Episode 7: The Early Church on Infant Baptism

Christ for Us

Episode 7 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast on what the early church taught concerning infant baptism. You can follow along to the outline at Christforus.org.

#infantbaptism #earlychurch #churchfathers #Augustine #Jerome #Ambrose #Cyprian #Theology

Tradition’s Relationship with Scripture Alone

In our first episode, where I discussed how Lutherans interpret the Bible, I explained that the formal principle, that is, the source of all our teaching concerning faith and living a moral life is Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture alone determines what we ought to believe regarding salvation and how to live a godly life. I quoted from the Lutheran Confessions, Formula of Concord, Summary of Rules and Norms:

“1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8. (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/epitome/#ep-rule-and-norm-0001 )”

And we stand by this. This what Lutherans means when we say: Scripture alone. We cannot bind consciences to what councils, bishops, and popes say, if what they say is not first established in Holy Scripture. So, the question arises. What use then is tradition? Do Lutherans follow traditions? How do we treat the early church fathers and their writings? And what difference does it make what the early church fathers taught about Baptism, if our only rule and norm is Holy Scripture?

Lutherans value traditions, councils, and the writings of the early church fathers. But we do not base our teaching on their writings or accept their teachings without the witness of Scripture. Jerome (circa 342-420) writes, “What has no authority from Scriptures is rejected as easily as it is approved.”[1] This is one of the problems with how the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church deal with tradition. They will claim that a tradition is apostolic, meaning, it was taught by the Apostles, but there is no testimony in Scripture backing this up. Later, it is discovered that some of their so-called apostolic traditions were really traditions started by heretical sects like the Montanists.

So, Lutherans use traditions and the writings of the early church fathers as witnesses of the teachings of Scripture. Martin Chemnitz writes of the Church fathers, “They do not bring forward or prove any other dogma of faith from tradition beside those which are contained in the Scripture; but they set forth and prove also from tradition those very same dogmas which are found in Scripture.”[2] So, for example, the Apostles’ Creed is not found word for word in Scripture, but was compiled by the church fathers. Yet, Chemnitz writes of the Apostles’ Creed, “This is the true and ancient tradition of the apostles which does not hand down anything outside of and beyond the Scripture but embraces the summary of the whole Scripture.”[3] The Apostles’ Creed is helpful to the Church, because it summarizes the doctrine of all of Scripture.

And this way of treating the church fathers was not invented by the Lutherans. St. Augustine (354-430) writes concerning the church father Cyprian (210-258) in his Contra Cresconium, Bk. 2, ch. 31, “We do Cyprian no wrong when we distinguish any and all of his writings from the canonical authority of the divine Scriptures. For it is not without cause that the canon of the church was fixed with such wholesome vigilance, to which the certain books of the prophets and apostles belong, which we dare not at all judge, and according to which we judge concerning other writings, whether of believers or of unbelievers.” And in the next chapter, he writes, “I am not bound by the authority of this epistle (of Cyprian) because I do not hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, but I consider them according to the canonical, and I accept whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his approval, but what does not agree I reject with his permission.”[4]

So, if you listened to last episode, you heard how infant Baptism is biblical, because Christ commanded all nations to be baptized, the promise is for children, whole households were baptized, and the Bible teaches that babies are sinners in need of salvation, and that God can give babies faith. However, it is true that the Bible does not explicitly record an infant being baptized. So, while we can solely through Scripture defend the practice of baptizing babies, it is helpful to see the witness of the early Church and how they baptized babies. This is not why we baptize babies, but it gives us additional assurance that we are not misinterpreting Scripture.

Early Church Writings Which Support Infant Baptism

Sources for Early Church Baptizing Babies:

https://toeternity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Infant-Baptism.pdf which was compiled by Rev. Tom Parrish of toeternity.org.

https://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/journals/kastens.htm article written by Dennis Kastens for the Issues Etc. Journal in the spring of 1997.

Martin Chemnitz, “Examination of the Council of Trent” CPH. 1:249-255

Some (not all) in the early church accepted several practices concerning Baptism, which we do not accept today. However, we do not accept them, because they either have no testimony whatsoever in Scripture, for example, applying oil onto the baptized, or they are flatly contrary to Scripture, such as waiting until right before death to baptize or rebaptizing those, who were baptized by an apostate or heretic. Here are some quotes from early church fathers, which supports infant Baptism. Not everything these men ever wrote is correct, but their testimony of Baptism is in agreement with the teaching of Scripture and tells us what the practice was of the early church.

In 180 AD, Irenaeus wrote concerning Jesus’ Baptism, “”For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II 22:4)[5] By born again, Irenaeus clearly refers to Baptism. In book III 17:1, he says the Christ gave the disciples the power of regeneration (αναγεννήσεως) when he told them to baptize all nations.[6] See also John 3.

