Arguments Against Infant Baptism

An individual’s baptism is an extremely important milestone in the Christian faith. Not only is it the first sacrament to receive, but it is the official welcoming into the church. Most members of the Christian faith can agree that baptism is a crucial sacrament for initiation. However, there has been controversy on the appropriate age of baptism. Infant baptism has been in question since the beginning of the Reformed Tradition . Some members argue that baptism should take place as an infant while others believe that baptism should not occur until the individual reaches the age of reason. Both parties have very compelling arguments, however both have flaws in their opinions as well. After learning the history and carefully researching infant baptism, I have come to the decision that I will not baptize my children when they are infants. Before reading scriptures and understanding the logic behind each argument, I had every intention of baptizing my future children during their infancy. My stance in this paper does not change my decision on whether or not I will baptize my children. The …show more content…
Penance includes adultery (fortification), murder, and apostasy. Tertullian was one historical figure that used penance to help his argument against infant baptism. He was one of the first theologians that saw the church introduce infant baptism. He believes that penance would take years. Tertullian is worried that we are putting too much responsibility on infants. “His concern here, undoubtedly, is to spare both children and their sponsors from any eventual need to undertake what was a rather harsh penitential discipline.” He suggests that infants do not need penance be¬cause they are already living holy life, and do not have the mental capacity to commit such horrible sins. Infants have not and are not at risk of committing adultery, murder, and