Is Infant Baptism Truly Based on Scripture?

The March/April issue of Modern Reformation published by C.U.R.E. (Christians United for Reformation) contains an article by Michael Horton entitled, God's Grandchildren: The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism (pp.12-17). As the title indicates, Mr. Horton wishes to demonstrate that infant baptism (also known as "paedobaptism") has a scriptural foundation.

While I disagree with Mr. Horton's paedobaptism, I do not question his sincerity in seeking to honor Christ and promote what he believes to be a biblical teaching. Thankfully, C.U.R.E. (of which Mr. Horton is President) is attempting to introduce contemporary Christians to many of the Reformed distinctives which emerged from the Protestant Reformation – an antidote, no doubt, to much of the semi-Pelagianism among evangelicals. I fear, however, that many believers who will come to embrace the doctrines of sovereign grace will also succumb to those Reformed teachings which do not reflect apostolic practice (such as infant baptism). In their new found discovery of Calvinistic soteriology, many will uncritically accept all that purports to be "Reformed." I have seen this more times than I care to count. My objective, therefore, is to counter the primary assumptions and proof-texts which Mr. Horton offers to the reader.

Central to the thesis of Mr. Horton is the assumption of one everlasting "covenant of grace" which is variously administered. He reasons that since infants were included in the Old Covenant administration of this one covenant of grace, we must infer that infants are also included in the New Covenant administration of this same covenant of grace: "The writer of Hebrews tells us that we are heirs of an even better administration of this 'covenant of grace.' The New Testament administration of this covenant excels the Old in so many ways, but does it fall short in this point of including our children? In the Old Testament, the children were included in the covenant and made heirs to the promises – God was the eternal father of these generations, as Abraham was of the earthly generations – but now are we to believe that God wishes to exclude our children in this ostensibly better testament?" (p.16).

The problem, as I see it, is that:

1. Mr. Horton merely assumes the existence of this one "covenant of grace" without first exegetically demonstrating it from Scripture. Although he cautions us to "not invent discontinuities where the text does not explicitly provide them" (p.15), we should also not invent continuities when there is no reason to do so. But Mr. Horton does this repeatedly in attempting to substantiate infant baptism. He fails to see the distinctively new character of the New Covenant established by Christ. The New Covenant, while a fulfillment of one aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen.12:3), is a completely separate covenant. Likewise, the New Covenant has both fulfilled the shadows and types of the Mosaic Covenant as well as replaced it (Heb.7:12,22; 8:6-7,13). This New Covenant, rather than simply being a different administration of the one "covenant of grace," is decidedly different from the Old – "not like the covenant which I made with their fathers" (Jer.31:31-32). Thus, the New Covenant is final and fulfills all that was ever promised to the patriarchs. "As Paul looked back upon the old era, he does not see 'one covenant with various administrations,' but rather 'covenants [plural] of promise' now fulfilled in Christ [Eph.2:12; Rom.9:4]" (Jon Zens, "Is There A 'Covenant of Grace'?" Baptist Reformation Review [6:3, 1977], p.45). While space does not permit an exhaustive look at all the differences between the various covenants, it is important to note that:

Physical ancestry was critical to involvement with the Abrahamic Covenant, but under the New Covenant one's ancestors are irrelevant (Mt.3:8-9). This is the whole point of Heb.8:7-13. The primary difference between the Old Covenant and the New is that whereas under the Old Covenant one could be unregenerate and still be considered part of God's people, under the New Covenant "no longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest" … Whereas the Abrahamic Covenant is a national covenant made with all circumcised Israelis, the New Covenant is an individual covenant made with people from every tribe, language, people and nation (Rev.5:9). Ancestry is again irrelevant and does not automatically make a person a part of the covenant just because he was baptized as an infant ("Baptism – What About Infants?" [part 4] New Testament Restoration Newsletter, Vol.2/No.2, May 1992, p.4).

