A Biblical Analysis of Infant Baptism

What can we say about infant baptism based just on the Bible? This video is a survey through a bunch of key passages that relate to the topic. I present it as an issue that we should not divide over but an issue that is worth examining biblically and talking about.
We will be looking at the "household" baptisms in Acts, and the idea that a parallel between circumcision and baptism means we should baptize infants. We'll also examine the New Testament nature of baptism since this relates to the idea of baptizing infants.

If you love this ministry and would like to partner by supporting it please click below.

BibleThinker mugs are available here. Made by Brent Zockoll, a potter who is a fan of this ministry.

I'm often asked about the Bible software I use. It's called Logos and I find it really helpful in my studies. If you order it through this affiliate link you get a discount and some free books. Use coupon code BIBLETHINKER8

[lorineilson]

Thank you for your video. Speaking of Baptism I'm getting Baptized this Sunday.

[weaversare]

I have been struggling with this for about a year. I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran church. Then, I, in turn, baptized my children as an act of obedience to what I believed was an act preformed by the Holy Spirit/Christ. I now go to a different church and they want me to get baptized in order to serve. I didn't want to get baptized again just because they tell me to. I wanted to seek word from the Holy Spirit by prayers and supplication. I found a lot of versus about baptism but nothing explicit on the right age or right way to baptized (found Ezekiel 36:25-28 fascinating). God did not give them specifics like he did the building of the ark or the temple. Then I started asking if my church believed that I am not saved if I do not get re-baptized. I believe the Bible explicitly says that you are saved by grace alone, by faith alone. You would get baptized as a sign of what has already occurred in your heart through the Holy Spirit (both credo and pedo baptism supports that this is something done to us.) Then Matthew 3:11 changed everything for me. This was John the Baptist, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." I believe we are baptized with the Holy Spirit and he puts a fire inside of us. The water is only symbolic to what has happed to us, like communion is symbolic. The water does not circumcise our heart, the Holy Spirit does. We do it as remembrance to what happened. As a Lutheran I confirmed my faith at 13 in front of my congregation so they may hold me accountable. I know I am saved, I do not believe I need a second baptism because the Holy Spirit has done his work within me and has not moved me to be baptized another way and if there was a certain way to do so the Lord would has made sure it was in the bible.

[rolandovelasquez]

Perfect Pastor. Thanks. I come from a Roman Catholic background and I have absolutely no recollection of my baptism. I was 13... 13 days old. And... This is even more incredible. My parents assure me that I was confirmed, and this would have been by the Archbishop, but I have absolutely NO recollection. The important thing is, by the time I was 15 I was definitely a confirmed sinner. Sought the Lord and He very graciously saved me. Solely by the blood of the Perfect Lamb of God.
I will include this paraphrased quote from a Reformer;
"Baptism is a positive evil in that it gives the sinner a false assurance of salvation and thereby impedes him or her from seeking the Lord and ultimately being saved."
It's a sort of smoke screen. Seen it. Been there.

[susanl]

I was baptized as an infant and was always reassured that it “counted” by my pastor and parents. Your video is what pushed me to get baptized as an adult yesterday. I’ve watched most of your content and agree with you 99.9% of the time. So when this video came up that was in conflict with what I believed, I was surprised and intrigued because normally our views are not in conflict. Thank you for your ministry!!

[michellejoubert]

to answer your question, as long as i find it interesting, i would listen to 4 hour debate. Going to check it out now.

[glenncherveny]

Mike, great Analysis ! Thank you for this. I am a reformed Baptist, and run around in reformed circles, and this is one of those points we always heatedly debate! Still brothers, but usually ends with no resolution. I support the Credobaptism position.

[isabs]

" is it my fault if people go to hell " I know several people who came to Christ without listening to any preaching , God called them directly, which is always the Holy Spirit who works inside a heart, and not a preacher who convince to believe. It happened to me, I saw a film of the Gospel at TV, and I started to love Jesus then. Even if the road was very long to real faith in Him, the seed was in without anybody but God. So, what I mean is God doesn't need us to reach a heart, except if He calls someone to do it .

