Infant Baptism

You hallowed the streams of Jordan, sending down from the Heavens Your Holy Spirit, and crushed the heads of dragons that lurked therein. Do You Yourself, O loving King, be present now also through the descent of Your Holy Spirit and hallow this water. And give to it the Grace of Redemption, the Blessing of Jordan. Make it a fountain of incorruption, a gift of sanctification, a loosing of sins, a healing of sicknesses, a destruction of demons, unapproachable by hostile powers, filled with angelic might. (From the Service of Holy Baptism)

I originally intended to write a post on the sacrament of Baptism, but it turned out to be a far bigger topic than I am in any position to discuss. So I decided to narrow my focus a bit and pass on a few of my observations—and of course the wisdom of others—regarding the practice of infant baptism.

Growing up in the Baptist tradition, I was taught that baptism was a symbolic action indicating a believer's conversion: One accepted Christ as their personal Lord and Savior and was thus born again. They could then be baptized as a public declaration of their personal commitment to Christ. Because infants could not make a conscious decision to follow Christ, they were not to be baptized.

When I left Grace and began attending Christ the King, I had difficulty at first accepting the practice of infant baptism, until I discovered that infants are never excluded from baptism in the Bible. We are told that, when the Apostles preached, entire households were baptized—Lydia’s, the jailer’s, Crispus’s, Stephanas’s—and we are given no indication that infants and young children were excluded from this.

Furthermore, I was unable to find a biblical basis for the teaching that baptism is strictly a symbolic act. Rather, there seems to be quite a bit more to it:
1) It replaces circumcision (Col 2.11–12)
2) Facilitates the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38, 22.16)
3) Brings about an infusion of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38; Ezk 36:25-27)
4) Marks incorporation into the Body of Christ (Jn 3.5; 1Co 12.12-13)
5) Is key to a person’s Salvation (Tts 3:5; 1Pt 3.20-21; Rom 6.3-4; Mk 16.16)

While I was never 100% on board with other points of Lutheran doctrine, I did come to realize that infant baptism is, at the very least, biblically defensible. So, by the time I began the move toward Orthodoxy, the practice of infant baptism was not even an issue for me.

To the Orthodox, baptism is far more than a mere formality, but is the "sacrament whereby one is born again, buried with Christ, resurrected with Him and united to Him." The Orthodox Church believes that,

baptism is not just a symbolic testimony of what God has done in the heart of an adult believer, but is in itself a dynamic means of actually effecting the power of the Gospel (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) in a life (Romans 6:4). Christian baptism is the means whereby we encounter and identify with Jesus Christ Himself. This is one of the reasons why Paul explains baptism as the manner in which we genuinely 'put on' or 'clothe' ourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27). This is not just a metaphor, the Lord actually transforms a person through his baptism.

I have heard it said that, when the "why" of Orthodox baptism is understood, the "when" becomes self evident. To the Orthodox, there was never really a question as to whether infants should be baptized.

Objections
Infant baptism is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
While this is true, we need to be careful about insisting that everything we believe and practice must be spelled out in black and white on the pages of Scripture, because when we do, we put ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to defend other beliefs and practices that are also not explicitly mentioned: original sin, the Trinity, etc.

There are certainly no clear, undeniable examples of infant baptism in the New Testament, but neither are there any examples of children waiting until the “age of accountability” before being baptized. And if we insist on excluding infants from baptism on the basis of a strict reading of the Scriptures, then we also must exclude women from receiving Communion for the same reason. This is a practice that is found nowhere in the Bible. The truth is that an argument from silence is simply no defense for the rejection of a practice that the Church has accepted for two-thousand years.

That’s not to suggest, of course, that those who appeal to the Scriptures for guidance on practices such as baptism are wrong for doing so. Surely the Apostles did likewise. We should remember, though, that the Apostles had only the Old Testament to turn so, because the New Testament had not even been written yet.

So, imagine if the jailer had approached the Apostles with his infant daughter—supposing he had one; certainly someone did—and asked them to baptize her as well. What would they have said?

“We’re very sorry, Mr Jailer, but according to the Scriptures, the Old Covenant was not for infants, so neither is the New Covenant.”

Nonsense! The Old Covenant was for infants. We know that, from Old Testament times, God not only allowed inclusion of infants into His Covenant, but required it! (Gen 17.9-14) Circumcision was the mark of this inclusion. It incorporated people into the community of Faith, the chosen people of God. Infants who were born into this community were brought—without their verbal consent—into a Covenant relationship with God and His Faith community through circumcision. Saint Paul is clear that baptism is the new circumcision; the "circumcision made without hands" (Col 2.11–12).

