Early Church Baptism
I found a very interesting thing when I was researching this topic of baptism, particularly as it related to early church practice – namely, that those who were for infant baptism were very successful in quoting many of the early church fathers to prove that the early church did in fact practice infant baptism; and those who were against infant baptism were almost as successful in their promotion. Upon this discovery, I decided to dig a little deeper and see if I could get a little more clarity for myself. Let me roughly lay out my discoveries.
First, it can be quite clearly stated that initially, within the church, baptism immediately followed profession of faith. There was no period of teaching the catechisms etc. It was only in later years that this practice developed within the church.
The early church baptism was very similar to the baptism of proselytes practiced by the Jews. Coming into Judaism involved the whole family going through a ‘baptism’, which was a bath which symbolized the washing away off sin of the former life, and of being cleansed and purified, so that they could proceed to make a sacrifice to God, and fulfill the requirements of the law. Baptism by immersion was preferred so that it would be a whole-body washing. Sin was confessed by those who were old enough. Those who have carefully researched the two baptismal ceremonies, within the context of their languages, have found striking similarities. From this it has therefore been argued that just as those converting to Judaism had all their children baptized, so too did those converting to Christianity. Even when only one parent converted to Judaism, children were admitted to baptism.
Justin Martyr writing in about 150 A.D., is generally considered one of the first to write about baptism, after the New Testament:
“As many as are persuaded and believe that we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray … for the remission of their sins … become children of choice and knowledge and obtain in the water the remission of sins … chooses to be born again and has repented of his sins” (Anti-Nicene Christian Library, vol. ii, p.59).
The first church father who wrote specifically about infant baptism was Tertullian (about 200A.D.) He wrote against being hasty to baptize infants and the unmarried..
“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary – if (baptism itself) is not so necessary – that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? … For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred – in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom – until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.” (de Baptismo)
From this we can deduce a number of things: First, infant baptism was practiced in the church, but there was also some debate over it. In His mind, He did not see the immediate need for baptism as a saving instrument of regeneration, for the one baptized could grow up to have an evil disposition and disappoint the sponsors. During this time period in the church there was a growing tendency to separate baptism, from confession of faith, by a lengthy period of teaching catechisms. The focus was upon having a pure church and in not baptizing into membership those who had not proved themselves true and faithful. It can also be noted here that Tertullian was familiar with the concept of sponsors, and it is possible that his reference to the baptism of children here may be only in reference to those baptized with sponsors, and not the children of believers. The reference to the unmarried could also be referring to those young teenagers who, may have made a rash decision and, had not yet settled into a more responsible life (which was generally within the confines of marriage or in commitment to chastity and singleness).
Ten years later Tertullian writes that he is happy about the baptism of children on the basis of a combination of I Cor 7:14 and John 3:5. He also wrote that the words of Jesus “Do not hinder them” was interpreted, by many, in his day to justify infant baptism.
Origen, a Greek father, who wrote 15-20 years after Tertullian, spoke that infant baptism of infants was the general practice of the day, and was passed down by the apostles (Commentary on Romans 6:5-7).
“If you like to hear what other saints have felt in regard to physical birth, listen to David when he says, I was conceived, so it runs, in iniquity and in sin my mother hath borne me (Ps 50:7), proving that every would which is born in the flesh is tainted with the stain of iniquity and sin. This is the reason for that saying which we have already quoted above, ‘No man is clean from sin, not even if his life be one day long’ (Job 14:4). To these, as a further point, may be added an inquiry into the reason for which, while the Church’s baptism is given for the remission of sin, it is the custom of the Church that baptism be administered even to infants. Certainly, if there were nothing in infants that required remission and called for lenient treatment, the grace of baptism would seem unnecessary.” (In Lev. hom 8,3)
“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries…of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit.” (Commentary on Romans 5:9)
Cyprian, a Latin father, a contemporary of Origin’s writes: “In respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. (Council of Carthage; 66 bishops). For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins – that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.” (Letter 64, to Fidus
The Roman theologian Hippolytus, also a contemporary of Origin and Cyprian refers to the baptism of children as an “unquestioned rule”. In the baptism of families – ‘First, you should baptize the little ones. All who can speak for themselves should speak. But for those who cannot speak, their parents should speak, or another who belongs to their family.’ Then the men are baptized followed by the women. (Apostolic Tradition, 21). Baptism was seen as a “re-presentation” of Christ’s death and resurrection, at a later time and a different place (without being repeated). Hippolytus’ order of service for baptism was translated into various languages and was widely circulated and used for more than 1000 years by the church.
