The Eastern Orthodox Churches do not believe in original sin, and yet they baptize infants. The same is true of Methodists, but the Orthodox have the most ancient tradition, and so that’s where we’ll consider this point of view. The best-argued case I’ve found is at the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America website (try saying that three times quickly!).
Early Christian writers
The author argues,
Infant baptism was not controversial in the Church during the first two centuries after Christ. St. Polycarp described himself as having been in devoted service to Christ for 86 years in a manner that would clearly indicate a childhood baptism. Pliny describes with amazement that children belong to the Christian cult in just the same way as do the adults. St. Justin Martyr tells of the “many men and women who have been disciples of Christ from childhood.” St. Irenaeus of Lyon wrote about “all who are born again in God, the infants, and the small children . . . and the mature.” St. Hippolytus insisted that “first you should baptize the little ones . . . but for those who cannot speak, their parents should speak or another who belongs to their family.”
Let’s take a closer look. As I’ve already shown, even older texts show that the church considered infants sinless — but this contradicts only the notion of original sin, not the idea that infants may be baptized. But then, it seems to undercut the rationale for infant baptism. If they’re innocent, then why?
Polycarp wrote,
Eighty-six years have I served my king.
Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3. But if he is to be taken that literally, we have to assume Polycarp was in active church service while 2 months old. Let’s do be serious …
Pliny the Younger’s letter describing his inquisition and torture of Christians in the early Second Century states,
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Pliny’s question to the emperor is whether the age of the Christian should be taken into account in meting out punishment. He’s a pagan bureaucrat, and he’s hardly making a theological statement.
Later in the Second Century, Justin Martyr may mention those who become Christians from “childhood,” but that hardly means they were baptized as infants. Many of us in the Churches of Christ have been Christians since childhood.
Irenaeus wrote in the late Second Century (about 180 AD), and may well have been writing about infant baptism. Everett Ferguson concedes that “the practice of baptizing infants must have begun about Irenaeus’ time,” although he questions whether this passage is itself a reference to infant baptism. (Early Christians Speak, 59-60).
And so the evidence can’t be stretched any earlier than late Second Century, but the practice seems to clearly be that old — roughly 100 years after apostolic times, that is to say, about as far from the apostles as the Spanish-American War is from us.
Household baptisms
While there is no description [in the Bible] of an individual infant being baptized, the Bible describes five separate household baptisms:
• The Household of Cornelius, Acts 11:13–14: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”
• The Household of Lydia, Acts 16:15: “And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ So she persuaded us.”
• The Philippian Jailor’s Household, Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”
• The Household of Crispus, Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”
• The Household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”
Some have argued that while the Bible may say ‘household’ or ‘family’ this does not have to include children. Maybe those households did not include children. While this may be the case, it is hard to imagine that at least one of these households did not include children. And given the fact that we have five explicit references to a whole household being baptized, we have to assume that many, many more such households were baptized. Surely some of them included children.
It’s something of a statistical argument: the odds are that surely an infant was in there somewhere. But the real question is how the authors used language. Consider —
(1Co 16:15 ESV) Now I urge you, brothers–you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints–
If “household” might include infants (and as a matter of dictionary definition, it might), then babies were “devoted … to the service of the saints.” It’s just possible that “household” was used to refer to the family in general but not each member specifically. That is, I’m sure Paul’s readers at Corinth understood “household” to mean “those in the household of sufficient age.”
And consider —
(Phi 4:22 ESV) 22 All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household.
Should we take “household” to mean “household, even the babies”?
Language is by its very nature somewhat plastic. You have to read in context. For example —
(Mat 10:36 ESV) 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
But only those in the household who are old enough to be your enemies.
(Mat 13:57 ESV) 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.”
Again … but only those in his household old enough not to honor the prophet.
(John 4:53 ESV) 3 The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” And he himself believed, and all his household.
But only those old enough to believe believed.
You see, it’s implicit in the usage of such a broad term that their might be exceptions. The ones who believe, dishonor, are a person’s enemies, and greet are only those old enough to do so. That’s how the word was used.
Of course, you can also find uses of “household” that refer to infants. The term doesn’t exclude infants except when it refers to the kinds of things that infants don’t do. So I’ve not proven that infants were never baptized (that would be circular) — only that the use of “household” is insufficient to make the case.
The nature of covenants
The pattern of the Old Testament covenants formed the framework for the apostolic understanding of the true covenant of Christ, and those covenants included children. They were covenants which were made with a nation, in which every household participated. This is what is expressed in the household baptisms of the New Testament. Even when an individual was baptized, this baptism placed him in a larger body. Individual adult baptisms occurred, but there were no individual covenants.
