To Baptise an infant or not?
You’ve just had a newborn, and in the midst of all the life changes someone asks you about baptism. Will you get your new born child baptised? You wonder if that’s appropriate? Wasn’t that something that the older more ritualistic churches did? Isn’t it what a person did when they were a bit superstitious? Isn’t it better to let the child work out for themselves what to do when they get older?
This is an important issue. So, here are some thoughts around the gift of children and baptism.
The first and most important thing to do with a new born child is give thanks to God for his miraculous gift. It is amazing. This child has been knit together in the mother’s womb. God has been at work in your newborn’s life from the very beginning. A close second to this is to then do all you can, by God’s strength, to nurture their faith in the Lord who gave them life.
After these big ones, we believe it is important to mark the gift of a child in a more formal way through either baptism or dedication. As a church we are happy to support parents with either option. We’re just really keen to encourage parents to think it through so that whichever choice you make is a considered one.
However! We do encourage parents to particularly consider baptism. We love those who choose dedication! But we particularly believe baptising the infants of believers is not only a thoroughly appropriate (and biblical) practice, we believe it makes best sense of who our kids are as members of the church community.
Consider this from three perspectives:
1. The Bible and it’s teaching. 2. The practice of the early church. 3. Pastoral observations.
Starting with the second before coming back to the first!
1. The practice of the early church
Most main stream denominations throughout the history of the church have practiced infant baptism. The evidence of this is very early. A couple of writers in the second century spoke of it as something that was a well-established practice.[1]
Of course, the most important question is whether or not the apostles endorsed such a thing, and we will come to that. But the evidence that infant baptism was early and widespread is significant. Today, infant baptism is a firm conviction of the Anglican tradition, Presbyterian, Reformed churches, Lutherans, Methodists, Uniting, and so on.
These traditions believe they are simply following the earliest church practices, established through biblical thought.
In addition, all of the great heroes of the reformed faith pressed for infant baptism as biblical and appropriate – Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, etc.
2. Biblical
But humans can get things wrong. What does the Bible say?
There is no verse in Scripture that explicitly addresses the question. That is, there is no verse that says we must baptise infants born to believers. People opposed to infant baptism often point this out. And they are exactly right. However, it is important to note that there is no verse in scripture that says we ought to dedicate the children of believers.[2] Crucial here is that both infant baptists and believer’s baptists (the label for the Baptist position) are in the same boat. We are forming our convictions in the context of biblical silence – seeking to make best sense of the information we have.
Here is what we have – with respect to infant baptism.
a. A number of baptisms throughout the book of Acts mention the fact that whole households were baptised (Acts 10, 11:14, 16, 18). The key question is – does the word ‘household’ assume that infants might have been present? That is, when a household was baptised (one assumes this means every member of the household) might it have included the baptism of any infants present?
The various church denominations above believe the answer is ‘yes’, on the basis of the way Jewish people thought about ‘household’ (and also how they thought about family solidarity). Consider – Noah and his household (Gen 7:1); God’s provision for Israel and his household through Joseph (Gen 45:11); the protection of the household during the Passover, or the promises to Abraham which included his children (Gen 17:9-10). In each case, ‘household’ included any and all who lived under the same roof – whether adult or infant. ‘Household’ is a common biblical idea and word. And in fact its secular use is not so very different. It simply meant any and all within the house – adult, child or infant.
As Luke reported the ‘household’ baptisms, it is very difficult to believe he changed the meaning of this word to make it only mean “adult members of the home”. If he was making this change we would expect some hint to that effect. Actually, we would need some indication to that effect. Jewish readers would find any other reading of the word ‘household’ very strange. Noteworthy is the continuity between the language of ‘household’ describing Cornelius’ family before conversion (clearly under a Jewish or old covenant frame of thinking) and the use of that same word when they get baptised.
Those opposed to infant baptism insist ‘household’ could not include infants purely on the basis that they believe baptism ought only be given to someone old enough to ‘repent and believe’. There is a lot about this concern that is right and good. Believer’s Baptists rightly fight against a kind of ‘state church’ that simply baptises any baby that turns up. Baptism is intended to be a sign of a person’s faith in Christ. It is not just for any person irrespective of their faith. But!! The children of believers are a special case.
b. 1 Cor 7 says that the children of believers are ‘clean’. It is not clear exactly what this means for our kids, but what is clear is that our kids are unique, because of the faith of their parents. One practical way in which this shows itself is the very different path our kids have towards mature faith. Children of believers are raised within the Christian faith, not outside of it. This is obvious by the fact that from the moment they can talk they give expression to a faith in God. In fact, we teach them to live as his child – from birth. We don’t wait until they become a Christian in some crisis moment as teenagers. We assume they are, because they are our children. They will need to make a choice as they grow older, but it will be to stay in the faith, not join it from outside. This is very different to the choice a child of unbelievers makes. He or she has to choose to enter into the Christian community by a decision to turn to Christ. Our child is raised within the Christian community and faith. The other is raised outside of it. Infant baptism recognises this profound difference. Our kids are unique.
c. One argument against baptising infants is based on the nature of baptism, and the teaching of the NT, that says baptism is a sign of a person having faith. That is, it is to be given to a person who has repented of rebellion against him and has now turned to Christ to put their faith in him as Lord and Saviour. And so, according to this thinking, because an infant can’t voice faith in Christ, it would be inappropriate to give them the sign that says they have that faith – until they can voice that for themselves.
