Scriptural Validity of Infant Baptism

Yes, yes, and yes. Infants should be baptised! The baptism of infants is not only scripturally valid, but also fundamentally necessary.

Major points held by those who oppose infant baptism are (1) instances of infants baptism are not recorded in scriptures, (2) infants cannot believe, (3) infants can’t be saved by someone else’s faith, and (4) infants cannot repent as they have no sins. These points will be carefully examined in the light of scriptures.

Infant Baptism not recorded in scripture

Early church fathers maintained that infant baptism was the Apostles’ practice. But those who will not listen to the church fathers argue even against clear circumstances in scriptures in which infant baptism could have taken place, and insisted that it ought to have been recorded if it indeed took place. They forget that (1) how the Apostles organized children’s section in the early church was not recorded, and that one is almost forced to conclude that there were no children present in their church services — but this is quite unreasonable. We know there must be children’s section or the presence of children in almost all their services, but how this was coordinated we can’t tell from the new testament scriptures, hence must leave it to the writings of the early church fathers — if at all we can find it in their written history. But to conclude that since it was not documented in scriptures children were not present in their services, is at best, an unreasonable argument. And one may reasonably ask: would they have abandoned their infants and kids at home and serve God? The Jews never did that in their gatherings. And the church, having a Jewish background, began in Jerusalem.

(2) No where was it stated that women were admitted to the communion table, but we know they could not have been barred from the table. The ground on which women are admitted to the table is that women are also disciples of Jesus. The ground on which infants of believers are baptised is that they also belong to the kingdom of Christ and should be baptised thereto, for if they are not in Christ, where are they?

(3) No one thinks that children would not be part of the love feast of the early church because it was not recorded.

(4) No where is it recorded of grown up children or adult born into a Christian family being baptized, yet churches baptize them today.

(5) No where is it recorded in the New Testament of the infant of a believer being dedicated, yet those who oppose infant baptism for not being recorded dedicate their infants today.

(6) No where is it recorded of a priest, prophet, bishop, pastor or an apostle conducting marriage ceremony in the Bible, neither in the law of Moses nor in the faith of Jesus Christ, yet pastors, bishops, etc. conduct it today. On and on goes the list. So any church that raises an objection against infant baptism on the ground of it not being recorded in scripture would sincerely be somewhat of a hypocrite, bringing to the fore a principle they themselves are not consistent with. Therefore, if any who oppose infant baptism has any argument against the practice, it should not be on this ground. That being said, we move to the next point.

That infant cannot believe

Those who argue on this ground stress that scriptures demand that a person believe before he is baptized into Christ.

Let’s realise that circumcision required that one believed in the God of Abraham before he is circumcised into the community of Israel. Abraham did not bear in his body the sign of a covenant with a God he did not believe in (Rom 4:3), in short it was a seal of righteousness by his faith (Rom 4:11). Neither did his household not believe in his God. Yet God commanded him to circumcise his eight-day old infant males who could not believe. Why didn’t God require that he wait for the infants to grow up first so they could believe? Understand that God’s covenant of promise with Abraham that he would be his God and the God of his descendants included their salvation and their walking worthy. That’s why Jesus said salvation is of the Jews. John 4:22

When infants were brought to Jesus, why didn’t he require that the infants believe before he could lay hands on them and pray the prayer of blessing? Wouldn’t it be required in adults that they believe in the prayer of blessing being prayed on them? Mt 19:13-14

When the baby John was to receive its God-given name at its naming ceremony, why wasn’t it required by God that the child be allowed to grow first before it is given the name, since the child was to profess the name all through life and could not possibly profess it at infancy?

Those who argue that infant cannot believe and so should not be baptized choose to be ignorant of how God handles infants.

That they can’t be saved by someone else’s faith?

Those who oppose infant baptism say infants cannot exercise personal faith for salvation, and if baptism is for salvation, it should not be applied to them since they cannot be saved by someone else’s faith. Now if they can’t be saved by someone else’s faith, on whose faith would they be saved? If salvation is compulsorily by faith, and they can some how be saved without faith, as some claim but can’t prove from scriptures, then what stops God from making it possible that they be saved by someone else’s faith in order keep the eternal principle that salvation is by faith in God? Scripture rather takes this bend? When Jesus said the little ones believed in him, was he not talking about the little children who were there with their parents or caregiver who believed in him and came to hear him? Or could he ever be referring to the children of the unbelieving Pharisees who would oppose him and were absent?

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto y.ou, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Mark 9:36 And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Concerning this point may we ask some logical questions.

When God delivered the Israelites including their infants out of the land of Egypt, the land of bondage, on whose faith was the deliverance? The faith of the adults! Or would God have required the personal faith of the infants separately for their deliverance?

God spared the firstborn of all Israelites including their infants on the passover night on the obedience and faith of the adults, while the firstborn infants of the Egyptians were slain. Weren’t the Israelites infants included in their parents’ faith? Or didn’t faith save them?

