Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Josiah]

Correct, but the one's we do know about are all baptism after faith is expressed.

SOME of the baptisms that happen to be recorded (and it ain't many) do indicate that. But not all.

But ALL of the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Bible indicate that they were done in the Middle East or very southeastern Europe... all were done by Hebrew males. So if the rubric is we must do as illustrated in the Bible, then we can't baptize in North America, can't baptize Black or Oriental persons, and no Gentles or females may perform such. You get my point.

What is so wrong with Baptizing new converts and teaching our children the Gospel and praying for our Children that God will give them the gift of faith and bring them to a Spiritual birth?

Nothing! I'm not on the side that is dogmatically mandating any limitations or mandates not mentioned in the Bible (or Tradition or for 1500 years).


But where is the mandate, "Thou canst NOT baptize any until he hath celebrated his we-can't-tell-you-which birthday?" Where is the mandate, "Thou canst not baptize any until he hath convincably recited the Sinner's Prayer and given adequate public proof of his faith?" That's what I'm missing. And what about the Great Commandment to love? Is that limited to examples found in the Bible so that it doesn't apply to Blacks or Orientals or Native Americans because none of those are illustrated as being loved? Where is such a limitation and prohibition mentioned? You get my point.


And if people in earliest Christianity understood this prohibition (it just didn't get into the Bible) then why was St Ignatius (a disciple of St. John) baptized as a baby - and he affirms this act?

Gender, race, age are not the determining factor. Belief/faith/conversion is the determining factor.

1. There goes the Anabaptist dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism......

2 Well, how can it be determined with certainty that one does not have faith? Can little ones believe in Jesus? Jesus himself says so. And of course John the Baptist believed even before he was born. Why forbid a gift when we cannot be know if faith is present?

3;. Where does Scripture say "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath recited the sinner's prayer and given adequate proof of their faith in Christ?" In exactly the same place where it says "Thou canst not baptize any until they hath celebrated their we-won't-tell-you-which birthday" and "Thou cans't not baptize any Blacks or Orientals because there are no examples of either recorded in the Bible." Nowhere.
And where do we find this mandate/prohibition in the early church (or for 1500 years, for that matter)? Can we find Church Fathers who stated, "It is forbidden to baptize any before they hath recited the sinner's prayer, responded tp an altar call and adequately proven their faith in Christ?"

I personally believe that all the members of the households mentioned in the New Testament were old enough to believe and be baptized.

Of course, as you have noted, we cannot know this;.

I personally believe all the members of those households were Caucasians. Does that mean only Caucasians can be baptized?

Can infants become believers?

Jesus says so. John the Baptist was.

At what age does it cease to be impossible for God to give the "free gift of faith?" At what age can a person start to trust and rely?

Maybe their was a 10 year old boy and an 8 year old girl in the household and they came to believe and were baptized. That is certainly possible. We don't know their ages, but we do know they had the capacity to believe.

How do you know that? Quote the verse.

NO ONE - at any age - has the capacity to believe. NO ONE can even say Jesus is Lord UNLESS the Holy Spirit so empowers. NO ONE. That's what the Bible says. NOT "everyone over the age of we-won't-tell-you and over the IQ of we-won't-tell-you can believe."





.

 

[Lanman87]

When you think about how they were community driven, you wouldn't have that mindset about waiting because they would be teaching their children from birth about the Savior. They would want their children included and Acts 2 gives them that promise that it's for their children. Not as adults but as children.

I agree. But you still can't give your child faith, no matter how much you would love to. Teaching comes from the parents and community. Faith comes from God. Baptizing them doesn't give them faith any more than reading them scripture gives them faith or singing worship songs with them gives them faith or taking them to church gives them faith. All of those things expose us to the gospel, both children and adults, but only God makes the gospel alive in someone.

And FYI-most "Baptist" church members were baptized as children. Children who have heard the word taught and preached by parents and clergy and teachers and strongly indicated that they have come to faith in Christ. I've seen children as young as 4 years old Baptized. It is very rare but I have seen it happen. Most are baptized between six to fourteen years old. Credo-Baptist kids are taught early and often that they are sinners who need a savior and that savior is Jesus. When the kid makes a move toward faith by indicating that the asked God to forgive them, want to be baptized, show true sorrow for their sin or any other things then they are counseled by parents/clergy and a decision is made to about baptism.

Most adults who are baptized in a baptist church come to faith as adults.