As previously indicated, Jer.31:31-34 clearly defines a new basis for membership in the New Covenant that is different from the Old. The difference is that of heart renewal. The paedobaptist, therefore, who argues that children of believing parents are members of the New Covenant and, thus, entitled to baptism is guilty of confounding the Scriptures. We must never forget the clear New Testament message that one's physical descent has no bearing in salvation or membership within the New Covenant Church. It is only by spiritual union with Christ by faith which constitutes one as a member of that community.

2. Mr. Horton's well-intentioned sentimentality ("are we to believe that God wishes to exclude our children in this ostensibly better testament?") wrongly assumes that the "better testament" must include the children of believers as did the Old Covenant. But, again, one's entrance and standing in the New Covenant is not the same as that of the Old. Fred Malone, a former paedobaptist, has said it well:

If God so chooses to grant physical children the covenant sign in the Old Covenant shadow and to prohibit the covenant sign to physical children in the New Covenant fulfillment, He has the sovereign right to do so. Neither does this necessarily imply that our New Covenant children are less privileged or blessed in being prohibited the New Covenant sign. I rhetorically reply: Are our children less blessed and privileged by being born to godly parents who show forth the fullness of the Spirit which was only partially tasted in the Abrahamic Covenant? Are our children less blessed in having Christ and Him crucified proclaimed to them from infancy as compared to the types and shadows preached to their Old Covenant counterparts? Are our children less privileged in being raised in the Israel of the Spirit as compared to the children raised in the Israel of the flesh? I think not. Our children, above all others in the Old Covenant Israel and on the present-day earth, have privileges above measure. They are being raised in homes and churches which set the crucified and risen Lord of Glory before them as their daily fare. Our gracious God has chosen them above multitudes that perish in Gospel darkness to hear the same promise He sovereignly used to bring us into the everlasting kingdom ("A String of Pearls Unstrung: A Journal on Baptism," Baptist Reformation Review [Autumn, 1977—Vol.6/No.3], pp.25-26).

In a further attempt to show continuity between the Old and New Covenants and, thus, validate infant baptism, Mr. Horton cites Col.2:11-12. He apparently reasons that since circumcision is the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism, children of believing parents should be baptized (just as each male born to Jewish parents was circumcised). He also thinks it is wrong to interpret this passage (including Tit.3:5) as referring to spiritual baptism and not to water baptism.

But whether one wishes to interpret the word "baptism" (v.12) spiritually or physically, there is nothing here which justifies baptizing babies unless, of course, we stretch Paul's analogy and read more into it than what is there. It is clear that Paul is addressing believers only – those whose hearts have been spiritually circumcised without the aid of any human element ("made without hands") – and who have been brought into union with Christ by faith ("through your faith"). Frankly, there is no explicit word or suggestion within Col.2:11-12 that infants should be baptized.

I think this helps to demonstrate how weak the case for paedobaptism is and how superficial their exegesis can become when they have a cause to defend. Instead of clear and direct proof-texts, Horton offers the reader misinterpreted verses coupled with huge leaps in logic. It has become evident that he, like all paedobaptists, has a practice in search of a theology. Commenting on Col.2:11-12, Malone provides the following lengthy, but illuminating, observation:

