A Biblical Analysis of Infant Baptism 

Thank you for your video. Speaking of Baptism I'm getting Baptized this Sunday.

I have been struggling with this for about a year. I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran church. Then, I, in turn, baptized my children as an act of obedience to what I believed was an act preformed by the Holy Spirit/Christ. I now go to a different church and they want me to get baptized in order to serve. I didn't want to get baptized again just because they tell me to. I wanted to seek word from the Holy Spirit by prayers and supplication. I found a lot of versus about baptism but nothing explicit on the right age or right way to baptized (found Ezekiel 36:25-28 fascinating). God did not give them specifics like he did the building of the ark or the temple. Then I started asking if my church believed that I am not saved if I do not get re-baptized. I believe the Bible explicitly says that you are saved by grace alone, by faith alone. You would get baptized as a sign of what has already occurred in your heart through the Holy Spirit (both credo and pedo baptism supports that this is something done to us.) Then Matthew 3:11 changed everything for me. This was John the Baptist, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." I believe we are baptized with the Holy Spirit and he puts a fire inside of us. The water is only symbolic to what has happed to us, like communion is symbolic. The water does not circumcise our heart, the Holy Spirit does. We do it as remembrance to what happened. As a Lutheran I confirmed my faith at 13 in front of my congregation so they may hold me accountable. I know I am saved, I do not believe I need a second baptism because the Holy Spirit has done his work within me and has not moved me to be baptized another way and if there was a certain way to do so the Lord would has made sure it was in the bible.

For the most part I just really appreciate your videos - even as a Lutheran! Of course, when I saw THIS topic in my feed I was interested in what you had to say. :) I STILL appreciated a some of what you pointed out, but of course, I do believe you missed the major point. You begin by saying that Christians all basically agree with what baptism is. But of course if that were true, we wouldn't be discussing infant baptism. Now, I will agree that I certainly wish the scriptures were a bit more flush on baptism, but as a Lutheran I would just say this (otherwise this would be a book!): The case for infant baptism has its greatest defense in its concept of "what it is". Even according to its name it is a "washing away" of sin. From a Lutheran (historic) perspective, baptism is for adults, yes, after coming to repentance and faith (and that was, of course, mostly the situation of the New Testament converts). But Lutherans see baptism not as a "work" of faith, but more a "participation" in the saving work of God in our lives. It is a gift of God for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38 for example). It is something GOD does, not a human response of faith. It is a means of grace. It is GOSPEL, not Law. It is the gracious act of God's seal upon our lives. As such, yes, infants are to be baptized. Even children need their sins forgiven. They are sealed as God's children as their sins are washed away. And as you mentioned, some people say that even infants and children can have "faith". Even as it might be very different from our mature Christian faith, it remains a Godly faith. Taken by themselves, I do not think there is significant weight to each of the arguments you address concerning "households", "all nations", witness of the early church, etc. However, considering all of them together along WITH the main argument from what baptism actually is, I would contend that infant baptism is most definitely a beautiful sign of God's mercy and love for even the "least" among us. Cheers!

" is it my fault if people go to hell " I know several people who came to Christ without listening to any preaching , God called them directly, which is always the Holy Spirit who works inside a heart, and not a preacher who convince to believe. It happened to me, I saw a film of the Gospel at TV, and I started to love Jesus then. Even if the road was very long to real faith in Him, the seed was in without anybody but God. So, what I mean is God doesn't need us to reach a heart, except if He calls someone to do it .

to answer your question, as long as i find it interesting, i would listen to 4 hour debate. Going to check it out now.

I was baptized as an infant and was always reassured that it “counted” by my pastor and parents. Your video is what pushed me to get baptized as an adult yesterday. I’ve watched most of your content and agree with you 99.9% of the time. So when this video came up that was in conflict with what I believed, I was surprised and intrigued because normally our views are not in conflict. Thank you for your ministry!!

Perfect Pastor. Thanks. I come from a Roman Catholic background and I have absolutely no recollection of my baptism. I was 13... 13 days old. And... This is even more incredible. My parents assure me that I was confirmed, and this would have been by the Archbishop, but I have absolutely NO recollection. The important thing is, by the time I was 15 I was definitely a confirmed sinner. Sought the Lord and He very graciously saved me. Solely by the blood of the Perfect Lamb of God. I will include this paraphrased quote from a Reformer; "Baptism is a positive evil in that it gives the sinner a false assurance of salvation and thereby impedes him or her from seeking the Lord and ultimately being saved." It's a sort of smoke screen. Seen it. Been there.

Mike, great Analysis ! Thank you for this. I am a reformed Baptist, and run around in reformed circles, and this is one of those points we always heatedly debate! Still brothers, but usually ends with no resolution. I support the Credobaptism position.

It always is a strange point to me the desire for someone to remember their baptism, and therefore getting re baptised if they were as a baby. If baptism is something Christ does for you then your baby baptism is just as important and can be remembered in other ways rather than just physically. If baptism is something you do for God, then I understand the want to have it in recent memory.

It is impossible to look at household baptisms without considering the mikveh and specifically that children undergo immersion (even infants) in the jewish conversion process. This is also not to say that mikveh is a precise comparison to Christian baptism, but it was certainly appropriated by Jesus Christ and the church. Also, that baptizo is defined as wash and not simply as immerse is also apparent in view of the mikveh.

There is so much clarity in this video @mikewinger thank you!

