Does your church baptise infants?


Everyone knows that the Catholic church baptises infants because we believe it is necessary for salvation therefore needs to be done as soon as possible. Many Christian faiths however do not believe in this practice.

I would like to hear from other christian faiths and their beliefs about baptising infants.




I am currently Anglican, I left a Bible (basically Baptist) Church because I became convinced of Infant Baptism based on Covenant Theology so I ended up in a Presbyterian Church where my first born could be baptized. What ended up convincing me was the the scriptural teaching that God’s people have a covenantal sign applied to them and their children thoughout scripture. It is a mark of ownership and promise by God to families in covenant with Him. In Israel this sign was circumcision. Colossians makes clear than Baptusm replaced circumcision in the New Covenant. Peter told the Jews he was preaching to at Pentecost to believe and be baptised, “this promise is to you and your children…” the Jews would have gotten the reference immediately to God’s promise to Abraham. It would have been unthinkable to these Jews to receive the New Covenant sign and not also pring their children into this covenant through this new sign of baptism.

Further there are several household baptisms in the NT. It never mentions infant specifically but it would be ridiculous to think that all these households (whole households) being baptized did not have some small children in them.

If God were going to exclude children from covenant membership under Christ, Jesus and the Apostles would have been sure to explain this radical change in how God deals with people. As it is there is no reference to the change. If the New Covenant is better and bigger than the old, then it only makes sense that it would expand upon what was previously understood and not take away from it. Kids were included but now that are not? That would be radical.


Excellent post. I do believe that Baptism is the new circumcision. And it compliments the old sign of the covenant perfectly because i the old testament church because circumcision was an outward physical sign and baptism is the cirucumcision of the spirit, an internal sign.


I’ve spent most of my life in the Episcopal Church, with significant time in the Methodist Church and also have regularly attended Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic and Baptist Churches at various times. All but the Baptists, of course, baptised infants.


That it THE thing which seperates FC Methodists from Baptists, our Methodist church believes it right to baptise infants, the Baptists say it is wrong.


No ***other ***differences betwee Free Methodists and Baptists?


I don’t understand why so much emphasis is put on the form and function of baptism by baptists when it is only considered symbolic with no intrinsic value.


Exactly, they sure take something very serious for an empty symbol. They say that on immersion after a confession of faith is a valid baptism. So pouring or sprinkling is invalid and baptizing babies is invalid. My question for Baptists is this: How can a symbol not be valid? Validity cannot undermine symbolism, but it can effect a sacrament. Me thinks they protest too much. :wink:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit