baptism and its necessity by way of command and by way of description. The latter includes what we have stated concerning original sin, personal sin, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is not only a command but it is also a gift. Grace is the mechanism of baptisms efficaciousness. Baptism does what we cannot do in terms of original sin. We are a new creation in baptism by way of God’s grace. Baptism is the sacrament of faith. It is pure gift by way of God’s grace.

 

[Bishopite]

With respects to original sin, does everyone inherit Adam’s sin and must atone for his sin? Or, does everyone inherit Adam’s sin nature and must atone for their own sin?
:coffeeread:

Everyone gets original sin from Adam and everyone commits actual sin after they are of age. You are combing sin together, but it is distiquished between two types in scripture.

 

[tabcom]

Baptism is not only a command but it is also a gift. Grace is the mechanism of baptisms efficaciousness. Baptism does what we cannot do in terms of original sin. We are a new creation in baptism by way of God’s grace. Baptism is the sacrament of faith. It is pure gift by way of God’s grace.

I’m afraid this statement makes no sense to me. Could you please explain what you mean by ‘baptisms efficaciousness’?

Also, could you please answer the following for me?

With respects to original sin, does everyone inherit Adam’s sin and must atone for his sin? Or, does everyone inherit Adam’s sin nature and must atone for their own sin?

 

[tabcom]

Everyone gets original sin from Adam and everyone commits actual sin after they are of age. You are combing sin together, but it is distiquished between two types in scripture.

By ‘everyone gets original sin from Adam’, are you saying, in other words, ‘we inherit Adam’s sin nature’?

Regarding your second statement, please clearify where the two types of sin are scripture?

I’m really trying to understand what RC means by original sin and how it is related to baby’s being baptized.

 

[tabcom]

Of what value is infant baptism when God knows whom He will call to His Election before they are even born?

Romans 9:10
. . . . but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac –
11
before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God’s elective plan might continue,
12
not by works but by his call–she was told, “The older shall serve the younger.”
13
As it is written: **“I loved Jacob but hated Esau.” **
14
6 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not!

Romans 8:29,30- “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son.”-- Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

* "Foreknow" means to have a personal intimate relationship beforehand.

God predetermined that all who belonged to him before the foundation of the world were to “conform” to the word of God in obedience to Christ. All that were predestined were “called”, “justified”, and “glorified” (past tense verbs). These were fixed in the mind of God before the world began. (Eph. 1:4; Acts 13:48; II Thess.2:13).

Infant baptism does nothing to direct the course of God’s Will.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What is the value of anything if God knows the elect?

See how absurd that reasoning is!

As far as I know nothing directs the will of God but God Himself.

If Jesus who is God says to go Baptize or to Eat His body and Drink his blood–that is God’s will–and we should do it.

So what’s so hard to understand about Baptizing infants?

 

[Pax]

I’m afraid this statement makes no sense to me. Could you please explain what you mean by ‘baptisms efficaciousness’?

Also, could you please answer the following for me?

With respects to original sin, does everyone inherit Adam’s sin and must atone for his sin? Or, does everyone inherit Adam’s sin nature and must atone for their own sin?

I believe that my posts have been self explanatory in regards to baptism. Efficaciousness pertains to the “effectiveness” of baptism. I’ve been talking about the purpose and effects of baptism. Scripture explains these things and they have been reiterated on this thread. I realize that you may look upon baptism as merely an ordinance. I believe that this thread has demonstrated otherwise.

In answer to your questions concerning Adam, I would say the following:

We are implicated by way of inheritance in Adam’s sin. Scripture points this out in Rom 5:12 where Paul says, “By way of one man’s disobedience many[all men] were made sinners.”

Salvation comes through Jesus. We do not atone for Adam’s sin. Likewise, the atonement for personal sin also comes by way of the cross. Finite man cannot make a sacrifice that satisfies the infinite God. Jesus is the one mediator in that only his passion, death, and resurrection have infinite value. Jesus as both man and God satisfies the need for man to make atonement that only an infinite being can accomplish. This is the meaning of the one mediatior between God and man found only in Jesus. No one else’s blood satisfies this requirement before God.

 

[ryanoneil]

With respects to John’s Baptism of Repentance, yes, it is done away with, as with the immersion into water (Disclaimer: This is off topic and need not be argued within this thread – I’ve commented in great detail my opposition to water baptism elsewhere within the forum – do a search on tabcom AND baptism to read about it). I do believe in a blood baptism.

I don’t want to get off topic on this thread, so could you send me a private message, or provide a link about blood baptism?

Thank You,

Ryan

 

[Pax]

Of what value is infant baptism when God knows whom He will call to His Election before they are even born?