So far we have Greek, Latin, and Roman fathers, within 3 generations of the last apostles, who agree that baptism on infants is to be practiced, in that infants should not be refused God’s grace. Tertullian also argues that, because baptism is not a requirement, at any particular age, of salvation, therefore it should be put off in the case of sponsored children and young converts. Let us move along to later writers.
Cyril of Jerusalem explains that the recipient of baptism, through the enactment of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection in baptismal rite and symbol, participates in the redemption that these events have accomplished…the rites of baptism give the baptismal candidate living access to redemption through participation in the baptismal drama, especially immersion…”by sharing his sufferings in a symbolic enactment we may really and truly gain salvation” (ch.1, Baptismal Catechesis 2:5).
Crysostrom, a Greek father of the latter fourth century, wrote that baptism “gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit; and it has no determinate time,…but one that is in the very beginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, may receive this circumcision made without hands; in which there is no trouble to be undergone but to throw off the load of sins, and to receive pardon for all past offences. (Homil 40 in Genesis)
Augustine, one of the most famous, learned fathers of the Christian church, who lived 300 years after the apostles argued with Pelagius regarding the doctrine of original sin; the subject of baptism of infants surfaced in these writings often:
- “Why are infants baptized for the remission of sins, if they have no sin?”
- “Baptism ought to be administered to infants, with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons. Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants. I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants. For who can be as impious as to hinder infants from being baptized, and born again in Christ, and so make them miss of the kingdom of God?”
- “Since they grant that infants must be baptized, as not being able to resist the authority of the whole church, which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and his apostles; they must consequently grant that they stand in need of the benefit of the Mediator; that being offered by the sacrament, and by the charity of the faithful, and so being incorporated into Christ’s body, they may be reconciled to God.”
“They minding the scriptures, and the authority of the whole church, and the form of the sacrament itself, see well that baptism in infants is for the remission of sins.”
“Which the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them in the case of little infants baptized; who certainly cannot believe with the heart unto righteousness, or confess with the mouth unto salvation; nay, by their crying and noise while the sacrament is administering, they disturb the holy mysteries: and yet no Christian man will say that they are baptized to no purpose….The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor be accounted needless, nor believed to be anything else than an ordinance delivered to us from the apostles.”
“If any one asks for divine authority in this matter, although that which the whole church practices, which was not instituted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing delivered by the authority of the apostles; yet we may besides take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God’s ancient people received. For Abraham was justified before he received circumcision, as Cornelius was ended with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. And yet the apostle says of Abraham, that he received the sign of circumcision, ‘a seal of the righteousness of faith,’ by which he had in heart believed, and it had been ‘counted to him for righteousness’ (Rom 4:11). Why then was he commanded to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it might be counted to them for righteousness; but for this reason, because the sacrament is, in itself of great importance? Therefore, as in Abraham, ‘the righteousness of faith’ went before, and circumcision, ‘the seal of righteousness of faith came after;’ so in Cornelius, the spiritual sanctification by the gift of the Holy Spirit went before, and the sacrament of regeneration, by the laver of baptism, came after. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day, the seal of the righteousness of faith went before, and (as he was a follower of his father’s faith) the righteousness itself, the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy, came after; so in infants baptized, the sacrament of regeneration goes before, and (if they put in practice the Christian religion) conversion of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in their body comes after. By all which it appears that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, and conversion of the heart another.”
