Should Infants Be Baptized?
Steven L. Ware, Ph. D.
Brief Outline
A Piece of My Story
The Believer Baptist View
The Paedobaptist View
As the pastor of a Lutheran congregation which has been heavily impacted by the charismatic movement since the 1970s, one thing that has positively impressed me over and over again is the spiritual curiosity and hunger I have observed among many of our members. Matters of Christian belief and practice, their historical background, and especially their grounding in Scripture, have provided countless stimulating discussions. And one of those Lutheran practices which comes up regularly for discussion is infant baptism.
Should infants and young children be baptized? Are they capable of having faith, or exercising faith? Is there a case from Scripture for baptizing infants and young children? What was the practice of the earliest Christians? These questions will be investigated by considering first the “Believer Baptist” view (the view that only confessing adult believers should be baptized), and then the “Paedobaptist” view (the view that infants and young children are likewise suitable candidates for baptism). But first…
A Small Piece of My Own Story
I was fortunate to be born into a family with two parents who were self-conscious believers, even though neither of them was highly educated or adept at handling deep theological questions. We attended worship at a local Lutheran congregation almost every Sunday, and participated in numerous activities. Like many others, I rebelled against my Christian upbringing as a teenager. Fortunately for me, the grace of God did not let me go very far before I heard the Gospel clearly, felt deep conviction for sin for the first time, prayed for forgiveness, and asked Jesus to be my Savior. Feeling the heavy weight of sin lifted from my shoulders, I knew I was a new person with a new life, although with little understanding of where it would lead me.
Where it did lead me was into the world of theology and spiritual experience. As I sought opportunities for fellowship with other believers and study of Scripture, I gradually became aware of the wide variety of Christian worship styles, beliefs, and practices. One of those practices that was new to me was believer baptism. After hearing of it from some friends and reading a short pamphlet about it, I concluded quickly that I should be baptized. My parents were at least mildly shocked and offended at my mention of it, as if I were forsaking my family and leaving everything behind—although that was never my intention. So my re-baptism was intentionally delayed, but nevertheless took place a couple years later—at the hands of the same LC-MS pastor under whom I had grown up, in the local river, and at the city park where some of my friends were likewise baptized.
For nearly the next decade, I was the enthusiastic evangelical Christian—associated most of the time with charismatics and pentecostals—but not exactly an active Lutheran. Then very unexpectedly, while studying for the Master of Divinity degree at Oral Roberts University, I began to hear what I perceived was the call of the Holy Spirit to return to the Lutheran church. I was deliberately slow in making the shift, knowing that several theological issues would need to be resolved before I could ever function comfortably and enthusiastically in a Lutheran setting.
One of those issues to be resolved, of course, was the matter of infant baptism. Although I had not joined in the opinion of some Believer Baptists in decrying infant baptism as a relic of ancient paganism, by my own practice I had affirmed their basic assertion—that only adult confessing believers were the proper subjects of baptism. And since discussions over the proper subjects of baptism typically begin with Believer Baptists offering a terse critique of paedobaptism (“That’s not Biblical, is it?”), I wondered to myself whether there was even a case to be made for paedobaptism, since I had heard none. So before I could seriously consider returning to Lutheranism, let alone a career as a Lutheran pastor, I knew it was absolutely necessary to resolve the question from Scripture, theology, and Christian history: Should infants be baptized?
Should Infants Be Baptized?: The Believer Baptist View
The Believer Baptist view—also known as the “credobaptist” view, and originally in the sixteenth century as the Anabaptist (“re-baptizer”) view—arose as a challenge to Huldreich Zwingli and the reforms he had already instituted at Zurich, Switzerland. Based on his study of the newly available Greek New Testament edited by Desiderius Erasmus (1516), Zwingli began to institute several reforms in worship at the Grosmünster (city cathedral). Then several of his more radical followers, based on their study of the New Testament and especially the book of Acts, began to insist that there is no Scriptural support for baptizing infants or young children—that in fact the only proper subjects of baptism are those who make a conscious and public confession of their faith in Christ.
