Reading: Wikipedia from Baptism Article

Infant Baptism as explained in Wikipedia. 

Infant baptism^[1][2] is the practice of baptising infants or young children. In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism, or pedobaptism, from the Greek pais meaning "child". This can be contrasted with what is called "believer's baptism" (or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe"), which is the religious practice of baptising only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding underage children. Opposition to infant baptism is termed catabaptism. Infant baptism is also called christening by some faith traditions.

Most Christians belong to denominations that practice infant baptism.^[3] Branches of Christianity that practice infant baptism include Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and among Protestants, several denominations: Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, Methodists, Nazarenes,^[4] and the Moravian Church.

Ceremony

The exact details of the baptismal ceremony vary among Christian denominations. Many follow a prepared ceremony, called a rite or liturgy. In a typical ceremony, parents or godparents bring their child to their congregation's priest or minister. The rite used would be the same as that denomination's rite for adults, i.e., by pouring holy water (affusion) or by sprinkling water (aspersion). Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic traditions practise total immersion and baptise babies in a font, and this practice is also the first method listed in the baptismal ritual of the Roman Catholic, although pouring is the standard practice within the Latin branch of Catholicism. Catholic and Orthodox churches that do this do not sprinkle. At the moment of baptism, the minister utters the words "I baptise you (or, 'The servant of God (name) is baptised') in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (see Matthew 28:19).^{[citation needed]}

Although it is not required, many parents and godparents choose to dress the baby in a white gown called a christening gown for the baptism ceremony. Christening gowns often become treasured keepsakes that are used by many other children in the family and handed down from generation to generation. Traditionally, this gown is white or slightly off white and made with much lace, trim and intricate detail. In the past, a gown was used for both boys and girls; in the present day,  it has become more common to dress children in a baptismal outfit. Also normally made of white fabric, the outfit consists of a romper with a vest or other accessories. These clothes are often kept as a memento after the ceremony.

It is a naval tradition to baptize children using the ship's bell as a baptismal font and to engrave the child's name on the bell afterward. Tracking down and searching for an individual's name on a specific bell from a ship may be a difficult and time-consuming task. Christening information from the bells held by the Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt Museum has been entered into a searchable data archive that is accessible to any interested web site visitors.^[5]

History

Antiquity

Scholars disagree on the date when infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that 1st-century Christians did not practice it, noting the lack of any explicit evidence of paedobaptism.^[6] Others, noting the lack of any explicit evidence of exclusion of paedobaptism, believe that they did,^[7] understanding biblical references to individuals "and [her] household" being baptized (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:31–33, 1 Corinthians 1:16) as well as "the promise to you and your children" (Acts 2:39) as including young children.^{[citation needed]}

The earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism,^[8] which occur in the Didache (c. 100),^[9] are taken to be about baptism of adults, since they require fasting by the person to be baptized.^[10] However, inscriptions dating back to the 2nd century which refer to young children as "children of God" may indicate that Christians customarily baptised infants too.^[11] The earliest reference to infant baptism was by Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in his work Against Heresies.^[12] Due to its reference to Eleutherus as the current bishop of Rome, the work is usually dated c. 180.^[13] Irenaeus speaks of children being "born again to God."^[14][15] This reference has been described as "obscure."^[12] Three passages by Origen (185–c. 254)^[16] mention infant baptism as traditional and customary.^[17] While Tertullian writing c. 198–203 advises the postponement of baptism of little children and the unmarried, he mentions that it was customary to baptise infants, with sponsors speaking on their behalf.^[18] The Apostolic Tradition, sometimes attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (died 235), describes how to perform the ceremony of baptism; it states that children were baptised first, and if any of them could not answer for themselves, their parents or someone else from their family was to answer for them.^[19]

From at least the 3rd century onward Christians baptised infants as standard practice, although some preferred to postpone baptism until late in life, so as to ensure forgiveness for all their preceding sins.^[20]

Theology

Agreements among paedobaptists

Based on their understanding of New Testament passages such as Colossians 2:11–12, paedobaptists believe that infant baptism is the New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament circumcision. In the Old Testament, all male converts to Judaism, male infants born to Jewish parents, and male servants were circumcised as ceremony of initiation into the Jewish community.^[26] Paedobaptists believe that baptism has replaced Old Testament circumcision and is the religious ceremony of initiation into the Christian community.^[27]

During the medieval and Reformation eras, infant baptism was seen as a way to incorporate newborn babies into the secular community as well as inducting them into the Christian faith.^[28]

Differences among paedobaptists

Different Christian denominations who practice infant baptism attach different meanings to the sacrament and explain its efficacy in different ways.

Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church considers baptism, even for an infant, so important that "parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks" and, "if the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay."^[29] It declares: "The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole 'households' received baptism, infants may also have been baptised".^[30] It notes that "when the first direct evidence of infant Baptism appears in the second century, it is never presented as an innovation", that 2nd-century Irenaeus^[31] treated baptism of infants as a matter of course, and that, "at a Synod of African Bishops, St. Cyprian stated that 'God's mercy and grace should not be refused to anyone born', and the Synod, recalling that 'all human beings' are 'equal', whatever be 'their size or age', declared it lawful to baptize children 'by the second or third day after their birth'".^[32] In the 17th and 18th centuries, many infants were baptised on the day of their birth as in the cases of Francoise-Athenais, Marquise de Montespan, Jeanne Du Barry and Marie Anne de Cupis de Camargo. Infant baptism is seen as showing very clearly that salvation is an unmerited favour from God, not the fruit of human effort.^[33] "Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called . . . The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth".^[34]

The Church has no dogmatic official teaching regarding the fate of infants who die without baptism, and theologians of the Church hold various views (in particular, many have asserted that they go to Limbo). "The Church entrusts these infants to the mercy of God."^[35]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued on 20 October 1980 an instruction on infant baptism, whose purpose was "to recall the principal points of doctrine in this field which justify the Church's constant practice down the centuries and demonstrate its permanent value in spite of the difficulties raised today". The document then indicated some general guidelines for pastoral action.^[36]

The document recalled that infant baptism has long been considered of apostolic origin and that the first direct evidence of its practice, dating from the 2nd century, does not present it as an innovation. It then responded to objections that baptism should follow faith, that the person baptised should consciously receive the grace of the sacrament, that the person should freely accept baptism, that infant baptism is unsuitable in a society marked by instability of values and conflicts of ideas, and that the practice is inimical to a missionary outlook on the part of the Church.^[37]

The instruction then gave guidelines for pastoral practice, based on two principles. The major principle is that baptism, as the sign and means of God's love that precedes any action on our part and that frees from original sin and communicates divine life, must not be delayed. The subordinate principle is that assurances must be given that the gift thus granted can grow by authentic education in the faith and Christian life. If these assurances are not really serious, there can be grounds for delaying baptism. If they are certainly absent, the sacrament should even be refused.^[38]

Accordingly, the rules for involvement on the part of practising Christian parents must be supplemented with other considerations in the case of "families with little faith or non-Christian families". If these request that a child of theirs be baptised, there must be assurances that the child will be given the benefit of the Christian upbringing required by the sacrament. Examples of such assurances are "the choice of godparents who will take sincere care of the child, or the support of the community". If there is satisfactory assurance, i.e., "any pledge giving a well-founded hope for the Christian upbringing of the children", then "the priest cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay, as in the case of children of Christian families". If there is insufficient assurance, "it will be prudent to delay baptism", while keeping contact with the parents in the hope of securing the required conditions for celebrating the sacrament. As a last resort, enrollment of the child in a course of catechetical instruction on reaching school age can be offered in lieu of immediate celebration of baptism.^[39] The possibility of delaying infant baptism in the case of non practicing or non believing parents raises a number of questions. How can we discern that there are guarantees of an authentic Christian education? Can a priest propose an alternative celebration in the case where baptism is to be delayed? In some German speaking countries, bishops have opened the door to a "two step baptism", i.e. two celebrations separated by a time of evangelization of the parents. In this case, the rite of baptism itself is to be performed in the second celebration, when parents are supposed to have enough maturity to raise the child in the Catholic faith.^[40]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate".^[41] In the Roman Rite, the wording of the prayer of exorcism is: "Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son into the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness and bring him into the splendour of your kingdom of light. We pray for this child: set him (her) free from original sin, make him (her) a temple of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell with him (her). Through Christ our Lord."^[42]

Other ancient Christian Churches

The Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Assyrian Church of the East also insist on the need to have infants baptised as soon as is practicable after birth. Similar to the Roman Catholic Church, they teach that baptism is not merely a symbol but actually conveys grace. Baptism is a sacrament because it is an "instrument" instituted by Jesus Christ to impart grace to its recipients. Infants are traditionally baptised on the eighth day,^[43] recalling the biblical injunction to circumcise on the eighth day. However, this is not mandatory. In many of these churches, the Sacred Mystery of Chrismation (Confirmation) is administered by the priest immediately after baptism. Holy Communion, in the form of consecrated wine and bread, is also given to infants after they are baptised.^[44]