“Outward baptism may be administered where inward conversion of the heart is wanting:: and, on the other hand, inward conversion of the heart may exist where outward baptism has never been received.” (see Wall’s History, Part 1, ch 15-19)
A comprehensive study of baptism in the early church will show that most baptismal liturgy of the first few centuries was directed primarily to adult believers, in that with the rapid expansion of the church, most church growth was the result of new converts coming into the church. As the centuries went by, more and more effort was given in the liturgy towards the baptism of the children who were born to believing parents, as the ratio of growth of new converts to internal growth diminished. At all times though immersion was the norm:
“When I am baptized and my head is immersed, I receive the death of the Lord and I wish to receive his burial; for I thereby profess my belief in the resurrection of our Lord, for thereby profess my belief in the resurrection of the Lord, for I think when I am come out of the water that I have already risen, symbolically as it were” (Theodore of Mopsuestia, 400 A.D. Homilies, 14.5.)
While the churches of both the East and West, for the most part practiced infant baptism, there was a time period, in which many believed that in baptism there was a washing away of sins, and because of that, baptism needed to be put off until one was sure that they could live a sinless life. This ultimately led to many attempting to delay baptism until the very last possible moment in life. This practice was eventually condemned by the churches.
It is fairly clear that infants were only offered by their own parents for baptism during the early years of the church, except in rare circumstances where their were no living parents, and the sponsors undertook the responsibility for Christian instruction. It was not until the council of Mentz, in the ninth century, that the Roman church forbade parents from being sponsors of their own children, and required others to provide the service of offering the children.
Whereas, in scripture, baptism immediately followed profession of faith and belief, over the years a number of the additional things were attached to baptism in generally the following order: first exorcism; then confession; renunciation; (BAPTISM); chrismation, anointing of oil in the form of a cross; and finally confirmation with the laying of hands. Most of these additional elements were in evidence by the time of Tertullian who wrote about them at length. Over the years confirmation was separated further and further from the time of baptism (in the case of infants) until it was left until adulthood, and even in extreme periods left until the declining years of life. Catechism also become an important element and was combined with the other processes which preceded baptism for adults. In the early years catechism was short and quick, but in later years it could extend over the course of many years.
Believer Baptist Roots:
To be fair to church history, it has been successfully noted by historians that the roots of the Waldensians, who generally practiced “believer’s baptism” only, can be traced back to the 3rd Century, the time of Tertullian, Origin, Cyprian, and Hippolytus – with the roots coming out of the Novation movement. For centuries, the Western church in particular persecuted and condemned certain churches of the Waldenses (or their ancestors who went by this name before Waldo) for their rejection of infant baptism. One of the main features of the early movement was that baptism was practiced almost exclusively by immersion, though this was the general practice of the entire church movement up until the 14th century (and therefore they were in unity on that). Peter the Lombard (died A.D. 1164) declared that immersion was the proper act of baptism. Thomas Acquinas, one of the chief scholars of the 13th century refers to immersion as the general practice for adults and infants, and prefers it as the safest way (as did Bonaventura and Duns Scotus). Going back into early church writings one generally finds that effusion (pouring) did not appear until the middle of the 3rd century, and up until the time of the Reformation immersion was the norm, with effusion being allowed only in cases of sickness. This was called “clinic baptism” and was not endorsed by Rome until 1311 at the Council of Ravenna. The Greek Orthodox practiced immersion throughout the middle ages, and still do so today, both adult and infant.
The Waldensians generally held the same view of baptism as do the Baptists and Mennonites of today. The sacraments were not seen as ‘sacraments’ (in the way the Roman Church came to see it), and the Waldensians condemned ‘regeneration by water’, ‘transubstantiation”, and hence infant baptism which was seen as “useless ablution” and that it added nothing to justification, in that there was no will to faith, desire for regeneration, or confession of faith (Bishop Gerard, 1025). Confession of faith, was a prior condition for baptism. The Waldensians, while divided in their allegiance and fellowship to the other churches, generally attacked Catholic doctrine. An article written sometime during the 12th century by an unknown Waldensian:
“That which is of no necessity in the administration of baptism, is the exorcism, the breathing on, the sign of the cross, upon the infant’s breast and forehead, the salt which they put into his mouth, the spittle put to his ears, and nose, the anointing of his breast, the capuchin, the unction on the crown of the head, and all the rest of those things consecrated by the bishop, putting wax in their hands, arraying them in white, blessing the water, plunging the infant three times, seeking for godfathers: all these things commonly practiced about the administration of this sacrament are needless, as being not at all of the substance of, nor requisite in the sacrament of baptism; these things giving but occasion to many that they rather fall in to error and superstition, than that they should be edified by them to salvation; which made some doctors profess, that there was not virtue, nor benefit to be had by them.”
