²¹ Corresponding to (the deliverance of Noah’s family through water), baptism now saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not through the  laying aside of the pollution of the flesh, but through an appeal to God from a good conscience— ²² (Christ being) at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him (1Pet3:21-22).

This short text closing 1Pet3 is widely regarded as difficult, and in this instance I agree with that assessment. That is primarily because it concerns baptism, its precise nature and effect, and whether or not it should be practiced on infants. At the one extreme, some believe infant baptism to be crucial for salvation, Augustine typically (for him) asserting that all unbaptized infants who die in infancy must endure “mild sensual pain” for all eternity^[NOTE#1] . Others, including myself in the past, regarded paedo-baptism as unbiblical and purposeless, and that even as an adult it was purely symbolic – I was converted at 18, and not untypically of others in the Evangelical Calvinist congregation I attended, I did not get baptized until five years later.

Unlike the majority of later Evangelicals, Martin Luther supported paedo-baptism, validly asserting that “Were child baptism wrong, God would certainly not have permitted it to continue so long, nor let it become so universally and thoroughly established in all Christendom”. The same principle would surely also apply to the real presence of Christ at the Eucharist, which Luther continued to affirm, but most within the breakaway and fragmented movement that he unwittingly generated do not.

The witness of Scripture

For those relying upon Scripture alone, it is difficult to be clear on the matter of whether babies born to Christian parents should be baptized. This passage from Peter implies that is not the case in view of its reference to conscience, and by implication faith, neither of which normally apply to babies. I say “normally”, for John the Baptist was leaping and praising the Saviour whilst still in Elizabeth’s womb – surely the exception to prove the rule. However, keep in mind that faith in Christ is a gift that God gives when and to whom He chooses (Eph2:8). There are also passages that refer to a believer’s household being baptized, which may suggest but does not positively affirm the inclusion of young children.

The witness of Tradition

In terms of Church history and Tradition, the situation is nearly as murky. I’ll let a robot do the talking:

“Paedobaptism (infant baptism) was not the norm in the first century, where baptism was typically for adult believers. However, it emerged gradually from the late 2nd century, becoming more common in the 3rd century, and was eventually considered universal by the 4th-5th centuries. Early church writers like Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Origen debated its propriety, and theological developments, particularly AUGUSTINE’s views on original sin were crucial in cementing its widespread acceptance.”

 [Google AI overview in response to “paedobaptism in the early church?”– my highlighting].

Theological architect and influencer extraordinaire

It’s that man again! Since the expansive prophetic insight I received regarding the interpretation of Scripture that led to the writing ofmy book together with these ongoing posts, I have come to repudiate virtually every distinctive teaching of Augustine.  I’m therefore wary of any doctrine he has heavily influenced, and he is cited in the AI overview as the major influence in the Church establishing the practice of paedo-baptism. Thankfully, he upheld the Church’s teaching and practice concerning the real presence of Christ’s body and blood and the sacrificial nature of the Holy Eucharist. As ever, his testimony to its reality is supremely erudite.  For, do not mistake me, the clue’s in his name, Augustine was certainly august. His writings concerning the Divine Liturgy/Mass were also thoroughly orthodox, biblical  and in accordance with the living Tradition of the Orthodox/Catholic Church.

However, that was not the case with some of his more novel perspectives: on the economy of grace, the role of Torah under the Old Covenant, the depth of human depravity, the nature of original sin, and his rejection of effectual free will, natural law, premillennialism and (crucially when interpreting Paul’s writings) trichotomy – the existence of the human spirit. Much of his novelties  turned the teaching of the  2^nd and early3^rd century theologians on its head. Whilst Augustine was not the initiator of all the theological perspectives to which I have referred, an examination of each will show that he more than anyone else ensured that such formularies and their outworking formed the basis of the theological dogma that was established in the early middle ages, especially in the Western Church. Even for later Roman theologians, their mantra would invariably be “if Augustine taught it, it must be so”.  [This earlier post refers].

The comparison with circumcision

In terms of the case for paedo-baptism, Paul compares it to circumcision, which was practiced on babies, where he writes: “In (Christ)  also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with Him through the faithfulness of the operation of God, who has raised Him from the dead” (Col2:11-12). Circumcision was a sign that a person, whether adult or baby, had entered a  covenantal relationship with God. This of itself did not guarantee their eternal wellbeing, which would be up to the individual’s future conduct. In terms of the Christian, in Paul’s words “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love (Gal5:6).

No silver bullet to sainthood

In other words, the same surely applies to baptism. To take an extreme example, Adolf Hitler was baptized (and confirmed) as a Catholic but evidently did not go on to  lead a saintly life or walk in the footsteps of the Prince of Peace. And I am convinced that Peter is saying here, not only that baptism does not refer to bodily cleansing, but that it does not of itself materially change a person’s nature i.e. “the laying aside of the pollution of the flesh” as I have legitimately translated “οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου”. Also, contrary to the Roman Church’s Augustinian inspired teaching that the Orthodox Church rightly rejects, a baby does not bear the guilt of Adam’s Edenic sin, rather man by nature suffers from the moral and spiritual effects of ancestral sin, which is where Peter (and Paul’s) “pollution of the flesh” comes in. As the latter taught, even if Christ be in you “the body is (still) dead because of sin whereas the spirit is alive because of righteousness (Rom8:10NASB).  In view of that, a Christian should become morally better than others. But if he or she does so, it is not down to infant baptism per se, but to the subsequent sacraments of grace, the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit, divine teaching  and by faithfully following in the footsteps of Christ.

An open-minded conclusion

In terms of adult baptism, the book of Acts in particular indicates that being baptized does result in the forgiveness of past sins (2:38), which in view of the previous paragraph is not an issue for babies. And. Peter indicates, it is not the water itself that initiates salvation, but the response of a good conscience, which in the context must incorporate faith in Christ as one’s Lord and Saviour.

Whether as an infant or adult, baptism is certainly not an optional extra but a necessary act of initiation into the Christian faith.  Parents who are personally convicted, or more likely in the case of Catholics and Orthodox have been taught by their church to baptize their newly born children should surely do so. They should see it in the context of placing their child under the covenantal care of the Church and their  own parental teaching. That is in the hope and expectation (but by no means certainty) that  their child will pursue the path of Christian discipleship through life.

Broader context

In terms of God’s providential care and intelligible justice that I have been continually focussing on, everyone is to be judged according to their own righteousness or lack of it. An unrepentant evil man’s baptism or indeed any church sacrament he subsequently receives will be of no avail.  As for those whom God has called to become “conformed to the image of Christ” such that they become His joint-heir and corporate spouse, baptism is the gateway by which all the  means of grace necessary to accomplish such a destiny become accessible. 

Notes

#1 – Latin: paena sensus . (cf. New Advent: Catholic Encyclopaedia under headings “Unbaptized infants”, “Limbo” and the “Teaching of St Augustine”).