Infant Baptism and the Scriptures
Infant Baptism and the Scriptures
Many people believe that the practice of infant baptism cannot be based on the teaching of the New Testament. They point to the fact that there is no explicit commandment in this part of the Word of God that says that infants should be baptized. Moreover, the accounts of baptism, recorded in Acts, always seem to speak of people who were converted as adults, who made a public confession of faith and subsequently received the sign of Baptism (e.g. Acts 8:36ff.). Doesn't this clearly show that the Word of God teaches that only adult believers should be baptized, as is taught in Baptist circles? This question become the more urgent when we realize that believer's baptism was not only defended by a notorious heretic like Michael Servetus or the radical, revolutionary Anabaptists in the 16th century. On the contrary, among those who hold this view there are a number of people whose orthodoxy and godliness is beyond any doubt. I am thinking especially of men like John Bunyan, J.C. Philpot, C.H. Spurgeon and others. All these considerations form a compelling reason to ask ourselves the question: Why do we then teach and practice infant baptism? What is the biblical basis for it, if there is any? There certainly is! No, we will not find any explicit command for infant baptism in the New Testament. In the baptismal command incorporated in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18ff.), the Lord Jesus did not tell His apostles specifically to baptize little children. However, some other biblical data clearly shows that the practice of infant baptism is according to the word of God. This biblical material can be brought together under five headings. Hence, I would like to argue that there are five arguments in favour of baptizing infants. We teach and practise infant baptism for the following reasons: 1) Because of the unity of the Covenant of Grace; 2) Because Children belong to the Church both in the Old and New Testament dispensation; 3) Because Baptism replaced circumcision; 4) Because Several believers were baptized " with their house" 5) Because infant baptism was practiced in the Early Church. When we elaborate on each of these arguments separately, it will become clear that they are all inter-related as links in a chain.
1. The Unity of the Covenant of Grace⤒🔗
There is a general consensus that the concept of the unity of the covenant of grace is a key issue in the debate between those who defend infant baptism and those who reject it. What do we mean with this concept? Reformed theology has always emphasized that there is one covenant of grace which has been operative in human history since the fall of Adam. This one covenant of grace embraces both the Old Testament period and the period of the New Testament. There are of course differences between the Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation. But in spite of these differences reformed theologians argue that in essence it is but one covenant! Hence they may conclude, "The covenant that God has made with Abraham and his seed is essentially the same as God's covenant with us and our children." Or in the well-known words of John Calvin: "The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation (in administration)."1
By and large the opponents of infant baptism do not agree with this position.2 In their opinion the differences between the Old and the New Testament dispensations are much greater and far more essential than Calvin and other reformed theologians think! They may point to the fact that the Bible repeatedly states that the old covenant (the covenant made with the Old Testament Fathers) has been replaced by a new covenant. For instance the prophet Jeremiah writes in a well-known prophecy: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer. 31:31-33). In the Epistle to the Hebrews these words are quoted extensively (Heb. 8:8ff.; 10:16 and 17) and it is emphasized that they have been fulfilled with the coming of the great high priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. In Him the new covenant has been established and apparently has replaced the old covenant. For we read in the final words of Hebrews 8: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).
In the light of texts like these, there has been a strong tendency among the opponents of infant baptism to maintain that there is a sharp, essential distinction between the old and the new covenant. It is stated that God's covenant with Israel was national: it was limited to Israel the nation. The new covenant, on the contrary, is universal: it applies to believers from all nations. Another characteristic of the old covenant is that it is considered to be earthly or fleshly. The promises made to Abraham are mainly earthly in nature: God promises to make him exceedingly fruitful and to make nations of him (Gen. 17:6). In addition to this, he receives the promise of an earthly possession – the land of Canaan (Gen. 17:8). Compared to this the new covenant is totally different: it is not earthly in nature, but spiritual. This is underscored by the undeniable fact that the promises of this covenant speak of spiritual blessings: The Lord says: "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more" (Jer. 31:34b).