The Waldensians, like the later Lutherans recognized only two of the 7 Catholic sacraments – baptism and the Lord’s Supper. All other sacraments were totally rejected. The Catholic church was seen as of Antichrist, the church was the ‘whore of Babylon’ and communion with her was seen as spiritual fornication. Vows of celibacy were seen as productive at producing uncleanness, and that the marriage of priests was lawful and necessary. After the emergence of the Lutheran church, Waldensians were encouraged by some Lutherans to continue to maintain their stand against the Catholic mass (Oecolampadius, 1530). Waldensians also held strongly to the doctrine of justification by faith, hundreds of years before Luther, and were almost identical in the so called 5-points of Calvinism, long before Calvin arrived on the scene.
During the time of the Reformation, in which different European states officially took sides as to whether or not they were Catholic or Lutheran, the Waldensians found themselves persecuted by both sides, because of their denial of infant baptism. In fear of being totally wiped out in many regions, a consensus was reached to merge with the Lutherans, and to concede and begin practicing infant baptism (at Savoy, 1532). Those who dissented left and the Waldensians began baptizing infants. Those leaving eventually formed much of what is known today as Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Baptists. Luther’s influence was seen as the primary force bringing about the change. Luther had sought the support of the Waldensians to defeat Rome, but had demanded that they change their view on ‘rebaptism’ lest he be required to be ‘rebaptized’.
My purpose in presenting this information regarding the Waldensians, and the precursors to Baptist doctrine, is simply to show that there have always been, since the early church fathers, a stream of people who have rejected infant baptism and the sacraments as efficacious instruments. My guess is that these doctrines which began to have some written form in and around the contemporaries of Tertullian, may have found sympathy amongst parts of the church since the apostles. These groups were generally condemned by the larger church throughout history, in particular the few hundred years leading up to the Reformation. My research and reading of the Catholic church, from the time of Constantine on though, clearly reveals that the Catholic church became extremely corrupt, mystical to the point of being almost occultic in many practices, and in terrible need of reform. (For a good history of the Waldensians see An Examination of the Doctrines of this Medieval Sect – the Waldensians, by Thomas Williamson. And for a shocking look at the Catholic church – A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt.)
The Baptism of Children
Let us look specifically at some of the scriptural and philosophical arguments as they center around the baptism of children – For this is specifically “the biggest” separator, and most divisive doctrine throughout history between churches than any single other. I use the word, philosophical, for there is no explicit command in scripture to baptize infants. This has been accepted by the proponents of infant baptism, and of course flogged by those opposed. The doctrine of adult baptism, upon confession of faith, is opposed by very few (those who have thrown all sacraments out, in favor only of the work of the Holy Spirit outside of all ceremonies and rituals). The doctrine of infant baptism, has therefore been supported through the use of scripture which is hotly contested at each and every point.
