Infant Baptism

The argument of the fallen nature led to the concept that God must provide a grace to overcome the nature of man. Thus infant baptism was conceptualized to take away the supposed sin passed from Adam to all mankind.

This concept actually began in paganism and transferred to Catholics..

The idea we must have this prevenient grace to have forgiveness from Adam's sin was theorized by Catholics, but some also believed infant baptism was necessary to free us from the influence of flesh so that we might attain to holiness and righteousness.

From a Catholic

So, the real issue with those who deny infant Baptism is that they deny the reality of what we call original sin, something which non-Catholics usually confuse with "original guilt" (which Catholics DO NOT believe in). For example, we do not hold that a child is born guilty of sin. That is not the Catholic position at all. Rather, we believe that the child is personally innocent; however, because of the sin of Adam and Eve, the child is born with a "macula" (in Latin, a "dark spot") -- a lack of the light of God's grace in the soul (something the Virgin Mary did not lack, and so she is the Im-maculate Conception)

Catholics taught man had a dark soul and baptism empowers us to attain knowledge and overcome darkness. As metioned earlier, however, adults believed the Gospel before baptism. How did adults understand and believe the Gospel before baptism if they had a dark soul?

Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Hearing and belief preceeded baptism vs the Catholic dark spot theory, viewing belief as possible after baptism.

Catholics

"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]).  

Yet, Paul said sin dwelled in him even after baptism,

Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

so it did not supernaturally remove any stains if there. That is correct, Paul's statement that sin indwelled him was after his baptism. Catholics teach the verse assuming it was a state before his baptism. Since his sin indwelling was abiding beyond baptism we know baptism wasn't meant to remove it.

Rom 8:21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 

Rom 8:22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 

Rom 8:23  And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 

So Paul no where said baptism removed man's corruptible nature.

The some think statement above shows that in the early days there were some differing opinions about infant baptism. It isn't that I disagree with some other benefits of baptism to mankind, I just question whether the benefits are passed to children without their consenting faith.

Act 8:36  And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 

Act 8:37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 

Certainly faith is a requirement for adults in the case above. I would question death bed baptism where the adult is unconscious as an infant is.

What I believe is important is that the early christian communities associated baptism with these benefits, and they were not by faith only. Nor did baptism precede faith.

The New Testament does not support pre-faith baptism, nor does it support faith only. It supports believers baptism in faith without any doubt. 

My view is God did not pass sin from Adam, but accounted Adam's sin to all men so that all men would die. God used Adam's sin to make a judgment upon all. Also, since Catholics believe baptism removed this effect on man we shouldn't die any more physically if it had in mind taking away physical death in this world, but we do still die physically and we still sin. Physical death passed to all from Adam.

We won't overcome the effects of the natural man until the resurrection, as we wait for the hope of righteousness.

We do receive our nature passed through procreation, this includes our emotions such as love, lust, jealousy, etc; but we also have a spirit from God that is independent of procreation. 

Zec 12:1  The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him. 

Paul's statement below was spoken after his baptism but before the resurrection.

Rom 7:24  O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 

The emotions leading to sin inherent within the body were a created phenomenom, not from a fallen state. It wasn't given after the fall of Adam. Adam had it as well. Adam didn't have to be in a fallen state to pass it to us. Adam was created with death in mind.

Plus he didn't say man is sin or even flesh is sin, he said sin dwelled in him. A phrase similar to,

2Jn 1:2  For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever. 

That which is in us, is not us. It simply dwells in us. Thus Paul could say,

Rom 7:17  Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 

Paul actually distances the human personality, describing them as different entities. Sin dwells in us as truth does, both influence us. Therefore sin may dwell in us after birth, as we learn the ways of the world, not necessarily  during birth.

Truth dwells in us after birth as we learn, why can't sin be learned and therefore not affect infants?

Psa 25:7  Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD. 

Psa 71:17  O God, thou hast taught me from my youth: and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works. 

We don't have to debate sin dwelling in man somehow, we can ask at what age and the method it occurs. Paul's statements don't say birth. It isn't necessarily passed through procreation.

Thus, our mind which can have faith and serve God is a created phenomenom. It has both truth and sin to deal with.

Rom 7:25  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 

Thus, the righteousness of faith was always possible within man.

Flesh cannot stop the mind from serving, and the righteous mind can't change the effects of flesh.

Lust is a natural part of man that leads us to decide against the mind.

Jas 1:14  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 

Jas 1:15  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 

Protestants taught you need this prevenient grace to even attain faith. Catholics taught you need infant baptism to overcome the lust/sin inherent in man, even if a child's nature hasn't produced sin yet.

Even after baptism, James says lust brings forth sin, so that baptism did not free us from our sinful nature, nor would the theory of regeneration.

We should note, the adults of the new Testament attained the faith before being baptized, thus baptism couldn't regenerate us so we can have faith. The grace needed to believe and obey was without prevenient baptism. The grace needed was teaching and evidence.

We can also look at men like Abraham and Moses who attained to faith and righteousness without the concept of a prevenient baptism.

We can reach faith without infant baptism and without Protestant Regeneration because the will of the  mind is not totally dominated by the flesh.

Then it could be argued that we need that grace to reach holiness, to overcome our nature. The grace of Christ's death is sufficient to cover us when the war between faith and flesh becomes a struggle. Faith alone is sufficient to produce a changed life to some degree. Our faith mixed with will, allow us to follow God's instructions to some degree, even while the flesh may pull against us.

Rom 6:22  But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 

Becoming a servant to God produces sufficient holiness as Christ forgives. You have sufficient power to serve that holiness, even if not perfection, holiness is possible.

Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Faith alone without a real commitment does not produce the holiness needed. It is in recognition of Jesus as Lord and Christ.

Paul no where taught that man is powerless to have faith or good works without regeneration.

Even statements that the thoughts of their hearts were evil continually, do not prohibit some good thoughts being possible. It just shows a prolonged evil in man's will toward evil. Noah was seen as righteous even though he was made of the same nature.

The change in faith of man to the point their thoughts were evil continually was progressive from Abel and Cain to the generation of Noah. 

Just as our generation changes progressively.

Luk 18:8  I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Jesus wasn't questioning the presence of faith at all, but a general turn from the faith of Christ throughout the earth. It is progressive change in the spirit and will of man.