SHOULD WE BAPTIZE INFANTS?

Do infants and toddlers meet the description of those who were baptized in the two Scriptures we just read (Acts 2:37-41; 8:5,12)? If we trace the Pentecost and post-Pentecost incidents of baptism we find the following:

1. It was preceded by "repentance" on the part of the recipient {Acts 2:38}.
2. It was a response to hearing and gladly receiving the Gospel message {Acts 2:41}.
3. It was a consequence of "believing" the message preached and was specifically performed on "men and women" {Acts 8:12-13}.
4. It is a result of the Lord opening a person's heart to the message {Acts 16:14-15}.
5. It is preceded by a hearing and believing of the message {Acts 18:8}.
6. It is part of an appeal/response to God for a clean conscience {1Peter 3:21}.

Remember the Biblical definitions of sin?

1. 1 John 3:4 = Breaking any of God's commandments (see James 2:8-11).
2. 1 John 5:17 = doing anything wrong.
3. Romans 14:22-23 = going against our conscience, doing something we have doubts about.
4. James 4:17 = not doing what we know we should do.
5. Matthew 5:27-28; Proverbs 24:9 = thinking about or planning foolishness or wrong-doing.

Which of these definitions is a fetus, a new born, an infant, even a toddler able to meet?

Read Romans 9:11-12; Ezekiel 18; Isaiah 7:14-15. Infants are not sinners nor do we inherit sin. We inherit or suffer the consequences of the sinful choices of our ancestors (like a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome because the mother, not the baby, chose to drink while pregnant), but not their specific sins.

Read Romans 1:3-4; remember Hebrews 2:14-18. If being born a human being makes one a sinner automatically, then that would make Jesus a sinner, but he wasn't--Hebrews 4:15.

Leaving the inspired sacred page and moving into historical patristic sources, the earliest, unambiguous reference to infant baptism is from Tertullian (b. c.155-d. c.222) in On Baptism, 18. He is against the practice (which shows that it was at least performed by some by that time). The reason he was against was twofold: children are innocent, baptism is for those who can ask. The innocence and guiltlessness of infants and children was upheld in the earliest patristic sources: Hermas Similitudes, IX.xxix.1-3; IX.xxxi.3; Mandate, II.1; Epistle of Barnabus 6:11; Aristides, Apology 15:11; Athenagoras, On the Resurrection 14; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV.xxviii.3.

The earliest unambiguous proponent of infant baptism was the early third century writer Hippolytus (c. 170-c.236 A.D.) quoted in the document Apostolic Tradition, xxi.3-5. Hippolytus is followed by Origen (c.185-c.251 A.D.) who is also among the earliest to give his rationale for the practice by introducing us to the concept that people are born with a "natural stain" of sin [one of the first, if not the first, presentations of original sin in its rudimentary form], Homily on Luke, XIV.5; Homily on Leviticus, VIII.3; Commentary on Romans V.9.

To further back up his position, Origen sought to draw a parallel to the Jewish practice of circumcision and infant baptism which some find compelling to this day. However, the New Testament speaks of a circumcision of the heart that counts for far more than physical circumcision, and this spiritual circumcision of the heart is quite in keeping with the NT sources that show baptism was a result of a repentant and convicted heart {Acts 7:51; Romans 2:25-29}. The context of Colossians 2:11-13 clearly fits this spiritual circumcision rather than a true parallel between 8 day old Hebrew males and physical infants of Christian parents.

For the diligent explorer, many patristic sources are available in e-text form on the Web...

Early Church Fathers

Noncanonical Homepage

St. Pachomius Library

Guide to Early Church Documents

The Ecole Initiative: Index Page