Before I examine some of these specific scripture passages, let me state a few of my own conclusion regarding the use of scripture: First of all, all scripture is inspired by God and speaks truthfully. What doesn’t always speak truthfully is our interpretations and resulting doctrines. On the basic, important doctrines scripture does speak very clearly and comprehensively – i.e. man is sinful, in need of a redeemer, Christ’s work on the cross etc. It is the more peripheral points that are not so clear that the issues become clouded. That is not to mean that we should not carefully and prayerfully, with much diligence, attempt to pull as much truth as possible out of the written word. Looking to church history, and it’s writing is also useful, but absolutely not fool-proof. It is in these issues though that we should exercise much latitude and freedom to those of differing opinions. It has been man’s inherent tendency towards pride and arrogance which has brought about the divisions and hostilities within the church. Secondly, my belief, is that if an issue is to be understood as cut and dry, with no deviations, that God would have clearly spelled them out in scripture, as he did with so many things: The 10 commandments as given in the Mosaic covenant could not be more clear; the ceremonial and Levitical laws were clearly spelled out; that we are to forgive those that have hurt us; that we are to love one another; etc., etc. Third, in that many other things are not so clear, we are desperately in need of the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Unfortunately, almost all believe that they are truly being led by the Holy Spirit, and then assume that their resulting conclusions are true, and are the only truth. In reality, all have not been truly led by the Holy Spirit in all areas, particularly in the areas of doctrine and practice. Rather it is arrogance which has caused inflexibility and greater sin, through division. The same pride which brought down Lucifer, Adam and Eve, has brought down the witness of the church, and tainted its’ witness to the world. We were clearly instructed by Christ that though compassion and love we are to bring people together in an atmosphere of respect, admiration and tolerance. Fourth, the proper exercise of the gifts of the Holy Spirit has been continually overridden by carnality and sinfulness. Even the Corinthians who were right in their gifts, and knowledge (I Cor 1:5-7), had continual struggles with divisions and disputes (vs 11). It was the lack of the evidence of God’s power, manifesting itself through humble believers that was most lacking. Paul writes:
“And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; … For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” (I Cor 2:1-13)
Lack of anointing, manifest in power, and lack of fruit evidencing the true Lordship of Christ (I John) has been more damaging to the church, and tarnished its image amongst the lost, than has the kingdom of darkness. It is my firm belief, that as we are in the last days, that the true Head of the church will break down and destroy the barriers that are separating the church. This will come by ‘power’ and by ‘persecution.’ That is another topic therefore I will say no more here. Finally, my overall conclusion, is that the more a doctrine brings division within the body, the greater the chance, that it is a doctrine inspired not of the Spirit, but by two evil forces, either man or Satan.
The pattern that was clearly evident amongst the early church, was that when there was a disagreement amongst the body over certain doctrinal areas, that the body, particularly the leaders, would meet together, fast and pray, and seek the Holy Spirit, and then ‘by consensus come to a conclusion that would be acceptable to all. Those who refused to submit to the direction and leadership, given to the leadership by the Holy Spirit, were rejected in their doctrinal dissention by the church at large. It can be truly said, that “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,” for when people refused to submit in agreement to the Spirit led leadership, that division began to multiply within the church. As the church began to fragment, it is clear from church history that less and less time was spent in fasting and prayer and more and more time was spent on politics and kingdom building. Eventually the Catholic church, in particular, became intensely corrupt, and incorporated a wide range of occultic practices into the church – the connections to Ancient Babylon becoming almost indisputable to a student of theology and history. It was into this environment that many voices and groups objected, rebelled and sought fresh direction from the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, all groups, of whatever persuasion, would at times fall into the same sin of arrogance, inflexibility and rigidity. Any return to holiness, and spiritual purity, through reformation, or revival would be persecuted and attacked by the established institutions (For it can be safely said that almost every body of believers eventually developed into an institution – it is fallen human nature). Every current revival is persecuted by those of the previous.
A major problem amongst believers, is that a very high percentage of people believe the first doctrine which appears to have a solid foundation. That doctrine eventually becomes ingrained to the point that the believer becomes intolerant to those of dissenting opinion. Worse yet, leadership often provides an example of intellectual intolerance which is modelled. Rather than modeling the fruit of the Spirit, what is modelled is divisiveness, in the name of ‘doctrinal purity.’ What bothered me the most in my research and study of this one doctrinal topic were certain patterns that emerged in the writings. Many began by overstating their own presuppositions as the only scriptural position. Their was the only of doctrinal purity, and of being totally in sync with the beliefs of the early church fathers. The presentations often would state the case of the opposition feebly, build it up as a straw man, and then knock it down, often using corrupt philosophical argument. Supporting information for the opposition were generally ignored, and selected writings, particularly from the early church fathers were used, being careful to leave out dissenting information. Further, some of the argument put forth reached the absurd, particularly the argument against baptism by immersion, saying that there would not be enough water, enough time etc., to baptize the multitudes which turned to Christ. Basic logic skills could easily be used to discredit such ideas put forward as ‘fact.’ Now, all this being said as a prologue to this one area on infant baptism, let’s look at the arguments as proposed.