The primary Biblical support for the Believer Baptist view is drawn from the several accounts in Acts of the baptism of new Christian converts (2:37-41, 8:12-13, 16, 36-39, 9:18, 10:48, 16:15, 33, 18:8, 19:5). Since infants and young children are not mentioned specifically in any of these instances as the subjects of baptism, Believer Baptists have assumed that they were not baptized until a later date when they could make a conscious and public confession of faith in Christ. This argument from silence, while certainly convincing to some, raises some questions which will be confronted again under the Paedobaptist view.[1]
The Believer Baptist view relies upon two underlying theological assumptions: The first is that the church on earth—as a reflection of the church in heaven—is properly comprised solely of self-conscious confessing believers. This assumption is not intended to exclude anyone who does not meet this definition, but rather to maintain the ideal purity of the church as the earthly manifestation of God’s kingdom. The second assumption is that infants and young children are incapable of “saving faith.” Consequently, they should not be baptized so that the holy character of the church is maintained.
Unfortunately for the Anabaptists when their movement arose in the sixteenth century, they were viewed by both Catholics and many Protestants not only as theologically mistaken, but also as socially dangerous and disruptive. In a world in which church and state were viewed as twin pillars of God’s intended design for human society, every time the Anabaptists refused to bring their newborn children for baptism they provided occasion for others to view them as potential enemies: Although the Anabaptists themselves viewed their practice of non-baptism of their children as faithfulness to Scripture, nearly everyone else viewed it as rejection of and rebellion against legitimate human structures instituted by God himself. The tragic result is that for generations and in many places the Anabaptists (Believer Baptists) were hounded by authorities, fined, imprisoned, deprived of their property, and sometimes even executed.
Thankfully, the days of one Christian group legally persecuting another Christian group are largely gone. Also gone in much of the West is the official church-state arrangement which had provided at least as many knotty predicaments and stumbling blocks to the Gospel as the privileges it had afforded. But it still leaves us with that question of proper Christian practice: Should infants be baptized? The Believer Baptists have given what appears to be a simple and straightforward Biblical answer: “No.” But is it that simple and straightforward?
Should Infants Be Baptized?: The Paedobaptist View
Another radical but less-known group which developed during the Reformation became known later as the Faustians, or Socinians—so named after the Italian theologian Faustus Socinus (1539-1604). Among other things, they denied the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity—chiefly because it is not found explicitly in Scripture. Yet while any student of the Bible will agree that the term “Trinity” is not found in Scripture, there is plenty of scriptural support for the assertion that God exists as a Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
From the Paedobaptist view, Believer Baptists have made a similar mistake in regard to their view of infant baptism: In their enthusiasm for sola Scriptura—the idea that Christians should believe and practice in accordance with Scripture—they have disallowed what in fact the earliest Christians practiced, just because it is not stated specifically in Scripture. In other words, for all its simplicity, the Believer Baptist view is actually too simple, as it has missed the clear implications of Scripture when understood in its cultural context.
So what is the case for Paedobaptism (infant baptism)? First of all, the Biblical case: Although the baptism of infants and/or young children is not specifically mentioned in Acts, it is, however, strongly implied in the first of the aforementioned baptismal incidents (Acts 2:37-41). In response to Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, his listeners asked, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter’s response was, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (38-39). Peter’s use of έκαστος (Greek, “each,” or “every”) and “children” (τεκνοις, teknois; a generic term for “children, descendants”) in the same statement implies that there was to be no distinction of age among those coming for baptism.
This is in agreement with the ancient tradition of the solidarity of the family, which is illustrated in the household baptisms elsewhere in the New Testament. Acts 16:15 tells of the baptism of Lydia along with her “house” or “household” (οικος), and near the end of the same chapter (16:33) we are told that the jailer at Philippi became a believer and was baptized with “all his family” (παντες παραχρημα). Later Paul recalls that he baptized the household (οικον) of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). Believer Baptists again rightly note that infants and young children are not specifically mentioned in any of these accounts. But the larger question is whether οικος was understood in ancient Greek culture to include these youngest members of the family, or not. In secular Greek usage of the ancient period the answer is an unequivocal “Yes,” for numerous examples are found in the writings of Hesiod, Pindar, Plato and the tragic poets.[2] For the apostolic writers to intend another more restrictive meaning which excluded infants and young children would have required an explanation which is found nowhere in the New Testament.