I was baptized as an infant. I was baptism Greek Orthodox. My dad is Greek. Recently though my mom’s friend that’s a Catholic said it worked and u r washed from “original sin” and u got the Holy Spirit and u do not even know but now u know because I got the baptism of the Holy Spirt a few months ago. But before I was living in sin and I did not have the Holy Spirit because I was living in sin and no one was convicting me. I knew it was bad but I was living in sin. But when I asked God for the Holy Spirit 3 months go, I may not have felt anything cause I was a baby Christian but I no longer loved sin. I grew in faith in God and seeked God and his word and started to pray more and more. I never liked reading but I loved reading the word of God. It is so powerful. The peace I have from Jesus surpasses all understanding. Now that I have the Holy Spirt I obey righteousness and God not sin. So I know without faith, that water baptism is in vain. But with faith u proclaim faith in Jesus Christ and accept him as your Lord and Savior even before that and u know u have the Holy Spirit when he is fighting those fleshy desires. Cause if he isn’t fighting the flesh, who is? U just like in sin then. So I got born again 4 months ago, Glory to God. And I got the baptism of the Holy Spirit and felt warmth in my forearms and chest area and this was around 2 months ago. Sorry this is a long comment and sorry if it is confusing. God bless. Repent and trust in Jesus

I can't wait till you get the verse where saint Paul says baptism replaces circumsion.

Mike, have you watched American gospel, Christ alone? How do you feel about it? Would appreciate your thoughts

I was just going to write down some dot points, but, well, here we are. TL;DR: - Most of the arguments in this video rest on the assumption that baptism is strictly symbolic. - Mike is correct that household baptisms don't say anything specific about infants, and some of the other citations don't even feature baptisms. But the strength of these rebuttals is in isolating these texts from the Biblical data regarding what baptism is and does. - Baptism is not a work, least of all when applied to a baby who cannot work. *** I think it's important to look at what Scripture describes baptism as being and doing. This heavily informs the discussion, and I find it weird that Mike did not dedicate a substantial portion of this video to the Biblical discussion of what baptism is or does. Romans 6 and Colossians 2 describe it as being united and buried with Christ and raised to new life with him. 1 Peter 3 declares that baptism saves you. John 3* describes it as being born again (or born from above) with water and the Spirit to receive the kingdom of God. Titus 3* describes it as the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. *Provided that these passages are in fact speaking of baptism. They don't strictly state that baptism is the life-giving referent, so, while I find it unreasonable to deny that John 3 is describing baptism, I acknowledge that Titus 3 is a little more ambiguous and there is room for debate here. If baptism does not actually do these things, but is purely a symbol of these things, then it makes sense that the Biblical prescription for believers to be baptised is exclusive, and no one who is unable to display their faith should be baptised. But if these are not purely symbols, and baptism actually is and does the things Scripture says it is and does, then we should not see this as something we do to show that we have faith, but as a gift from God through which He imparts saving grace onto people. We also need to look at who baptises us according to Scripture. Physically speaking, the apostles (and then leaders established by them) baptise, but they do so in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. "So what?" I hear you asking. To do something in someone's name is to do it using their authority, such that we should treat it as though the one whose name is evoked did it themselves. So, when someone is baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we should see it as though God Himself is baptising them. If that's correct, then we should not separate the physical washing done by man from the spiritual washing done by God, and we should take seriously the idea that the things described in Romans 6 etc are actually happening in baptism. It's only in that context that we return to the question of baptising infants. If baptism doesn't actually allow access to the kingdom of God, then Mike is correct in saying that Luke 18 has nothing to do with baptism. If it does, however, then we should be alert to the fact that Christ declares the kingdom of God belongs to ones such as these. Do we see any baptisms happen in that passage? No. Should we hold up before dismissing its relevance? Yes. Likewise, Mike is correct that we have no clear evidence that any infants were baptised in any of the household baptisms. But if even one believing parent sanctifies their children in some way, and Peter's judgement at the end of Acts 10 is that no one should withhold the water of baptism those who have received the Holy Spirit, it seems a little out of place to suggest that he in fact would withhold the water of baptism from sanctified babies. Yes, I agree with Mike that the manner in which the children of believers are sanctified is equivalent to how the unbelieving spouse is sanctified; still, the unbelieving spouse is withholding the water of baptism from themselves by persisting in unbelief, but is that sufficient reason to withhold the water of baptism from the children? That doesn't seem sufficient to me. My final consideration in this long-winded dissertation is that everything I've argued so far is consistent with Sola Fide. Baptism is not a work that we do to obtain salvation, and even if those who are mature enough to choose to be baptised turn it into a work, it's self-evident that no baby works to receive baptism, and no baby is performing a work by receiving baptism. Baptism is simply given to the baby as a free gift, that they may be blessed in all the ways the Church is blessed. And so concludes my TedTalk.

I’m a fan of your channel. I have listened to a number of your videos. There is one issue that jumps out to me... if all have sinned, if we are born with sin, then how can you claim that children get a pass for salvation? I don’t think that is taught in scripture. Thoughts?

Dear Ps Mike, I’m reading a book about parenting and the author subscribes to “convenant theology” : He uses Colossians 2:11-12ff to support the idea that baptism in the New Covenant is parallel to circumcision in the Old. We are baptised into the Christian community in the same way that they were, through circumcision, included into the people of the covenant. We know it didn’t mean they were automatically “saved” as not all were true spiritual children of Abraham, yet it meant they were the privileged recipients of the oracles and promises of God (Rm 3:1-3ff). How would you respond to such an interpretation of this passage?

