.jpg)
Infant baptism, also known aschristening orpaedobaptism, is a Christian sacramental practice ofbaptizing infants and young children. Such practice is done in theCatholic Church, theEastern Orthodox andOriental Orthodox churches, variousProtestant denominations, and also in other denominations of Christianity.[1][2] The practice involves baptizing infants born to believing parents as a means of initiating them into the Christian faith. Supporters of infant baptism cite biblical references to the baptism of entire households in theNew Testament, as well as Jesus' teachings on welcoming children, as justification for this approach.[1]
In contrast,believers' baptism (credobaptism) is based on the premise that baptism should be administered only to individuals who can personally profess their faith. Those who support this view argue that baptism is a conscious act of commitment to Christianity, requiring an understanding of its significance. As a result, they maintain that only those capable of articulating their belief should participate in the sacrament. This perspective is commonly held byAnabaptists,Baptists,Pentecostals, and otherevangelical groups. Proponents of believers’ baptism argue that the absence of explicit references to infant baptism in the New Testament, along with the significance of baptism as a personal commitment.[1]
Infant baptism practices vary acrossChristian denominations, typically occurring within the first few weeks after birth, though some traditions perform it immediately, such as in cases of imminent death, or delay it by several months.
The exact details of the baptismal ceremony vary amongChristian denominations. Many follow a prepared ceremony, called arite orliturgy.
All traditions begin with the reception or presentation of candidates. In theRoman Catholic Rite of Baptism for Several Children, this includes the Reception of the Children and a Liturgy of the Word with Scripture readings, homily, and intercessions. Similarly, Episcopal and Lutheran rites open with the Presentation and Examination of Candidates, including questions to parents, sponsors, or godparents. This phase highlights communal recognition and prepares candidates (and their families) for baptism.[10] In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the rite opens with the "reception of the catechumens," where the celebrant prays for the candidate to become "a reason-endowed sheep in the holy flock of your Christ, an honorable member of your Church, a child of the light, and an heir of your Kingdom."[11]
Prayers and symbolic anointings mark spiritual preparation. The Roman Catholic rite includes aPrayer of Exorcism and Anointing before Baptism, emphasizing purification. Episcopal and Lutheran traditions incorporatePrayers for the Candidates and, in Lutheranism, aPrayer of the Church invoking theHoly Spirit. While explicit anointing is more prominent in Catholicism (e.g., post-baptismal chrismation), all rites emphasize prayer as a means of spiritual strengthening.[10] In the Eastern Orthodox rite, multiple exorcisms are performed, and prayers are made for the water to be "the water of redemption, the water of sanctification, the purification of flesh and spirit, the loosing of bonds, the remission of sins, the illumination of the soul, the laver of regeneration, the renewal of the spirit, the gift of adoption to sonship, the garment of incorruption, the fountain of life."[11]
The blessing of water and baptism proper are central to all rites. Roman Catholics perform a Blessing and Invocation of God over Baptismal Water, while Episcopalians and Lutherans include a Thanksgiving over the Water. Baptism itself is administered using theTrinitarian formula: Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans all employimmersion or pouring "in the name of theFather, and of theSon, and of theHoly Spirit."[10] In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the celebrant prays for the water to be sanctified with "the power (energeia) of the Holy Spirit," and the baptism is performed by triple immersion, immediately followed by Chrismation (anointing with holy oil).[11]
Post-baptismal rituals symbolize the candidate’s new identity. Roman Catholics includeExplanatory Rites:anointing with chrism (Seal of the Spirit), clothing in a white garment, presentation of a lighted candle, and theEphphetha prayer. Episcopalians offer aPrayer for the Sevenfold Gift of the Holy Spirit, while Lutheransseal the candidate with aPrayer of the Church and present a baptismal candle.[10] Eastern Orthodox Christians, after baptism, immediately chrismate the newly baptized, praying that the newly illumined will "please you in every deed and word, and may be a child and heir of your heavenly kingdom," affirming a twofold transformation: normative membership in the Church and acquisition of the "regenerate states" (purification, sanctification, illumination, regeneration).[11] These rites signify the Holy Spirit's indwelling and the community's welcome.