Furthermore, the Paedobaptist approach is in agreement with the hundreds of uses in the Old Testament of “house” (בית) to speak of one’s family, or household. For instance, God told Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household…” (Genesis 7:1). A few chapters later (12:17) we are told that, “God afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues….” Joshua’s exhortation to the Israelites after entering Canaan included his iconic statement that, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). In fact, in some places the inclusion of all persons is emphasized, as when God told Ezekiel (39:25) that, “I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house (כל בית) of Israel.”[3] But in none of these instances is there any indication that “house” does not include every member of the household, regardless of age.
Still, Believer Baptists have what appears to be a strong point when they note that baptism of infants or young children is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. But one must be careful when making conclusions based on an argument from silence. In other words, the baptismal accounts in Acts do not prohibit infant baptism any more than they support it. While a Believer Baptist may say, “Because infant baptism is not specifically mentioned in Acts, we therefore conclude that they were not baptized,” a Paedobaptist may just as well say, “Because infant baptism is not specifically excluded in Acts, we therefore conclude that they were included in baptism.” The fallacy behind this argument from silence was pointed out by John Calvin when he asserted that if infants are to be excluded from baptism because they are not specifically mentioned in any Scriptural accounts of baptism, then women are likewise to be excluded from Holy Communion because nowhere in Scripture are they specifically mentioned in connection with Holy Communion.[4]
What about evidence from early Christian writers? Believer Baptists are again correct in noting that no specific mention of infant baptism is made until the early third century. There are, however, some indications that would favor the existence of infant baptism in the first two centuries of the Christian era. The first is the confession of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was arrested and martyred about AD 155. When given a chance to deny his faith, he replied, “Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”[5] Although Polycarp’s age at this time is unknown, it is apparent that he understands himself to have been a follower of Christ since a very early age. And although his baptism is not specifically mentioned here, baptism is and always has been the rite of entry into the Christian community. Since Polycarp could hardly have been many years beyond the age of eighty-six—and since he was living in an era when the average lifespan was decidedly less[6]—his testimony is therefore a likely witness in favor of the practice of baptizing infants and/or very young children during the apostolic era.
Very similarly, a second witness is Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus near the end of the second century. In his letter to Pope Victor (ca. 190) concerning the question of the correct date for celebrating the resurrection of Christ, he describes himself as “sixty-five years old in the Lord,” and further states, “that I wore these gray hairs not in vain, but have always regulated my conduct in obedience to the Lord Jesus.”[7] With no other qualifying information given, it would appear that Polycrates understood himself (much like Polycarp) to have been a follower of Christ for his entire life—which in his case as well had already stretched beyond the average Roman lifespan. This implies that he was baptized at or very soon after his birth about AD 125.
A third witness is Irenaeus, who about AD 180 wrote “Against Heresies” to address numerous teachings and practices of his day which he viewed as less than orthodox. An off-hand comment in his larger discussion of the length of Jesus’ lifetime states that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”[8] While not mentioning baptism specifically, he makes it clear that the means of and path to salvation for infants is the same as those of any other age, and that they are included among those who are saved through Christ.
A patristic source often cited by Believer Baptists is Tertullian, who appears to have been the first to voice reservations toward the baptism of infants or young children. In his On Baptism (ca. 200) he asserted that, “the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children,” and later, “The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.”[9] It would be a mistake, however, to view Tertullian as a proto-credobaptist, for in the very first sentence of this treatise he sounds much more Catholic as he affirms the sacramental efficacy of baptism: “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!”[10]
Regarding his comments recommending the delay of baptism of children until an older age, it should be noted that Tertullian’s objection presupposes the existence of infant baptism as an established Christian practice by the end of the second century. And even with his objection to the baptism of infants and young children, he says nothing to imply that this was a recently-introduced practice—which certainly would have been a crucial point for him to establish had it been the case. So although Tertullian appears as a somewhat friendly witness for Believer Baptists during the early Christian era, it is probably more accurate to understand him as a conscientious objector to the prevailing and likely historic practice of infant baptism.