Pastor Mike, it is pretty cool how often God uses your videos to answer random questions I have about scripture passages I have recently read. I don't think it is a coincidence how often I hear teaching on what I just read in the Bible. 😊

Mike, I find many of your videos useful and helpful and well researched. I found your thinking in this video though a bit messy with some pre-conceived bias. As a side note I found your statement about people who try to act objective having already made up their mind a bit strange. It presupposes motivations. Sometimes people have not reached a final position despite extensive research and are still on the investigative journey letting evidence lead them. On your analysis of the term 'household': 1. You refer to infants being not mentioned/ignored/overlooked in the passages about the households (Cornelius, the jailer, Lydia and Stephanas). The same reason that they are not mentioned/ignored can easily be used to argue that they were baptised along with the adults in the household - they were just not mentioned/ignored/overlooked. It is not the contradiction you suggest it is to have references to actions that could only be done by adults in a household, but at the same time not exclude infants from the definition of the household especially in events where they could be passive participants. 2. No discussion of mikveh where parents and children (including infants) take part in mikveh. In a mikveh, an infant is a passive participant. It does not mean that they don't have a mikveh though. The 'believing' parties in the mikveh though are the adults, not the infants. 3. Similarly, the ceremony of purification that Jewish parents went through as described in Leviticus 12. Leviticus 12 and Leviticus 15 make it clear that there are reasons both Mary and Joseph as adults needed to undergo purification with a visit to the temple. But Luke refers to when the time came for 'their' purification, and Jesus was present. Yes he was taken along to be presented and consecrated at the temple, but the use of the word 'their' in 'their' purification does not rule out the presence of Jesus who was an infant at the time. 4. You refer to the cultural aspects of Lydia inviting the Apostles home and saying that it should normally have been the man of house who invited them home. But then assuming that she was on a 'business' trip is quite a stretch if she was subject to such a strong patriarchal culture? Proverbs 31 in any case talks about the noble wife who runs a business and runs her household with its servants etc, in whom her husband has complete confidence, she buys her own real estate, and opens her home to the poor and needy - from a culture that was surely more patriarchal than Lydia's gentile culture? Also, Lydia being from Thyatira could simply refer to her place of origin rather than place of residence - a reading that could be sustained from cultural considerations too. Being a seller of purple, a rare and valuable colour, may also indicate that she was quite wealthy. Perhaps she had more than one residence. Perhaps she and her family had seasonal residence at more than one place? 5. The fact there are 4 references to entire households being baptised and infants not being at least passive participants in the baptisms seems a little odd. None of the above necessarily sustains an argument for the necessity of the baptism of infants, but your arguments didn't really rule out passive infant participation in the baptisms of the households.

I appreciate this because growing up my family actually split over this, like myself from my parents when I was a teenager. My dad does equate baptism with salvation *only while under the family 'umbrella'* and he uses all of the texts that you have mentioned, especially comparing it with circumcision. It divided not only my family but our entire church, it was devastating. As I had my own children he would press me regularly to get them baptized in case they died, as that would save them. For whatever reason infant baptism turned into a cult for the leadership that left the church at that time, it was weird, and beyond that, 100% destructive.

Thanks for this video, Mike. Definitely one of the things I disagree with my parents on despite being raised on it, with good reason.

If one follows the Scriptural passages from OT to NT, the rite of initiation into the covenants has included children with Jewish boys being circumcised and the head of the household being the only one with knowledge of the covenant. Why would it change in the new covenant?

I'm new to your channel. I would love for you to do a video on the counsel of Nicia (sp?) Or if anyone could point me to resources about it? Thanks!

As always, great stuff. Thanks for your work and humility, Mike.

Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized" which prompts the question "When do you ever hear a baby say 'I wee-pent'?"

Mike - Thanks for your efforts to help everyone to think more clearly from a Biblical perspective. In this video, from 29:50-30:50 you mention being unsure about the rationale for infant baptism from the "covenant community" perspective. I'm assuming you are aware that there are two major "grids" used when interpreting the Bible - covenant and dispensational. While there are nuances within these, those who use the first grid generally espouse infant baptism based on the concept of association with the covenant community. Those using this grid view the "Church" of the New Testament as a direct parallel to the chosen people of God (specifically, Israel) in the Old Testament, and since the Jews circumcised their children (based on covenental terms), the Church should baptize infants since the Church consists of the covenanted people of God today. It would be interesting to hear you present a short series on the differences between these grids. One resource for viewers is: "There Really is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology" by Renald E. Showers.

Brother Mike, there are many ways you could be described. One of those ways, I want you to know, is as sensible. 18:28 - What you said in the moments leading up to here... just straight sense. We hear so much nonsense in the world today that simple, logical, sensible descriptions of reality are very refreshing. May the Lord bless you in your fight against sin in your own life, that you might continue to be clear-minded to teach simply and rightly, helping others to do the same.

If we define the Kingdom of God in such a way that we deny the infants, then we deny the very words of Jesus, who said that of such is the Kingdom of God. Also, if we deny that infants are included in households then apparently we are not commanded to care for them in 1 Timothy 3:8. Also, it is quite clear that Paul believed Timothy knew the Scriptures from the very womb or at least a very very young age, when he says you have known the Scriptures from “brephos” (2 Tim 3:15) which means a child in the womb in Luke 1:41 and elsewhere always means very young

Question: Why did the Holy Ghost use the word household instead of adults?

