Infant Baptism? A Holistic View
/There's usually two main arguments against infant Baptism that I hear from people:
It's not in the Bible
You have to believe in order to be baptized
I think both of those arguments sound convincing - they're clear, simple, and easily understood. Paired together they seem to be totally effective at destroying any doubts. So why is infant baptism so pervasive in the Church? Why has it been a practice for so long? Are theologians really so dense? Maybe! First, let's consider these two reasons against infant baptism and afterwards, let's look at reasons for infant baptism.
It's not in the Bible.
That's true. There are no infants explicitly baptized in the Bible. There's a whole host of things that Christians do and believe in that aren't in the Bible. The Trinity isn't explicitly (key word) in the Bible. Accountability partners aren't "in the Bible." Prayer walks aren't in the Bible. Of course just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't make it wrong. If you asked your kids to come home by 10PM and they said, "But that's not in the Bible!" you'd never let that line of reasoning stand. There are all sorts of things that we do and that we promote that aren't in Scripture. So why are we so content with this line of thinking?
I was talking to a small groups pastor the other day and he told of a time when he wouldn't allow someone to lead a small group because they had been baptized as infants but not as an adult. His reasoning?
"Keith, we want our faith to reflect what we see in Scripture and we don't see infant baptism in Scripture."
I responded, "You don't see rebaptism in scripture either but I bet you do that all the time, don't you?"
He did.
While it might be "convenient" to use the "It's not in the Bible" argument - it's a near impossible principle to use if you want to be consistent.
You have to believe in order to be baptized.
I agree. The Bible requires belief for adult baptism. I don't think there's any doubt about that. The question is - does scripture require belief for infant baptism?
We said before that "infant baptism" isn't in the Bible, right? So there's no evidence in scripture that says that infants need to exercise faith in order to be baptized. How could they? And why would we expect infants to be held to the same standards as ourselves? Isn't it Jesus that spells out this divine law: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded."
But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48)
And can't we easily infer that the opposite is true: Whoever has been given little, little will be demanded. How can faith be required from someone who does not have the faculties for it? In fact, most theologians agree that those who don't have the capacity for knowing and believing in God aren't required to know and believe in Him in order to be saved.
Consider this: Why should we expect the requirements for infant baptism to be the same as adult baptism when infants can't do what adults can do and scripture (and church tradition) doesn't expect them to?
Does this idea not now seem a bit contradictory: Many church traditions that affirm the idea of "age of accountability" are the same ones that would deny infants from being baptized. In the one hand you're saying: belief isn't required of children and in the other hand you're saying: children have to believe if they're to be part of the faith.
I agree - adult baptism (the only baptism we see explicitly in scripture) requires faith. I disagree that scripture requires faith for infant baptism and there's no reason for me to assume that the very same qualifications would apply especially if it's impossible for infants to meet those qualifications.
Perhaps you don't consider my rebuttals to be very compelling. Before you make a decision - consider the arguments for infant baptism. One of which will have some very strong overlap with this idea.
1. Infant Baptism is ancient
An early church theologian - St Vincent of Lerins laid down a rule for determining Orthodox faith. There were three guidelines: Universality, Antiquity, and Consent. Antiquity basically meant that we should prefer older teachings and be wary of novel ideas. In this case an ancient practice demonstrates that it's more in keeping with the faith that's handed down from the Apostles rather than a new practice that was not handed down by the Apostles. The earliest known reference to infant baptism happens in 185 AD from Church Father Irenaeus. Note that this is only a few generations after the last book of the Bible was written. Irenaeus writes,
"He came to save all through means of Himself—all … who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (Against Heresies II:22:4)
Irenaeus uses the words "born again" which would've been a reference to baptism (Romans 6:3-4), although we use it a bit differently today). So we see evidence that it was common for the early church to talk about infant baptism.
Tertullian makes the next reference to the practice sometime between 200-206AD and while he's against infant baptism (it's not for the reason that you might think):
"According to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children." (de baptismo, ch. xviii)
Tertullian makes this argument because he feels it's safer to baptize someone right before their death so there's no chance of them recanting. Notice nonetheless that infant baptism was a thing for his time and he's not against the theology behind it - he just prefers to baptize people as late as possible.
