Did the Early Church Baptize Children?

[gregwademan]

A read of the early Church fathers tell us that infants were baptised:
Irenaeus of Lyons
“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” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]).


Cyprian of Carthage
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

[faithpearland]

A. Early church history attests that infant baptism was the common practice of the church. It really wasn’t questioned till the Anabaptists came on the scene in the mid 1500s. Church history is filled with early church fathers who attested to the early and commonly accepted practice of infant baptism. The imminent conservative scholar Samuel Miller has proven this point. Dr. Miller was a professor of ecclesiastical history and church government at Princeton Seminary who wrote a book called "Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable" in 1834. Irenaeus (Second century) church father confirmed infant baptism. Origen, a Greek church father from the 3rd century noted the common practice of infant baptism in his time as one which was received from the apostles. Cyprian, a Latin third century father said the same. Chrysostom, the famous Greek preacher of the fourth century also noted its early practice. In 401 AD the Council of Carthage encouraged the practice. The Great church father Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century confirmed its Biblical practice and considered it heresy to deny it. Dr. Francis Schaeffer states, "Saint Augustine, writing concerning infant baptism, said, "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained.” Those who would teach that the practice of the early Church was not infant baptism should be able to show in Church History when it started. There is no such break recorded” (Baptism, pg. 12).
B. Although church history itself is not an argument that replaces the teaching of God’s Word, it is nevertheless often wise to consider the weight of teaching among the early church fathers about various theological matters. This study can better inform our understanding of the Word in many cases.

[reformedcatholic]

I changed my mind on infant baptism, I believe it's biblical and from Church history it's VERY early, St Polycarp talks about that he was saved for 85 years meaning he was saved when he was baptized as an infant. Next St. Irenaeus mentions infants are baptized both references before 200 AD.

[zarnoffa]

In the Letter to the Armenians by Macarius of Jerusalem (335), the bishop responds to a request from the Armenian church for advice about the proper order of such things as Baptism and other Sacraments. One thing to note is that there is no mention of the age of baptism in this letter even though it says plenty about Baptism. If that is the case, and there was no debate (like we have today) among the churches over the age of baptism, then there must have been an UNQUESTIONED COMMON PRACTICE throughout the world. The question then becomes, “If the common practice was changed, as some contend, why is there no resistance to that change recorded anywhere?” Surely the staunch traditionalists would have appealed to their fathers and scripture and the debate would have required a council to resolve the issue. There is nothing. This means the common practice was set and never changed.

It took me many years to come to an absolute conclusion on this matter without to deferring to “smart scholars” or “church authority.”

I’ve concluded (and held for 20 years) that the early practice was infant baptism by triple immersion.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Nestorian churches are the closest to the original practice. Surely, of all the practices, Baptism would require a significant effort to change. It has not changed in these churches.

Finally, consider the mikvah conversion tradition of the Jews who immerse infants (some do triple immersion) in order to convert to Judaism. Surely this practice was the precursor to Holy Baptism.

Please don’t teach your children to love Jesus and pray to Jesus and follow Jesus and sing to Jesus like good Christians... but then refuse them the first gift all believers receive: Holy Baptism. Grant them Baptism AND THEN teach them to be good disciples for the rest of their lives.

[TheJpep]

Children baptism is not in the Bible. Only believers baptism is. Sola scriptura.

[horseman]

According to Acts 22:16, baptism was where one's sins were washed away by the blood of Christ. Babies don't have any sin until they come to the knowledge of sin by maturity according to Romans 7:9. You can read the whole book of Acts, and it says nothing about baptizing babies. Baptism was a decision one made for themselves after hearing the gospel. Just because a whole household was baptized doesn't mean that a baby was involved.

[frankmason]

I am certain that Baptism replaces Circumcision. This is why children were ALWAYS baptized with their Families.

[CarlaKirsty]

What he said doesn’t make sense. There is plenty evidence that the early church baptised infants and he is assuming that were somebody doesn’t mention infant baptism it doesn’t happen. If he wants to make an argument against infant baptism he should be, stating where infant baptism is said NOT to happen.

Secondly, if something is a universal practice by the third century, then clearly it was a normal practice prior to then. It’s just didn’t simply pop out of thin air and become a normal practice for everyone.

[TheBnary]

Disingenuous argument. To state that we "don't know how old the infants were..." ergo, "we can't be sure about baptising infants, " is actually begging too much. Early Fathers and sources such as the Didache, Irenaeus, Hipploytus, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianz, and later Chrysostom and Augustine (only a little later than the 300s) all talk of infant baptism for the remission of sins. We should be careful that in our zeal to promote our reformation theology we (literally) don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

[mosesmanaka]

Baptism is not a requirement or perquisite for Salvation, and if it was, the Scriptures would make it very clear.
It's a nice to have has a symbol of your commitment to Christ but not essential.
The only requirement is our faith solely in Christ, nothing else, He has done it all for us on the cross.
It's not: Do this and be Saved but rather, Be Saved and do this.

