Critical Examination of Infant Baptism

Introduction

Wright writes[1] as one from within the paedobaptist tradition, from a national church that practises widespread if not indiscriminate baptism, and he is highly critical of this tradition. This makes his criticism all the more powerful as it is not an outright rejection of paedobaptism:

Such an investigation finds much of its integrity from accepting infant baptism as baptism, and not as a wholly mistaken practice which should never have been invented in the first place.[2]

Quoting P. J. Leithart he says,

The remarkable fact about baptism in the early church is that infant baptism emerged…..as the dominant practice of the church.[3]

Wright’s book is based on a series of lectures which examine “the damaging ascendancy of infant baptism in practice and theology since the late patristic and early medieval centuries.”[4]

The subtitle to his book “An Enquiry at the End of Christendom” reflects Wright’s observation that we are, “living through the disintegration of Christendom” a change that has been underway since the French Revolution of 1789.  He understands Christendom as that long phase of Christian history during which the church and the civil order, whether people, nation or empire, were largely co-terminous.  In other words that period in which the church/state were indistinguishable – at times the baptism of the new-born was required by the law of the state, as happened in the Reformation strongholds of Strasbourg and Geneva. Wright suggests that his investigation is timely, not simply because of the changing socio-political context that is moving away from state sponsored religion, but because a significant theological shift is taking place in the direction of an acknowledgement that the norm of baptism is faith baptism.[5]

Infant Baptism in the hands of Christendom

Wright presents his critique in seven points, which are briefly summarised here:[6]

1. The domination of infant baptism has cramped historical enquiry.
2. Christendom’s regnant paedobaptism fostered exaggerated historical claims, especially about the New Testament era and the next centuries.
3. Infant baptism took over and monopolized the theology of baptism.
4. The Reformation’s perpetuation of infant baptism alongside its insistence on ‘faith alone’ in time contributed to a reductionist view of baptism.
5. The Augustinian theology which paved the way for the universalizing of infant baptism in the early Medieval West itself had consequences detrimental to baptism.
6. The hold of infant baptism has been so strong for so long in Western Christianity that, since the re-emergence of the case for believers’ baptism (first seriously in the sixteenth century with the Anabaptists), it has tended to be reactive and inadequate.
7. The New Testament’s presentation of baptism became remote, and baptism could no longer function as a key to the character of the church.

After discussing how infant baptism as employed by “Christendom” led to the distortion and reductionism of NT baptism and the stifling of genuine historical enquiry, Wright turns to the effect paedobaptism had on the profession of faith.

Baptism and Profession of faith

Wright’s thesis is expressed thus:

That we find ourselves where we now are, with, for example, the label ‘Christian’ applied in evangelical circles to converted believers irrespective of baptism but certainly not to baptized infants, is, I believe, inexplicable without the pervasive effects of baptismal reductionism wrought by paedobaptism in Christendom, although it can hardly furnish the whole explanation. If I have one overarching aim…it is to foster an enhanced appreciation of baptism among Christians and their churches, particularly within the evangelical constituency.[7]

Wright indicates that although the earliest unambiguous reference to infant baptism is in the Apostolic Tradition (ca.220) there is, “a great deal of hard evidence in the fourth and early fifth centuries that the offspring of Christian parents–the known offspring of known Christian parents-were not baptised as babies.”[8] Wright appeals to the early testimony of Augustine and Asterius in order to demonstrate that infant baptism at that period was “very far from being majority practice”–this runs counter to the historical case presented by the German theologian J. Jeremias.[9]

Our proposal is that although paedobaptism was probably introduced early (before 200) it was not normative practice. This would of course take the practice closer to apostolic times but that in itself is no guarantee that it was first century apostolic practice. It is clear from the Pauline epistles that the primitive church was threatened with subversion and corruption by Judaisers.  The adoption of paedobaptism was most probably a reaction against socio-political pressures.  One can imagine that it was introduced in some quarters (after the death of the apostles) as an alternative rite to circumcision in order to counter the Judaist threat. Also, as the church came under renewed imperial persecution it is understandable that Christians, who were facing the danger of a cruel death, would want to baptize their infants and children.  As we progress to the 4^th century, when Christianity became the “state religion”, paedobaptism is adopted as the perfect mechanism to seal the citizenship of the individual.  The question is not when it was introduced, or even why it was introduced – but is it Biblical?

