A Biblical Refutation of Infant Baptism
Infant baptism is one of the most widespread traditions in professing Christianity, yet it has no foundation in the Word of God. It is a man-made doctrine, imported from human tradition, not divine revelation. Every argument in its defense collapses when held up to the light of Scripture.
1. Infant Baptism Has No Command in Scripture
The New Testament contains no direct command to baptize infants. Every biblical instruction regarding baptism assumes personal repentance and faith. Jesus commissioned His disciples:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20).The order is clear:
Make disciples (through the preaching of the gospel).
Baptize those disciples.
Teach them.
Baptism is always presented as a believer's act of obedience after hearing and believing the gospel. No infant can be made a disciple, nor taught to obey Christ’s commands before baptism.
2. Every Example in Acts Shows Believer’s Baptism
The book of Acts records multiple baptisms, and every case follows repentance and faith:
Acts 2:41 – "Those who accepted his message were baptized."
Acts 8:12 – "But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news... they were baptized."
Acts 18:8 – "Many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized."
Not one example shows an infant being baptized. This silence is deafening, especially given that Acts is the historical record of the church's earliest practices.
3. The Appeal to “Household Baptisms” Fails
Proponents often point to household baptisms (Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). But in every case, the context shows that those in the household believed:
Acts 16:32-34 – "They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house... he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household."
The text specifies that all heard the Word and believed. Scripture never says that unbelieving infants were baptized.
4. Baptism Is Always Linked to Repentance and Faith
Peter declares: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).
Repentance is a change of heart and mind that results in turning to God. Faith is trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Neither is possible for an infant who lacks moral awareness or the ability to believe. Without repentance and faith, baptism becomes an empty ritual.
5. Circumcision Is Not a Valid Parallel
Some claim that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant, and therefore infants of believers should be baptized. This argument is flawed for several reasons:
Circumcision was a national sign given only to male descendants of Abraham, not to all nations. Baptism is for disciples from every nation.
Circumcision did not require personal faith; baptism does (Colossians 2:11-12 links the two only to show that both symbolize putting off the sinful nature--but the text explicitly ties baptism to faith: "having been buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through your faith").
The New Covenant is entered only through the new birth, not physical descent (John 3:3-5).
6. Baptism Does Not Regenerate or Wash Away Original Sin
The notion that infant baptism regenerates or removes original sin is entirely without biblical warrant. The Bible teaches that regeneration is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, granting life to the spiritually dead (John 3:5-8; Titus 3:5). No outward rite can produce this inward transformation. Water baptism is an outward testimony of an inward reality--it cannot create the reality.
7. Infant Baptism Produces False Assurance
By teaching that baptism makes a child a Christian, or puts the child into "the Covenant" this practice deceives multitudes into thinking they are saved when they have never personally trusted in Christ. Many baptized as infants live their lives in open rebellion to God yet rest on a false foundation laid by a man-made tradition. Scripture warns against such deception (Matthew 7:21-23).
8. The Early Church Did Not Practice Infant Baptism
The New Testament era knew nothing of infant baptism. The earliest clear historical records of its practice appear over a century later, influenced by a growing sacramentalism and the erroneous belief in baptismal regeneration. When the church began to drift from apostolic teaching, human tradition began to replace divine command.
9. Conclusion: Return to Biblical Baptism
Baptism is an ordinance given by the Lord to His people--those who have repented and believed the gospel. Anything else is disobedience, no matter how ancient or widespread the tradition. Infant baptism is neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture. It is a human invention, and as such, it must be rejected.
True baptism is the joyful, public confession of a sinner saved by grace, buried with Christ in His death, and raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). Let us honor the Lord’s command, not the traditions of men.
Refuting the Common Arguments for Infant Baptism
Argument 1: “Household baptisms prove infants were included.”
Answer:
This assumes what it must prove. The texts themselves indicate that those in the household believed.
Acts 16:32-34 – "They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house... he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household."
Acts 18:8 – "Crispus... and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized."
Problem: No Biblical text says an unbelieving infant was baptized. Every recorded baptism in the New Testament follows faith.
Argument 2: “Baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign, so it should be applied to infants.”
Answer:
Circumcision was a physical sign of membership in the national covenant with Israel. Baptism is a sign of personal union with Christ.
Colossians 2:11-12 mentions circumcision and baptism in the same context, but it explicitly connects baptism to faith: "having been buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through your faith in the power of God."
The New Covenant is entered only through the new birth (John 3:3-5), not physical descent.
Problem: To baptize infants on the basis of circumcision, confuses two entirely different covenants and conditions of membership.
Argument 3: “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me’ (Mark 10:14), so we should baptize them.”
Answer:
Jesus welcomed children, but He did not baptize them. The text is about receiving them with kindness and blessing them, not applying the ordinance of baptism.
The same Jesus commanded baptism only for disciples who have been taught (Matthew 28:19-20).
Problem: Using this passage to justify infant baptism adds to Scripture something the Lord never commanded.
Argument 4: “The early church fathers practiced infant baptism.”
Answer:
The earliest explicit references to infant baptism appear well after the apostolic era, over a century later, and were tied to the rise of the false teaching of baptismal regeneration. The practice spread as the church drifted from biblical truth into sacramentalism.
The only inspired record of church practice is found in the New Testament, where infant baptism is entirely absent.
Problem: Church history after the apostles is not our authority--Scripture alone is (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Argument 5: “Baptism washes away original sin, so infants must be baptized.”
Answer:
The Bible teaches that only the blood of Christ and the regenerating work of the Spirit cleanse from sin.
Titus 3:5 – "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."
1 Peter 3:21 – Baptism saves “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”
Problem: An infant cannot make a pledge of a good conscience toward God, nor can water remove sin. Regeneration is God’s sovereign act, not the result of a ritual.
Argument 6: “If believers’ children are holy (1 Corinthians 7:14), then they should be baptized.”
Answer:
Paul is not speaking of baptism at all, but of the legitimacy of children in a mixed-believer marriage. “Holy” here means “set apart”, not “saved” or “regenerate.”Problem: If this verse taught infant baptism, Paul missed the perfect opportunity to command it--yet he did not mention baptism.
Argument 7: “It is the historic practice of the church.”
Answer:
Many unbiblical practices are historic--the Pope as the head of the church, prayers to Mary, indulgences, and image worship--but they are still wrong.
Jesus rebuked those who elevated tradition above God’s Word: "You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition" (Matthew 15:6).
Problem: Tradition cannot add to or override the commands of Christ.
Argument 8: “Baptizing infants is safer--it ensures they are under God’s grace.”
Answer:
No outward act can secure God’s grace. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).Problem: This makes baptism into a superstitious safeguard, undermining the sufficiency of God’s sovereign grace.
Summary Conclusion
Every pro-infant baptism argument either misuses Scripture, reads into the text what is not there, confuses covenants, or replaces God’s command with human tradition. The New Testament pattern is consistent:
Hear the gospel.
Repent and believe.
Be baptized.
Infant baptism reverses this order and empties baptism of its God-ordained meaning.
(The above article was AI generated.)