Is there historical proof that infant baptism was not practiced in the early Church?

Question

The Bible says that entire families were Baptized in the book of Acts but some Protestants and others deny this and say that baptism is for believers only. If you can prove that baptism is only for those capable of intellectual ascension to belief and faith by proving this historically, this should put the issue to rest. Do you have historical proof that Baptism is incorrect teaching?

Moonman,

So, yours is an argument from silence. If the Bible is not explicit surely you must be able to find historical evidence to support your belief. do you really think that assuming that all the families spoken of in Acts did not have children is reasonable to support your doctrine? You know that if you are wrong this brings into question the eternity of millions of children who are denied the chance to be baptized. Are you willing to dogmatically take your poition and risk so many innocent souls.

Trevor S,

So then in view of the fact that the Scriptures say we must be baptized to enter heaven are you saying that infants and the mentally difficient are not part of God's salvific plan?

The only one hobo,

Thank you for your opinion but do you have any historical proof that the first century Church agrees with your opinion. Should people base their salvation on your opinion?

Answer 1

John 3:3-5
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God


The Old Covenant was entered into through circumcision; the New Covenant is entered into through Baptism:

Colossians 2:11-12
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.


Just as children were once circumsized as infants, they are now baptized as infants because the Kingdom of God, which is entered into through Baptism, most certainly includes them:

Luke 18:16-17
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Acts 2:38-39
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 Ghost. 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.
So in the New Testament, entire households were baptized:

Acts 16:14-15
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.


Ezekiel 36:25
[Prophecy] Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Acts 2:38
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 Ghost.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Like all Sacraments (the other 6 being Eucharist, Confession, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Unction), Baptism is not a work of man; it is a work of Christ, an act of His grace:

Titus 3:5-7
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
It is through Baptism that we are "born again" (or "born from above") of "water and of the Spirit" (John 3:3-5). Read the entire chapter of John 3 which speaks of being "born again" and please note that it is all about Baptism. Despite what some Protestants believe, being "born again" doesn't mean "having an emotional high" or "making a decision for Christ," though these are fine and good, the latter being necessary after the age of reason; being "born again" very clearly refers to Baptism of water and of the Spirit. This regeneration of water and Spirit is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God:

Answer 2

Aha. I think one of your answerers finally explained for me why the great, huge fuss is made over infant baptism. It is seen as a "work of man".

Well, here's the news: The "work" that occurs at baptism is that of the Holy Spirit -- the source of all grace. Not us. This has ever been the teaching, *historically*, of the Church.

Why anyone would want to withhold grace from their children is beyond me, since it is that same grace which -- when the child is able to reason -- allows them to respond in faith, and know Christ as their Lord and Savior.

But if they don't believe it confers grace, or accomplishes regeneration from original sin, then baptism is indeed just symbolic. And if that is so, then there should still be no objection to others baptizing their infants -- after all, from that perspective it's just a matter of getting wet.

All the same, I'd love to see Scriptural backup for the ordinance of "believer's baptism". And Mark 16:16 is not it; the verse is "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved", not "whoever first believes and is then baptized *is* saved".

Answer 3

Any time 2 or more Christians are gathered together Jesus is there. So the real presence of Jesus is not an issue. What is an issue is the bread and wine actually becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus through transubstantiation. This has been highly debated throughout church history. Transubstantiation did not become the official doctrine until the early 13th century. Until that time it was debated by many such as Berengar. He was silenced by being threatened with death if he did not recant. Communion was originally taken in conjunction with the love feast and it was a simple thing without much ceremony. Done to remember what Jesus did for us. The Lord's supper and this love feast did not begin to be separated until the 2nd century. As the church began to grow and develop, it became increasingly organized, and with the organization came the rise of ceremony, ritual, and tradition. This impacted every area of church life and practice, including the Lord's Supper. No longer was it a simple memorial meal shared by Christian families in their homes and with fellow believers. Instead, it came to be viewed as a Sacrament, with a host of laws & regulations surrounding it. This "doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist" has taken this simple "feast of the Savior's dying love" and transformed it into the "innocent cause of the most bitter disputes and theological controversies" among God's people (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 -- Nicene & Post-Nicene Christianity, p. 492). In time, the elements were viewed as being sacred, thus requiring special laws to regulate their use. HIPPOLYTUS (died about 235 A.D.; martyred during the persecution of Emperor Maximius; he was from Rome) taught that believers must show the most intense reverence for the elements of the Eucharist. It should be received early in the day before any other common food was in the stomach; none of it must be dropped or spilt, which would defile it on a dirty floor. It was a common practice at this time for members of the church to take some of the bread home with them to use in a daily, family communion after morning prayers. This was known as Domestic Communion (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2 -- Ante-Nicene Christianity, p. 239....... and: Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, p. 266). Hippolytus warned the members of the church that they must never "leave the sacred bread about the house where an unbaptized person, or even a mouse, might accidentally eat it." Later, it would be taught that should a mouse eat a crumb of the bread that had fallen to the floor, it would thereby receive eternal life! Thus, to keep from infesting Heaven, the elements had to be protected! I really think communion started as a simple remembrance and time and tradition changed it into what it is now in the Catholic church. To me it appears Protestants follow what was originally intended.

