Infant Baptism: The Practice of the First Century Church Part Three

           

                                                          

                                                                     Introduction: 

There are many reasons that Christians infant baptize. Roman Catholics, for example, generally infant baptize because they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. Presbyterians and Methodists, on the other hand, generally baptize infants because they believe that baptism is ''a sign and seal'' as The Westminster Standards puts it. The major focus of these posts, though, will be to argue for the evangelical positions concerning the Biblicity of infant baptism. 

Previously, I discussed why I believe that the gospels demonstrate evidence of infant baptism in the first century. Now, however, I wish to discuss evidence for infant baptism in the book of Acts as Christianity begins to spread across the Mediterranean world. Much of what I've already written in this series of posts, has only been an introduction to the arguments that I will be using against the credobaptist position. 

When it comes to why many Paedobaptists hold to the baptism of infants, one of the passages which they appeal the most to is Act 2, which these posts shall argue does indeed support this practice. 

                                                         The World of the First Century

According to J. I. Packer, Judaism had come to include various different sects by the time of Christ (85). Indeed, the once unified Isreal was now fractured by a swarm of different interpretations about the future of God's chosen people. The destiny of their future now seemed up to interpretation, especially in light of the ruling Roman Empire over them. 

The Greeks, on the other hand, had had a difficult relationship with the Jews since Alexander the Great's conquest of the region in the fourth century B. C. A number of cities in the holy land demonstrated Greek architecture such as those in Caesarea. Paul the Apostle, was heavily influenced by the philosophies of Hellenism. However, its philosophical influence was more in Paul's expression of Christianity rather than his worldview being akin to the Greeks. 

Finally, there were the Romans. Their civilization was among the last great empires of the ancient world. While the Jews had successfully defended their temple against the Greeks during the Maccabean revolt, they had found much less success coming for them as they attempted to overthrow the might of Rome. Having taken control of Jerusalem in 170 B. C., the Roman customs became more dominant throughout Israel by the first century before Christ. Certainly, much of this influence is attributed to Herod Antipas---a man wrecked mentally with evil. Bringing various Greco-Roman practices into the mainstream entertainment of Jewish life, Herod oversaw a gradual change in Jewish culture. 

During the first half of the first century after Christ's birth, Jewish believers who affirmed the Ressurection of Christ began to rise as both a threat to those of Rome and Judaism. While recent research in modern years has affirmed the strong connections between Judaism and Christianity, this was, unfortunately, not how many of the hierarchs in Judaism perceived Christianity. Arising as a movement within Judaism, however, Christianity was always Jewish since its formal beginnings at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit instituted the church. 

Comprising twenty-eight percent of the content of the New Testament, the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles alike shared the same author. The first church historian, Luke, told the story of Jesus in the former, while the apostles in the latter. According to New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, who is regarded as one of the world's greatest scholars of Koine Greek, Luke wrote in very elegant Greek (605). The central theme of Luke-Acts is one of salvation. It is one in which salvation is first spread from Christ to his Jewish brethren (Luke) and later to those outside of Israel (Acts). 

                                                     Infant Baptism in the Book of Acts

One of the most common arguments against infant baptism is the claim by Credobaptists is that no one was baptized as an infant in the New Testament. They also typically claim that faith is a prerequisite to baptism. Since both of these objections to this practice are related, I hope to respond to both of them simultaneously. 

First of all, one of the best places for us to gain a Biblical view of baptism is in the book of Acts. Considering that Acts records the history of the first Christians, we should naturally assume that those at the time of its writing would know best about whether or not infants should be baptized. 

Secondly, although many baptists love to mention ''repent and believe'', a frequent phrase in scripture as a prerequisite for baptism they often fail to bring attention to the words in Acts 2, which follows this same passage, ''the promise is for you and your children (Acts 2: 39).'' Indeed, even though the New Testament rescinded the sacrifices of Old Testament animals with the New Testament Sacrifice of Christ and our repentance, the New Testament nowhere rescinds the concept of the children of believers being added into the conventual community as they were in the Old Testament. 

So even though Jews had to repent as did the Gentiles in Acts 2, I don't think that this contradicts the doctrine of infant baptism. Certainly, God required repentance of sins to those entering the covenant of the New Testament Church but this does not mean that He suddenly started discriminating against church membership of infants when He had never done this previously in the Old Testament. Scripture gives us no reason to believe that God's rules as they pertain to the covenant membership of children suddenly changed. This is an assumption on the part of many Baptists, even as they claim that their view is Biblical. 

Likewise, in Acts 2, the apostles preach before both Gentiles and Jews. Their missionary efforts have now extended their message of the gospel to those not born of the Jewish race. In Act 2: 38-39, Peter tells the crowds that the promise is both for their children. Since baptism is a mark of the new covenant found in Christ, Jews, and Gentiles alike received this outward symbol of their unity to the church under the promise of Peter that they would receive covenantal renewal. In short, to quote Michael F. Bird, ''All this makes the sense it makes within the larger Jewish expectation of covenant renewal, focused on actual personal renewal (629).'' 

