Editing Infant baptism (section)

=== First century ===
First-century Christian baptism primarily involved adult believers, with no definitive [[New Testament]] evidence for infant baptism, though some suggest household baptisms may have included infants.<ref>Lawson, K. E. (2011). Baptismal theology and practices and the spiritual nurture of children: Part I: early and medieval church. Christian Education Journal, 8(1), 130+. "Though hotly debated, it is unclear whether or not children in the church during the New Testament era were baptized. Examples shared in the Bible generally either focus on adult believers receiving baptism" (p. 131).</ref><ref>Livingstone, E. A. (Ed.). (2006). T''he concise Oxford dictionary of the Christian church.'' Oxford University Press. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199659623.001.0001</nowiki>

"Although from the first baptism was the universal means of entry into the Christian community, the NT [New Testament] contains no specific authority for its administration to infants" (Livingstone, 2006, p. 94).</ref><ref>McMaken, W. T. (2013). The Sign of the Gospel: Toward an Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism After Karl Barth. United States: Fortress Press. "While some claim to find traces of infant baptism in the New Testament, the scholarly consensus is that no clear, indisputable evidence of the practice is present. On the other hand, there is likewise no clear, indisputable evidence that infant baptism did not occur in the earliest Christian communities" (p.14).</ref><ref>Douglas, J. D., Toon, P. (2023). The Concise Dictionary of the Christian Tradition: Doctrine, Liturgy, History. United States: Zondervan. "Though there are no explicit statements that babies were baptized in the apostolic period, proponents of infant baptism see it as highly probable that they wereincluded in the households which were baptized (Acts 16:15, 31)" (p. 47-48).</ref> 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.<ref>Kärkkäinen, V. (2021). An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Historical, Global, and Interreligious Perspectives. United Kingdom: IVP Academic. "In light of current scholarship, it is clear that infant baptism was a new development in relation to the New Testament and the earliest patristic theology. It emerged slowly and sporadically in various Christian locations; its legitimacy had to be demonstrated (Origen) and was sometimes outright rejected (Tertullian). This momentous shift developed gradually from the end of the second century. Not earlier than the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, infant baptism established itself as the main mode of baptism. For the first five centuries of Christian history, believers' baptism and infant baptism coexisted" (p. 212).</ref><ref>Harper's Encyclopedia of Religious Education. (1990). United Kingdom: Harper & Row. "In addition, the spread of infant baptism, which began to take root in the third century, contributed to the disappearance of the catechumenate" (p. 104)</ref><ref>Johnson, M.  (2018, April 26). The Development of the “Apostolic Tradition” in Early Christian Worship. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion. Retrieved 28 Apr. 2025, from <nowiki>https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-526</nowiki>. "Along with these specific ritual details, 3rd-century sources also show that infant baptism, including infant communion, was being practiced widely. Indeed, it was considered a normative practice in many early Christian communities."</ref><ref>Gassmann, G., Larson, D. H., Oldenburg, M. W. (2001). Historical Dictionary of Lutheranism. United States: Scarecrow Press. "...the catechumenate, fell out of use as infant baptism, attested around the year 200, became universal in the fourth and fifth centuries. Following the foundational teaching of Augustine that in baptism guilt and original sin are remitted, in 418 the Synod of Carthage decreed that infants must be baptized in order to be freed from original sin" (p. 34).</ref><ref name=":0">Nicoletti, S. A. (2015, November 1). ''Infant baptism in the first-century presupposition pool''. ''[[Tyndale Bulletin]]'', 66(2). <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29399</nowiki></ref><ref>Lynch, J. H. (2019). Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe. United States: Princeton University Press. "In 1938, and in a revised edition of 1958, Joachim Jeremias published a work challenging the scholarly consensus that held infant baptism to be unattested in the New Testament or in second-century Christian sources" (p. 117).</ref>