However!! Two things, from ‘b’ above, our kids aren’t like just any kids. They are raised within the Christian faith from birth. And, second, God himself commands that a sign of faith be given to an infant, when they are a certain unique kind of infant. What is that unique kind of infant? The kind that has parents who already belong to the believing community. This is what Romans 4 says. It speaks of a ‘sign and seal of faith’ (circumcision) that was given to the infants of Jewish covenant members before they themselves could have that faith. For instance, if a pagan man was converted to Judaism, he would undergo circumcision as a sign that he was now a person who had chosen to put his faith in the God of Israel. Importantly for us, that sign of faith would also be applied to any infant children in his family even though they couldn’t personally give expression to faith – yet. The point here is that the Jews were used to applying a sign of faith to a person who wasn’t able to express faith themselves – yet – if that person was the infant child of parents of faith. Our children are a unique class of child.
d. This trades on the way Jewish people thought of family. There was a solidarity of family under God. There are the ‘household’ verses mentioned in point ‘a’. But also note the promises of Peter at Pentecost in Acts 2:39. He tells his Jewish audience that the promises of forgiveness of sin is for them and their children. This seems to us a way of saying God needs our children to repent and believe (which is true), but in context it is an expression of Jewish family thought. Our families are caught up in the faith of the parents – while very young.
e. Evidence of baptisms that include children.
The most obvious one is 1 Cor 10. Paul speaks of Israel being baptised into Moses. Now this is a dry baptism. The only people who got wet were the Egyptians. But nonetheless, Paul can call the Jewish experience ‘baptism’. This indicates something of what baptism is. It is a sign not only of faith, but also of being ‘united to’ the one whose name you are baptised into. For us this is Jesus. But in 1 Cor 10, it was Moses. The point here is that it was the whole Jewish community – men, women, children and infants.
Consider also John the Baptist’s baptism. He baptised people as a sign of their repentance, in readiness for the climactic return of God himself to judge the unrepentant. Jewish people went down into the river to be baptised, to escape the coming wrath. Given the solidarity of family noted above, it would have been inconceivable that they left their infants on the bank of the river as they were baptised. Their ‘household’ would’ve been baptised – infants also.
f. Jesus. “Let the little children come to me, for to such belong the kingdom of God.” (Matt 19:14). Jesus welcomed small children as full members with him of the blessings of the new age. Infant baptism marks our infants as members with us of the blessings of the new age.
g. Eph 6:1 and Col 3:20 address children as fully integrated members of the body of Christ. They are addressed as members together with the parents of the things of Christ by virtue of being our children.
Infant baptism makes sense of all this evidence – but only for the infants of genuine believers. That is, the Bible sees the infant children of believes as a special case. And so…
3. Pastoral advantages
Finally, to offer some pastoral wisdom in the practice of infant baptism.
The act of baptism says at least three things. It says that the person baptised has looked to Christ to be his person and now identified as belonging to him. It says that God has marked us as his person. And it says that the person baptised is now welcomed into the church family is a fully-fledged member.
Baptising the infants of believers emphasises the last two of these points. That is, it says to an infant that they are the object of God’s grace. He has put them in a family of faith and so marks this child as having a special connection with him (see again 1 Cor 7). And, it says that this little child is marked as a special member of our church community, to be treated as a fully loved member of the church family and raised within the church family with confidence and assurance that God will work in their life.
That is, infant baptism says to our kids, you are welcomed among us by virtue of God’s grace towards you, not because they have proven yourself to be fit to be among us – by later coming to mature faith.[3]
This is actually powerful for our baptised children. It says to them that God has gone before them and given them many expressions of grace. And it says we receive them as fully welcomed members of church.
The reality is that the vast majority of believing parents raise their kids in exactly this fashion. That is, they treat them as genuine believers. They teach them to pray to God as their Heavenly Father. They teach them to live lives of obedience to God their Father. They bring them to church as members of church. The point here is, we don’t wait until they’re older and have undergone some kind of ‘conversion experience’ before we treat them as believers. We treat them as members with us of the church family who need to increasingly grow in Christ and own for themselves the faith they are raised within. Infant baptism best reflects this unique reality about the children of genuine believers.
In short, why baptise infants?
Because it is in keeping with biblical thought. It is consistent with the longest practice of the church. And it makes best sense of the very unique circumstances of our kids. We don’t raise little pagans, working to see them converted to Christ, and hoping one day they will prove it by their mature faith. We raise kids who belong to the things of Christ and seek to nurture and grow that faith, prayerfully encouraging them to stay with the Lord who has given them so many unique gifts of grace.
Andrew Heard 2022
[1]The first clear reference to it is in 180AD by Tertullian. His words indicate that it was a well-established practice. But a few decades earlier still, Irenaeus hinted at it (150AD). And a little later a man called Hippolytus gave directions about how to perform infant baptism (190AD).
[2] There is the OT example of Samuel who was dedicated to the Lord at the temple. Jesus was presented at the temple. But we can’t conclude from this that Christians therefore ought to do the same thing today. These practices centred on the temple, and Samuel was dedicated to the Lord such that he then lived at the temple. Clearly not a model most parents want to buy into!
[3] The language of ‘mature’ faith is important. Once a person rejects infant baptism, they are left with a kind of baptism that is not ‘believer’s baptism’, but what might be called ‘mature belief’ baptism. This is because kids of Christian parents will express credible faith from the moment they can begin to speak. A four-year-old can express real faith. They ought then to be baptised. But those that reject infant baptism almost universally insist that baptism must be done only when the child has come to a mature faith – and so proven that their faith is adult. Therefore, they have had to prove themselves before the church will grant them the mark of membership.