Baptism in Mission

It is impossible to instruct babies in preparation for baptism. Wright remarks,

In the long term, the universality of baby baptism resulted in the transposition of the catechumenate after baptism, which was the Sitz im Leben for the numerous catechisms compiled in the Protestant Reformations of the sixteenth century.[10]

Of course, one might ask why a long period of instruction is necessary (three years in many churches) as many NT baptisms were spontaneous events; but this must be understood against a Jewish background where many candidates, even gentile proselytes, were already familiar with the Jewish Scriptures.  The other extreme is death bed conversion or baptism after an indefinite delay in obeying the Lord.

Although Wright does not deal sufficiently with the great commission given in Matt 28:19-20, it is clear that paedobaptism has detrimental consequences for baptism in mission. Perhaps his most telling comment is the following:

We have tracked…a truly massive change in the history of Christ’s church. From being a company recruited by intentional response to the gospel imperative to discipleship and baptism, it has become a body enrolled by birth. It was arguably one of the greatest sea changes in the story of Christianity. It led, as we have seen, to the formation of Christendom, comprising a Christian empire, Christian nations or peoples. Christianity became a matter of heredity, not decision.[11] 

If the introduction of paedobaptism caused Christianity to become a “matter of heredity” rather than a personal decision, then paedobaptism becomes virtually indistinguishable from the rite of circumcision, which is also practiced on infants. Interestingly enough the covenant of circumcision is used as a justification for paedobaptism.

Covenant Theology

The understanding of paedobaptism as the virtual equivalent of circumcision is based on Covenant Theology.[12] Accordingly, there exists a relationship between the Old Covenant sign of circumcision instituted in the Old Testament and the New Covenant sign of baptism that we find introduced in the New Testament:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col 2:11-12

The “Gospel” was preached to Abraham (Gal 3:8) and therefore the sacraments of the two dispensations have essentially the same significance – Rom 4:11 calls circumcision a “seal” and Eph 1:13 applies the same term to baptism.  Therefore the two sacraments correspond to each other as sacraments of reception into the covenant.  As G. R. Beasley-Murray observes;

One of the difficulties in coming to grips with this view is the presence in it of elements of truth, to which all would accord fullest recognition, alongside a distortion of the Biblical evidence that makes the interpretation unacceptable. The major mistake of the writers of this school is their one-sided stressing of the elements of unity in the Covenant, Gospel and Church of both dispensations, and their ignoring of the equally clear elements of discontinuity, elements which, in fact, often take the attention of the New Testament writers more than elements of unity because they are so overwhelming.[13]

The “Gospel”, as Paul asserts, was indeed preached to Abraham–the seal of circumcision and the “sacrifice” of Isaac witness to this; but what does circumcision mean? It is obvious that the genitals were cut in order to establish a permanent reminder that the covenant concerned a promised seed. Paul specifically makes this seed singular and finds its fulfilment in Christ (Gal 3:16). Ironically, although males were circumcised the covenant would not literally be established through impregnation with male seed but through virgin birth and divine intervention. Christ was therefore the fulfilment of the covenant of circumcision and is described by Paul as a ‘minister of the circumcision’ (Rom 15:8); he is also the only circumcised Jew who lives after the power of an endless life–and because of this Jesus fulfils, once and for all, the covenant of circumcision. Jesus himself is therefore the link between the Old Covenant (fulfilled in him) and the New Covenant (established by him).

Circumcision was largely an exclusivist covenant based on ethnicity and heredity; baptism, on the other hand, is universal and based on free choice.   The covenant of circumcision (and all the previous covenants) were fulfilled in Christ (the singular seed), but this also includes the individuals who identify with him–not anymore by accident of natural birth, but by being born again–by water and Spirit (John 3:5).  Circumcision and baptism are indeed covenants of birth into a chosen people–but what different births! We see clearly elements of continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants–but they are not the same. Whereas the Old Covenant is one after the flesh (literally cutting the covenant in the flesh), the New Covenant is one after the Spirit of grace (literally). The Jews refused to understand the true meaning of circumcision, therefore it became nothing more (in the words of Paul) than an act of self-mutilation of the flesh; God requires circumcision of the heart (Deut 10:16, Jer 4:4), which is the same as the answer of a good conscience toward God not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (1 Pet 3:21).[14] The Christian believer responds in an act of faith, by identifying with the death and resurrection of Christ, and is therefore “clothed on” with Christ and becomes a Son (or daughter) of God.