Origen (185-253), “The Church has received the tradition from the apostles to bestow Baptism also on infants.” (Commentary on Romans, Book 5).[7] And again in his Homily on Luke, “How can there be any reason for the baptism of little children except according to this understanding: No one is free from defilement, even if he has lived but one day on the earth. And because through the Sacrament of Baptism the filth of our birth is removed, therefore also little children are baptized for unless one is born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”[8]

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus,8:3

Cyprian writes (c. 251 AD) “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift. … And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons..” Cyprian, (To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 3, 6)[9]

Hippolytus of Rome (died 235) wrote in The Apostolic Tradition (21.), “And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.”[10]

Gregory Nanzianzen (AD 381) wrote in his Oration on Holy Baptism 40:XVII, “Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and how little faith! Why, Anna even before Samuel was born promised him to God, and after his birth consecrated him at once, and brought him up in the p[riestly habit… Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Guard.”[11] And later on, he says, “Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated. A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason.”[12]

Ambrose (339-397), “The Pelagians make void infant baptism, although John testifies: ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.(Book. 10, Epistle 89)’[13]

Augustine (354-430) concerning Infant Baptism, “The Whole church holds this tradition.” (De baptism contra Donatistas, Bk. 4, ch. 23).[14] Later, “They say that an unbaptized infant cannot perish, because it is born without sin. But the teacher of the Gentiles (Paul), in whom Christ was speaking, says, ‘Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.’ … Therefore the baptism of infants is not superfluous, because those who are by their generation subject to this condemnation are by regeneration freed from that same condemnation. But no human being can be found who is spiritually regenerated without Christ.” (Letter No. 89)[15]

Augustine again writes, “Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ. … ‘by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation’ (Rom. 5:18) That infants are born under the guilt of this offence is believed by the whole Church.”[16]

‘C (Critobulus, the Heretic). Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized.?

A (Atticus, the Catholic). That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism.” Jerome, Against the Pelagians,3:18(A.D. 415)[17]

“Believest thou this?…when a newborn child is brought forward to receive the anointing of initiation,

or rather of consumation through holy baptism.” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John,7(A.D.

428)

Evidence of Early Practice of Infant Baptism

Inscriptions in the catacombs in the Middle East, Southern Europe, and Africa give evidence of children who died two-years-old, one-year-old, and even a few hours old as having been baptized. These inscriptions can be dated around the 200s AD.[18]

Dealing with Tertullian

Tertullian (155-220), On Baptism chapter 18, “And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary-if (baptism itself) is not so necessary189 -that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.”190 Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come;191 let them become Christians192 when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins? “More caution will be exercised in worldly193 matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.”194 For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred-in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded195 by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom-until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.”[19]

• Tertullian did not deny the legitimacy of infant baptism, but acknowledged it as a legitimate practice.
• Tertullian’s caution against infant Baptism was not that the Baptism didn’t work, but it was based on a misunderstanding that Baptism only forgave past sins, but if sins were committed later, they would not be forgiven. This was a heresy later popularized during the Novation controversy. This caused many to wait even until their death beds to get baptized. This is not the reason people object to infant Baptism today. All Christians reject the heresy that sins committed after Baptism cannot be forgiven.
• No one in the early church rejected infant Baptism, because they thought babies could not have faith or that Baptism didn’t do anything. Tertullian himself wrote, ““Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!”[20] Tertullian’s error was believing that children were in the “innocent period” of life.
  • Tertullian had a strange view of “puberty of the soul,” where he concluded that the soul comes to puberty around the same time as the body, so he did not think that people before fourteen-years-old needed to be Baptized. This is not a biblical view: “At this point in our discussion of the union of soul and body, we now wish to affirm that the puberty of the soul coincides with that of the body; at about the age of fourteen years, puberty comes to the soul through the development of the senses and to the body by the growth of its organs.”[21] Tertullian understood St. Paul’s words from 1 Cor. 7 to mean that children of Christian parents are born clean.
• Although Tertullian is important in early church history (he coined the term Trinity), he also became a heretic, who joined the Montanism sect, which claimed direct revelation from the Holy Spirit and denied the total corruption of the human soul.
• Although Tertullian dates very early in the Christian Church, even older witnesses testify of infant Baptism. Polycarp, who was executed in 156 AD, when told by the governor, “Swear, and I will set you free: execrate Christ” Polycarp responded, “For eighty-six years I have been His servant, and He has never done me wrong: how can I blaspheme my King who saved me?”[22]

Conclusion

• We accept the witness of the early church fathers, so long as what they say agrees with Holy Scripture.
• The early church fathers overwhelmingly, nearly unanimously, advocate for the baptizing of infants.
• The arguments of the early church fathers, who advocate for infant Baptism are largely based in Scripture.
• There is archeological evidence as early as the 200s of baptized babies buried in the Catacombs.
• Tertullian, a lone voice speaking against baptizing infants, wrote very early, however:
  • He does not deny the power of Baptism to forgive and wash away sins.
  • He errs by saying that babies are innocent and not in need of Baptism. His argument did not have a strong biblical basis.
  • Tertullian joined the Montanist sect, which claimed direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.
  • Tertullian’s error came from the fear of post-Baptismal sin. But such heretics would still baptize babies if they feared death was imminent.[23]

[1] Examination of the Council of Trent 1:288.

[2] Ibid 236.

[3] Ibid. 241.

[4] Ibid. 174.

[5] ANF,I:391.

[6] ANF 1:444.

[7] Examination 1:249.

[8] Ibid. 250.

[9] ANF,5:353-354

[10] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61614/61614-h/61614-h.htm#ch4

[11] NPNF 7:365

[12] Ibid. 370.

[13] Examination 1:251.

[14] Ibid. 249.

[15] Ibid. 251.

[16] NPNF1 1:530

[17] NPNF2 6:482

[18] https://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/journals/kastens.htm

[19] https://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-49.htm#P11705_3290478

[20] Ibid.

[21] https://web-facstaff.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Tertullian_On_the_Soul.pdf

[22] Eusebius, “The History of the Church,” trans. G. A Williamson Penguin Classics, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England. 1965. 171.

[23] https://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/journals/kastens.htm