There is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize infants. None. Zero. Nada. Yet for two thousand years the overwhelming majority of Christian believers – Protestant and Catholic alike – have practiced infant baptism.  At first glance these two facts do not seem compatible.  Why would millions of believers from around the globe, throughout church history, baptize their young if the command to do so was not found in the Bible?  One might think that believers followed a man-made tradition, content to blindly follow church leaders in this sacrament without searching out the true meaning of baptism from Scripture.

The fact that generations of European Christians followed a corrupt Catholic Church saturated in unbiblical customs and rules has undoubtedly helped spur this line of thought.  But why, then, would the fathers of the Reformation risk life and limb to throw off the shackles of church tradition only to keep the one of infant baptism alive?  There has to be a reason that John Calvin, Martin Luther and the rest of the Reformers disposed of legalistic traditions and corrupt church policies but kept the practice of infant baptism.  The battle cry of the Reformation was “Sola Scriptura”, meaning Scripture alone.  They wanted all of their beliefs and practices to stem from the Bible, not the church’s authority or the tradition of man.

Infant baptism can certainly be traced back to almost the very beginnings of church history. Not even Baptists will dispute this.  Louis Berkhof discussed the existence of infant baptism in church history in his authoritative Systematic Theology.  He wrote:

The earliest historical reference to infant baptism is found in writings of the last half of the second century…Irenaeus, speaking of Christ says: “He came to save through means of Himself all who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”  This passage, though it does not explicitly mention baptism, is generally regarded as the earliest reference to infant baptism, since the early Fathers so closely associated baptism with regeneration that they used the term “regeneration” for “baptism.” That infant baptism was quite generally practiced in the latter part of the second century, is evident from the writings of Tertullian, though he himself considered it safer and more profitable to delay baptism.  Origen speaks of it as a tradition of the apostles.  Says he: “For this also it was, that the Church had from the apostles a tradition (or, order) to give baptism even to infants.” The Council of Carthage (A.D. 253) takes infant baptism for granted and discusses simply the question, whether they may be baptized before the eighth day.  From the second century on, infant baptism is regularly recognized, though it was sometimes neglected in practice. Augustine inferred from the fact that it was generally practiced by the Church throughout the world in spite of the fact that it was not instituted in Councils, that it was in all probability settled by the authority of the apostles.  Its legitimacy was not denied until the days of the Reformation, when the Anabaptists opposed it.

By no means should a Christian accept infant baptism as a Biblical truth just because it is a well-established practice of the church.  Belief (or unbelief) in infant baptism should be based solely on the authority of Scriptures. Yet, if the overwhelming majority of Christians have practiced a sacrament a certain way for centuries on end, this should give believers cause for thought, because tracing the history of this practice does hold implications for the Christian believer today. Because, ultimately, the question could be settled, once and for all, if it could be discovered how Peter and Paul exercised this rite in the time period immediately following Jesus’ death. I do not know one Presbyterian or Baptist who would not be swayed by authoritative evidence that pointed to how this was exercised by them.  For instance, if I was shown definitive  proof that Peter, Paul or any other New Testament author, did not baptize infants, then that would be all it would take for me to change my mind on this matter. By the same token, even the most zealous Baptist would have to be swayed by irrefutable evidence that showed the same group did baptize infants.

Now, it seems to me, that Baptists (I realize that there are other denominations that do not believe in infant baptism, but for the sake of conciseness and time I am going to refer to all such groups as “Baptists” for this and all related posts) face a bit of a conundrum over the historical record.  If Baptists maintain that believer’s baptism was the only way the New Testament church practiced baptisms then how do they explain that in the time frame of just two hundred years infant baptism was universally accepted throughout the church?  There is no surviving record of any debate or discussion on the matter.  There is nothing. Baptists will say that no record of any such debate among the church proves nothing in and of itself.  After all, they claim, silence neither condones nor condemns.  However, I cannot believe that the entire church accepted a practice that was not established by the apostles within a couple hundred years with no dissenters and without so much as a peep of protest. This might be silence, but, as R.C. Sproul exclaims, it is a screaming silence. I believe the only logical and rational conclusion to draw from this is that the New Testament church did practice infant baptism.  There is no record of any debate or argument within the church because there was no debate or argument.  Simply put, the second century church practiced infant baptism because the first century church practiced it. 

Baptists who read this will proclaim that this argument contains no Bible verses or any semblance of a Biblical argument whatsoever.  And, they are right. Stay tuned.  I promise there is ample Scriptural evidence for infant baptism and, God willing, it will be thoroughly covered soon. But God made us rational beings capable of careful thought and study.  Historical evidence is an important part of this issue and I could not, in good conscience, neglect to mention it. (I also couldn’t figure out a way to seamlessly blend it in with my next article on Biblical proof of infant baptism.  The transition was pretty awkward. It also would have been long enough to be a book, so I broke it up into a few pieces). I do realize that this is not entirely conclusive in and of itself.  I do not believe this evidence rules out the remote possibility that the New Testament church did not perform infant baptisms.  I do believe it shows it to be highly improbable, but not altogether impossible. 

Editor’s Note:  For the rest of this series please see:Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8.