Lutherans

Lutherans practice infant baptism because they believe that God mandates it through the instruction of Jesus Christ, "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19)", in which Jesus does not set any age limit:

The command is general. It includes infants, women, men, and teenagers, even though none of these groups is specifically named. Each of these groups is included in "all nations."^[45]

They also cite other biblical passages such as Mark 10:13–15, Mark 16:16, John 3:3–7 and Acts 2:38–39 in support of their position. For example, in the Acts of the Apostles Saint Peter's teachings on Pentecost included children in the promise of Baptism, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children".^[45]

For them baptism is a "means of grace" through which God creates and strengthens "saving faith"^[46][47] as the "washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) in which people are reborn (John 3:3–7): "baptismal regeneration". Since the creation of faith is exclusively God's work, it does not depend on the actions of the one baptised, whether infant or adult. Even though baptised infants cannot articulate that faith, Lutherans believe that it is present all the same.^[48] Because it is faith alone that receives these divine gifts, Lutherans confess that baptism "works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare".^[49] In the special section on infant baptism in his Large Catechism Luther argues that infant baptism is God-pleasing because persons so baptised were reborn and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.^[50]

Lutherans believe that babies are conceived and born sinful (Psalm 51:5) and therefore need to be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5–6). Through Baptism the Holy Spirit works rebirth (Titus 3:4–7), creates faith in them, and saves them (1 Peter 3:21). Although some deny the possibility of infant faith, the Bible clearly teaches that babies can believe (Mark 9:42, Luke 18:15–17).^[45]

Methodist churches

Methodists contend that infant baptism has spiritual value for the infant. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, held that baptism is a means of grace, but that it was symbolic.^[51] Methodists view baptism in water as symbolic and believe that it does not regenerate the baptised nor cleanse them from sin.^{[citation needed]}

Wesley's own views of infant baptism shifted over time as he put more emphasis on salvation by faith and new birth by faith alone. This has fueled much debate within Methodism over the purpose of infant baptism, though most agree it should be continued. Wesley and the Methodists would agree with the Reformed or Presbyterian denominations that infant baptism is symbolic.^{[citation needed]}

Infant baptism is particularly illustrative of the Methodist doctrine of prevenient grace. The principle is that The Fall of Man ruined the human soul to such an extent that nobody wants a relationship with God. In order for humans to even want to be able to choose, God must empower their will (so that they may choose Christ) which he does by means of prevenient grace. Thus God takes the very first step in salvation, preceding any human effort or decision. Methodists justify infant baptism by this principle of prevenient grace, often arguing that infant baptism is God's promise or declaration to the infant that calls that infant to (eventually) believe in God's promises (God's Word) for salvation. When the individual believes in Jesus they will profess their faith before the church, often using a ritual called confirmation in which the Holy Spirit is invoked with the laying on of hands. Methodists also use infant baptism symbolically, as an illustration of God approaching the helpless. They see the ceremony additionally as a celebration of God's prevenient grace.^{[citation needed]}

Wesley was an Anglican minister who held to Arminian theology, unlike most Anglicans who held to Reformed (Calvinist) theology as taught in the 39 Articles. Augustus Toplady, John Newton, and George Whitefield were all Anglican ministers and Calvinists. They interpreted the Anglican formularies of the 39 Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Second Book of the Anglican Homilies from a Calvinist perspective and would have been more in agreement with the Reformed churches and the Puritans on the issue of infant baptism. The Catechism in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer shows that baptism was an outward sign of an inward grace. Prevenient grace, according to the Calvinist Anglicans, referred to unconditional election and irresistible grace, which is necessary for conversion of the elect. Infants are to be baptised because they are children of believers who stand in surety for them until they "come of age" and are bound to the same requirements of repentance and faith as adults.^{[citation needed]}

Presbyterian, Congregational and Reformed churches

Presbyterian, Congregational and Reformed Christians believe that baptism, whether of infants or adults, is a "sign and seal of the covenant of grace", and that baptism admits the party baptised into the visible church.^[52] Being a member of the visible church does not guarantee salvation; though it does provide the child with many benefits, including that of one's particular congregation consenting to assist in the raising of that child in "the way he should go, (so that) when he is old he will not turn from it". Elect infants (those predestined for salvation) who die in infancy are by faith considered regenerate on the basis of God's covenant promises in the covenant of grace.^[53]

