A Paper on Infant Baptism - Further Notes to the Sermon

Infant Baptism in the Early Church

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles and that practice has continued with each generation. The witness of the early church is clear. Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, wrote in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 -258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins."

Augustine (354 - 430), writing about this time declared, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be . . . accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles." Specific directions, with detailed instructions, for the baptizing of infants were given by bishops to pastors and deacons during this era of Christian history. Generally, the infant was baptized during the first week of life, but in cases of illness this took place on the day of birth. This pattern, practiced in both East and West, remained customary in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modem times. In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only real opposition to infant baptism came during a brief period in the middle of the fourth century. It was not in reality a denial of infant baptism in and of itself, but a fear that sin committed after baptism would not be forgiven, and so baptism should be put off as long as possible. This heretical view also denied baptism to adults until their death-bed. In fact, the heresy encouraged the baptism of infants when death seemed imminent, as it also did for adults.

Not until the 1520s and the Anabaptist movement did the Christian Church experience opposition specifically to infant baptism. Under the influence of Thomas Muenzer, original sin and human responsibility was denied until an "age of accountability." Although there is no basis in Scripture for this position, a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch embraced the Anabaptist cause.

An Everlasting Covenant of Grace

If there is one "everlasting covenant" running from Genesis to Revelation, a covenant of grace, and that covenant embraces both Jews and Gentiles whose trust is in the Lord for salvation, we should not invent discontinuities where the text does not explicitly provide them.

There is, to be sure, a discontinuity between the manner in which the covenant of grace is administered in both testaments. In the Old Testament, it is promised through types and shadows. In the New Testament, it is embodied as the fulfillment of those promises in Christ. Furthermore, in the Old Testament, circumcision is the sacrament of this covenant and it is only performed on male children. Does this not disqualify a one-to-one correspondence between circumcision and baptism? Not if we recognize the progressive unfolding of the redemptive drama. Joel's famous prophecy declares, "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days" (Joel 2:28,29). This prophecy is confirmed by Paul in Galatians: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26-28).

The writer to the Hebrews tells us that we are heirs of an even better administration of this "covenant of grace." The New Testament administration of this covenant excels the Old in so many ways, but does it fall short in this point of including our children? In the Old Testament, the children were included in the covenant and made heirs to the promises, but now are we to believe that God wishes to exclude our children in this ostensibly better testament?

If there is one covenant of grace in both testaments and circumcision and baptism are the sacraments of the Old and New Testament administrations of that one covenant, the burden of proof would seem to fall on the side of those who deny infant baptism. Often, those who believe in infant baptism are the ones put on the defensive and are the ones who must demonstrate clear New Testament examples of infant baptism. "Why isn't there a single command to baptize children?" they are asked.

However, if the accent falls on continuity (Old Testament promise, New Testament fulfillment), there would be no reason why the apostles would even bring up something that was accepted by all already. Of course, that is an argument from silence. In actual fact, the book of Acts provides us with explicit declarations of continuity. On the steps of the temple at Pentecost, Peter proclaimed, "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. The promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38,39).

In spite of the fact that most candidates for baptism would have been adult converts (as would be the case in any place in which missionaries had just brought the Gospel), there are examples of "household baptisms." In Acts 11:14, Peter tells how an angel had appeared to some men from Caesarea and announced to them that he would bring them the Good News: "He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved." In Acts 16:31-33 Paul and Silas are asked by their jailer, "What must I do to be saved?" They reply, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." As a result, "immediately he and all his family were baptized." Paul noted that although his calling was not to baptize, he had baptized "the household of Stephanus" (1 Cor 1:16).

The testimony of the early church fathers is unanimously in favor of infant baptism. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, who himself had been John's closest pupil, along with Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and other fathers, referred to the practice as of apostolic origin. Church tradition, it is true, is never conclusive, but it is difficult to understand how it could not have been the apostles' custom if such universal claims to that effect did not spark the slightest controversy.

Conclusion Like the covenant itself, baptism implies blessings and curses. For those covenant children who combine the hearing of the Gospel with faith (see Heb 4:2), baptism is a great comfort in times of doubt and fear. Like the rainbow, this sacrament takes the general promise and particularizes it. Not only does God save sinners, he saves me, and baptism is God's testimony to that fact, not mine.

The good news in all of this is that God is in the business of saving entire families. We hear a great deal about "saving the family" these days, and moral and political solutions are usually in mind. But the Scriptures fix our eyes on Christ, the Mediator by whom God has reconciled us to himself and us to each other. While we must be wary of a smug presumption that leads covenant children to apathy and ultimately to a rejection of the promise, we must also be careful not to reject the gracious provision that God has made for us and for our children. Sacraments are meant to strengthen our faith, not compete with it, and too often we view faith and baptism as if they were at odds. It is through the means of grace and by the power of the Spirit that faith is born and strengthened, however God in his marvelous and miraculous way chooses to do that. In a day of broken promises, broken dreams, and broken homes, that is no slight anchor to hold us to the Rock.

Finally, this covenantal approach that we find in Scripture requires much from us as parents. In the baptismal liturgy, the parents promise God and his church that the children will be raised in the Gospel doctrines and in the commandments of God's Word. The congregation itself adds to the parents' oath its own, to assist the parents in the care and nurture of the child. This solemn sacrament draws the community of faith together in a bond of duty. If we really made those promises in good faith, as parents or as a congregation, it means that we will make certain that there are regular periods of instruction for our children at home and in the church. It requires us to treat them as the heritage of the Lord, as they are themselves going to pass this heritage down to their children.

What if those who exclusively favor adult baptism were interrogated? What answers would they give to questions which up until now have been virtually unaddressed?

- If infant baptism is a later invention, when did it begin and who began it? Where did it originate?
- Why are there no protests against the validity of infant baptism from anyone in the early Church?
- Where is anything found in Scripture that expressly forbids the baptism of infants or children?
- Where does Scripture prescribe any age for baptism?
- What about the many Biblical meanings of baptism other than the one defining it as a visible sign of inward repentance, meanings such as the sacrament of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a grafting into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), a passage from the reign of Satan into Christ's authority (Romans 6:17), the expression of the manifestation of God (Luke 3:21,22), an admission into God's covenant (Colossians 2:11), the Lord's act of adoption and our putting on of Christ (Galatians 3:26,27)? Why should these things be taken away from the small child of a Christian family?
- If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?

There is a good reason why these questions are hard to answer for those who exclusively advocate adult baptism: infant baptism is not an innovation, it is the practice of the Early Church.

Brother Polk preached a series of sermons on baptism you may enjoy by following these links.