It is therefore quite sensible that Christian writers such as Origen (184-253) and Augustine (354-430)—coming a bit later—would claim that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles and every generation of Christians since.[11] Believer Baptists understandably object that this claim of apostolicity is an appeal to an unverifiable authority, and suggest that infant baptism was an invention by Christians in the third or fourth century. But they have likewise invented the parallel rite of infant dedication with only dubious Scriptural support, yet with the same commendable motivation as Paedobaptists—that one’s children be initiated into a lifelong relationship with God and his family.
A closely related question is whether infants are capable of possessing saving faith. For the Believer Baptist the answer is a clear “No,” since young children cannot clearly proclaim that they have confessed their sins and asked Jesus to be their Savior. Hence many Believer Baptists often mention an “age of accountability” sometime around or after age ten. But what is the Biblical basis for such an age? Exactly how much intellectual acuity is required for such accountability? And how about those persons who possess a variety of mental handicaps, who will never be able to confess their faith with the intellectual statements to which many of us are accustomed?
Biblically speaking, the question of whether infants and young children are capable of faith appears to have been answered by none other than Jesus himself. When his disciples sought to prevent those who “were bringing even infants (Greek, βρεφη) to him that he might touch them” (Luke 18:15), Jesus interjected, “Let the children (παιδια) come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (16-17). Βρεφος is a specific term used of infants–often those still nursing. παιδιον is a more generic term referring to a child of any age, but most often of young children in a dependent relationship with their parents or others. While Jesus was not speaking specifically of baptism in this instance, what is clear is that he viewed children as capable of spiritual perception and a conscious relationship with God.
On the other hand, Luther asserted that the validity of infant baptism (and the answer to the question of whether infants are capable of faith) is shown by the fact that numerous persons baptized in infancy have exhibited a strong spiritual capability and interest from a very young age. Nevertheless, for Luther what makes baptism valid is not the faith of the person being baptized but the promise of God to adopt this person as his own child and forgive their sins.[12]
Several other related baptismal questions are likewise worthy of consideration: What is the precise meaning of baptism for Believer Baptists, or for Paedobaptists? What is God’s role in baptism? What is the Church’s role? Should baptism take place by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring? Is it permissible or wise for Paedobaptists to allow a person baptized in infancy to be re-baptized at an older age as a means of encouraging their spiritual growth?
It is not a denigration of the importance of any of those questions, however—and much ink has been spilled over the years by authors engaging them—to end the discussion here. Realizing that there will be many honest and sincere devotees of both positions, it is with relief that we recognize that this is not a core matter of Christian orthodoxy and a determinant of one’s eternal destiny. So I trust that my Believer Baptist friends will bear with me, as I have with them, when I say that although the Scriptural witness concerning infant baptism is perhaps inconclusive, the historical witness of early Christianity is supremely favorable.
[1] An excellent resource covering both Believer Baptist and Paedobaptist viewpoints from both Biblical and historical perspectives is Donald Bridge and David Phypers, The Water that Divides: A survey of the doctrine of Baptism (Fearn, Great Britain: Mentor, 1998 [1977]).
[2] Joachim Jeremias,The Origins of Infant Baptism; A further study in reply to Kurt Aland (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004 [1962]), 16-19.
[3] Ibid., 19-22.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion IV, 16, 8 (Henry Beveridge, ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975), II, 534.
[5] “The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp,” IX, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1867]), I, 41.
[6] Average life expectancy in the ancient Roman world—excluding the victims of infant mortality—is estimated to have been about 55-60. See Bruce W. Frier, “Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian’s Evidence,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86, 213-251.
[7] Polycrates, “Epistle to the Roman Church concerning the Day of Keeping the Passover,” ANF VIII, 774.
[8] “Irenaeus Against Heresies,” II.22.4, ANF I, 391.
[9] Tertullian, “On Baptism,” XVIII, ANF III, 678.
[10] Ibid., 669.
[11] Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 (Washington: CUA Press, 2010), 316; Augustine of Hippo, “Against the Donatists” IV, 23-24, NPNF (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) I, IV, 461.
[12] Martin Luther, “The Large Catechism” (1529), The Book of Concord (Tappert, ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 442-443.