Presbyterian, Congregational and many Reformed Christians see infant baptism as the New Testament form of circumcision in the Jewish covenant (Joshua 24:15). Circumcision did not create faith in the 8-day-old Jewish boy. It merely marked him as a member of God's covenant people Israel. Likewise, baptism doesn't create faith; it is a sign of membership in the visible covenant community.^[54]

Presbyterian, Congregational and Reformed Christians consider children of professing Christians to be members of the visible Church (the covenant community). They also consider them to be full members of the local congregation where their parents are members and members of the universal Church (the set of all true believers who make up the invisible church) unless and until they prove otherwise. Baptism is the mark of membership in the covenant of grace and in the universal church, although regeneration is not inseparably connected with baptism.^[55]

The Unitarian and Free Christian Churches of Great Britain perform Baptisms (Christenings) and consider this to be an important rite of passage.

Contrasts between infant and adult baptism

Christians disagree about infant baptism because they disagree about the nature of faith, the role of baptism, the means of salvation, the nature of grace, and the function of the sacraments. Pedobaptism and credobaptism are positions which bubble up from theological views at a more fundamental level of one's theological system.

• If baptism is a sign that a person is a member of God's covenant community, and if the children of believers are members of that community, it follows that the children of believers should receive the sign that they are members of God's covenant community by being baptised, as an infant is entitled to a passport that indicates the child as a member of a particular country.^[56]
• Believers and the children of believers become members of God's covenant community (or church) through baptism.^[57]
• It is believed by some Christians that in the heart of a baptised child, faith as a gift or grace from God, as distinct from an act by the person, is made present.^[58]
• It is believed by some Christians that baptism is not merely a symbol and that it has a real effect, conveying divine grace.^[59]

Arguments for infant baptism

Paedobaptists do not completely agree on the reasons for baptising infants, and offer different reasons in support of the practice. Among the arguments made in support of the practice are:

Argument based on parallel with circumcision

Some supporters of infant baptism argue that circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham and should be received by all the members of his covenant.^[60] The children of members of Abraham's covenant are themselves members of Abraham's covenant.^[61] Christians are members of Abraham's covenant ^[62] Therefore, the children of Christians are members of Abraham's covenant.^[63] Since baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision,^[64] the children of Christians should receive the sign of the covenant by being baptised.^{[citation needed]}

Covenant theology

Presbyterian, Congregationalists and Reformed Christians base their case for infant baptism on Covenant theology. Covenant theology is a broad interpretative framework used to understand the Bible. Reformed Baptists are in many ways Reformed yet, as their name suggests, adhere to Believers Baptism.^{[citation needed]}

According to Covenant theology God makes two basic covenants, or agreements, with humans. The first one, the Covenant of Works is an agreement that bases man's relationship with God on human obedience and morality. The covenant was made with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Adam broke this covenant so God replaced it with a second more durable covenant—the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is an agreement that bases man's relationship with God on God's grace and generosity. The Covenant of Works failed because it was based on human performance. The Covenant of Grace is durable because it is based on God's performance.^{[citation needed]}

All the covenants that God makes with humans after the Fall, (e.g. with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David) all extend the Covenant of Grace to its logical conclusion in Jesus Christ. In Covenant theology, however, there is a long-standing understanding that the Mosaic Covenant is also a republication of the Covenant of Works, which required obedience to receive its benefits. The underlying Covenant of Grace extends through the whole Old Testament, which suggests that two covenants are in play throughout the history of Israel. Consequently, Covenant theologians see that the Church, or the people of God, existed in the Old Testament. These are the people who placed their faith in Christ in advance, and they are saved in the same way Christians are. Not every Israelite is in the Church (or elect), many exist under the Covenant of Works and its strict unattainable requirements, but not under the Covenant of Grace.^{[citation needed]}

According to Presbyterian and Reformed Christians, this theological framework is important to the Biblical case for infant baptism because it provides a reason for thinking there is strong continuity between the Old and New Testaments. It provides a bridge linking the two Testaments together.^{[citation needed]}

Covenant Theologians claim that the New Testament book of Hebrews demonstrates that much of Israel's worship has been replaced by the person and work of Christ. The result is that some important forms of worship in the Old Testament have New Testament equivalents. The Passover festival, for example, was replaced by the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist).^{[citation needed]}