To summarize, the Christian's circumcision is that union with Christ's death and resurrection, symbolized by baptism, which is evidenced by outward faith. Verses 13-14 also correlate this view by defining those who have received the "circumcision" as those who have actually experienced the New Birth and blotting out of sins. This new life of faith is the New Covenant heart-circumcision "by the circumcision of Christ" which fulfills the type of Old Covenant circumcision. Only these people were "buried with Christ in baptism" in this passage because their hearts had been circumcised. Their water baptism symbolized their prior spiritual baptism. The great inconsistency of some covenant paedobaptists is that they will consider union with Christ in baptism in Rom.6:3-4 as a secondary reference to water baptism and count it primarily a reference to the New Birth. Yet, they will use the same concept of union with Christ in baptism in Col.2:11-12 as a primary reference to water baptism's relation to circumcision instead of its clear intention of relating circumcision to regeneration. My conclusion is that Paul defined the circumcision of Christians in Col.2:9-11 as primarily union with Christ by faith, secondarily symbolized in their water baptism, as in Rom.6:3-4 and Gal.3:29. What then is the counterpart of the Old Covenant sign and seal of circumcision in the New Covenant? I believe the Scriptures define it to be the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit exhibited in faith … Therefore, as circumcision (the shadow) was the sign and seal of entrance into the Abrahamic Covenant, so regeneration (the form) is the sign and seal of entrance into the New Covenant (Eph.1:13-14; Jn.3:5-6). Baptism is then the indirect counterpart of physical circumcision only through its association with the direct counterpart, spiritual circumcision. This is why we only see confessor's baptism in the New Testament record. It was easy to know who entered the Abrahamic Covenant, they were born into the household and were outwardly circumcised. But how can you tell if one has entered the New Covenant and had experienced spiritual circumcision? Only by their repentance and faith, outwardly signified by the outward sign of fulfilled circumcision and cleansing water baptism … Water baptism is then the outward sign of the inward circumcision of the heart rather than the outward counterpart of the outward circumcision of the flesh. Just as Abraham's "seed" initially entered the covenant by physical circumcision and confirmed it by spiritual circumcision, his New Covenant "seed" initially enter the covenant by spiritual circumcision and confirm it by baptism. The physical descendants of Abraham's New Covenant "seed" are not to be permitted the sign of baptism until they also become the spiritual "seed" of Abraham ("A String of Pearls Unstrung," pp.13-14).

With reference to Tit.3:5, it is, admittedly, a difficult passage to interpret and the various commentators have not always found agreement in whether the term "washing" (loutrou) points to the external ordinance of water baptism or to an internal, spiritual baptism. Horton believes that water baptism is intended and seems somewhat chagrin at those who would see it any other way (p.15). But, as Hayne P. Griffin, Jr., writes: "The amount of scholarly wrestling with this text indicates that there is no simple resolution to these questions" (New American Commentary: Titus [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992] p.325). Be that as it may, I believe that the evidence supports the term "washing" as a reference to Spirit baptism which occurs at regeneration (this view is also supported by such scholars as G.B. Caird, D.E. Hiebert, J.F. MacArthur, G.D. Fee, and H.A. Kent in their respective commentaries). Our text specifically states that it is the washing of "regeneration" (NASB) or "rebirth" (NIV) and points to the cleansing and purifying effect which occurs when one is brought into union with Christ. Both Ezek.36:25-27 and Jn.3:5 seem to support this as well. Still, I see nothing in Tit.3:5 which would, in any way, lend credence to the idea of infant baptism.

In response to those who ask, "Why isn't there a single command to baptize children?", Horton writes: "However, if the accent falls on continuity (Old Testament promise, New Testament fulfillment), there would be no reason why the apostles should take great pains to argue for a covenantal theology that incorporates whole families rather than simply individuals. But, of course, this is an argument from silence. In actual fact, the book of Acts provides us with explicit declarations of continuity" (p.16). He then cites Acts 2:38-39; 11:14; and supposed examples of household baptisms (which allegedly included infants) within the New Testament (Acts 16:31-33; 1 Cor.1:16). Paul's words in 1 Cor.7:14 ("For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy") are also brought into the argument as well as the testimony of the early church fathers: "The testimony of the early church fathers is unanimously in favor of paedobaptism and one wonders how the disciples of the apostles themselves could have universally embraced the practice without any debate if, in fact, it had been an innovation. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, who himself had been John's closest pupil, along with Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and other fathers, referred to the practice as of apostolic origin. Church tradition, it is true, is never conclusive, but it is difficult to understand how it could not have been the apostles' custom if such universal claims to that effect did not spark the slightest controversy" (p.16).