While baptism itself does not always include Eucharist, its communal context often ties to Eucharistic worship. For example: Roman Catholics conclude with theLord’s Prayer and a blessing, linking baptism to the broader liturgical life of the Church. Lutherans use a Baptismal Welcome, where the congregation affirms the newly baptized, often within a Eucharistic service. Episcopalians integrate baptism into the Baptismal Covenant, aligning it with congregational vows that precede shared Eucharist.[10] In the Eastern Orthodox Church, baptism, chrismation, and first communion are typically administered together, even to infants, as baptism is seen as full incorporation into the Church's life, granting immediate access to the sacraments.[11] Though not explicitly part of the baptismal rubric in all traditions, baptism is understood as initiation into a Eucharistic community.[10]
First-century Christian baptism primarily involved adult believers, with no definitiveNew Testament evidence for infant baptism, though some suggest household baptisms may have included infants.[12][13][14][15] Scholarly consensus holds that infant baptism emerged gradually from the late 2nd century, became widespread by the 3rd century, and was universal by the 4th-5th centuries, coexisting with believers' baptism (Acts of the Apostles 2:38–41) amid early debates.[16][17][18][19][20][21]
HistorianDavid F. Wright (2007,2005), suggests that first-centuryPauline churches did not practice infant baptism. Wright describes the issue as "obscurity unresolved," noting that evidence suggests children of baptized Christians were typically not baptized until at least c. 55 AD, during Paul's ministry, though the extent of this practice remains unclear.[22][23]
Despite this, some theologians argue for the early presence of infant baptism.Joachim Jeremias (2004) andWilliam A. Strange (1996) argue that infant baptism originated in the Apostolic Age, asserting that children of converts were baptized alongside their families.[24][25] Advocates cite households baptisms withinActs of the Apostles (16:15, 33) and1 Corinthians 1:16 as potential evidence. However, theGlobal Dictionary of Theology (2009) acknowledges the ambiguity of these accounts, stating that while infants may have been included, the texts do not provide explicit confirmation.[26] Jeremias argues that baptism extended to all household members because theOld Testament concept of “household” is inherently inclusive, drawing upon interpretations of1 Samuel 22:16–19 andGenesis 17:23.[25] Therefore, the term "house" (oikos) has been central to this debate.[27]
Steven Nicoletti (2015), proposes that the New Testament’s silence on infant baptism may affirm its practice, drawing on the concept of “presupposition pools”—shared assumptions of the time. They argue that early Christian texts likely omitted explicit mention of infant baptism because it was widely accepted, mirroring cultural norms where infants were naturally included in religious rites.[20]
Another line of reasoning explores parallels withJewish traditions. The analogy betweencircumcision and baptism is a key argument for early infant baptism. InJewish tradition, boys were circumcised on theeighth day, and some scholars suggest earlyJewish Christians viewed baptism similarly.[27] Additionally,Jewish proselyte baptism included entire households, including children, as a purification rite forGentile converts toJudaism.[28] TheologianKurt Aland (2004) counters that this was not standard for Jewish-born children, who were typically incorporated via circumcision, not baptism, weakening the parallel to Christian practice.[29]
Further insight comes from early Christian texts addressing thesinfulness of infants or young children.Clement of Rome (1 Clement 14.4) stated, "No one is clean from defilement, not even if his life be but one day old." Although later used out of context, this became a proof-text for baptism addressingoriginal sin.[23] This view aligns withPsalm 51:5, which states, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," supporting the early Christian belief in humanity’s inherent sinfulness from birth.[30] Similarly, theDidache, a church order dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century, provides instructions foradult baptism but notes that children should receive teaching to prevent future sin, without explicitly addressing their baptism.[31] Early 1st-century Christian texts, like 1 Clement and Psalm 51:5, highlight universal sinfulness, linking baptism to sin’s remission and laying groundwork for the doctrine of original sin, later justifying infant baptism. Yet, direct evidence for the practice in this period is absent, leaving its prevalence uncertain.[32]
