For You and Your Children: A Biblical Case for Infant Baptism

[@QBegley]

This was amazing. Lo-fi, British accent, covenant theology. This is what I'll be sending my baptist friends from now on

[@troysgt]

I love the statement, “we should always assume continuity between the old and new covenants, except where Jesus states discontinuity”. The whole of scriptures is one story, one plan, one salvation. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

[@benjaminsherrill9519]

Brothers at @UnfoldingTheology, THANK YOU for all of these incredible, high-quality, theologically rich videos! As a reformed, postmillenial, partial-preterist, presbyterian-leaning younger guy, it is incredibly refreshing to see other brothers in the Lord continuing to faithfully plow in hope for the crown rights of King Jesus! I would love to learn more about the ministry or help in some way. Thanks again for all that you're doing, keep it up! For the increase of His government, Ben Sherrill

[@brettmilam3726]

I grew up credobaptist and became paedobaptist because of Covenant Theology. It greatly helped my ecclesiology, eschatology, and view of the sacraments. Speaking from personal experience, it was so difficult to get in my head that the conversation focuses on the question of children of believers. Every Christian agrees on adults; the disagreement is on the children of believers. Also, I was always told Old Covenant Circumcision was a sign of being an ethnic Jew. When I studied Scripture for myself, there was incredible spiritual significance tied to it than I knew previously. That gets into dispensational hermeneutics of literal interpretation, which is another convo :). Grateful for this video explaining a Protestant perspective on Infant Baptism!

[@jesusisrisen1202]

Where did you learn Covenant theology? Any book recommendations?

[@daltonvetter3677]

Christ ans the covenants by o'palmer Robertson

[@olerain]

@@jesusisrisen1202 also you can print works off the computer to read on infant baptism rob rayburn has one and Samuel miller has a 4 part read on the subject

[@unknown-zy6dp]

Too bad we aren’t able to make up requirements the apostles didn’t state and compare it to circumsicion in ways they did not . Not a single infant in the whole Bible old or new was ever baptized as far as I can see

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@unknown-zy6dpOIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms

[@TonyA-b6o]

I love my infant baptism and think of it often when I'm reading scripture and the covenant promises of God which are a reality in my life, Amen

[@MrBassapalooza]

These guys did two things in this video which are rare, but so helpful and needed. First, they didn't shy away from quoting the whole phrase in Acts, specifically that the promise is not only to the people and their children, but to "as many as who are far off" as well. Pedobaptist's routinely get criticized for not doing this. Second, they acknowledge the fact that strong covenantal arguments can be made from Credobaptists, and show what I think is the most serious treatment of the subject from an opposing view (the book they show near the end). It's a level of honesty that's a breath of fresh air. Brilliant video guys

[@UnfoldingTheology]

MrBassapalooza Thanks a lot! I would have loved to explore some Baptist arguments but time didn’t allow, perhaps a future video!

[@guessable]

@@UnfoldingTheology is there a way I can PM you? I have questions about the new covenant relating to Post-Mil. Especially Jeremiah 31.

[@UnfoldingTheology]

@@guessable Absolutely. DM me on Insta @unfolding_theology

[@guessable]

@@UnfoldingTheology I don’t have Instagram lol I have Facebook messenger…

[@jarrodmurdock5689]

They cut out the last part of the verse, Peter's statement in Acts 2:39: "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." It is relevant to the discussion, as it elaborates on the earlier phrase of the sentence. It addresses who are the proper subjects of baptism. Who among "you" and "your children" and "all who are far off" is the promise for (and therefore the command to repent and be baptized)? It is for "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." I'm sure paedobaptists may have a reasonable explanation for the whole verse, but the fact that so many arguments I've seen don't want to quote the whole statement is just a bad look.

[@angieruthw]

Thank you so much for this. I was baptized at age 17 in a Baptist church. And went to a Baptist University as well as Baptist Churches the last 15 years. I just started researching this topic. I recently listened to a wonderful debate between John MacArthur and JC sprouls. Sprouls gave great holistic biblical continuity and understanding IMO. I am thankful to be learning this. I find much more reverence and depth in the covenant explanation and more understanding of the "elect" when in this context. This was a wonderful, thorough and easy to follow explanation, I enjoyed the video visuals as well.

