Why we Do Not Baptize Infants

Yesterday I shared a message on following Jesus in believers' baptism.  I mentioned briefly in the message that baptism is not for infants. I want to expound on that here.

John Calvin sprinkled infants but said that the word baptizo means immerse.

I respect those who sprinkle or baptize children and claim they are in the covenant, but I vehemently disagree that an infant can “repent and believe.”  As I shared yesterday, the prerequisite for baptism is repentance (John the Baptist).

While children of Christian parents do have a special calling and an important task of "raising in the admonition of the Lord;" I don't believe it should include baptism.  It is proper and Biblical to dedicate them to the Lord, even as Hannah did Samuel (I Samuel 1). 

Covenant Theology that teaches that children of covenant parents are safe in them need to be reminded in the New Covenant parents are not the covenant holders, Christ is and they are only safe in Him.

Is it wrong to baptize an infant?  I would not immediately say that it is wrong - but I would want to know the belief behind the practice and the understanding of the parents of what this child will need to do later.

It does not mean a person sprinkled as an infant and is gloriously saved later in life will not go to Heaven;  they will.  But it should be their desire to be Scripturally baptized if they wish to follow the Lord truly.

But if your tradition is to sprinkle or even baptize infants, then I would add, “But do not say to these children, you are a Christian, but rather, Repent and believe the Gospel.”

-->

Adoniram and Ann Judson were both baptized as infants but on their voyage to India in 1812 were studying the Scriptures and became convicted that baptism was for believers only.  So, on  Sept. 6, 1812 they were both immersed in Calcutta.  Luther Rice, followed in another ship, and he had his views changed totally separate from the Judsons.  But on November 1, 1812 he was baptized as a believer.

Why we don’t baptize infants?

1.  Infant baptism cheapens the ordinance of baptism.

2.  No Scriptural evidence for it.  Household baptisms of Acts 16:31-34 is a stretch and even there the household believed first.  No evidence of infants here.

3.  It cannot picture the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

4.  Circumcision of the OT is not the same as NT baptism.  Even everyone circumcised in the OT where not of the “true Israel”  - Romans 2:28-29.  Also look at Colossians 2: 11-12.  New Testament circumcision is a circumcision of the heart and not of the flesh.

Just a reminder that circumcision came 25 years after Abram believed God and it was counted to him righteousness.  And that not everyone who were circumcised were “true Israel.” 

-->

5. You can not use the faith of another for your own personal faith.  One must have a personal relationships with Jesus Christ and an infant does not have the ability to understand faith and sin and to be saved.