[dogbreath]

I can't wait till you get the verse where saint Paul says baptism replaces circumsion.

[Alexander]

I was baptized as an infant. I was baptism Greek Orthodox. My dad is Greek. Recently though my mom’s friend that’s a Catholic said it worked and u r washed from “original sin” and u got the Holy Spirit and u do not even know but now u know because I got the baptism of the Holy Spirt a few months ago. But before I was living in sin and I did not have the Holy Spirit because I was living in sin and no one was convicting me. I knew it was bad but I was living in sin. But when I asked God for the Holy Spirit 3 months go, I may not have felt anything cause I was a baby Christian but I no longer loved sin. I grew in faith in God and seeked God and his word and started to pray more and more. I never liked reading but I loved reading the word of God. It is so powerful. The peace I have from Jesus surpasses all understanding. Now that I have the Holy Spirt I obey righteousness and God not sin. So I know without faith, that water baptism is in vain. But with faith u proclaim faith in Jesus Christ and accept him as your Lord and Savior even before that and u know u have the Holy Spirit when he is fighting those fleshy desires. Cause if he isn’t fighting the flesh, who is? U just like in sin then. So I got born again 4 months ago, Glory to God. And I got the baptism of the Holy Spirit and felt warmth in my forearms and chest area and this was around 2 months ago. Sorry this is a long comment and sorry if it is confusing. God bless. Repent and trust in Jesus

[hayleysimons]

It always is a strange point to me the desire for someone to remember their baptism, and therefore getting re baptised if they were as a baby. If baptism is something Christ does for you then your baby baptism is just as important and can be remembered in other ways rather than just physically. If baptism is something you do for God, then I understand the want to have it in recent memory.

[StoicHippy]

It is impossible to look at household baptisms without considering the mikveh and specifically that children undergo immersion (even infants) in the jewish conversion process. This is also not to say that mikveh is a precise comparison to Christian baptism, but it was certainly appropriated by Jesus Christ and the church. Also, that baptizo is defined as wash and not simply as immerse is also apparent in view of the mikveh.

[LoveYourNeighbour.]

I think baptism is appropriate for people who are OLD ENOUGH to understand & BELIEVE the Gospel. And who are able to make the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to accept Jesus as Lord & Savior. Infants are definitely NOT old enough to understand & make that decision. That's MY view, anyway.

[daphniefarkas]

Infants cannot make an informed decision to follow jesus. I was baptized as an infant and then became a pagan for 15 years. I would have gone to hell anyway if jesus didn't come and get me when I was 30.

[fysherofmen]

For the most part I just really appreciate your videos - even as a Lutheran! Of course, when I saw THIS topic in my feed I was interested in what you had to say. :) I STILL appreciated a some of what you pointed out, but of course, I do believe you missed the major point. You begin by saying that Christians all basically agree with what baptism is. But of course if that were true, we wouldn't be discussing infant baptism. Now, I will agree that I certainly wish the scriptures were a bit more flush on baptism, but as a Lutheran I would just say this (otherwise this would be a book!): The case for infant baptism has its greatest defense in its concept of "what it is". Even according to its name it is a "washing away" of sin. From a Lutheran (historic) perspective, baptism is for adults, yes, after coming to repentance and faith (and that was, of course, mostly the situation of the New Testament converts). But Lutherans see baptism not as a "work" of faith, but more a "participation" in the saving work of God in our lives. It is a gift of God for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38 for example). It is something GOD does, not a human response of faith. It is a means of grace. It is GOSPEL, not Law. It is the gracious act of God's seal upon our lives. As such, yes, infants are to be baptized. Even children need their sins forgiven. They are sealed as God's children as their sins are washed away. And as you mentioned, some people say that even infants and children can have "faith". Even as it might be very different from our mature Christian faith, it remains a Godly faith. Taken by themselves, I do not think there is significant weight to each of the arguments you address concerning "households", "all nations", witness of the early church, etc. However, considering all of them together along WITH the main argument from what baptism actually is, I would contend that infant baptism is most definitely a beautiful sign of God's mercy and love for even the "least" among us. Cheers!