This crucial difference between the old and the new covenant comes particularly to the foreground in the matter of the membership of each of those covenants. It is stated that those who were born in the Old Testament people of Israel automatically entered into a covenant-relationship with God. They became members of this national and earthly covenant by birth. This was confirmed by the sign of circumcision which for that reason had to be administered to infants (Cf. Gen. 17:10-14). But in regard to the membership of the new covenant, the situation is completely different. Not natural birth, but spiritual birth, or regeneration is necessary to enter into this covenant. That is the reason why only born-again, believing adults should receive the sacrament of baptism. In other words, circumcision is the sign appropriate to natural birth into the covenant people of Israel, whereas baptism has to do with that birth by the Holy Spirit which alone brings a man into the Kingdom of God.
This concept may appear to be attractive in the eyes of some, but it will not, I believe, stand up to the serious study of the word of God for at least three reasons. First, the prophecy about the new covenant replacing the old does certainly not refer to the covenant which God made with Abraham. This is especially clear when we turn to Hebrews 8. In this chapter, three important portions of the Old Testament are quoted: Jeremiah 31:31-34 in vs. 8-12 and Exodus 25:40 and 26:30 in vs. 5. Now it is obvious that each of these Old Testament texts speaks of the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai, the so-called Mosaic covenant! God made the old covenant when He took Israel "by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer. 31:32). This implies that the old covenant is the mosaic covenant, with its national and ceremonial laws. And the New Testament stresses again and again that the ceremonial laws of the covenant made with Moses have been abrogated since the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This covenant was therefore indeed "ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). Hence we may conclude that the contrast between the old covenant and the new covenant (in Jer. 31 and Heb. 8) is not a contrast between Abraham and Jesus, but between Moses and Jesus.
Secondly, it is impossible to maintain that the covenant made with Abraham is national, or mainly national in nature. It is an undeniable fact that this covenant has important temporal and earthly aspects. We read that the Lord promises that Abraham will become the father of the nation of Israel. And in the same context, it is emphasized that Israel will inherit Canaan as an earthly possession (Gen. 17:6ff.). But these aspects are clearly secondary. The covenant made with Abraham is in essence spiritual, for the heart of it is God's promise: "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" (Gen. 17:7). This promise is referred to over and over again in the Old Testament, as being the centre of the Abrahamic covenant (Cf. Ex. 6:7a; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 29:13; Jer. 31:33b)! Moreover, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that this covenant made with Abraham has not reached its ultimate fulfilment, when Israel enters the land of Canaan in order to take possession of it, or when it enjoys temporal and earthly blessings. It is fulfilled when the New Testament dispensation has come with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah. That is what Zacharias proclaims when he says in his song that God has raised up a horn of salvation, "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant to us that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear" (Luke 1:72ff.). This implies that with the coming of Christ and his salvation the covenant made with Abraham has come to its deepest fulfilment. This idea of fulfilment does not imply a radical break with the Old Testament dispensation. On the contrary, it means that the New Testament dispensation reveals the deepest intentions of the Abrahamic covenant and brings it to perfection, to its ultimate goal! This is also underscored in the well-known words of the apostle Paul about Abraham and Christ (Gal. 3, esp. vs. 16ff., 29).
Thirdly, circumcision is certainly not merely a natural sign, by which the people of Israel was distinguished from the uncircumcised nations. That was certainly an aspect of circumcision, but there is more to it than this alone. Circumcision also signified that the people of Israel were under obligation to seek the God of the covenant and to walk in his ways. It called, so to speak, to repentance and faith! That is the reason why the Lord is greatly displeased when the Israelites begin to think of circumcision as a merely formal rite, a purely national sign. He urges them through the words of his servants, the prophets, not to be satisfied with this outward sign, but to "circumcise the foreskin of their hearts and to be no more stiff-necked" (Deut. 10:16; Cf. Jer. 4:4). The same emphasis is found in the New Testament, when the apostle Paul writes, "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom. 2:29; Cf. Phil 3:3).