Historian [[David F. Wright]] (2007,2005), suggests that first-century [[Pauline Christianity|Pauline 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.<ref name=":022">Wright, D. F. (2007). ''Infant baptism in historical perspective: Collected studies''. (p. 20). Wipf and Stock Publishers.</ref><ref name="Wright The apostolic fathers and infant baptism">{{cite book |doi=10.1093/oso/9780199267835.003.0008 |chapter=The Apostolic Fathers and Infant Baptism: Any Advance on the Obscurity of the New Testament? |title=Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers |date=2005 |last1=Wright |first1=David F. |pages=123–134 |isbn=978-0-19-926783-5}}</ref>

Despite this, some theologians argue for the early presence of infant baptism. [[Joachim Jeremias]] (2004) and [[William Strange (priest)|William A. Strange]] (1996) argue that infant baptism originated in the Apostolic Age, asserting that children of converts were baptized alongside their families.<ref name=":82">Strange, W. A. (1996). ''Children in the early church: Children in the ancient world, the New Testament and the early church''. Wipf & Stock, p. 123.</ref><ref name=":92">Jeremias, J. (2004). Infant baptism in the first four centuries. Wipf & Stock Publishers. pp. 20-22.</ref> Advocates cite households baptisms within ''[[Acts of the Apostles]]'' (16:15, 33) and ''[[First Epistle to the Corinthians|1 Corinthians]]'' 1:16 as potential evidence. However, the ''Global 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.<ref name=":122">{{cite book |title=Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for the Worldwide Church |date=2009 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-7811-6 |editor1-last=Dyrness |editor1-first=William A. |page=99 |editor2-last=Kärkkäinen |editor2-first=Veli-Matti}}</ref> Jeremias argues that baptism extended to all household members because the [[Old Testament]] concept of “household” is inherently inclusive, drawing upon interpretations of [[1 Samuel 22]]:16–19 and [[Lech-Lecha|Genesis 17]]:23.<ref name=":92" /> Therefore, the term "house" (''oikos'') has been central to this debate.{{sfn|Bakke|2005|pp=224–227}}

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.<ref name=":0" />

Another line of reasoning explores parallels with [[Jewish culture|Jewish traditions]]. The analogy between [[Circumcision#Judaism|circumcision]] and baptism is a key argument for early infant baptism. In [[Jewish culture|Jewish tradition]], boys were circumcised on the [[Shemini Atzeret|eighth day]], and some scholars suggest early [[Jewish Christianity|Jewish Christians]] viewed baptism similarly.{{sfn|Bakke|2005|pp=224–227}} Additionally, [[Proselyte#In Judaism|Jewish proselyte baptism]] included entire households, including children, as a purification rite for [[Gentile]] converts to [[Judaism]].<ref>Ferguson, E. (2009). Baptism in the early church: History, theology, and liturgy in the first five centuries. Eerdmans. pp. 78–80.</ref> Theologian [[Kurt 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.{{sfn|Aland|2004|pp=54–57}}

Further insight comes from early Christian texts addressing the [[Sin|sinfulness]] of infants or young children. [[Clement of Rome]] ([[First Epistle of Clement|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 addressing [[original sin]].<ref name="Wright The apostolic fathers and infant baptism" /> This view aligns with [[Psalm 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.<ref>Boaheng, I., & Twumasi-Ankrah, E. (2024). Exegetical and theological analysis of Psalm 51:1-12. ''International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 7''(1), 504–517. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v7i1.1962</nowiki></ref> Similarly, the [[Didache]], a church order dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century, provides instructions for [[Believer's baptism|adult baptism]] but notes that children should receive teaching to prevent future sin, without explicitly addressing their baptism.<ref>Jefford, C. N. (1989). ''The sayings of Jesus in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles''. Brill. pp. 87-88.</ref> 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.<ref>Ferguson, E. (1979, April). Inscriptions and the origin of infant baptism. The Journal of Theological Studies, 30(1), 37–46.</ref>