Furthermore, Acts 2 is significant for infant baptism in that the chapter does two important things. First, it transitions from the old circumcision that once defined Isreal to a new circumcision found in Baptism (more of this topic will be covered in a later post.) Because of this, the early Christians were no longer bound by the old covenant that had once identified the Jews from the Gentiles. As a result, Jews and Gentiles alike now found common ground in water baptism. The latter served as the new mark of their church membership (Matthew 28: 19, 1 Corinthians 12: 13). Second, circumcision has lost its binding on the church. At the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the apostles go against the Judaizers as the former insist that physical circumcision is not binding on those in the new covenant (now both Jews and Gentiles.) 

Some Credobaptists have attempted to refute infant baptism by their claim that the Jews were still circumcised after Acts 2. To them, this proves that Baptism did not replace circumcision. For if baptism had replaced circumcision, they say, why would Jews still practice the latter? While at first sight, this may sound like proof of their cause, I disagree with their reasons for several reasons. 

Even though Paul encouraged Timothy to be circumcised in Acts 16: 3, this in no way means that Paul believed that circumcision was still binding. Indeed, Paul never circumcised Titus (a Gentile) but he did circumcise Timothy, who came from a Jewish mother. Was it because Timothy had some Jewish roots that Paul circumcised him? Regardless, Paul affirms that physical circumcision no longer benefits someone over someone in Christ who doesn't have it (Acts 5: 2). At the same time, however, Paul continued to instruct believers (both Jews and Gentiles) to be baptized (Romans 16: 4). 

Earlier, I mentioned two main arguments from Credobaptists that are used against infant baptism. While I will address them more in later posts, I'd like to end this post on the household baptisms found in the Book of Acts. 

There are several examples of entire households being baptized in the Acts of the Apostles. Indeed, some scholars feel certain that this would have naturally included infants. While scripture never once condemns infant baptism, there are some good reasons to believe that infant baptism was likely practiced among the first Christians. 

Many Credobaptists point to the call of repentance (Matthew 4: 17) throughout the New Testament as evidence against infant baptism. They insist that this means baptism is never associated with anything other than repentance. Besides the lack of logic in their view which assumes that infants cannot believe, this argument is weak in light of Acts 2. 

Throughout Acts and the epistles of the New Testament, the apostles often did preach a calling of repentance to both Jews and Gentiles. However, even in the OT, there was preaching against sin and a call to repentance (Ezekial 14: 6). Indeed, the Hebrews never lacked the work of circumcising their own children in light of the prophets calling for the adults and children to trust in God. Likewise, when the apostles preached across Israel and the known world, they naturally served as missionaries to all peoples within their reach. Their missionary efforts to lost people in no way denounce their support of infant baptism. Indeed, in light of Acts 2: 38-39, when the apostles preached to an audience comprising both Jews and Gentiles, Peter ensures them that the promise is both for them and their children. In no way has he rescinded the Old Testament practice of children of believing parents being brought into the covenant family. On the contrary, Peter actually affirms it. It is our Credobaptist friends, on the other hand, who make the false assumption that the New Testament rescinded the Old Testament practice of sanctifying one's children before God---a position never granted from scripture. 

1 Corinthians 7: 14 tells us that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by their believing spouse. In relation to this, scripture tells us that Lydia's family was baptized after her profession of faith (Acts 16: 14-15). Given the nature of parents generally leading their children into a covenant with God since the Old Testament, I would not find this at all to be surprising. 

Many Credobaptists feel that there is not one case in the New Testament to support paedobaptism. In response to this, I would like to quote the book, Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament, ''Is it really true that Acts fails to record a single instance of an infant child receiving the rite of Christian baptism? Ultimately, we are compelled to say that the evidence suggests that the answer is 'No.' ''

''Household'' historically meant not just husband and wife in Jewish society. It also always included children. Indeed, it even included servants and anyone else who lived in the residence. Having come from a Baptist background, Delos Miles admitted that he overlooked the meaning of household baptisms in Acts:

''I confess that for a long time I neglected these New Testament references to salvation. Perhaps I was afraid that they might contradict what I believed about believers' baptism by immersion. Subconsciously I am sure that I thought those who practiced infant baptism used such passages to buttress their arguments. So I just steered clear of them''

As Delos rightly admitted near the beginning of his speech, he wrongly attributed these cases to household justifications rather than to household baptisms. The same is true for many Credobaptists.

Certainly, many Credobaptists love to claim that Acts 16 records a baptism because Lydia and her family believed it. however, scripture records no such event. Indeed, they are baptized after she has faith. The Credobaptist position in this regard assumes that the baptism of her family was because they each came to have individual faith in Christ.