A Piece of My Story
The Believer Baptist View
The Paedobaptist View
As the pastor of a Lutheran congregation which has been heavily impacted by the charismatic movement since the 1970s, one thing that has positively impressed me over and over again is the spiritual curiosity and hunger I have observed among many of our members. Matters of Christian belief and practice, their historical background, and especially their grounding in Scripture, have provided countless stimulating discussions. And one of those Lutheran practices which comes up regularly for discussion is infant baptism.
Should infants and young children be baptized? Are they capable of having faith, or exercising faith? Is there a case from Scripture for baptizing infants and young children? What was the practice of the earliest Christians? These questions will be investigated by considering first the “Believer Baptist” view (the view that only confessing adult believers should be baptized), and then the “Paedobaptist” view (the view that infants and young children are likewise suitable candidates for baptism). But first…
A Small Piece of My Own Story
I was fortunate to be born into a family with two parents who were self-conscious believers, even though neither of them was highly educated or adept at handling deep theological questions. We attended worship at a local Lutheran congregation almost every Sunday, and participated in numerous activities. Like many others, I rebelled against my Christian upbringing as a teenager. Fortunately for me, the grace of God did not let me go very far before I heard the Gospel clearly, felt deep conviction for sin for the first time, prayed for forgiveness, and asked Jesus to be my Savior. Feeling the heavy weight of sin lifted from my shoulders, I knew I was a new person with a new life, although with little understanding of where it would lead me.
Where it did lead me was into the world of theology and spiritual experience. As I sought opportunities for fellowship with other believers and study of Scripture, I gradually became aware of the wide variety of Christian worship styles, beliefs, and practices. One of those practices that was new to me was believer baptism. After hearing of it from some friends and reading a short pamphlet about it, I concluded quickly that I should be baptized. My parents were at least mildly shocked and offended at my mention of it, as if I were forsaking my family and leaving everything behind—although that was never my intention. So my re-baptism was intentionally delayed, but nevertheless took place a couple years later—at the hands of the same LC-MS pastor under whom I had grown up, in the local river, and at the city park where some of my friends were likewise baptized.
For nearly the next decade, I was the enthusiastic evangelical Christian—associated most of the time with charismatics and pentecostals—but not exactly an active Lutheran. Then very unexpectedly, while studying for the Master of Divinity degree at Oral Roberts University, I began to hear what I perceived was the call of the Holy Spirit to return to the Lutheran church. I was deliberately slow in making the shift, knowing that several theological issues would need to be resolved before I could ever function comfortably and enthusiastically in a Lutheran setting.
One of those issues to be resolved, of course, was the matter of infant baptism. Although I had not joined in the opinion of some Believer Baptists in decrying infant baptism as a relic of ancient paganism, by my own practice I had affirmed their basic assertion—that only adult confessing believers were the proper subjects of baptism. And since discussions over the proper subjects of baptism typically begin with Believer Baptists offering a terse critique of paedobaptism (“That’s not Biblical, is it?”), I wondered to myself whether there was even a case to be made for paedobaptism, since I had heard none. So before I could seriously consider returning to Lutheranism, let alone a career as a Lutheran pastor, I knew it was absolutely necessary to resolve the question from Scripture, theology, and Christian history: Should infants be baptized?
Should Infants Be Baptized?: The Believer Baptist View
The Believer Baptist view—also known as the “credobaptist” view, and originally in the sixteenth century as the Anabaptist (“re-baptizer”) view—arose as a challenge to Huldreich Zwingli and the reforms he had already instituted at Zurich, Switzerland. Based on his study of the newly available Greek New Testament edited by Desiderius Erasmus (1516), Zwingli began to institute several reforms in worship at the Grosmünster (city cathedral). Then several of his more radical followers, based on their study of the New Testament and especially the book of Acts, began to insist that there is no Scriptural support for baptizing infants or young children—that in fact the only proper subjects of baptism are those who make a conscious and public confession of their faith in Christ.