By whose faith was the Syro-phoenician woman’s daughter healed? By the faith of the woman!

By whose faith did Jesus heal the epileptic boy? The faith of the father not the child’s personal faith!

It is Jesus that makes baptism what it is. Forgiveness of sin is not in the baptism as it were but in the Christ in the baptism. If we say since infants can’t repent and don’t have sin, they don’t need baptism into Christ, then we are saying that infants don’t need Christ for their salvation. But why do we repent? Is it not that our sins can be taken away and be as one without sin (like the infant they say, without sin) to the end that through Christ we can be sanctified (set apart unto God) and have an inheritance in God? Why then should infants not be baptized into Christ if they have no sin.

By whose faith was Samuel dedicated unto God at infancy? The faith of the Mother, not the child’s own personal faith!

Apostle Paul stressed that the faith of a believing parent sanctifies the child, else the child stays unclean (i.e is not accepted nor sanctified unto God for an inheritance).

These all go to prove that at infancy the parents or guardian is the custodian of the child’s will and an exerciser of the child’s faith until the child grows into maturity to either continue therein or say otherwise. This is so natural in our day to day life that the parents or caregiver speaks and act for the child in anything necessary for the child’s life, future and health. And it needs not be further proven only if we choose not to realise that God who gave us that natural instinct and inclination to act that way, operates by the same principle. This is how God handles infancy. Infants can’t stand independent of their parents or guardians until they become masters of their will. Infants by virtue of their believing parents or whoever takes responsibility over their will, believe in God. That’s why Jesus could say ” …any of these little ones who believe in me”. And God could say: …your sons and daughters whom you bore to me. (Ezek 16:20 NIV)

If the child grows up and walks worthy of his salvation, he maintains his salvation. But if he doesn’t work worthy, like the prodigal son he loses a privilege he once had. And if he turns back to God, reinstated. If he does not, well, even Christians baptised at adulthood still backslides like Demas. Baptism at adulthood is not a preventive against backsliding.

One may want to ask: Why wasn’t Jesus baptized at infancy? Well, John who was the Baptist was only six months older than Jesus. And so when he began his ministry, Jesus was already an adult. And it is obvious that Jesus was circumcised at infancy.

That infants have no sin and can’t repent

It has been argued that baptism required repentance and since infants can’t repent, they don’t need baptism. If infants don’t have sin and need not repent, their innocence or sinlessness ( that depends on you whether you believe in original sin or not) should admit them to baptism rather than bar or exempt them from it.

And if they don’t need Christ for their salvation, what way do they then have for their salvation? Christ has clearly stated that no one cometh unto the father except through him. Do we think a child’s innocence is another way to the father? Didn’t Jesus say let the little children come unto me for such as they belong the kingdom? And if they are admissible into the kingdom, isn’t it why he said they should come unto him since he is the only way to the kingdom? Or does a child’s innocence equal eternal life?  Or are infants born with eternal life? Can eternal life be transmitted genetically? When God barred Adam and Eve from the garden did innocence grant Cain or Abel access into the garden at childhood? Why did innocence not qualify Seth or Abel at infancy for the tree of Life, so they could eat of it and live eternally, having not to die, at least they were not born then when their parents ate the forbidden fruit?

Understand that baptism is not only for remission of sin but also for belonging to Christ, being identified with Christ and being reborn in him and not our first birth in Adam. In Christ one is born of water and Spirit to be new creatures. What God requires in the new covenant is a new creature not a modified one. That is why Paul said in Christ, circumcision or uncircumcision means nothing, but new creature (Gal 6:5). Now don’t forget infants were given circumcision in the old economy. Now if believers’ infants would no more be given circumcision, it is on the ground that they have become new creatures in Christ. That among other things would be by baptism. For Paul explained the new creation as connected with baptism when he said, that being buried with Christ in baptism we resurrect to newness of life (Rom 6:4), hence if any be in Christ he is a new creature old things are passed away and behold all things are become new (2Cor 5:17). This being the case he says Christ is the life of the new creature and when he shall appear, those who in him are risen with him shall appear with him in glory. (Col 2: 12; 3:1-4)

When Christ shall appear who will resurrect with new bodies or be transformed with new glorified bodies to be with him in eternity? Is it not the same people who had already died and resurrected with him through baptism? Infants necessarily needs to be born again. No one can live in eternity with this present body. As Apostle Paul says corruption cannot inherit incorruption. That is, our present body susceptible to death, pain, and decadence can’t live in eternity, we are to take up new bodies. Flesh and blood, he says, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. We are not inheriting the kingdom of God by our natural life which is in the blood, (Lev 17:11) but by a divine life infused into our spirit. A life that has always being with God, embodied in the person of Christ.

(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 1 John 1:2

Adam even at his first state of innocence never had eternal life. What he had was a human life and could only procreate same.

