Infant baptism is one of those topics that falls somewhere in the middle of doctrinal issues. It should not be a big enough issue to divide the church but it should not be ignored either. Yet, there are many young Christians who haven't given it a second thought. Most of us feel comfortable in what we have grown up with. If you are in a church that does participate in paedobaptism (baptising infants) then it intuitively makes sense to you. If your church was a credobaptist church (that is believer baptising) then this is what makes the most rational sense.

 

Yet our intuition should not be our only guide. We must be able to lean on the authority of Scripture. It is here that the discussion regarding baptising infants becomes quite relevant. There is no one declaratory statement in the Bible regarding baptism for infants. This ensures that, on this issue, there is significant reading between the lines (not in a negative sense). Let's have a look at some of the arguments then:

 

Paedobaptists (baptising infants)

1. Baptising infants is synonymous with the Old Testament practice of circumcision

Calvin believed that this was a strong reason to continue the practice:
"Apart from the difference in the visible ceremony, whatever belongs to circumcision pertains likewise to baptism... By this it appears incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office among us."

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.4, LCC, 2:1327 per Gregg Allison, Historical Theology, pg 630

 

John Piper discusses this view:

"Just as circumcision was administered to all the physical sons of Abraham who made up the physical Israel, so baptism should be administered to all the spiritual sons of Abraham who make up the spiritual Israel, the church."

John Piper, Brothers We Are Not Professionals, pg 133

 

Such a position has a rather obvious flaw. There are extreme discontinuities between the two practices as well:

 

"Calvin and some of his heirs have treated signs of the covenant as if no significant changes happened with the coming of Christ. But God is forming His people today differently from when he strove with an ethnic people called Israel. The visible people of God are no longer formed through natural birth but through new birth and its expression through faith in Christ."

John Piper, Brothers We Are Not Professionals, pg 134

 

What we find then is baptism is not completely analogous or synonymous with circumcision. The covenant is sufficiently different post-Jesus so that this argument should not be considered irrefutable.

 

2. Household baptisms in Acts

There are three chief household baptisms that occurred in the New Testament. There is the household of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33) and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). The argument follows that in these households there may have been infants. If that is the case then the practice of infant baptism was occurring in the earliest parts of the Christian church. Unfortunately this argument relies upon these households having infants, which there is no indication of. In fact, with two of the households (the jailer and Stephanas) we have some indications that these families had heard the word of the Lord (Acts 16:32 & 1 Corinthians 16:15). It is likely, then, in these households that all family members were at an age to which they could receive His word. So only Lydia is left to sustain the argument that household baptisms included infant baptisms.

 

3. The Bible does not "forbid infant baptisms, and by the second century the literature is replete with references to the practice"

This is an argument proposed by Michael Horton in his systematic theology book The Christian Faith (pg 797). This argument is compelling up to a point. The Council of Carthage (in 253 AD) took infant baptism for granted as by this time it was a regular practice. If one is to look at the early church leaders, as well, most endorse the practice of infant baptism. Augustine, Origen, Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley all sanctioned infant baptisms.

 

This is relevant but not decisive. The church leaders can lead us to insights into the practice but they are still reading between the lines of Scripture. What one may find (on further digging) is that many of these leaders that had such an opinion (for instance, Augustine) was because of the transformation of the Church into a State-like organisation.

 

Credobaptists (baptising believers)

1. Paul's take on Baptisms

Paul talks greatly on baptisms in his letters in the New Testament, as one would expect.

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
Romans 6:3 - 4 (ESV)

 

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Galations 3:27 (ESV)

 

"[H]aving been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

Colossians 2:12 (ESV)

 

What we see is baptism is an expression of faith for those who are in Christ already. This is impossible for the infant to participate in. Our salvation is not dependant upon us being baptised. It is dependant upon us having faith that we are justified by Jesus' actions on the cross. Once we understand this our response is to be baptised as a physical sign of our faith.

 

One of the great issues with baptising infants is the chance of those who have been baptised in their early years recanting this choice by their parents. What occurs then is not a recanting of their own faith because faith is not transferred in baptism. Hence infant baptism perhaps should not be referred to as "baptism" because it cannot possibly be analogous to what Paul envisages baptism to mean. That is, namely, that baptism is the physical sign of what our internal selves have already found - a saving grace in Christ. Infant baptism is not tied to a believer having a saving grace in Christ so it seems that by looking at Paul's simplest definition of baptism one must be wary of labelling such a practice as "baptism".

 

2. Infant baptism is not in the Scripture

On both sides of the coin, those who argue for and those who argue against the practice of infant baptisms cannot rely on Scripture. Yet, if something is not mentioned in Scripture, it seems it is the duty of those claiming a practice (namely paedobaptists) to establish why such a practice should continue/begin. In light of the inability to properly establish claims that baptism is analogous to circumcision and that household baptism does include infant baptism (though it might) the paedobaptist is left with minimal arguments as to why infant baptism should continue.

 

3. Rebaptism

Perhaps a very compelling (albeit more individualistic) reason to not participate in infant baptism is the likelihood that your child (once grown) will want to be rebaptised. Rebaptism is frowned upon in many denominations. In fact there are examples of both parties involved in rebaptism (the baptised and the baptiser) being executed for their involvement in such activities (for an example have a look at Zwingli's endorsement to execute Felix Manz). If rebaptism is not permissible (if one can be even baptised as a child) it seems that it is counter-intuitive for a parent to impose what is a monumental decision and what should be an outward expression for the individual arbitrarily on their involuntary child.

 

Conclusion

It is necessary that those parents in the church bring their children up as God-fearing people. This is an essential part of Christian parenting. Yet, the faith of the parent cannot be transferred to the child. This is not affording individualism any wiggle-room. I am not saying a parent is required to present a number of worldviews to the child and allow them to pick the one they deem best. Baptism occurs after an individual has come to the saving grace by being baptised into the death of Christ spiritually. Physical baptism before spiritual baptism does not incorporate the key element of both baptisms, faith.

 

Having said this, it is a practice that is perceptively worrying but not one which needs to be divisive. The reasons for infant baptism are compelling, particularly if one has grown up in a denomination where it is an accepted baptismal form. It is ostensibly a choice for the parents to decide. In the end baptism in the spirit is much more important than baptism occurring in the physical.