Scriptural and Theological Basis Of Infant Baptism

By Ikenna Ekwerike – Even in the 21st Century, the ancient practice of baptising children and infants is far from getting over the controversies that had trailed it right from the post-Apostolic times.

A major controversy at the Reformation was among the Reformers themselves which saw the rise of the Anabaptists who would not accept anything short of full, conscious profession of the faith by the individual at Baptism.

To date, many protestant Churches only baptise adults and some demand that Catholics joining them, who were baptised as infants, be re-baptised. A clear understanding of Baptism as well as practices from scripture and tradition is necessary in making an informed opinion and decision concerning the Baptism of children and infants.

Children/Infant Baptism in Perspectives

Evangelical scholars fault infant Baptism as running contrary to the institution of the sacrament and its practice in Biblical times. They insist that in the NT Baptism was administered only to those who consciously believed; having heard the message, repented and freely expressed intention to join the community.

Two eminent theologians square up on this subject: Karl Barth, a Protestant theologian and Jean Danielou, a Catholic theologian. Whereas Barth protests strongly against Baptism of infants with the claim that it violently manipulates personal freedom, Danielou takes a stand against giving undue emphasis to freedom and personal commitment but emphasises grace. Barth tends to relegate grace while unconsciously pushing human effort (works) as the starting point of a relationship with Christ in this context. [Catholics and Protestants differ in their understanding of grace]

Scholars see an irony where those who insist on conversion and profession of faith as precondition for Baptism, hold this side by side with the Reformation principle of primacy of God’s grace. These scholars consider infant Baptism as one of the core practices which clearly bear evidence of the Church’s sound understanding of divine grace.

In baptising an infant, the Church is recalling, as it were, that God reconciled the world to himself and made his grace abundantly available to all while we were still ignorant and helpless. Thus, the primary significance of infant Baptism, as theologians have said, is not a dedication of the child to God, but that God has done something for the child because the water of Baptism declares that they are already entitled to all God’s mercies to men and women in the passion of Christ.

One of the prolific writers in Sacramental Theology, Stasiak Kurt, beautifully highlights the relationship of infant Baptism and grace. He writes: ‘For the very nature and circumstances of infant Baptism point first to that which underlies and precedes, that which alone makes possible and gives meaning to, any sacramental celebration: that God takes the initiative in the divine-human relationship and that it is God’s offering of grace that precedes, sustains, and perseveres beyond every response on our part.’

Through the centuries theologians have noted the primacy of grace in the sacrament of Baptism as well as the corporate nature of humanity’s response to this grace. As an act of grace Baptism is properly a process of dying and rising up again and again, and must not be confused with the final, once-for-all event of Calvary and Easter. Baptism marks the beginning of a lifetime of yes response to God amidst the worldly attractions on the journey with Christ.

Infants and children are baptised on the strength of the faith of one or both parents/guardian and in the hope that the Christian community will nurture that faith. Faith, it should be carefully noted, belongs to the Church, by default, and not to individuals. Individuals rather share in the faith that is primordially the Church’s. God’s Church is the recipient and custodian of the deposit of faith.

It is still the Church which invites all persons to abundantly draw from her vast reserves. People come and go but the one true faith remains intact in and within the Church from where it is passed down from one generation to another. Thus, theologians indicate that this faith would at some stage of life be appropriated by the adult individual but this needs not, in the case of infants and children, be at the beginning.

Infant Baptism in the New Testament

Whereas it is difficult to prove that infants were baptised in the NT periods, scholars surmise that the circumcision of infants under the Old Covenant would have suggested the incorporation of children into the New Covenant through the corresponding rite of Baptism. While this typology is highly contested, it is pertinent to point out that much like the proposition of infant Baptism, the NT is also silent on any arguments against it.

It is against this backdrop that some scholars have insisted that given the absence of any material in the NT on the basis of which it can be cogently argued and convincingly demonstrated that the practice was strictly forbidden in the early Church, it is reasonable to conclude that the Apostolic era did not see any conflict between its theology of Baptism and the practice of infant Baptism.