The Bible teaches us that under the Old Covenant, every male child was circumcised on the eighth day after birth. With his circumcision, the child became a full and complete member of the covenant and could eat of the Passover sacrifice. Baptism in Christ absorbed and fulfilled this rite, as it absorbed all initiation and cleansing rites of the day. Circumcision, we know from the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:5; Acts 21:21), was no longer necessary for the Gentile convert or his children. Nowhere in the Bible is it hinted that while absorbing the rite of circumcision, baptism would suddenly and without precedent exclude children. Jesus did not have a problem with children gaining full inclusion to the covenant: He Himself was circumcised as an infant (Luke 2:21), like John the Forerunner (Luke 1:59).
At last we find our way to truly thoughtful argument: God’s covenant with Israel was with a nation — including infants. Surely God’s covenant with the church is the same.
But, of course, that’s just not true. There are important differences between the Mosaic covenant and the Christian covenant. Moreover, the real covenant that we should be discussing is the Abrahamic covenant — so says Paul —
(Gal 3:8-9 ESV) 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
And the covenant with Abraham is not salvation by birth but salvatoin by faith. The promise is for “those who are of faith” — hardly a description of infants.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”
Paul now turns his attention to the distinction between the Law of Moses and the new covenant: “The righteous shall live by faith.”
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us–for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”– 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Indeed, the Spirit comes — not by baptism — but by faith. And this is a recurring thought in Galatians.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
Then Paul explicitly rejects the traditional reading of God’s promise to Abraham. The promise is not to his physical descendants (“offsprings”) but to Christ (“offspring”) — and those in Christ via God’s promise.
18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
And who receives the promise? Those “who believe.”
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
The Law was temporary until “the coming of faith” leading to our being “justified by faith.” We are therefore “all sons of God, through faith.”
Now, you really have to figure that faith is big deal to Paul. Indeed, it’s plainly the essence of the new covenant. That’s how he argues the case. It’s all about faith in Jesus. And babies don’t have faith in Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
But Paul doesn’t make the Zwinglian argument that baptism is a work. Rather, he connects baptism with faith in Jesus with the preposition “for” (= gar). Now, faith in Jesus is plainly the basis of our salvation. Faith is the because part of his argument. That’s what Paul’s been arguing for chapters. But baptism demonstrates our salvation by faith. The fact we have been baptized shows that we have faith. That’s the flow of Paul’s logic: how can you doubt that you are saved by faith when baptism is an expression of your faith? Your Christianity journey began with baptism, and therefore it began with faith (as opposed to circumcision or anything else).
Paul, of course, assumes that all with faith are baptized. But the covenant is based on faith in Jesus — which is demonstrated by our baptism. And that logical flow cannot be made to fit with infant baptism.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
We are saved, therefore, because we are “in Christ Jesus.” He is the singular offspring, and we inherit the promise, not from our physical parents, but by participating in Jesus. And we participate in Jesus by faith (v. 14).
I assume that some early church communities did not share our emphases on the cognitive requirements in believing, or in our modern fixation with only actualized things being of value—as opposed to baptizing a child as a potential believer (something a child would still have to actualize as he grew older).
I wonder also if these early communities would have had difficulties understanding how part of their household could somehow be in limbo or neutral. If the adults had chosen Christ as Lord over Caesar, then were the children still under Caesar or made Christian by virtue of their parents faith? How do they come out of exile into the promise? Do only the adults cross the Red Sea? Can only the adults get on the Ark? (1 Cor. 10:1-2, 1 Peter 3:20-21)
For some more early history of baptism and Original Sin see ‘Original Sin: origins, developments, contemporary meanings’, p.42ff http://books.google.ca/books?id=eUVrj1R8f2oC&…
It is very conceivable to me that the main reason for the second century church moving toward infant baptism was the general population's difficulties with giving up traditions.
We know of the first century's struggle with giving up circumcision. It was the identifying sign of being in the religious tribe. Perhaps people took the book of Galatians wrong. After all, Paul discussed the pitfalls of requiring circumcision in the early part of the letter and emphasized the importance of baptism in the latter portion. Perhaps the people were falsely looking for a circumcision replacement for infants. Baptism is a logical solution if one ignores it's true meaning for believers.