 

[Lanman87]

But ALL of the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Bible indicate that they were done in the Middle East or very southeastern Europe... all were done by Hebrew males. So if the rubric is we must do as illustrated in the Bible, then we can't baptize in North America, can't baptize Black or Oriental persons, and no Gentles or females may perform such. You get my point.

Now your just being silly. You know, the whole make disciples of all nations to the ends of the earth thing.

How do you know that? Quote the verse.

I already have.

Acts 16:34 and Acts 18:8 both say entire households "believed"

34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and was overjoyed, since he had become a believer in God together with his whole household.

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household; and many of the Corinthians, as they listened to Paul, were believing and being baptized.

At what age can a person start to trust and rely?

At whatever age God calls them. Being baptized and being called aren't the same thing. All baptism without faith does it get you wet.

Jesus says so. John the Baptist was.

Was John the Baptist baptized as an infant? Does the Holy Spirit enter every baby in the womb? No, John the Baptist was a special calling for a special purpose that is not given to us all.

NO ONE - at any age - has the capacity to believe. NO ONE can even say Jesus is Lord UNLESS the Holy Spirit so empowers. NO ONE. That's what the Bible says. NOT "everyone over the age of we-won't-tell-you and over the IQ of we-won't-tell-you can believe."

Then how do you know the Holy Spirit has or will empower baptized infants to believe?

Can we find Church Fathers who stated, "It is forbidden to baptize any before they hath recited the sinner's prayer, responded tp an altar call and adequately proven their faith in Christ?"

No, but we find plenty that say you must become a catechumen and spend up to three years memorizing scripture and creeds before you can be baptized. Which is professing and proving their faith.

NO ONE - at any age - has the capacity to believe.

I believe that is oversimplifying monergism. God somehow, works through the preaching of His word.

17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. Romans 10:17

Faith doesn't come by baptism it come by hearing the word of Christ (the Gospel).

 

[Albion]

There is nothing to disagree with. Just like today, the Gospel was being preached and people coming to faith. When people came to faith they eventually were baptized.

In other words, the claim made by supporters of "Believer's Baptism" is negated. The fact that an adult is shown in Scripture as being baptized does not mean that children were excluded from the sacrament.

It only means that the person being referred to, as an example of the many who were baptized in the early years of the church, happened to be an adult.

What's more, the Bible also says that the whole household was baptized, so that has to mean that people other than that individual were baptized as well.

This included greats like Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine who were all baptized as converts despite having pious mothers (who you would think would have them baptized as babies). In Confessions Augustine even tells of him begging for baptism on a sickbed but that it was postponed when he got better.

Well, let's get at least this much straight before going further--

Are you now saying that baptizing children is impermissible BECAUSE of a tradition that may have been a norm in the early church? If so, please know that we on this side (no age requirement imposed) base our conclusion on the word of God instead.

You also need to know that, in the early church, it was supposed that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. As a result, it was common for people who had already become believers to postpone their baptisms until they were near death...for obvious reasons. Presumably, therefore also, parents who held to that view would expect their own children to wait until old age before having themselves baptized.

Thus, if you think that the experience of such famous Christians as the ones you mentioned decides the issue for you, it also should decide the issue for every adult who is not sick or elderly!! Strangely enough, no one does that today--not even Baptists, Pentecostalites, Non-denominational Christians and all others who disdain infant baptism. Wait until the child is 9 or 10 or 13 and he is baptized in those churches even though such people are not seriously in danger of imminent death.

 

[Lanman87]

You also need to know that, in the early church, it was supposed that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. As a result, it was common for people who had already become believers to postpone their baptisms until they were near death...for obvious reasons. Presumably, therefore also, parents who held to that view would expect their own children to wait until old age before having themselves baptized.

I know those facts.(I actually said it is an earlier post) Which is one reason you can't just say "the early church did this or that". There was a wide variety of beliefs and practices in the early church that we either do not do today (like making people be baptized naked) or the erroneous belief that sin couldn't be forgiven after baptism.

Are you now saying that baptizing children is impermissible BECAUSE of a tradition that may have been a norm in the early church?

I think it is perfectly fine to baptize young children who have professed faith in Christ.

That still begs the question of, if infant baptism was the normative practice of the church (which I've seen people argue), why were Augustine and the others not baptized by their pious mothers as infants?

I believe it is because it wasn't the normative practice until later. Basically, Augustine's doctrine of original sin and his huge influence caused infant baptism to become the norm. Infant baptism became a way for parents to protect their child from going to hell due to original sin because of the belief that baptism washes away original sin.