Mr. Horton does not believe that the case for infant baptism rests on an argument from silence, but the esteemed Presbyterian theologian, B.B. Warfield, thought otherwise and was quite open in admitting that "there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized" (cited in Searching Together [Winter Quarter, 1984 – Vol.13:4], p.17). One of the great leaders of the Protestant Reformation, Ulrich Zwingli, has written: "Nothing grieves me more than that at the present I have to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done … If however I were to terminate the practice then I fear that I would lose my prebend [stipend] … If we were to baptize as Christ instituted it then we would not baptize any person until he has reached the years of discretion; for I find it nowhere written that infant baptism is to be practiced" (Ibid. p.19). Due to religious and political pressure to preserve the Reformation at all costs, Zwingli would later recant his previous doubts on infant baptism – which led some of his earlier disciples (who were now aligned with the Anabaptist movement) to rightfully criticize him (cf. William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story [Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1975] pp.201-235; Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1988] pp.140-141).

Not only is the case for infant baptism founded on the silence of the New Testament, it is, in fact, contradicted by it, for its pages are filled with distinctive patterns which indicate that only those who have first exercised a conscious faith in the risen Christ are to be baptized (Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:41; 8:12-13,35-39; 10:44-48; 16:14-15,30-34; 18:8; 19:1-7; Rom.6:3-6; Gal.3:27). I agree with Malone who states, "To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessor's baptism is a dangerous method of hermeneutic" ("A String of Pearls Unstrung," p.24). Special notice should be given to the following admission made in Baptism and Confirmation Today (London: SCM, 1955), a report of the Joint Committees on Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion of the Church of England:

It is clear that the recipients of baptism were normally adults and not infants; and it must be admitted that there is no conclusive evidence in the New Testament for the baptism of infants. All we can say is that it is possible that the "households" said to have been baptized may have included children (Acts 16:15,33; 1 Cor.1:16). But at any rate it is clear that the doctrine of baptism in the New Testament is stated in relation to the baptism of adults, as was also the case (with two or three exceptions) in the writers of the first three centuries … In every recorded case of baptism in the New Testament, the Gospel has been heard and accepted, and the condition of faith (and presumably repentance) has been consciously fulfilled prior to the reception of the Sacrament (p.34).

In the case of Acts 2:38-39, a close reading will not support infant baptism for the following reasons:

1. The specific content of Peter's promise is the anointing of God's Spirit (v.39), a promise which is also found in Joel 2:28-32. This anointing of the Spirit bestows the gifts of visions and prophecy as Acts 2:17 makes plain, which are quite beyond the ability of infants. It does not seem likely, therefore, that Peter had infants in mind when he proclaimed these words.

2. The promise of the Spirit which is for "you and your children" (v.39), is directly connected and conditioned upon the effectual call of God ("as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself"). Thus, only those who are effectually called by God and place their faith in Christ are to be baptized. This important observation has led Paul K. Jewett to write:

The point is that the promise is to all whom God shall call. This fact puts the whole matter on a rather different theological axis from that which is traditionally assumed in the interest of infant baptism. It becomes no more a question of one's natural birth, as Paedobaptists have often implied; there is nothing in this Scripture passage of "visible church membership" and "external covenant privilege." Rather, the passage is concerned with the call of God, that inner work of the Spirit who enlightens the mind and renews the heart ("they were pricked in the heart," v.37), and with the response to that call ("what shall we do?" v.37) on the part of those who receive it. Those who are thus called are baptized into the name of Jesus, who is freely offered in the Gospel as the Savior of all who in turn shall call on Him. The whole account of the Pentecostal witness is couched in terms of summons and response. But no one can respond to this summons by proxy – as does the infant when presented by his parents for baptism; for when God calls a person, he calls him not by his family name but by his first name (Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace [Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1978] pp.121-122).