We may conclude that the reformed doctrine of the unity of the covenant of grace has a solid basis in the Scriptures. The Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation are in essence one. The differences are in the mode of administration.
2. Children belong to the Church both in the Old and New Testament dispensation←⤒🔗
The unity of the Covenant of Grace is clearly illustrated in the fact that there are some significant similarities in structure between the Church in the Old Testament and the Church in the New Testament. One of these similarities is that children were regarded as members of the Church under both dispensations. There can be little doubt about this, as far as the Old Testament is concerned. When God made his covenant with Abraham, he said: "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee" (Gen. 17:7). The implication of these words is that not only Abraham, but also his children became members of the covenant community, that is of the Old Testament Church. For that reason circumcision, which was the sign of the covenant, had to be administered to all male children shortly after their birth (cf. vs. 12). This means that these children were regarded as belonging to the Old Testament Church from the beginning of their life. This principle is further illustrated by texts such as Ex. 23:17 and Deut. 16:16, where the Lord commands all male members to appear before him at the tabernacle at the occasion of the three great feasts. The very fact that no distinction is drawn between male children and male adults would suggest that male children were always regarded as full members of the covenant people. Moreover, we read that at certain special occasions all the covenant people came together "before the Lord their God". In these instances the presence of children is mentioned with peculiar emphasis (cf. Deut. 29:10,11 ff.; 2 Chron. 20:13; Joel 2:15, 16). Apparently they belonged to the "congregation of Israel" as well as the adults. The special status of these children as covenant children is expressed in a dramatic way in Ezek. 16. When the apostate Israelites had sacrificed some of their children to heathen deities, the Lord complains that they had slain his children (vs. 21), the sons and the daughters "whom thou hast borne unto me" (vs. 20).
Now it is sometimes stated that this concept is no longer valid for the New Testament dispensation. Since the fulness of the time has come, the Old Testament principle of believers and their seed has been abrogated. The Church of the New Testament consists of (adult) believers only. Of course it is granted that this may include young believers who have shown some early evidences of grace, but certainly not the little children! Is this true? Are little children indeed excluded from the New Testament Church? This position cannot be maintained, I believe, in the light of the testimony of the following passages of Scripture. First of all, we read in Mark 10:13-16 (cf. Matt. 19:13-15 and Luke 18:1 5-17), that certain parents brought their little children to the Lord Jesus, in order that he should touch them and bless them. The fact that these children were indeed very young is particularly clear in the narrative as told by the evangelist Luke. He states with some emphasis: "And they brought unto him also infants..." (Luke 18:15). When the disciples tried to hinder these parents, the Lord became very angry with them and said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:14). Now it is not to be forgotten that the Lord used these little children also as a living parable, an object lesson. Through them he wanted to teach us that we have to receive the kingdom of God as a little child. That is the only way to enter into this kingdom (cf. Mark 10:15). However, it should also be observed that the Lord Jesus had a concern for these children, not merely as living parables, but as they were in themselves. Thus he received these infants into his arms and blessed them (cf. Mark 10:16). Hence this passage teaches clearly that there is room in Christ's kingdom also for little children and that they may participate in his blessings.3
The next passage is taken from the words which the apostle Peter spoke at the day of Pentecost. We read that many of the Jews who heard his powerful message were pricked in their heart (Acts 2:37). Then Peter addressed these people personally and said: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:38, 39). It is important to notice that the apostle does not say: "Since the Holy Spirit has been poured out, the Old Testament principle of believers and their children has been abrogated". No, he says: "The promise is also in this dispensation to you and to your children". These words clearly echo the refrain which is so often heard in the Old Testament that God deals with his people in a covenantal way, that is according to the principle: thee and thy seed!4 There is, however, a new element in Peter's message as compared to this Old Testament emphasis. From the day of Pentecost the gentiles also will be called to join the covenant community. They are still "afar off", strangers from the covenants of promise, but God will send the gospel also to them. They will graciously be called and upon repentance join the Church and participate in the promise of salvation. However, this new element does not annul the principle "thee and thy seed" that had been stressed earlier in the text. On the contrary, there is clear evidence that also in the case of the conversion of gentiles the principle "thee and thy seed" is operative. When they come to repentance and faith, they usually join the Church with their "household", that is with their family (cf. Acts. 16:15 etc.). Apparently the children of both Jews and gentiles belonged to the Church of the New Testament. This is clearly underscored in passages such as Eph. 6:1-3 and Col. 3:20, where the apostle Paul addresses the children as members of the Church, in the same way as he addressed different groups of adults (cf. Eph. 5:22 ff.; 6:4; Col. 3:18, 19, 21). It is true that the word "children" in these passages is very general and can be used of children in different age groups. But there is not a shred of evidence to indicate that the younger children are excluded!
