There is no biblical basis for the general and widespread baptism of infants, where there is no evidence of faith.

  1. A straightforward reading of the New Testament gives no evidence that all infants should be baptised. The doctrine of Infant Baptism is based on complicated reasoning from the Old Testament.

  2. The Bible teaches that faith and repentance are essential. We would need clear direction from the scriptures to be justified in baptising on some other basis. The Bible just does not give this clear indication. A complicated argument from the Old Testament is not sufficient.

  3. Christians cannot assume that their children are heirs of salvation. There is no place in the Bible where God has promised to regenerate all the children of believers. Romans 9:7-13 teaches the opposite. It is not natural children who are God's children, but those who are called by God. God chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael, even though both were sons of Abraham. God loved Jacob and hated Esau, even though both were children of Isaac. Christians cannot assume that all their children will come to salvation. To baptise them on the assumption that they will is an act of presumption.

  4. There is no basis for the parallel, which is often made between circumcision and baptism. Circumcision was a sign that a person was one of the children of Israel and therefore under the covenant of God. But those who were Israelites did not necessarily receive the blessings of the covenant. That depended on whether they fulfilled the condition of the covenant, by fulfilling the requirements of the law. A man could be circumcised and still come under the curse of the law, because he disobeyed God. Circumcision was a sign that a person was bound to be obedient to God, because he was under the covenant. It was not a sign that he had fulfilled the terms of the covenant.

  5. Baptism is a sign that a person has fulfilled the terms of the covenant, through faith in Jesus Christ. It is a sign that he is under the blessing of God, through faith in Jesus. Circumcision is a sign that a person is bound by the covenant of God. Baptism is a sign that the covenant has been fulfilled.

  6. Infant baptism is often justified on the basis of the three references in the New Testament to whole households being baptised. It is assumed that these households would include children, who were baptised on the basis of their parent's faith. But there is no evidence for this assumption. In fact, one of these households belonged to Lydia, who does not seem to have been married. It is unlikely that she would have had infants in her home.

  7. Even if children were baptised in other households, this does not provide a justification for infant baptism. The children may have been baptised because they had come to faith in Jesus Christ. This seems to have been the case with the Philippian jailor:

    He and all his family were baptised... the whole family was filled with joy, because they had come to believe in God (Acts 16:33,34).

    The whole family was baptised, but it was not because Paul and Silas practised infant baptism. They were baptised because they had all believed the gospel that Paul and Silas had shared with them.

    The practice of infant baptism would only be justified if unbelieving members of a household were baptised. There is no evidence in the New Testament that this was done.

  8. The doctrine of infant baptism contradicts the biblical statement that there is only one baptism. Infant baptism has a different justification from believer's baptism. It also has a different effect. This means that a church which practices infant baptism and which also baptises adult converts is actually practising two baptisms. One practice must be wrong because the Bible says there is only one baptism. The New Testament commands the church to baptise believers, so infant baptism must be the one, which is wrong.

  9. Because many Christians have only been baptised as infants, they have not experienced the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Because they were baptised before they came to faith or repentance, they did not receive the gift of the Spirit that Jesus promised would be part of Christian baptism. Because the church has baptised infants who were not born again, Jesus was unable to baptise them in the Holy Spirit. The result is a powerless church.

  10. The practice of general infant baptism makes it necessary for the church to have ordinances of confirmation or public profession of faith, so that those who are converted can give a testimony to their new birth. These ordinances are a common way of joining the church, but they have no basis in the scriptures. They are forced on the church by an unbiblical doctrine of baptism.

  11. The biblical way of joining the church is through baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). Baptism is also the biblical way of giving testimony to a new birth. When a true practice of Christian baptism is restored, confirmation and public profession of faith will be unnecessary.

  12. There is a long tradition in support of infant baptism, but the church must be ruled by the Word of God and not the traditions of men. There is no biblical basis for infant baptism. In this area the church has let go the commands of God and is holding on to the traditions of men. If it is going to be true to the Word of God, it must drop the practice of infant baptism.

  13. Because infant baptism is normally invalid, those people who were baptised as infants were not really baptised at all. They should be baptised properly at the time when they come to the Lord. It should be ensured that they are baptised in the Spirit at this time (Acts 19:1-7).

  14. Where infants come to faith through the work of God, they should be baptised immediately. However, they should be baptised as believers, and not on the basis of the doctrine of infant baptism.

Return to Baptism.