All About GOD

All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others

This subject came up at a recent Bible study I attended.  Is it an acceptable form of baptism?  What do you all think?

Views: 1058

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Infant baptism is for show...using baptism in a way that isn't intended or necessary.

There is a dedication service that is used for many babies and small children. When we are born into this world, we come with nothing and that means sin attached to us as well. Our sin are not counted against us until we are old enough to know what sin is.

 Let the Children Come to Me
13 mAnd they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples nrebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, o“Let the children come to me; pdo not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 qTruly, I say to you, whoever does not rreceive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” 16 And she took them in his arms and blessed them, tlaying his hands on them.

Hi Brother Bradley,


It depends on who you ask, if it is an acceptable form of baptism.

I would start out with the Greek meaning of the word "baptize". It means to DIP, literally.

ALL baptisms recorded in the Bible had the person being IMMERSED in the water.


Peter, in Acts 2:38, says "Repent, and be baptized , everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

To start with, how can an infant repent? How many sins has an infant commited? Peter doesn`t say, "Everyone of you be sprinkled........."


I know, I know, there are many people believe in sprinkling "holy water"on babies being held by "god mothers" and "god fathers".

And they`ll never change. But, that`s where they are in their spiritual lives.

Bradley, you have probably surmised I don`t believe in infant sprinkling.

That`s how I was "baptized", when I didn`t know what was going on. And that`s what I told my mother, who was angry when I told her about receiving  Jesus, and being immersed.


Grace and Peace.


The Bible tells us that the law came to show us what sin was, because without the law, there is no sin.

Infants don't know what law is, so how can they know what sin is? I believe the age of reason comes with growth in the child, when they are old enough to know right from wrong. I believe understanding comes at different ages, depending on the child.

I believe that the age of reasoning is lengthening now because parents don't discipline their children as they used to, and like wise don't teach their children about Jesus as they used to.


 The Boy Jesus in the Temple
41 Now whis parents went xto Jerusalem every year at ythe Feast of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, zthey went up according to custom. 43 And when the feast awas ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. wHis parents did not know it, 44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, 45 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple, bsitting among cthe teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 And when his parents6 saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, dyour father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” 49 And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that eI must be in fmy Father’s house?”7 50 And gthey did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. 51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And hhis mother treasured up all these things in her heart.
52 And Jesus iincreased in wisdom and in stature8 and in ifavor with God and man.

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Lk 2:52
Jesus' age of reason was 12 by this event, but I do think it is different for every child.
The post regarding *Let The Children Come Unto Me* is in Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16 and verses before them.



Jesus was without sin.  The rest of us however, have inherited original sin from our first parents, Adam and Eve. 


In our church, Catholic, the age of reason is considered 7 years old.  My sons did not get baptised as babies so, at 7 years old they are considered adults and have to go through the full Adult Rite of Christian Initiantion which includes two years of intense study and preparation followed by baptism by full immersion at Easter. 


From my understanding, when babies are baptised it is with the full intension that the baby will receive intensive catechisis and will be able to make an adult acceptance of Jesus by the time that they are Confirmed, which is usually between 9 and 17 years old. 


Love to you my sister-in-Christ!



Greetings Brothers and Sisters,


Yes, Bradley. I shared exactly the same up-bringing as you, in the same denomination. Went through the two years of confirmation classes, starting at about  age  twelve. I have to admit, my parents made me go. If it was up to me, I wouldn`t have made that scene. So much for confirming my infant sprinkling.


Dawn, that statement is a good one - "Our sin are not counted against us until we are old enough to know what sin is."

I don`t think it`s in the Bible as such, but Deuteronomy 1:39 is on that order," Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them, and they shall posess it." I think God was talking about the "age of reason" here. Isaiah 7:15-16 are related also.

And, I`m sorry about my statement of how many sins has an infant commited. I was just being factious. I know we are born with a sin nature.

Thanks for the term - paedobaptism. I`ve never heard it before.


Grace and Peace.

Bradley, I guess when I posted, I was thinking of different things Christians do or think that are not Biblical, but rather traditional. One person does it..another sees it..thinks it's right..does the same thing. That kind of *for show*.

