Infant Baptism

Should infants be baptized or should baptism be reserved for believers? And what age should that be?

The NT seems to be very clear that the mode of salvation is usually in three steps. Repent. Believe. And be baptized. From this we conclude that baptism is apart of salvation and comes after repentance and belief which cannot be done by an infant.

Where do you see that laid out very clearly?

Well, there's more to it than just believing but that's a whole different can of worms.

War Doctor wrote:Where do you see that laid out very clearly?

Acts 16:30-33, Acts 2:38-39, Mark 16:16 are some good examples. Just do a study on when baptism happens in the NT. Before or after repentance?

Acts 16 "he and all his household were baptized." Not he and all his household, except the infants, were baptized. Point to infant baptism. 

Acts 2 "Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children." Another point to infant baptism 

Mark 16:15 "And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." [Unless they're children, ew don't baptise them] (Countess Translation) I think infants are covered under ever creature.

For someone who does not put much stake in assumptions, this is a surprising view. The scripture does not say there were infants in that household. ASSUMPTION. Maybe there were, not saying that, but this is still assumed.

The promise of salvation is open to all, including any children to come after. This is obviously talking about children who were not even born yet as well. And how is the "promise" baptism?

Under every creature, so are lions and snakes and mosquitoes, if you look at it that way.

Sure, it's an assumption but the Bible doesn't say no infant baptisms and whole household at that time period usually included infants. 

The context includes baptism, if you just look one verse up it's talking about being baptized. But the point is that in the OT children were added to the nation of Israel through circumcision. The equivalent of circumcision in the new covenant is baptism, so I don't see why infants can't be baptized.  

Or we could use common sense and realize it means all mankind, which includes children.

War Doctor, what would you say baptism is for?

The remission of sin, the sealing in of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the joining to of Christ and His Church.

So scripture does not say so either way, and infant baptism did not emerge until what year again? Surely if it was important, it would have been mentioned directly before, and not some assuming allusion from Acts.

Ok. How can a baby appreciate that? They aren't even at an age of accountability. Furthermore, we each have to work out our own salvation. If parents make the decision to do an infant baptism, in the grand scheme it means nothing if they aren't at an age to understand repentance.

@Countess It emerged very early on and since I'm not a believer in Sola Scriptura not everything important needs to be stated directly in Scripture. I mean do you believe in the Trinity? That isn't stated explicitly in Scripture, neither is Christ's nature as fully God and fully Man. Using the criteria that if it was important it would have been mentioned in Scripture is a poor criteria that would leave out a lot of essential Christian doctrine, not to mention that the doctrine of the canon of Scripture itself was decided well after infant baptism was widely accepted and practiced. 

@Bren I would ask then why did God have parents circumcise infants in the OT? I think the reasons I gave for baptism have nothing to do with the age of accountability. But in anycase I agree with you that the baptism by itself does not save and we must do more than just be baptized as an infant, I'm not making that argument. But remission of sin, the sealing in of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the joining to of Christ and His Church can be accomplished as an infant and then strengthened as an adult.

So basically, what you are saying, is that a infant can be accepted into God's Kingdom right away, and there is never a need for them to be "born again" (which IS scriptural) when they are old.

Did I say that? We should continually live a Christian life, I have never said that we should rest on the assurances of our baptism.

And I am saying we can't be born into the Christian Life. We have to make a fully conscience choice and choose it. An infant just "keeps walking" with never choosing it.

I never said one can be born into the Christian life but just as infants in the OT could enter into the old covenant so infants can enter into the new covenant. I agree that you do have to choose to continue in that life though.

I think we need to define what baptism is for; baptism is for the remittance of sin, and salvation of the soul, and the infusion of the Holy Spirit.

St John Chrysostom said this about infant baptism

St John Chrysostom wrote:"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 even 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"

Source: Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388] I can't post the link to the website I got it from.

It's only natural it's not mentioned, Countess. It doesn't mention them because there was nothing to mention. If the babies were excepted, it would be mentioned.

What does "salvation of the soul" mean, Jehoshaphat?

And, what do you mean by "remittance of sin" or "remission of sin" mean?

@Pound Cake So you can prove something by the absence of it? I thought WD just informed me that that was a poor argument. 

@Jehoshaphat So infant baptism is basically a consecration service, more than a "washing of sins away after repentance" thing. So why not baptize people again or for real after repentance like the Apostles did?

No, for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox an infant baptism is not just a consecration service. It is a real baptism that washes away sin and joins the infant to Christ and the Church. 

Nice try with the "like the Apostles did" line

I love the Apostle card. I believe that relying on child baptism is harmful for the body of Christ. People are like. "Oh, child baptism saved me! I just have to give some money to get myself out of purgatory, and I'm good to go." 
I come from a Catholic Islands. Everyone is Catholic except for a small minority, yet the parish has barely anyone at it on Sunday. The evangelicals which are three churches have more usually. So my opinion is that even if it is Biblically sound, we shouldn't do it.

Oh I agree, relying on your baptism, child or adult, is wrong. But just because some do that is no reason to not do it, using that reasoning we shouldn't baptize anyone because I've met people who treat their adult baptism the same way.

I thought it was just established that the infants have no sin to wash away, by John Chrysostom.

Well, I can’t help it if the Apostles happen to agree with me.