|Antonio del Castillo y Saavedra, Baptism of St. Francis of Assisi (1665)|
So while Scripture is totally silent on the direct question of infant baptism (we're not told whether or not the households baptized in Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16, etc., included infants), the Scriptural teaching on regenerative baptism settles the question. If baptism is something God does for us, and if it incorporates us into the Kingdom, and if Christ says to let the little children come unto Him (Matthew 19:14), then it's clear that we should permit infants to be baptized, and in fact, should encourage it to remove original sin.
Objecting to this post on the subject, one Protestant reader cites to Tertullian and other early Christians:
Several things are wrong with this claim. First, Tertullian doesn't reject the practice of infant baptism. He discourages it, but he doesn't forbid it (that's an important distinction, since it shows he viewed as possible). Second, his basis for discouraging it isn't because the young children don't know Christ. It's because he's concerned that once they're baptized, they'll be damned forever if they fall into mortal sin. To understand why he was concerned about this, you need to know something about the controversy giving rise to a heresy called Novatianism.The first clear reference to infant baptism appears in Tertullian’s On Baptism 18 (ca. 200) and there Tertullian rejects the practice on the grounds that very young children are not yet “competent to know Christ” and are innocent of culpable sin. The article cites Cyprian and the North African bishops but that was some 50 years after the key North African bishop Tertullian rejected it.
Despite an occasional significant support from the third century (Origen, Cyprian), infant baptism would not become standard practice until the fifth and sixth centuries. Christian inscriptions from the third and fourth centuries indicate baptism of very young children only in circumstances where death was likely or imminent. So significant a set of fourth-century Christian leaders as Basil the Great and his brother Gregory of Nyssa were not baptized until adulthood despite coming from a family that had been Christian for generations. Eventually high childhood mortality rates, coupled with the view that baptism was objectively efficacious for bringing about salvation, made infant baptism the norm nearly everywhere. In the third to fourth centuries baptism was commonly deferred until after the sins of youth or even until just before death (Constantine is a notable example) in the belief that post-baptismal sins were not covered by baptism. The ascendency of both infant baptism and penitential rites ultimately led to the demise of the delay-baptism movement.
I. Background: The Novatian Controversy
As the above commenter rightly points out in the second half of his comment, there was an open theological question in the early Church about whether or not post-baptismal mortal sins could be forgiven. This was due in no small part about an interpretative dispute about Hebrews 6:4-6, which says:
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.The references to (i) being enlightened, (ii) tasting the heavenly gift, and (iii) becoming partakers of the Holy Spirit are references to Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation respectively. These are the three “Sacraments of initiation,” by which one becomes a fully-incorporated member of the Church, the Body of Christ.
Given this, can Christians who fall into mortal sin ever be saved? Certain Christians said no, based on their reading of Hebrews 6:4-6 and a few other passages. Others said yes, since nothing is impossible to God. This dispute eventually exploded into a heretical movement called the Novatians, who denied penance to mortal sinners, who were opposed (ultimately successfully) by the Catholics. St. Ambrose's book Concerning Repentance does a good job refuting the Novatian arguments. He points out (Book I, Chapter 8, para. 37) that in trying to affirm the workings of grace in the Sacraments, the Novatians were actually demeaning them, by treating the Sacrament of Penance as powerless. In Book II, Chapter 2, he shows why the Novatian interpretation of Hebrews 6 is wrong.
But while Tertullian was alive, this dispute was still young, and the position that the Novatians would later hold wasn't obviously heretical. There were still open questions about whether Hebrews 6 permitted reconciliation for a baptized Christian who commit a mortal sin. Moreover, penances during this period were quite severe, sometimes lasting an entire lifetime. Given all this, it's perhaps unsurprising that even many orthodox Christians put off getting baptized, often until their deathbeds.
II. Tertullian's View
|John Phillip, Baptism in Scotland (1850)|
And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood?
The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! [...] If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.Four things to note:
- Tertullian treats infant baptism as an existing reality. He's the one encouraging a change to the status quo, by trying to get people to delay their baby's (and their own) baptism. And indeed, this comports with the rest of the data. In 180 A.D. (about two decades prior to Concerning Baptism) Irenaeus' Against Heresies describes how “infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” are “born again.” So infant baptism has been around a lot longer than Tertullian's admonitions on the subject.
- Tertullian treats infant baptism as acceptable. He simply says that it's preferable to wait.
- Tertullian's position isn't credobaptist. It's true that he argues that we should wait to baptize kids until they're old enough to know Christ. But his reasoning is that, before then, they're either (a) too young to sin (since they're still in “the innocent period of life”), and/or (b) too young to be prudent in obeying their baptismal duties. That's why he wants kids to wait until they have more of a faith: not because Baptism is a symbol, but because he thinks of it as such a burden that they'll need faith to survive without ever falling into mortal sin.
- Tertullian's position isn't limited to kids. As a matter of prudence, Tertullian thought that everyone should delay Baptism. Later on in this same section, he advises that the unmarried also shouldn't be baptized, because they're more prone to temptation.
Trying to turn Tertullian into a proto-Protestant on the question of Baptism is particularly ironic, given that the very first words of On Baptism are “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!”
That is, the entire work begins from the position that Baptism is regenerative. None of Tertullian's arguments make sense without that framework. He's not arguing for a “believer's baptism” or anything remotely close. Quite the opposite. The Catholic position holds that Baptism washes away sins, which Protestants typically deny. But Tertullian doesn't just hold to the Catholic position, he goes much further (too far, even), arguing that only Baptism washes away mortal sins. He literally couldn't be further from the standard Protestant view on this doctrine.
So to recap: Tertullian doesn't reject baptismal regeneration or infant baptism. He enthusiastically endorses baptismal regeneration, and while he discourages infant baptism, he recognizes its validity, and his arguments against it are (from either a Catholic or Protestant perspective) wrong
Step back, and a jarring picture emerges. Here's a dispute in the early Church over whether to baptize right away, or whether to wait. But what's noteworthy is that nobody holds to the Protestant view. Nobody says that baptism is just an expression or symbol of our faith. Nobody is denying that Baptism is regenerative: in fact, the whole dispute only makes sense if you realize that both sides firmly believe in baptismal regeneration. Furthermore, neither side is denying that infant baptism is permissible: that whole sub-argument turns on whether or not it's a good idea.
All of this shows how radically Protestantism broke with early Christianity: there's no way to read Protestantism back into the story of the Church without seriously perverting the historical data.
Finally, an ironic point. On the actual dispute between the Catholics and Novatians, Protestants agree with us (or at least, agree with us more than they do the Novatians). Typically, Protestantism doesn't have any concept of venial v. mortal sins, or any way to distinguish between the sort of sins that believers commit every day from the sort of sins that cut us off from the Body of Christ. But they do believe that, even if you “fall away” at some point in your life, it's still possible for you to be ultimately saved. So again, citing to someone closer to the Novatian camp to support the Protestant position is an ironic sort of historical eisegesis.