The Historical-Ecclesiological Argument for Infant Baptism

 

Introduction

The historical argument for Infant Baptism is not merely: “Everyone did it, therefore it must be right.” For the historical argument is, in reality, an historical-ecclesiological argument rooted in Christ's Promise that the Church will never fail. This we will unpack in contrast to the Credobaptist argument that, in overall effect, the Church did fail and therefore Christ's Promise failed.

Now, the historical-ecclesiological argument observes that infant baptism has been practiced from the most ancient times of the Church both inside and outside of the territories of the Roman Empire. This issue of territory is actually significant because it shows that it was not a Roman imperial conspiracy, much less a Constantinian one. In other words, whether as far west as Spain, as remote as the British Isles, as far east as India and China, as far south as Ethiopia, and as far north as the kingdoms of Scandinavia, infant baptism was an undisputed practice. Christians in the central areas of the nascent Church also practiced infant baptism without dispute, such as in the Middle East and Rome, even in Jerusalem where the Church itself was born at Pentecost. As more and more adults converted to Christ, more and more infants were baptized, and this is the normal, orthodox pattern of catholic Christianity.

To be clear, saying that infant baptism was undisputed in the early Church is not to say that some did not delay baptism, but the motive for this delaying of baptism must not be confused with the Credobaptist motive. Whereas the Credobaptist motive is to wait until a credible confession of faith can be made, those in the early Church who delayed their baptism did so not because they were waiting to make a credible confession of faith, but because various people in the early Church did not understand that if a person sinned after baptism they could receive forgiveness of their post-baptismal sin. In short, some held to a doctrine of moral perfectionism such that any sin after baptism meant they were doomed to perdition. This being the case, it still remains that there was no “dispute” in the early Church over the baptism of infants.

The Lady Doth Protest Too Little: The Meaning of a Peculiar Silence

Now this fact of infant baptism being undisputed is more significant than it may at first appear to the untrained eye. A few comments are therefore in order, because we have records of all kinds of ancient Christian disputes, including disputes over such things as the correct date to observe Pascha (Easter). Early canons even forbade actors and painters from joining the Church unless they repented of their trade. Christians, in other words, had opinions about everything. And Celsus, a pre-Constantinian pagan opponent of Christianity, even remarked how much it was that Christians in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries disputed with each other. And yet, the widespread practice of infant baptism was not disputed. Although there were any number of bitter disputes over a wide variety of issues, there simply is no record of even a mild controversy over infant baptism, much less any bitter, long held controversy.

The early apologists and canons (disciplinary pronouncements) of the early Church never made a problem of infant baptism, and so to suggest that Infant Baptism wasn't the Apostolic norm is really to fail to understand the culture of the early Church in its tireless efforts to resist all manner of innovation or departure from the Apostolic norms of Christian practice. Considering just how important Baptism itself was held to be, since it has always been understood as the Sacrament of Initiation, of formal Entry or Incorporation into the Body of Christ, it is truly inconceivable that the entire Church both inside and outside of the Roman Empire simultaneously departed from the Apostolic norm with nary a word being said against it.

If one understands the contested diversities that existed in the ancient Church, then they would know that, if infant baptism were a novelty or an innovation introduced into the Church, then without any doubt there would have been a firestorm of controversy over it. Whole parties would have arisen with apologetic treatises in their wings, each side giving its defense and with pejoratives being hurled back and forth. The fact of silence on this matter warrants significance. For if the guard dog is not barking, and yet there is a hostile intruder already in the home, then the silence is not an absence of meaning.

The Normal Language Hermeneutic

A further consideration is related to hermeneutics. For as each side observes of this post-Reformation debate, there is nowhere in Scripture that expressly commands or forbids infant baptism, as in, say, the form, “Thou shalt baptize thy infants,” or, “Thou shalt not baptize thy infants.” And so the question is to some degree helped by reference to New Testament reception history. In other words, the undisputed universal practice of the early Church to baptize infants actually bears witness to how the Apostolic teaching in the New Testament was understood and applied. Thus, if the entire Church baptized infants, then this lends a great deal of credibility to the reading that infants are to be baptized. For if Scripture is argued to be ambiguous on just who the proper subject of baptism is or can be, then one cannot simply ignore the universal witness of those who faithfully received the Scriptures. This becomes even more significant in light of the widespread absence of dispute mentioned above.