Q...Pastor Mike, thank you for covering this. I was raised in a Lutheran family. I love the Lord Jesus as my Savior from sin through grace ALONE. However, as you well know, Lutherans among many others in the Christian church practice infant baptism. My wife and I have 3 young children and our fourth is due any day now. During the last year God has really put it on my heart to struggle with this issue of baptism. During that time, God has made it abundantly clear to me that believer’s baptism is the only observed form of baptism in Scripture. I have two questions that I would like to ask. First, if baptism is just a transliteration of “baptidzo,” which means immersion, wouldn’t we do a just service to ourselves to use the word “immersion” instead of baptism when reading Scripture? I feel that would clarify many issues people create about this topic. Secondly, I’m often confronted with the “power” of baptism as a reason to infant baptize, often citing Jesus’ baptism as the source and evidence of the power. What do you say to that and what does Scripture show you about its power, if any? Thank you.

Q. I was baptized by the sprinkling of water on my head when I became a believer at the age of 20. As I have grown and walked with the lord now for 10 years I have regretted for getting emerged in a river or something. My question is this. Since I’ve been baptized is it ok to do it agin this time with being emerged, or is the sprinkling ok. The key is it was in front of a church congregation ( witnesses) and it was in regards of my declaration to believing and wanting to follow Jesus for the rest of my life. But it’s how I got baptized I’m little uneasy about. Anyone got any advice? Much love thanks

I’m a little late in the game to this video but I was filled with the Holy Spirit when I was 5. I believed on Jesus and he has been my Lord ever since. Now, there may have been some poor understanding of theology because I was five but I knew Jesus was God and he was MY God. I was then baptized at five years old. I remember it to this day, I was in a bathroom with my parents and my pastors and my pastor baptized me in their bathtub. Because the Holy Spirit was at work in my life at such a young age I unfortunately took on some religious spirit thinking I needed to be perfect. What are your thoughts on children being baptized if they understand and believe and the evidence of tongues is there? Because I’ve heard different things.

Great message!

Why would I exclude a child from baptism if Jesus says in John 3,5 we need to be born again by water and Spirit to be saved?

0:00 - Introduction and Format (2:13 - Difference in Interpretation & Unity in Christ) 3:20 - Disclaimer on Pastor Mike's position 4:00 - Part I - Who was supposed to be baptized in the New Testament? 12:10 - Part II - Household Baptisms

Thank you for this video.

7:06 the word "disciple" doesnt necessarily refer to "believers". It is also used to refer to children being disciplined by their parents in the old testament.

A few comments here; Firstly, why would someone resist baptism... for fear of "works"?? Are they like cats and afraid of water? Now, Mike, could you address Church government and the role and position of priests/vicars in the church (whether a clerical or priestly class has any rule over the church). And here's a thought totally unrelated but heavy on my mind: The media and in movies and TV shows, whenever there is a positive depiction of christians it seems always to be Catholics (Father Brown etc.) and when there is a negative depiction of christians (which is most of the time) it is Protestants (but not always) and usually ones with southern accents. I don't think there are many negative depictions of Anabaptists, they are mostly ignored and left out of all categorizing or lists of types of christians. I have encountered lists that include Mormons and JW's, which are no more Christian than Muslims, yet fail to mention Anabaptists who indisputably are christian.

12:18 if we limit our selves to the bilbe? what do we get? your interpretation?

How do you respond to the view that all OT foreshadowing have a greater inclusion in the NT. Colossians 2:11-12 says that circumcision corresponds to baptism, why would the NT fulfillment exclude those who were included in it in the OT?

Absolutely most thorough explanation of the Biblical view of infant baptism I have heard!

Hi Mark, wondering if you can do a study or video on seventh day adventism??

Mike Winger where do you preach?

Mike, I really appreciate this video (and all your work). This subject is something of a hobbyhorse for me... the more I study the arguments for infant baptism (especially from the Reformed camp) the more I see it all comes down to their understanding of the covenants, which I believe is largely incorrect. This is something I would love to do a deep dive on myself, because I find it fascinating (and think it is important, though of course - not of ultimate or primary importance). But one question we could talk about another time would be about taking the argument that baptism is the “sign” of the covenant. As you noted, the Bible nowhere says this, though it does say that circumcision was the “sign and the seal” of the covenant. But, would it be more accurate to say that the Lord’s Table is the “sign” of the covenant? After all, at the Last Supper, when the Lord’s Table (communion) was instituted, Jesus said: “This is the New Covenant in My blood.” Anyway, great video and God bless you

So tell me please! At what age does a child have to except Jesus or risk going to hell.

The Bible does mention the Holy Spirit entering a baby when John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb. I was baptized as an infant & confirmed at 13, but I have since decided that I believe in "Believer's Baptism". I had the joy of being baptized in the Jordan in Israel when I was 62.

Amen, what is your point on dedication of infants ?

My household consist out of my wife and two children 😀 is this a household?

Baptism regenerates those with faith through the power of the word. (Ephesians 5:26) Infants can have faith. (John the Baptist as an example) Therefore, infants should be baptized.