3. Further confirmation for who is to be baptized is discovered in v.41: "So then, those who had received his word were baptized."

4. Observe also that those who were baptized went on to celebrate the Lord's Supper (v.42). If infants were baptized with their parents, did they also partake of the bread and cup? Presumably, not only would infant baptism be demonstrated, but so would infant communion!

The words of the angel in Acts 11:14 ("by which you will be saved, you and all your household") is another text which cannot be used to teach paedobaptism. In context, Peter is giving an orderly account of the conversion of Cornelius and his household (v.4), but there is nothing in either chapters ten or eleven which would suggest that babies were baptized. Acts 10:44 tells us that the "Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message." Did the Spirit also fall on the infants who may have been present (although it is inconclusive in determining whether infants were there)? Were they also "speaking in tongues and exalting God" (v.46)? And observe closely that, because of what he heard and saw, Peter permitted them to be baptized (vv.46-47). "Peter appealed to the fact that they 'had received the Holy Spirit as well as we' as constituting legitimate ground for their baptism. Everything in the narrative commends the conclusion that those who were baptized were those who heard the word and received the Spirit in His charismatic endowment. It is perhaps for this reason that the case of Cornelius' house is seldom urged, sometimes not even mentioned, in the literature defending infant baptism" (Jewett, Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace, p.48).

Does the Philippian jailer account in Acts 16:31-33 lend support to the notion of infant baptism? This can hardly be the case. While it is true that he was baptized along with "all his household" (v.33), this cannot refer to infants, unless we wish to believe that Peter also spoke the word to these little ones (v.32); that they "rejoiced greatly" (v.34); and that they "believed in God" (v.34). If one is going to press Luke's account, they would end up with the doctrine of household salvation, not infant baptism!

Neither does 1 Cor.1:16 lend any support to paedobaptism, for as Malone notes: "The thrust of this text is that the baptized believers were in division and controversy over who baptized them. It seems they were capable of knowing who baptized them, thus excluding infants. Further, 1 Cor.16:15 describes the 'household of Stephanas' as having devoted themselves for ministry to the saints. Infants cannot self-consciously devote themselves in such a way" ("A String of Pearls Unstrung," p.18).

Paul's words in 1 Cor.7:14 is another passage that supposedly illustrates the special position of believer's children as "in" the church and, thus, having full rights to baptism. Such an interpretation, however, reads more into the text than what is warranted from it. Just as a gem reveals flaws when examined under the microscope, so the argument of the covenantal holiness of believers' seed is revealed as having theological defects when viewed under the lens of a critical and exegetical appraisal. Please note the following:

1. The context concerns mixed marriages, not who possesses the right to baptism or church membership. Apparently, some believers were questioning the legitimacy of their marriage to an unbeliever. Paul writes to assure them that their matrimony and the resulting offspring is acceptable in the eyes of God. The unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" in the sense of receiving God's recognition or approval of a legitimate marriage. Likewise, the children are "holy," not in the sense of being members "in" the New Covenant Church (which would require spiritual regeneration), but in the sense that they are not contaminated with the taint of illegitimacy. According to Zens, "Paul's use of the term 'sanctified' here parallels, it seems to me, the statement in 1 Tim.4:5 that all food is 'sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.' He does not mean that the food is 'federally holy,' but that it is 'sanctified,' that is, 'O.K.' and 'approved'" (Baptist Reformation Review [First Quarter, 1980/Vol.9—No.2] p.34).