[@solideogloria1644]

Been a 1689 guy for the past 5 years or so and then we came across 1 Cor 7:14 during family worship one night. It was like hitting the tip of a covenant theology iceberg. We’re going to a PCA church now and plan on having our 2 (soon to be 3) kids baptized. This video was very helpful and reinforced a lot of what I was already thinking. My Baptist friends probably think I’ve lost my mind but they assume too much discontinuity between the testaments

[@SaltyCalvinist]

Very well done. These reasons were what changed my mind

[@akimoetam1282]

“Where are we told to stop giving our infant the covenant sign” Powerful!

[@josephchin3815]

Don’t be misled. Baptism isn’t the “second administration” covenant sign of Abraham. There is discontinuity between Abraham’s covenant and the covenant of grace. Circumcision is not the covenant sign of those who were spiritually in Christ in Abraham’s day, but only those who were his blood descendants. The indwelling of the Spirit is the covenant seal of the new covenant (those of faith in Christ), not physical water baptism, but baptism of the Spirit.

[@akimoetam1282]

@@josephchin3815 lol get that modernity nonsense out of here. Early Christians did not divorce the Holy Spirit from Baptism until the modern age.

[@josephchin3815]

@@akimoetam1282 I'm not making a historical argument, but a theological one. I'm also not divorcing the Spirit from baptism, but infants from the Spirit within the context of a salvific regeneration. (comp. Luke 1:15)

[@RIDE_26]

@@akimoetam1282 do you think John the Baptist ever baptised an infant, or parents were bringing their children with them to be baptized as well? I think John the Baptist would be horrified to see what happened to his baptism

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@RIDE_26is Christian baptism John's baptism ???

[@mkshffr4936]

Credo only commenters please understand that those of us in the covenant baptism camp, and especially us late comers to it have heard all of the proof texting already. Our approch is more holistic and systematic taking into account the whole arc of scripture and scriptural principles. You don't have to agree but do understand the basis of the understanding is part of a full orbed hermaneutic.

[@Iffmeister]

Keep it up, this is my fave channel now man

[@Cinnamonbuns13]

Great work. Easy to understand and your videos are tempting to share. 10/10

[@kac0404]

Baptism is for those who can believe the gospel and be convicted of their sins - not for infants, who know nothing and believe nothing (Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:13; 16:31-33).

[@TonyA-b6o]

Even a Baptist cannot believe the gospel without the quickening power of the Holy Spirit

[@Marianneasu]

Hi curious to know what Bible you used? I didn’t see it in the resources section. Thanks for a great video helped me visually see covenant theology. Much appreciated!

[@UnfoldingTheology]

Glad to hear it was helpful! Its the Reformation Study Bible 😊

[@misericordiaetjustitia333]

I’m loving this video!

[@merecatholicity]

Me too, Joshua. Me too.

[@tanacious808]

I hope you make more videos again.

[@SMJ0hnson]

I’d love to see a follow up video dealing with the objections you mentioned at the end

[@Mygoalwogel]

I agree. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." So it's not our job to defend infant baptism, it's their job to show why infants are an exception.

[@chrismathew2295]

"And so, in the New Covenant, we don't start from scratch. The Bible is one story. And even though the one covenant of grace was expressed differently before and after Jesus, we should still assume continuity between the Old and New Testaments ─ except where Jesus makes discontinuity necessary." (3 minute mark) Sounds a lot like theonomy! Quick question: would you folks identify as theonomists?

[@UnfoldingTheology]

Well its funny really because anyone who affirms the Westminster Confession (which I do) would affirm my quote there. That includes theonomists and non-theonomists. As it happens, I would identify myself with the label. In fact, I think that chapter 19 section 4 of the WCF is most consistently applied with Theonomy, especially when you read what William Perkins meant by 'General equity'.

[@chrismathew2295]

​@@UnfoldingTheology. I agree! I'm a Presbyterian theonomist myself and, in light of the clarifications delivered by George Gillespie and recent theonomic scholarship, I would certainly concur that the "general equity" clause in WCF 19.4 is "most consistently applied" with theonomy. The devil's in the details, of course. Would you say that you more or less agree with Bahnsen's conception, North's victim's rights, the notion that judges can commute the death penalty (as held by Doug Wilson or Philip Kayser), McDurmon's cherem principle, or anything else still? I'm interested.

