Infant Baptism Arguments For And Against
The practice of infant baptism is a contested issue among Christian traditions, with some affirming its validity and others rejecting it. At its core, the debate revolves around whether infants can be considered proper subjects for baptism.
Those who support infant baptism, such as Reformed and Lutheran traditions, point to the biblical practice of household baptisms as evidence that infants were included [4, 7]. In Acts 16:15, for example, Lydia and her household are baptized after she hears the gospel [7]. Similarly, the Apostle Paul mentions baptizing the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). Proponents argue that these household baptisms likely included infants and children, as they were part of the household [4].
Reformed theologians like John Calvin argue that infant baptism is a continuation of the Old Testament practice of circumcision, which was administered to infants as a sign of God's covenant [2, 5]. Calvin contends that just as circumcision was a sign of faith for infants in the Old Testament, baptism serves a similar purpose in the New Testament [2]. The Lutheran tradition also affirms infant baptism, as stated in the Augsburg Confession, which condemns the Anabaptists for rejecting the baptism of children [9].
On the other hand, those who oppose infant baptism, such as some Baptist traditions, argue that baptism requires a personal profession of faith, which infants are incapable of making [8]. They point out that the New Testament emphasizes the importance of faith in receiving baptism, citing examples like the Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailer, who were baptized after professing faith [7]. Opponents also argue that the biblical examples of baptism involve individuals who have heard the gospel and responded in faith, which is not possible for infants.
The early Church Fathers, such as Augustine, also weighed in on the debate. Augustine argued that infants are baptized for the remission of sin, citing the practice of infant baptism as evidence of the Church's understanding of original sin [1, 3]. The Catholic tradition, as represented by Thomas Aquinas, also supports infant baptism, arguing that it is a sacrament that confers spiritual benefits on the recipient, regardless of their age [6].
Despite the differences, all positions agree that baptism is a significant rite in Christian initiation. The disagreement stems from differing interpretations of biblical teachings on faith, baptism, and the status of infants in the Church. The hermeneutical commitments and prior doctrinal premises of each tradition drive their respective positions on infant baptism. For instance, Reformed traditions emphasize the continuity between Old and New Testament practices, while Baptist traditions stress the importance of personal faith in baptism [2, 8].
Sources
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 5: Augustine — Anti-Pelagian — CHAP. 19.--PELAGIUS' ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE APOSTOLIC SEE; HE INVERTS THE BEARINGS OF THE CONTROVERSY.: But I would have you carefully observe the way in which Pelagius endeavoured by deception to overreach even the judgment of the bishop of the Apostolic See on this very question of the baptism of infants. He sent a letter to Rome to Pope Innocent of blessed memory; and when it found him not in the flesh, it was handed to the holy Pope Zosimus, and by him directed to us. In this letter he complains of being "defamed by certain persons for refusing the ”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 98: stolid arrogance of those men who, as with inflated cheeks, affirm or deny whatever suits them. 20. In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy, we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by admitting infants to the communion of baptism. But these darts are directed more against God then against us; since the fact that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scr”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 5: Augustine — Anti-Pelagian — CHAP. 23 [XVIII.]--HE REFUTES THOSE WHO ALLEGE THAT INFANTS ARE BAPTIZED NOT FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, BUT FOR THE OBTAINING OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. (7) (part 1): But those persons raise a question, and appear to adduce an argument deserving of consideration and discussion, who say that new-born infants receive baptism not for the remission of sin, but that, since their procreation is not spiritual, they may be created in Christ, and become partakers of the kingdom of heaven, and by the same means children and heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Chris”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 63: jailer at Philippi ( ver. 33 ), that “he and all his” were baptized; and in 1 Corinthians i. 16 , Paul says that he baptized the household of Stephanas. The Apostles, therefore, acted on the principle which had always been acted on under the old economy. It is to be remembered that the history of the Apostolic period is very brief, and also that Christ sent the Apostles, not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, and, therefore, it is not surprising that so few instances of household baptism are recorded in the New Testament. The same rema”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 98: in the case of circumcised infants in Old Testament times. For the truth of circumcision consisted in the same answer of a good conscience; but if the truth must necessarily have preceded, infants would never have been circumcised by the command of God. But he himself, showing that the answer of a good conscience forms the truth of circumcision, and, at the same time, commanding infants to be circumcised, plainly intimates that, in their case, circumcision had reference to the future. Wherefore, nothing more of present effect is to”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of Those Who Receive Baptism, Art. 10: Article: Whether children of Jews or other unbelievers be baptized against the will of their parents? I answer that, The children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be bapt”
- Acts (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Acts 16:15: And when she was baptized,.... In water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the commission of Christ, by the apostle, or some one of his companions; by whom she was instructed into the nature and use of this ordinance; and very likely it was performed in that river, by the side of which the oratory stood, where they were assembled: and her household; they were baptized also, being converted at the same time; these seem to be her menial servants, who came along with her from her native place upon business, and who attended on her; accordingly”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 63: § 10. Infant Baptism. The difficulty on this subject is that baptism from its very nature involves a profession of faith; it is the way in which by the ordinance of Christ, He is to be confessed before men; but infants are incapable of making such confession; therefore they axe not the proper subjects of baptism. Or, to state the matter in another form: the sacraments belong to the members of the Church; but the Church is the company of believers; infants 547 cannot exercise faith, therefore they are not members of the Church, and consequ”
- Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) “Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530), 3 They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children,: 3 They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.”