What About Infant Baptism?

What About Infant Baptism?
Recognizing the need for baptism for salvation and the higher infant/child mortality rate in ancient times, it became a tradition to baptize the children or infants of Christians early in the history of the church. Whatever opinion one has on this topic, all should appreciate the sincere desires to see the blessings of the gospel extend to one's children-- especially when their lives are genuinely at risk as they were in ancient times.

Over time, three theological arguments have arisen that seek to justify the tradition of infant baptism.

Similarity with Circumcision
Some have compared Jewish circumcision to Christian baptism (ref. Colossians 2:12), with the idea that if circumcision was for children, then baptism must be for them too. However, there are some serious problems with this parallel.

Circumcision was designed as an act of faith and obedience on the part of parents, not children (see Genesis 17:12). By contrast, under Christ parents are commanded to raise their children in the training and counsel of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).
Circumcision was for males only. There was no circumcision or even a parallel ceremony for females.
Circumcision required no faith on the part of the recipient (only on the part of the parent), while Christian baptism clearly does require faith and a personal decision (Acts 2:41, Colossians 2:12).

Original Sin
Some have advanced the doctrine of "original sin" from Adam as a reason why children need to be baptized. This is taken from Paul's remarks to the Romans:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- [13] for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. [14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

But this is not a proof of the doctrine of "original sin." The consequence of Adam's sin was not guilt for all men but death for all mankind. Later in this discussion, Paul more closely discusses this parallel between Adam and Christ::

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. [19] For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:18-19)

Paul's point seems to be that as death came through Adam, life comes through Jesus. Saying that all are lost as a result of Adam's sin is like saying that all are saved because of the actions of Jesus. But clearly people are only saved because of Jesus when they believe and respond to him; likewise all are lost only through Adam when they sin.

Universality of Sin or Universal Guilt from Adam's Sin?
Some proponents of the doctrine of original sin cite statements about the univerality of sin, for example Job 14:4, Psalm 51:5, Ephesians 2:3, Romans 3:23. Sin is universal, but is this the same thing as rendering all of mankind guilty for Adam's sin?

Consider that there are other passages that speak of certain individuals as being "blameless" (Genesis 6:9, 2 Samuel 22:24, Psalms 18:23, Job 1:1, 1:8). Does this mean these people had no sin whatsoever, that they were somehow exempt from this "original sin?" But if they were exempt, what are we to make of passages like Romans 3:23 that declare that "all have sinned?"

All Scripture must be understood in context. It makes better sense to see these statements about the "universality of sin" and "being blameless" as hyperbole-- exaggerations to make a point. In fact, David is said to be both "blameless" (2 Samuel 22:21-24) and "conceived in sin" (Psalm 51:5). These statements contradict one another-- unless they are figures of speech relevant to a particular context and not intended to be taken literally apart from their context.

What about Jesus?
Further, the Scriptures declare that Jesus was made like men in every way (Hebrews 2:17, see also Galatians 4:4-5). Yet Scripture also declares that he was without sin (Hebrews 4:15, 1 John 3:5, 1 Peter 2:22, 2 Corinthians 5:21). If all men are conceived with the sin of Adam, then so too was Jesus.

Now no proponent of the doctrine of original sin holds that Jesus was conceived with original sin; instead they declare "exceptions" to this doctrine in his case. Interestingly, Roman Catholic proponents of the doctrine of original sin allow that Mary the mother of Jesus and others-- Jeremiah, John the Baptist-- were also conceived without this stain (James Cardinal Gibbons, "The Faith of Our Fathers," Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL 1980, p. 219). However, the need for these exceptions but the lack of Scriptural definition of these exceptions casts extreme doubt upon the doctrine.

Jesus did not discuss the doctrine of original sin during his ministry, despite ample opportunity to do so (e.g. John 9:2-3). Judaism has no concept of this doctrine of original sin.

For these reasons, it is difficult to reconcile belief in the doctrine of original sin with the Scriptures.

The Faith of the Church
Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, IL 1974, p. 358) cites Aquinas and the Schoolmen (S. Th. III 68, 9 ad 2), referencing Augustine as teaching that the faith of the church takes the place of the faith of the individual in baptism.

This seems to recognize the Scriptural difficulties with a faithless baptism. However, it is interesting that he offers no Scrpitural evidence that the faith of the church or a baptismal sponsor might replace the faith of the individual in infant baptism.

Ott also "weighs in" on other elements surrounding this topic, as have been discussed above.

"The validity of child-baptism cannot be proved with absolute certainty from Holy Writ, but it can be indicated with a high degree of probability" (p. 359).
Ott cites the baptism of households (1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15-33, 18:8, 11:14) as evidence of infant baptism in apostolic times. These have been examined more closely in the discussion above and do not speak clearly and favorably towards the idea of baptizing children.
Ott claims that baptism has "replaced" circumcision (Colossians 2:12). Baptism may have some similarities to circumcision, but this hardly constitutes authorization for infant baptism.
Ott cites Acts 2:38ff with baptism being for "children," though he recognizes this "may also indeed be understood to mean posterity in a wider sense."

Generally, this line of thought reflects the view that baptism is necessary for salvation, but stretches to find Scriptural evidence that teaches or supports the practice of baptizing infants.

Difficulties
The most significant problems with the practice of infant baptism are:

There is no explicit Scriptural instruction concerning the baptism of infants.
The arguments for infant baptism are attempts to justify a tradition that was already in place, not citations of explicit teaching or apostolic example from the Scriptures.
Luke was certainly capable of explicitly mentioning wives and children (e.g. Acts 21:5); it is highly improbable that if children were baptized in the time of the book of Acts, Luke would fail to mention it.
When baptism of households is mentioned, there is never even a mention of a spouse or children in these accounts. On the contrary, in most cases there is explicit mention of other adult members of these households. (For a further discussion, see the article The Age of Converts.)
In the New Testament, those who were baptized had accepted the gospel and believed prior to their baptism. Thus, the baptism of infants is implicitly rejected because of the requirement of individual faith and repentance accompanying baptism.
Advocates of the doctrine of original sin as a justifying cause for infant baptism are forced to twist passages that were intended to be figurative into literal texts; they are also forced to invent "exceptions" to their general doctrines that contradict the explicit statements of Scripture.

Do Children Need to be Saved?
Neither Jesus nor the early church seems to have operated under the assumption that children needed to be "saved." To begin with, we might observe that Jesus himself was baptized as an adult, not as an infant. John the Baptist baptized adults, not children.

Jesus taught that lostness and salvation are a matter of sin and faith. Young children are capable of neither sin nor faith and thus neither "saved" nor "lost." Yet Jesus said "the kingdom of heaven belongs to" children (Luke 18:16), apparently stating that children share in the kingdom of heaven by virtue of their youth and innocence. Certainly if guilt from "original sin" existed, Jesus would not have been able to make such a statement concerning unbaptized infants and children.

It is interesting that the Scriptures speak of many things that are required for salvation; baptism is just one of them. For example, there is the requirement to "do the will of the Father" (Matthew 7:21). If God expects children to be baptized, then does he not also expect them to "do the will of the Father?" Yet, the Scriptures contain no such discussion of staged responsibilities and obligations for those baptized as infants. This is further evidence that conversion was reserved for those beyond a certain age of accountability.