The primary Biblical support for the Believer Baptist view is drawn from the several accounts in Acts of the baptism of new Christian converts (2:37-41, 8:12-13, 16, 36-39, 9:18, 10:48, 16:15, 33, 18:8, 19:5). Since infants and young children are not mentioned specifically in any of these instances as the subjects of baptism, Believer Baptists have assumed that they were not baptized until a later date when they could make a conscious and public confession of faith in Christ. This argument from silence, while certainly convincing to some, raises some questions which will be confronted again under the Paedobaptist view.[1]
The Believer Baptist view relies upon two underlying theological assumptions: The first is that the church on earth—as a reflection of the church in heaven—is properly comprised solely of self-conscious confessing believers. This assumption is not intended to exclude anyone who does not meet this definition, but rather to maintain the ideal purity of the church as the earthly manifestation of God’s kingdom. The second assumption is that infants and young children are incapable of “saving faith.” Consequently, they should not be baptized so that the holy character of the church is maintained.
Unfortunately for the Anabaptists when their movement arose in the sixteenth century, they were viewed by both Catholics and many Protestants not only as theologically mistaken, but also as socially dangerous and disruptive. In a world in which church and state were viewed as twin pillars of God’s intended design for human society, every time the Anabaptists refused to bring their newborn children for baptism they provided occasion for others to view them as potential enemies: Although the Anabaptists themselves viewed their practice of non-baptism of their children as faithfulness to Scripture, nearly everyone else viewed it as rejection of and rebellion against legitimate human structures instituted by God himself. The tragic result is that for generations and in many places the Anabaptists (Believer Baptists) were hounded by authorities, fined, imprisoned, deprived of their property, and sometimes even executed.
Thankfully, the days of one Christian group legally persecuting another Christian group are largely gone. Also gone in much of the West is the official church-state arrangement which had provided at least as many knotty predicaments and stumbling blocks to the Gospel as the privileges it had afforded. But it still leaves us with that question of proper Christian practice: Should infants be baptized? The Believer Baptists have given what appears to be a simple and straightforward Biblical answer: “No.” But is it that simple and straightforward?
Should Infants Be Baptized?: The Paedobaptist View
Another radical but less-known group which developed during the Reformation became known later as the Faustians, or Socinians—so named after the Italian theologian Faustus Socinus (1539-1604). Among other things, they denied the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity—chiefly because it is not found explicitly in Scripture. Yet while any student of the Bible will agree that the term “Trinity” is not found in Scripture, there is plenty of scriptural support for the assertion that God exists as a Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
From the Paedobaptist view, Believer Baptists have made a similar mistake in regard to their view of infant baptism: In their enthusiasm for sola Scriptura—the idea that Christians should believe and practice in accordance with Scripture—they have disallowed what in fact the earliest Christians practiced, just because it is not stated specifically in Scripture. In other words, for all its simplicity, the Believer Baptist view is actually too simple, as it has missed the clear implications of Scripture when understood in its cultural context.
So what is the case for Paedobaptism (infant baptism)? First of all, the Biblical case: Although the baptism of infants and/or young children is not specifically mentioned in Acts, it is, however, strongly implied in the first of the aforementioned baptismal incidents (Acts 2:37-41). In response to Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, his listeners asked, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter’s response was, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (38-39). Peter’s use of έκαστος (Greek, “each,” or “every”) and “children” (τεκνοις, teknois; a generic term for “children, descendants”) in the same statement implies that there was to be no distinction of age among those coming for baptism.
This is in agreement with the ancient tradition of the solidarity of the family, which is illustrated in the household baptisms elsewhere in the New Testament. Acts 16:15 tells of the baptism of Lydia along with her “house” or “household” (οικος), and near the end of the same chapter (16:33) we are told that the jailer at Philippi became a believer and was baptized with “all his family” (παντες παραχρημα). Later Paul recalls that he baptized the household (οικον) of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). Believer Baptists again rightly note that infants and young children are not specifically mentioned in any of these accounts. But the larger question is whether οικος was understood in ancient Greek culture to include these youngest members of the family, or not. In secular Greek usage of the ancient period the answer is an unequivocal “Yes,” for numerous examples are found in the writings of Hesiod, Pindar, Plato and the tragic poets.[2] For the apostolic writers to intend another more restrictive meaning which excluded infants and young children would have required an explanation which is found nowhere in the New Testament.
