When you examine circumcision, the sign and seal of the old covenant, and all that it encompasses, and then compare it to baptism, the sign and seal of the new covenant, and all that it encompasses, and especially in light of Acts 2:39—"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"—it makes sense that infants would naturally be included. After all, if male infants were included in the old covenant at 8 days of age, before they could express faith of any kind, why would they suddenly be excluded from a covenant that is supposed to be better and more inclusive, which would now include female infants as well? If infants were included under the old covenant, logically they would be worse off than they had been previously if they were not included under the new covenant. Understanding this, infant baptism makes complete sense.
However, if we are looking at what the Bible says alone, without inference, it makes sense why a person should not be baptized until they express personal faith. Looking at how quickly Church life and practice became corrupted and ended up as an authoritative institutional hierarchy, it is not hard to believe that the same could have happened with baptism. Especially considering the fact of how quickly baptism went from a sign and seal of the new covenant and being in Christ to becoming the means by which salvation is achieved—baptismal regeneration.
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Irenaeus, Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born ... If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 64:2, 5 [A.D. 253]).
“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith! ... ‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7, 28 [A.D. 388]).
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (John Chrysostom, Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Augustine, Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Augustine, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
It is true that most Christians belong to denominations that practice infant baptism: Roman Catholics, Eastern Greek and Oriental Orthodox Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, etc. In fact, most Christians throughout the centuries of church history have practiced infant baptism. But this does not mean that it is biblical. It may very well be biblical, but this does not make it so. We have seen just how quickly the early Church got corrupted, and that does not negate the possibility that infant baptism was a part of that. If we stand on the Bible alone, there is no text explicitly commanding, or even hinting at, infant baptism. While it makes sense that the household baptisms would logically include children, especially considering how the person who believed is in the singular and the people who were being baptized is in the plural, it is still an inference.
Both in the Bible and in the earliest years of Christianity, there is a lack of explicit evidence for and against infant baptism. Both are arguments from silence. While there is no evidence within Scripture of anyone explicitly baptizing their children, there is also no evidence within Scripture of anyone explicitly raising their children in believing households and becoming baptized later in life. If infants should not be baptized, then what exactly did Peter mean by Acts 2:39—"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"?
Just because something is not explicitly and unequivocally mentioned in the Bible does not make it wrong. For example, the Trinity is nowhere explicitly or unequivocally spoken of in the pages of the Bible. Yet, the concept is clearly there. God required the seal of the covenant to be made to the children in Abraham's line, which now includes anyone who is in Christ, the heirs of the promise (Gal. 3:17-18). The fact that baptism replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace can be seen in Colossians 2:11-12 where Paul refers to our "circumcision" as "baptism": "In [Jesus] you were also circumcised . . . having been buried with Him in baptism..."
Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign and seal of the truth of God's promise—to give righteousness to all who have faith—and testifies in one of two ways. One, it testifies to a blessing (that righteousness is given to those of faith); two, it testifies to a curse (that those who break the covenant will be cut off). Baptism and circumcision are different externally, but they are exactly identical internally. They represent the same things: both are initiatory rites (Gen. 17:10-11; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13); both signify an inward reality (Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:2-12; Phil. 3:3); both picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); both represent repentance (Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Lev. 26:40-41; Acts 2:38); both represent regeneration (Rom. 2:28-29; Titus 3:5); both represent justification by faith (Rom. 4:11-12; Col. 2:11-14); both represent a cleansed heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Isa. 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7); both represent union and communion with God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; Heb. 8:10); both indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen. 17:4; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 2:12-13; 4:5); both indicate separation from the world (Ex. 12:48; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 2:12); and both can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom. 2:25; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; 11:28-30).
When you were born, were you born as a full citizen of the country you were born in with all the rights and responsibilities thereof? Yes, you were. However, because you were young, you did not know of these rights and responsibilities and could not appropriate them. You had to be taught them. When you were older, you then either embraced them as your own or rejected them, which is treason and demands that you leave your country. The same is true concerning circumcision, and would appear to also be true concerning baptism (though not necessarily). The son circumcised on the 8th day had no faith of his own. He knew nothing of the covenant promises and had to be taught them. As he grew, he could then embrace what he was taught by faith and appropriate the blessings unto himself (Isaac and Jacob), or reject what he was taught and appropriate the curses unto himself (Ishmael and Esau). Either way, the sign and seal of the covenant of grace was a witness either for or against him. If he rejected the faith, he wore the sign and seal of the covenant hypocritically, which only served to increase his condemnation. "For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Pet. 2:21).
Does the covenant of grace in its New Testament administration embrace the children of believing parents just as it did in its Old Testament administration? Is the new covenant administration more restricted and less encompassing in its reach than had been the case previously? How does one explain 1 Corinthians 7:14 if children are excluded from the new covenant whereby they were included in the old covenant? (We are not talking about the Mosaic covenant, which has been done away with [see Hebrews], but of the Abrahamic covenant, which Galatians 3:15-18 makes clear that the Mosaic covenant could not and did not abolish, make obsolete, or replace.) "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified [made holy] through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified [made holy] through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy" Why the commands to children in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 if they are not considered a part of the new covenant? Why does Paul say that we were circumcised by baptism ("in Him you were also circumcised . . . in baptism", Col. 2:11-12)?
David C. Jones poses the following questions: "Are [these little ones, by virtue of their parents' relationship to Christ,] also brought into a new relationship with Christ even though they are too young intellectually to apprehend the gospel and to appropriate it for themselves in the conscious exercise of repentance and faith? Does their psychological inability to fulfill the conditions required of adult converts render the idea of discipleship meaningless so far as infants and small children are concerned? Or, [is their covenant status to be granted and baptism to be administered to them, and] are they to be discipled along with their believing parents, given the solidarity of the family unit?" His question about psychological inability is something we need to consider deeply. What about mentally handicapped persons, who, even in adulthood, have the psychological inability to fulfill the conditions required of adult converts? Does this mean there is no hope for the mentally handicapped? "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20).
Irenaeus is the earliest extra-biblical reference to infant baptism. That is 100-150 years after the apostles. This does not mean that it was not practiced earlier, but it also does not mean that it was. While all of what we have just discussed makes complete logical sense,
it does not necessarily mean that it is the case. Credo-baptists do not
have a defence against anything we have just discussed, other than,
"there is no explicit command given in the Bible to baptize infants." If
their position is biblically accurate, however, that argument is
sufficient enough. Everything we have just talked about needs to be considered when looking at the subject of infant baptism. Pray earnestly about it, not looking for the answer you want to be true, but truly seek the Lord and wait for His response. If you choose not to baptize your children, that is fine, but know that you could potentially be robbing your children of promises God has made to them. If you choose to baptize your children, that is fine, but know that you could potentially be practicing something that is not biblical but arrived through the corruption of the Church over the centuries. "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." While it is true that most denominations practice infant baptism, you must also remember that these denominations resemble many other practices of the Catholic church; some tweaked, some altered, some abrogated, but ultimately their "service" is identical to a Catholic "service." The same is also true of denominations that do not practice infant baptism. Much of their "service" still resembles the Catholic "service" as well. If I am wrong in my position on infant baptism, I pray the Lord brings correction to my understanding. I always want to conform to the Word.