Most of second-century Christian texts provide no explicit evidence for the practice of infant baptism.[26][27] However, scholars like Wright and Aland identify literary traces emerging by the late second century.[33][22][27] For example, the first clear reference to infant baptism comes fromTertullian, who opposed it or advocated for its delay. InOn Baptism (c. 200 AD), he acknowledges it as an established custom but argues against it, suggesting that baptism should be delayed until individuals can personally profess faith.[34] Strange (1996) observed that Tertullian’s opposition to infant baptism marked a departure from prevailing practice, arguing thatpatristic evidence suggests it was already a recognized norm.[24] Additionally, Nuh Yilmaz (2020) notes that Tertullian's view did not resonate effectively in North African churches, where infant baptism continued as the general practice.[35]North Africa remained the region with the strongest support for infant baptism, and according to Ferguson (1999) it may well have been where the practice originated.[34]
Additionally, some advocates citeIrenaeus of Lyon who wrote that "infants, small children, youngsters, youths, and old folk" are "born again".[26] Scholars such as Odd Magne Bakke (2005) and David P. Nelson (1996) interpret this as a reference to baptism, though Bakke qualifies that "reborn" (renascuntur) must be understood as a technical term for baptism.[36][27][27] Conversely, Peter Jenson (2012) and Robert L. Meyers (1988) argue that the statement lacks specificity regarding infants.[37][38]
Regardless, Christianity was growing in popularity and expansion during this period, structuredcatechesis became essential to prepare converts for faith amid persecution andheresies. This formalized approach to baptism, emphasizing instruction, according to Nelson (1996) likely reduced the practice of infant baptism, which required no prior preparation.[36]
Insights into earlyChristian apologists viewed infants and young children as sinless or morally innocent. Notable examples include:The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 100–150 AD) which portrays children as models ofdiscipleship and moral purity, inherently innocent and free of evil, serving as an example for believers.[23][39]Aristides of Athens (Apology, Chapter 15, c. 125 AD) wrote that Christian children are bornsinless and, if theydie in infancy, are celebrated for passing from life without sin: “And when a child is born to one of them, the Christians give thanks to God; and if the child dies in infancy, they give thanks even more, for it has passed from this life sinless.”[40]Athenagoras of Athens(On the Resurrection of the Dead, c. 177 AD): stated that infants who die are not judged, as they "have done neither evil nor good."[40]Justin Martyr (First Apology, 15, c. 155 AD;Second Apology, 10, c. 153 AD) described infants and children as morally neutral, sinless until they can rationally choose to sin, emphasizingfree will and the "seed of theLogos." He praised the purity of "disciples from childhood," suggesting no innate sinfulness.[41]
Clearer evidence of infant baptism emerges in the third century.[33] Yet from the third to the early fifth century, many Christian parents postponed baptizing their children.[42] This delay was due to several factors: (1) the belief that waiting maximized baptism's spiritual benefits, (2) the custom of performing baptism only when death was near, (3) and the reluctance of unbaptized parents to have their children baptized.[38]
Despite this, inscriptions such as fromRome’sCatacomb of Priscilla mentions an infant who had received baptism before dying. Such inscriptions suggest that infant baptism was practiced regularly, especially in cases of illness or impending death (Emergency baptism).[38] Scholars like Jeremias and Ferguson examined inscriptional evidence related to infant baptism, Aland argued that third-century inscriptions offered no significant new information. By that period, infant baptism was already well attested in existing literary sources.[43]
These existing literary sources included:Hippolytus of Rome (Apostolic Tradition 21.3-5) directed:“The little children shall be baptized first. If they can speak for themselves, let them do so; otherwise, their parents or a relative should answer on their behalf.”[34]Origen claimed that infant baptism was an apostolic tradition passed down to the Church, though it remains uncertain whether his view stemmed from theological reasoning or scriptural exegesis.[34] Regardless, his writings attests that the custom was already firmly rooted.[38]Cyprian of Carthage further insisted that baptism should not be postponed, even for infants, asserting that God’s grace is"not given in greater or lesser measure based on the recipient’s age."[38]
The fourth century marked a turning point for Christianity as it transitioned frompersecution to afavored religion within theRoman Empire. This shift brought about divergent baptismal practices. In some areas, the longstandingcatechumenate persisted, with rigorous pre-baptismal instruction exemplified by figures likeCyril of Jerusalem andGregory of Nyssa. Simultaneously, infant baptism gained prominence, fueled by evolving theological understandings oforiginal sin's implications.[44]
During this period, the Church strongly condemnedPelagianism, which questioned the necessity of baptism forsalvation, and affirmed that baptism must be administered without delay. For example, official decrees such as theCouncil of Florence’sPro Jacobitis warned against postponing baptism, thereby underlining that infants (and others) must receive baptism promptly to secure salvation. These developments, along with texts from theCouncil of Carthage and theRoman Catechism that taughtunbaptized infants could not attain heaven, demonstrate that by the end of the fourth century infant baptism was a widely accepted and normative practice in the Church.[45]