Furthermore, the Paedobaptist approach is in agreement with the hundreds of uses in the Old Testament of “house” (בית) to speak of one’s family, or household. For instance, God told Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household…” (Genesis 7:1). A few chapters later (12:17) we are told that, “God afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues….” Joshua’s exhortation to the Israelites after entering Canaan included his iconic statement that, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). In fact, in some places the inclusion of all persons is emphasized, as when God told Ezekiel (39:25) that, “I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house (כל בית) of Israel.”[3] But in none of these instances is there any indication that “house” does not include every member of the household, regardless of age.
Still, Believer Baptists have what appears to be a strong point when they note that baptism of infants or young children is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. But one must be careful when making conclusions based on an argument from silence. In other words, the baptismal accounts in Acts do not prohibit infant baptism any more than they support it. While a Believer Baptist may say, “Because infant baptism is not specifically mentioned in Acts, we therefore conclude that they were not baptized,” a Paedobaptist may just as well say, “Because infant baptism is not specifically excluded in Acts, we therefore conclude that they were included in baptism.” The fallacy behind this argument from silence was pointed out by John Calvin when he asserted that if infants are to be excluded from baptism because they are not specifically mentioned in any Scriptural accounts of baptism, then women are likewise to be excluded from Holy Communion because nowhere in Scripture are they specifically mentioned in connection with Holy Communion.[4]
What about evidence from early Christian writers? Believer Baptists are again correct in noting that no specific mention of infant baptism is made until the early third century. There are, however, some indications that would favor the existence of infant baptism in the first two centuries of the Christian era. The first is the confession of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was arrested and martyred about AD 155. When given a chance to deny his faith, he replied, “Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?”[5] Although Polycarp’s age at this time is unknown, it is apparent that he understands himself to have been a follower of Christ since a very early age. And although his baptism is not specifically mentioned here, baptism is and always has been the rite of entry into the Christian community. Since Polycarp could hardly have been many years beyond the age of eighty-six—and since he was living in an era when the average lifespan was decidedly less[6]—his testimony is therefore a likely witness in favor of the practice of baptizing infants and/or very young children during the apostolic era.
Very similarly, a second witness is Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus near the end of the second century. In his letter to Pope Victor (ca. 190) concerning the question of the correct date for celebrating the resurrection of Christ, he describes himself as “sixty-five years old in the Lord,” and further states, “that I wore these gray hairs not in vain, but have always regulated my conduct in obedience to the Lord Jesus.”[7] With no other qualifying information given, it would appear that Polycrates understood himself (much like Polycarp) to have been a follower of Christ for his entire life—which in his case as well had already stretched beyond the average Roman lifespan. This implies that he was baptized at or very soon after his birth about AD 125.
A third witness is Irenaeus, who about AD 180 wrote “Against Heresies” to address numerous teachings and practices of his day which he viewed as less than orthodox. An off-hand comment in his larger discussion of the length of Jesus’ lifetime states that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”[8] While not mentioning baptism specifically, he makes it clear that the means of and path to salvation for infants is the same as those of any other age, and that they are included among those who are saved through Christ.
A patristic source often cited by Believer Baptists is Tertullian, who appears to have been the first to voice reservations toward the baptism of infants or young children. In his On Baptism (ca. 200) he asserted that, “the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children,” and later, “The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.”[9] It would be a mistake, however, to view Tertullian as a proto-credobaptist, for in the very first sentence of this treatise he sounds much more Catholic as he affirms the sacramental efficacy of baptism: “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!”[10]
Regarding his comments recommending the delay of baptism of children until an older age, it should be noted that Tertullian’s objection presupposes the existence of infant baptism as an established Christian practice by the end of the second century. And even with his objection to the baptism of infants and young children, he says nothing to imply that this was a recently-introduced practice—which certainly would have been a crucial point for him to establish had it been the case. So although Tertullian appears as a somewhat friendly witness for Believer Baptists during the early Christian era, it is probably more accurate to understand him as a conscientious objector to the prevailing and likely historic practice of infant baptism.