Until that point you had several different "traditions". Some baptized infants, others waited until a child was three, others were to leave to each individual as to when they were baptized (like Augustine), and some refused to baptized until they were old and about to die. The normative (and IMO-most Biblical) way was to tell people about Jesus, wait until someone professed faith, make them a catechumen and baptize them after the catechumen period had ended. I don't think the catechumen period needs to be three years. But I do think people need a proper understanding of the faith they have professed.

Credo-Baptism is simply following the Biblical example of preaching and baptizing those that come to faith. Be they 5 year old girls or 99 year old men.

The argument of "entire households" must have included infants goes beyond the teaching of the text. It is, at best, speculation and assumption. Keep in mind, it also says entire household "Believed" or where "converted". Did those households also include infants?

When a parent comes to faith that doesn't mean their child will come to faith. Each person has to believe and have their own faith. A Dad can come to faith and get baptized and baptize his entire family. But that doesn't mean his entire family has come to faith. God works in each of our hearts individually. And each member of the family has to come to their own faith in order to be saved.

 

[Lanman87]

Wait until the child is 9 or 10 or 13 and he is baptized in those churches even though such people are not seriously in danger of imminent death.

I was raised Southern Baptist and we did not wait for any particular age. Any credible profession of faith at any age was a candidate for baptism. Now sometimes a parent would cause the child to wait but that was a parental decision, not a decision of the pastor or a rule of the church. . I've seen children as young as 4 baptized. And both of my sons were baptized at 6 years old. (or maybe it was 5, it was a long time ago).

 

[Lamb]

Not baptism but 'infant baptism' is rooted in fear (IMO). Not all baptised babies grow up believers, Hitler was baptized and we can both figure that he likely did not have the Holy Ghost indwelling.

Not all adults who once believed continue to believe when they die either. So what? People fall away from faith as scriptures state. That doesn't mean God did baptism wrong.

 

[Lamb]

I agree. But you still can't give your child faith, no matter how much you would love to.

But God's Word can give faith.

God's Word is in the waters of baptism. So I can't give my child faith, but God's Word that is in baptism can.

God promised that baptism is for children so I'll trust Him on that.

 

[Lanman87]

God promised that baptism is for children so I'll trust Him on that

God promised salvation is for Children and adults and people everywhere. If a child is saved then they should be baptized. Otherwise they should wait until they come to faith.

There is a difference between baptizing children who come to faith, which I'm all for. And baptizing infants who haven't come to faith.

 

[Josiah]

Now your just being silly. You know, the whole make disciples of all nations to the ends of the earth thing.

IMO, the unacceptable thing is to INSERT into the text, "But do NOT baptize or teach any until they hath celebrated their we-won't-tell you" birthday AND hath convincingly recited the sinner's prayer and publicly proclaimed their faith in Jesus." No text says that. It just gives the call... without those mandates and prohibitions. Just as with most calls (say the call to love).

Was John the Baptist baptized as an infant?

John the Baptist did not perform Christian baptisms, his was the Jewish "Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." But the Jewish baptism of the covenant DID involved whole families. But neither is relevant; our Baptism is not a Jewish one - anymore than the Eucharist is just the Jewish passover.

John the Baptist was a special calling for a special purpose that is not given to us all.

Nowhere do I see that John the Baptist did not have faith.... or any verse that suggests that the Holy Spirit is rendered impotent to give faith until one attains the age of who-knows-what. The point I made was that babies CAN be given faith. Jesus Himself speaks of "these little ones who believe in me." Babies who did not come to Him on their own but were brought to Him.

Then how do you know the Holy Spirit has or will empower baptized infants to believe?

You don't. Just as you don't know that when you teach children the Gospel. So since you don't KNOW that faith will result, is it forbidden to teach children? Is it forbidden for parents to BRING their children to Jesus or must they hinder or even disallow that?





.

 

[Josiah]

There is actually no evidence that the early churches ever practiced infant baptism.

Andrew -


Irenaeus states that he was baptized shortly after birth and was born in A.D 140.
Origen wrote he too was baptized as an infant and was born in AD 184.


Hippolytus:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given also to infants. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).


“The Church received from the apostles the giving of baptism also to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does an infant approaches more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5 A.D. 253).


Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal of baptism because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly I respond. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28). A.D. 388


John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors it bestows! For this reason we baptize also infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).


Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for infants, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39
[A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that an infant is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses also into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Carthage V

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt the abandoned children were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the North African legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).


Council of Mileum II

“Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle Paul says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the catholic church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith also infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).



Notably, there is not one in the Early Church who stated that it is forbidden to baptize infants.. or any who had not first proclaimed their faith in Christ. That opinion first arose in the 16th Century.



