Infant Baptism and the Early Church

Have you ever considered the historical support for infant baptism? Perhaps you’ve wondered, “When did infant baptism begin?” Well, I hope to bring a bit of clarity to this topic so that by the end it may be more fitting to ask, “When did believer’s baptism only begin?” I want to offer three points of history in support of infant baptism: 1) Proselyte Jewish baptisms before John the Baptist, 2) Biblical accounts of baptism, 3) early Church writers on baptism. Before providing the historical evidence I want it to be clear that this is not the place to start in order to establish doctrine, that place is Scripture. The theological and Biblical support are not my focus here. The weight of theological and Biblical evidence is sufficient in itself but the historical evidence, I find, puts the discussion into practice. For me, the historical evidence brings a sense of solidarity to the view and a sense of unity to believers in every generation of the church. What I will not be focusing on here is the particular doctrines of individuals concerning infant baptism, unless deemed necessary, but simply the application. I hope you find this brief source to be thought-provoking, encouraging, challenging, and Christ honoring.

Proselyte Jewish Baptism

Why was John the Baptist's Baptism so controversial to the Jewish leaders? John’s message was as follows: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt. 3:2). If you are familiar with the account you will remember that the Pharisees were less than welcoming to John’s message of baptism (3:7). It could be that the simple statement calling them to repent was enough to get their phylacteries all tied-up but there is a bit of history before John that would cause his statement to also ruffle the tassels on their garments. In short, John was equating the Jews to Gentiles. It’s no wonder the leaders were a bit contemptuous. For at least 100 years before John came on the scene the Jews had been practicing baptism for Gentiles who wished to convert to Judaism. The particular group who advocated for such were known as Hillelite scribes. Remember Gamaliel? He was a Hillelite. The Hillelite scribes sought scriptural support for baptizing Gentiles by arguing that the Jews themselves, in the time of Moses, were baptized. The Apostle Paul, a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), speaks of this baptism in his letter to the Corinthians:

“For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”

1 Corinthians 10:1, 2

This doctrine was the support for Jews baptizing Gentile converts. But who was baptized? Households. Adults to infants were baptized. This is important and we cannot overlook that what is being understood from the case of Moses must apply here. Remember, the support for baptizing Gentiles was from the case of Moses’ baptism. What then does this tell us of those who were baptized into Moses? Were not infants included? If the application from Moses to Gentiles includes infants it is clear that the ‘all’ who were baptized into Moses included infants. But we must take this further. This also means that when Paul mentions the baptism of Moses as an example to Christians we can’t ignore the implication that derives from those who were baptized. If Paul is assuming the baptism of infants in Moses and is using that as an example of Christian baptism does it now make a little bit more sense as to why Paul baptized households (1 Cor. 1:16)? Let us continue with the biblical evidence.

Biblical Accounts of Baptism

It cannot be stressed enough that we must consider the immediate audience of the writers of the New Testament. Consider the preceding evidence when we encounter household baptisms in the New Testament. Consider that for over 100 years Jews have been practicing household baptisms for Gentile converts and these baptisms included infants. What would be the natural understanding of a 1st century Jew when reading or hearing of household baptisms by the hands of an Apostle? The answer is obvious. If we are to assume some radical departure from this established custom would we not have clear demarcation in regards to the custom of infants being baptized? As it is, we have passing comments about household baptisms that would naturally be understood as not excluding but including the children in that household. This household principle goes all the way back to Genesis. We see it in Noah and the Ark, we see it in Abraham and his family, we see it in Lot and his family, we see it in the Passover, we see it in Rahab and her family, and we see it Lydia and Stephanas. Nowhere do we have an explicit mention of a baby being baptized. But nowhere do we have an explicit mention of a woman taking the Lord’s Supper. Do we ban women from the Supper then? No. How natural it is to us to assume the participation of women in the Supper in the New Testament! And how natural for a Jew to assume the baptism of infants!

Early Church Writers on Baptism

Each section so far is worthy of a book. This is no different. And there are books. You can read them if you like. I hope you would. This is only to whet your appetite. I want to offer to you three writers for consideration. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian. If you are unfamiliar with these names you can find biographies and their writings online.

