Over time, three theological arguments have arisen that seek to justify the tradition of infant baptism.

Similarity with Circumcision
Some have compared Jewish circumcision to Christian baptism (ref. Colossians 2:12), with the idea that if circumcision was for children, then baptism must be for them too. However, there are some serious problems with this parallel.

• Circumcision resulted from an explicit command for parents to circumcise their children on the eighth day of the child's life (Genesis 17:12).
• It was for males only. There was no circumcision or even a parallel ceremony for females.
• Circumcision required no faith on the part of the recipient (only on the part of the "circumciser"), while baptism clearly does require faith and a personal decision (Acts 2:41, Colossians 2:12).
• We may observe that under the covenant of circumcision parents were commanded to circumcise their male children. Under Christ, parents are commanded to raise their children in the training and counsel of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).

• Romans 5:12 indeed says "all sinned" in Adam. But this is not a proof of the doctrine of "original sin." The consequence of Adam's sin was death for all mankind.
• Consider Romans 5:18-19:  "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. [19] For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."
• Paul's point seems to be that as death came through Adam, life comes through Jesus. Saying that all are lost as a result of Adam's sin is like saying that all are saved because of the actions of Jesus. But clearly people are only saved because of Jesus when they believe and respond to him; likewise all are lost only through Adam when they sin.
• Statements about the univerality of sin:
• There are several statements in Scripture about the universality of sin, for example Job 14:4, Psalm 51:5, Ephesians 2:3, Romans 3:23.
• These simply illustrate the reality of the sinful nature in mankind.
• There are other passages that speak of certain individuals as being "blameless" (Genesis 6:9, 2 Samuel 22:24, Psalms 18:23, Job 1:1, 1:8). Does this mean these people had no sin whatsoever? Clearly, statements about the universality of sin and being blameless are both hyperbole-- exaggerations to make a point. In fact, David is said to be both "blameless" and "conceived in sin." These statements contradict one another-- unless they are figures of speech not intended to be taken literally.
• Scripture declares that Jesus was made like men in every way (Hebrews 2:17, see also Galatians 4:4-5). Yet Scripture also declares that he was without sin (Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5, 1 Peter 2:22, 2 Corinthians 5:21). If all men are conceived with the sin of Adam, then so too was Jesus.
• No proponent of the doctrine of original sin holds that Jesus was conceived with original sin; instead they declare "exceptions" to this doctrine in his case. Interestingly, Roman Catholic proponents of the doctrine of original sin allow that Mary the mother of Jesus and others-- Jeremiah, John the Baptist-- were also conceived without this stain (James Cardinal Gibbons, "The Faith of Our Fathers," Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL 1980, p. 219).
• The need for these exceptions but the lack of Scriptural definition of these exceptions casts extreme doubt upon the doctrine.
• Other observations
• There is simply no discussion of this doctrine by Jesus during his ministry, despite ample opportunity to do so (e.g. John 9:2-3).
• Judaism has no concept of this doctrine of original sin.
• Judaism has a concept of spiritual maturity reflected in the Bar Mitzvah (Bat Mitzvah for girls) at the age of thirteen. At this ceremony, the child takes on an adult status in the faith.

• This seems to recognize the Scriptural difficulties with a faithless baptism. However, it is interesting that no Scrpitural evidence is offered suggesting that the "faith of the church" or a baptismal sponsor might replace the faith of the individual in infant baptism.
• Ott also "weighs in" on other elements surrounding this topic, as have been discussed above.
• "The validity of child-baptism cannot be proved with absolute certainty from Holy Writ, but it can be indicated with a high degree of probability" (p. 359).
• He cites the baptism of households (1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15-33, 18:8, 11:14) as evidence of infant baptism in apostolic times. Yet, these have been examined more closely in the discussion on the age of converts.
• He claims that baptism has "replaced" circumcision (Colossians 2:12). Baptism may have some similarities to circumcision, but this hardly constitutes authorization for infant baptism.
• He cites Acts 2:38ff with baptism being for "children," though he recognizes this "may also indeed be understood to mean posterity in a wider sense."
• Generally, this line of thought reflects the view that baptism is necessary for salvation, but stretches to find Scriptural evidence that teaches or supports the need for baptizing infants.

1. There is no explicit Scriptural instruction or mandate concerning the baptism of infants.
2. The initial arguments for infant baptism were attempts to justify a tradition that was already in place.
3. In the New Testament, those who were baptized had accepted the gospel and believed prior to their baptism.
• John 1:12 states that those who receive Jesus have the right to become children of God. The baptism of infants is implicitly rejected because of the requirement of individual decision, faith and repentance accompanying baptism.
• When the baptism of households is mentioned in Acts, there is never even a mention of a spouse or children in these accounts. On the contrary, in most cases there is explicit mention of other adult members of these households. Luke was certainly capable of explicitly mentioning wives and children (e.g. Acts 21:5); it is highly improbable that if children were baptized in the time of the book of Acts, Luke would fail to mention it.
4. The doctrine of original sin (the primary rationale for infant baptism) requires exceptions that contradict the explicit statements of Scripture.

Jesus taught that lostness and salvation are a matter of sin and faith. Young children are capable of neither sin nor faith and thus seem to be neither "saved" nor "lost." When Jesus said "the kingdom of heaven belongs to" children (Luke 18:16), he apparently states that children share in the kingdom of heaven by virtue of their youth and spiritual immaturity. (Certainly if "original sin" from Adam existed, Jesus would not be able to make such a statement concerning unbaptized infants.)

It is interesting that the Scriptures speak of many things that are required for salvation; baptism is just one of them. For example, there is the requirement to "do the will of the Father" (Matthew 7:21). If God expects children to be baptized, then does he not also expect them to "do the will of the Father?" Yet, the Scriptures contain no such discussion of staged responsibilities and obligations for those baptized as infants. This is further evidence that conversion was reserved for those beyond a certain age of accountability.

Copyright © 2002 John Engler. All rights reserved.