“Let the children come to me and do not prevent them…”

Something that, before my journey home to The Church, I had never really thought a whole lot about, is whether or not infants should be baptized. I grew up with it and around it and never really even knew about groups of people who oppose infant baptism, at least not until I joined a Baptist church. I honestly didn’t take any issue with it when I heard the theology behind it from their perspective and, for the most part, I agreed with it. At least I did until I did my own research during my journey home to The Catholic Church… Let me tell you about what I have found and then you, dear reader, can make your own decision.

There are many of my Protestant brothers and sisters out there that believe Baptism is reserved for those who have “reached the age of decision”. They claim that baptism is only a symbol and has no salvific value in and of itself. They claim that the sacred scriptures prove that infant baptism goes against the teachings of Christ. Therefore, in their mind, dear reader, if you were baptized as an infant, it doesn’t count since you didn’t make a conscious decision. This is an age old argument since the early 16th century with the rise of the Anabaptists or “Re-baptizers”. 

I will go ahead and say that I am not writing this article to try and “win” any argument with anyone, or shove my theology down anyone’s “throats”, but my purpose is only to inform you, dear reader, about my research into Infant Baptism and why I firmly believe in it based on the following points… Those points are Scripture in its entirety, both Old and New Testaments, and the History of Christianity.

Let’s start off with the most basic scripture regarding baptism… Of course, I’m referring to Jesus’ commandment to Nicodemus in John 3:5 which states: “Jesus answered, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.'” My thoughts are this… If Jesus only meant for Baptism to be a symbol, and not a conveyance of actual grace, why would he require it for salvation? The answer… He wouldn’t because he didn’t mean it as purely a symbol of “outward expression”. We see scriptural evidence of this in Acts 22:16… “Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.” This verse clearly conveys that baptism does something literal and is not just a symbol.

Second point… All throughout The Old Testament we see water actually saving God’s people, not just symbolizing their escape. Here’s what I mean… Let’s take each of these events that prefigures our baptism…

• In the story of Noah and the flood waters (Genesis 7 – 8:1 specifically), we see God’s chosen people, Noah’s family being saved by water. Not only that, but the water washes away everything that was evil so that God’s chosen can start a new life… (Hmmm… This sounds kinda familiar…) Isn’t that the purpose of our Baptism? In the same way that God lifted His chosen (vs 7:13) above the Earth, the place of sin and evil in the same way that through the actual grace given us in Baptism, He lifts His chosen above their sin.

• Let’s also look at Moses’s journey fleeing Egypt. In Exodus 14:27-31. Israel (You and Me) escaped the Egyptian Soldiers (Our Sin) by the grace of God, through the water which washed away all of the Egyptians… Once again, just as the waters of Baptism wash away our sins.

Okay, so now some of you may be thinking: “William, I get your point about that, but how does that work for an infant who hasn’t committed any actual sins?” If that is you, then that is an excellent question! Let’s talk about this…

I agree with The Catholic Church (as well as many other Protestant denominations) that everyone is born with the effects of “Original Sin”. The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults defines original sign as follows:

Original sin “is a deprivation, a loss of the original holiness and righteousness with which our first parents (Adam and Eve) were created. When God made them, he filled Adam and Eve with all the grace and virtue they would ever need, and they experienced a close relationship with God beyond our ability to know. Because of the unity of the human race, everyone is affected by the sin of our first parents, just as, in turn, humanity is restored to a right relationship with God by Jesus Christ. ‘Just as through one person sin entered the world, and by sin, death and… just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous… Where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more” (Romans 5:12, 19, 20b)'”

“By his sin, Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.” (CCC, no. 416)

So Baptism of infants has several lasting effects:

1. Forgiveness of sins (both original and personal sins)
2. Gives new life as adopted children of God (sanctifying grace)
3. We become members of The Church, the mystical body of Christ
4. We share in the priesthood of Christ as all are baptized as “priest, prophet and king”
5. Baptism provides a common foundation among all Christians, including those not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.
6. We receive a “mark” as the baptized person is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ.

