Do Christians Have to Believe in Paedobaptism?

　　Baptism is one of the core teachings of Christianity and has been since Jesus’s baptism (recorded in Matthew 3). From Eastern Orthodoxy’s high churches to non-denominational low churches, Christians agree that baptism carries important meaning in each person’s life and faith. The topic of who gets baptized, however, is another. I’m specifically talking about paedobaptism, or what is commonly known as infant baptism.

　　Unfortunately, This topic has become a great divide since the Reformation—not just between Catholics and Protestants, but between different Protestant denominations. But what is paedobaptism exactly? Is it more than we think it is? What are the cases for and against it? Let us dive into this topic better to understand the Scriptures and history of the church.

　　

What Does Paedobaptism Mean?

I want to start by saying this is not a Protestant vs. Catholic belief. As some are aware, several Protestant denominations hold to paedobaptism (such as Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and Presbyterians). In other words, this is not an us vs. them topic but a topic where we can learn from each other and use our best judgment without resorting to the judgment of others in Christ.

　　As previously mentioned, paedobaptism is another word for infant baptism. For Christians who practice multiple sacraments, the question is not whether baptism is for a certain age but what it is as a sacrament. A sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace.

　　Anglo-Catholic bishop Stephen Scarlett provides this perspective on baptism as a sacrament:

　　“Baptism is the sacrament of entry into the Body of Christ. We are baptized ‘into Christ’ (Romans 6:3). Through the outward sign of water, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). Through the Spirit, we die and rise with Christ (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12). Our inherited sin is washed way (1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5) and we die to sin. The Spirit plants new life in us and we are raised with Christ to live in a new way. We are “born again’ (John 6:3-8).”

　　In other words, it is baptismal regeneration. This belief is crucial for those who support pro-paedobaptism. Through the sacrament of baptism, infants are brought into the faith, whether a full immersion or a pouring over the head. Even more, through paedobaptism, infants are brought into the heavenly family and spiritual family. It is not just the child’s responsibility to carry on their faith as they grow and enter Confirmation. It is also the responsibility of the parents, godparents, and the church to help raise the child in the faith. In other words, the seeds of faith are planted through baptism.

　　So now we have our definitions. But how does one make the case for paedobaptism? Let’s dive in together to see not only the case for, but the case against.

　　

What Is the Biblical Case for Paedobaptism?

A common critique of paedobaptism is that it is not mentioned word-for-word in the New Testament. If it is not directly mentioned, it must not be important. Right? Well, no, actually. The case for infant baptism being referenced is the baptizing of entire households.

　　We see this with St. Peter baptizing the household of Cornelius the Centurion (Acts 10:44-48), St. Paul with the household of Lydia (Acts 16:11-15), St. Paul and St. Silas with the Jailer’s household (16:25-34), and St. Paul again with the household Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:15-18).

　　No one knows how many were in each household, let alone the ages. Because of that, it cannot be ruled out that all households, recorded and unrecorded, do not involve infants. A family household included parents, grandparents, children, servants, spouses, and, yes, infants.

　　Furthermore, this can be seen with circumcision. St. Paul clarifies that baptism has replaced circumcision as the “circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2-11-12). In the Old Testament, men who wanted to be under the Abrahamic covenant had to be circumcised. In the New Testament, they are baptized into the new covenant. So it is with paedobaptism. Infants were circumcised into the covenant and now are baptized into the new covenant. And just like circumcision, paedobaptism does not guarantee salvation. As Bishop Stephen Scarlett puts it,

　　“[Baptism] is the bestowal of a gift that must be received by faith. It is the planting of a seed that must be grown. It is the planting of new life that must be nurtured and fed. As suggested by the Parable of the Sower and the Seed (Luke 8:4f.), it is possible for the planted seed to become unfruitful. Infants who are baptized must come to faith and conversion of the heart when they come of age.”

　　So now we have the scriptural evidence down. Let’s look at the historical and traditional view.

　　

What Is the Historical Case for Paedobaptism?

Since the Apostles themselves, paedobaptism was practiced and handed off to the Apostolic Fathers, who handed it off to the next generation, known as the Early Church Fathers. It must be noted that since the early church itself, dating back to the Apostles, paedobaptism has always been practiced. Despite their split from Rome, Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther and John Calvin, strongly believed and held to paedobaptism, as did English Reformers Thomas Cranmer and John Jewel.

　　The Early Church Fathers are known for various beliefs orthodox Christians hold today, including the canonization of scripture, trinitarian doctrine, the Nicene Creed, the nature of Christ, etc. This also includes paedobaptism, as seen below.

　　“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” (St. Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215])

　　“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” (St. Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

　　“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” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

　　“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” (St. 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]).

　　Recommended

　　9 Ways the Bible Defines True Manliness

　　Given the historical context of baptism in the New Testament, the correlation between that and circumcision in the Old Testament, and the historical account of the early church fathers carrying on and teaching the faith, it is both safe and biblical to believe and practice paedobaptism.