It is across the bridge of Covenant Theology that the sign of Abraham's covenant, circumcision, walks into the New Testament. The sign of the Covenant changes its external form to reflect new spiritual realities. It was a bloody sign in the Old Testament but because Christ has shed His blood, it has been transformed into a bloodless sign, i.e. washing with water. Passover was a bloody form of Old Testament worship and also transitions into the New Testament in the bloodless form of bread and wine.^{[citation needed]}

Covenant theologians point out that the external sign of the covenant in the Old Testament was circumcision. Circumcision was performed upon the male children of Israelites to signify their external membership in God's people, not as a guarantee of true faith; the Old Testament records many Israelites who turned from God and were punished, showing that their hearts were not truly set on serving God. So while all male Israelites had the sign of the covenant performed on them in a once off ceremony soon after birth, such a signifier was external only and not a true indicator of whether or not they would later exhibit true faith in Yahweh.^{[citation needed]}

In the New Testament, circumcision is no longer seen as mandatory for God's people. However, there is compelling^{[citation needed]} evidence to suggest that the Old Testament circumcision rite has been replaced by baptism. For instance: "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism." (Colossians 2:11–12a)^{[citation needed]}

Some paedobaptists, then, think the analogy of baptism to circumcision correctly points to children, since the historic Israelite application of circumcision was to infants, not to adult converts, of which there were few. Covenant theology, then, identifies baptism less as a statement of faith than as an assumption of identity; that is to say that infant baptism is a sign of covenantal inclusion.^[65]

Corroborating evidence

Paedobaptists point to a number of passages in the New Testament which seem to corroborate the above argument.^{[citation needed]}

Household baptisms

In the Old Testament, if the head of a household converted to Judaism, all the males in the house, even the infants, were circumcised. Some paedobaptists argue this pattern continues into the New Testament. Reference is made, for example, to baptising a person and their whole household—the households of Lydia, Crispus, and Stephanas are mentioned by name Acts 16:14–15, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16.^{[citation needed]}

Paedobaptists challenge credobaptists on this point: Why would a whole household be baptised just because the head of the house had faith? Shouldn't they baptise each member of the family as they come to individual faith? Household baptism implies that the rules for membership in Abraham's covenant have continued into the New Testament, the main difference is the sign of the covenant.^{[citation needed]}

Credobaptists counter with verses such as John 4:53, Acts 16:34 and Acts 18:8 in which entire households are said to have "believed". As such, the paedobaptist assumption is that household baptisms mentioned in the Bible involved infants, presumably incapable of personal belief.^{[citation needed]}

Original sin

Paedobaptists also point to Psalm 51, which reads, in part, "surely I was sinful from birth", as indication that infants are sinful (vid. original sin) and are thus in need of forgiveness that they too might have salvation.

Credobaptists agree that infants are in need of salvation, but paedobaptists push the point a step further arguing that it makes no theological sense for infants to need salvation but for God to make no provision for them to be saved (See 1 Cor 7:14 where Paul says that the children of a believer are holy—separated—and therefore, perhaps, would not need baptising even if baptism saved). Credobaptists recant that there is a provision through which God enables infants to be saved, belief on Jesus Christ (See Mark 9:42, John 3:14-21, John 11:25-26, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:1-21). Furthermore, credobaptists argue that paedobaptism is affirming believer's hereditary grace, a doctrine not found in scripture. Some credobaptists who agree to the Psalm 51 interpretation, argue that even though infants are sinful they are not accountable, because of the "age of accountability". Although many theologians would argue that an "age of accountability" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.^{[citation needed]}

An alternative viewpoint of some credobaptists is that since all Christians are predestined to salvation (John 15:16, 1 Cor.1:27, Eph.1:4, 1 Pt.2:4), God will not allow his elect to die before receiving their need, even if they are in old age (Luke 2:25–35), an argument whose relation to baptism whether of infants or adults is unclear, unless it means that infants who die without coming to explicit belief and baptism are not among God's elect.^{[citation needed]}

Another Credobaptist position is called predispositionalism. This suggests that baptism is only a mature response to eternal life, and that infants generate their inner response to God's presence, i.e. those who warm to him would, if dying in infancy, be with him eternally; contra-wise those who chilled to him. This aligns to the idea of individual faith/welcome (Jhn.1:14). Its point of determinism predates the age of evangelism, which it holds is still valid in crystallizing predisposition into maturing faith in this life. It considers shades of meaning in the keyword salvation.^{[citation needed]}

Words of Jesus

In John 3:5, Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,"^[66] which, according to some religious groups, means that an infant who dies without being baptized cannot enter heaven and may go to limbo instead.^{[citation needed]}

