(A woman in Miami, Florida asked me to respond to the article on infant baptism at a Lutheran website (Our Redeemer Lutheran Church). Here is my response.)

I went to the Lutheran website and read the article you mention. The author gives a clever, but I believe false, defense of infant baptism. I will reply to his arguments in order.

He says, "The Lutheran Church has always taught that baptism is for everyone, including infants." Oh, what about adults who do not believe and do not want to be baptized? Shall we forcibly baptize them? Are they not a part of "everyone"? I would like to know if the author believes in forced conversion. Of course, such is impossible, since no one can be forced to believe and repent.

He contends Jesus commands infant baptism in Matthew 28:19. According to this passage two things are necessary to make one a disciple: "baptizing them" and "teaching them" (verses 19-20). Does he also contend we can teach infants about Christ?

Of course, this overlooks the parallel passage, Mark 16:16, which does indeed limit who is to be baptized. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Belief must precede baptism. This eliminates infants, the mentally incompetent, and those who are mentally competent but refuse to believe.

Matthew 25:31-32 has one of the same limitations as Matthew 28:19. Those who die in infancy and those who are never mentally competent will not be judged. This is because we will be judged in accordance with our ability (Matthew 25:14-30).

The author implies but does not explicitly claim the cases of household baptism authorize infant baptism. He appears to realize he is on thin ice. The "household" of Cornelius was saved (Acts 11:14), but they were saved by the "words" Peter spoke (Ibid). This is because the gospel Peter preached led them to believe (Acts 15:7). No infants there. The family of the Philippian jailor was baptized (Acts 16:33), but they all believed (verse 34). Paul baptized "the household of Stephanas" (1 Corinthians 1:16), but "they devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints" (1 Corinthians 16:15). No babies. This leaves the household of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), but no one can prove this travelling business woman was married, had children, had infant children, or had taken children with her on her journey. The household baptisms of the New Testament give not a shred of evidence in favor of infant baptism.

Dr. Bucher further asserts, "The Bible teaches that infants are born sinful and are in need of forgiveness." This false doctrine of inherent sin is the heart of the problem. He explains, "The Bible teaches original sin, that the corruption and guilt of Adam's sin is passed on to every human being at conception."

It does no such thing. In fact, it teaches the opposite. The sinful Jews in Babylonian captivity accused God of unjustly punishing them for their fathers' sins. They had a proverb to express this blasphemous accusation: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge" (Ezekiel 18:2). Ezekiel rebuked them, defended the justice of God at length, and concisely stated the principle of divine justice:

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself (Ezekiel 18:20).

The author does misuse passages to defend inherent depravity. He cites Psalm 51:5: "In sin my mother conceived me." If a child were to make the accusation, "in anger my father beat me," would we conclude he had inherited his father's anger? "Flesh" in John 3:5 is simply speaking of the outward body. Jesus "became flesh" (John 1:14). Was He sinful? Romans 5:18 teaches that through Adam's sin condemnation came upon all, but the context states the reason, "because all sinned" (verse 12). There is no biblical support for the unjust doctrine of inherent sin. The apostle Paul taught, "Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature" (1 Corinthians 14:20, New American Standard Bible).

Incredibly, the author asserts, "Babies will not be saved without faith in Jesus." He even claims, "If infants die before they believe in Jesus, they will be eternally condemned." So, a still born child, one that could not be baptized before death, is consigned to an eternal devil's hell, to eternal darkness, to eternal torment in the lake of fire. Shame! That is the very opposite of what the Lord taught concerning infants (Matthew 18:1-4; 19:14).

Dr. Bucher affirms, "St. Paul teaches us that in the New Testament baptism has replaced circumcision," and he cites Colossians 2:14. If baptism has taken the place of circumcision, then it is for males only. Colossians 2:11-12 does teach that in baptism Christ circumcises the believer's heart by cutting away his sins. But this is "through faith" on the part of the one being baptized (verse 12), eliminating infants. Water baptism is administered by human hands, whereas the circumcision of the New Testament is of the heart without hands (Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 2:11-12).

Then, again incredibly, the doctor asserts, "through baptism ... faith is created in the infant's heart." Nonsense. Faith must precede baptism for the baptism to be authorized by Christ (Mark 16:16). Baptism is the result of faith, not it's cause. The preaching of the word of God leads to saving faith (Romans 10:14-17).

The author misuses several passages in a vain attempt to prove that faith is a miraculous gift. Yes God must draw us to Christ (John 6:44; The passage doesn't mention the Holy Spirit), but He draws us by teaching (verse 45). The Spirit teaches us that Jesus is Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3) through the Spirit revealed word (1 Corinthians 2:11-13; 16:22-23). Ephesians 2:1-4 doesn't mention a gift, but the gift of Ephesians 2:8 is salvation, not faith.

Finally, the author cites the church "fathers" in support of infant baptism, but admits Tertullian "disagreed with it." What if I cited Paul in favor of a doctrine, then admitted Peter disagreed with him? Would I not be admitting they were fallible, undependable guides? The fact the so-called "Fathers" disagreed with each other is proof of what we already know, they are fallible, undependable guides. The traditions of uninspired fathers, whether Jewish or Christian, is undependable (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13).

Infant baptism is not authorized by Jesus Christ and is therefore sinful (Colossians 3:17; 2 John 9-11).