The Case for Infant Baptism

In my previous post I summarized the main points in the case for adult baptism. Now that I have laid those out, I would like to sketch out the case for infant baptism, as understanding both sides will help us navigate the question: how should the Church practice baptism in a post-Christian context?

Infant baptism is the mode of baptism that is practiced in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, with only those that consider themselves Baptist, Evangelical, Pentecostal or Charismatic rejecting this mode of baptism. Those who argue for “believer’s baptism” view baptism as a personal proclamation of their faith in Jesus Christ.  Most of the time this is viewing baptism as non-sacramental, meaning nothing divine happens at baptism, it is just something to do, which they would call an ordinance. Infant baptism is a sacramental view. The difference between these two views is the focus of the baptismal event: is baptism centered on the action of the person, as in believer’s baptism, or on God, as in infant baptism.

The case for infant baptism begins with the covenant of God. Without wading into a theological quagmire of Reformed versus Dispensational theology, it is best to view infant and adult baptism in terms of God’s relationship to the believer before the act of baptism. The theological underpinnings of infant baptism, as will be shown, make the strongest case for the baptism of infants.

First though, let us look to the Scriptures. There is no directive for adult or believer’s baptism only in the Scriptures. The same goes for infant baptism. What can be read from the silence is an openness to baptism as a communal act though, and not just a personal proclamation, as adult baptism proponents would argue.  At Pentecost, Peter issued a call to repentance that included the children of those who would repent and be baptized:

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. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:38-39, TNIV)

Next, both Luke and Paul infer the baptism of infants and children when they speak of the baptism of entire households once the heads of house have come to faith:

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. (Acts 16:33, TNIV)

Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else. (1 Corinthians 1:16, TNIV)

The early church also considers infant baptism to be an apostolic teaching passed down from them to their disciples, as evidenced in the writings of Augustine and Hippolytus:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (St. Augustine. On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (St. Augustine. The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Thus, the apostolic teaching of infant baptism was a view of baptism as consecration, making it akin to circumcision. Instead of being an event centered on the personal proclamation of a believer, the understanding of infant baptism is that it is a consecration of a child as a member of God’s kingdom. This is the literal understanding of Paul’s reflection in his letter to the Colossians:

“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your sinful nature was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.”

The metaphor Paul invokes of circumcision as a precursor to baptism makes sense in terms of the old covenant versus the new covenant. As Christ brought the new covenant by his blood and has written his word on our hearts, so too has he called us, through the teaching of his Word, to perform baptism as a sign of the new covenant. The perspective of infant baptism is from God’s point of view, namely that God has opened his kingdom to all, even this child. This does not, from my perspective at least, place any connotations of salvation onto the child. Baptism is a sealing of the Holy Spirit and a sign of membership in God’s kingdom. Paul elaborates on this in Romans, when he writes:

Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.  (Romans 4: 10-12, TNIV)

Following this logic, infant baptism does not place salvation onto a child, but invites them into the kingdom of God. In this mode, baptism acts is the sign of  God imparting his grace onto a child. This is how both the Presbyterian and Methodist denominations have worked out there understandings of this imparting of grace:

Baptism, whether administered to those who profess their faith or to those presented for Baptism as children, is one and the same Sacrament. The Baptism of children witnesses to the truth that God’s love claims people before they are able to respond in faith. (PCUSA)

In all forms of Christian baptism, God claims those being baptized, whatever their age or ability to profess their faith, with divine grace. Clearly an infant can do nothing to save himself or herself, but is totally dependent on God’s grace, as we all are — whatever our age. (UMC)

In my next two posts I will outline the contemporary problems surrounding adult baptism and infant baptism as they relate to discipleship within the church. My final post will be about how to rectify the situation of different modes of baptism in a post-Christian context.