Irenaeus (130 – 202AD)

Our first early source is admittedly one that is less popular than some others. This is due to the need for context of language. Consider the following from Against Heresies:

“And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’”

3:17:1

Here we see the writer clearly unites regeneration and baptism. This belief, according to my knowledge, is universal in the early fathers. It is important to remember this when we read him elsewhere saying:

“For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”

2:22:4

The phrase “born again to God” has been understood by scholars to refer to baptism. I agree. Yet, we don’t need to delve into the original language or receive more explanation of colloquialisms to see that this is the case. The entire context of this statement is concerning the baptism of Jesus. He is arguing that Jesus was baptized at 30 years of age because at that age he was a Master—we might say ‘in his prime’. Thus, he was baptized at this age to speak for all ages. He goes on to say, “He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age…” This language of sanctifying and being born again is in the context as to the reason of Jesus being baptized when we was. This from a writer who speaks of baptism and regeneration—being born again—as being connected. The fact that his comments are in passing greatly supports the historical evidence of infant baptism.

Tertullian (160 – 220 AD)

Tertullian is the first evidence of any writer with any sort of opposition toward infant baptism. Yet, even he affirmed its need in the case of infants who were dying. He writes:

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?

On Baptism, Ch. 18

Here we have the case of Tertullian advocating for delaying baptism until a more mature age. This is built under the teaching of baptismal regeneration. His concern was for those who would be baptized too soon and commit some sin nullifying their baptism later in life. This actually became common. Augustine (354–430) was almost baptized when he fell ill as a little child but was not baptized until he was 32. Augustine presented a more thorough and defined doctrine concerning infant baptism in his day. The fear of what happened to a person who committed sins after baptism became a prominent reason for delaying infant baptism. But even for those who thought like Tertullian infant baptism was still practiced in cases of infant mortality.

Cyprian (200 – 258 AD)

Our last support comes from a man that Augustine references many times in his work On Baptism. Cyprian was involved in the settling of a controversy as to when infants of believer's were to be baptized. Historically, this is important for our consideration. The first church debate over infant baptism was not whether it was to be accepted or not but when the children were to be baptized.

“And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.”

Epistle 58:6

This letter was after a council had met to discuss the matter as to the delaying of baptism of infants. Particularly it was a debate concerning whether to perform baptism on the eighth day like it’s Old Testament counterpart, circumcision, or not. 

Conclusion

The historicity of infant baptism is one that surrounds New Testament writings. It is seen before and it is after the composition of the New Testament Scriptures. The many other sources after are available for reading (see Origen, Hippolytus, and Augustine). Unless one is willing to assume discontinuity without mention it is untenable that infant baptism is an invention that crept into the church and virtually took it over without a fight. Even those who advocated for delaying infant baptism affirmed its necessity and usage in at least special cases, or even common cases, of infant mortality. We can vary on this issue and be brothers in Lord. But to defend a Baptist view of baptism, which I qualify as anyone who denies infant baptism, from an historical account must weigh these things. I affirm that we cannot allow tradition to subvert the Scriptures. Only from Scripture do we find our sole infallible rule of faith and practice. This article is not focused on the theological reasons for infant baptism. But for anyone who respects the Fathers, who desires to weigh the evidence surrounding the New Testament, it is impossible to ignore these realities. What cannot be doubted is the universal acceptance of infant baptism in the early Church. So when did infant baptism begin? Before John the Baptist. Remember when I said by the end of this you would be asking, “When did believer’s baptism only begin?” Well, you’d have to look over a thousand years ahead of our references for that answer.

Resources:
Jeremias, Joachim, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries
Schaff, Philip. Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 - Enhanced Version (Early Church Fathers)
Further Study
Videos:
Is Infant Baptism Biblical? | Ligon Duncan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7aJFrhqb0Q
Books:
On Baptism, Augustine of Hippo
To A Thousand Generations, Douglas Wilson
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, Greg Strawbridge

More resources are available upon request.Photo from Patheos.com, no notice of Copyright