In Acts, there are recordings of baptisms concerning groups, individuals, and households (as the mentioned book affirms). Of course, even when baptism was administrated to a general group, each person had to receive it individually. In many cases, Luke does not record the name of every individual when they are part of an entity that has mutually received baptism. The three thousand souls at Pentecost (Acts 2: 41), the group of men who believed in Philip's preaching in Samaria (Acts 8: 12), and those who agreed with Paul's teaching in Corinth (Acts 18:8), and the disciples of John the Baptist who had not yet received Christian baptism (Acts 19:5). While scripture elsewhere describes individuals who received baptism, they are no more numerous in cases than the ones mentioned concerning entire groups of people. In all of the cases where names of persons are mentioned in Acts who receive baptism, they are adults. What of the groups, we may ask?

Prior to Acts, no one had yet received Christian baptism. As baptism became widespread, however, it came to encompass both men and women.

Many point to the lack of scripture in Acts to support infant baptism. They assert that if infants aren't mentioned, then they weren't baptized. However, women weren't mentioned in Exodus 12: 37 when it described six thousand men and children that left Egypt? Do we take that to mean that there were no Israelite women who left Egypt?

Furthermore, there is never an example in Acts where a Christian family excludes a child from baptism because they claim that the child is too young to believe or too immature to express and understand the Christian faith.

Acts record several instances where entire households were baptized. The first is with Cornelius and his family in Acts 10. Having gathered his family and friends together (verse 24), he had responded previously to the message of Peter the Apostle, ''the words by which you and your household will be saved (11:14).'' As Peter preached to the man, verse forty-four tells us that the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. Likewise, the scripture explains that they were all baptized.

In Acts 16, only the Philippian jailor, the texts speak of as having rejoiced after baptism (33-34). Luke made a distinction, many argue, between those whose faith in Christ was legitimate, and those who were baptized.

I would like to now discuss the ''problem'' of age in the household baptisms of Acts. Some assert that we don't know the ages of those baptized in the households that are described in the book. For the Credobaptists who make this argument, typically conclude that there is no Biblical support for infant baptism in Acts. Of course, it could also be said that they assume that only those old enough to make a profession were baptized. Ultimately, unfortunately, most Credobaptists never look in the mirror to see the assumptions that they make about the texts.

Paodeobaptist, however, believe that it's unreasonable to claim that none of the five family households in Acts included infants. They argue for the historical characteristics of the time, such as families being larger, and parents having had more children during this era of history. However, this is not the only reason that paedobaptists believe that infant baptism was a common practice among those households described in the Acts of the Apostles.

Contrary to the Credobaptists' position, paedobaptists affirm that the case of household baptisms in Acts provides further proof for infant baptism, even if young children are not described as having been baptized. The reason for this is that God demonstrates the same principle of salvation, especially the covenant of grace, in Acts just as He had in the Old Testament. God's pattern of salvation for the Israelite families was for them to be part of His kingdom (Psalm 10:16, Exodus 19:6). In the same vein, God's pattern of salvation, while sometimes including individuals (Matthew 21:23) is primarily through the family (1 Corinthians 7:14).

Additionally, the terms ''house'' and ''household'' originate from the Old Testament. Throughout the texts in the New Testament, they are reverting back to the context of circumcision and the family in Genesis 17. As New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias observed, by using the same language in the New Testament was meant for a whole family in the Old Testament (including young children), we should conclude that it's reasonable to believe that infants were baptized throughout Acts. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that either the apostles or other early Christians had any reason to believe that ''household'' meant anything different to them than it had to those in the Old Testament. The fact that the apostles used such similar language to what people in the Old Testament had used (Acts 16) is evidence that they saw the baptism of infants as being a continuous of the hold practices of circumcision (and a replacement of it).

Now, some Credobaptists will object to the case of Acts 10 supporting infant baptism. Many of them do this because they reject the idea that baptism leads to salvation. Likewise, many of them believe that baptism has nothing to do with salvation (even though 1 Peter:21, Titus 3:5) teach otherwise. Quite simply, scripture does not support their view, which, in many cases, is that baptism is simply an outward symbol of our walk with Christ. No, indeed, baptism is mentioned in connection to genuine conversions over and over again throughout the New Testament. While some may appeal to the case of Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8 as evidence of someone who received baptism but was not a genuine believer, this has nothing to do with the fact that baptism does confer grace on those who are God's elect.

As a side note, I do find it interesting that the disciples of John the Baptist had to receive a new baptism. This proves all the more that the baptism he demonstrated in the Jordan river, was not identical to the same baptism that the Holy Spirit gave in Acts. Indeed in Acts 18:18-28, Priscilla and Aquilla correct Apollos and instruct him about the difference between Holy Spirit Baptism and the baptism of John the Baptist. Those who appeal to the case of John the Baptist as evidence against infant baptism, are likely ignorant of the distinctions between the two.

All that I have said so far is leading into my upcoming post on the parallels between baptism and circumcision in Colossians. I have much work on this subject still to do. I will also add that my arguments for infant baptism based on circumcision and covenantal membership are not my only reasons for believing in infant baptism. I also believe in infant baptism because baptism confers grace, a point which I shall later prove in this series. 

Further Sources: 

Packer, J. I. The World of the New Testament. (1982). Thomas Nelson Inc Publishers. 

Wright, N. T. Bird, Michael. F. The New Testament and Its World. (2019). Zondervan Academic.