Paedobaptists often refer to Acts 2:39 to justify infant baptism; the argument is presented as follows: The Apostle Peter specifically tells us in Acts 2:39 that this new sign of the covenant [baptism], just like it was in the Old Testament, is “for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.” Notice the similarity with Peter’s words concerning the New Testament sign of the covenant and God’s words to Abraham in Gen 17:8 concerning the Old Testament sign of the covenant. He says, “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant.” If the Old Testament is relevant to the New Testament and if we can then use the Old Testament ritual of circumcision to inform the New Testament references to children and the covenant, then the argument for infant baptism becomes more reasonable. Let us quote the complete text before attempting an exegesis:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. (Acts 2:38-39)

When Peter says, “the promise is unto you and your children”, he is speaking about the promise of the Holy Spirit (mentioned in the previous verse) not about baptism.  John the Baptist, who preached the baptism of repentance, declared that the one coming after him would baptise not with water, but with the Spirit:

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. (John 1:39)

The context of Peter’s speech in Acts 2 is the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, when he quotes the prophecy of Joel 2:

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy… (vv. 17, 18)

The promise to their children was not water baptism, but the outpouring of the Spirit–a baptism of the Spirit. This promise was not confined only to Jews and their children, but also to them that are afar off (Gentiles). In fact, in the case of the Gentiles, God made an exception when Cornelius and his family received the Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48; 11:15-17).  This does not mean that the administration of water baptism is somehow unnecessary, (for they were baptised afterwards), but that God deliberately reversed the order to demonstrate to the reluctant Peter that neither circumcision nor un-circumcision meant anything, but only faith and belief in the Messiah.  It is clear that the outpouring of the Spirit before baptism was an exception–and was intended to be an exception–it cast all doubts out of the apostle’s mind and he accepted the Gentiles into  fellowship: “for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.”  If God had demonstrated through Spirit baptism that he had called out the Gentiles, who could prevent them being baptised with water?  It is simply eisegesis to apply this passage to child baptism. Clearly the meaning is (1) repent (2) be baptised (3) receive the Spirit as promised (to you and your kids and even to strangers) it is not (1) repent (2) be baptised (3) this sign of baptism was promised to you and your babies.

New Testament Arguments

In an article on Ecclesiology G. Herrick states the following:

The idea that baptism is not necessary for salvation is further confirmed when we read Paul’s comments in 1 Cor 1:17. He says there that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. But, if baptism were an essential element in a saving response to the gospel, Paul would certainly have never omitted it. But, by his own testimony, he did. In effect, then, he separates the preaching of the gospel from the ministry of baptizing. Thus baptism is not an essential part of the gospel. Peter, too, says as much when he equates baptism with the pledge of a good conscience toward God and not the removal of dirt from the body (1 Pet 3:21). Further, to add baptism, i.e., an external rite to the gospel, is to create insuperable tensions with Romans 4:1-12 and—all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—to mix faith and works (Eph 2:8-9). It is a different gospel than the one Paul preached and is to be flatly rejected (Gal 1:6-7). Finally, if baptism were essential to saving faith, then the thief on the cross could not really have entertained the hope of heaven as Jesus promised (Luke 23:43).[15]

Once again this is dishonest handling of Scripture, manipulating texts for the sake of apologetics. Firstly, the apostles’ statement in 1 Cor 1:17 was made, not because Paul thought that baptism was unimportant or unnecessary (otherwise, why does he devote a whole chapter to baptism when writing to the Romans?), but because he did not want to encourage rivalry. He did not want anyone claiming that they had personally been baptised by Paul; “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (1 Cor 1:12). There was intense competition and divisiveness in Corinth, which Paul declined to encourage by baptising people and creating a “Pauline party.”