Several prominent Christian leaders, such as Tertullian,Rufinus,Gregory of Nazianzus,Basil of Caesarea,Ambrose,Jerome,Augustine, andCyril of Alexandria, attest to the widespread practice ofinfantdedication orenrollment in the catechumenate rather than immediate baptism. This custom was observed across major Christian centers, fromCarthage andMilan toConstantinople andAlexandria. Consequently, in the fourth century, dedicating infants and later instructing them in the catechumenate remained the normative practice, while infant baptism was generally administered only in cases of urgent necessity (emergency baptism).[42]
According to Andrew Messmer (2022), many prominent Christian leaders, though born into Christian families, were not baptized as infants but received it later in life. For instance,Novatian (200–258) was only baptized during a grave illness, whileGregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390) waited until around age thirty.Basil of Caesarea was baptized at approximately 27 (c. 357), andGregory of Nyssa between ages 23 and 28.Ambrose of Milan (340–397) remained unbaptized until his sudden election as bishop in 374, andJohn Chrysostom (347–407) was baptized around age 20 (c. 368).Jerome (347–420) received baptism at 19 (366), andAugustine (354–430), despite his devout mother Monica’s influence, delayed his baptism until age 33 (387). This pattern reflects the widespread practice of delaying baptism, even among those raised in Christian households.[42]
Regarding their views, the early Church Fathers held divergent views on infant baptism, reflecting the theological tensions of their era.Augustine of Hippo, in hisanti-Pelagian writings, maintained that baptism was essential for cleansing original sin, asserting that only through thissacrament could infants be incorporated into Christ's flock. He issued grave warnings about the eternal consequences of dying unbaptized.[38] In contrast,Gregory of Nazianzus adopted a more moderate position, arguing that since infants lack awareness of sin or grace, baptism should be deferred unless imminent danger threatened their lives - suggesting age three as an appropriate minimum or when children could actively participate in the rite.[38]Jerome took a decidedly proactive stance, particularly in his correspondence withLaeta (403 AD), where he framed infant baptism as a fundamental parental obligation, implying negligence in those who delayed the sacrament. These differing perspectives illustrate the evolving theology surrounding baptismal practices in early Christianity.[38]
According to Robin M. Jensen (2012), archaeological evidence supports the existence of diverse baptismal practices in early Christianity. The variation in baptismal font designs suggests differences in liturgical customs, while third- and fourth-century funerary inscriptions confirm that some infants received emergency baptisms - though these do not demonstrate it was a widespread norm.[38] The interpretation of iconographic evidence remains contested, as depictions of small figures undergoing baptism could represent either the baptism of Jesus or early instances of infant baptism.[38] This ambiguity in material evidence mirrors the theological diversity seen in textual sources from the period.
By the late fifth century, theological debates increasingly emphasized original sin as the primary justification for infant baptism. The growing influence ofAugustinian theology inWestern Christianity found formal expression when theCouncil of Carthage (418 AD) affirmed that infants, while personally guiltless, bore the taint of Adam's original sin and consequently needed baptism for spiritual purification. This doctrinal development marked a significant shift insacramental theology, transforming infant baptism from a discretionary practice to a theological necessity in Western Christian thought.[44]
By the early sixth century, a growing emphasis on the doctrine ofrepeatable penance further heightened fears that unbaptized infants would suffer eternaldamnation. This period saw a shift in practice: parents began engaging in formal baptismal preparation activities on behalf of their children. Over time, these preparations gave way to a consolidated ceremony, where newborn infants werebaptised,anointed (confirmation), and receivedcommunion all at once to ensure that even the youngest members of the community were promptly incorporated into thesalvific rite.[44] Writings from such asJohn the Deacon’s letter (c. 500 AD) highlight that the Church’s teaching and practice had firmly established infant baptism as essential for salvation in response tooriginal sin.[44] Large fonts from this period indicate that adult baptism continued alongside infant baptism well into the sixth and seventh centuries.[38] In the sixth century, 526 AD,eastern Roman emperor,Justinian I made infant baptism compulsory.[38]