First of all, Paul clearly asserts in Gal 3:8, that the “gospel” was preached to Abraham, and that He became the father, “by faith” of the Gentiles, as well as the Israelites (who were circumcised). It is therefore argued from Rom 4:11, that baptism therefore was replaced by baptism as a ‘sign’ and ‘seal’ of being God’s children. In that I have spent considerable time discussion this previously, I will just quickly summarize. Within the Abrahamic covenant, ‘circumcision’ became true circumcision of the heart for those who were predestined, “by faith” to become true children of God. Infant baptism, also brings about a “new birth” in those who are predestined to “in time” become children of God. Realizing that the spiritual change is outside of time and space, therefore it cannot be contained within time and space in the same way. The emotions and experience of the spiritual encounter, can occur within time and space at the Spirit’s choosing, but salvation is not dependant upon any experience or ultimate decision time, though in any life it could be. As I have previously stated the theme of ‘salvation by faith’ was in existence before Abraham, and has run the entire history of mankind. Therefore, there is not a ‘replacemnt’, but rather an ‘obsoletion’ of the works of the law. In that baptism contains all the elements of circumcision (spiritually), it also is a more perfect work and symbolism. In that it is not a ‘replacement’ it cannot be concluded that infants are to be baptized as they were circumcised in the Old Covenant. I do agree though, that as children are seen as participating in the benefits of the family, and that circumcision was seen as the entrance and requirement of community, so too baptism (for adults) has been seen as a ‘rite of entrance’ into the body of the church. That does not mean that all comparisons are identical. Jewish children were not allowed to participate in Passover until they were of a certain age, and not even then unless they were ceremonial clean. Jewish children were not obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to the penalties in the case of non-performance, until they were as a female 12 years of age, and a male, 13 years of age. They were not properly under the law, until they had reached the ‘age of accountability’, nor were they considered members of the church (Rev Dr. Gill – Commentary on Luke – 2:42) Of course based on this many then make a connection between ‘circumcision’ and ‘infant baptism,’ and then of ‘obedience to the law’ and ‘communion’. For most restrict communion to ‘age of accountibility’ or to those who have completed confirmation (though there were periods in which communion was given to infants, and even forced upon those that were sick unto death). All this being said, there is no conclusive argument given from either side regarding this issue.
While we are on the subject of confirmation, lets quickly discuss it. Confirmation is basically a confession of faith, based upon an internal understanding of the individual. Confessing one’s faith in Christ is a critical ingredient in that Christ stated, “Every one therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven, but whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:32-33). Paul pronounced, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Rom 10:9). To this end, a proper profession of faith is seen critical to proof of salvation, and of purity within the universal church. It has though been a use of confirmation to induct people into a particular denomination, while baptism was generally seen as induction into the universal body of Christ. In centuries past, unless a person was in proper standing through confirmation, communion was withheld along denominational lines. This has generally been relaxed, though is still upheld in some denominations. Personally I find logical disparities between insisting upon infant baptism, and then denying communion to those who are not confirmed into the church. Without examining all these I will simply say that some views are more congruous than others.
In the early church, there is no evidence that there were any such rites as confirmation, and that it was institutes many years later. There is no foundation for confirmation spelt out in scripture, though of course the teaching of truth to children, and of having a profession of faith can be clearly outlined. In that confirmation can be used, as creating clear dividing lines between denominations, I am opposed to that practice. In that faith brings one into the true body of Christ, anything which promotes denominationalism is contrary to the tenure of Holy Scripture, is opposed to Christ’s High Priestly prayer (John 17) “that they may all be one, even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me” (vs 21) and is a stumbling block to those of the world.
Second, Christ made it very clear, to the disciples that they should suffer not the little ones from coming to him. From the second century onwards this passage was used as a justification for infant baptism and was so interpreted by Tertullian (Apostolic Constitutions, 6:15). It should be noted, in context, though, that Christ was talking about children being blocked from coming to receive a blessing. It should also be noted that his disciples were not baptizing them, as they did with adult converts. What is clear though is that Christ clearly said that “…the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to to your, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all” (Mk 10:13-16). The promise of the kingdom already belongs to children. Many interpret this to mean, that children innately have ‘no lack of faith,’ while others have seen it as only indicative that we must have simple faith in order to obtain salvation. I find both these interpretation as truthful. We find in Matthew that Christ state:
“Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one these little ones who believes in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around His neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (18:3-6)
Here we see a confirmation of both understandings, that are further supported elsewhere in scripture. What I have found strange therefore is those who then use these passages as support that children of ‘believing parents’ are to be included in the kingdom of God. There is no support here that there is any distinction between children of believers and children of non-believers. It supposedly could be argued that the children Christ was speaking of at this point in time, were children which had been predestined, and therefore that not all children are of the kingdom of heaven, but that is not conclusive here. It could also be argued that the child was a ‘circumcised’ Jew therefore he believed, because belief was imparted into him by his believing parents. Possible, but really without warrant in scripture in that all are saved by faith, as Paul makes so clear in Romans, both inside and outside of the covenant of the Law. I feel fairly comfortable then believing that all children naturally believe in God, and as such have faith. This faith of course being a gift of grace (Rom 3:24). This would include the unborn, the aborted, and those born to believers and non-believers alike. It would also include those mentally handicapped, who are unable to stumble into sin by choice. Babies are perfectly capable of praising their creator (Mt 21:16) Of course this then brings up a discrepancy in John 3, in which Jesus is talking to Nicodemus:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his moth’s womb and be born, can he?” 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. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.'”
The interpretation has always seemed pretty clear here to me. First of all Jesus is NOT speaking of baptism here in reference to water, but to physical birth. We are born in water – in fact we are almost entirely composed of water. Christ makes a distinction between water and Spirit – if such referred to baptism by water, and then to spiritual rebirth as two separate events it would be out of context of the tenure of the discussion. We have only two births – when we are born into the world physically (of water); and when we are ‘born anew’ spiritually by the work of the Holy Spirit. In that I firmly believe, that spiritual birth occurs outside of time and space ‘in Christ’s death burial and resurrection’, it cannot be confined to any moment in time, either to baptism, or to the moment in which one believes and confesses salvation. It is a work done by the Holy Spirit, according to God’s election. Should a child die, before profession, or before baptism, Christ has already stated that the child is of the kingdom of heaven and believes. If a time would have to be given then for regeneration, I would say it would occur at death. But again, I do not believe that can be contained to any time or space. For the previous passage continues:
“The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is every one who is born of the Spirit.” (Jn 3:8)
No-one can narrow down or pinpoint ‘rebirth’, and to do so is to be highly presumptuous. The wind blows wherever it wishes, so too the Holy Spirit. The unborn child, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mothers womb (Lk 1:15). How could that filling have occurred unless his spirit had been reborn (just a thought regarding this unusual case). Suffice it to say, that I do not believe these passages either prove or disprove infant baptism, but should provide great comfort to those who have experienced the loss of a child through death. David, grieving over the loss of his son was confident that he would see him in paradise (2 Sam 12:23). That child did not go to paradise based on the fact that he was David’s son, or that he was circumcised, but because of the work of Christ and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Conscious faith and repentance were not a factor here either. It is God alone who reckons righteousness, not us. Christ’s death has made provision for all little children, who have died in infancy and have not sinned in the likeness of Adam, to receive the free gift of Christ (Rom 5:12-21)