Secondly, it is disingenuous to state that Peter diminishes the importance of baptism because “he equates baptism with the pledge of a good conscience toward God and not the removal of dirt from the body” (1 Pet 3:21). As Beasley-Murray observes, “The chief lesson of this passage is its emphatic denial that the external elements constitute either its essence or its power. The cleansing in baptism is gained not through the application of water to the flesh but through the pledge of faith and obedience therein given to God, upon which the resurrection of Jesus Christ becomes a saving power to the individual concerned.”[16]  Peter is seeking, presumably, to distinguish baptism from certain rites of cleansing and initiation practiced by the Jews.

The Greek employed is r`u,poj rather than perika,qarma  – “not the putting away of the filth (r`u,poj) of the flesh” – this form is used only here in the NT but is found in the LXX of Job 14:4 and Isa.4:4. The context of Job is particularly fitting to Peter’s argument; “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean (r`u,poj)? Not one.” Job wishes that he could be hidden in the grave and resurrected (remembered) only when divine anger had dissipated (v. 13). This is particularly relevant for a rite that identifies the believer with the death and new birth into Christ.

According to Herrick, “To add baptism, i.e., an external rite to the gospel, is to create insuperable tensions with Romans 4:1-12 and—all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—to mix faith and works (Eph 2:8-9). It is a different gospel than the one Paul preached and is to be flatly rejected (Gal 1:6-7).”  If baptism is a “work” then keeping the Eucharist is also a “work”, for keeping the Lord’s Supper can be equated with having ones feet washed by Christ (John 13:4-10). It is obvious that Herrick is confused as to what constitutes a “work” and what constitutes an act of faith. James is adamant that faith without works is dead  – this does not contradict Paul, for the apostle uses “works” in a very specific way, namely, “self-justifying works of the law.”  When Abraham obeyed God and sacrificed his son – his “work” was counted as an act of faith.

More poor exegesis follows with his last statement: “Finally, if baptism were essential to saving faith, then the thief on the cross could not really have entertained the hope of heaven as Jesus promised” (Luke 23:43).  First, Jesus did not promise the thief that he would “go to heaven.” The word Jesus used was “paradise” there is no adequate ground for equating paradise with heaven, particularly as Jesus preached (and prayed) for the Kingdom of God on earth. Secondly, the Greek has no punctuation, therefore when Jesus says, “Verily, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise”, it should read as an emphatic statement: “I say to you today: You will be with me in paradise”. The fact is that Jesus did not go to heaven that day[17] – he went to the grave and was resurrected on the third day–on which day, he declared that he had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17; this puts paid to the falsehood of the ‘immortal soul’ ascending to heaven). Finally, it is an assumption that the thief was not baptised. Many people had undergone the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Jesus’ disciples had). There is evidence that the “thief” more correctly rendered “malefactor”, was an insurrectionist like Barabbas, who is also called a robber (cf. Mark 15:7 and John 18:40). This man was probably (like Barabbas) a lapsed disciple of Jesus, who turned to insurrection after Jesus refused to lead a rebellion against Rome (John 6:53, 60, 66). The “thief” made a confession of faith while he hung next to Christ, demonstrating that he was familiar with his teachings:

• This man hath done nothing amiss (Jesus sinless)
• We indeed receive the due reward for our sin (confession of unworthiness)
• Jesus was “Lord” (the Messiah)
• Jesus would rise from the dead
• Jesus would ascend to heaven (after his resurrection)
• Jesus would come again
• On his return Jesus would raise the dead (implicit in the statement “remember me”, which also implies discrimination (i.e. judgement) between those accepted and those not
• Jesus’ return would also establish a kingdom

Whether or not the “thief” was a lapsed disciple who had been previously baptised becomes almost irrelevant, for he made a baptismal confession of faith and was literally “baptised” into Jesus’ crucifixion.[18]

While it is true that the New Testament speaks of “households” being baptised (Acts 16:32-33; 1 Cor. 1:16) there is no evidence that these households contained babies, or, if they did contain infants, that these were also baptised – the argument from silence is a very weak strategy employed by paedobaptists.[19]  Beasley-Murray comments,