The practice of infant baptism expanded significantly during theearly Middle Ages, particularly from the sixth century onward, largely due to concerns about high infant mortality rates. This led to the frequent administration ofemergency baptisms (baptism in extremis), often performed inrespitesanctuaries. The sacrament became firmly established as a normative practice through theCarolingian reforms of the ninth century, and was further consolidated during theGregorian reforms of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.[46]
TheCatholic Church requires a "founded hope" the child will be raised Catholic for licit baptism (Code of Canon Law 868 §1, 2° CIC). If absent, baptism is postponed (not denied) with explanation. Thesacrament grantsregeneration, removes original sin, and unites the child with Christ.[47] Therefore, baptism is a fundamental sacrament in the Church, marking the initiation of an individual into Christian life and the Church community. It is essential for salvation, providing spiritual rebirth and access to other sacraments.[47]
The Church requires assurance that baptized infants will be raised Catholic (Canon 868 §1, 2° CIC). Parental consent is mandatory - at least one parent/guardian must approve. Baptism cannot be administered against parental wishes except in danger of death, when it may proceed regardless of objections.[47] Additionally, baptism is seen as a one-time sacrament that marks a person's commitment to Christ and cannot be repeated. If there is serious doubt about whether someone was baptized before or if it was done correctly, the Catholic Church allows a conditional baptism to be performed. Moreover, the practice of baptizing miscarried or stillborn infants is no longer done.[48]
The Church recognizes both pouring (affusion) andimmersion as valid baptismal methods, stating that the symbolic cleansing is preserved through the ritual use of water, even when full immersion isn't practiced.[48]
The Church acknowledges the importance of a personal decision in baptism, which infants cannot make. To address this, godparents are appointed to stand in for the child, committing to their Christian upbringing on behalf of the parents. The role of parents and godparents is strongly emphasized in the Church's rite of infant baptism, which was revised on the instructions of theSecond Vatican Council.[49] As they grow, baptized children are expected to embrace the faith chosen for them, confirming the decision made on their behalf.[48]
Historically, such practices were developed gradually, rooted in early Christian tradition,original sin, and sacramental theology. While adult baptism was initially dominant, the practice of baptizing infants became common by the third century.Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD) defended it, arguing that baptismal grace should not be denied to children.[50] In the fourth century,Augustine of Hippo linked baptism to original sin, asserting that it was necessary for salvation. His arguments shaped medieval sacramental theology, which emphasized that baptism remained valid regardless of personal faith (ex opere operato).[50] The concept oflimbo (limbus infantium), a speculative idea that unbaptized infants neither enter heaven nor suffer in hell, was never official Church doctrine. Though widely held from the 12th century onward, belief in limbo had largely faded by the 20th century.[48]
In response to Protestant critiques, theCouncil of Trent (1545–1563) firmly upheld infant baptism as obligatory, solidifying its standard practice with support from godparents and catechesis. Today, the Church teaches that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God’s mercy, while maintaining that baptism remains essential for initiation into the faith and liberation from original sin.[50]
The Eastern Orthodox Church practices infant baptism as a fundamental part of itssacramental theology, viewing it as the child's initiation into the Church and participation in the life of Jesus.[51] The baptism is performed through triple immersion in water, symbolizing the believer’s sharing in Christ’s death and resurrection.[51] InOrthodox theology, sacraments are considered effective by the very act of their completion (ex opere operato), meaning they impart divine grace regardless of the recipient’s personal understanding.[52]
The Orthodox Church, like the Roman Catholic Church, believes that baptism results in the forgiveness of sins, both original andactual. Through baptism, the newly baptized is "clothed with Christ" and becomes a full member of the Church.[52] The sacrament is viewed as a mystical communion with God, through which grace is given for salvation and spiritual transformation. This understanding reflects the Orthodox belief that sacraments are "Mysteries", divine means by which humanity experiences salvation and anticipates eternal life inGod’s kingdom.[52]
Baptism in the Orthodox Church is immediately followed byChrismation (Confirmation) andHoly Communion, emphasizing the unity of these three sacraments.[51] Chrismation, administered by the priest, involves anointing the baptized withHoly Myron (Chrism), sealing them with the gift of theHoly Spirit. The newly baptized, including infants, then receive theEucharist, partaking in consecrated wine and bread as their first communion.[51] This integrated approach contrasts with manyWestern Christian traditions, where these sacraments are administered separately at different stages of life.