Finally, a very important text is 1 Corinthians 7:14. In this passage Paul is speaking about married couples of which one of the partners has been converted, while the other is still ensnared in the darkness of heathenism. In such a situation the believing wife does not have to leave her unbelieving husband, "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy" (vs.14). This means that the unbelieving partner comes under the influence of the word of God and of a godly life. He is, thereby, in a sense sanctified, set apart! To clarify this statement the apostle adds the following argument: "For else were your children unclean; but now are they holy". Let us notice that he does not say their children, but your children. In other words, he is not simply speaking about the children of a believing mother and an unbelieving father, but about the children of the entire congregation! What Paul wants to say is this: the unbelieving husband is sanctified in a similar way, as your children are sanctified! Apparently the last principle was commonly accepted in the apostolic Church: our children are set apart, as children of the congregation.5
3. Baptism has replaced circumcision←⤒🔗
The New Testament teaches very clearly that, with the coming of the new dispensation, the sign of circumcision has been abrogated. The council of apostles held at Jerusalem decided that the gentiles who had come to repentance and joined the Church did not have to be circumcised (cf. Acts 15). Hence the practice of circumcision gradually disappeared in the early Christian Church, also among Christians of Jewish descent. This is also the reason why the apostle Paul could speak in such a negative way about the continued practice of circumcision. In the epistle to the Galatians he writes, for instance, that in Christ Jesus the sign of circumcision does not avail anything (cf. Gal. 5:6; 6:15).
The reason why circumcision had to be abolished is that this ordinance of God had been fulfilled in holy baptism, and consequently had been replaced by it. An allusion to this can be found in the narrative of the conversion of Cornelius. We read that he is called a man "that feared God" (Acts 10:2). This expression indicates that Cornelius, although he was a gentile, was deeply interested in the religion of the Jews. He was convinced that the God of Israel was the only true God and he wanted to serve this God. However, this expression also tells us that Cornelius was not yet circumcised. Circumcision stood, so to speak, still as a barrier between him and the God of Israel. Only those who were circumcised were regarded as full members of the covenant community and recipients of the blessings of salvation! Now we are told that this man came into contact with the gospel of grace in a very remarkable way. And when the gospel was preached by the apostle Peter, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those that heard the word. That means that they all received the saving grace of God. When this has taken place we do not hear a word about the necessity of circumcision any more. Apparently that barrier had totally disappeared (cf. vs. 45)! Instead thereof we read that he entered the community of the New Testament Church by receiving baptism (cf. vs. 47). This seems to indicate that baptism made circumcision superfluous and replaced it.