In so writing I would cite Paul’s words, ‘I have been a fool! You compelled me to it! (2 Cor.12:11). But has not this nonsense an important lesson? Luke, in writing these narratives, does not have in view infant members of the families. His language cannot be pressed to extend to them. He has in mind ordinary believers and uses language only applicable to them. Abuse of it leads to the degradation of Scripture.[20]

In contrast the New Testament has copious examples of believer baptism – as many as three thousand believers (Acts 2:41) baptised in one day! Paedobaptists sometimes appeal to the gospel story of Jesus blessing the children and laying hands on them (Mark 10:13-16; Matt 18.3ff, Luke 18:15-17). Wright comments on how this was employed by the church;

One feature of this infant-dominated descent into unreality deserves special mention. It seems that it was in the course of this regressive development, during the seventh and eighth centuries more precisely, that the Gospel incident of Jesus’ blessing of little children was recruited to justify the laying of hands on infant heads in the remnants of the catechumenate now conscripted to process infants.[21]

The passage in question is eschatological in nature[22] and has nothing to say about infant baptism but rather about attitudes towards Jesus.

Augustinian Theology

Finally, something must be said about the Augustinian theology of infant baptism. Wright touches on this when he says,

That theology centred in the original sin, both guilt and incapacity, inherited by all the sons and daughters of Adam. It necessitated baptism if one was to escape condemnation to hell for the guilt of original sin, irrespective of whether one had lived long enough to add sins of one’s own. I remember Peter Brown, a distinguished biographer of Augustine and brilliant interpreter of religion in late antiquity, showing a small post graduate class in Oxford an illustration in an early printing of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works. It depicted two mothers carrying their babies to the church for baptism. One arrived safe and was baptized, the other died on the way. It said it all.[23]

Beasley-Murray observes:

In view of Rom.5:12-21 there seems to be no doubt that Paul taught the entailment of the whole race in Adam’s sin;[24] but he also taught the entailment of the whole race in Christ’s deed of righteousness. Naturally he had no explicit concern for infants in his brief exposition; he was concerned with men that sinned, whether in possession of or without the Law, and their relationship to the disobedience of the First Adam and the obedience of the Second Adam. The logic of the argument would appear to imply, however, that as truly as the reach of Adam’s deed is universal, so is that of Christ’s redemptive act. No act of the Church is required to bring infants within the scope of Christ’s action, any more than an act of the group is required to bring the infant under the dominance of Adam’s sin. When assent is given to sin by the individual, so that in some measure he too sins ‘after the likeness of Adam’s transgression’, then sin is both personal and culpable; only the cry of repentance and faith towards Christ can then bring the deliverance from sin which slays (Rom.7:11). At that point Christian baptism becomes meaningful.[25]

According to Scripture, the children of believers are sanctified by the belief of the parents until they reach the age of discernment. Beasley-Murray says,

They are the most privileged children of all time, under the shadow of the wings of God and his Christ, being prepared in the midst of his people for his Kingdom of grace and glory. Recognizing to the full the blessings of such a situation, it is a mistake not to recognize its limitations. Birth in a Christian home is a priceless privilege, but it is not a guarantee of inheritance in the Kingdom of God. In the inscrutable providence of God, neither all the members of Christian families repent and believe the Gospel, to be incorporated into Christ and the Church, nor, mercifully, are all members of unbelieving families doomed to irreparable loss. For election also cuts across the distinctions created by the Churches’ institutions. The problem of the child dying before reaching the age of responsibility has no relevance to our subject; only an evil doctrine of God and man sets them among the lost or in limbo, and fortunately the Lord is not bound by our ignorance and mistakes. God is good, his Word is good, and his grace is ever about us and our children; our chief responsibility is to see that we, and they, hear the Word and live.[26]

Conclusion

In contrast with many scholars, who deliberately wrest Scripture and offer poor exegesis (eisegesis) for the sake of apologetics, Wright offers a refreshing look at the subject of paedobaptism.   He does not reject infant baptism out rightly but his analysis is penetratingly honest and damning of the damage that infant baptism has done to the Church. It is a credit to good scholarship that he offers opinions counter to his own beliefs. Particularly insightful are his observations regarding paedobaptism being an instrument of “Christendom.” Institutionalised Christianity has done untold damage to a personal response to the Gospel. The pity about Wright’s book is that it does not reject paedobaptism altogether.

---