The baptism of infants is performed on the basis of the faith of the Church, rather than the personal profession of the child.[51] The commitment of parents and godparents plays a crucial role, as they pledge to raise the child in the Orthodox faith. While infants are traditionally baptized on the eighth day, mirroring theOld Testament practice of circumcision, this timing is not strictly required, and baptisms may occur at any time.[53]Orthodox theology holds that baptism is essential for salvation and the remission of original sin, making it a vital sacrament in the life of every Orthodox Christian.[54]
Lutherans uphold infant baptism by pointing to scriptural references where entire households were baptized (e.g.,Acts 16:15). They argue that households in biblical times included children. According toMartin Luther, baptism is not founded on personal faith, as one can never be certain of faith. Instead, it is based on God's word and commandment. The faith involved is that of those who bring the child to baptism (fides aliena), such as parents, godparents, and the church congregation.[55]
Lutherans believe that through baptism, the child receives infused faith, mediated by the prayers of the church, parents, and godparents. Baptism purifies and renews the child. Personal faith is not a prerequisite for baptism but is nourished by it, as the individual continually adheres to God's grace and renounces sin throughout life.The Augsburg Confession (II) states that baptism is necessary for salvation. It is an assignment to Christ, a surrender into Jesus’ death and resurrection, and a gift of new life that calls the baptized to walk in faith.[55]
While baptism marks initiation into the church and incorporation into the people of God, it is viewed as the beginning of a lifelong journey. If not taken in faith, baptism remains incomplete. In the post-Reformation era,Lutheran orthodoxy reaffirmed the necessity of infant baptism. However, later movements such asPietism andRationalism emphasized inner experience over the sacrament, leading figures likeJohn Wesley to argue that true rebirth occurs through personal transformation, not the outward ritual.[55]
_(14764282955).jpg)
According to Campbell (1999),Methodist churches affirm infant baptism, rooted in theseventeenth Article of Religion’s instruction to retain “the baptism of young children” (p. 107). Methodists have historically defended this practice against critics of infant baptism, grounding it in New Testament accounts of household baptisms (Acts 16:15, 33), Jesus’ embrace of children (e.g.,Matthew 19:13–15), and the belief that all, including infants, require inclusion in the church’s covenantal fellowship.[56] For Methodists, infant baptism signifies “an acceptance of the prevenient grace of God and as a confession on the part of the church of its responsibility for children in general and for every child in particular.”[57][58] Methodist doctrine further emphasizes that justifying grace, essential for salvation, is received after repentance and a personal commitment to Christ as Savior.[59][60] While many Methodist denominations, such as theFree Methodist Church andAllegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection, practice infant baptism for families who request it, they also offer a rite of child dedication for those who prefer to delay baptism until their child can consciously profess faith.[60][61]
Presbyterian,Congregational, andReformed churches administer infant baptism based oncovenant theology, viewing baptism as "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace" and the "visible Word of God" (Fesko 2010, p. 4). They argue that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign and that just as infants were circumcised under the old covenant, so now infants should be baptized under the new covenant (p. 8). Baptism is not merely a human act of profession but is "God’s visible covenant promise when accompanied by the Word" and serves as a "means of grace" (p. 6). This perspective stresses that baptism is grounded in "God’s covenant dealings with His people," not in an individual’s decision orpersonal faith alone (p. 3).[62][63]
For Catholic, Methodist Christians, andWesleyan, Confirmation "strengthens" (the original meaning of the word "confirm")[64][65] the grace ofBaptism, by conferring an increase and deepening of that grace.[66][65]
InEastern Christianity, including theEastern Catholic Churches, the sacrament of Confirmation is conferred immediately after baptism, and there is no renewal of baptismal promises. In theLatin Church and itsLatin liturgical rites of the Catholic Church, thesacrament is to be conferred at about the age of discretion (generally taken to be about 7), unless theEpiscopal Conference has decided on a different age, or there is danger of death or, in the judgment of the minister, a grave reason suggests otherwise (canon 891 of the Code of Canon Law). The renewal of baptismal promises by those receiving the sacrament in the Western Catholic Church is incidental to the rite and not essentially different from the solemn renewal of their baptismal promises that is asked of all members of this church each year at theEaster Vigil service. Only in French-speaking countries has there been a development of ceremonies, quite distinct from the sacrament of Confirmation, for young Catholics to profess their faith publicly, in line with their age.[67]
Withinthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,confirmation or "the laying on of hands" is an essential part of the baptismal ordinance, and to receive baptism without confirmation is to leave the ordinance incomplete.[68] Confirmation is the conferring of the gift of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion.[69] To confirm means to "make more sure" and the ordinance of confirmation stands as a witness of the individual becoming a member of the LDS Church and not just an acceptance of Jesus.[68]