This principle is taught even more clearly in Col. 2:11ff. In order to understand this passage it should be kept in mind that certain false teachers were disturbing the Church of Colosse. Part of their erroneous teaching was that they maintained that Christians needed to be literally circumcised, in order to attain to the fulI measure of salvation. Over against this error the apostle Paul says: Do not believe them, you have already been circumcised with a circumcision that excels by far the rite that is being recommended so strongly by those teachers of error.6 And what is this "more excellent" circumcision? Baptism! The apostle writes literally: "In whom (i.e. in Christ) ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands (...), (having been) buried with him in baptism... " (Col. 2:11 and 12). It is evident that the apostle describes baptism in these words as a "true", a "fulfilled" circumcision. This is underscored by the fact that in this same verse baptism is called "the circumcision of Christ" (vs. 11 b). This expression can also be paraphrased as "Christian circumcision."7 Therefore we may conclude from this passage that baptism is the Christian circumcision. It is the fulfilment of the Old Testament ordinance of circumcision and has taken its place.
This is also illustrated in some of the earlier Christian writings which were written immediately after the books of the New Testament. In 2 Clement, a sermon written in the beginning of the second century A.D., baptism is called "the seal". This indicates that in this period the biblical characteristics of circumcision were applied to baptism. The apostle Paul calls circumcision the "seal of the righteousness of faith" (Rom. 4:11). In the light of this, it is possible to say that the "seal" of baptism has replaced the "seal" of circumcision.
4. Several believers were baptized "with their house"←⤒🔗
We have seen that not only under the Old Testament dispensation, but also in the times of the New Testament, children belonged to the Church. In addition to this, it has become evident that the Old Testament rite of circumcision – which had to be administered to all the infant boys that were born in Israel – has been replaced by baptism. These two arguments seem to indicate clearly that also young children were recipients of baptism in the Church of the New Testament. This is further demonstrated in those portions of the Scripture where it is said that some received the Word with a believing heart and were baptized "with their household." There are three texts in which this household baptism is mentioned explicitly. In Acts 16:14f the conversion of Lydia is recorded, and subsequently it is stated that "she was baptized, and her household" (vs. 15). Another example of this household baptism can be found in the narrative of the work of God's grace in the life of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25ff). It should be noticed that Luke, the author of the Book of Acts, strongly emphasizes in this chapter the relationship between this man and his house (Cf. vs. 31, 32, 34). This relationship also plays an important role in the words that describe his baptism. We read in vs. 33: "And he (i.e. the jailer) took them (i.e. Paul and Silas) the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his (viz. family), straightway". The third text is 1 Corinthians 1:16, where the apostle Paul writes that he himself also baptized the household of Stephanas. Apart from these explicit references, there are two other passages in Scripture in which household baptism appears to be implied. The first example is the record of the conversion and baptism of the Roman centurion, Cornelius. It should be granted that in the actual narrative of his baptism (Acts 10:47, 48), the words "and his house" are not mentioned. However, the context clearly indicates that those that were baptized together with Cornelius were the people which heard the Word spoken by the apostle Peter (Cf. vs. 44). In the next chapter, Peter relates that he was sent to Cornelius to preach the promise of salvation to him and all his house (Acts 11:14). This seems to indicate that those that heard the Word, received it and consequently were baptized belonged to the house of Cornelius. The idea of household baptism is even more clearly implied in the words which we read in Acts 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". It is evident that the words "and were baptized" do not only refer to the believing Corinthians. Crispus and his house also received the sign of baptism. In light of these passages, the question will be asked: What does the expression "he and his house" mean? Is there any solid evidence that infants were included in these households when they were baptized? In order to answer these questions we have to study the Biblical concept of "house" or "household" in some detail. Expressions like "he and his house' or "he and all his house" are quite numerous both in the Old and New Testaments. In these instances, the word "house" or "household" has the meaning of family. In the Biblical view on the family, the idea of family solidarity and unity was very predominant. Especially in its relation to God, the household was viewed as a unity. This was underscored by the fact that the father, as the head of the entire family, could make a vow of allegiance unto the Lord also on behalf of his house (Cf. Joshua 24:15b). Furthermore, the father in Old Testament times was under obligation to appear at regular times before the Lord with his house (Cf. Deut. 14:26; 15:20; 26:10, 11; 1 Sam. 1:21). These families consisted of the