This then brings us to another controversial passage of I Corinthians, chapter 7 in which Paul writes in response to questions written to him, regarding marriage and the sanctity of it, particularly between a believer and non-believer. Many authors, in favor of infant baptism have interpreted the passage to mean that children of believing parents, are maintained “holy” by the belief of the believing parent. The word holy, as it is used here, is used in the same context as being ‘set apart’, that they might be the Lord’s (Lev 20:26), not because those people were all ‘truly children’ but because they were His professing body, His covenant people, and were part of that body which were called out of the world, distinct to Him. The words, ‘holy’ and ‘unclean’ are used repeatedly in both Testaments, and what the meaning is must be gleaned from the scope of the particular passages. The context of this passage is the Corinthian Christians, who becoming converted after marriage were united in marriage to an unbeliever, or through poor choices married an unbeliever after conversion, and therefore were concerned about the holiness and sanctity of their marriages, and whether or not their children were truly then members of the church of the believing parent.. It was clear in Jewish tradition that there was not to be intermarriage between God’s chosen and the nations around (Ezra 9:1-4,13-14). Precedents had been set in holy scripture to put away the spouses and children of ‘unholy’ marriages (Ex 10:2ff). In Malachi 2:10-16 we see too how anyone who marries someone outside of the covenant was to be cut off from the people, particularly those that had sinned by divorcing the wife of their youth (who was Jewish) and remarrying another who was not. God hates divorce (vs 16). Paul’s discussion here are an outgrowth of showing that, as we are no longer under the law, that the prohibitions of marriage outside of the faith, were not to be treated in the same way as they were under the law. Married people should stay together and not defraud each other sexually (in all marriages where the unbeliever wishes to stay). In all such cases the marriage therefor was to be seen as legitimate, and therefore a holy covenant to God. The children are also as seen as being within the confines of a holy marriage, and unlike under the law, put away as ‘unholy.’ Should the non-believer leave, the believer is not bound in any way, and the children not condemned. The bottom line here is that there is no reference here to baptism. The context here is regarding a reference to the marriage, being holy in the eyes of God. Only those who go against their unbelieving spouse and request divorce are stepping outside of the bounds of holiness, and as such are bringing reproach upon their children because of sin. Should parents be out of standing with the church, their children as well would suffer.
It has been argued that to have God’s name is to belong to Him. Israel has God’s name (2 Chron. 7:14), therefore they belong to him and no other. Therefore to be baptized into the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit is to make those baptized possessions of God. While I agree in principle with this logic, it again must be stated that ‘not all Israel, was true Israel’ and likewise not all baptized, are regenerated. For that matter, baby dedication, in which infants are committed to God, in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, would be equally effective.
A final argument, used to promote infant baptism is the fact that there are numerous references within the New Testament to ‘whole families’ being baptized – Cornelius’ household (11:14); Lydia family (Acts 16:15); Philippian jailer household (16:33); Crispus, the Chief ruler of the synagogue, and Stephanas household (I Cor 1:16). For those in favor of infant baptism, this is overwhelming proof that there must have been a child or two in one of these households. Myself, I must argue, that the odds are in that camps favor. But to be equally fair, it has been successfully argued by those promoting ‘believers baptism’ that there is sufficient proof to indicate that the word was ‘preached to all in each household’; that all members of the households ‘believed’. In the case of Cornelius’s household, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the message (Acts 10:44), and in comparison to Acts 2:40-42 where they baptized those that believed and repented, we would naturally assume there was repentance here, from all those that were capable of listening. In the case of Lydia, it should be assumed that the household was made up of brethren who were capable of being visited, and comforted (16:40). The jailer’s whole household heard the word of God, rejoiced, believed and were baptized (16:31-34). It is said Crispus believed with all his house. For all to believe ‘upon hearing’ would require some measure of maturity. The house of Stephanus were spoken of by Paul as ministers to the ministry of the Saints (I Cor 16:15) and did labor. Frankly, I see flaws on both sides of this argument, therefore neither can be held as conclusive, though in light of recorded early church history, the weight would fall towards those who favor infant baptism. But, on scripture alone, there is no proof.
Baptism is the “pledge” of the parents to attempt with God’s help to instill “faith” in the child and bring about correct choices. It becomes a pledge for the child when that “pledge” is incorporated and accepted as binding on their own lives. It becomes the mark of salvation/sonship outside of the realm of time and space, and is used as a physical portrayal of what has already occurred in Christ once for all, in time and space, to be effective outside of time and space.
Power2Serve Resources 