　　That said, there are Christian denominations who are against paedobaptism. What cases do they have against paedobaptism? Let’s take a look.

　　

What Is the Biblical Case Against Paedobaptism?

Denominations that oppose anti-paedobaptism come from the sixteenth-century Anabaptist tradition (Baptists, Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, and Non-Denominationalists, to name a few). After the Protestant Reformation, the Anabaptists developed what is known as believers’ baptism, meaning that one cannot be a baptized Christian unless they make a public declaration and decision. Those who hold to believers’ baptism ttaditionally don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. They view baptism as a symbolic proclamation of one’s commitment to Christ.

　　Not all Protestants shared the Anabaptist view. Martin Luther and John Calvin openly denied the Anabaptist teaching and went so far as to call them heretics.

　　The first case made is what was previously mentioned: because it is not directly in scripture, it should not be practiced. Infant baptism is not mentioned or shown directly in the New Testament. What is shown is people, mainly adults or young adults, coming to faith based on their own decision after hearing the Gospel.

　　This can be seen with Jesus saying those who believe and are baptized will be saved (Mk. 16:16), let alone that Jesus himself was baptized as an adult (Matt. 3:13-17), Mk. 1:9-11, Lk. 3:21-22). Furthermore, the case against paedobaptism looks at the personal repentance and confession of Jesus as Lord (Acts 8:37, Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:21; Acts 2:38, 22:16). Because infants can neither confess, repent, and believe with their own free will, the belief is that they cannot and must not be baptized until of sound mind and age. When that age is can be left to interpretation and discernment, given that kids vary in age and development of the mind.

　　As for the verses that mentioned the baptism of entire households, the case made to counter this is that “household” can mean family adults and that only adults and children can believe and rejoice in these moments, as seen in Acts 16:31-34.

　　As for the verses that mentioned the baptism of entire households, the case made to counter this is that “household” can mean family adults and that only adults and children can believe and rejoice in these moments, as seen in Acts 16:31-34. Baptist pastor and theologian Charles Spurgeon discusses Acts’ depiction of baptism in great detail. For example, he makes this point in his appendix to Thomas Watson’s book A Body of Divinity Contained in Sermons Upon the Assembly’s Catechism:

　　“The tendency of paedobaptism, as we could clearly show, is to pervert the import of a disciple of Christ, by teaching that an unconscious babe, that a child who can answer certain questions, yes, that a man or woman known to be ungodly, may, by baptism, become a disciple of Christ! Thus while certain conformists, maintaining justification by faith, are inconsistently teaching that baptism regenerates and converts into a child of God, certain nonconformists, maintaining the divine truth of salvation by grace through faith, teach that baptism disciples to Christ! A correct interpretation of discipling excludes infants from the commission.”

　　So, what about the history of the church?

　　

The Historical Case Against Paedobaptism?

Many argue that paedobaptism does not date back to the Apostles but to the fourth century. This claim comes from several of the decrees made by Eastern Roman Emperors against rebaptism and the harsh punishments that could follow. Furthermore, this was also seen in certain protestant areas where Lutheranism or Anglicanism dominated.

　　It is disheartening that throughout Christian history, blood was spilled between believers on certain doctrines—Catholics against Protestants, Lutherans against Anabaptists, Puritans against Anglicans, etc.

　　With Christians who are against paedobaptism, the views as to when one can be baptized vary. Some may claim that children cannot be baptized until they reach a certain demographic. Others may claim they can in their early adulthood (i.e., teen years). Some even developed new traditions such as baby dedications, where babies and their parents are brought before for the church to be dedicated to God (note: this is not a belief all hold to, but it is worth noting nonetheless).

　　

How Should Christians Handle Disagreements about Paedobaptism?

As someone who was previously an evangelical and who is now an Anglican Catholic, I understand greatly how there may be confusion still as to why Christians practice paedobaptism. It’s understandable, and it took me quite a while to understand it, let alone accept it.

　　As previously mentioned, Christians literally fought each other over—this from the pulpit to the streets to the point of imprisonments and executions. We are far from this despite our disagreements. Yet, even today, there are Christians on both sides who have such a dislike of other Christians that they build up resentment, stereotypes, and even hatred towards them.

　　If we are not careful, theology itself can become an idol. We cannot allow this to happen. Of course, all Christians have their beliefs, and it is not wrong to question, critique, disagree, or debate. What is wrong is resorting to personal slander and accusations, i.e., “You are not a true Christian.”

　　If a friend or family member is pro-paedobaptism and you are not, or vice versa, it is important to pray both for them and yourselves in a humble way. Judging their salvation is not your place, even if they never agree with you. That is for God and God alone.

　　This is not to say we cannot use discernment and wisdom or make judgments. As Christians, we must; otherwise, we will unintentionally open the door to deeper problems or resurrect old heresies. It is healthy to discuss differences and disagreements, whether in an open debate or a private discussion.

　　Whether one becomes rebaptized or keeps their baptism from infancy, the best we can do is grow in Christ together, talk in humility, disagree respectfully, and pray for one another.