Infant Baptism

John Martignoni talks about infant baptism. For this entire recording as well as other free downloads, please visit www.biblechristiansociety.com

One practice that is sometimes questioned by our non-Catholic brothers and sisters is infant baptism. They argue that a person must be at an age of accountability to know what they are doing before they take such an important step in their life. They also sometimes argue that baptism must be done by total immersion in water, and sprinkling on the head makes it invalid. Some also argue against a Trinitarian baptism (in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Well, let’s investigate these claims a little further.

A good place to begin when looking for answers to questions like these is the Bible. In Acts 16:31-33 Paul and Silas tell a jailer to “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.” It then goes on to say “He and all his family were baptized at once.” Here you can clearly see the head of the household believed in the Lord Jesus before the entire household was baptized. Acts 16:15 also speaks of an entire house being baptized based of the faith of one person. The Greek word used for household here is oikos, which would include all children. In 1 Corinthians 1:16 it also talks of an entire household being baptized. Notice how it does not say the entire household except for the children. Acts 2:37-39 says to “Repent and be baptized…this promise is made to you and your children.” The Greek word for children used here is teknon, which is the same word used later in Acts 21:21 to refer to eight day old circumcised children.

In baptism, we enter into the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, this was done by circumcision. But Col 2:11-12 states that baptism is the new circumcision. Yet we know that circumcision was done to infants at eight days old (Genesis 17:9-14). Even Jesus was circumcised at eight days old (Luke 2:22-32). So why would kids in the New Covenant have to wait to be a part of God’s chosen people? Why would the New Covenant be narrower than the Old Covenant? Hebrews 8:6 says that the New Covenant is supposed to be better than the Old Covenant. Hebrews 10:1 says that the Old Covenant is a shadow of the new. But isn’t a shadow a basic outline of something and not completely different? Nowhere in the Bible does it say to exclude children from God’s covenant. Jesus says in Matthew 19:14 “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” When we are baptized, we become members of the one body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). Again, why would you want to exclude children from being members of the body of Christ? Another interesting note is that John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). So why would you want to deny children the gift of the Holy Spirit that you receive in baptism (Acts 2:38)?

Jesus also says that baptism is necessary for salvation in John 3:5. Do you really want to take the chance and not baptize your kids and risk them missing out on heaven? Now I am not suggesting that all non-baptized babies will be damned to hell. The Catholic Church, for example, teaches of baptism by desire. This states that a person can still be saved if they, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. But the truth of the matter is that Jesus never explicitly said what happens to non-baptized kids. So the point I am trying to make is why would anyone want to take that chance?

For the remainder of this discussion, please visit our facebook page at 100PercentCatholic.com or click on the link below

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=133995596639723&topic=381