Infant Baptism
by Jordan
Bajis
"Should I be baptized again
Many renewed Orthodox Christians have asked themselves and others whether they
should be baptized as adults. I readily understand why this question is asked,
for I myself must admit that I did not always feel comfortable about the
Orthodox Church baptizing infants. I asked myself several other questions as
well: "How can an infant 'believe and be baptized'?" "Where in
Scripture does it show an infant being baptized?" "Is not the
baptizing of infants the reason why the contemporary Orthodox Church has a need
for renewal and re-evangelization?"
These questions were so
significant to me that I refused to actively support or encourage the practice
of infant baptism until I was able to get some satisfactory answers. On one
occasion I even rejected the honor of being the best man at a close friend's
wedding unless he was willing to absolve me of the accompanying responsibility
of being the baptismal sponsor for his first child. Only after he agreed to my
request did I consent to become his best man.
Knowing that as a committed
Christian I could not refrain indefinitely from making a decision on this
matter, I embarked on an intensive study of Scripture and early Christian
history. I resolved that I would not finish my study until I had settled the
issue in my mind and in my heart. Surprisingly, the area was much more complex
than I first envisioned it to be. I must admit at the outset it looked as
though the argument for infant baptism was about as valid as the theory that
the earth was cigar-shaped. However, I uncovered many facts that are usually
unknown to the common layman and which I think will prove helpful for those who
are now in a doctrinal dilemma similar to the one I was in previously. I can
now say, after having looked into the arguments of some of the most respected
scholars on this subject, that there is a very strong case for the baptism of
infants of Christian parents.
Before I begin to share some of
the things I discovered, I think it is important to note that, although I have
dedicated months to the thorough study of this subject, I do not pretend to be
a theologian, professor of Church history, or Greek scholar. I am not an expert
on the subject; I am a student of the subject. It is also important to note,
however, that the evidences and arguments I produce here are, in the main, not
my own but rather a synthesis of research and conclusions distilled from several
noteworthy scholars. It is not my purpose to be overly technical, to illustrate
the minute peculiarity of each counter-argument's counter-argument, or to take
the reader back to study the original documents in order to discuss grammatical
controversies surrounding the texts. It is not that I consider these types of
investigations unimportant, but I simply restrained myself from doing this
because I do not think it is very profitable for the average layman. The
scholars are much better qualified than I to define and explain these more
exacting details, in any case.
Given this preface, let me get to
the point of the article. How is it that I can now recognize infant baptism as
a valid practice whereas before I was highly distrustful of it? I will record a
number of reasons for this below in as straightforward and direct a way as I
know. Some facts will require a bit of explanation, but many will consist of
only a sentence or two. At the close of the list, I will offer some concluding
thoughts and insights about infant baptism. I have categorized the evidence
supporting the practice of infant baptism into three main sections: Scripture,
History, and the Fathers of the Early Church. I recognize that each argument
may not be able to stand on its own, but taken together they present a
conclusive picture.
•1 ) Peter's Sermon-The first time
the Gospel was ever proclaimed was on the day of Pentecost by the Apostle
Peter. In his Spirit-inspired sermon he made it clear that the blessing and
promise of salvation was not just for adults, but for children as well.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and
for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself
" (Acts 2:38,39) It is also interesting to note that this quote from
Peter's Pentecostal sermon does not merely state "... the promise is for
you and children," but "for you and your children," which makes
it clear that the children mentioned here were young enough to still be
considered under the protection and authority of their parents. This is
underscored when one understands that it was common for women and men to marry
at the very young ages of twelve and thirteen, respectively. From this it
becomes reasonable to assume that these children to whom Peter refers were
young juveniles or, at the very least, in theirpreadolescence.
•2) The Baptism of
Households-Although this is only indirect Scriptural evidence, the fact that
the Bible mentions that entire"households" were baptized does make it
seem probable that children and infants were included. "Now I did baptize
the household of Stephanas . . . " (I Corinthians 1:16) (An angel spoke to
Cornelius saying) "Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter,
brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, and
all your household " (Later, when Peter arrived at (Cornelius' household)
"... he ordered them to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a)
"And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) and her household had been baptized . .