father and/or mother and the children of every age. Male and females slaves were also generally counted among the members of the house, and if those slaves had children, they were considered to belong to the household of the owner as well. In this light it will not surprise us that several Old Testament texts indicate that the concept of household or family had a special reference to the children, even to the youngest ones. When, for example, Ahimelech was threatened by Saul that he and "all his father's house" must die (1 Sam. 22:16), and when, in execution of this threat, the whole priestly town of Nob was massacred, except one fugitive, the horror of this act of vengeance is revealed by the fact that not even the little children or infants were spared (Cf. vs. 19). Or when Pharaoh gave Joseph's brothers permission to bring their father and their households to Egypt (Gen. 45:18), they are explicitly urged to take carriages for their little ones and their wives (Cf. vs. 19; see also vs. 10 and 11). That even the very youngest were included in the household is also evident in the narrative in 1 Samuel 1. Every year Elkanah travelled with "all his house" to Shiloh to bring a sacrifice (vs. 21); it is mentioned, as an exception, that Hannah with her as yet unweaned baby stays behind (Cf. vs. 22). Finally, we can see especially clearly from the instructions for circumcision that even the smallest children were part of the household: "every male among the men of Abraham's house" were circumcised (Gen. 17:23), that is, all the male members of the household down to the babies "eight days old" (vs. 12).8 The Old Testament concept does not change in the days of the New Testament. Also in this period the word "household" had the connotation that the children of all ages, and usually also the slaves and their families, were included.9 Therefore, when we read several times in the New Testament that certain new converts were baptized "with their household", the children that belonged to these families must have received the sign of baptism together with their parents. This is underscored by the fact that no less than three times in those passages there is spoken of "all of his house" (Acts 11:14; 16:33; 18:8). This clearly indicates that no single member of these households was excluded from baptism. It should be granted that it is impossible to prove that in every particular case in which the baptism of a whole household is mentioned, small children were actually present. But the opposite is also true. It is impossible to prove that in each of those five instances absolutely no infants were baptized. In the light of what has been said about the Biblical concept of "house" this is rather unthinkable. Moreover, the writers of the books of the New Testament could under no circumstances have applied the term "he and his household" if they had wished to say that only adults had been baptized.
It is sometimes stated that household baptism signifies that only those members of these families were baptized who had showed some marks of saving faith, or who, with their parents, had made a personal profession of faith. If this view is correct then little children were not included in household baptism. However, not one of the passages under consideration indicates that individual members of the household made a profession of faith together with their parents before they were baptized. On the contrary, especially the narrative of the Philippian jailer shows that he alone came to true saving faith and yet his entire household was baptized with him! The jailer asked Paul and Silas: "Sirs, what must I (singular) do to be saved? And they said, Believe (singular) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced with all his house that he (singular) had come to faith in God" (Acts 16:30-34).10
Finally, it should be stressed that the cases of household baptism were not just exceptions in the New Testament Church. It is a well-known fact that there are relatively few instances of actual baptism recorded in the books of the New Testament. There are only twelve of them. In the case of two of these, Paul and the Ethiopian Eunuch, there were no children to be baptized (Cf. Acts 9:18; 8:38). The baptism of large crowds is mentioned four times (Acts 2:41; 8:12; 18:8b; 19:5). But in all other instances, with the only exception of Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:13), new converts were baptized with their household! In the light of this, A. A. Hodge rightly concludes that: "Thus in every case in which the household existed it was baptized".11 Apparently household baptism was customary in the Church of the New Testament and as we have seen, this implied the baptism of children. On the other hand, there is not a single trace in the writings of the New Testament of adult baptism of sons or daughters born of parents who were already Christians. Yet chronologically, such a case would have been possible within New Testament times.12
5. Infant baptism was practiced in the Early Church←⤒🔗
This last argument in favour of infant baptism is not a Biblical argument in the strict sense. At this point, we want to look at the question of whether there is any historical evidence that infant baptism was practiced in the time of the New Testament, and in the earliest period of Church history. Because of its historical character, this argument should never be put on the same level as the arguments that have been dealt with thus far, as it does not carry the same weight. Yet these historical observations may serve to undergird the Biblical material which has been presented.