Hi Mike! regarding, are babies part of the covenant? (you raised a question in 30 min about the confusion around circumcision and baptism) You asked: If babies are now part of the covenant, do they mean you are saved by baptism? What about kids that are not baptized? this raises a lot of questions... Answer: Baptism is the first step into the christian life. It is in baptism you are clothed in Christ, dead from the old man, start a new, invisible life with God and are cleansed from sin. So is there any problem with the view that this is the first step as a christian? Paul was baptized the same day he was healed, so was the guard at Fillipi, all the people on the Pentecost day. For them the christian life started with baptism. Baptism shows that you have entered the covenant. Is not that what the early Pentecostal movement taught also? that you gain a membership in the church when you are baptized? at least in Sweden that is our history. Soooo... Do one get saved by the baptism? Actually, that is a question for all christians, not the proponents for infant baptism. Because whatever the case, the point is to show who are the followers of christ, not who is eternally saved. The reason you raise this question is probably because in your own mind, all babies, all believers, all Christians are part of the covenant by default. Maybe you think that no one needs to "enter" the new covenant. But that seems to me very unbiblical. So if you are not baptized, you are not part of the new covenant. But the salvation is given to all of mankind, through Jesus, even those who lived before his sacrifice. Abraham got part of Jesus sacrifice, Jacob, Isaac, Josef and so on. All could be saved through Jesus. But when Jesus came he started a new covenant for those who would join him, and they became disciples. Note that John the baptist was never a disciple of Jesus, though he believed, and therefore not part of the new covenant.

Can you do a debate on this with a catholic and a reformed Presbyterian. I’m very curious about having all three opinions in the same room.

Time Stamp 47:20 Where does it say in Bible that you need to make a choice for Baptism? 1 Peter 3: 18-22

I am just a layman but why have you not include Mark 16:16 ? Maybe if we consider Babtism something that Jesus is doing to us as a gift for the forgiveness sin.

It's a blessing their is continuity in the Bible. The Bible tells us that Baptism points to God's work(1Peter3:18-22;1Cor10:1-10) of adoption,covenant and promise(Rom9:4) just like physical circumcision and like the old testament it would include 8 day old babies into the covenant as God's Holy people(Act2:38-39;Gen17:7). The sign of physical Circumcision and the sign of Baptism is God's promise,covenant and adoption of """All"""" God's Holy nation(1Peter2:9) and just like the old covenant everyone needs circumcision of the heart (Rom6:11; 1Cor10:1-6). Baptism is a sign of God's holy people and promise and covenant which would include 8 day old babies or the Holy Christian household. Circumcision of the heart or Faith is repentance or a public testimony of inward confession(Rom2:29) of the experience that has occurred inwardly in a life. In Faith, we bear fruit(Matt3:7-10) as Gods Holy covenant people and witnesses and confess our identification with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Time Stamp 29:29 Do babies need a Savior? Psalms 51:5 & Genesis 3:8-20

Time stamp 37:15 What is happening at Baptism? Titus 3:5-8

Infants cannot make an informed decision to follow jesus. I was baptized as an infant and then became a pagan for 15 years. I would have gone to hell anyway if jesus didn't come and get me when I was 30.

Thank you Mike for posting a video on this. I only wish it had been a bit sooner. I live in South Africa and my fiance's dad is an Afrikaans pastor (dominee) of the 'Nederduitsch Hervormde kerk van Afrika' (reformed and kind of like the Presbyterians). I have been going to a Baptist church at University and grew in my walk with the Lord significantly (thanks to His grace and pursuit for my soul) So, I had a lot of doubts and struggles with her family on this issue. Her dad says that those who believe in believer's baptism make it an accomplishment. As if they found God and need to now somehow publicly showcase this decision. But I never once found this to be true at the church I went to. They always made Christ's death and resurrection the main point. Her dad also argues that we cannot say that we only believe because of our baptism and not because of God's work in our our hearts FIRST (hence the infant baptism is biblical to them). I will watch your video again and see if I am able to peacefully discuss these points with him. Because the sad thing about all of this is that he wants to completely sever the relationship (in terms of church activities etc) as he believes this teaching of believer's baptism is not biblical and even a heresy. Thanks so much for your help. May God richly bless you

Time stamp 25:35 Are babies included in nations? If so why would we not include them in household? Are babies include in the Church? Matthew 28:18

Time Stamp 48:29 Can Baptism be an obediance? Or can it give us Jesus? Romans 6:1-15

Acts 16:33 - At that hour of the night, the jailer took them and washed their wounds. And without delay, he and ALL his household were baptized. If you read this verse, would anyone make exceptions in their own mind for infants and very young children? So even IF the author of Acts knew that there were not infants or very young children in that particular household, he wrote it as if the reader would think that this could be any normal household where the possibility of having infants and/or very young children in it was a distinct possibility.

Time Stamp 19:13 Can babies understand language? The crowds heard the apostles in there own language Acts 2:6

Just to add something from the paedobaptist perspective, I find it interesting that your advice to someone who was baptized as a believer but then fell away and wants to be baptized again (towards the end of the video) is that they may just need to “finally accept that jesus is enough and that they are forgiven, and not be hanging it on this outward sign”. This is how I feel every time a Baptist tells me I need to get re-baptized b/c I was baptized as a baby. I’ve brought this issue to the Lord in prayer several times, and this is what the Lord always tells me. Please consider that if indeed you are wrong, and if indeed Christ does not require that baptism be “for believers only by full immersion”, but that there is liberty in this area since there is no such explicit command, that you have been counseling people to add a work of man to their salvation, and have been binding their consciences by man-made rules rather than by spirit-filled obedience to Christ. I have no problem with churches practicing believers baptism. What I do have a problem with is one particular church claiming that they have the “right formula” and everyone else needs to follow their lead. This is akin to Catholics claiming they are the one true church and we all need to submit to the pope. Ironically, they would recognize both my baptism and yours as valid! Every time I have brought this to the Lord in prayer he has shown me 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 and Ephesians 4:4-6. Please pray about whether your teaching on baptism violates these verses on church unity. Praying that God brings us to unity, and that He convicts me if I’m wrong 🙏💜

Wouldn’t the inability to repent also affect mentally challenged people? Should they also not be baptized?

Here's my thing: 1. I was taught, and continue to see merit, that you don't/can't receive the baptism of fire until you receive the baptism of water. 2. I was baptised as an infant and only as an infant (my mother was Catholic. I've never had any other baptism. 3. I have most definitely received the baptism of fire. I am filled with Holy Spirit. I am able to operate in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Is there merit for infant baptism in this? Is the first fact incorrect?

I think circumcision always had to be done to infants because that procedure becomes a more painful and dangerous operation as they age.Actually, having that done has great hygienic ramifications. God often asked His people to do things that were “unusual” at the time , but had beneficial effects. I was baptized as an infant as a catholic and again as a non catholic adult.

My parents baptized me when I was 2.5 months old. I don't think I had faith at that age. When I was 4 years old I made the willful decision to give my life to Jesus Christ but I didn't get baptized again. When I was about around 12 years old my family switched to another church (for various reasons) and the elders there denied me Communion because I was baptized as an infant only (interestingly they granted my parents Communion although both of them are also baptized as infants only; apparently you can't be trusted on your beliefs when you're just 12). To this day I didn't get baptized again though, my conscience never stressed me about it. And although there were times in my life that I wasn't a "good" Christian I still (or again) firmly put my faith in Jesus. I think when you got baptized as a little child it is a personal decision whether you want to be baptized again later. Infant baptism isn't necessarily invalid. Listen to your conscience.

Isn’t it strange that the answer to this question isn’t explicit in the scriptures. Doesn’t that go against sola scriptural.

*Why baptize the infants ?* Paul paralleled baptism and circumcision, which was *normally administered to children eight days after birth.* Also note that, it's not common sense to believe that all the families mentioned in the BIBLE had only adult members. Col 2:11-12: “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” To Corinthians, Paul recalled that just as all the Jews of the Exodus (including children) were baptised into Moses by passing through the Red Sea, they were actually being blessed by Christ. 1 Cor 10:1-4: “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.” Following are the biblical verses in which we see that the whole household got baptized: 1). Acts 2:38-39: Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptised 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. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” 2). Acts 11:13-14: He told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, “Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved.” 3). Acts 16:15: When she (Lydia from the city of Thyatira) and her household were baptised...” 4). Acts 16:30-33: Then he (the jailer) brought them (Paul and Silas) out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household”. At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptised without delay. 5). Acts 18:8: Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers, and were baptised. 6). 1 Cor 1:16: Paul said, “I did baptise also the household of Stephanas.”

Infant baptism is like infant dedication. It isn't salvation, but rather a commitment from parents to raise a child in a way that would introduce them to faith. My parents are Catholic. When I didn't baptized my infants, I told them about the dedication and this settled any concerns, at least for my parents. I'm not an authority but since this dedication/baptism seems to settle arguments, I feel there is a parallel that can be drawn.

Haven’t watched this video yet but this week I watched a great debate about this on apologia studios

Time stamp 20:44. Why dose a baby need to make a d decision? Can they not just receive a gift from the Almighty? Matthew 19:13-15

I think baptism is appropriate for people who are OLD ENOUGH to understand & BELIEVE the Gospel. And who are able to make the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to accept Jesus as Lord & Savior. Infants are definitely NOT old enough to understand & make that decision. That's MY view, anyway.

I, as a Catholic, believe in the necessity of baptism for salvation (for which there is actually good biblical evidence) and therefore also am for infant baptism. We don't really know what happens to the children who die without baptism, however we hope the also receive the grace of God since they have not commited any personal sin. That being said, it is still better for them to be baptized, since we can not be sure and when they first become conscious and exposed to sin, there's already God's grace and Holy Spirit working in their lives. I still enjoyed your video and think you have good points. I will check out other content of yours. God bless you!

What if we changed every word baptism to mean, “identify” Identify with Moses, identify as forgiven, identify/introduce them to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That baby is adorable. My cheek pinchers are very overactive right now.

IRENAEUS “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). “‘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’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]). HIPPOLYTUS “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). ORIGEN “Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 58:2 [A.D. 253]). “If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 58:5). GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS “Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]). “‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28). JOHN CHRYSOSTOM “You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]). AUGUSTINE “What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]). “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). “Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]). “By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]). COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE V “Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]). COUNCIL OF MILEUM II “[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

Baptisms by "dunking" is also not in the Bible. All the Baptisms in the Old Covenant were by sprinkling as well as the new.

Have you ever heard of Servus Christi or listen to his RU-vid channel??

Hey Mike. Do you think you could make a video responding to Pinecreeks argument that the case for Mormonism works just as well with the minimal facts argument. For example both had martyrs and miracle claims and if we should doubt the Mormon view or accept it.