2. If the children have full rights to baptism by virtue of their pedigree to one of the believing parents, why should it be withheld from the unbelieving spouse? Why baptize one and not the other? Jewett drives home this point well:

The very thing they most want this passage [1 Cor.7:14] to yield for the "holy" children, namely, the right to baptism, they must deny to the "consecrated" parent who does not believe. Thus their exposition is plunged into sibylic contortions. The holy children are "so far holy that they are in the fold, not aliens"; they are "in the church classification of believers"; theirs is a holiness "that evinces the operation of the covenant"; they are "in the body of Christ" by a kind of "collective holiness"; they enjoy the advantage of "the baptismal solidarity of the family." But all these luxuriant theological formulations drop from the discussion when the unbelieving spouse is concerned. He or she is "consecrated," but not so far as to be "in the fold": he/she is an alien; he/she is "sanctified," but not in the church classification of a "believer": he/she is an unbeliever. The covenant does not "operate" for him/her as it does for the child; the "collective holiness" that gathers in the child leaves him/her uncollected. And though he/she was in the family before the child was, he/she has no part or lot with the child in the "baptismal solidarity" of that family! There is, however, no profound difference between the Greek verb "to make holy," used of the parent in this verse, and the Greek adjective "holy," used of the child. Why, then, should the meaning be so different in the one case than in the other? If the sanctifying influence of the believer on the unbelieving spouse carries with it no benefit in the church above that of hearing the Gospel, how may we conclude that the sanctifying influence of the believer on the child implies the right to baptism and church membership? (Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace, pp.126-127).

3. Even the ardent defender of infant baptism, Joachim Jeremias, admitted: "Paul appears in 1 Corinthians 7:14c to know nothing at all of the baptism of children born to Christian parents" (Die Kindertaufe in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958] p.54). The eminent Reformed theologian, Herman Ridderbos, also denies the relevancy of 1 Cor.7:14 for infant baptism: "In our opinion, it will have to be ascertained that in 1 Corinthians 7:14 baptism is not in view, and that solely on the ground of the terminology employed here one cannot reach conclusions that are at all dependable with respect to infant baptism" (Paul: An Outline of His Theology [Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1975] p.413).

One of the most frequently cited verse from the New Testament adduced in support of infant baptism is Mt.19:13-15. In fact, C.H. Spurgeon testified that this passage was employed against him more often than any other during the baptismal regeneration debate which occurred in 1864 after a sermon he preached on Mk.16:15-16. Once again, I am amazed how convoluted the logic is for paedobaptism and how texts from the New Testament are stretched beyond their exegetical limits! But, of course, we must always remember that paedobaptism is a practice in desperate search of proof from the New Testament – and any text even remotely suggestive is game.

Jesus, no doubt, blessed these children, but He did not baptize them (neither did His disciples). Our Lord is speaking of a childlike faith (cf. Mt.18:1-10; Mk.9:33-37; Lk.9:46-48); and notice carefully His words: "For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" (not "of these are the kingdom"). Thus, the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who manifest a humble, trusting and childlike faith as opposed to those who evidence skepticism and misgivings. The text is very clear; but why are paedobaptists forced to read so much into this text? Is such a handling of God's holy Word honoring to our Savior? Is the paedobaptist interpretation truly an example of "cutting straight" the Word of Truth (2 Tim.2:15)? In commenting upon our text, B.B. Warfield perceptively asked: "What has this to do with infant baptism?"

Turning now to the church fathers, there is no question that many of them believed in infant baptism. Some of them even maintained that such a practice had apostolic approval. This claim, however, is far from proven and, in fact, the scriptural evidence conclusively refutes it. To simply appeal to the church fathers, as if the matter is solved by a few quotes from their writings, will not do. While they are certainly orthodox in some matters, they are not always reliable in others. In fact, the paedobaptist, R.L. Dabney, stated that the patristic fathers prove to be "wretched examples of the New Testament religion" (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p.775).