[captainfordo]

Baptism regenerates those with faith through the power of the word. (Ephesians 5:26)
Infants can have faith. (John the Baptist as an example)
Therefore, infants should be baptized.

[natalieschoenborn]

Pastor Mike, it is pretty cool how often God uses your videos to answer random questions I have about scripture passages I have recently read. I don't think it is a coincidence how often I hear teaching on what I just read in the Bible. 😊

[heatherp]

I appreciate this because growing up my family actually split over this, like myself from my parents when I was a teenager. My dad does equate baptism with salvation *only while under the family 'umbrella'* and he uses all of the texts that you have mentioned, especially comparing it with circumcision. It divided not only my family but our entire church, it was devastating. As I had my own children he would press me regularly to get them baptized in case they died, as that would save them. For whatever reason infant baptism turned into a cult for the leadership that left the church at that time, it was weird, and beyond that, 100% destructive.

[dillontarr]

Brother Mike, there are many ways you could be described. One of those ways, I want you to know, is as sensible.

18:28 - What you said in the moments leading up to here... just straight sense. We hear so much nonsense in the world today that simple, logical, sensible descriptions of reality are very refreshing.

May the Lord bless you in your fight against sin in your own life, that you might continue to be clear-minded to teach simply and rightly, helping others to do the same.

[argablarga]

Mike, I find many of your videos useful and helpful and well researched.

I found your thinking in this video though a bit messy with some pre-conceived bias.

As a side note I found your statement about people who try to act objective having already made up their mind a bit strange. It presupposes motivations. Sometimes people have not reached a final position despite extensive research and are still on the investigative journey letting evidence lead them.

On your analysis of the term 'household':

1. You refer to infants being not mentioned/ignored/overlooked in the passages about the households (Cornelius, the jailer, Lydia and Stephanas). The same reason that they are not mentioned/ignored can easily be used to argue that they were baptised along with the adults in the household - they were just not mentioned/ignored/overlooked. It is not the contradiction you suggest it is to have references to actions that could only be done by adults in a household, but at the same time not exclude infants from the definition of the household especially in events where they could be passive participants.

2. No discussion of mikveh where parents and children (including infants) take part in mikveh. In a mikveh, an infant is a passive participant. It does not mean that they don't have a mikveh though. The 'believing' parties in the mikveh though are the adults, not the infants.

3. Similarly, the ceremony of purification that Jewish parents went through as described in Leviticus 12. Leviticus 12 and Leviticus 15 make it clear that there are reasons both Mary and Joseph as adults needed to undergo purification with a visit to the temple. But Luke refers to when the time came for 'their' purification, and Jesus was present. Yes he was taken along to be presented and consecrated at the temple, but the use of the word 'their' in 'their' purification does not rule out the presence of Jesus who was an infant at the time.

4. You refer to the cultural aspects of Lydia inviting the Apostles home and saying that it should normally have been the man of house who invited them home. But then assuming that she was on a 'business' trip is quite a stretch if she was subject to such a strong patriarchal culture? Proverbs 31 in any case talks about the noble wife who runs a business and runs her household with its servants etc, in whom her husband has complete confidence, she buys her own real estate, and opens her home to the poor and needy - from a culture that was surely more patriarchal than Lydia's gentile culture? Also, Lydia being from Thyatira could simply refer to her place of origin rather than place of residence - a reading that could be sustained from cultural considerations too. Being a seller of purple, a rare and valuable colour, may also indicate that she was quite wealthy. Perhaps she had more than one residence. Perhaps she and her family had seasonal residence at more than one place?

5. The fact there are 4 references to entire households being baptised and infants not being at least passive participants in the baptisms seems a little odd.

None of the above necessarily sustains an argument for the necessity of the baptism of infants, but your arguments didn't really rule out passive infant participation in the baptisms of the households.

[patrickzilla]

There is so much clarity in this video @mikewinger thank you!