Is this blog wanting to have unity with other churches….or is this blog just another contentious place constantly seeking to find something to argue about? The sad truth about many Christians is, however, that someone would come up with something else to dispute about. "He meant this or that.", "No, He meant this." It's never ending. Too many are set more on arguing that they have yet to realize any truth. The question many need to ask themselves before arguing is what am I really arguing about and is it worth taking someone else's peace? Even if you don't agree with another (I'm sure you won't all agree with me), we must all learned to love and respect each other. This is what Jesus came to teach people. If we fail to stop arguing and forcing our views, we end up in the same boat with the people that Jesus rebuked most. The Pharisees the teachers of religion. Those that were so caught up on religion, laws and traditions that they couldn't see the truth standing right in front of them.
Those, like me, who believe in the value of infant baptism are also simultaneously arguing for a baptism that is made valid only through faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.
I think Paul is saying the same thing – the ancient Jews were credited as men of faith not by their circumcision, which made them full members of the covenant, but through their subsequent faith that made their circumcisions valid.
We have to remember that God's reality is not ours. We put so much emphasis on temporal continuity, which is meaningless to one who sits outside of time. So what if the moment of my baptism is separated from the moment of my belief by 25 years. God, who sees all, makes the baptism real because of my later faith.
This makes baptism a communal event, an eschatological event, a kingdom event. It is only through faith that we are saved, and only through faith that baptisms are valid – I just think that the eschatological faith of the infant once realized and then folded back through time by God is good enough. It is God that saves us – we don't save ourselves.
Adam,
Well said!
Though I hold to a tradition of adult baptism, I think what you have described is a valid form of Christian baptism. And contra the Neo-Donatist views that lurk close by, I'd have to be a factious rabble-rouser to not fellowship with such a view.
Anonymous:
I read your, "The question many need to ask themselves before arguing is what am I really arguing about and is it worth taking someone else’s peace? Even if you don’t agree with another (I’m sure you won’t all agree with me), we must all learned to love and respect each other. This is what Jesus came to teach people. If we fail to stop arguing and forcing our views, we end up in the same boat with the people that Jesus rebuked most."
I think I've got it. Jesus' rebukes in Matthew 23:1-39 are really about learning to love and respect the Pharisees. But… did I see you critiquing the Pharisees in your post?
Certainly, the risen Lord wants us to be a people striving for peace. But He also left us with a powerful example of One who opposed Satan at every juncture. We are naive if we believe a spiritual war does not permeate the doctrinal struggles we face. Should we avoid the challenges of Satan's corruption of Jesus' teachings and those of His apostles where they erupt? (cf. the words to the Ephesian elders; Acts 20:25-38)
As Everett Ferguson's new Baptism in the Early Church describes, not everyone in earliest Christianity was hearing the Word of the Lord. Some were mingling native cults/religion/sects with apostolic teaching — perhaps to get their new Christian faith to be comfortable with what they had previously believed/performed. For example, ritual initiation within the Isis cult was performed by pouring water on an initiate. Sound familiar? The discussion about baptism into Christ indeed matters — greatly. It remains a remarkable window into seeing how apostolic teaching has been corrupted historically.
I am praying you consider.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
When you listen to what many unbelievers have to say about Christianity you would know that it is the arrogant attitudes and arguing they see constantly happening between Christians that turns them off. I don't believe that is how Jesus wants us to look to others. People see that Christians can’t talk about Jesus without constantly looking for something to argue over, people get that from the world everyday. The early church made many mistakes that came from arguing with each other, the apostles certainly did not teach that Christians should continue like that.
Jay,
What is your source for saying that the Eastern Orthodox don't believe in Original Sin?
The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese's website, from which you got the defense of baptism, says this:
"We share in Adam and Eve's original sin, although the Eastern Church's understanding of the term original sin differs from the Western Church's interpretation in some crucial ways. The Eastern Church does not teach that we inherit the guilt of Adam. Rather, we share in the sin of Adam in that we are born into a world where the consequences of sin prevail. These consequences include the brokenness—physical, mental, and spiritual—of disease and death. Our nature is corrupted. By our passions, we are subject to temptation, prone to sin, and share in death."
http://www.antiochian.org/node/19137
Bruce,
We can't stand in Jesus' shoes in the way he condemned the Pharisees. We are often told to follow Jesus' example — but it's always in terms of following him to the cross, of following his example of humility and service.
But we are not the Son of God and don't have the Spirit without limit. Therefore, we can't condemn in the way Jesus does. Rather, we need to interact with those we disagree with as we've been instructed —
(2Ti 2:24-26 ESV) 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
Even though Paul is speaking of those caught in the snare of the devil, our response is to be one of kindness, patience, and gentleness. We follow the way of the cross.
