The Case for Infant Baptism

[@reformedcatholic457]

74. Q.
Should infants, too, be baptized?
A.
Yes.
Infants as well as adults
belong to God's covenant and congregation. 1
Through Christ's blood
the redemption from sin
and the Holy Spirit, who works faith,
are promised to them
no less than to adults. 2
Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant,
they must be incorporated into the Christian church
and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. 3
This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, 4
in place of which baptism was instituted
in the new covenant. 5
1.Gen 17:7; Mt 19:14.
2.Ps 22:10; Is 44:1-3; Acts 2:38, 39; 16:31.
3.Acts 10:47; 1 Cor 7:14.
4.Gen 17:9-14.
5.Col 2:11-13.
www.heidelberg-catechism.com/en/lords-days/27.html

[@arthur6157]

[Mark 10:15 NKJV] "[15] "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.""
[Luke 18:17 NKJV] "[17] "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.""
[Matthew 18:6 NKJV] "[6] "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
[Mark 9:42 NKJV] "[42] "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea."

[@me73941]

John Macarthur gave a very good sermon on this topic entitled Is Infant Baptism Biblical?, where he deals with every single passage of Scripture claiming to support infant baptism and rightly concludes that infant baptism is not Biblical. Only believer's baptism is Biblical. In that sermon, he further addresses how strange and unbiblical it was for the Reformers to accept this practice. Infant baptism is built on tradition alone, not the Bible.

[@reformedcatholic457]

In short, Colossians 2:11-13 is what changed my mind, baptism replaces and is the new circumcision.

[@seanirishterrier6588]

@@reformedcatholic457 that’s legalism, all infants are accepted into the kingdom as stated in all the Gospels.

[@reformedcatholic457]

@@seanirishterrier6588 Yes, indicating they enter into the covenant through baptism, as male infants were circumcised entered into the covenant community, so there is a connection there, definitely not legalism.
What replaces circumcision in the new covenant if not baptism?

[@seanirishterrier6588]

@@reformedcatholic457 if you following the Jewish line then baptism at the age of 13, where they should be able to make a conscious decision/believers baptism. Jesus said let all the little ones come into me (paraphrase), therefore infant (under 13) baptism not required. Each denomination has its own rules but infant baptism came into play by the RC church, followed by confirmation, this was then followed by the Anglicans

[@reformedcatholic457]

@@seanirishterrier6588 "but infant baptism came into play by the RC church"
You've made the claim, now provide evidence that infant baptism came into play by RC church.
What replace circumcision in the new covenant?

[@davidfaumuina9866]

There's no case for infant baptism in the Bible.

[@davidfaumuina9866]

Also baptism and circumcision were only to the Jews and are completely different.

[@pbarc552]

@@davidfaumuina9866 The Eunuch who was baptised as an adult was neither a Jew nor circumsized was he?

[@jamessheffield4173]

Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.