Believer’s baptism emphasizes conscious faith and personal commitment as prerequisites. Advocates argue that household baptisms in Acts (e.g., Acts 16:15, 33) cited for infant baptism rely on an argument from silence, as no explicit biblical text mentions infant baptism. Historical records suggest infant baptism emerged in the late second century, lacking direct scriptural precedent.[70] Rooted inPauline theology (Romans 6:4;Galatians 3:27), baptism symbolizes the burial of the “old self” and resurrection to new life in Christ through immersion. Groups like the Adventists view it as a public declaration of repentance and surrender to Christ’s lordship.Swiss ReformerHuldrych Zwingli emphasized baptism as a memorial act, not a sacramental means of grace.[70]
Believer’s baptism prioritizes responsible baptism, requiring the baptized to become competent to know Christ. It is effective only when joined with faith and presupposes that baptized can respond for themselves to the baptismal interrogations and thus bear witness to personal faith.[71] However, infant baptism primarily rests on God’s initiative, viewing baptism as a sign of grace and covenant membership, not requiring personal faith but depending on the church’s faith.[71]
The debate over infant baptism engagesecclesiology,covenant, andfaith, often sparking controversy. Tom J. Nettles et al. (2007) inUnderstanding Four Views on Baptism highlight two irreconcilable traditions: believer’s baptism, emphasizing personal faith, and infant baptism, prioritizing covenantal continuity. These frameworks “simply cannot be mixed” without undermining theological integrity (p. 21)[72]
Proponents of infant baptism base their position on a covenantal framework, equating the practice with the Old Testament rite of circumcision. In Reformed theology, baptism signifies a child’s inclusion in God’s covenant community and membership within the visible church, mirroring circumcision’s role in ancient Israel.[73]B. B. Warfield noted this continuity, arguing that God’s inclusion of children in the covenant community, established during Abraham’s time, still grants them access to church membership and sacraments.[73] Luther defended infant baptism as an act of obedience to Christ’s directive to bring children to God, grounding the practice in divine authority rather than human choice.[74]
Critics of infant baptism maintain that the New Testament portrays baptism reserved for individuals who consciously respond to the gospel and profess faith, rather than as a covenantal rite applied to infants.[75] They state that the absence of explicit biblical examples where baptism is administered to those incapable of understanding or articulating belief, therefore weakens its symbolic role in affirming Christian identity.[76]
As for the historical viewpoint, critics argue that infant baptism originated as a post-apostolic ecclesiastical innovation, lacking direct biblical or apostolic authorization, and dismiss it as a human tradition unsupported by divine revelation.[77]
Regarding consent,Mary McAleese, a Catholic legal scholar and formerIrish president, posits in her doctoral research that infant baptism functions as “enforced membership” within the Catholic Church, raising questions about consent and lifelong obligations imposed on children. She suggests that baptized individuals should later have the opportunity to formally affirm or renounce their membership, aligning with modern principles of freedom of conscience, belief, and religion. McAleese observes that the Catholic Church has yet to fully integrate these principles into its sacramental theology.[78]
These doctrinal positions shape baptismal practices across Christian traditions, exemplified by:Anabaptists (e.g.,Mennonites,Amish),Baptist Traditions (Southern,Reformed),Churches of Christ,Pentecostal/Charismatic groups (Assemblies of God,Oneness Pentecostals). Additionally, severalnontrinitarian religious groups also oppose infant baptism, includingOneness Pentecostals,Christadelphians,Jehovah's Witnesses,United Church of God, andthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).[79]
Specifically, the LDS Church has stated that little children are considered bothborn without sin[80] andincapable of committing sin.[81] They have no need of baptism until age eight,[82] when they can begin to learn to discern right from wrong, and are thus accountable to God for their own actions.[83] However, the LDS Church performs a non-savingordinance toname and bless children, customarily performed on infants.[84]
In October 2020, aGreek Orthodox priest inCyprus was accused of harming an infant during a baptism nearLimassol. Video evidence showed the priest forcefully immersing the crying baby into a metal font, causing the child's legs to repeatedly strike the container. The parents filed a complaint, alleging the priest ignored their requests for gentle handling and responded, “I am responsible for the baptism.” The mother, Ntina Shitta, reported the baby was “red and in shock” afterward, describing the event as a “ruined” milestone. The priest issued a public apology on October 19, denying intent to harm and claiming he acted to prevent the baby from slipping, expediting the ritual upon noticing distress. Church authorities launched an investigation, but no immediate charges or disciplinary actions were announced.[85]
On February 5, 2021, a six-week-old baby died inSuceava, Romania, within aRomanian Orthodox Church, after a baptism involving triple immersion in holy water, led to cardiac arrest and liquid in the lungs. Amanslaughter inquiry targeted the priest involved. Archbishop Calinic of Arges called for reviewing baptism practices, favoring alternatives like sprinkling, while theArchbishop of Tomis defended the traditional ritual, rejecting change. A petition for safer baptisms gained 60,000 signatures.[86][87]
