Can infants be baptized? Is baptism just a symbol, or is it something more? These two questions about infant baptism and baptismal regeneration are closely related because infant baptism depends upon baptismal regeneration, and baptismal regeneration implies infant baptism.

Many Protestants reject the notion that baptism cleanses us of sin and gives us graces because of their view of salvation and justification. They believe that once you accept Jesus, all your sins are forgiven and you don't need baptism to forgive your sins.

Protestants will quote passages that say Jesus saves us (such as Luke 2:30, Acts 4:12, Romans 1:16, etc), Jesus' blood cleanses us from sin (such as Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, 1 John 1:7, etc), and that salvation comes by faith (such as Romans 4:4-5, 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9, etc) to try and prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation; however, they set up a false dichotomy. Yes, Jesus DOES save us. Yes, Jesus' blood DOES cleanse us from sin. Yes, salvation DOES come by faith. These are all compatible with baptismal regeneration. God just uses baptism as a means of conveying graces and mercy upon us. Baptism does not cleanse us from sin by itself; its effectiveness comes from God. While faith does save us, it is not the only thing that saves us; we also need works (Matthew 9:16-17, 25:31-46; James 2:14-26, etc) and baptism (I will give verses later).

Protestants also like to quote passages where people are "saved" without being baptized, such as Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, and Luke 17:19. However, in these verses, Jesus specifically tells the people that their sins are forgiven or they are saved. These cases are exceptions rather than the rule; Jesus doesn't go around today telling us that our sins are forgiven. Also, these cases came BEFORE the great commission to baptize (matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16).

Two more verses that Protestants like to quote are 1 Corinthians 1:14 and 1:17. Here is the text of these verses:

"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius" - 1 Corinthians 1:14

"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power." - 1 Corinthians 1:17

Protestants use these verses to try and "prove" that we don't need to be baptized. This is a forced interpretation. Paul never said that baptism was unnecessary; he just didn't baptize. He let other people do the baptizing. The reason why he thanks God that he didn't baptize anybody except Crispus and Gaius is so people couldn't say they were baptized in Paul's name.

So, what does the bible teach about the saving effects of baptism? Let's take a look.

"The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:16

"Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" - Acts 2:38

"And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name." - Acts 22:16

"He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit." - Titus 3:5

"When God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you - not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," - 1 Peter 3:20-21

Notice the language used in these verses: "so that your sins may be forgiven," "and have your sins washed away," "and baptism�now saves you." Notice how Jesus said that we must believe AND be baptized. Notice that Paul said we are saved "through the water of rebirth;" this is very important for interpreting the next verse I will give.

"Jesus answered, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.'" - John 3:5

This verse is crucial to the defense of baptismal regeneration. If the water refers to baptism, then baptismal regeneration is true; if not, then it's not true. Catholics believe that Jesus WAS referring to baptism, but Protestants say the water is either the amniotic fluid in the mother's womb or a symbol for the Holy Spirit. Advocates of the symbolic interpretation usually quote Titus 3:5 in support, but that verse can also be used to support baptismal regeneration (as I use it). So, how should this verse be interpreted?

The first way to interpret this verse is to look to the Church Fathers, men who were much closer to the apostles (in terms of time) than we are, some of which were even followers of the apostles themselves! I will quote from only three fathers, Justin Martyr (2nd century), Irenaeus (2nd century), and Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century)

Justin Martyr

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

"'And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, 'Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God'" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

For more quotes, check out the section from Catholic Answers.

The second way to interpret this verse is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. First, as I have shown, numerous other New Testament passages teach baptismal regeneration, so it's logical that John 3:5 would also.

Secondly, we can look to the Old Testament for clarification. Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin who would've known the Old Testament, so maybe there are some Old Testament references to baptism.

"I will sanctify my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD, says the Lord GOD, when through you I display my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleannesses, and I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you." - Ezekiel 36:23-29

Here, Ezekiel prophecies about God sprinkling water on His people to cleanse them and giving them His Spirit. Notice that the sprinkling with water is connected with the giving of the Spirit.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - Matthew 28:19

"As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, 'Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?' He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him." - Acts 8:36, 38

To end the discussion of baptismal regeneration, I would like to point out these two passages, both of which deal with baptism. In the first one, Jesus commands His apostles to go out and baptize, which has a parallel in Mark 16:15-16 (I quoted Mark 16:16 earlier). In the second one, The Ethiopian eunuch that Philip meets and explains Scripture to sees water and immediately wants to be baptized. Now, I want to ask all who believe that baptism is merely a symbol a question. If baptism is merely a symbol, then what's the point? Why did Jesus COMMAND His apostles to baptize? Why did the Ethiopian eunuch stop the chariot so he could be baptized right away?

Does the bible say that we can baptize infants? No. Does the bible say that we can't baptize infants? No. Given the lack of biblical teaching, we must interpret what little evidence there IS and come to the most reasonable conclusion. As I said in the introduction, baptismal regeneration implies infant baptism, and, as I have shown, the bible teaches baptismal regeneration, so infant baptism is probably true.

Protestants opposed to infant baptism say that baptism is reserved only for Christians who have accepted Jesus and are born-again, and infants can't be born-again. They often quote passages such as Acts 2:38 where the apostles preach that we must repent and be baptized, trying to prove that baptism comes AFTER we believe, repent, and accept Jesus. However, the problem with this kind of interpretation is simple. In the passages that Protestants quote, the apostles are preaching to those who have already reached the age of reason, and those people HAVE to accept Jesus before they're baptized. The early Church was made up of mostly converts, so of course most people had to believe before baptism. However, they say, the bible doesn't speak of infants being baptized, but this is where they're wrong.

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." - Colossians 2:11-12 (RSV)

Here, Paul makes a comparison between circumcision, which was given to boys eight days after birth as a sign of the Covenant, and baptism. What follows logically from this comparison is since infants were circumcised, they should also be baptized.

"When she and her household were baptized�" - Acts 16:15

"At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay." - Acts 16:33

"I did baptize the household of Stephanas" - 1 Corinthians 1:16

Whole households were baptized, and households include children and possibly infants. If these households had infants, then it is logical to conclude that they were baptized also. However, while we don't know for sure if they had any infants, people had more children back then, so it is a reasonable inference that the infants were also baptized.