Romans 9:10
. . . . but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac –
11
before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God’s elective plan might continue,
12
not by works but by his call–she was told, “The older shall serve the younger.”
13
As it is written: **“I loved Jacob but hated Esau.” **
14
6 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not!

Romans 8:29,30- “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son.”-- Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

* "Foreknow" means to have a personal intimate relationship beforehand.

God predetermined that all who belonged to him before the foundation of the world were to “conform” to the word of God in obedience to Christ. All that were predestined were “called”, “justified”, and “glorified” (past tense verbs). These were fixed in the mind of God before the world began. (Eph. 1:4; Acts 13:48; II Thess.2:13).

Infant baptism does nothing to direct the course of God’s Will.

No offense, but I am inclined to totally agree with Jerry on this. There is absolutely no value in this post for purposes of your argument and position. God wills that we baptize and He has reasons for doing this. These reasons are spelled out in scripture and we have shown them by scripture.

God requires obedience.
God requires us to believe.
God requires us to love Him above all things with our whole heart mind and strength.
God requires that we love our neighbors as ourselves.
etc.
etc.
etc.
…

We are required to do these things just as baptism is a requirement yet none of these things direct the course of God’s will. You are fighting against scripture. You are objecting to something because of your doctrinal predisposition rather than the evidence. This last line of argument is so far removed from disproving the Catholic position and supporting your position that I am a bit perplexed why you would even propose it.

 

[Bishopite]

[tabcom;2883239]By ‘everyone gets original sin from Adam’, are you saying, in other words, ‘we inherit Adam’s sin nature’?

Yes, we inherit original sin from Adam as Seth did in Gen 5:3. We inherit the same fallen or veiled or depraved nature as Adam and Eve.

Regarding your second statement, please clearify where the two types of sin are scripture?

Sure. I can show it in one verse actually. Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned”

The bold type is refering to Adam how sin entered into the world through his sin.

The underlined words “because all sinned” shows that all of us have actual sin–this is referenced to Romans 3:23 “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

I’m really trying to understand what RC means by original sin and how it is related to baby’s being baptized.

Sure. Sin isn’t just missing the mark, but sin is a lack of something–a lack of divine grace. When Adam and Eve sinned against God, they broke their communion with God, their covanental relationship with God; they became darkened in their nature and sin entered the world.
Everyone inherits the sin of Adam and Eve and since we “lack grace” we are not automatically in the covanent family of God.
God established circumcision in

Colossians 2:11-12
11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."

Paul speaks about baptism and uses circumcision when he says “not with a circumcision done by hands of men” which was part of the Old law which brought people into the covanent family of God.
Baptism puts us back into the family covanent of God by wiping away all sin including original sin and giving us sanctifying grace. Children are brought into the family covanent by baptism.

 

[tabcom]

What is the value of anything if God knows the elect?
See how absurd that reasoning is!

I’m afraid I don’t. The Doctrine of Predestination is not fatalism. Romans 8:29 is not a commandment to do nothing. It is commanding the Elect to conform to the image of Christ. That takes a lifetime.

 

[tabcom]

I realize that you may look upon baptism as merely an ordinance. I believe that this thread has demonstrated otherwise

We are implicated by way of inheritance in Adam’s sin. Scripture points this out in Rom 5:12 where Paul says, “By way of one man’s disobedience many[all men] were made sinners.”

From what I understand, our differences can be listed as the following:

You believe:

**1. Water Baptism is an ordinance.(Col. 2-11)
2. Infants are baptized to atone for their sin nature. (Rom 5:12)
**
I believe:
**

1. Ordinances are done away with. (Col. 2:14)
2. Infants must come to an age of reason, that is, understand the difference between good and evil before they can atone for their sin nature.**

Before continuing, and getting sidetracked, is there anything else you would like to add to this list?

 

[tabcom]

When Adam and Eve sinned against God, they broke their communion with God, their covanental relationship with God; they became darkened in their nature and sin entered the world.
Everyone inherits the sin of Adam and Eve and since we “lack grace” we are not automatically in the covanent family of God.

Bishopite … . thank you for your thoughtful explaination. I agree with your statement.

What is illogical to me is citing the sin of Adam and Eve as supporting evidence that infants must perform the ritual of water baptism.

Eve’s sin was not that she was born, it was that she disobeyed God. She reached the age of maturity where she new the difference between ‘thou shall’ and ‘thou shall not’. That is what got her, and later Adam, kicked out of the Kingdom of God.

Can you see why I’m having a difficult time understanding your point of view?

God established circumcision in

Colossians 2:11-12
11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."

I’m still confused why you would use these verses to support infant baptism. The context of Col. 2:11-2 are found in verse 14. Paul says the ordinances are nailed to the cross – meaning the rituals are done away with. It is spiritual now.

Besides that, Paul clearly states that preaching the gospel is more important than baptizing. (1Co 1:17).