Interesting question. Baptism according to Peter is an appeal to GOD. It’s a spiritual death of our sinful ways and a re-birth into Christ. Something we must decide to do. Let’s say we baptize an infant. When they are old enough to actually understand what is was their parents decided for them as a baby they reject it because they don’t believe in Christ. The baby never repented of their sin because babies simply cannot. And now that the child is old enough to understand they reject it. What purpose did baptism serve for that baby? Not saying I disagree with infant baptism just looking for an honest answer.
Nothing can save the unbeliever, even baptism. But that says something about the unbeliever, not about baptism. The unbeliever who was baptized could have chosen to remain in the state of grace that he/she was baptized into, but did not.
The baby was “crucified with Christ”, but, coming of age, later decided to do like the dog and return to his/her own vomit. Again: That says something about the person, not the Sacrament.
Scripturally you can’t prove infant baptism.
Depends on how you want “proof” to be. If you only accept a “and then they baptized a baby”-passage as proof, then you’re right. But that would not be a reasonable demand. And using the same logic, you would have to reject several basic doctrines which no Christians doubt, such as the Trinity. The word, or phrase, might not be in the Scriptures. But the CASE certainly is.
Point of fact scripture if anything goes against infant baptism because those who are baptized in scripture made a conscience decision to follow Christ and repent of their sin.
Acts 16:33
“καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ αὐτοῦ πάντες παραχρῆμα,”
“and he and all of his, were baptized immediately”
“all of his” is another way to say “his house”, which is another way to say “his household”, which, again, means not only him, but his wife, children, servants (if he had any), etc.
And this is just the beginning.
A baby simply cannot do this. And infant baptism was not practiced from the beginning. From a strict church history perspective infant baptism seems to have started somewhere in the late 2nd century but did not become widely practiced and accepted until the 4th or 5th century.
Not true. If you look in Tertullian’s treatise “De Baptismo” (“regarding baptism”), specifically chapter 9 (in this case), you’ll see that Tertullian has a clear understanding of infant baptism as being profoundly scriptural.
One can then think of his example what one wants, but the point is clear enough: Tertullian does not believe that he’s bringing anything new.
And, as a memento, we can also see that Tertullian’s understanding of Baptism is far from the “it’s just a symbol” which is the basis for rejection of infant baptism.
Indeed, your statement that infant baptism was not “widely practised or accepted until the 4th or 5th century” is verifiably not true.
I could sit here all day pointing out Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origin, Cyprian, etc, but do you really want me to?
All those church fathers spoke of infant baptism as if it was just…basic. There is nothing in their writings that indicate infant baptism as being anything else than ancient. And “ancient” in the 3rd century speaks volumes as to the apostolical background of infant baptism.
I take the liberty of copy-pasting a post I made on the website of Jews for Jesus a couple of years ago. Please bear in mind that it was written about 4 AM where I suffered from jetlag and couldn’t sleep, so don’t hold typos and errors against me.
"This discussion is very, very important.
I have a 3 points I would like to make
1: Can infants, or small children, have faith, saving faith? If yes, they should be baptised; if no, they should not.
In order to answer the question, we must first find out what the main object of it (saving faith) is. Is it the adult rational, intelligent and cohesive apologetic speach about all the reasons there are to believe?
I think the answer to THAT is “no”. Don’t get me wrong! Having to explain why you believe what you believe, and using your reasoning and intellect in such a manner, is not only a great evangilization tool, but a critical element of remaining on the path, and not be swept away by the first demonic attack.
But the foundation of faith, the saving faith, lies elsewhere. It lies in the instinctive trust of the infant and small child. The author of Hebrews (who I believe to be Rabbi Paul, for reasons too off topic for this post) teaches us in Hebr 11:1 that faith is
“And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction” (YLT)
So if faith is a conviction of matters not seen, the small child can definitely have faith. God is not concerned about making the children basically believe like adults believe, but rather the other way around. We pui all our concerns in the front of our heads, letting trivial or worldly matters overshadow our love for and trust in God.
Enter the child. Of course children feel bad if things don’t go their way - like being teased at kindergarten, etc, but be honest with yourselves: When you think of “trust” is the first image that springs to mind one of an adult, or one of a child? Small children trust their parents completely. There is nothing that mommy or daddy cannot do.
THIS is faith, brothers and sisters! The same faith as we have when we declare the omnipotence of God.
And I guess this is why Yeshua told the Aprostles that unless they repented, and became like small children (in their trust of Him to do all things neccesary for salvation, we can now say in hindsight what the Apostles knew not at the time), they would not enter the Kingdom of God.
Therefore, I submit that it is US who should in the most important sense learn to be like small children and trust fully in God."
(continued)