A blessed Advent to you and yours.





.

.

 

[Lanman87]

IMO, the unacceptable thing is to INSERT into the text, "But do NOT baptize or teach any until they hath celebrated their we-won't-tell you" birthday AND hath convincingly recited the sinner's prayer and publicly proclaimed their faith in Jesus." No text says that. It just gives the call... without those mandates and prohibitions. Just as with most calls (say the call to love).

You don't. Just as you don't know that when you teach children the Gospel. So since you don't KNOW that faith will result, is it forbidden to teach children? Is it forbidden for parents to BRING their children to Jesus or must they hinder or even disallow that?

No, we teach our children and do so hopefully and expectantly, that God will work in their heart and bring them to faith. However, we don't baptize them until God works in their heart to bring them to a new life in faith. Which is the Biblical model.

You can say that baptizing infants is well and good. You can say that some folks in the early church were baptized as babies and that is true.

What you can't say is that we are instructed to baptize babies or given an example of babies being baptized in the New Testament. (without going beyond the text and assuming the few places where "households" were baptized included infants)

Infant baptism is part of tradition. Just because something is part of tradition doesn't mean it is apostolic teaching and practice. The RCC calls all kinds of things apostolic that are actually traditions that came later.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think there is anything wrong with baptizing babies but I also don't think it does anything other than make the parents feel good and serves and encouragement to both the Parents and the church to teach the Gospel to the children.. I know a bunch of Presbyterians and they are great Christian people. If I moved to a new town one of the first churches I would visit and consider attended would be a PCA church, because I have such a high regard for the PCA organization.

The important thing for all of us is not if we were baptized as a baby, as a 10 year old, or as an adult. The important thing for all of us is that we have a living faith in Christ that came by God doing a work in our heart and giving us new life in Christ and making us a new creation.

 

[Josiah]

You can say that baptizing infants is well and good. You can say that some folks in the early church were baptized as babies and that is true.

What you can't say is that we are instructed to baptize babies or given an example of babies being baptized in the New Testament.

IMO, what we cannot say is that we are instructed to forbid baptism to those under the age of we-cannot-tell-you or until they have adequately recited the sinner's prayer and convincibly proclaimed their faith in Christ.

Infant baptism is part of tradition.

And what is not is prohibiting baptism to those under the age of we-can't-tell you" and/or until they hath correctly recited the sinner's prayer and given a convincing proclaimation of their faith in Christ.

Just because something is part of tradition doesn't mean it is apostolic teaching and practice.

...and because it was not known until the 16th Century does not make it apostolic teaching and practice.

We have a disciple of St. John baptized when he was an infant. What we do not have before the 16th Century is anyone insistent that no one is to be baptized before they hath attained their we-cannot-tell-you-which birthday and before they hath accurately recited the sinner's prayer and convincingly proclaimed their faith in Christ.

Don't get me wrong.

My wife's family are all Orthodox Presbyterian - a TINY denomination of very conservative Reformed/Calvinist Christians. They PASSIONATELY support infant baptism - but a bit unclear as to whether it - by itself accomplishes anything. They point more to the heart of the family and community and church than to the baby. Okay. I don't completely agree but I "get it" - they have a (correct) very community/communal view of things. I have much bigger "issues" with those who insist that the Bible forbids baptism to those under the age of we-cannot-tell-you" and it's forbidden unless the recipient FIRST accurately recited the sinner's prayer and proves their faith in Christ."





.

 

[Albion]

I think it is perfectly fine to baptize young children who have professed faith in Christ.

Swell, but that's not what we've been debating.

That still begs the question of, if infant baptism was the normative practice of the church (which I've seen people argue), why were Augustine and the others not baptized by their pious mothers as infants?

I've explained this.

For one, the belief that sins after baptism cannot be forgiven is the probable explanation for these men not being baptized until later in life.

For another, you keep referring to the "norm," but the norm doesn't prove anything, not when the issue is whether the practice (paedobaptism) is doctrinally correct or not.

 

[Albion]

I was raised Southern Baptist and we did not wait for any particular age.

I am aware of churches which baptize 9 and 10 year olds in the belief that they are old enough to make a commitment or to have had a "conversion experience" as is expected of an ordinary adult. You have advised me that you've witnessed 4 year olds being baptized...and these are supposed to be congregations that are firm proponents of "Believer's Baptism" (and strident critics of infant baptism, I assume). How can that even begin to make sense?

 

[Lanman87]

How can that even begin to make sense?

