Those who oppose infant baptism do so as though Christianity began the day they bought their Bibles, or the day they themselves became Christians. They fail to realize that the New Testament Church is as old as about two millennia with infant baptism being well founded, rooted both in scriptures and in its history.

Infant Baptism Rooted in History

Infant baptism didn’t begin yesterday; it is an immemorial church practice. No record has it to be a later invention, or an enactment of any church council in history. The opponents of infant baptism can’t historically trace it to be a non-apostolic practice. No church father even of the second century claimed it began in his day. The fathers themselves such as Augustine and Origen called it an apostolic practice. Those who oppose infant baptism should stand up and tell us precisely, not speculatively, when it began, if it is not apostolic.

If infant baptism is a later invention, when did it begin and who began it? Where did it originate?

Why are there no protests against the validity of infant baptism from anyone in the early Church?

But what is the big deal if it is apostolic? If it is apostolic, it means it is part of the faith which the Apostles practised, preached, wrote scriptures on, and died for. Apostle Paul rebuked the Corinthian church that Christianity did not begin with them.(1 Cor 14:36)

One may say but it is not in the Apostles letters or their works of scriptures. But that does not disprove the possibility of it being in their practice, as the apostles writings did not contain full account of all their practices.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

1 Corinthians 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

2 John 1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

Only where a thing is in scriptures rejected, or shown to be practiced differently, or scripture accounts show its impossibility, or clear understanding of apostolic teachings contradict it, or history shows it to be a later invention, only then can one safely say it was not practiced by the apostles, not when the scriptures are silent, but points to its possibility, and history says it was in their practice.

Irenaeus, a second century bishop, born 30 years after the last apostle, a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of Apostle John, said Christ came to save all through himself; all who through Christ are born again, including infants.

“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.(Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189

If Irenaeus did not mean born of water and born of the spirit in line with Jesus who first used the term,  how can he use the term and say infants are reborn through Christ knowing they can’t go back to their mothers womb to be reborn, or how can it be through Christ and not through their first birth if they were in no way brought to Christ. Innocence of a child does not equal its being in Christ. Else, one would say that the children of the unbelieving pagans were in Christ. That, the church fathers themselves would not have accepted.

Origen of the early 3rd century stated that infant baptism was the usage of the church universal, and a practice handed down by the apostles.

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]).

“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])

His claim is very significant in that he was born into a family that had been Christian for many generations. More so, he was widely traveled and had been acquainted with church practices in Egypt, Palestine, Rome, Greece, Western Syria, Arabia, Cappadocia, and other parts of the world.

Augustine, of the early 5th century, bishop of Hippo, stated in his work:

What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Credo Baptists ( those who believe in only adult baptism) argue that the apostles could not have baptised infants. They try to make arguable inferences from their own bias opinions and interpretations of early church writings. They are rather handling history insincerely. How so? Anyone who delved into history to search for the origin of infant baptism must come across historical documents that say it is of apostolic origin. One from Origen, one from Augustine. These were church leaders. They were closer to the apostles days than any historian of our day. We do not know the information they had, and they are no longer alive to give the evidences they had for their statements. And since no early church writing says otherwise, we are left to say that history, not legend, has it that it is of apostolic origin. Whether we think it is true or not, whether we accepts it or not, we must let it go at that– That is what known history has to say about it. In the mouth of two witnesses every matter is established.

Infant baptism was a universal church practice despite the fact that there were no airplanes, trains, cars, or internet to easily connect those churches located at different parts of the world. How could it be if not that the apostles baptising converts as they established churches all over the world, baptised infants as well — one faith; one baptism (whether of infants or adults). So infant baptism stood in the church uncontested for about 1500 years (one and a half millennium) before the  Anabaptists of the 16th century, the first, to kick up a stink about it.

 It should be noted that neither the Ebionites,  Arians, Donatists, Montanists, nor any other early heretic sects refuted infant baptism; many were even noted as practicing it.

In the third century, Cyprian, a leading bishop of North Africa, convened a synod of sixty-six bishops at Carthage to discuss whether or not they felt that infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth day after birth instead of the usual second or third day. Their unanimous decision upheld the universally accepted practice which they had always followed.

What about Tertulian’s preference of a delayed baptism?

Tertulian’s argument was borne from his erroneous reasoning that sin after baptism was almost unforgivable. Many who cite him do not realize that Tertulian never claimed infant baptism was a new innovation contrary to the historic usage of the Church, which would have been the best point for his argument being an apologist.

What about those church fathers who delayed their baptism till adulthood?

True that Gregory of Nanziansus, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Jerome were all baptized as adults, even though they had at least one Christian parent. And considering their age at which they were baptised, they had long reached the “age of reasoning”: Gregory and John Chrysostom at 30, Basil at 27 and Jerome at 20 However, the earliest evidence that Christian parents  refrained from having their children baptized immediately after birth was in the middle of the fourth century with Gregory being the first example of this in 360 A.D.  But their baptism was postponed on the false premise that they could better assure themselves a place in heaven if they minimized the times they sinned after baptism. Worthy of Note is that these men themselves never challenged the validity of infant baptism.

The Anabaptists who first made fuss over this immemorial practices did so on a different grounds from the Baptists’ position today.