Anonymous:
You sound like someone who wants to close your ears and hum when someone reads 1 and 2 Corinthians. Paul is indeed dealing with disagreement and deception in Corinth. No, he did not revel in it and I suspect the large majority of folks who chime in to this weblog feel similarly. So do I.
I would prefer to know oneness and unity with folks… and teach those who have never opened a Bible/considered the Gospel. However, Paul's two letters to Corinth abound with examples of writing and speech quite different from the image of an apostle you propose. Were the apostles argumentative? No. But neither were they given to, "Everyone believe whatever you want to believe and let's just love…." That is American… not apostolic. 1 and 2 Corinthians give us certain examples if we have any questions.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jay:
To confirm, your post regarding gentleness and kindness sounds great! I am prepared for you to point out when you see me missing the target. You okay with a similar action on my part towards you?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Romans 14:10 “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
1 Corinthians13:4-7 “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”
Ephesians 4:31 “Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.”
James 3:8-10 “But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.”
James 4:11-12 “Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?”
That's the point! The Western view says we inhertited the guilt of Adam, too. If that's the case, we must be cleansed from this guilt in order to be saved, and that's the reason behint infant baptism in the Western churches. And the Western churches are our background, their theology formed ours whether we are aware of it or not.
And that's why this question is of great importance. I agree with every word (including, syntax and grammer 😉 ) of the quoted statement on original sin. I think it is an excelllent Biblibcal summary.
Alexander
First to Jay thanks for an honest presentation of a viewpoint not common to most of us. To Adam thanks for breifly describing how to live in an infant baptism tradition.
To Anon especially your first commont, your attitude scares me! What is this website about? Then you imply that the reading of scripture should come to a conclusion to support unity?
Please never dishonor God by saying His inspired word must be used by us to honor our wishes. Never go to the scriptures seeking to reinforce our beleif, instead open your heart and mind to what God would have you know, rather than a pile of words to cut and paste to our desires. The world is way too full of people who pick their favorite scripture to honor and turn a deaf ear to the rest. Let all that God has to say be honored.
While I can see how a tradition of infant baptism honors God (and didn't before these readings), I think adult baptism honors God best. As Jay showed in Galations its faith driven. Abraham beleived God, so he moved. Abraham beleived God so he offered his son, etc. Faith flowing to action is the faith of Abraham and James, and iin baptism is best represented by adult beleiver baptism.
Choose the best but respect how others (Adam) also tried to honor God.
Larry,
You have hugely misjudged me!! You judging someone's heart when you don't know the intent of their heart really sacres me!! And I certainly agree the world is full of people who cherry pick verses…many who are from the COC denomination have been doing that for years!
Amazing that people can even find such pleasure in arguing over arguing!!
Sorry Anon. Ofcourse I don/t know you well!
I read Jay's post, then your comment was one of the first, and the contrast hit. Jay was letting the beleifs of the Eastern Orthodox and scriptures say what they say. He wasn't trying to win any argument. Then you comment what's this website about?
I guess its what kind of unity you seek. I don't expect everyone to think just like everyone else (borg church). I think the other extreme is bad also; we accept everyone with any idea just to call it unity. I seek unity of our view of God, and His desire for us. I have respect for diversity that is well thought or faithed out.
You are right, many c of C are the worst cherry pickers. I appreciate Jay's use of passages, full flow of Paul's logic, etc. rather than verse cut and paste.
There are many who post here that I would like to know better. Many Anon comments are good. Unfortunately I don't know how many Anons there are, so hard to know the person.
Larry:
I feel Anon's comments were fair and frankly, didn't scare me that much. 🙂 I can sympathize with that feeling of "oh great, one more thing to debate."
One must realize that the lion's share of Jay's blog is theological — thus, we'll interpret and often disagree. He also posts on some practical issues (youth ministry, plants, etc.) but I'd say Jay's greatest strength is in deep analysis.
I too can get tired of disagreement…especially if it is on the finer points. But, the Kingdom needs all types.
ANON: If you are the same anon that posts a lot, would you consider using a screen name? That can be confusing. I too an sensitive about my information…just call yourself "abc123" or "Obama" or something.
Anonymous:
I do appreciate your highlighting the Scriptures you note in your post and, like you, desire that we keep those Scriptures at the forefront of our thinking. And I do desire peace as well.
So, it would be helpful for me if you/I took a further step regarding the statements about evil and judgment you cite. Yes, Jesus is teaching about the reality of evil. Does that extend to beliefs folks hold as well? Can our beliefs also be expressions of evil — or no?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas