One of the difficulties with debates concerning entrenched topics is the lack of a declared winner. Debates are like battles, they’re supposed to have winners or losers. Or, if the militaristic image isn’t suitable, debates are supposed to be like traveling with someone. You may not exactly see eye to eye, but hopefully you end up somewhere. I think this is part of the problem when we approach debates like Infant Baptism. So much has been said that no one really knows where the true conflict lies. The larger debate has spawned all sorts of smaller debatable questions, each worth discussing, but all obfuscating the main question so that a certain mind, wanting to adhere to a side, is lost in the fractal of battlefields. On this particular question I’ve found this fractal of battlefields to be quite confusing. One side claims their position is derived from Scripture alone. Another side claims their position is derived from history alone. Still another claims their side is derived from Scripture, history, and theology. Anyone truly wanting to investigate realizes all those claims are not the same claim, and their subtleties are impossible to untangle. Thus one goes from arguing about baptism to arguing about 1st Century child tombs. In this way, I think the conflict wanders off track, engaged in a skirmish after wandering away from the war. What we need is a sort of Waterloo, a single giant conflict, focused, total, and absolute, that would produce a clear winner or loser. I propose to provide something in that vein in the following writing.

Let me start by describing what the following is not. It is not a larger treatise on the meaning or theology of baptism. This is for several reasons. For one, I am limited in space. A larger description of baptism requires chapters and books. Second, the relationship between baptism as a practice and baptism as a theology is subtle and (I hold with no small controversy) wanders into extraneous questions. Third, there is really little argument that baptism ought to be practiced. Those in favor of Infant Baptism (hereafter referred to as “Paedobaptist”) and those against (hereafter referred to as “Credobaptist”) are motivated by the same command of Christ to make disciples and baptize the nations (Matthew 28:19). Finally, this is not meant to be a “silver bullet” argument in the sense that anyone who follows the argument will surely be convinced of one side over the other. While the argument is meant to have a definite winner and loser, anyone who adopts a view solely on the basis of one argument is, to put it gently, not the wisest. Therefore, take the following with the above qualifications and always search the Scriptures to test its merits (Acts 17:11)

Now, onto the argument itself. I propose the following syllogism as the basis of the argument:

Premise 1: Practices laid down by the Apostles ought to be followed

Premise 2: The baptism of infants is a practice of the Apostles

Premise 3: Therefore, the baptism of infants ought to be practiced

This syllogism is written as a summary of the Paedobaptist position. It could just as easily be rewritten by a Credobaptist as:

Premise 1: Practices laid down by the Apostles ought to be followed

Premise 2: The baptism of infants is not a practice of the Apostles

Premise 3: Therefore, the baptism of infants ought not to be practiced

Essentially, the thrust of the argument is to question the Apostolicity of Infant Baptism. If both sides can agree on premise 1 (and I think most members can), then only premise 2 is the point of debate. This syllogism aims to find the disagreement where it matters the most. I am claiming Apostolicity is the salient question.

Let me develop a defense of this approach a little bit further. Specifically, I want to briefly argue why premise 1 can be accepted. First, Christ gives the Apostles the responsibility of growing and developing the newly founded Church (Ephesians 2:20). They were, among other things, responsible (in the power of the Holy Spirit) for the growth of the ecclesia in her governance, holiness, and practice (Acts 15:6). They were also the closest to Christ, both in chronology and holiness. Therefore, if there exists a normative practice the Apostles perform, it is not inconsistent to at least wonder why they were performing it. Even by invoking Chesterton’s fence (that is, if a practice exists, find out why it exists before you halt its practice) we find reasonable grounds for accepting premise 1. Second, this approach is a synthesis between Scripture and history in that Biblical texts are enriched by an historical investigation. Texts that are somewhat ambiguous in their scope (as in the oikos formula described later) are informed with a historical perspective. Scripture passages specifically concerned with Apostolic practice are enriched by trustworthy voices from history lending further specifics into the practices taking place. Third, this approach is consistent with Biblical imperatives. Imitating the Apostles is something that, within appropriate bounds, will not lead one astray. “Imitate me as I imitate Christ” says Paul (1 Corinthians 1:11). More could be said as to the reasons why we would imitate the Apostles, but hopefully the above will suffice for my more skeptical readers.

Turning to the meat of the argument itself, I want to examine the two options for premise 2, namely, is Infant Baptism an apostolic practice or not? Here is where I’d like to develop the synthesis between Scripture and history, specifically with regard to the oikos formula. The word oikos is the greek word for “households” and the “oikos formula” is a technical term appearing in the literature. It refers to the three instances in the book of Acts where the Apostles baptize entire households:

1. The baptism of Cornelius’ household by Peter

“Then Peter declared, ‘Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.” Acts 10:46b-48 “And he [Cornelius] told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household [οικοσ].” Acts 11:13-14

2. The baptism of Lydia’s household by Paul

“One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household [οικοσ]as well, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ And she prevailed upon us.” Acts 16:14-15

3. The baptism of the Philippian jailer’s household by Paul

“Then he brought them out and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household [οικοσ].’ And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” Acts 16:30-33 (emphasis added).

These are the only instances describing a practice where the Apostles could have been baptizing infants. That is to say, while certainly persons of age were baptized, it is possible that infants, i.e. those too young to make a public profession of faith, were included in the baptisms. Nevertheless, the burden of proof lies with the Paedobaptists to demonstrate that infants were present and included in these baptisms. Since positive claims are being made about the persons receiving baptism, positive evidence must be produced. To put it another way, “households” can mean any family unit, one with or without small children. It is still completely consistent with the above texts to read it as a description merely of baptisms taking place with older members of the household, members capable of making a profession of faith. It requires another step to say infants were absolutely present and baptized at these instances.