Regeneration take place first then all the trappings follow.

Jesus said, UNLESS you are born again you cannot even see the Kingdom of God let alone enter it.

It's remarkable how educated the Church has become in our scholarly achievement yet we have lost sight of basic truths.

[jimpemberton]

I would add that whether the early church baptized infants or believing children, the theological reasons for doing so don't necessarily comport with the reasons we do so today, and in fact certainly often were for theological reasons that would surprise us today.


We should know that the patristic fathers were considerably less theologically developed than the apostles, and church theology matured over time, constantly being challenged by important issues. While we debate the issue in current theological terms, God did not see fit to give us an historic battle over baptism to help us cement this as one of the core theological issues that must be settled. It can be no more than a second-tier issue, and while it may mean that we need two churches, one to baptize infants and another to baptize only believers, we can rest assured that we may all still be considered soundly orthodox, and even particularly Reformed, in our theology though we differ on this point.

[skibowine]

The Bible specifically says households not children. Households can range from infants to the most senior adults. You are playing with the meaning of words. Beside infants are included as children. Stop being deceptive. Preach the word of God.

[aisthimatiasthiva]

Matthew 19:14

14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

[Steve]

This is really the only thing I struggle with. I tend to lean away from infant baptism but I've heard compelling arguments from both sides. A bit confusing

[T.Ravikumar]

Baptism is a public affirmation of my death to my old self & new birth in Christ. At whatever age I'm able to understand this and do it, that's the right age.

[PneumaticTube]

I believe that both paedobaptism and credobaptism are right to do. Neither one takes the place of the other. A child’s baptism takes place as the result of a parent deciding to have their child dedicated to God, in an act of obedience and worship. The believer’s baptism is done whenever a person decides to make a public declaration in response to their being born again/regenerated. The two are both valid types of obedience and dedication to the Lord.

[juancarrillo]

On the idea of waiting to baptize at a later age and teenagers deciding their religious fate or Baptism at an age when they’re able to make the decision or choice is utterly unacceptably ridiculous!!! Yes of course Baptism is for any age IF for some unfortunate reason they were not Baptized in infancy but never institutionally or collectively declare NOT to Baptize at infancy. Baptism has nothing to do with freedom of choice at the price of our children being lead astray. The latter is a modern invention and not a traditional concept of FAITH. Our Christian faith is based on a FIRM AND SOLID FOUNDATION. How can we as the keepers of our FAITH let Satan enter via argumentative circles over the issue of a CHOICE left up to OUR CHILDREN? How…? I faithfully believe and know IN MY HEART that there is in fact ONE universal Church and ONE GOD. How can we compromise this grandeur with abominations formed in modern day, worldly influenced, circles and arguments? We have to remain alert and vigilant and know when Satan is in the works versus the priority of faith. A teenager and maturity is a long thing coming to leave it up to them in a questionable stage and identity stricken mindset with wisdom in the lacking. The AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY is a lesser soul state barely entering the spiritual challenges and tribulations of life; on the other hand the state of infancy is a pure state, a beautiful and perfect stage of innocence and love, that is naturally and definitively a yes to the Holy Spirit. I guarantee you Satan had his hand in the cookie jar with the pathetic idea of “How about baptizing them when they’re teenagers?” The whole idea is an oxymoron. Keep a watchful eye out Shepherds of the Flock!

[adamkpetty]

A.A. Hodge cites Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others to defend his view on baptism. I find it unlikely that Irenaeus, who was born before the death of the Apostle John, and other church fathers would practice infant baptism if it were not standard practice in the early church. Baptism is such an important doctrine that I don’t buy the argument that it was corrupted so early in the church’s history. The early fathers had points where they erred from orthodoxy, but I’m inclined to believe they were on minor points not on a doctrine as important as baptism.

To me, the issue hinges on circumcision and the connection Paul makes in Colossians 2. The logic I subscribe to is that in the OT circumcision was open only to males in the nation of Israel and baptism is open to male and female, Jew and Gentile. It is a natural progression from old covenant to new covenant. And in my view, both accomplish the same goal. They both allow admittance into the covenant community where the truth of God is revealed. Just as not all who were circumcised remained in the faith, not all who are baptized will remain in the faith and accept Christ as savior.

[lynnkempen]

There is no scriptural example of infant baptism. Scripture tells us to "believe and be baptized, " not be baptized and then later come to belief. Baptism is an act of obedience, symbolic of the internal transformation in Yahushua. No one can be a proxy for your belief, which is what infant baptism does (with god parents). Dedicating babies to the Almighty is scriptural; infant baptism is not.

[solas]

You can find about anything you want in the early church. We're not Catholics, church tradition isn't the authority. What do the scriptures teach? There is no convincing, scriptural case for infant baptism. Infant baptism is the outworking of a bad theology of the relationship between the old and new covenants, not something derived from honest study of scripture. Not a single clear example of ANYONE but believers being baptized in the New Testament