. " (Acts 16:15a) "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved,
you and your household . . . and immediately he was baptized, he and all his
household. " (Acts 16:31, 33b) We know that the Greek word oikos,
translated "house" or "household," has traditionally
included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no
evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in
the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning
only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for "house" carries the
sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew
manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew
word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we
know that the phrase "he and his house" refers to the total family;
the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically
mentioning the presence of children and infants at times.
•3) No Baptism of Older Children
of Christian Parents Recorded-If the baptism of infants was not acceptable
during New Testament times, then when does Scripture mention the
alternative-the baptism of the children of Christian parents once they have
matured out of infancy? The Bible never gives one example of the baptism of a
Christian child as an adult. It is important that Scripture also does not speak
of an "age of accountability or reason" (which many pinpoint at 13
years) when a child's capacity to believe the Gospel is developed enough so
that he can receive baptism. Neither does the Bible state that every child is
in a "suspended state of salvation" until they have reached this age,
which one would have to believe if he held to the "age of
accountability" theory.
•4) The Saving Power of Christ's
Presence in Holy Baptism-Although an opponent of infant baptism, Dr. Jewett, in
his book Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, makes a very logical
conclusion about baptism if it is understood to be a release of supernatural
power; " one believes that baptism washes away the guilt of eternal sin,
so that any one departing this life without it is in danger of eternal
damnation, he will have good reason to conclude that infants should be
baptized. In fact, the question of infant baptism can hardly be raised without
such a sacramental theology, since an affirmative answer is a foregone
conclusion."
Certainly if there were a taint of
sin upon each who is born in this world, there would be a need for every person
to be cleansed from this impurity before leaving the temporal life. The Bible's
"sacramental theology" states that there is such a need since ".
. . through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death
spread to all men." (Romans 5:12) For this reason ". . . there are
none righteous, not even one" (i.e. not infants). (Romans 3:10) How are
these young ones saved from the sin they have received from Adam's race? They
are saved through the regenerative power of baptism and the faith of the Church
(i.e. the Christian faithful): "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds
which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing
of regeneration baptism) and renewing by the Holy Spirit." Titus 3:5)
"Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for
the forgiveness of your sins. "(Acts 2:38)
"Jesus answered, 'Truly,
truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the Kingdom of God.' " (John 3:5) ". . . when the patience
of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in
which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water, and
corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. " (I Peter 3:20,21)
Baptism is not just a symbolic
testimony of what God has done in the heart of an adult believer, but is in
itself a dynamic means of actually effecting the power of the Gospel (the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ) in a life (Romans 6:4). Christian baptism is
the means whereby we encounter and identify with Jesus Christ Himself. This is
one of the reasons why Paul explains baptism as the manner in which we
genuinely "put on" or"clothe" ourselves with Christ
(Galatians 3:27). This is not just a metaphor, the Lord actually transforms a
person through his baptism.
•5) The Old Testament Symbols of
Salvation and Baptism Include Infants-
•a) Circumcision, the sign of
God's covenant between the people of Abraham and Himself, was performed on
every male child who was eight days old(Genesis 17:12). Many see a direct parallel
between circumcision and Christian baptism in Scriptural passages such as
Colossians 2:11,12: "And in Him you were also circumcised with a
circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the
circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism . . . " If
baptism is the "New Testament circumcision" there can definitely be
no objection to "sealing" the infant of a consecrated Christian
family in Christ's New Covenant.
•b) Moses' leading his people
through the Red Sea is seen as an Old Testament foreshadowing of Christian
baptism. The following New Testament passage clearly points to this: "For
I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the
cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the
same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which
followed them, and that rock was Christ." (I Corinthians 10:1-4).
Christ." (I Corinthians 10:1-4)
It is worthwhile to note that
"all were baptized" through Moses' leadership in crossing over the
Red Sea. He did not leave the infants or children on the shores of Egypt to
become prey to the angry armies of Pharaoh because they were not old enough to
believe in the promise of the Old Covenant. Rather, entrusted to the arms of
their parents' faith, they were carried through the "baptism of
Moses."
•c) The saving of Noah's entire
family by the ark can also be seen as a prefigurement of a baptism which
includes infants. All that needs to be said, as in the case of Moses' passing
through the Red Sea, is that the entire family was on board the ark. Why should
we leave infants out of the ark of baptism?