Okay, so at this point you may be saying something along the lines of… “Okay William, I get what The Church believes about the effects of Baptism on an infant, but I just don’t see it in The Bible”. Once again dear reader, that is an excellent observation and, that is an observation that I made in my journey home to The Church as well! However, in scripture, I believe that we will find more to support infant baptism than we will to refute it…

First we have to look at Jewish culture at the time… In Jesus’ day, the husband was the head of the household and, in point of fact, a “household” acted as one unit and not necessarily a conglomeration of individuals acting on their own volition. A household was united and “in sync”, moving as “one”. This is an important point to note since The Bible points out several instances of entire “households” being baptized.

“One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. After she and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation, ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home,’ and she prevailed on us.” – Acts 16:14-15

“Then he brought them out and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.’ So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once.” – Acts 16:30-33

Now, I know these points of scripture do not prove infant baptism; however, I will say that there is NOTHING in the scriptures that refutes infant baptism either… The Bible does not say anything about waiting until a certain “age of reason” or the necessity of waiting until you’ve “accepted Jesus in your heart”….

Let’s take this a step further… Most Fundamentalists will argue that all of the individuals who were named and baptized in the scriptures did so only after coming to faith in Christ and his teachings. This is not something that proves infant baptism invalid… It honestly does not surprise me a bit that this is the case since Christianity was a new religion at that time and so there were no such things as “cradle Christians” who were being born into Christian families.

Something else I noticed during my studies of Infant Baptism is the verses in Acts 2:38-39… “Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized, everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” After reading this verse, I asked myself: “So who does the Lord call and, if he calls someone, how does that person get to Him?”

We know that the way to Jesus is through Baptism (water and spirit) as John 3:5 clearly states. Okay, so who are called to Jesus? The short answer is, of course, EVERYONE; however, we find an answer pertinent to our current topic of discussion in the gospels of both Luke and Matthew…

“Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, but Jesus said, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'” – Matthew 19:13-14

“People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.'” – Luke 18:15-17

Something else we see in these above verses, is that Jesus explicitly rebukes his own disciples when they try and stop the children from being brought to him…

There is scripture from Paul’s letter to the Colossians where Paul speaks of baptism being the new “circumcision in Christ”. In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul states: “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”

At the time of Jesus and in the teaching of The Old Testament, infant circumcision was practiced regularly. It originated in Genesis as the sign of God’s covenant with the house of Abraham and all of his descendants (Genesis 17:9-14).

Additionally, Exodus 12:48-49 explicitly states that no one who is “uncircumcised” may partake of the Passover Meal (i.e. no unbaptized person today can partake of The Eucharist in a Catholic church). These preceding two verses I mention are very interesting, especially in the light of Paul’s letter to the Colossians.

Lastly, if we look at Church history, we find the earliest mention of infant baptism in writings by several early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries… The first explicit writing mentioning infant baptism is from Tertullian’s Concerning Baptism (circa 200 A.D) who, does not speak about rejecting infant baptism, but argues that it is preferable to wait (not forbidden) until the children are older, not because Baptism is a symbol, since he recognizes the validity of infant baptism, but because the argument at that time was regarding a heresy concerning an incorrect interpretation of, what we know as Hebrews chapter 6 and whether it is possible for someone who commits a mortal sin after being baptized can still be saved… It is a long drawn out argument that is best left for another article…

There is also a statement made around 180 A.D. (about two decades prior to Concerning Baptism), in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies where he describes how “infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” are “born again” and this can most definitely be taken as a point of reference to baptism, even though he doesn’t mention baptism explicitly in this sentence, since Jesus stated that one must be born of “water and spirit”.

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

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). – Origen

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

So, my dear reader, in conclusion let me wrap up by saying this of what I have learned regarding the practice of infant baptism… The evidence of history and scriptures points to the validity and legitimacy of baptizing infants. Since the earliest historical reference pointing specifically to infant baptism can be found circa 200 A.D, this means that the practice obviously existed prior to that time. Since Origen testifies to the Apostolic roots of infant baptism, Paul regards and teaches that it is the “new circumcision” and the Jewish culture was a forerunner to Christianity with its established practice of infant circumcision… I was and am forced to conclude and firmly believe that infant baptism is an accepted practice…

Until Next Time Dear Reader…

Your Humble Servant in Christ,

William