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 1Cor 15:45-49

Eternal life is a spiritual life and cannot be transmitted from parents to children. It is a gift from God …the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 6:23

It is only found in Christ and only obtainable through Christ.

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. John 17:2

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:11-12. For this reason …God so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16

In the very words of Jesus, little children can perish: Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. Matthew 18:14

Hence he said in Luke 18:16 …Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

All those saints in the old economy who would ever attained to eternal life did so by faith in Christ through shadows and types then revealed. For the hope of eternal life was promised even before the world began.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titus 1:2

Household baptisms proves infant baptism.

Those who question the possibility of infants being baptised in the household baptisms of the Bible do so on their wrong conception that baptism is a public demonstration of an inward faith which baptism scripturally is not. You receive baptism. If it were a demonstration, you would have to baptise yourself. No, someone standing in the position of Christ baptises you in his name. If you are authorized to do something in a person’s name, it is taken that the person did it. Furthermore, if baptism were to be a public demonstration of an inward faith, the long-standing circumcision may have been a better option given that circumcision was also a seal of righteousness and would remain forever in the individual’s flesh witnessing that he was righteous, and not water baptism that leaves no trace to witness to the world or any saint not present at the instance of the baptism that the baptised has any relationship whatsoever with Christ. Don’t forget the Apostles never gave baptismal certificates or anything to that effect. That is obviously because they didn’t see water baptism as a p testimony of faith. What was public about Ananias being alone with Saul in a session of baptism? ( Act 9:17-18) Who was he demonstrating it to? He was to simply received it from Ananias. If he needed to demonstrate it, someone else would have been invited to witness his demonstration of faith since water baptism leaves no trace to later serve as a testimony of the act. What public was the Ethiopian eunuch demonstrating to when he went alone with Philip to the water (Act 8:27-39)? He alone was preached to. Even if he had a chariot rider, the rider wasn’t even preached to to know what was going on, or even called to witness the baptism — an act which leaves no trace to testify to anyone, yet “intended” to be a public demonstration. Anything done between only two people and yet nothing is given or set forth to show to anyone else of its occurrence cannot be a public demonstration but a secret act. Now let’s look at the household baptism.

What is a household? Does the word household exclude infants? What constituted the household of Abraham What constituted the house of Israel? The household of Joshua? Or of David? What constitute your household? Does it exclude your lovely children? With so many household baptism in the Bible, he who would exclude infants from household baptism would have to explain how household exclude children. Funny exegesis and inferences have been made against this point with a view to stating that infants were not present in all of these household baptisms. For instance, in Cornelius household baptism, some have argued that the Bible says they magnified God and in the case of the jailer, Paul preached to all in the house and they rejoiced, and that since it is adults that can magnify God and can be preached to, it goes to prove that only adults were present. How funnier can anyone get than to reason this way. That sounds like when Joshua said, “As for me and my house we will serve the Lord”, and when God said of Abraham, “he will command his children after me” it goes to show there could not be infants in the Joshua’s households since only adults can serve the Lord, and in Abraham’s household as well since only adults can be commanded. Do you know the state the Gentiles are without conversion or circumcision? The same Paul who baptized the gentile jailer explains it thus: Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. The Gentiles were strangers from God’s covenants of promise, had no hope of salvation, had not God, and were in the world. That included their little ones. So household baptism must definitely include the infants of any Gentile households. For God’s covenants have always included the infants of his people. Think of God considering the little ones of Sodom and Gomorrah righteous; sure, he would have had many enough righteous souls for which not to destroy the two cities. Even Abraham understood the condition of the Gentiles enough not to suggest their infants for exemption: That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Genesis 18:25

Paul said to the Philippian jailer: Acts 16:30–34). “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31; cf. 11:14). He didn’t know how many persons were in the jailer’s household when he said those words, and really didn’t have to know whether there were adults or infants. He simply told him that if he believed, he would be saved with his household inclusive. Just in the words of Jesus to Zacchaeus, “Salvation has come to this house.” (Lk 19:9 NKJV) Why so? Because in God’s dealing, deliverance or salvation includes the household of the family head except anyone within the household rejects it or walks unworthy, and we know infants can’t reject or walk unworthy. It is not a thing to assume, that was exactly how God dealt with anyone who found favour in his sight.

And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. Genesis 7:1

And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. Genesis 19:15 Lot’s household was not harm as well. His salvation was open to his household. The husbands of his daughters rejected it and his wife walked unworthy and lost her salvation, having no one else but herself to blame. If Lot or her daughters had had infants wouldn’t they have been saved as well? Or will it have required their personal faith? No. Lot’s saving relationship with God had opened salvation to his household.

Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years. 2 Kings 8:1

Elisha’s command to the woman was not “Go thou alone, or select who is grown up enough to go with you.”

When the house of Israel came out of bondage in Egypt, their infants were not left behind, neither did they came out through some other way other than through Moses (Exodus 10:8-9). Christ is the only way out and his baptism for salvation includes infants– God has never exempted infants from any of his benefits for his people.