I guess my major thought is regarding people doing the traditional rather than the Biblical. I, myself, am trying to get back to the biblical way of doing things, and get away from the traditional. So, if my wording offended you, I'm am heartily sorry. 

Regarding God accepting infant baptism, He has allowed us to do many things in our own ignorance, so infant baptism would be no different.

Blessings to you Bradley as you study God's Word...




I am not condemning infant baptism. I just don't happen to agree with it. What you think is your opinion.

Sorry for any offense I might have caused.



There is no example of infant baptism in Scripture. It was not practiced, according to any record known, in the first several centuries following Christ's ascension. 


We do however have examples of "dedication" of children, which was commanded under the Law of Moses. 


As we considered this, my wife and I chose to have dedications for our children - however, we waited until they were old enough to make that choice to become baptized of their own volition. 


Personally, I think infant baptism has no benefit, nor is it bad. Baptism is a choice for a believer to make, when they have chosen to receive Christ as Savior. 

Bradley, correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire article could only come up with one case of a noted believer being baptized as a child - Polycarp. To me, the article seems to be revisionist, with the intent of validating an opinion. Polycarp seems more the exception than the rule. (However powerful an exception he may be).


In the article, they make one of the worst examples of building a pretext, that is mixing Matthew 28 with Luke 18, to make a point that neither text makes by itself. Using that method of thinking, I could take any two passages of Shakespeare and create an entirely different story than he ever wrote.


I do believe that scripture indicates we should dedicate children to God and that Jesus did in fact make a case for discipling children. However, I don't see Luke 18 advocating baptism. Also, while the case of Lydia and the Phillipian jailer COULD be said to include baptizing children, it could just as easily not be doing that.


My sense of the matter is this: present your children to God, dedicate them to God and dedicate yourself to discipling them. The discipling is FAR more important than the act of dedication or baptism. I don't have an issue with baptizing children, as long as it is not used as a "cure all" that says now the kids can grow up to be God hating rebels, but we believe they will go to heaven.


Jesus made it very clear in Matt 28 that baptism is to be a result of being discipled and following him (his teachings). Look at that entire passage, and you will see this point being made, if you let Jesus speak to you his point, rather than imposing a point on the text.


People who believe in infant baptism come that position with a misguided understanding of what Baptism means, in my opinion. It is not a magical cure, but rather it is the public statement of the believer "I have chosen to follow Jesus". This is the problem when we make religious ritual more important than what is taught by the text of scripture. We start trying to make up reasons for something, rather than learning what is actually taught.


A simple review of actual scripture on the Baptism of John and then the subsequent baptisms by the followers of Jesus will bear this out. A good example is the story of the Ethiopian eunich in the book of Acts. He came to faith in Jesus and wanted to be baptized as a proclamation of that new faith.


If you want to follow Jesus, scripture teaches that you (a rational adult) are to make a public proclamation of dying to the old life and beginning new - this is the point of baptism.



I agree with what Scribe has said regarding the article. They break some basic rules of Hermeneutics in order to connect dots that are not actually connected in order to make their point.


Lord Bless,


Infant baptism is fine as long as it does not have the meaning attached to it by some Churches. Infant Baptism saves no one. I do understand that those that practice infant baptism in such a manner, do encourage the recipients of such practice to confirm their devotion to the Lord, when they are older, through other sacraments.



I grew up Lutheran, was baptized as an infant, and also went through confimation. Years later my wife and children (after their professions of faith) were baptized. I declined at the time as I was struggling with whether my infant baptism was what the Scripture called for or should I be baptized now as a follower of Jesus. I came to the conclusion from Scripture that the age is not important, but rather baptism follows the profession of faith, for it is a public declaration of dying to the old self and rising in the new life of Christ (Rom. 6). I was baptized by immersion in 1992.


Baptism does not deternmine your salvation, but rather from one's salvation they should desire to follow Jesus in complete obedience. Baptism is a step of faith and a step of obedience.


Lord Bless,


The Good News

Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate

© 2024   Created by   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service