Peter's speech

According to the Book of Acts, "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.'" (Acts 2:38–39, NIV–UK, emphasis added)^[67] The United Methodist Church argues that the phrase "every one of you" recalls the use of the same phrase in Deuteronomy 29:10–12, where there is explicit mention of the "little ones" present; and it takes the phrase "and your children" to mean that Peter included children in the covenant community.^[68]

Credobaptists counter that only those who believe, and children who believe are recipients of the promise. Otherwise, all children of Adam would be saved.^{[citation needed]}

Early Christian practice

Several early Church Fathers seem to have taught that infant baptism is proper; Origen states that the practice of baptising infants is of apostolic origin.^[69] The Didache, the earliest appearance of non-biblical baptismal instruction, speaks only of adult baptism.^{[citation needed]}

Arguments against infant baptism

• Circumcision was a sign and seal of physical birth into the Jewish nation, and baptism is a sign and seal of new birth (born again).^{[citation needed]}
• John the Baptist baptised people who were also required to be circumcised.^{[citation needed]}
• Baptism in Scripture always has the prerequisite of repentance and faith, which are impossible for an infant.^[70]
• The Lord's Supper and Baptism are both sacraments or ordinances and are the same sign and seal, since the Lord's Supper may not be given to unbelievers, neither should baptism.Template:Matt. 28.19 the "them" are disciples & I Cor. 11:27-30 believers are to examine themselves
• The New Covenant is not purely an expansion of the Old Covenant because the Pharisees and all who did not have faith in Jesus are excluded from the New Covenant, but were acceptable under the old.^{[citation needed]}
• Some claim that there is no evidence that the early church performed (or excluded) paedobaptism, and only that it performed credo baptism by immersion.^{[citation needed]}
• Baptism represents more than just physical washing, but being clean and good standing before God, and therefore regenerate (Romans 6).^{[citation needed]}
• Baptism is for the remission of sins, and infants are not capable of repenting. (Luke 3:3, Mark 1:4, Acts 13:24, Acts 19:4)^{[citation needed]}
• There are no instances of infant baptism in the scripture^[70]

Some opponents^[who?] of paedobaptism point out that Jesus himself was baptised at the age of 30. They also point to the two (out of five) Great Commission passages that speak of baptism. They see Matthew 28:18–20 as giving exclusive instructions about who is to be baptised: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" (verses 19–20, NKJV). They interpret this as referring to three successive stages, with baptism following on becoming a disciple (which is beyond the power of an infant), and instruction following on baptism, not preceding it.^{[citation needed]}

The Mark 16:15–18 Great Commission passage speaks of believing: "He who believes and is baptised will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (verse 16, NKJV). This, they say, excludes infants, whom they see as incapable of believing.^{[citation needed]} If pedobaptists accept this text as canonical, they can still point out that the second clause mentions believing, but not baptism. Therefore, one could be baptised and still not be a believer. They argue that this may not exclude infant baptism, but rather corroborate it, since it indicates that one baptised as an infant who rejects the faith is not saved against their will. Pedobaptists who accept this passage may also point out that although belief and baptism are both mentioned, there is no order implied. In return, opposers declare that baptism is for those who already believe and are able to state their belief, which infants cannot do. In Peter's address to adults, "Repent and be baptised" Acts 2:38, they see repentance as a prerequisite, and this requires a mature understanding of sin and a decision to turn away from sin. However, St. Peter was speaking to those who were already adults, not to infants. Pedobaptists claim that it would follow that his instructions are meant for adults and not for infants. Indeed, adult candidates for baptism are required by most branches that practice pedobaptism to make a confession of faith before baptism.^{[citation needed]} Some^[who?] point to Deuteronomy 24:16 or 1 Peter 3:21 as evidence that each individual must make a mature decision regarding baptism. See Believer's Baptism.^{[citation needed]}

Some^[who?] oppose baptism of children as ostensibly incorporating them into the church without their own consent. This, however does not absolve the responsibility of biblical parents to raise their children in the training and admonition of the Lord within the cultural context of the church.^{[citation needed]}

Denominations that do not accept infant baptism as valid generally require those who join them, after being baptised as infants elsewhere, to be "rebaptised," or rather to be baptised for the first time. They deny that they in fact rebaptise, saying that Christians are to be baptised only once, but as believers, and they reject the term "Anabaptist" (i.e. Rebaptiser) as a description of them.^{[citation needed]}