•6) Secular Philosophy Redefines
"Faith" and "Person hood"- Larry Christenson, in his
pamphlet What About Baptism', quotes Edmund Schlink (author of The Doctrine of
Baptism) as stating that the rejection of infant baptism was based on the
secular philosophy of the sixteenth century which assured man's individuality,
and was not the result of a new Scriptural inquiry. " 'Belier was seen in
rationalistic and volitional terms, as an act of the mind and the will.
'Because an infant cannot think or decide, it cannot have faith, and therefore
should not be baptized.' To this day. that is the only argument raised against
the validity of infant baptism. One tosses off the sentence as though it were
self-evident truth: 'A child can't believe.' But that 'truth,' upon
examination, is neither self-evident, nor is it Biblical."
As Christenson goes on to say,
faith is not merely a product of reason but relation. It is a relationship of
love and trust, a relationship which is not limited to the mind. Some
Scriptures which support the possibility of an "infant faith" are
these: "Yet Thou are He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst
make me trust when upon my mother's breast." (Psalm 22:9) "And
whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be
better for him if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast
into the sea." (Mark 9:42) "For behold, when the sound of your
greeting (Theotokos) reached my ears (Elizabeth), the baby (John the Baptist)
leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:44)
CHURCH HISTORY
•1) Polycarp stated his martyrdom
(167/8A.D.) that he had been in the "service of Christ" for
eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from Polycarp's life make it likely that
eighty-six years was his age from birth. Jaochim Jeremias, in The Origins of
Infant Baptism, concludes the following from these facts: "This shows at
any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted
quite soon after his birth. His parents were pagans at his birth, he would have
been baptized with the 'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents
were Christians, the words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' supports a
baptism soon after his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years' . . .
for which there is no evidence at all."
Jeremias supposes something
similar for Polycrates of Ephesus. In 190/91, when writing to Rome concerning
the dispute over Easter, Polycrates states that he is "sixty five years in
the Lord." Since this reference to his age is made "because of his
concern for his long unimpeachable Christian standing," Jeremias
postulates that his baptism "took place soon after birth, rather than that
there was an age limit for baptism."
Justin Martyr gives still another
testimony to the practice of infant baptism by stating that many old men and
women of sixty and seventy years of age had been disciples of Christ from
childhood.
•2) No incident is recorded in the
earliest of Christian history which gives evidence that baptism was forbidden
to any person on the basis of an age limit, or that the right of a Christian
parent to have his children baptized had ever been challenged or renounced.
•3) Although several examples
exist from the third century of the children of Christians being baptized as
infants, in all of the literature and collections of inscriptions from that
century there is not a single example of Christian parents delaying the baptism
of their children. •4) Neither the Ebionites, Novatians, Arians, Donatists,
Montanists, nor any other early heresy refuted infant baptism; many were even
noted as practicing it.
•5) A significant parallel exists
between Jewish proselyte baptism (when pagans were converted to Judaism) and
early Christian baptism. The contacts between early Christian baptism and
proselyte baptism, with the similarities in terminology, interpretation,
symbolism, and the rite itself, are especially notable. What is of greatest
interest, however, is that the baptism of the early Church followed that of
proselyte baptism, in which children and infants were baptized with the
convert's family. This is especially significant when one realizes that the
very early Church was made up primarily of converted Jews.
•6) There is no evidence that anyone
being against infant baptism in the early Church on the grounds that you must
first "believe" and be baptized. Tertulian (160 230 A.D.), was the
only one who questioned infant baptism. The bulk of his objection, however, was
due to his heresy that sin after baptism was almost unforgivable.
•7) Cyprian, a leading bishop of
North Africa, convened a synod of sixty-six bishops at Carthage to discuss
whether or not they felt that infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth
day after birth instead of the usual second or third day. Their unanimous
decision upheld the universally accepted practice which they had always
followed.
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
•1) A very early Christian
teacher, Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), wrote the following: " He came to save
all through Himself-all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and
children, and youth, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age,
becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children,
sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them
an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for
youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord."
Here we read that Jesus Christ
came that all might be reborn in God. "How can an infant be reborn if he
cannot believe?" a person may ask. I ask in return, "How can an
infant be reborn if his Christian parents have refrained from baptizing
him?" Is a child who has not reached the "age of accountability/
reason" not reborn until he reaches the age of thirteen when he then needs
to be reborn?
•2) Origen's (185-254 A.D.) view
of baptism is direct and transparent: "For what is sin? Could a child who
has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is
commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this
reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer
baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine
mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful
defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit."