Origen (around 248AD) claims that this teaching was passed down by the Apostles, "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants." (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)
And Augustine (358AD) makes a similar argument: "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained."
In fact there are no writings from the early church in which infant baptism is rejected. Tertullian thinks it's wiser to wait but not because it's invalid.
2. Infant Baptism is ecumenical
St. Vincent of Lerins had two other guidelines: Universality and Consent (or Consensus) and he was basically asking: Does this apply to all Christians in every geographic location and does the Church generally agree upon it?
It wasn't until 1525 that Anabaptists came onto the scene and began to question the validity and practice of infant baptism. In other words The Church has practiced infant baptism for the first 1500 years (or so) of it's life in near full agreement. The major leaders of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli also believed in infant baptism). Today, infant baptism is still practiced by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, United Methodists, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Nazarenes, and some Reformed. I assume I'm missing some but this makes up the vast majority of Christianity not just today but throughout the ages as well.
The majority of the church baptizes infants. You may not think this is significant but scripture calls the Church the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and Jesus Himself tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in all truth (John 16:13).
3. Infant Baptism is covenantal
Most Christians would agree that all infants and children and even adults without the ability to comprehend and confess Christ are welcomed into God's covenant family. Wesley once suggested that Christ's work on the cross removed the guilt of original sin so that infants would be saved. Catholics believe that infants are saved based on what they would call "Baptism of desire" (that is, the Church desires for them to be baptized even if they aren't) and most protestants would say that infants are saved simply because they haven't grown to the "age of accountability." The majority of Christianity believes that those born in this world start out saved and faith is not yet required of them - every soul, every infant, begins life as part of the Church.
If Baptism is a ritual of initiation into the Church - why should it be withheld from infants who clearly are part of the Church? Especially so if their parents are believers who are raising those children in the Church.
Furthermore, the Jewish people had a covenantal ritual of initiation - circumcision. This ritual was to be administered to infants. Baptism - the sign of entering into the new covenant has replaced the old sign of the old covenant as suggested by Colossians 2:11-12. If the covenantal ritual of circumcision was appropriate for children of God's chosen people according to the old covenant why should the covenantal ritual of baptism be considered inappropriate for the children of God's people according to the new covenant? Don't forget - these children are part of the Church.
While infant baptism is not explicitly in scripture it does appear to exist implicitly in scripture. Consider these verses:
(Acts 16:15) When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
(Acts 16:33) At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
(1 Corinthians 1:16) (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
Is it difficult to believe that these households included children? Roman households were sometimes large and could've included servants - especially the household of Lydia from Acts 16 who was a dealer of expensive cloth and eventually hosted a house church.
Remember too that eventually the early Church would gain a reputation for rescuing infants that were abandoned outside to die alone. If the church continued the scriptural and cultural practice of baptizing households than is it a stretch of the imagination to say that a good many of these babies were baptized?
4. Infant Baptism is sacramental
Protestants and Catholics use the word "sacrament" differently and so we have a different number of "sacraments." For most protestants a sacrament is a ritual that was instituted by Jesus, expected of all believers, and finally a ritual in which grace is communicated. Most would ask the question - what grace is administered to infants? Are we suggesting that infant baptism saves? Are those who practice infant baptism suggesting that infants that aren't baptized are going to Hell?
First of all - don't forget that most believers don't think that baptism saves. We're saved by grace through faith. Yet Baptism remains a means of grace for believers - even if it's not salvific grace. So what happens to believers in baptism? What grace do they receive? Some have incredible stories of baptism in which they rise up from the waters completely changed. I know of one Christian who saw the face of Jesus reflecting in the water that he had just been baptized in. In a sense, God's grace during baptism seems to vary from person to person. He knows what we need.
So what happens in infant baptism? Well, we can't say for sure - just like we can't say what happens in adult baptism. We can trust that God is at work. Wesley believed that grace was stored up potentially in infant baptism so that when the infant came into sincere belief the grace of baptism would be applied.
Perhaps none of these arguments alone could persuade you to believe in infant baptism. What about when you consider them altogether? I agree - there's no proof one way or another. We have to weigh the evidence. When you consider the evidence and the arguments, where do you land?
“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”