We know from church history that, from the second century on (culminating in the fourth century when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire), there was a slow but steady departure from the ecclesiological patterns established by the apostles in the first century. For example, corporate church meetings became more and more dominated by bishops until, eventually, very little was permitted (or even expected) from the so-called "laity." The simplicity of the Lord's Supper (which was originally a full meal, not a token meal) was turned into a clerical ritual. The spontaneous and participatory nature of the first century meetings was replaced by closed meetings (i.e., no significant interaction and mutual participation by the saints), elaborate rituals, and a rigid order of worship which set everything in concrete. This being true (and very few church historians deny it), why should we believe the claim of the church fathers regarding infant baptism when, on so many other matters, they were unfaithful to apostolic ecclesiology? Jewett states:

It must not be forgotten, however, that the earliest ages of Christian history are marked not only by rapid expansion, but also by rapid change. For example, the very episcopal office these bishops held was unknown in the year A.D. 100: in the apostolic age there were no monarchical bishops; yet in the year A.D. 251 sixty-six of them were convened in North Africa. If the office of bishop was unknown to the apostles, it is surely possible that the practice of baptizing infants, which these bishops approved, was also unknown in apostolic times (Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace, p.19).

Similarly, James Stitzinger, Associate Professor of Historical Theology at the Master's Seminary (Sun Valley, CA), has written:

From its earliest days, the Christian church has moved from simplicity to complexity as it has drifted from a spontaneous living organism to a more settled institution. This ever dangerous institutionalism arose simultaneously in the second generation of many widely separated churches … This trend progressed into the fourth century, causing the church to enter more and more into an era of "speculation on the law and doctrine of the church" … As the church of the New Testament passed through its early centuries and became the official or organized church, it frequently departed from simple New Testament patterns ("Pastoral Ministry in History," The Master's Seminary Journal [Fall, 1995 – Vol.6/No.2] pp.151-157).

The earliest express mention of infant baptism is found in Tertullian's De baptismo (A.D. 200-206). However, in this document he demonstrates serious reservation about the practice: "But they whose duty it is to administer baptism, are to know that it must not be given rashly … Therefore, according to everyone's condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the class of little children … Our Lord says, indeed, 'Do not forbid them to come to Me.' Therefore, let them come when they are grown up; let them come when they understand, when they are instructed whither it is that they come; let them be made Christians when they can know Christ … They that understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it, than the delaying of it" (Ch.xviii).

In the case of Irenaeus, there is no clear statement from his writings that he promoted infant baptism and there is much debate over the meaning of his words that infants are "regenerated unto God" (Adv. Haer., III, xxii, 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1885-96, I, 455). Regardless, he should not be viewed as especially reliable since he also claimed to receive an apostolic tradition that Jesus was forty to fifty years old in His active ministry!

Therefore, while a good number of the church fathers supported infant baptism (some, like Augustine and Cyprian, even believed in infant communion!), we must not forget that the earliest Christian documents never speak of such a practice. For instance, the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. A.D. 120-130) mentions briefly the subject of baptism, but reflects only the baptism of believers. The Shepherd of Hermas (ca. A.D. 150) makes repentance the condition of baptism. The Didache (A.D. 100-110), likewise, provides detailed information on baptism and even the candidate's moral condition, but there are no instructions regarding the baptism of babies. Concerning this omission within the Didache, Jewett asks:

How shall we account for the omission of all reference to infant baptism in this primitive manual of proper baptismal usage? It is hard to imagine such an omission occurring under Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or even Presbyterian, Methodist, or Congregational auspices. Some Paedobaptists not only adorn the rite of infant baptism with rubrics for clerical guidance but even include in the back of their hymnals special instructions on the baptism of infants for lay use in the event of emergency. Is it not, then, highly implausible that the Didache was produced by a community of early Paedobaptists who just happened to say nothing about infant baptism? (Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace, pp.40-41).

In my estimation, Mr. Horton has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that infant baptism has a biblical basis, as his subtitle suggests. His exegesis of the primary paedobaptist texts is weak; he assumes more than he is able to hermeneutically and theologically prove (e.g., the "covenant of grace"); his logic does not always consistently follow (e.g., that the New Covenant must include the children of believers as did the Old Covenant); and his appeal to the church fathers is not even half as convincing as it first appears. The argument from patristic tradition is only persuasive if it can first be demonstrated from Scripture.