But this brings us back to the issue of our making not merely an historical argument, but an historical-ecclesiological argument, for Christ promises that His Church will not depart from “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3; cf. Matthew 16:18). This does not mean that there will be no debates, disputes, or even divisions, but that the community of Faith will not universally or totally collapse from that which is essential to the Church's existence. Now, to say that something as important as right Baptism - the very Sacrament of entrance into the Church - was universally and totally lost from the visible Church in all lands and territories from the beginning and for well over a thousand years is contrary to holy Scripture and so completely unacceptable theologically and therefore ecclesiologically. For it is to say the Church failed and therefore Christ's Word of Promise failed.

Looking back, then, to God’s Word, one finds that the modern debate about baptism usually revolves around the Biblical term household (Greek: oikos). This term means, “a house; the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household; stock, family, descendants of one.” When we consider what the word household means in its total Biblical context, then it becomes clear that the concept implicitly includes infant children, grandchildren, and all members of the family young and old. For the term itself not to include infants - as if such an exclusion could be inferred as though by some hermeneutic principle - is baseless, and would therefore have to be specified, which is to say the exclusion of children from household baptism would have to specify the exclusion of children, which of course none of the texts of the baptized New Testament households does.

And after she was baptized, and her household 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 16:15)

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 16:33)

Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. (1 Corinthians 1:16)

Notice that none of the above verses mention that the entire household, each as an individual, “necessarily made a credible confession prior to being baptized.” What is yet more significant to the present investigation, however, is that the Scriptural notion of household is precisely contrary to the framing of baptism as individualistic. Household is a term that is conceptually inclusive and holistic, and not merely indicative of the specific individuals qua individuals that just happen to live in one specific building. Rather, household, as a Biblical concept, includes whoever is part of what the term household signifies. Therefore, trying to figure out if the specific households mentioned had infants in them would be a misunderstanding of the intent of Bible's use of the term household. For whether there were specific infants in this or that specific household is irrelevant and accidental to the substance of the question of just who is a proper subject for baptism, for household as such means whatever kind of person is properly conceived of as belonging to any household.

Thus, when the Apostle Paul’s and the Evangelist Luke’s hearers heard the word “household,” they naturally brought to mind their own household and their neighbor's households in an equally holistic and inclusive way for the sake of understanding what the Scriptures that they just heard mean. In other words, whether there was a grandmother or not, an uncle, a widowed aunt, two little sisters, infants, twins, a big brother, or youths, considered from the perspective of their specific age or family relation, is irrelevant. What is relevant in the case of household baptism is that whatever is normally proper to a household is therefore also proper to the understanding of whole households being baptized. This is a natural or normal language hermeneutic, which is to say that the natural or normal meaning of the word is what is meant, and in the case of "household" it simply means "household," where the specific number and kind of household residents are not in view. And so when the Scriptures say that everyone in the household was baptized, it means that whatever is conceptually natural to the idea of household, which is to say the natural or normal constituents of any household, were included.

Conclusion

To conclude, the fact that the Church has everywhere practiced Infant Baptism is an historical-ecclesiological argument rooted in the Word of Christ that His Church would not fail. To argue otherwise is to end up entering into a series of gymnastics as to why and how the entire Church has gone so decidedly astray on so fundamental an issue so thoroughly from the earliest times. It is thus not simply that "everyone did it," but that, preserved by the Promise of Christ, the universal Church practiced it without any major dispute from earliest times. This makes it clear that Infant Baptism is an Apostolic practice, one which is reflected in the normal use of language in the Scriptures themselves, which not only shows that entire households were baptized, but also that infants themselves can have faith.

As a postlude, if the objection to the notion of Infant Baptism is that they ought not be baptized because they cannot have faith in the Lord, then to show the Scriptural proof of the validity of Infant Baptism we will educe several Scriptures showing the Biblical worldview that infants can have faith.

That Infants Can Have Faith

For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you. (Psalm 71:5-6)

Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God. (Psalm 22:9-10)

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." (Luke 18:15-17)

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:1-6)

At that time Jesus declared, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. (Matthew 11:25-26)

But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant, and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, "'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise'?" (Matthew 21:15-16)

And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. ... And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, … For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (Luke 1:14-15, 41, 44)

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood [brephos: “an unborn child, embryo, a foetus; a new-born child, an infant, a babe”] you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:14-15)