The Church has historically downplayed the modern notion of a “personal relationship with Christ,” in favor of what it has always understood to be a community relationship. Children who are baptized in the Orthodox Church are incorporated into a community of faith. They are not on their own. Through baptism, children

receive the faith and life of Christ as revealed in the Church. This is why the Church does not randomly baptize any child off the street but only those whose parents and sponsors present the child for Baptism from within the community of faith and make a pledge to raise the child in the faith. This sacrament is the beginning of faith and God’s response to it " (from Saints Constantine and Elena Orthodox Church).

In the Bible, faith always precedes baptism.
It’s interesting to consider that at no point does Christ ever instruct little children to have faith like an adult. Rather, it’s the adults that must have faith like the little children (see Mt 18.3, and Mk 10.15). To suggest that infants don’t have faith is simply contrary to Christ’s teaching. Children are born with faith; a faith more pure than what you or I have; a faith that is to serve as an example to us. Little children unlearn their faith by being exposed to the world of adults.

I was brought up believing that children must reach the “age of accountability” before they can be candidates for baptism. That’s when they can understand what it means that Christ died for their sins, and can make a conscious decision to accept His sacrifice. I don’t know of a single Christian who would say that a child who has not yet reached the “age of accountability” cannot be saved (If any of my readers wish to defend the doctrine of Limbo, I invite them to please find another blog). If, then, a child is saved,

it must be through Christ, somehow. And if it is through Christ, then that child is Christian. If he is being raised in a Christian home hearing the Gospel, he has never not heard the Gospel, and he has never not had faith in Christ. (faith in the sense of trust; faith in the sense of relationship with Christ) If the child is a Christian, then he is a member of the body of Christ. If the body of Christ is the family of God, then it must include children, not just rational adults, because the Church is relational, not just rational. And if he is a member of the Church and is saved, then why deny the child baptism? (from Our Life in Christ)

Infants don't understand what's going on, so what's the point of baptizing them?
Again, Saints Constantine and Elena Orthodox Church answers better than I could:

There are some who object to infant Baptism on the grounds that [because] an infant is unable to speak and unable to understand... they should not receive baptism. To this objection we would ask, “To whom is it given the ability to measure faith, to pass judgment on the degree of comprehension and desire in it?” By this measure adult baptism is no more valid than infant baptism. Christianity is a confession of faith... But this confession is more than just words spoken. It is a life that is lived in Christ so that we may recognize Him in all things. Therefore just as an infant is able to recognize and love its mother or father or anyone who cares for and loves the child, so too an infant that is raised in the Church, who lives in the context of a Christian family, is able to recognize and love Christ. This is a true confession of faith.

From GotQuestions.org: “Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?”
Good point. In fact, the Orthodox do immerse infants. Three times! “Unwise and unsafe” or not, it’s the way they’ve done it for two millennia, and as far as I know, there haven’t been any casualties. It looks like this:



[The audio is cut off at the beginning, but you’ll hear the tail end of the priest saying, “The servant of God, Ezra, is baptized…” He says this rather than, “I baptize you…” in order to underscore the Orthodox belief that it is not the action of the priest that is instrumental, but the work of the Holy Spirit]

Most Christian faiths that practice infant baptism do, in fact, sprinkle or pour, and then stop there. They wait until the child hits puberty before they “confirm” them into the church. Only then are they considered full members of the worship community and allowed to receive communion.The Orthodox do it all in one day! They baptize the individual—child or adult—then immediately confirm* and commune them. (Yes, the Orthodox administer Communion to infants. They are full members of the Church, so why not?).

*The Orthodox call it chrismation, rather than confirmation, because of the oil (χρίσμα) used.

Also from GotQuestions.org: The Bible is very clear about baptism. There are two points we all need to understand. (1) Baptism is to take place after a person has received Jesus Christ as Savior, trusting in Him alone for salvation. (2) Baptism is to be by immersion.
If these are indeed the two criteria for proper baptism then the Orthodox practice of infant baptism is entirely proper, since 1) infants already have faith in Christ, and 2) the Orthodox baptize by full immersion.

However, the Orthodox Church would add another criterion. They will not recognize any baptism as valid that is not done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It’s not enough to baptize someone in the name of the “Creator, Redeemer, and the Sanctifier,” or any other formula. It has to be done in precisely the manner described by Christ in Matthew 28.19.

Look, the bottom line is this: If the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and the Fullness of Him who Fills All in All, and the Ark of Salvation, wouldn’t it make perfect sense to bring a child fully and completely into the life of the Church at the first possible opportunity? That's exactly what Orthodox Christians do when they baptize their infants.

For More Information:
The Orthodox Practice of Infant Baptism
Holy Baptism
Holy Baptism: An Orthodox Christian Understanding
Sacraments
Early Fathers on Infant Baptism
Orthodox Baptism