I was baptized when I was a child (catholic parents). As a grownup I received the revelation of who Jesus is and the faith to believe in Him by his grace and I publicly demonstrated it when I was 26. It was my decision to open up to God so He gave me faith! While child I have no idea of who Jesus was, so was my parent decision and not mine. I confessed Jesus as my saviour and Lord when I understood who he was!

Baptism includes the gift of the Holy Spirit and scripture shows that even unborn babies can receive the Holy Spirit, none other than St John the BAPTIST. Titus 3:5 5 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. Acts 2:38 38 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. Luke 1: 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He shall never take wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb. Luke 1: 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? 44 For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy.

Love your videos btw and not being picky but have a small disagreement with one point made about 1 Cor 7 , divorce and using it to counter Hebrew roots: I hope thats what the comments section is for. The comparison is not there in my opinion as God was telling his people (Israel) who had disobeyed him in not being a set apart people, to divorce their pagan unbelieving wives. 1 Cor 7 is talking about someone who is already married and then gets saved. This is surely different. Scripture is clear a believer is not to marry an unbeliever. To do so is sin and needs to be repented off, just as in the OT. Now if a stranger had joined themselves to Israel, already married, then that would be a fairer comparison but I'm not sure that's in scripture but I imagine the same principle would apply because from my study NT doctrine does not contradict old. After all, all scripture is profitable for doctrine.

I do like the way u break down the wording

Mike, I've watched most everything you've published here and have been on the same page as you. However, I have a hard time believing your view is correct on this one. While making an informed decision to choose Jesus isn't a works thing, it certainly says that I have a part in my salvation. Which, I believe I do not. I cannot even say that I came to Jesus on my own. I merely "stood still" long enough for the Spirit to work in me.

I had a reformed pastor once that had a son with severe cerebral palsy. He was unable to express any belief in Christ. After years of struggling with the issue he decided he had to accept both pedo and credo baptism as acceptable. Your interpretation of the gospel message leaves baptism for severely handicapped people impossible. Yah, its a toughie.

Mike what do you do with the verse that says baptism saves us? What does it save us from? Also when the Israelites coming out of Egypt the were baptized through WATER into Moses. Though the were saved through the water they did not all receive the promise because of unbelief. Baptism saved the Israelites from Pharoah and bondage. Same for us baptism saves us from bondage to sin and death but does not guarantee the promise of eternal life through faith.

I don’t think the case that the “household” doesn’t include infants is very strong.

This brother needs to study the old testament and needs to understand how a new testament believer is having the same faith of Abraham receives the same benefits. Infants are definitely included in the new testament church. "Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise". That is why we read in Acts the promise is for you and your children.

The NT Greek noun for infant in Luke 18:15 is βρέφος (brephos), which can refer to an unborn or a newborn child. However, the NT Greek noun for child in Luke 18:16 is παιδίον (paidion), which refers to a young child. Hence Jesus' "Let the little children come to me" should be understood as a reference to young children who are nevertheless old enough to approach Him of their own volition, not to infants who can't.

So in the winger household your infants are not apart of your household?

In response to the Philippian jailer passage, are we going to walk by the fact that they were ALL baptized, but it only states that HE believed (v. 34)? Additionally, it says that HE rejoiced, with his whole household. (Now I'm not saying that this was merely a party of one, but the text is clearly saying that the rejoicing is mainly on his own part. Could it not have simply been a banquet/party, something that was common in the first century, but now this was a banquet dedicated to Jesus?) In fact, for both the jailer and Cornelius, the emphasis is always on, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you [singular] will be saved, you [singular] and all your household" (v. 31; cf. Acts 11:14). At the very least, the patriarchs of the family (or, in Lydia's case, the matriarch, either because her husband was no longer a part of the family or was still alive) were baptized along with their entire household, regardless of what THEY believed (the text not saying that infants weren't present), and are thus made members of the covenant community of Jesus. This isn't a foreign concept to the first century context because, especially in Greco-Roman culture, the patriarch of the family decided what god would be worshiped in the family. Thus, the jailer or Cornelius or Lydia being baptized along with their entire household arguably demonstrates this same idea, which isn't an act of works but actually an act of faith. Paul and Peter preaching to those respective households does not mean that the whole household believed (in fact, the text doesn't indicate that at all). Rather, it is Paul and Peter relaying the story of Jesus in the Gospel to this family, telling them what following Jesus is all about. The believing parent is to therefore raise their family up in the faith. This is what Paul points to when he talks about how the children of at least one believing parent are "holy," or "set apart" (1 Cor. 7:14). How were they set apart? What act literally proclaimed a setting apart from the world? Their baptism. This, alongside the comparison to how Israelites were to raise their own children, circumcising their sons, is compelling to me. Their circumcision was the physical marker of their membership in the covenant family of Israel, yet they did not have faith even though circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with Abraham (which was ALWAYS predicated by FAITH). My point is not to magically insert infants into the passages; whether they were or not is actually irrelevant. My point is that the parents, particularly the believing fathers, were to raise their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4, Deut. 6:4-7), and they eventually come to faith. I love your stuff (your "Women in Ministry" series was great), by the way! Keep up the good work, brother.