In 1747,Pope Benedict XIV issuedpapal bullPostremo mense, about baptizing Jewish children, building on old Church traditions. Benedict XIV said it is usually wrong to baptize a Jewish child without the parents' permission, but it is permissible if the child is dying. If a child is baptized, even improperly, the Church must take them from non-baptized Jewish parents to raise them as Christians.[88][89] These ideas matched earlier thinkers likeThomas Aquinas and were supported by later figures likeAlphonsus Liguori.[90][91] The Church punished unauthorized baptisms, but the baptism's effects still stood. In 1751, Benedict issued aProbe te meminisse reinforcing these rules and setting penalties for Jewish converts who left Catholicism.[90][91]
In 1858, six-year-old Jewish boyEdgardo Mortara was removed from his family inBologna, then part of thePapal States, after a Catholic servant had baptized him as an infant during an illness, citing concern for his spiritual salvation. Under papal law, which required Catholic children to be raised in the faith, authorities declined requests from Edgardo’s parents to return him, despite appeals to figures such as Cardinal Giuseppe Milesi Ferretti and ArchbishopMichele Viale-Prèla. Efforts by the family and Jewish leaders to negotiate with officials were unsuccessful. Due to the emotional strain of the separation, Edgardo’s mother, Marianna, was temporarily relocated from the home. The Church assumed custody of Edgardo, prompting widespread international criticism.[92][93]
During theHolocaust, many Jewish children inNazi-occupied Poland were hidden and rescued by Catholic convents and monasteries. The motivations of the rescuers varied. While many nuns acted out of Christian compassion and humanitarian duty, the issue of religious conversion became controversial. Some children were baptized, sometimes as a protective measure, but this led to postwar disputes about their religious identity and custody. After the war, tensions arose between Jewish organizations and the Catholic Church over whether baptized children should be returned to the Jewish community or remain in Catholic care.[94]
Jewish boysRobert and Gérald Finaly, hidden by Catholics during WWII, were baptized. Postwar, their Catholic caretaker refused to return them to Jewish relatives, citing their baptism. Legal battles ended with their return to Jewish family in 1953.[95][96]
InYazidism,Mor kirin ("to seal") is a baptism ritual typically performed at birth to initiate children into the faith. Holy water from theKaniya Sipî (White Spring) atLalish, the holiest Yazidi site.[97][98] Alternatively, one may use the slightly less holy Zimzim spring.
Individuals originating from regions near Lalish frequently translate themor kirin ceremony as 'baptism,' due to its observable similarities with Christian baptismal rites.[97]
The rite is performed by either a male or female member of a shaikh or pir family who serves as the officiatingMijêwir (custodian) at Lalish, specifically holding the position ofMicêwirê Kaniya Sipî (custodian of the White Spring) during the ceremony.[97]
The officiant pours holy water from one of Lalish's sacred springs over the child's head in three ritual motions. While the ideal age for reception is nine or ten years, practical considerations often lead to earlier administration. Although circumcision is not a religious requirement, some families observe the practice due to regional customs.[99]
According toIraqi Yazidi tradition, individuals who die without undergoingmor kirin must be ritually washed by theirshaikh,pir, or designated "Brother/Sister of the Hereafter" (Kurd.Birayê/Xuşka Axiretê). If none of these are available, another person may perform the washing in their name. For those unable to travel to Lalish, the rite may be conducted using holy water transported from the sacred springs of Lalish to their location.[97]
However, adherence to this practice varies geographically. Yazidis originating from areas near Lalish observe the custom more consistently than those fromTurkey orArmenia, among whom the ritual has largely diminished in perceived necessity.[97]
While themor kirin ceremony may reflect historical Christian influences, its origins remain speculative. Given the significance of water in pre-Islamic Iranian religions, the rite could equally stem from earlier indigenous traditions.[97]
When modern Methodists expound infant baptism, they think first of " prevenient grace", for which infant baptism is said to be an effective, or at least a useful, sign.
When they baptize babies, pastors should make sure that their prayers include clear requests that God will bring the children to a personal faith that "owns" what the parents are promising at a time when the children (who "belong" from day one) cannot act for themselves. And when they dedicate children, pastors should make sure that their prayers include clear gratitude to God for the fact that he is already at work in the life of that child, who already "belongs" in the Christian community. Here's what must be stressed: whether at the time of baptism (in the adult baptism tradition) or at the time of confirmation when the vows made earlier by the parents are personally "owned" (in the infant baptism tradition), it is faith in Jesus (dependent trust, not mere cognitive affirmation) that is crucial. Paul goes so far as to say that without faith and obedience, the old rite of circumcision has no value (Romans 2:25). The same is true of baptism. With either rite, clear evangelistic follow-through is crucial.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