It is therefore quite sensible that Christian writers such as Origen (184-253) and Augustine (354-430)—coming a bit later—would claim that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles and every generation of Christians since.[11] Believer Baptists understandably object that this claim of apostolicity is an appeal to an unverifiable authority, and suggest that infant baptism was an invention by Christians in the third or fourth century. But they have likewise invented the parallel rite of infant dedication with only dubious Scriptural support, yet with the same commendable motivation as Paedobaptists—that one’s children be initiated into a lifelong relationship with God and his family.
A closely related question is whether infants are capable of possessing saving faith. For the Believer Baptist the answer is a clear “No,” since young children cannot clearly proclaim that they have confessed their sins and asked Jesus to be their Savior. Hence many Believer Baptists often mention an “age of accountability” sometime around or after age ten. But what is the Biblical basis for such an age? Exactly how much intellectual acuity is required for such accountability? And how about those persons who possess a variety of mental handicaps, who will never be able to confess their faith with the intellectual statements to which many of us are accustomed?
Biblically speaking, the question of whether infants and young children are capable of faith appears to have been answered by none other than Jesus himself. When his disciples sought to prevent those who “were bringing even infants (Greek, βρεφη) to him that he might touch them” (Luke 18:15), Jesus interjected, “Let the children (παιδια) come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (16-17). Βρεφος is a specific term used of infants–often those still nursing. παιδιον is a more generic term referring to a child of any age, but most often of young children in a dependent relationship with their parents or others. While Jesus was not speaking specifically of baptism in this instance, what is clear is that he viewed children as capable of spiritual perception and a conscious relationship with God.
On the other hand, Luther asserted that the validity of infant baptism (and the answer to the question of whether infants are capable of faith) is shown by the fact that numerous persons baptized in infancy have exhibited a strong spiritual capability and interest from a very young age. Nevertheless, for Luther what makes baptism valid is not the faith of the person being baptized but the promise of God to adopt this person as his own child and forgive their sins.[12]
Several other related baptismal questions are likewise worthy of consideration: What is the precise meaning of baptism for Believer Baptists, or for Paedobaptists? What is God’s role in baptism? What is the Church’s role? Should baptism take place by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring? Is it permissible or wise for Paedobaptists to allow a person baptized in infancy to be re-baptized at an older age as a means of encouraging their spiritual growth?
It is not a denigration of the importance of any of those questions, however—and much ink has been spilled over the years by authors engaging them—to end the discussion here. Realizing that there will be many honest and sincere devotees of both positions, it is with relief that we recognize that this is not a core matter of Christian orthodoxy and a determinant of one’s eternal destiny. So I trust that my Believer Baptist friends will bear with me, as I have with them, when I say that although the Scriptural witness concerning infant baptism is perhaps inconclusive, the historical witness of early Christianity is supremely favorable.
[1] An excellent resource covering both Believer Baptist and Paedobaptist viewpoints from both Biblical and historical perspectives is Donald Bridge and David Phypers, The Water that Divides: A survey of the doctrine of Baptism (Fearn, Great Britain: Mentor, 1998 [1977]).
[2] Joachim Jeremias,The Origins of Infant Baptism; A further study in reply to Kurt Aland (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004 [1962]), 16-19.
[3] Ibid., 19-22.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion IV, 16, 8 (Henry Beveridge, ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1975), II, 534.
[5] “The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna, concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp,” IX, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1867]), I, 41.
[6] Average life expectancy in the ancient Roman world—excluding the victims of infant mortality—is estimated to have been about 55-60. See Bruce W. Frier, “Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian’s Evidence,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86, 213-251.
[7] Polycrates, “Epistle to the Roman Church concerning the Day of Keeping the Passover,” ANF VIII, 774.
[8] “Irenaeus Against Heresies,” II.22.4, ANF I, 391.
[9] Tertullian, “On Baptism,” XVIII, ANF III, 678.
[10] Ibid., 669.
[11] Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 (Washington: CUA Press, 2010), 316; Augustine of Hippo, “Against the Donatists” IV, 23-24, NPNF (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) I, IV, 461.
[12] Martin Luther, “The Large Catechism” (1529), The Book of Concord (Tappert, ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 442-443.