Answer 4

The Bible has far more evidence than just entire households being baptized as an indirect "proof." But as long as individual verses can be found to show adult, believer's baptism only, you will have people who believe this is the ONLY way to be legitimately baptized.

How shallow and how wrong.

Yes, you are correct. The word is "assent," by the way, not "ascension." Sorry, I'm a stickler.

Answer 5

You won't find any.

Infant baptism has been practiced since very early in the history of the Church. There are writings from the 2nd century which attest to this practice and the Bible itself refers to whole households which received baptism; no doubt including the infants therein (Acts 16:15; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16). There is nothing in Holy Scripture which erects barriers to or forbids infant baptism.

Answer 6

Baptisim for Children is not needed as they were traditional dedicated to God , We can see by reading the old and part of the new testament there were offerings made for male and female children .. No baptisim .Now the bible states Repent and be baptised how can a baby or small child repent if the dont understand it ??Baptisim is the out ward sign of the inward (heart ) feeling Why was Christ or John the Baptist not baptised at a very young age ??

Answer 7

You might read Tertullian. Baptism replaced circumcision is only for children of believing parents who will raise them to accept Christ at an early age.

Answer 8

Baptism symbolizes a total dediction to God, to do his will from then on, which is really an adult decision, and not one to be taken by or for a new-born child.

Jesus was 30 when he was baptised, obviously an adult. He later said this to his disciples, in Matthew 28:

19 Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

So baptism is a necessary step for a believer.

Answer 9

Acts 16:31-34… The jailer asked Paul and Silas what he must do in order to be saved. The answer is: “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household.” Then Paul talked to him (and all the others in his house). Then he was baptized (and all the others in his house). Then they had a feast because the jailer was so happy that he came to know the Lord (along with all the others in his house).

It’s almost funny how people who believe in infant baptism enjoy bringing up the passage about the jailer and his whole family who were baptized in order to prove their point about infants. But, they always seem to forget that not only does the Bible say the entire family was baptized, it also says the entire family heard the message about Christ and the entire family came to believe in God.

So, in order for this passage to actually prove that infants were baptized in the Bible, you would also have to say that the passage proves infants can hear about God and believe in Him.

Then there are also the other sticking points, such as:
1) The word baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo, which predominantly means to dip or to immerse (based on writing found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection).
2) Being baptized is a symbolic gesture on the part of a believer to show that he is willing to do as God requests. If you’d like some scripture references for that, try these: 2 Kings 5:14 (Naaman was told to symbolically dip in the river), Leviticus 16 (the priests were told to cleanse themselves), Psalm 51 (the psalmist asked God to wash him clean).
3) The examples of baptism in the Bible (Jesus and the Ethiopian Eunuch) were both baptized in rivers. Also, John the Baptist clearly baptized people in rivers as a routine way of doing it (all four Gospels). If all it takes is a couple of drops of water, he could have traveled around with a simple flask sprinkling everyone along the way rather than dragging them to the rivers.

However, the largest sticking point of them all is the fact that the works of man cannot save a person's soul (clearly indicated by most of the New Testament, but specifically check out Romans 3:21-5:11). We have all committed sin and are all, thereby, convicted sinners. There is nothing any of us can do in order to erase that sin from our lives or to make up for it. Fortunately for us, God forgives and, by the grace of God, we can be saved by believing in Him.

Since it is our faith in Christ that saves us (and not our works), then being baptized (which is just an outward showing of our inward belief) cannot save us. If being baptized cannot save us as adults, it can also not save infants. If it cannot save infants, I ask you, what’s the point in having a priest sprinkle them with water?

BTW Cristo…, the Bible does not say we have to be baptized in order to enter into Heaven. It is a command that we should follow, but it (in and of itself) does not result in salvation!

Answer 10

Baptism is correct, but it is an act of faith and children have no need to be baptized. Christ's atonement covers them. To baptize an infant is to deny the power of the atonement.
Have you ever seen an entire family which didn't have an infant? I have. There are three children in my family and all are over 16, so I do not see how this lends support to infant baptism. It simply isn't in the Bible.