Why do so many churches practise baby baptism?

Post Reply New Topic

Aren't Christians supposed to get baptised AFTER they accept Jesus as their personal Savior?

Many times in the Bible it says something along the lines of "and he/she believed and was baptised". It never says something like "now this man who got baptised at age 1 who was an unbeliever...".

easy indoctrination i guess.

but then again they could say its to wash away the babys sins or something..

Only Baptists and Anabaptists baptize on faith. Most churches baptize infants, including Catholics, Orthodox and most varieties of Protestants.


This is a bigger theological discussion than what you are referring to. There are a number of different claims about what the Bible says and about what the early church practiced. There is no clear-cut passage or clear historical fact, and if there is the latter, then it actually favors infant baptism, which has been dominant for most of church history.

A person can't get into Heaven who hasn't been baptized. Which means that Baptist infants who don't have the cognitive ability to accept Jesus before they die will go to Hell. Infants of Catholics and others, who are Baptized shortly after birth, are guaranteed passage into Heaven.

I think it has to do with the concept of original sin (Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit). Infant baptism is a way of washing away the original sin. Catholics and mainline Protestants use this type of baptism.

Baptists and Pentecostals do adult baptism, where they dunk the person into a pool for a few seconds.

Because an infant can't refuse. However, that also means that an infant can't consent. Which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it immoral to baptize an infant. Yes, immoral. Morally wrong. Bad. Mean. Unfair. Evil. It is an evil practice to baptize infants. It should not be allowed, as far as I'm concerned.

It isn't as bad as circumcision.

Jesus' death and resurrection on the cross washes away sin, not baptism.

Once again, you are getting into theological issues. I think Augustine actually held to the position that baptism was necessary for washing away Original Sin. Are you going to speak for all Christian theology on what they do or do not believe? You seem only familiar with the Baptist position yourself.

And murder isn't as bad as genocide, but that still doesn't make it morally okay.

If Baptism is neccessary for washing away original sin, then at the place of cruxification beside the 2 robbers, why did Jesus say to one of them "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise"? Jesus didn't say, "Oh sorry, you were never baptised so you still have original sin on you, well, good luck in Hell." The robber who got saved admitted to sin and acknowledged that Jesus is without sin.

Easy there, dude. It's not like religion's exactly air tight, ever. (j/k, just messing.)

I agree. "The earlier, the better" is an impression I notice
whenever an infant is baptised at my church.

When I have my own children, I will not rush baptism until when they
are at least older than one year old.

Yeah, but that's a unique situation. Jesus was in his presence, like right freakin' there, and told him in person, so it's all cool that he wasn't Baptised. At least, I think that would be the explanation if you asked a Christian.

You think the robber wasn't Jewish? Jews were baptized, and as babies, weren't they? So, you don't have a disproof of this rather extreme interpretation.

I am not saying that your argument isn't valid, but are you trying to say for ALL Christians what the proper historical and literal meaning of their text and religion is???

So in case they die, they won't enter into the infernos of limbo like most babies.

Only when they're old enough to understand do they need to accept Jesus Christ into their hearts and know that if they don't, they burn into the blazing fires of hell for all eternity.