It is often stated that the history of the early Church is completely silent about infant baptism until the days of Irenaeus and Origen (circa 200 A.D.). This is true in the sense that Irenaeus is the first Christian writer who explicitly wrote about the baptism of little children shortly after the year 180 A.D. However, this certainly does not imply that infant baptism was not administered or not known before that time. This is clear from several sources. The first is Origen, who stated in the beginning of the 2nd century that infant baptism is an old custom of the Church: "...the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants also". It should be kept in mind that Origen was born in 185 A.D. into a family that had been Christians for at least two generations. He was certainly in a position to know the customs of the Church and the tradition of the apostles. The same emphasis is found in the so-called Apostolic Tradition, written by Hippolytus. This work was written around 215 AD., but it describes practices and customs in the Church of Rome during the second half of the second century. In this book, Hippolytus gave a graphic description of how, at the day of Easter, the families who were being admitted to the Church were baptized; first the children, including the infants who could not yet speak (i.e. answer the baptismal questions), then the adult males and, lastly, the women. One thing is clear from this: Hippolytus accepted infant baptism as an unquestioned rule which needed no justification. Further proof for the general acceptance of infant baptism came from a rather unlikely source. In the beginning of the third century, Tertullian advocated the postponement of baptism of little children under certain circumstances, particularly in the case of the baptism of children of recent converts. However, he never utterly rejected infant baptism. Rather, he accepted this practice of the Church of his day as being in accordance to the Word of God. This means that his reservations were directed against an established usage with which he basically agreed. Therefore, infant baptism cannot have been a novelty in his days, something which had just recently come up. If that had been the case, this well-educated and skilled lawyer would not have failed to use this as a powerful argument to undergird his reservations regarding this practice! Hence we may conclude that the way in which those early Christian writers, since 180 AD., dealt with infant baptism indicates that they were used to this custom, and traced its origin back to the days of the apostles and to the Word of God.
This fact is supposed by many other data. There is the archaeological evidence of inscriptions on children's tombstones of the first centuries, which show that infants were baptized in that time. The results of excavations of ancient church buildings have taught us that the same rite was used for the baptism of children as well as adults. In both instances, baptism was administered by effusion (i.e. the pouring of water over the head) rather than by total immersion. Even before the time of Irenaeus, there are some veiled allusions to the practice of infant baptism. We will mention two examples. In his First Apology, which was written between 150 and 155 A.D., Justin Martyr mentioned "many men and women of the age of sixty and seventy years who have been disciples of Christ from their early childhood". The word used for "having become a disciple" clearly refers to baptism. (The same word is used as in Matthew 28:19.) Consequently, these words reveal that those men and women had been baptized as children in the time between 80 and 95 A.D., when all the books of the New Testament had not yet been written. Also, the other example brings us back to the days of the apostles. In the old account of the martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna, we are told that the grey-haired bishop was challenged by his judge, the proconsul Statius Quadratus, to revile Christ. He answered: "For eighty-six year I have served him, and he never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?" Those eighty-six years apparently refer to his whole life. That implies that Polycarp most likely had been baptized as a child in the year 70 A. D., for it is generally assumed that he died as a martyr on February 22, 155 A D. These examples indicate that the Early Church, in unbroken continuity from the days of the apostles had practiced infant baptism. And thus the history of the Early Church undergirds the Biblical basis for infant baptism.13
Add new comment