[@thomascarpenter6492]

Theonomy has actually been pretty crucial in bringing me to possibly accept paedobaptism. I first think of the argument of silence and assumption-credos don't accept that for baptism, but being theonomist, it's gotten me to begin questioning why is it acceptable for the law but not for the sign of the covenant.

[@chrismathew2295]

@@thomascarpenter6492, awesome! May I recommend Michael Horton's book, "Introducing Covenant Theology", to you? I think you'll find it helpful. Ligon Duncan's series on covenant theology is also useful.

[@mkshffr4936]

Though not a one to one correspondence those who believe in covenant baptism do tend to love God's law like the Psalmist did. The Presbyterian manifestation tends to be a general equity Theonomy as outlined in WCF.

[@joshstrange1244]

Your videos are great! Very clear and beautifully done. You've got my subscription! Keep up the good work!

[@PipBin]

Found this very interesting, Ill have to watch it a few times.

[@hismrsaustin]

Exceptional teaching. Thank you very much !

[@woodfin77]

Wonderful explanation. Thank you, sir.

[@Cinnamonbuns13]

You could/should do a video on Theonomy. I'm assuming with this and your post mil video you're a theonomist. Also pretty sure I saw you had a copy of Mission of God in the post mil video 😊

[@JoshuaBSunderland]

I love watching your videos, such great quality! Keep up the awesome work!

[@UnfoldingTheology]

Thank you so much! Appreciate the support

[@JosephAttie-y6d]

Excellent case!

[@mauriceDG]

Though I don't agree with you on everything, I love your videos and way of explaining. Curious for new content :)

[@Yuri_Jonker]

I hold to the third position, that of baptising the family of the believer. Infant baptism is a subset of this. The example of this is: 1. Israel going through the water with moses. 2. Noahs family going in the ark with him. 3. Ritual cleansing before the annual day of atonement. Before we can receive the body and blood of christ (communion), we need to go through a ritual cleansing. Since Christ's work is once for all and not repeated annually, we dont baptise annually.

[@zambroa]

Great job with these video’s.

[@joshuaeliaquimramos2972]

Wonderfully explained!

[@CG0V]

Amazing!!

[@devinpickett1776]

This is amazing

[@kac0404]

Infants and young children are sinless and safe from condemnation. Because of their innocence, Jesus says about them: “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14). If a baby or young child dies, he will be guaranteed a home in Heaven. Baptism is not for small children since they are born free of sin. Besides, they are not mature enough to fully comprehend truth and what is required of those who need to be baptized. When an adolescent child matures to the point of being able to understand the moral consequences of right and wrong and does wrong, he has committed sin and thus, like adults, needs salvation through Christ. In Romans 7:9, I believe Paul speaks of that in his own life when innocence ended and he began to fail in his responsibility to obey God’s commandments.

[@brandangates]

I still don’t believe in infant baptism but this is the best explanation I’ve had yet. Will keep trying to understand it.

[@BN47]

I would recommend you start letting yourself give in. It's only a matter of time. Roman's 4:11, friend. Circumcision is the sign of the gospel (righteousness by grace through faith). It was given hundreds of years before the Mosaic law as a sign of the gospel, and it was given to infants. The seal of the gospel was given to infants... Abraham received believer's circumcision, but his offspring received infant circumcision.

[@Altepeter]

How could you allow intrusive music?

[@warmteacosy]

But if God made a covenant with Israel and not all Israel are Israel, then God only made a covenant with those who really were Israel, since he only made a covenant with Israel. Isn't that logical?