Thanks for the talk! I think that a few issues should be cleared up: 1) First, there is a fundamentally different understanding of what Baptism is and does. Pastor Mike argues that it's a representation of dying to Christ, or a public profession of one's Faith. Nowhere does Scripture argue that. Romans 6, in no uncertain terms, claims we are united to the Death of Christ in Baptism. 1 Peter 3:21 claims that Baptism saves as a Covenantal Sign (signs aren't symbols, by the way; a symbol merely represents something; a sign is also what it signifies. A road sign is the law and shows the law. The symbol of a car on that sign is not, itself, the car). 2) Infant Baptism Christians are working on a fundamentally different understanding of what it means to be the Church and a Christian. Stanley Hauerwas said it best: "Evangelicals think that they have a relationship with God that they go to church to express, when I think it should be just the opposite. I can't know my relationship with God apart from my fellowship with my brothers and sisters." We understand that the Communal is primary over the Individual, so when it comes to Ecclesiology and even Soteriology, we look at the fact that we are being joined to those things (the Church and Salvation) rather than us receiving them merely as individuals. This is why you had a difficult time understanding Covenantal Theology, and why I imagine you'd have a hard time understanding Sacramental Theology. 3) You kept arguing that "babies can't XYZ (believe, listen, repent, respond, etc.)". But Scripture doesn't seem to indicate that. Luke 1:39-45 shows that St. John the Baptist leapt for joy at the approach of His Savior. 2 Timothy 3:15 demonstrates that St. Timothy knew the Scriptures from infancy: "from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (the word translated to "childhood" here is "brephos", which literally means "unborn or newborn child".) So Scripture does not seem to have the problem with children believing or reacting in ways that our modernist minds find unbelievable. 4) Whenever someone argues about the Early Church believing something, I don't think they are arguing, "I know the Bible says this, but the Early Church believed that, so I'm instead going to believe that." At least, that's never what I am arguing. We look to the Early Church because we think that they would know better than we do, because they literally were taught the Faith from the Apostles or people who knew the Apostles. A few particular points of clarification: a) There was no debate about Infant Baptism. The closest you get to that is Gnostic heretics denying it (who denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I might add) and Tertullian claiming that we shouldn't baptize babies until they are 3 years old; his reasoning for that is utterly different from yours, as he argues they should delay baptism because infants sin and you can't be forgiven for sins committed after baptism. If you want to include one man arguing that we should delay baptism until 8 days old because of circumcision (still an infant obviously), be my guest. b) The gentleman arguing about 1500 years of Church History wasn't arguing from today to 1500 years ago; he was arguing from the first century to the Protestant Reformation, where the Radical Reformers rejected infant baptism ("radical" is not an insult here; that is what they are known as). c) Your response to my point about the women receiving Communion was interesting; I noticed that you were okay assuming that women were parts of crowds, but not children or infants. I know that you spent a lot of time arguing that infants were ignored in those passages, but I refer you again to St. John the Baptist in the womb and St. Timothy from the womb or as a newborn. Anyways, I'm hoping to do a video response to this to clarify some of these points, or possibly a podcast. I know, Pastor Mike, that you said you can't do debates right now, so I hope this doesn't come across as me trying to spite you. This is an important topic for me, as a former Baptist. God bless you for your work for the Kingdom, brother!

Winger's main point is that infants do not have the ability to repent because they have no knowledge of sin. In other words, they cannot have faith and belief because they haven't matured enough to understand what sin, repentance, faith and belief entail. Unfortunately, this ignores the biblical evidence to the contrary. For a good and short summary of this perspective on RU-vid, see Bryan Wolfmueller "Can Babies Believe in Jesus."

Come to me as a child isn’t a silly defense of baptism if the opposite side conflated water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism. I’m stuck on this. I’m a proponent of infant baptism. It isn’t personal, as I have been baptized twice (which is a more explicit Biblical bugaboo than baptizing infant children of believers). One of the biggest issues I have with excluding infant children of believers is that water baptism isn’t what does the lifting in salvation. Belief is. And there are a lot of instances where people are baptized after a “sinners prayer”, fall away, and come back later in life. Were they not truly saved? Must they be baptized again? And if you argue yes, then what about Hebrews and belief in one baptism? In such cases, baptism precedes “true belief”, but what is true belief? Is it full understanding? Or is it blind trust (ala the little children)?

Time stamp in your video 11:57 You sound like you can know what an infant believes? And that they could not believe in the Lord Jesus. Romans 10:17. Can babies hear?

Then the little children were brought to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them and pray for them. And the disciples rebuked those who brought them. But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” If Jesus wanted to lay His hands on the children and pray for them, then obviously they were worthy of being baptized also, its only logical. In other words, the kingdom of heaven already belonged to them as they were, not at some future date when they reach a certain age. So if they were already acceptable to Jesus as they were, then why would someone not baptize them into the New Covenant?

The Bible is clear that water baptism doesn't save but is a symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit for salvation just as it replaced circumcision. Reformed covenant theology has already shown and defended how God not only interacts with His individual elect but them and their children as well in covenant faithfulness. Baptism is a sign of grace of God's Covenant with His elect and their posterity JUST as circumcision had been a shadow of that. The early Church believed in and practiced infant baptism for at LEAST the first 300 years. This man needs to read more about Covenant Theology and the early Reformers. John Calvin and the Westminster Confession 28:4 fully defend infant baptism and how Biblical it is. Plus read Genesis 17: 7-14.

I think this is a good place to talk about age of accountability

How do you receive the kingdom?