The case for infant baptism
Most see it as traditional custom.
Augustine ‘tradition received from the apostles’.
416 CE council of Mileum ll endorsed infants bapt. ‘Even infants, who in themselves thus far
have not been able to commit sin, … are truly baptised.’
Council of Carthage 418 CE ‘even babies… are truly baptised for the forgiveness of sins’.
New Testament support:
● Luke 18:15-16 ‘People were bringing even infants to him so he could touch them’.
● In John 3:5, Jesus tells Nicodemus ‘I tell you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God
without being born of water and Spirit’. His words include infants.
Was uniformly practiced in the early church. Supported by church fathers, including Irenaeus,
Origen, Augustine etc.
Augustine wrote extensively on baptism. Infant baptism, he maintained, was something that the
universal church had ‘always held’ and was ‘most correctly believed to have been handed down
by apostolic authority’.
Augustine believed that baptised infants, who are not yet able to imitate Christ are ‘ingrafted’
into his body. Christ gives to believers the grace of the Spirit ‘which he secretly infuses even into
infants’.
The fact that infants are not able to profess faith doesn’t prevent the church from baptising
them. ‘Through the Church’s faith communicated to them’.
For Augustine baptism is a sacrament - a religious rite that imparts spiritual grace. Saw it as
regeneration.
Zwingli (reformer) only differed from seeing baptism as the sign and seal of regeneration, not
the means. Therefore, it has no effect on the washing away of our sins. It is a sign of a new
covenant, just as circumcision was the sign of the old.
Infant baptism is usually by aspersion. The water is sprinkled over the infant’s head.
The case for believers’ baptism