[@UnfoldingTheology]

In Romans 9 Paul specifically states that the covenant was made with all of them, but later explains that the true substance of the covenant was only enjoyed by the true Israel. This is the reason we have this image of ‘inner-circle’ and ‘outer-circle’, it’s the only way to make sense if the fact that while all of Israel were covenant members, only the faithful really participated as covenant members.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Visible Israel contains the true covenant

[@jabventure]

Great work Joshua, I am enjoying ur Jonah videos - please keep it up. I follow what you have said in this, but it seems to me a final step is missing So God’s covenant is extended to our children - great - praise God But I cannot see where the practise of baptising infants is in scripture. It’s suspicious that this never occurs. For this reason I think its hard to assert that baptising infants is ‘biblical’, because that suggests a level of straightforwardness from scripture through to practise So it would perhaps be more accurate to make the argument that the extension of covenant to infants is BIBLICAL, but that the actual baptising of actual infants is done based on a perceived ‘direction of travel’ of scripture - though it is possible that this is a wrong perception. Be interesting to hear what u think about families who don’t have a faith getting infants baptised..

[@UnfoldingTheology]

Hi Jamie, there's a few issues there. 1) We dont base our practice solely by what is explicity recorded in scripture, we deduce things by necessary consequence. For instance, you'll find no examples of women taking communion. You'll find no one worshipping the trinity by name. Yet, these practices are not only acceptable, but right. 2) The new testament is written at a time when people were being converted to Christianity so adult-believer's baptism would be the norm - there wasn't a second generation of Christians yet. 3) If people are in the covenant they receive the covenant sign, therefore, if children are in the covenant, they should receive its sign. People have tried arguing that baptism is not the covenant sign, but im thoroughly unconvinced by their exegesis. On unbelieving families and baptism: it's wrong and the church should stop doing it immediately... it completely drains baptism of any meaning and turns it into a national ritual that is completely detached from its purpose.

[@jabventure]

@@UnfoldingTheology ok - certainly I take the point that Scripture should not have to spell everything out for us - so proof texting is lazy. But when I think about this and think of all the times in Acts where people are saved along with their household, I find it odd that it's not mentioned once that 'infants were baptised', even if Luke just mentioned in as an aside. I would have thought that it would have been mentioned, if it was a widespread practise. --- Now that I am thinking of it, it also doesn't say that converts took their kids to be dedicated, which would equally be worth a mention.... by the same argument So yes, perhaps I'm becoming open to these debates once more..

[@Onthepathwithjesus]

Brother, thank you for the video. I appreciate you taking the time to put this together and explain your position. In the spirit of Christian love, here’s a humble challenge for you in the form of questions. 1) You correctly said that in the New Covenant we see all the Old Covenants fulfilled. That being the case, how has God fulfilled his promise of Deut. 30:6 to circumcise our hearts? 2) Based on Galatians 3:13-14, and 16, it seems clear to me that for Paul the blessing of Abraham reaches its New Covenant fulfillment in the exalted Christ to whom “the promise of the Spirit” is given (Acts 2:33). As such, Jesus can now grant what the Abrahamic covenant could not, namely, the circumcision of the heart as He grants the Spirit to His New Covenant people. How then can regeneration NOT be the sign of the New Covenant given that Christ is the ONLY New Covenant Head? 3) Isn’t the continuity between the Old and New Covenants precisely the fact that the circumcision of the flesh has given way to the better, permanent, and more glorious circumcision of the heart which only the Exalted Christ can give in and by the Spirit? 4) If your reading of Colossians 2:12 is correct, and that reference is to “infant baptism,” then the infants were also circumcised without hands, meaning, they have been given heart circumcision. Notice that this verse gives statements of facts. Do you believe all baptized infants are regenerate then? If not, then how can the infant be “baptized into Christ” and NOT, at the same time, possess all the other realities listed in those verses? It seems to me that the only way to read Colossians 2:12 within a paedo-Baptist framework is by affirming presumptive regeneration. If not, then how can all those Gospel realities Paul mentions can truly be said to belong to the child? Thank you, brother. No need for an answer. Just food for thought.