My son came to faith when he was three years old. He was sitting in a sandbox and my wife was talking to him about Jesus. He flat out told my wife that he believed in Jesus and wanted to ask God to forgive him. My wife was amazed and prayed with him. Later we took him to our children's pastor at church who had a long conversation with my son. Ask him what sin is, what forgiveness is and so forth. Obviously my son didn't give deep theological answers but nevertheless understand sin and forgiveness and that he was a sinner and needed forgiveness. The children's pastor came to us and told us that he believed my son had been "saved".

A couple of years later my son came to us and told us the he wanted to be baptized. We took him to the (different) Pastor and the pastor asked him if he had trusted Jesus. My son's answer was that he did in a sandbox when he was three. My son is now 24 years old. If you ask him when he came to faith in Christ he will tell you that he was sitting in a sandbox with his mother when he was three years old and insist that he remembers everything about it.

Children, even very young children can have faith. The word of God can work in ways we could never imagine.

 

[Lanman87]

..and because it was not known until the 16th Century does not make it apostolic teaching and practice.

As I said earlier. The church in the 2nd Century to the 4th Century used a catchehuman system. Which, while different that Credo-baptism has many things in common. A profession of faith, a time of teaching/learning, baptism.

I believe infant baptism was a late 2nd century development (Tertullian, early in the 3rd Century spoke out against it) and became a more prominent practice in the 3rd century and transitioned to the universal practice of the church by the 5th century.

One reason I believe this is that many of the 4th Century fathers still went through the catchehuman system despite having a Christian parent(s) including Ambrose of Milan (who didn't get baptized until just before he was made Bishop), Augustine, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nanzianzen (who was baptized by his father, a bishop, at the age of 33 after dedicating his life to God years earlier while on a storm in a ship), and John Chrysostom. Chrysostom's mother was a widow who taught him about Jesus, and yet she did not have him baptized as an infant. Instead, he was baptized after coming to faith under the teaching of Bishop Miletus as an adult. If that many theological heavyweights with strong Christian upbringings were not baptized as babies but after a "conversion" experience then it tells us a lot about the attitude toward baptism at the time.

As I said in an earlier post. It was the teaching of original sin that made infant baptism become the dominate practice, eventually squeezing out the catchehumen system among Christian families. Catchehuman's became rare as most everyone was baptized as an infant. Baptism became how you protect your child from going to hell because of original sin. Priest and Bishops started to demand infant baptism instead of giving it is an option for those babies that were born sickly. So infant baptism became the universal practice in the late 4th/early 5th Century and remained so until after the reformation.

After the reformation, as religious tolerance became more widespread and more people had access to the Bible different religious groups started to question more teachings of Rome. Each generation of Christians from the reformation onward had groups that became less and less "Roman". Rightly or wrongly, infant baptism was seen as an invention of the Roman Church, along with Mariology, prayer to the saints, priestly confession, a separate priesthood, and the sacraments and works as being salvific.


Anyway, that is my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Albion]

My son came to faith when he was three years old.

[/QUOTE]
Not likely.

He was sitting in a sandbox and my wife was talking to him about Jesus. He flat out told my wife that he believed in Jesus and wanted to ask God to forgive him. My wife was amazed and prayed with him. Later we took him to our children's pastor at church who had a long conversation with my son. Ask him what sin is, what forgiveness is and so forth. Obviously my son didn't give deep theological answers but nevertheless understand sin and forgiveness and that he was a sinner and needed forgiveness. The children's pastor came to us and told us that he believed my son had been "saved"

You probably should have been considering a new pastor at that point rather than being swept up in his praise of your child who, I am sure, was bright for his age but still did not have an adult understanding of the Incarnation, the two natures of Christ, Redemption, etc. Substitute Santa Claus--who favors good boys and girls but doesn't give presents to those who've been bad--for Jesus Christ, and you'd be closer to the truth of that matter.

 

[Lanman87]

Not likely.

You probably should have been considering a new pastor at that point rather than being swept up in his praise of your child who, I am sure, was bright for his age but still did not have an adult understanding of the Incarnation, the two natures of Christ, Redemption, etc. Substitute Santa Claus--who favors good boys and girls but doesn't give presents to those who've been bad--for Jesus Christ, and you'd be closer to the truth of that matter.

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But who says someone needs a deep "adult" understanding in order to be saved. Even adults have a hard time understanding theology like the incarnation, trinity, that Jesus if fully God and fully man and so forth. We aren't saved by our understanding we are saved by our faith.

and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:3

 

[Albion]

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

You gave us all the facts, so there isn't much "opinion" to be involved.