Given the Biblical instances and the burden of proof upon those who claim infants were present, I’d like to answer the demand for positive evidence with positive historical evidence. I’d like to turn to the first four centuries of Christianity to demonstrate not only were infants baptized, but it was a practice stretching back to the Apostles. I will limit my historical proofs to three pieces of writing from three different authors:

1. Origen (AD 183-253)

“It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from
the apostles to give baptism even to little children.” –Commentary on the Book of Romans, Book 5, Chapter 9

2. Hippolytus (written AD 215)

“The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” –Apostolic Tradition, 21:4

3. Augustine (AD 354-430)

“And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church, in respect of the baptism of infants, who certainly are as yet unable ‘with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation’…..what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority.” –On Baptism, Against the Donatists (Book 4, Chapter 24:31-31)

(Augustine indeed wrote another book titled “On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants” with a greater description on the theological perspective. Much more could be said of Augustine’s defense of Infant Baptism. The above is quoted to demonstrate his belief in its Apostolicity.)

The above quotations demonstrate not only were infants baptized in the early church, but members believed it to come from the Apostles. Therefore, while the burden of proof lies on the Paedobaptist to show infants were baptized in the Biblical instances, the proof is provided in the historical record. In this sense, premise 2 is answered in the affirmative.

Briefly, I’d like to address a few possible objections. First off, I would be remiss if I didn’t lend at least some space to other relevant Biblical texts such as Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:21. These deserve their own space in the baptism discussion. They have not been mentioned here since the concern of this argument is the Apostolic practice, not necessarily the Apostolic teaching. Moreover, the Apostolic teaching obtained from these verses does not in any way contradict the Apostolic practice argued for here. A second objection might be the lack of first century sources. Most of the historical persons here are third century or later. It could be argued that this is still too far from the Apostles to argue for Apostolic practice. I would answer this objection by noting the paucity of evidence for either side in the first century. No first century authors (to my knowledge) directly address infant baptism. That being said, there is a case to be made from certain archaeological findings that children as young as two years old were baptized in Christian communities around the first century. An overview of this evidence, along with further reading, can be found in this document:

Overview of 1st and 2nd Century Evidences for Infant Baptism

The ambiguity of first century evidence notwithstanding, the above sources present a problem for those objecting to their lateness. In a sense, one ends up in a reducto ad absurdum. Simply taking the case of Augustine, we have numerous claims and quotes from Augustine claiming Infant Baptism is from the Apostles. To deny this ultimately leads to absurdities. How could Augustine have been so mistaken? Could he be lying? These become more and more difficult to answer in the affirmative the more one reads and begins to benefit from the theology of Augustine in his other writings.

A third objection may be on the overall simplicity of the above argument. Some may argue that proving an Apostolic practice is not reason enough for a continued practice. Whether the Apostles did it or not is irrelevant to whether we should do it. Moreover, a larger theology about baptism, including what it is and why we do it, obviates infants as participants. I’ll answer this objection by first conceding that it gives no preference to denomination in the sense that no Paedobaptist theology, whether it be Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, or Catholic, is argued for. If one finds this argument convincing, a lot of questions still need to be answered, such as which denomination has the most Biblical doctrine of baptism. This concession notwithstanding, I will invoke Chesterton’s fence a second time and say that an Apostolic practice is at least reason to favor its continued use. Sure, it would be naive to continue a practice only because the Apostles did it. Nevertheless, the fact that they did it is at least reason to be hesitant about ceasing the practice. Find out why the fence is there before you tear it down.

A fourth and final objection lies in the historical record itself. Since I have invoked history, any student of history on this subject will also invoke an interesting fact, namely, that the first voice writing on Infant Baptism does not support it but argues for its cessation. I speak of Tertullian in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries who argues against Infant Baptism (De Baptismo 18). Tertullian is an interesting case. First off, my immediate response is similar to Jerome’s who simply says “Tertullian is outside of the Church” (Against Helvidius 19). Tertullian died a Montanist, outside of Orthodoxy. Moreover, I would posit a careful reading of De Baptismo seems to be addressing an already established practice. It is as if Tertullian is trying to correct abuses in current baptismal practices regarding infants. In other words, Tertullian is actually evidence the baptism of infants may be older than Tertullian. Finally, I would also comment on the spirit of Tertullian’s other writings. He was quite severe both on himself and in the rule he established. He begins to form a sort of cult, regarding the writings of Montanus to be the same as the Holy Spirit. Many of his later writings show an uncommon stringency. He spoke derisively of marriage and argued against remarriage even for widows and widowers. This was in his Montanist period and it is a sort of poetic irony that the person who forbade the baptism of infants later forbade marriage.

While my efforts may be criticized (and I welcome the criticism), I hope the approach is not. I hope both sides realize that truth is real and one side likely has it while the other does not. We can’t let modern relativism, or even fatigue at the conflict, stop us from arguing over important questions. The presence of an ongoing debate signals the importance, rather than unimportance, of these questions. Certainly, all things should be done in charity by all members of either sides. We are all brothers and sisters, the Paedobaptists and Credobaptists. Nevertheless, baptism is not adiaphora. It is part of the Great Commission itself. I hope the current debate on baptism is done with great charity but also with great care. These questions do matter and they do have answers. The above work is my attempt at providing answers.

I am indebted to Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Aland for their three books, “Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries,” “The Origins of Infant Baptism,” (Jeremias) and “Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?” (Aland). I highly recommend these books to anyone wanting a further treatment of the relevant primary sources. I also want to thank Garrett for allowing me space on his site and to Nathan for the encouragement to write.

Grace mercy and peace to all in Christ Jesus Our Lord.

Ave Christus Rex