[@oracleoftroy]

Re: 1,2, I don't get why "Circumcision of the heart" should be presumed to be just a NT church era thing when that is a often used expression in the OT and the NT references are constantly pointing back to the OT usage. A passage like Rom 4 is instructive as it shows that our justification was always by grace through faith in Christ even before the Christ had come, and that such justification is not and never was in the works of the law. And Romans 9 and 11 shows that the promises of the covenant made to Abraham aren't tied to a bloodline, but to a spiritual people who are in Christ. Even the OT should convince us of that, given the numerous examples of non-Hebrew people joining the Israelite in faith. Moreover, regenerative language repeated in the NT is used throughout the OT, like creating a clean heart in them, giving ears to hear and eyes to see, etc. I think the disagreement is a bit more fundamental and your questions built on premises that the two sides already disagree on. Thus for 3, that is included, but it is more fundamental than that. That's looking at a surface level sign of the covenant, but we say there is much more continuity between them than just that. Pretty much all the promises given to Abraham are given to his 'children' who are following in his faith, not his biology. The sign in Gen 17 was given to the household, and no physical condition save for being male and in Abraham's house was given. Not just the believing head, Abraham, and not just his children, but also his servants, even those from far off. Peter continues this promise in Acts 2, applied to the Church. 4. There isn't a separate category of "infant baptism" so insofar as it is talking about the ordinance, it doesn't matter how old the recipient is. There is one baptism. _"Do you believe all baptized infants are regenerate then?"_ Here we have to ask, what is baptism? Insofar as we are speaking of the mere ordinance, are all people who get wet in a water ceremony spiritually regenerated? No. But is baptism more than that? The Reformed think so. Baptism is also a sign and seal of God's promises of salvation. Does the sign and/or the seal regenerate? No, as the covenant promises of baptism also contain the promises for those who break covenant. Those who rejected Christ receive the promise of death and judgement, and those who accept Christ receive the promised deliverance from death and judgement. Baptism points to both sides of that promise. Baptism more rightly understood is also a sacramental union between the the the ordinance and the regeneration and new life signified by it. It isn't merely a ceremony that the church has co-opted to make a profession of faith, it does something. Baptism saves. But it doesn't save in that getting wet causes God to save. There is a spiritual side to Baptism. This spiritual side isn't a separate baptism, but one in the same with one's water baptism, and yet they might be separated by time and space. So insofar as there is a sacramental union between regeneration and baptism, the question is a bit like asking if all baptized infants are baptized / all regenerated infants are regenerated. There is more to it than just the ceremony, it reflects something God is doing to the infant, even regenerating them, even if the spiritual regeneration happens later in life or not at all. In that way, it is exactly like circumcision. In the OT, the saved were circumcised in the heart. That didn't mean the saved didn't need the sign applied, nor did it mean that the application of the sign caused them to be regenerated of the heart, nor did it mean that everyone with the sign was saved. And yet to call out how they are different is not to say that they are therefore completely separate things, there is a union between the physical and the spiritual in the sacraments. To highlight what I am saying from the Reformed Confessions, here's some sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith: 27.2 - There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. 28.6 - The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. It sounds like you are coming from a more baptist perspective. I think it would be good to read chapters 27-29 of WCF just to get a sense of other perspectives that are very different to both the Baptist and the Roman perspective. I think more so than just the recipient of Baptism, you have a very different perspective on the covenants and that drives your different conclusion on these matters.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Do we baptize on regeneration or profession ??

[@josephp9747]

I was washed (Baptized) by the blood of the lamb when He opened my heart and eyes 11 years ago.... Soli deo Gloria🙌 2 John 1:6 KJB

[@DisciplesOfGod7]

Myths and fables not biblical

[@barend4803]

The teaching is good thank you. But the music is VERY disturbing please.

[@axie_grinder9676]

Nice video brother

[@warmteacosy]

But he says REPENT and be baptized. Babies cannot fulfill this because they cannot repent. Or can they?

[@UnfoldingTheology]

melina grey This is because, as I showed in the video, baptism is a sign of repentance and it comes with an obligation to repent. But that doesn’t exclude infants otherwise circumcision shouldn’t have been given to them, because that too was a sign of repentance. Again, like in the video, if you compare Acts 2 with Genesis 17 you find the same concepts; “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you” (Gen 17:1-2) and “Repent and be baptised” (Acts 2:38). Both signs are introduced with a call to repentance, and both are then commanded to be given to children.

[@axie_grinder9676]

There are actually many examples in Scripture overlooked by Baptists of children even infants exercising saving faith. For example Matthew 21:15-16. Jesus even mentioned "little ones who believe in Me". Wouldn't these children be proper recipients of baptism even in the Baptist model?