Proponents of infant Baptism have postulated several evidences in the NT that seem to justify the practice. (Expectedly, these have not gone without contesting polemics). The proponents have given the following list:

The Baptism of Jesus – some scholars make the case that Christian Baptism is the fulfilment of Jesus’ completed work on the cross. That is, Jesus’ Baptism is on behalf of all humanity and is thus a general Baptism which points to his death. In his Baptism Jesus unites himself in solidarity with all people for the fulfilment of all righteousness not excluding children and infants. Conversely, opponents argue that to believe that because Jesus was baptised for mankind and therefore we are to baptise children, impoverishes the text on Christ’s Baptism, by a foreign imposition.

Household Baptism or the Oikos Formula: there are several instances of the conversion of a whole household to the Christian faith where the influence of the role of the father as head is very much anticipated. Those scriptural passages which capture the above include: Acts 11:14- Baptism of Cornelius and his entire household; Acts 16:15 – Baptism of Lydia and her household; Acts 16:33 – Baptism of the Jailer and all who belonged to him; Acts 18:8 – of Crispus, the synagogue ruler, he believed and was baptised together with his family and many of the Corinthians too. In 1 Cor. 1:16, Paul baptised Stephanas and his household. In 2 Tim. 1:16, 4:19, there is the Baptism of the house of Onesiphorus. It is presumed that in the instances above, the household that got baptised will include even slaves and children.

Jesus and the Children – some see the action of Jesus in the gospels where he welcomed and blessed children as the ultimate authority for children/infant Baptism (cf Mk 10:13-16; Mt 19:13-15; Lk 18:15-17). Many maintain that if children brought to Jesus received the kingdom, which is the sum of the blessings bestowed on the believer sealed in Baptism, then it makes no sense to deny them Baptism.

Patristic Readings on Infant Baptism

Since the NT does not make explicit reference to Baptism of infants, the development of the practice could have been the result of a later understanding of the necessity of incorporation into the Church, the Body of Christ, through Baptism, as the only gateway to salvation. This line of thought may have originated with St Augustine who locates the transmission of original sin in human sexual concupiscence. He denotes concupiscence as the law of sin and presents even in little children at birth, but the guilt is removed as soon as the little ones are baptised.

Scholars say that although the practice of infant Baptism may have been known to Tertullian and Cyprian based, obviously on an ancient tradition, earlier witness to the belief in the Apostolic roots of infant Baptism is provided by Origen. Some writers claim that the practice began to wane on the advice of Tertullian that Baptism be postponed as long as possible since many baptised Christians were forsaking their faith as a result of persecution.

Tertullian: Tertullian who later became a Montanist believed in the innocence of children and advocated that they become Christians only when they have become able to know Christ. He thinks it is only fair to spare the parents and sponsors of the danger that might result when they fail to fulfil their promises of accompanying the child and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition in the child as he or she grows.

Augustine: Writers note doctrinal uncertainties and divided camps around the subject of infant Baptism during the time of Augustine. Pelagianism undermined the Christian belief in the hopelessness of human nature on the ontological level as a result of original sin and total dependence on grace. Augustine, then, wrote a treatise on the merits and remission of sins, and on the Baptism of infants which he directed to the Pelagians.

In the book one he argues that original sin infects every individual from birth and that original sin is remitted in infants through Baptism. Appealing to the grace of God by which the Christian imitates Christ, Augustine dismantles any claims to human efforts in the journey of spiritual growth where even the ability to respond by imitating Christ is itself a gift.

He writes: ‘For by grace He engrafts into His body even baptised infants, who certainly have not yet become able to imitate anyone. As therefore He, in whom all are made alive, besides offering Himself as an example of righteousness to those who imitate Him, gives also to those who believe on Him the hidden grace of His Spirit, which He secretly infuses even into infants…’Based on his conviction that everyone contracts original sin by natural birth he went ahead to proclaim that if an infant died without being baptised, such a child ‘will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all’.

Gregory Nazianzen: On his part, Gregory Nazianzen in his oration on holy Baptism could not comprehend why anyone would want to differ the time for Baptism. He cautioned that it was useless reasoning to put off the time for Baptism till one is nearing death for fear of losing the grace of Baptism especially if one falls into apostasy at persecutions.