Mr. Horton may believe in infant baptism if he wishes to, but I must respectfully depart from this particular Reformed tradition and, instead, drink at the pure fountain of God's revelation which instructs me to baptize only those who have exercised a conscious and prior faith in Jesus Christ.

Great Quotes on Infant Baptism

Erich Dinkler:

One must learn to live with the fact that the literature of primal Christianity is silent concerning child and infant baptism and that all indications speak against the introduction of this custom before the third century. If in Ephesians 1:13f, after hearing, believing, being sealed = baptism, the gift of the Spirit is named as an earnest (compare also, for example, 2 Corinthians 1:19-22; Acts 2:37ff; 12:35ff), then here the theological sequence of primal Christianity finds expression: baptism seals the invariably preceding gift of faith in Christ. A baptism of infants cannot be historically grounded in the New Testament; it must be "theologically inferred" (RGG, 3 Auflage, VI, "Taufe," Sec.II, Im Urchristentum, Sec.1).

Paul Jewett:

Paedobaptists confess their faith in baptism, yet give it to infants without their making such a confession; they engage in baptism to be the Lord's, yet administer it to those who engage nothing; they confess baptism to be the sacrament of faith and penitence, yet grant it to those who evidence neither the one nor the other; they acknowledge that repentance and faith are required of those baptized, yet baptize those who cannot meet these requirements; they call baptism a sign of profession, yet baptize those who make no profession. And they hold these contradictions together with a hoop of but's, nevertheless's, although's, and not only's (Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace, pp.163-164).

Charles Spurgeon:

If I thought it wrong to be a Baptist, I should give it up and become what I believed to be right … If we could find infant baptism in the Word of God, we would adopt it. It would help us out of a great difficulty, for it would take away from us that reproach which is attached to us – that we are odd and do not do as other people do. But we have looked well through the Bible and cannot find it, and do not believe it is there; nor do we believe that others can find infant baptism in the Scriptures, unless they themselves first put it there (Autobiography).

Recommended Reading

Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1978). This is an excellent work which traces the origins of infant baptism and exegetically refutes the passages and logic used in support of it.

David Kingdon, Children of Abraham: A Reformed Baptist View of Baptism, the Covenant, and Children (Haywards Heath, England: Carey Publications, 1973). Kingdon's book is currently out of print. However, it is an excellent apologetic for believer's only baptism and refutation of the paedobaptist position.

T.E. Watson, Baptism Not For Infants (Worthing, England: Henry E. Walter, 1962). This book is also currently out of print. Watson shows the absurdity of the paedobaptist viewpoint and how their primary theologians contradict each other as to its meaning and purpose.

Fred A. Malone, "A String of Pearls Unstrung: A Journal on Baptism," Baptist Reformation Review (Autumn – 1977, Vol.6/No.3). This is a fine article from a former paedobaptist who exegetically reviews and refutes the texts used in support of infant baptism. Malone writes clearly and is irenic.

[ed. Jon Zens] Baptist Reformation Review (First Quarter – 1980, Vol.9/No.1). This entire issue was devoted to critiquing the paedobaptist position, including a series of book reviews on paedobaptist literature.

Erroll Hulse, The Testimony of Baptism (Haywards Heath, England: Carey Publications, 1982). This is a good book for understanding the various issues related to baptism. The author also provides a solid rebuttal to the paedobaptist position.

Alexander Carson, Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications [Reprint]). This is a classic work which evaluates and thoroughly refutes the arguments used to promote infant baptism.

Greg Welty, A Critical Evaluation of Infant Baptism (Fullerton, CA: Reformed Baptist Publications, n.d.). This booklet is a short, but powerful critique of infant baptism by a graduate from Westminster Theological Seminary.