[@elishaaggrey7050]

@@UnfoldingTheologyWhere in the scriptures does it say that baptism is a SIGN of repentance?Jesus gave a very simple statement: He said anyone who BELIEVES and is BAPTIZED will be saved. How can the child BELIEVE when he has not understood the gospel? CHILDREN is broad. In fact, in that context , CHILDREN means GENERATION. BAPTISM is what saves and it is not a SIGN. Without it, you will go to hell.Please don`t mislead people. On the last day, parents won`t stand in for their children. Everyone will give his account.

[@HannahClapham]

I agree with pretty much everything here…except the conclusions. The NT appears to make a distinction between those who are in and those who are of the covenant. But when it comes to a covenant sign…that is to be given to those who are being circumcised of the heart. In other words, those who are OF the covenant. Children born into the covenant are members and can become covenant breakers, but 1 Corinthians 7 aligns this fact with no ritual (and seems to include the unbelieving spouse in membership, as well). If you so dearly want continuity, then include relatives and employees of Christians, exclude all females, and get infant boys baptized on the eighth day. There’s no logical reason to EXPAND anything other than Gentile inclusion. The OT covenant was applicable to women without any women getting cut. You’re not expanding grace by getting women wet. It makes no sense to include women UNLESS we are celebrating a spiritual rebirth for them. They become a child from above when they are buried and raised with Christ in the baptismal waters.

[@Blackdogace]

Music is so distracting !!!!!!!!!!!!! I cannot even finish the video .

[@mk1615_PstTahina]

Cristal clear

[@soteriology400]

Nice job demonstrating eisegesis beautifully! 🤦‍♂️

[@paultrosclair1775]

There is no biblical case for imfant baptism

[@josephchin3815]

the act of baptising infants does not create any expectation of future faith any more than a random thought of hope of salvation for the infant. prayer for the infant’s future salvation would be infinitely better. The Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace (although it had elements of “grace”; it was merely a further revelation of the CoG to come. The CoG is the New Covenant accomplished in the sufferings and glory of Christ. Baptism is not the new administration of the Abrahamic Covenant. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant but faith is how the CoG is administered to believers and Christ is the substance of it. Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant for those who are tied to Abraham physically (Israel as a nation); circumcision is not a covenant sign for Abraham’s spiritual offspring - who is Christ. (Gal. 3). Faith is how we find union in Christ as participators in the Covenant of Grace. Thus, Baptism does not communicate any future expectation of faith into the infant’s life.

[@ellenstar1155]

I was baptized as a baby, and I was baptized when 34 years old after research. I believe in the personal decision for baptism. In the days of Jesus other religions also baptized to show starting a new life. So every Jew knew what a baptism was before John the Baptist started to baptize. And they never baptized children! I am for the repentance, baptism with water and baptism with the holy sprit. There is power in baptism, when baptized something happens in the spiritual roam.

[@Iffmeister]

See that's the issue - Jews did baptize children. Mikveh was a ritual washing where Gentile converts to Judaism would need to be cleansed. It signified cleansing spiritually from the world and becoming part of the covenant people. That's exactly what baptism means in the New Testament. Colossians 2:11-12 ties baptism to circumcision, implying continuity.

[@ellenstar1155]

Ify Nsoha not children!!!!

[@joshuatheo1419]

No, you were baptized as a baby and you got wet when you were 34.

[@joshuatheo1419]

@@Iffmeister small world, I just posted a tweet of yours on IG hehe

[@Iffmeister]

@@joshuatheo1419 haha yes

[@JosephAttie-y6d]

Excellent case!

[@Altepeter]

How could you allow intrusive music?

[@kac0404]

Infants and young children are sinless and safe from condemnation. Because of their innocence, Jesus says about them: “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14). If a baby or young child dies, he will be guaranteed a home in Heaven. Baptism is not for small children since they are born free of sin. Besides, they are not mature enough to fully comprehend truth and what is required of those who need to be baptized. When an adolescent child matures to the point of being able to understand the moral consequences of right and wrong and does wrong, he has committed sin and thus, like adults, needs salvation through Christ. In Romans 7:9, I believe Paul speaks of that in his own life when innocence ended and he began to fail in his responsibility to obey God’s commandments.