He rather sees Baptism as sure source of strength and seal against the whirls of evil, both to the body and the soul which one must struggle to receive as soon as possible even from infancy. On the necessity of the armour of Baptism even for kids he writes: ‘Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit’.

Pastoralis Actio of 1980

Concise but rich Magisterial teachings on Infant Baptism before Vatican II have been summarised by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (SCDF) in its instruction on Baptism (Pastoralis actio) issued in 1980. Pastoralis actio presents more traditional bases for the practice of infant Baptism. The document notes that Origen, Irenaeus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas and Jerome, all wrote and spoke favourably about infant Baptism on the basis of its necessity for salvation and as an act of grace.

Pastoralis actio recalls that Popes Siricius and Innocent I, like Origen, Cyprian and Augustine, had intervened in defence of the Church’s belief in original sin and the corresponding remedy found in the ancient custom of baptising children as well as adults for the forgiveness of sins. It recalled that the Council of Carthage in 418 condemned whoever will deprive the newborn infants the water of Baptism. The document maintains that, on account of the Church’s rule of faith concerning original sin, even babies, who are yet unable to commit any sin personally, are truly baptised for the forgiveness of sins, that is, for the purpose of cleansing by rebirth what they have received by birth.

The document also highlighted vibrant medieval discourses on the subject. For instance, the Council of Vienna in 1312 stressed that the sacrament of Baptism has for its effect, in the case of infants, not just the forgiveness of sins but also the granting of grace and the virtues. The Council of Florence in 1442 rebuked those who wanted Baptism postponed and declared that infants should receive, as soon as possible, this sacrament through which they are rescued from the devil’s power and adopted as God’s children.

Pastoralis actio further reveals that the Council of Trent repeated the Council of Carthage’s condemnation and, referring to the words of Jesus to Nicodemus, it declared that since it is the promulgation of the Gospel nobody can be justified without being washed for rebirth or wishing to be. One of the errors that attracted the anathema from the Council is the Anabaptist view that it is better that the Baptism of children be omitted than to baptise in the faith of the Church alone those who do not believe by their own act.

Teaching on the question of consent and faith on the part of parents, the document states that the Church does not admit a child to Baptism without its parents’ consent and a serious assurance that after Baptism the child will be given a Catholic upbringing. On the link between Baptism and the act of faith, the document maintains that infant Baptism is never administered without faith but on the faith of the Church.

Appealing to the teaching of the Council of Trent, it adds that Baptism cannot just be a sign of faith but is also a cause of faith. Then refuting the claim that it impinges on the freedom of the child to choose whether he or she wants to be a follower of Christ or not, the document argues that the New Testament presents entry into the Christian life not as a form of slavery or constraint but as admittance to true freedom.

Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Baptism of Children

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that every person, without exception, who is not baptised is able to receive Baptism. This, of course, includes infants and children whom the Church accords full dignity as human persons.

The document takes up the patristic notion of a tainted human nature by original sin which every person contracts at birth. For this reason it declares that ‘children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called’ as a manifestation of God’s free gift of grace.

Conclusion

In spite of the stiff objections to the Baptism of infants and children, there is strong evidence that the practice does not contradict the received theology of Baptism from Scripture and Tradition. Even though there is no direct evidence for the practice in the NT, the Bible and Biblical practices definitively do not condemn it. A number of ancient and medieval Church Fathers wrote extensively and favourably on infant baptism.

No doubt, the Church, since after the Second Vatican Council is redirecting attention to the initiation of adults through the rite for the Christian initiation adults (RCIA).It does this without prejudice to infant Baptism.

The RCIA was the earliest means of admitting new members into the Church that comprised elaborate rites and rituals. It was marked by a suitable period of instruction necessary to produce in the catechumen faith that is living, conscious and active. That is, faith that leads to sincere conversion, that is able to accurately testify and defend what is believed and that is realised in the word and works of the believer.

Be that as it may, Baptism is rightly seen as a gratuitous gift of grace that activates and sustains Christian growth in the righteousness of Christ. Therefore, parents should not be afraid to bring their infants and children forward to the baptismal font in order to fully activate their growth in Christ made secure by the faith of the Church.