In his Homily on Luke he again
states his beliefs on infant baptism: 'Infants are baptized for the remission
of sins. What sins? Whenever have they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And
yet: 'No one is free from defilement.' (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put
away by the mystery of baptism. That is the reason why infants too are
baptized. "
•3) Hippolytus' (170-236 A.D.)
perception of infant baptism is clear and straightforward as well:
"Andfirst baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves,
they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.
•4) There is not one Church Father
who denies or even questions the validity of infant baptism. It was in no
locality and at no time viewed as something that was created after New
Testament times.
SOME FINAL COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
The evidences I have so far
presented I believe merit attention by themselves. I would like, however, to
make a number of random yet significant comments and observations about the
area of infant baptism before I close this article.
1.Many times the debate regarding
infant baptism is a defensive one; those who propose that adult baptism is the
only valid form challenge those who practice infant baptism to prove that it is
an acceptable practice. 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? Questions such as these:
•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?
•How is it that God established a
covenantal, corporate relationship with the tribes of Israel in the Old
Testament, but you interpret the New Testament as abolishing the faith of an
entire household with the father at its head in favor of a solely individualistic
faith?
•Where does Scripture prescribe
any age for baptism?
•Even if there were a special age
when someone's faith reached "maturity," how could one discern that?
Doesn't faith always mature? When is faith mature enough for baptism and when
is it not? Who can judge?
•Where in Scripture does it say
that children are free from the effects of the Fall simply because they are not
old enough to believe? (Even creation is under the curse of mankind's
fall-Romans 8:19-21).
•What about the many Biblical
meanings and early Christian understandings 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 (I 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?
•If it is granted that baptism is
for the remission of sins, why would the Church ever want to give baptism to
infants if there were nothing in the infants which needed remission? Would not
the grace of baptism, in this context, seem superfluous?
•In essence, laying aside all the
polemics and prejudices and academic intricacies, what Scriptural principle is
being violated if a child is baptized and matures in his faith?
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.
1.Over and over again I am told
that is incorrect to allow infants to be baptized because the Scriptural order
is to first believe, and then to be baptized (Mark 16:16). The error in this
thinking is not that it is incorrect to have an adult believe before he is
baptized, but that one cannot apply a command intended for adults to infants.
The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them
to do anything. They are under the care of their parents who can hear,
understand, and believe. Additionally, there is an important distinction to be
made between baptizing an infant and an adult believer-one has the need to
repent, the other does not.
It is also important to recognize
that the New Testament records the beginnings of the Christian people. This
accounts for it reading like a missionary diary in a number of places. I am
certain that were I to begin an apostolic work in a totally heathen country,
and to write to the people there or to record my progress in preaching the
Gospel to them, I would not mention infant baptism even once.
1.Some may ask why Sts. John
Chrysostom, Gregory of Nanziansus, Basil the Great, and Jerome were all
baptized as adults, even though they had at least one Christian parent. The
earliest evidence that Christian parents refrained from having their child baptized
immediately after birth is in the middle of the fourth century (Gregory was the
first example of this in 360 A.D.). None of these men postponed their baptism
because of faith, however. Surely Gregory and John Chrysostom at 30, Jerome at
20, and Basil at 27 (at which ages they were baptized) had reached the
"age of reason" and individual faith long before then. They postponed
their baptisms on the false premise that they could better assure themselves a
place in heaven if they minimized the times they sinned after baptism. None of these
men ever challenged the validity of infant baptism.
Baptism in and of itself, of
course, is not enough. It must be accompanied by genuine faith. No parents
should be allowed to baptize their infant if they themselves have not made an
expressed commitment to serve Jesus Christ and raise their child in accordance
with God's Word. As adults, we are called to accept the challenge of our
baptism and live dedicated lives for Christ. If we do any less, we have
rejected Christ and the gift of salvation He has made available to us since our
birth.
Going full circle, I now end this
article with the question with which I began it: "Should I be baptized
again?" Given that our infant baptism is valid, the Scriptural answer to
that question is clear" "There is . . . one Lord, one faith, ONE
baptism." (Ephesians 4:4,5) If you have been baptized once, there is no
need to be baptized again. Let us then determine to bear witness to the truth
of our baptism by living for Him who died and rose for us.